4.6 Article

Principal bioclimatic variables of ten dominant plant species in Korea wetland using the Maxent model

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 183, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106729

Keywords

Wetland plants; Physical and bioclimatic variables; Maxent; Species distribution

Funding

  1. [NRF-2021R1A2C1011213]
  2. [SEST-2022]
  3. [MOE-2022003640003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the physical and bioclimatic models of wetland plants to investigate their distribution patterns, and found that the bioclimatic models were more accurate. This has important implications for wetland protection legislation and understanding plant movements.
Wetland is valuable ecosystem mainly driven by the plants that constructs it. However, despite the vulnerability of plants to climate change, its impacts are yet to be fully understood. To extensively understand the impact of climate change on wetland plants distribution in the future, the physical and climatic characteristics of the distribution should be quantified. Therefore, this study compared the physical and bioclimatic models of ten dominant wetland plants (Hydrilla verticillata, Persicaria thunbergii, Phragmites australis, Potamogeton distinctus, Salix gracilistyla, Salix koreensis, Scirpus tabernaemontani, Trapa japonica, Typha orientalis, Zizania latifolia) to investigate the practical variables for describing their distribution through the Maxent model. Through this process, we identified the preferred range in each variable for each species. The results also revealed that bioclimatic models were more accurate for drawing plants distribution maps compared to the physical model under the Korean condition. Given the model complexity that working officials might feel and the database deficiency in Korea, this study will help to reflect plant movements in the Wetland Protection Act using simple variables.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available