4.5 Article

Short-term responses of plants and invertebrates to experimental small-scale grassland fragmentation

Journal

OECOLOGIA
Volume 125, Issue 4, Pages 559-572

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s004420000483

Keywords

biodiversity; calcareous grassland; habitat fragmentation; species richness

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The fragmentation of natural habitats is generally considered to be a major threat to biodiversity. We investigated short-term responses of vascular plants (grasses and forbs) and four groups of invertebrates (ants, butterflies, grasshoppers and gastropods) to experimental fragmentation of calcareous grassland in the north-western Jura mountains, Switzerland. Three years after the initiation of fragmentation - which was created and maintained by mowing the area between the fragments - we compared species richness, diversity and composition of the different groups and the abundance of single species in fragments of different size (area: 20.25 m(2), 2.25 m(2) and 0.35 m(2)) with those in corresponding control plots. The abundances of 19 (29%) of the 65 common species examined were affected by fragmentation. However, the experimental fragmentation affected different taxonomic groups and single species to a different extent. Butterflies, the most mobile animals among the invertebrates studied, reacted most sensitively: species richness and foraging abundances of single butterfly species were lower in fragments than in control plots. Of the few other taxonomic groups or single species that were affected by the experimental fragmentation, most had a higher species richness or abundance in fragments than in control plots. This is probably because the type of fragmentation used is beneficial to some plants via decreased competition intensity along the fragment edges, and because some animals may use fragments as retreats between foraging bouts into the mown isolation area.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available