4.6 Article

Impacts on biodiversity at Baltic Sea beaches

Journal

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
Volume 20, Issue 9, Pages 1973-1985

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-011-0069-1

Keywords

Baltic Sea; Biodiversity; Human impact; Sandy beach; Shingle; Tourism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sandy and shingle beaches were investigated in 2009 and 2010 along the coast of the Baltic Sea in northern Germany with the purpose of assessing biodiversity gradients from shingle to sandy beaches, from beach to primary dunes, and the impacts of tourism on biodiversity. On nine beach sites, ranging between 100% shingle and 99% sand without shingle, Carabidae, Staphylinidae, and Araneae were studied. Two of the six sandy beaches were open and four were closed to tourists. Additionally, trampling effects from tourists, species richness of plants, and plant cover were investigated on sixteen beaches. According to results, primary dunes showed higher species richness in carabids and spiders, but not in staphylinds. Shingle beaches exhibited lower species richness in Staphylinidae and Araneae, but not in Carabidae. As estimated by the Jackknife II method, shingle beaches were the lowest in total species richness. Trampling intensity ranged from 0 footprints m(-2) day(-1) on closed beaches, up to a maximum of 30 footprints m(-2) day(-1). On intensively used beaches (12 footprints m(-2) day(-1), on average), reduction of plant cover was more pronounced than on extensively used beaches (7 footprints m(-2) day(-1), on average). Both plant cover and plant species richness were lower on intensively and extensively used beaches than on closed beaches. In arthropods, only staphylind and spider species richness was significantly lower on open beaches than on closed beaches, but no differences were found in carabids. Referring to our results, trampling effects from tourists have high impact on species richness of sandy beaches, on both intensively and extensively used sites.

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