4.7 Article

Quantifying plant species diversity in a Natura 2000 network: Old ideas and new proposals

Journal

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
Volume 141, Issue 10, Pages 2608-2618

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.024

Keywords

Biodiversity; Biodiversity assessment; Biodiversity monitoring; Conservation biology; Plant communities; Reserve network; Vegetation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Assessing the effects of the spatial components on species diversity in a network of protected areas represents an important step for assessing its conservation capacity. A clear evaluation on how alpha-, beta-, and gamma-diversity are partitioned among and within spatial scales can help to drive manager decisions and provide method for monitoring species diversity. Moving from these concepts, a probabilistic sample of plant species composition was here applied for quantifying plant species diversity within the Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) of the Natura 2000 network in the Siena Province. All analyses were performed separately for all species and those species defined as focal (included in regional, national or continental red lists). The results indicated that species richness of the SCIs differed from one location to another one independently from the sampling efforts. Diversity partitioning indicated that most of the flora diversity within the network was given by larger-scale beta-diversity, i.e. the differences in species composition among SCIs. beta-diversity was then decomposed in two components: beta(Area) (due to the differences in area among SCIs) and beta(Replacement) (due to the compositional differences across SCIs). beta(Area) was particularly important for all species, while beta(Replacement) was the most important factor for focal species. The consequent implications for monitoring and nature conservation strategies are discussed. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available