4.6 Article

Diversity of soil mites (Acari : Oribatida, Mesostigmata) along a gradient of land use types in New York

Journal

APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 140-153

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2006.05.004

Keywords

Oribatida; Mesostigmata; microarthropods; land use; fauna; biodiversity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explored the relationship between landscape-level factors (land use type) and the diversity of soil mites (Acari: Oribatida, Mesostigmata) at a within-site scale, using diversity measures including point diversity (local species diversity within a single sampling point), patterns of species turnover among the sampling points, and alpha diversity (total species richness in a habitat). The land use types included corn fields, intensive short-rotation forestry plantations, two types of abandoned agricultural fields, and hardwood forests. Land use type was identified as a significant factor influencing both small-scale (within individual soil cores) and site-scale diversity of Oribatida, which increased in the order corn -> willow -> abandoned fields -> forests. There was no statistical relationship between land use type and abundance or diversity of Mesostigmata. Using a bootstrapping method to generate random communities, we found that all land use types had significantly more diverse patterns of species abundance than was expected by chance. On the other hand, the patterns of presence/absence of species were less diverse than expected by chance. Local site factors were significant in driving the patterns of diversity of soil mites at the site scale; land use type was less important. The overall structure of Oribatida and Mesostigmata assemblages was significantly related to land use type. We conclude that soil communities respond to land management on both local scales and habitat-wide scales. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available