4.7 Article

Riparian zones increase regional species richness by harboring different, not more, species

Journal

ECOLOGY
Volume 86, Issue 1, Pages 56-62

Publisher

ECOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1890/04-0668

Keywords

conservation planning; regional diversity; riparian zone; river; similarity; species diversity; species richness; turnover; upland; watershed reserves

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Riparian zones are habitats of critical conservation concern worldwide, as they are known to filter agricultural contaminants, buffer landscapes against erosion, and provide habitat for high numbers of species. Here we test the generality of the notion that riparian habitats harbor more species than adjacent upland habitats. Using previously published data collected from seven continents and including taxa ranging from Antarctic soil invertebrates to tropical rain forest lianas and primates, we show that riparian habitats do not harbor higher numbers of species, but rather support significantly different species pools altogether. In this way, riparian habitats increase regional (gamma-) richness across the globe by >50%, on average. Thus conservation planners can easily increase the number of species protected in a regional portfolio by simply including a river within terrestrial biodiversity reserves. Our analysis also suggests numerous possible improvements for future studies of species richness gradients across riparian and upland habitats. First, <15% of the studies in our analysis included estimates of more than one taxonomic group of interest. Second, within a given taxonomic group, studies employed variable methodologies and sampling areas in pursuit of richness and turnover estimates. Future analyses of species richness patterns in watersheds should aim to include a more comprehensive suite of taxonomic groups and should measure richness at multiple spatial scales.

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