4.4 Article

Farmland versus forest: comparing changes in Odonata species composition in western and eastern Sweden

期刊

INSECT CONSERVATION AND DIVERSITY
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 22-31

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/icad.12034

关键词

Agriculture; climate change; ecology; forestry; regional species pool; species composition

资金

  1. Halmstad University
  2. Stipendienstiftung Rheinland-Pfalz

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the loss of natural ecosystems in the developed world during the past millennia, anthropogenic landscapes still sustain much biodiversity. Our question was, whether ten year changes in regional Odonata faunas are comparable between farmland and forested areas, or if the species pool of farmland areas respond in other ways than that of forest. We used data of dragonfly larvae collected from 16 lakes in a farmland area in south-western Sweden in the years 2002 and 2011/12, and compared these to data from 34 lakes in a forest area in south-eastern Sweden in the years 1996 and 2006. The species-richness in the agricultural region increased by 17% but decreased by 13% in the forested region. The changes in occurrence and regional distribution were similar in both areas, affecting 71% and 69% of the species pool. Average extinction rates were comparable between the agricultural and the forested region (38% and 43%) while colonisation rates differed greatly (64% and 114%). The species composition differed between the regions; the forest lakes harboured a 29% larger species pool. It is possible that in the forested region, the regional species pool in areas surrounding the study sites could stabilise the extinction and have a positive effect on changes in species composition. We assume that the different habitat structures of the waters in the agricultural and the forest regions and changes in temperature are the main driving forces behind the shifts. The mean seasonal air temperature has increased by circa 0.5 degrees C in both regions, when comparing ten-year periods before each sampling year.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据