4.2 Article

Response of Orthoptera communities to succession in alluvial pine woodlands

期刊

JOURNAL OF INSECT CONSERVATION
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 215-224

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10841-014-9632-x

关键词

Biodiversity conservation; Disturbance ecology; Forest management; Floodplain; Grasshopper; Vegetation structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the past 150 years forest management has dramatically altered in Central European woodlands, with severe consequences for biodiversity. Light forests that fulfilled variable human demands were replaced by dark high forests that function solely as wood plantations. In the Alps, by contrast, open woodlands are still present because the traditional land use as wood pasture has remained and physiographical conditions favour natural dynamics. The aim of our study was to investigate the effects of succession on the Orthoptera communities of alluvial pine woodlands in the northern Alps. Orthoptera showed a clear response to succession, with each successional stage harbouring a unique assemblage. The influence of succession on species richness and abundance were identical: The values were highest in the intermediate and lowest in the late seral stage. The diversity and abundance peak in the mid-successional stage probably reflects a trade-off between favourable ambient temperatures for optimal development and sufficient food, oviposition sites and shelter against predators. Food shortage and easy access for predators seemed to be limiting factors in the early successional stage. In contrast, in the late successional stage adverse microclimatic conditions probably limit Orthoptera occurrence. Although all three successional stages of the pine woodlands are relevant for conservation, the early and mid-successional stages are the most important ones. Conservation management for Orthoptera in this woodland type should aim at the reintroduction of cattle grazing and the restoration of the natural discharge and bedload-transport regimes of the alpine rivers.

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

4.2
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