4.7 Article

The dead do not lie: using skeletal remains for rapid assessment of historical small-mammal community baselines

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1984

关键词

conservation palaeobiology; taphonomy; live-dead analysis; baselines; Great Basin; small mammals

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship Program
  2. Environmental Protection Agency Science
  3. National Geographic Committee for Research and Exploration
  4. Geological Society of America Student Research
  5. American Society of Mammalogists
  6. University of Chicago
  7. National Science Foundation [EAR-0448461]
  8. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conservation and restoration efforts are often hindered by a lack of historical baselines that pre-date intense anthropogenic environmental change. In this paper I document that natural accumulations of skeletal remains represent a potential source of high-quality data on the historical composition and structure of small-mammal communities. I do so by assessing the fidelity of modern, decadal and centennial-scale time-averaged samples of skeletal remains (concentrated by raptor predation) to the living small-mammal communities from which they are derived. To test the power of skeletal remains to reveal baseline shifts, I employ the design of a natural experiment, comparing two taphonomically similar Great Basin cave localities in areas where anthropogenic land-use practices have diverged within the last century. I find relative stasis at the undisturbed site, but document rapid restructuring of the small-mammal community at the site subjected to recent disturbance. I independently validate this result using historical trapping records to show that dead remains accurately capture both the magnitude and direction of this baseline shift. Surveys of skeletal remains therefore provide a simple, powerful and rapid alternative approach for gaining insight into the historical structure and dynamics of modern small-mammal communities.

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

4.7
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