4.7 Review

Experimental studies of dead-wood biodiversity - A review identifying global gaps in knowledge

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 191, 期 -, 页码 139-149

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.006

关键词

Conservation; Dead-wood addition; Manipulation; Meta-analysis; Saproxylic taxa; Woody debris

资金

  1. German Federal Environmental Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The importance of dead wood for biodiversity is widely recognized but strategies for conservation exist only in some regions worldwide. Most strategies combine knowledge from observational and experimental studies but remain preliminary as many facets of the complex relationships are unstudied. In this first global review of 79 experimental studies addressing biodiversity patterns in dead wood, we identify major knowledge gaps and aim to foster collaboration among researchers by providing a map of previous and ongoing experiments. We show that research has focused primarily on temperate and boreal forests, where results have helped in developing evidence-based conservation strategies, whereas comparatively few such efforts have been made in subtropical or tropical zones. Most studies have been limited to early stages of wood decomposition and many diverse and functionally important saproxylic taxa, e.g., fungi, flies and termites, remain under-represented. Our meta-analysis confirms the benefits of dead-wood addition for biodiversity, particularly for saproxylic taxa, but shows that responses of non-saproxylic taxa are heterogeneous. Our analysis indicates that global conservation of organisms associated with dead wood would benefit most by prioritizing research in the tropics and other neglected regions, focusing on advanced stages of wood decomposition and assessing a wider range of taxa. By using existing experimental set-ups to study advanced decay stages and additional taxa, results could be obtained more quickly and with less effort compared to initiating new experiments. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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