4.7 Review

Winner-Loser Species Replacements in Human-Modified Landscapes

期刊

TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 545-555

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2021.02.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) [001]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [403770/2012-2, 441386/2016-4]
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Ciencia e Tecnologia do Estado de Pernambuco (FACEPE) [APQ-0138-2.05/14]
  4. University of East Anglia
  5. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
  6. CNPq
  7. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Community assembly plays a key role in driving the provision of ecosystem services, with 'winner and loser' replacements in tropical forests showing significant impacts on ecological organization. Most replacements involve native species and are driven by changes in resource availability. Species dispersal is a powerful force controlling community (re)assembly, leading to a complete functional reorganization of assemblages.
Community assembly arguably drives the provision of ecosystem services because they critically depend on which and how species coexist. We examine conspicuous cases of 'winner and loser' replacements (WLRs) in tropical forests to provide a framework integrating drivers, impacts on ecological organization, and reconfiguration of ecosystem service provisioning. Most WLRs involve native species and result from changes in resource availability rather than from altered competition among species. In this context, species dispersal is a powerful force controlling community (re)assembly. Furthermore, replacements imply a nearly complete functional reorganization of assemblages and new 'packages' of ecosystem services and disservices provided by winners. WLRs can thus elucidate the multiple transitions experienced by tropical forests, and have theoretical/ applied implications, including the role that human-modified landscapes may play in global-scale sustainability.

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