4.5 Article

Are Afrotropical Protected Areas Effective in Increasing Waterbird Richness and Diversity? A Case Study from South Sudan (East Africa)

期刊

DIVERSITY-BASEL
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/d14070554

关键词

protected areas; richness; diversity; evenness; rarefaction; diversity profiles; monitoring

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a field sampling design in Nibule National Park in South Sudan and its surrounding buffer zone, and found that the bird communities in the national park were richer and more diverse compared to the buffer zone. The study also showed that protected area management positively influenced the bird community structure.
In many tropical areas of high conservation concern there is still no evidence on the effectiveness of protected areas in protecting specific components of biodiversity. Here, to assess the management effectiveness of protected areas, we carried out a field sampling design for collecting data on waterbird communities within the Nibule National Park (South Sudan), a poorly-known hot-spot of biodiversity, and in the surrounding buffer zone. All the metrics of richness (absolute species richness, Margalef index, Chao-1) and diversity were significantly higher for bird communities inhabiting the national park, when compared to the buffer zone. Evenness was predictably lower in the national park when compared to the buffer zone, probably due to the large numbers of rare species that were observed in the park's richer communities, thus increasing the differences in relative frequencies between species. The diversity profiles highlighted this pattern, with more sloping curves in the park sites, evidencing a role of protected area management in positively affecting the bird community structure. Our data provide the first evidence for a poorly-known area of high conservation concern on the effective role played by a National Park in maintaining high values of richness and diversity, at least for wetland-related birds.

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

4.5
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