4.7 Article

Using the floristic quality concept to assess created and natural wetlands: Ecological and management implications

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 53, 期 -, 页码 247-257

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.02.003

关键词

Floristic quality index; Created wetlands; Reference wetlands; Wetland mitigation; Biotic integrity; Wetland assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We applied the floristic quality index (FQI) to vegetation data collected across a chronosequence of created wetland (CW) sites in Virginia ranging in age from one to 15 years post-construction. At each site, we also applied FQI to a nearby forested reference wetland (REF). We tested the performance of the index against a selection of community metrics (species richness, diversity, evenness, percent native species) and site attributes (age, soil physiochemical variables). FQI performed better when non-native species (C-value = 0) were removed from the index, and also when calculated within rather than across vegetation layers. A modified, abundance-weighted FQI showed significant correlation with community and environmental variables in the CW herbaceous layer and REF herbaceous and shrub-sapling layers based on Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination output. These results suggest that a natives only, layer-based version of the index is most appropriate for our region, and an abundance-weighted FQJ may be useful for assessing floristic quality in certain layers. The abundance-weighted format has the advantage of preserving the heritage aspect of the species conservatism concept while also entraining the ecology aspect of site assessment based on relative abundances of the inhabiting species. FQI did not successfully relate CW sites to REF sites, bringing into question the applicability of the FQI concept in comparing created wetlands to reference wetlands, and by analogy, the use of forested reference wetlands in general to assess vegetation development in created sites. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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