4.5 Article

A Framework for Evaluating Heterogeneity and Landscape-Level Impacts of Non-native Aquatic Species

期刊

ECOSYSTEMS
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 477-491

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10021-016-0102-z

关键词

aquatic; non-native; range; distribution; occupancy; abundance; impact; landscape; macroecology

类别

资金

  1. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
  2. National Science Foundation [CNH-0909281, DEB-1440297]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-native species are a major component of global environmental change, and aquatic systems are especially vulnerable to non-native species impacts. Much of the research on aquatic non-native species impact has occurred at the local or site level. In reality, non-native species impacts play out across multiple spatial scales on heterogeneous landscapes. How can we 'scale up' our understanding of site-level impacts to the broader landscape scale? To address this disconnect, we synthesize our current understanding of key components of landscape-scale non-native species impacts: geographic range, abundance, and local impacts. Most aquatic non-native species have small ranges, while a few have large ranges. However, aquatic non-native species are often far from saturated on landscapes, and occurrence records are often woefully incomplete. Aquatic non-native species are often at low abundances where they are present, reaching high abundance in a small number of locations. Finally, local-scale impact can be estimated from abundance, but this requires knowledge of the abundance-impact relationship. Considering these multiple components enables understanding of non-native species impacts at broader spatial scales. Although the landscape-level impacts of aquatic non-native species may be high, the spatial distribution of site-level impacts is uneven, and highly impacted sites may be relatively uncommon. This heterogeneity in impacts provides an opportunity to optimize and prioritize non-native species management and prevention efforts.

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