4.3 Article

Breeding bird diversity in relation to environmental gradients in China

期刊

出版社

GAUTHIER-VILLARS/EDITIONS ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actao.2009.08.009

关键词

Avian fauna; Eastern Asia; Richness-environment relationships; Species diversity; Species richness; Terrestrial vertebrates

类别

资金

  1. Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Geographic variation in species richness has been explained by different theories such as energy, productivity, energy-water balance, habitat heterogeneity, and freezing tolerance. This Study determines which of these theories best account for gradients of breeding bird richness in China. In addition, we develop a best-fit model to account for the relationship between breeding bird richness and environment in China. Breeding bird species richness in 207 localities (3271 km(2) per locality on average) from across China was related to thirteen environmental variables after accounting for sampling area. The Akaike's information criterion (AIC) was used to evaluate model performance. We used Moran's I to determine the magnitude of spatial autocorrelation in model residuals, and used simultaneous autoregressive model to determine coefficients of determination and AIC of explanatory variables after accounting for residual spatial autocorrelation. Of all environmental variables examined, normalized difference vegetation index, a measure Of plant productivity, is the best variable to explain the variance in breeding bird richness. We found that species richness of breeding birds at the scale examined is best predicted by a combination of plant productivity, elevation range, seasonal variation in potential evapotranspiration, and mean annual temperature. These variables explained 47.3% of the variance in breeding bird richness after accounting for sampling area; most of the explained variance in richness is attributable to the first two of the four variables. (C) 2009 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.3
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