4.6 Article

Relationships between distribution and abundance vary with spatial scale and ecological group in stream bryophytes

期刊

FRESHWATER BIOLOGY
卷 51, 期 10, 页码 1879-1889

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01624.x

关键词

bryophytes; distribution patterns; interspecific distribution-abundance relationship; streams

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. We examined whether the local abundance of stream bryophytes in a boreal drainage basin (Koutajoki system in northeastern Finland) correlated with their: (i) regional occupancy; (ii) provincial distribution in northwestern Europe; and (iii) global range size. We specifically tested whether aquatic and semi-aquatic species differ in their distribution-abundance relationships. We also analysed the frequency distributions of occupancy at two spatial scales: within the focal drainage system and across provinces of northwestern Europe. 2. Regional occupancy and mean local abundance of stream bryophytes were positively correlated, and the relationship was rather strong in aquatic species but very weak in semi-aquatic species. Local abundance was related neither to provincial distribution nor global distribution. 3. Species frequency distributions differed between regional occupancy and provincial distribution. While most species were rare with regard to their regional occupancy within the focal drainage system, most of the same set of species were common and occurred in most provinces in northwestern Europe. 4. The results indicate the presence of dominants (core species) and transients/subordinates (satellite species) among stream bryophytes, highlighting marked differentiation in life-history strategies and growth form. The observed abundance-occupancy relationships suggest that dispersal limitation and metapopulation processes may govern the dynamics of obligatory aquatic stream bryophytes. In semi-aquatic species, however, habitat availability may be more important in contributing to regional occupancy.

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

4.6
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