4.7 Article

The occurrence of primary burrowing crayfish in terrestrial habitat

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 130, 期 3, 页码 458-464

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.01.007

关键词

landscape; sampling bias; crayfish conservation; habitat model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A researcher's perception of a target species' landscape strongly influences the design of habitat studies conducted at broad spatial scales. Consequently, researcher-dependent perceptions may misguide conservation efforts. Although the life histories of some crayfish (i.e., primary burrowers) are centered on a fossorial existence independent of surface water, all North American crayfish are viewed in an aquatic context. This paradigm restricts the range of habitats that are typically sampled and managed for crayfish conservation. This study used presence/absence of the primary burrower Distocambarus crockeri at 137 locations within the Long Cane Ranger District of the Sumter National Forest, South Carolina, USA, to model the habitat association of the species across a GIS-based landscape. Logistic regression indicated that D. crockeri presence was most strongly associated with a terrestrial habitat defined by a set of morphologically similar soils located along ridge tops. Furthermore, the species was negatively associated with aquatic habitats such as streams and floodplains. The results indicate that D. crockeri is a terrestrial habitat specialist and should be modeled and managed at the landscape as a terrestrial organism. When viewed as a subset of the total United States cambarid fauna, primary bur-rowers are disproportionately imperiled. Primary burrowers comprise only 15% of the total crayfish fauna, while they account for 32% of those crayfish ranked critically imperiled. Habitat loss and an aquatic bias that restricted sampling to aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats might explain the group's disproportionate imperilment. (c) 2006 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