4.7 Article

Burning and logging differentially affect endemic vs. widely distributed butterfly species in Borneo

期刊

DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTIONS
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 409-416

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00256.x

关键词

abundance; El Nino; disturbance; endemism; extirpation; fire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assess the differential impact of logging and ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation)-induced disturbance on the relative butterfly abundance and species richness of range-restricted and widespread species within the island of Borneo. Relative abundance and species richness were assessed using rarefaction and species accumulation curves in unburned isolates surrounded by burned forest, the burned forest itself, and continuous forest unaffected by ENSO-induced disturbance in addition to logged and unlogged landscapes in unburned forest. The relative abundance of endemics was significantly higher in unlogged forest than logged forest and significantly higher in unburned forest than burned forest. Rarefied species richness of range categories was similar (Bornean endemics) or higher (other categories) in selectively logged than unlogged forest. In contrast, rarefied species richness of range-restricted species was highest in continuous forest, intermediate in unburned isolates, and lowest in burned forest. Only two individuals of a single Bornean endemic species were found in all the burned forest. Although species richness was higher in all range categories in continuous forest than in unburned isolates and in burned forest, the difference was most pronounced for range-restricted species. Logging and ENSO-induced fires thus have contrasting effects on range-restricted species. While both increase the relative abundance of widely distributed species at the expense of range-restricted species, only ENSO-induced disturbance lowers the rarefied number of restricted range species. Our research highlights the threat that severe ENSO events pose to geographically restricted classes of biodiversity.

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