4.7 Article

Cross-taxon congruence of species diversity and community similarity among three insect taxa in a mosaic landscape

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 126, 期 2, 页码 195-205

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.05.014

关键词

biodiversity indicators; insects; community similarity; species richness; mosaic landscape

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surrogate taxa as indicators for biodiversity are widely used in conservation biology and ecology. However, available studies on the congruence of species diversity patterns in different taxa yielded inconsistent results, and correlations between taxa were few. To conserve or restore biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, knowledge on the response of different taxa to management regimes is crucial. In the present study we evaluated the congruence of diversity and similarity patterns among three insect taxa, i.e., bees, grasshoppers, and aculeate wasps, in a mosaic landscape in the Swiss Alps comprising extensively used grassland under different management regimes. In addition, we studied the influence of land use on the diversity and species composition of the three taxa. While species numbers were not significantly correlated between any pair of taxa, community similarities were positively correlated between bees and grasshoppers. The number of red-listed species was not correlated with the total number of species in bees and in grasshoppers. None of the investigated taxa reflected the species numbers or community similarities of the other taxa well enough to qualify as a general indicator for biodiversity. Remarkably, land use clearly influenced species composition, while its effect on species numbers was not significant. All management regimes of the grassland in the study area contribute substantially to the overall diversity of the three insect taxa. Conserving the variety of agricultural land uses will be the most promising step towards the conservation of biodiversity in the study area. (c) 2005 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