4.2 Article

Temporal and spatial diversity and distribution of arboreal Carabidae (Coleoptera) in a western Amazonian rain forest

期刊

BIOTROPICA
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 376-386

出版社

ASSOC TROPICAL BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2002.tb00551.x

关键词

Amazon; canopy; Carabidae; distribution; diversity; Ecuador; lowland tropical rain forest; species richness

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diversity of arboreal carabid beetles was sampled by fumigation in 100 3 x 3 m stations within a 100 x 1000 m terra firme forest plot in Ecuadorian Amazonia. Nine sampling dates from January 1994 to October 1996 yielded 2329 individuals belonging to 318 species of which more than 50 percent were undescribed species. A high percentage of the species sampled were rare; the proportion that occurred once per sampling date (singletons) ranged from 50.0 to 62.5 percent. Estimates of species richness were from 82 to 282 species of arboreal carabids in the study plot on a given sampling date. Most richness values were greater than 173 species. Species accumulation curves attained asymptotes for all but one sampling date, indicating that an adequate level of sampling effort was used to characterize the diversity of carabid fauna. Total accumulation curves based on pooled data failed to reach asymptotes. There was a high turnover in species composition between sampling dates; less than 50 percent of the species between the majority of sampling dates were shared, suggesting that the total species pool may be extremely large. Although species composition changed seasonally, species richness varied little. Spatial autocorrelation analysis revealed that the structure of this species assemblage was significantly patterned at distances below 280 m. Taken together, the large percentage of undescribed species, the failure of the overall species accumulation curves to level off, and the high turnover in species composition indicate that the species diversity of carabid beetles is far higher than previously thought.

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

4.2
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