4.0 Article

Lizard diversity on a rainforest-savanna altitude gradient in north-eastern Australia

期刊

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 86-94

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/ZO11036

关键词

tropical; species richness; abundance; niche; Carlia; ecotone

类别

资金

  1. Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC)
  2. Australian Government National Heritage Trust
  3. Earthwatch Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mountain ecosystems act as natural experiments for investigating the relationship between environmental heterogeneity and species diversity. A review of the global altitudinal distribution of reptiles identified a diverse range of patterns driven by climate and taxonomy. No Australian examples were included in this analysis. We addressed this gap by surveying the reptile assemblage along an altitude gradient from upland rainforest (similar to 1000 m) through to open savanna woodlands (similar to 350 m) in north-eastern Australia. Reptiles were sampled on four separate occasions between May 2006 and November 2007. Thirty-six species, representing seven families, were recorded along the gradient. As we used only diurnal active searching, snakes and nocturnal geckoes were probably under-sampled; thus we considered only lizards in the analysis of altitude pattern. Lizard species richness peaked at the mid-altitudes (600-900 m, 11-12 spp.) and abundance highest at the lower (<500 m) and higher (>800 m) zones. This pattern is likely a factor of both the increase in radiant heat sources (reduced canopy cover) and increased species packing due to the diversity of niches available (presence of rock cover and increase in saxicolous species). In the lower-altitude sites the high abundance of few species seems linked to the dominance of disturbance-tolerant species. We conclude that lizard richness and abundance patterns on this transect are not necessarily exhibiting a mid-domain effect, but instead are a function of species-specific ecological and habitat requirements.

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

4.0
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