4.6 Article

Assessing human impact on fen biodiversity: effects of different management regimes on butterfly, grasshopper, and carabid beetle assemblages

期刊

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 309-326

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-013-0602-5

关键词

Lepidoptera; Orthoptera; Carabidae; Rewetting; Paludiculture; Riverine fen; Biodiversity conservation

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [FKZ 033L030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fens and concomitantly the associated species assemblages have undergone dramatic declines in recent decades. Given that many remaining or restored fens are currently lying fallow, an important question is which management regime, if any, is most effective in preserving fen biodiversity. Against this background we here investigate the effects of five management regimes (intensive grassland, moist meadows, summer harvested sites, winter harvested sites, fallows) on three insect taxa (butterflies, grasshoppers, carabid beetles) in riverine fens in north-eastern Germany. Butterflies and grasshoppers showed highest species numbers, diversity and numbers of threatened species on moist meadows and were detrimentally affected by high vegetation. In contrast, ground dwelling carabid beetles were less strongly affected by different management regimes, but responded very sensitive to drainage. Winter harvested sites and fallows seemed to be particularly beneficial to carabid beetles. Overall, drained, intensive grassland was not suitable for preserving fen-specific communities, while extensively managed moist meadows harboured overall the highest numbers of threatened species. We conclude that in terms of management maintaining high water tables is most important. Furthermore, some management seems necessary to maintain stands with lower vegetation turf for associated species. However, care is needed to also maintain fallows and to consider the specific demands of some highly endangered, management-sensitive species.

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

4.6
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