4.7 Article

Quantifying the role of multiple landscape-scale drivers controlling epiphyte composition and richness in a conservation priority habitat (juniper scrub)

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 142, 期 7, 页码 1291-1301

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.036

关键词

Air pollution; Bioclimatic modelling; Extinction debt; Juniper; Lichens; Partial-redundancy analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent concern over human-induced climate warming has activated bioclimatic research projecting the species-response to climate change scenarios. However, climate change is one of a range of human-induced environmental drivers controlling biodiversity, and for many species should be considered together within a framework of relevant stresses and threats. This paper critically assesses the sensitivity of epiphyte assemblages to regional gradients in climate, Pollution regime and landscape-scale habitat structure (woodland extent and fragmentation). We examine lichen epiphytes associated with juniper scrub (a conservation priority habitat in Europe), sampled across a network of protected sites in Britain (Special Areas of Conservation). Results point to significant differences in associated epiphyte diversity between conservation priority sites. Historic woodland structure was identified as of greater importance than present-day woodland structure in controlling species composition and richness, pointing to an extinction debt among lichen epiphytes. Climatic setting was important in controlling species composition, but not species richness. However. we demonstrate that pollution regime exerts the dominant controlling force for epiphyte assemblages across regional gradients. As a corollary, we caution that for many species groups - for example those sensitive to pollutants, or landscape structure - an exclusive focus on climate is restricting, and that climate change models should expand to include a range of multiple interacting factors. (C) 2009 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