4.3 Article

Identifying habitat types in a disturbed area of the forest-steppe ecotone of Patagonia

期刊

PLANT ECOLOGY
卷 158, 期 1, 页码 97-112

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1014768822737

关键词

conservation; discriminant analysis; disturbance; floristic composition; substrate gradient; topographic gradient

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We surveyed an old ranch (22,000 ha) in the eastern catchment of lake Nahuel Huapi (Argentina), representing both landscape and historical use patterns of the forest-steppe ecotone in the Andes foothills. The objective was to describe plant-environment relations and to develop a procedure to classify habitat types for conservation aims. Floristic and landscape variables were recorded in 72 upland sites. Vegetation types were classified with Two-way indicator Species Analysis and environmental gradients detected with Detrended Canonical Correspondence Analysis. Vegetation types were tested for environmental homogeneity with Discriminant Analysis. A key to classify habitat types was built out from the classification functions obtained by DA analysis. Floristic classification resulted in 7 steppe types and 4 shrubland/woodland types. Vegetation samples were placed along two main gradients, one related to topography and the other to the type of substrate. Steppe types occur in all positions of the topographic gradient forming a temperature-soil moisture continuum, but only (except one of them) on accumulated substrates. Islands of woody types are confined to relatively warm positions of the topographic gradient and to deflated, rocky substrates. This distribution pattern would be caused by frost sensibility of forest species, and by the different strategies of water capture of woody and herbaceous plants. Three pairs of plant assemblages were not discriminated, allowing classification of 8 habitat types out of the 11 communities. Undiscriminated communities (3 pairs) and misclassified samples (29%) were discussed as the result of disturbances.

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

4.3
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