4.2 Article

Is species richness of small spring fens influenced by the spatial mass effect?

期刊

COMMUNITY ECOLOGY
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 202-209

出版社

AKADEMIAI KIADO RT
DOI: 10.1556/ComEc.12.2011.2.8

关键词

Carpathians; Coexistence; Grassland; Source-sink dynamics; Species pool; Vegetation; Vicinism

类别

资金

  1. Masaryk University (Czech Ministry of Education) [MSM 0021622416]
  2. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic [AVZ0Z60050516]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ecological theory predicts that the species composition of island habitats is, among others, shaped by the mass effect of nearby ill-adapted populations, but this has rarely been tested. We investigated small calcareous spring fens scattered within species-rich grasslands in a region in which particular locations differ in climatic and edaphic conditions. Fens in colder, moister and less calcareous north-eastern (NE) locations harboured more plant species from surrounding grasslands and displayed higher similarity with the surroundings than the fens in warmer, drier and more calcareous south-western (SW) locations. Fen species richness correlated significantly with surrounding species richness in the NE locations, whereas no correlation was found for the SW locations. Fens in SW location are characterized by both intense tufa formation, which creates extreme ecological conditions, and the contrasting environmental conditions compared to surrounding grasslands. We demonstrated that the mass effect does not always significantly shape the species composition of island habitats and that the landscape species pool may not influence extreme habitats. This finding accords with the Intermediate difference hypothesis, which predicts a unimodal relationship between the strength of the spatial mass effect and the ecological similarity between neighbouring plots, and could be utilized in the selection of model habitats for exploring large-scale ecological phenomena without the possibly confounding spatial mass effects.

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