4.7 Article

Taxonomic or ecological approaches? Searching for phytoplankton surrogates in the determination of richness and assemblage composition in ponds

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 575-585

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.002

关键词

Phytoplankton; Biodiversity surrogates; Higher taxa; Functional groups; Morphology; Size classes; Ponds

资金

  1. Andalusian Regional Government [P06-RNM01709]
  2. Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship [255180]
  3. EU [244121, 226273]
  4. CLEAR (Villum Kann Rasmussen Centre of Excellence)
  5. Research Council for Nature and Universe, Denmark [272-08-0406, 16-7745]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the context of the global decline in biodiversity there is a pressing need for simple methods to assess biodiversity and community composition. Identification of phytoplankton to species level is difficult, expensive and time-consuming and requires high levels of expertise. Thus, the search for parsimonious predictors of organism diversity based on simplified taxonomy or approaches representing community structure, has received much attention. Few studies have focused on identifying surrogates for predicting both phytoplankton richness and community composition. Here we examined the suitability of several taxonomic and ecological classifications in summarising phytoplankton diversity and community structure from 87 stratified-random selected Andalusian artificial ponds. Taxa based approaches at genus and family level, as well as functional groups predicted relatively well both phytoplankton richness and assemblage composition. Size classes could be used as a reasonable predictor of richness and environmental conditions, but it was a weak predictor of community composition. The morphology-based approach was the poorest proxy for richness patterns and environmental conditions, but more suitable than the size class approach as a proxy for assemblage composition. (C) 2012 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