4.4 Article

Regional factors rather than forest type drive the community structure of soil living oribatid mites (Acari, Oribatida)

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL AND APPLIED ACAROLOGY
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 157-169

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10493-012-9546-9

关键词

Temperate forests; Management; Natural forest; Oribatid mites; Density; Diversity; Community structure

资金

  1. DFG [BR 2315/7-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most European forests are managed by humans. However, the manner and intensity of management vary. While the effect of forest management on above-ground communities has been investigated in detail, effects on the below-ground fauna remain poorly understood. Oribatid mites are abundant microarthropods in forest soil and important decomposers in terrestrial ecosystems. Here, we investigated the effect of four forest types (i.e., managed coniferous forests; 30 and 70 years old managed beech forests; natural beech forests) on the density, diversity and community structure of oribatid mites (Acari). The study was replicated at three regions in Germany: the Swabian Alb, the Hainich and the Schorfheide. To relate changes in oribatid mite community structure to environmental factors, litter mass, pH, C and N content of litter, fine roots and C content of soil were measured. Density of oribatid mites was highest in the coniferous forests and decreased in the order 30 years old, 70 years old, and natural beech forests. Mass of the litter layer and density of oribatid mites were strongly correlated indicating that the litter layer is an important factor regulating oribatid mite densities. Diversity of oribatid mites was little affected by forest type indicating that they harbor similar numbers of niches. Species composition differed between the forest types, suggesting different types of niches. The community structure of oribatid mites differed more strongly between the three regions than between the forest types indicating that regional factors are more important than effects associated with forest type.

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

4.4
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