4.1 Article

Distribution Patterns and Conservation Perspectives of the Endemic Flora of Peloponnese (Greece)

期刊

FOLIA GEOBOTANICA
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 421-439

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12224-012-9130-4

关键词

Area selection; Diversity hot spots; Elevational gradient; Endemism; Range size; Species richness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An inventory of the endemic vascular plants of the Peloponnese (395 species and subspecies) has been created based on literature, herbarium and field data. Endemics' distribution patterns, altitudinal distribution and habitat specificity were investigated. A rarity score for each endemic has been calculated based on its population size, geographic range and habitat specificity. The main mountainous areas of the Peloponnese are largely congruent to the hotspots of endemism. Altitudinal range and niche breadth of the endemics were positively correlated to their range size. The elevational gradient of the endemic species richness showed a hump-shaped pattern, in contrast to the monotonically decreasing pattern of total species richness. Endemic species were found to support boundary theory, while total species richness distribution followed the Rapoport's elevational rule. The elevational distribution of the average rarity score and the average weighted threat of the endemics resulted in low values for mid-elevation intervals and increased values for low and high altitude areas, indicating that conservation efforts should focus on the two extremes of the elevational gradient. Area prioritization methods were applied using a rarity/complementarity based algorithm with two species weighting schemes. Their results were largely congruent confirming the significance of the main mountainous areas for the conservation of the endemics. Spatial overlap among selected grid cells using the rarity/complementarity analysis and Natura 2000 network was found to be low. Our results revealed the conservation importance of at least one new area located on Kythera Island.

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

4.1
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