...
首页> 外文期刊>Biological Conservation >Effectiveness of biodiversity indicators varies with extent, grain, and region
【24h】

Effectiveness of biodiversity indicators varies with extent, grain, and region

机译:生物多样性指标的有效性随范围,谷物和地区的不同而不同

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The use of indicator taxa for conservation planning is common, despite inconsistent evidence regarding their effectiveness. These inconsistencies may be the result of differences among species and taxonomic groups studied, geographic location, or scale of analysis. The scale of analysis can be defined by grain and extent, which are often confounded. Grain is the size of each observational unit and extent is the size of the entire study area. Using species occurrence records compiled by NatureServe from survey data, range maps, and expert opinion, we examined correlations in species richness between each of seven taxa (amphibians, birds, butterflies, freshwater fish, mammals, freshwater mussels, and reptiles) and total richness of the remaining six taxa at varying grains and extents in two regions of the US (Mid-Atlantic and Pacific Northwest). We examined four different spatial units of interest: hexagon (649 km super(2)), subecoregion (3800-34,000 km super(2)), ecoregion (8300-79,000 km super(2)), and geographic region (315,000-426,000 km super(2)). We analyzed the correlations with varying extent of analysis (grain held constant at the hexagon) and varying grain (extent held constant at the region). The strength of correlation among taxa was context dependent, varying widely with grain, extent, region, and taxon. This suggests that (1) taxon, grain, extent, and study location explain, in part, inconsistent results of previous studies; (2) planning based on indicator relationships developed at other grains or extents should be undertaken cautiously; and (3) planning based on indicator relationships developed in other geographic locations is risky, even if planning occurs at an equivalent grain and extent.
机译:尽管有关于有效性的证据不一致,但通常在保护规划中使用指标分类单元。这些不一致可能是由于所研究的物种和分类组,地理位置或分析规模之间存在差异而导致的。分析的规模可以通过粒度和程度来定义,而这常常是令人困惑的。粒度是每个观察单位的大小,程度是整个研究区域的大小。使用NatureServe从调查数据,范围图和专家意见汇编的物种发生记录,我们检查了七个分类群(两栖动物,鸟类,蝴蝶,淡水鱼,哺乳动物,淡水贻贝和爬行动物)中每个物种之间的物种丰富度之间的相关性美国两个地区(中大西洋和西北太平洋地区)不同粒度和程度的其余六个分类单元中的一半。我们研究了四个不同的感兴趣的空间单位:六边形(649 km super(2)),次生态区(3800-34,000 km super(2)),生态区(8300-79,000 km super(2))和地理区域(315,000-426,000 km super(2))。我们分析了不同程度的分析(六边形保持不变)和变化的颗粒(该区域保持不变)的相关性。分类单元之间的相关强度取决于上下文,并且随谷物,范围,区域和分类单元而变化很大。这表明(1)分类单元,谷物,范围和研究位置在一定程度上解释了先前研究的结果不一致; (2)基于其他层次或程度发展的指标关系的计划应谨慎进行; (3)即使在相同的粒度和范围内进行计划,基于在其他地理位置开发的指标关系进行计划也是有风险的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号