Edge responses are different in edges under natural versus anthropogenic influence: a meta‐analysis using ground beetles
Tóm tắt
Most edges are anthropogenic in origin, but are distinguishable by their maintaining processes (natural vs. continued anthropogenic interventions: forestry, agriculture, urbanization). We hypothesized that the dissimilar edge histories will be reflected in the diversity and assemblage composition of inhabitants. Testing this “history‐based edge effect” hypothesis, we evaluated published information on a common insect group, ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in forest edges. A meta‐analysis showed that the diversity‐enhancing properties of edges significantly differed according to their history. Forest edges maintained by natural processes had significantly higher species richness than their interiors, while edges with continued anthropogenic influence did not. The filter function of edges was also essentially different depending on their history. For forest specialist species, edges maintained by natural processes were penetrable, allowing these species to move right through the edges, while edges still under anthropogenic interventions were impenetrable, preventing the dispersal of forest specialists out of the forest. For species inhabiting the surrounding matrix (open‐habitat and generalist species), edges created by forestry activities were penetrable, and such species also invaded the forest interior. However, natural forest edges constituted a barrier and prevented the invasion of matrix species into the forest interior. Preserving and protecting all edges maintained by natural processes, and preventing anthropogenic changes to their structure, composition, and characteristics are key factors to sustain biodiversity in forests. Moreover, the increasing presence of anthropogenic edges in a landscape is to be avoided, as they contribute to the loss of biodiversity. Simultaneously, edges under continued anthropogenic disturbance should be restored by increasing habitat heterogeneity.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Anderson M. A., 1987, Wildlife Management in Forests, 66
Bousquet Y., 2010, Illustrated Identification Guide to Adults and Larvae of Northeastern North American Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
Del Re A. C. &Hoyt W. T.(2014)MAd: Meta‐analysis with mean differences. Retrieved fromhttps://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MAd/MAd.pdf
Digweed S. C., 1995, Digging out the digging‐in effect of pitfall traps: Influences of depletion and disturbance on catches of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae), Pedobiologia, 39, 561, 10.1016/S0031-4056(24)00225-7
Forman R. T. T., 1986, Landscape Ecology
Freude H., 1989, Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Ökologie, Band 1
Hůrka K., 1996, Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak Republics
Lindroth C. H., 1985, The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Parts 1 and 2, 10.1163/9789004266254
Lövei G. L., 2006, The influence of matrix and edges on species richness patterns of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in habitat islands, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15, 283, 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2005.00221.x
Odum E. P., 1971, Fundamentals of Ecology
Pickett S. T. A., 1985, The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics
Spellerberg I. F., 1994, Monitoring Ecological Change
Turner M. G., 2001, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process