Local contributions to beta diversity in urban pond networks: Implications for biodiversity conservation and management
Aim An understanding of how biotic communities are spatially organized is necessary to identify and prioritize habitats within landscape‐scale biodiversity conservation. Local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD) identifies individual habitats that make a significant contribution to beta diversity...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Diversity & distributions 2021-05, Vol.27 (5), p.887-900 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 900 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 887 |
container_title | Diversity & distributions |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | Hill, Matthew J. White, James C. Biggs, Jeremy Briers, Robert A. Gledhill, David Ledger, Mark E. Thornhill, Ian Wood, Paul J. Hassall, Chris |
description | Aim
An understanding of how biotic communities are spatially organized is necessary to identify and prioritize habitats within landscape‐scale biodiversity conservation. Local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD) identifies individual habitats that make a significant contribution to beta diversity and may have important practical implications, particularly for conservation of habitat networks. In this study, we develop and apply a conservation prioritization approach based on LCBD in aquatic invertebrate communities from 132 ponds.
Location
Five urban settlements in the UK: Halton, Loughborough, Stockport, Birmingham and Huddersfield.
Methods
We partition LCBD into richness difference (nestedness: RichDiffLCBD) and species replacement (turnover: ReplLCBD) and identify key environmental variables driving LCBD. We examine LCBD at two scales relevant to conservation planning: within urban settlements and nationally across the UK.
Results
Significant differences in LCBD values were recorded among the five settlements. In four of the five urban settlements studied, pond sites with the greatest LCBD values typically showed high replacement values. Significant LCBD sites and sites with high taxonomic diversity together supported more of the regional species pool (70%–97%) than sites with high taxonomic diversity alone (54%–94%) or what could be protected by the random selection of sites. LCBD was significantly associated with vegetation shading, surface area, altitude and macrophyte cover.
Main conclusions
Conservation prioritization that incorporates LCBD and sites with high taxonomic diversity improves the effectiveness of conservation actions within pond habitat networks, ensures sites supporting high biodiversity are protected and provides a method to define a spatial network of protected sites. Identifying new, effective conservation approaches, particularly in urban areas where resources may be scarce and conflicts regarding land use exist, is essential to ensure biodiversity is fully supported, and detrimental anthropogenic effects are reduced. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/ddi.13239 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_JFNAL</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2513298245</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27004920</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>27004920</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-d1e017ea0c9649ed0123e90fabbda662f98a3ea4d2259f582e90b2481f6f6b9a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKsHf4AQ8ORh23xtugEv0vpRKHjRc0g2CaTWTU2ylv77Rle9OZcZmOedl3kBuMRogktNjfETTAkVR2CE2YxUjDNyXGbKeSVqzE_BWUprhBClNRmB21Vo1Qa2ocvR6z770CWYA9Q2K2j8p43J5z30HeyjVh3chs7AzuZdiG_pHJw4tUn24qePwevD_cv8qVo9Py7nd6uqpTUTlcEW4ZlVqBWcCWsQJtQK5JTWRnFOnGgUtYoZQmrh6oaUpSaswY47roWiY3A93N3G8NHblOU69LErlpLU5VvREFYX6mag2hhSitbJbfTvKu4lRvIrHFnCkd_hFHY6sDu_sfv_QblYLH8VV4NinXKIfwoyQ4gJgugBSzNu4Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2513298245</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Local contributions to beta diversity in urban pond networks: Implications for biodiversity conservation and management</title><source>JSTOR Open Access Journals</source><creator>Hill, Matthew J. ; White, James C. ; Biggs, Jeremy ; Briers, Robert A. ; Gledhill, David ; Ledger, Mark E. ; Thornhill, Ian ; Wood, Paul J. ; Hassall, Chris</creator><creatorcontrib>Hill, Matthew J. ; White, James C. ; Biggs, Jeremy ; Briers, Robert A. ; Gledhill, David ; Ledger, Mark E. ; Thornhill, Ian ; Wood, Paul J. ; Hassall, Chris</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
An understanding of how biotic communities are spatially organized is necessary to identify and prioritize habitats within landscape‐scale biodiversity conservation. Local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD) identifies individual habitats that make a significant contribution to beta diversity and may have important practical implications, particularly for conservation of habitat networks. In this study, we develop and apply a conservation prioritization approach based on LCBD in aquatic invertebrate communities from 132 ponds.
Location
Five urban settlements in the UK: Halton, Loughborough, Stockport, Birmingham and Huddersfield.
Methods
We partition LCBD into richness difference (nestedness: RichDiffLCBD) and species replacement (turnover: ReplLCBD) and identify key environmental variables driving LCBD. We examine LCBD at two scales relevant to conservation planning: within urban settlements and nationally across the UK.
Results
Significant differences in LCBD values were recorded among the five settlements. In four of the five urban settlements studied, pond sites with the greatest LCBD values typically showed high replacement values. Significant LCBD sites and sites with high taxonomic diversity together supported more of the regional species pool (70%–97%) than sites with high taxonomic diversity alone (54%–94%) or what could be protected by the random selection of sites. LCBD was significantly associated with vegetation shading, surface area, altitude and macrophyte cover.
Main conclusions
Conservation prioritization that incorporates LCBD and sites with high taxonomic diversity improves the effectiveness of conservation actions within pond habitat networks, ensures sites supporting high biodiversity are protected and provides a method to define a spatial network of protected sites. Identifying new, effective conservation approaches, particularly in urban areas where resources may be scarce and conflicts regarding land use exist, is essential to ensure biodiversity is fully supported, and detrimental anthropogenic effects are reduced.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1366-9516</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-4642</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13239</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley</publisher><subject>Anthropogenic factors ; Aquatic organisms ; Aquatic plants ; Biodiversity ; BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH ; Conservation ; ecological uniqueness ; Habitats ; Human influences ; Invertebrates ; Land use ; Landscape preservation ; LCBD ; Networks ; Ponds ; spatial patterns ; taxonomic richness ; Taxonomy ; Urban areas ; urban ecology ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>Diversity & distributions, 2021-05, Vol.27 (5), p.887-900</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors</rights><rights>2021 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-d1e017ea0c9649ed0123e90fabbda662f98a3ea4d2259f582e90b2481f6f6b9a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-d1e017ea0c9649ed0123e90fabbda662f98a3ea4d2259f582e90b2481f6f6b9a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8008-2197</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27004920$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27004920$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,1417,11562,25354,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476,54524,54530</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27004920$$EView_record_in_JSTOR$$FView_record_in_$$GJSTOR</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hill, Matthew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, James C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Biggs, Jeremy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Briers, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gledhill, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ledger, Mark E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thornhill, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Paul J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hassall, Chris</creatorcontrib><title>Local contributions to beta diversity in urban pond networks: Implications for biodiversity conservation and management</title><title>Diversity & distributions</title><description>Aim
An understanding of how biotic communities are spatially organized is necessary to identify and prioritize habitats within landscape‐scale biodiversity conservation. Local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD) identifies individual habitats that make a significant contribution to beta diversity and may have important practical implications, particularly for conservation of habitat networks. In this study, we develop and apply a conservation prioritization approach based on LCBD in aquatic invertebrate communities from 132 ponds.
Location
Five urban settlements in the UK: Halton, Loughborough, Stockport, Birmingham and Huddersfield.
Methods
We partition LCBD into richness difference (nestedness: RichDiffLCBD) and species replacement (turnover: ReplLCBD) and identify key environmental variables driving LCBD. We examine LCBD at two scales relevant to conservation planning: within urban settlements and nationally across the UK.
Results
Significant differences in LCBD values were recorded among the five settlements. In four of the five urban settlements studied, pond sites with the greatest LCBD values typically showed high replacement values. Significant LCBD sites and sites with high taxonomic diversity together supported more of the regional species pool (70%–97%) than sites with high taxonomic diversity alone (54%–94%) or what could be protected by the random selection of sites. LCBD was significantly associated with vegetation shading, surface area, altitude and macrophyte cover.
Main conclusions
Conservation prioritization that incorporates LCBD and sites with high taxonomic diversity improves the effectiveness of conservation actions within pond habitat networks, ensures sites supporting high biodiversity are protected and provides a method to define a spatial network of protected sites. Identifying new, effective conservation approaches, particularly in urban areas where resources may be scarce and conflicts regarding land use exist, is essential to ensure biodiversity is fully supported, and detrimental anthropogenic effects are reduced.</description><subject>Anthropogenic factors</subject><subject>Aquatic organisms</subject><subject>Aquatic plants</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>ecological uniqueness</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Human influences</subject><subject>Invertebrates</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Landscape preservation</subject><subject>LCBD</subject><subject>Networks</subject><subject>Ponds</subject><subject>spatial patterns</subject><subject>taxonomic richness</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><subject>Urban areas</subject><subject>urban ecology</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>1366-9516</issn><issn>1472-4642</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKsHf4AQ8ORh23xtugEv0vpRKHjRc0g2CaTWTU2ylv77Rle9OZcZmOedl3kBuMRogktNjfETTAkVR2CE2YxUjDNyXGbKeSVqzE_BWUprhBClNRmB21Vo1Qa2ocvR6z770CWYA9Q2K2j8p43J5z30HeyjVh3chs7AzuZdiG_pHJw4tUn24qePwevD_cv8qVo9Py7nd6uqpTUTlcEW4ZlVqBWcCWsQJtQK5JTWRnFOnGgUtYoZQmrh6oaUpSaswY47roWiY3A93N3G8NHblOU69LErlpLU5VvREFYX6mag2hhSitbJbfTvKu4lRvIrHFnCkd_hFHY6sDu_sfv_QblYLH8VV4NinXKIfwoyQ4gJgugBSzNu4Q</recordid><startdate>20210501</startdate><enddate>20210501</enddate><creator>Hill, Matthew J.</creator><creator>White, James C.</creator><creator>Biggs, Jeremy</creator><creator>Briers, Robert A.</creator><creator>Gledhill, David</creator><creator>Ledger, Mark E.</creator><creator>Thornhill, Ian</creator><creator>Wood, Paul J.</creator><creator>Hassall, Chris</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8008-2197</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210501</creationdate><title>Local contributions to beta diversity in urban pond networks</title><author>Hill, Matthew J. ; White, James C. ; Biggs, Jeremy ; Briers, Robert A. ; Gledhill, David ; Ledger, Mark E. ; Thornhill, Ian ; Wood, Paul J. ; Hassall, Chris</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-d1e017ea0c9649ed0123e90fabbda662f98a3ea4d2259f582e90b2481f6f6b9a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Anthropogenic factors</topic><topic>Aquatic organisms</topic><topic>Aquatic plants</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>ecological uniqueness</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Human influences</topic><topic>Invertebrates</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Landscape preservation</topic><topic>LCBD</topic><topic>Networks</topic><topic>Ponds</topic><topic>spatial patterns</topic><topic>taxonomic richness</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><topic>Urban areas</topic><topic>urban ecology</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hill, Matthew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, James C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Biggs, Jeremy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Briers, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gledhill, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ledger, Mark E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thornhill, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Paul J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hassall, Chris</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Diversity & distributions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hill, Matthew J.</au><au>White, James C.</au><au>Biggs, Jeremy</au><au>Briers, Robert A.</au><au>Gledhill, David</au><au>Ledger, Mark E.</au><au>Thornhill, Ian</au><au>Wood, Paul J.</au><au>Hassall, Chris</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Local contributions to beta diversity in urban pond networks: Implications for biodiversity conservation and management</atitle><jtitle>Diversity & distributions</jtitle><date>2021-05-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>887</spage><epage>900</epage><pages>887-900</pages><issn>1366-9516</issn><eissn>1472-4642</eissn><abstract>Aim
An understanding of how biotic communities are spatially organized is necessary to identify and prioritize habitats within landscape‐scale biodiversity conservation. Local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD) identifies individual habitats that make a significant contribution to beta diversity and may have important practical implications, particularly for conservation of habitat networks. In this study, we develop and apply a conservation prioritization approach based on LCBD in aquatic invertebrate communities from 132 ponds.
Location
Five urban settlements in the UK: Halton, Loughborough, Stockport, Birmingham and Huddersfield.
Methods
We partition LCBD into richness difference (nestedness: RichDiffLCBD) and species replacement (turnover: ReplLCBD) and identify key environmental variables driving LCBD. We examine LCBD at two scales relevant to conservation planning: within urban settlements and nationally across the UK.
Results
Significant differences in LCBD values were recorded among the five settlements. In four of the five urban settlements studied, pond sites with the greatest LCBD values typically showed high replacement values. Significant LCBD sites and sites with high taxonomic diversity together supported more of the regional species pool (70%–97%) than sites with high taxonomic diversity alone (54%–94%) or what could be protected by the random selection of sites. LCBD was significantly associated with vegetation shading, surface area, altitude and macrophyte cover.
Main conclusions
Conservation prioritization that incorporates LCBD and sites with high taxonomic diversity improves the effectiveness of conservation actions within pond habitat networks, ensures sites supporting high biodiversity are protected and provides a method to define a spatial network of protected sites. Identifying new, effective conservation approaches, particularly in urban areas where resources may be scarce and conflicts regarding land use exist, is essential to ensure biodiversity is fully supported, and detrimental anthropogenic effects are reduced.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1111/ddi.13239</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8008-2197</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
identifier | ISSN: 1366-9516 |
ispartof | Diversity & distributions, 2021-05, Vol.27 (5), p.887-900 |
issn | 1366-9516 1472-4642 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2513298245 |
source | JSTOR Open Access Journals |
subjects | Anthropogenic factors Aquatic organisms Aquatic plants Biodiversity BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH Conservation ecological uniqueness Habitats Human influences Invertebrates Land use Landscape preservation LCBD Networks Ponds spatial patterns taxonomic richness Taxonomy Urban areas urban ecology Wildlife conservation |
title | Local contributions to beta diversity in urban pond networks: Implications for biodiversity conservation and management |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T21%3A31%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_JFNAL&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Local%20contributions%20to%20beta%20diversity%20in%20urban%20pond%20networks:%20Implications%20for%20biodiversity%20conservation%20and%20management&rft.jtitle=Diversity%20&%20distributions&rft.au=Hill,%20Matthew%20J.&rft.date=2021-05-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=887&rft.epage=900&rft.pages=887-900&rft.issn=1366-9516&rft.eissn=1472-4642&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ddi.13239&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_JFNAL%3E27004920%3C/jstor_JFNAL%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2513298245&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=27004920&rfr_iscdi=true |