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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diversity & distributions 2021-05, Vol.27 (5), p.887-900
Hauptverfasser: Hill, Matthew J., White, James C., Biggs, Jeremy, Briers, Robert A., Gledhill, David, Ledger, Mark E., Thornhill, Ian, Wood, Paul J., Hassall, Chris
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 &amp; distributions, 2021-05, Vol.27 (5), p.887-900</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors</rights><rights>2021 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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