Historical data reveal contrasting habitat amount relationships with plant biodiversity
Historical data reveal contrasting habitat amount relationships with plant biodiversity
复制标题
历史数据揭示了栖息地数量与植物生物多样性之间的对比关系
DOI：
10.1111/ecog.06301
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Ridding L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ridding L
评估栖息地丧失对生物多样性的影响是生态学研究的一个主要焦点。栖息地数量和生物多样性之间的关系，假设在栖息地数量假说，通常是在一个时间点进行评估，这并不占作为一个时间过程的栖息地丧失。我们研究了20世纪30年代和21世纪10年代两个时期的栖息地数量效应，使用了来自三个半自然栖息地的植物数据：英格兰南部多塞特郡的石灰质草地，石南地和阔叶林地。林地，在这段时间内变化不大的面积，表现出最小的影响，栖息地数量在这两个时间段的物种发生。对于在研究期间遭受严重损失的草地和石南荒原，我们发现2010年代的预期正相关，但20世纪30年代这些栖息地的相关性为负。我们探讨了这一结果的可能原因。20世纪30年代，总周长与面积比（TPAR）对草地和石南荒原表现出积极影响，表明栖息地配置（特别是边缘）的影响。然而，TPAR与栖息地数量高度相关，因此这一发现是推测性的。一个可能的解释与栖息地数量的关系，以及两个时期之间的变化可能是周围基质的质量。在20世纪30年代，景观强度较低，以半自然栖息地为主，而到2010年代，大部分已转化为可耕地和密集的草地。我们推测，与2010年代相比，20世纪30年代的物种可能会在更大程度上利用基质，当时基质更具敌意，从而降低了20世纪30年代与2010年代相比栖息地数量的重要性。这些研究结果具有重要的意义，保护，因为它们显示的重要性，在确定栖息地数量和生物多样性之间的关系的背景（即矩阵质量）。
Assessing habitat loss effects on biodiversity is a major focus of ecological research. The relationship between habitat amount and biodiversity, postulated in the habitat amount hypothesis, is usually assessed at one point in time, which does not account for habitat loss as a temporal process. We examined habitat amount effects at two time periods, 1930s and 2010s, using plant data from three semi‐natural habitats: calcareous grassland, heathland and broadleaved woodland, across Dorset, southern England. Woodlands, which changed little in area over the time period, showed minimal effects of habitat amount on species occurrence in both time periods. For grassland and heathland, which had undergone severe losses over the study period, we found the expected positive relationship in the 2010s, but the relationship was negative for these habitats in the 1930s. We explored possible reasons for this result. Total perimeter‐to‐area ratio (TPAR) showed positive effects in the 1930s for grassland and heathland, suggesting effects of habitat configuration, specifically edge. However, TPAR was highly correlated with habitat amount so this finding is speculative. One possible explanation for the relationships with habitat amount, and the change between the two periods could be the quality of the surrounding matrix. In the 1930s, the landscape was less intensified and was dominated by semi‐natural habitats, whereas by the 2010s much had been converted to arable and intensive grasslands. We speculate that species could likely utilise the matrix to a greater degree in the 1930s compared with the 2010s when the matrix was more hostile, thereby decreasing the importance of habitat amount in the 1930s compared with the 2010s. These findings have important implications for conservation, as they show the importance of context (i.e. matrix quality) in determining the relationship between habitat amount and biodiversity.