570 Biowissenschaften; Biologie
Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4) (remove)
Keywords
- Biodiversity (4) (remove)
Institute
Intensive land use is a major cause of biodiversity loss, but most studies comparing the response of multiple taxa rely on simple diversity measures while analyses of other community attributes are only recently gaining attention. Species-abundance distributions (SADs) are a community attribute that can be used to study changes in the overall abundance structure of species groups, and whether these changes are driven by abundant or rare species. We evaluated the effect of grassland management intensity for three land-use modes (fertilization, mowing, grazing) and their combination on species richness and SADs for three belowground (arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, prokaryotes and insect larvae) and seven aboveground groups (vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens; arthropod herbivores; arthropod pollinators; bats and birds). Three descriptors of SADs were evaluated: general shape (abundance decay rate), proportion of rare species (rarity) and proportional abundance of the commonest species (dominance). Across groups, taxonomic richness was largely unaffected by land-use intensity and only decreased with increasing mowing intensity. Of the three SAD descriptors, abundance decay rate became steeper with increasing combined land-use intensity across groups. This reflected a decrease in rarity among plants, herbivores and vertebrates. Effects of fertilization on the three descriptors were similar to the combined land-use intensity effects. Mowing intensity only affected the SAD descriptors of insect larvae and vertebrates, while grazing intensity produced a range of effects on different descriptors in distinct groups. Overall, belowground groups had more even abundance distribtitions than aboveground groups. Strong differences among aboveground groups and between above- and belowground groups indicate that no single taxonomic group can serve as an indicator for effects in other groups. In the past, the use of SADs has been hampered by concerns over theoretical models underlying specific forms of SADs. Our study shows that SAD descriptors that are not connected to a particular model are suitable to assess the effect of land use on community structure.
Non-consumptive effects of predators within ecosystems can alter the behavior of individual prey species, and have cascading effects on other trophic levels. In this context, an understanding of non-consumptive predator effects on the whole prey community is crucial for predicting community structure and composition, hence biodiversity patterns. We used an individual-based, spatially-explicit modelling approach to investigate the consequences of landscapes of fear on prey community metrics. The model spans multiple hierarchical levels from individual home range formation based on food availability and perceived predation risk to consequences on prey community structure and composition. This mechanistic approach allowed us to explore how important factors such as refuge availability and foraging strategy under fear affect prey community metrics. Fear of predators affected prey space use, such as home range formation. These adaptations had broader consequences for the community leading to changes in community structure and composition. The strength of community responses to perceived predation risk was driven by refuge availability in the landscape and the foraging strategy of prey animals. Low refuge availability in the landscape strongly decreased diversity and total biomass of prey communities. Additionally, body mass distributions in prey communities facing high predation risk were shifted towards small prey animals. With increasing refuge availability the consequences of non-consumptive predator effects were reduced, diversity and total biomass of the prey community increased. Prey foraging strategies affected community composition. Under medium refuge availability, risk-averse prey communities consisted of many small animals while risk-taking prey communities showed a more even body mass distribution. Our findings reveal that non-consumptive predator effects can have important implications for prey community diversity and should therefore be considered in the context of conservation and nature management.
Biodiversity loss is a result of interacting ecological and economic factors, and it must be addressed through an analysis of biodiversity conservation policies. Ecological-economic modelling is a helpful approach to this analysis, but it is also challenging since modellers often have a specific disciplinary background and tend to misrepresent either the ecological or economic aspects. Here, we introduce some of the most important concepts from both disciplines, and since the two modelling cultures also differ between the two disciplines, we present an integrated, consistent guide through all the steps of generic ecological-economic modelling, such as formulation of the research question, development of the conceptual model, model parametrisation and analysis, and interpretation of model results. Although we focus on generic models aimed at a general understanding of causes and remedies for biodiversity loss, the concepts and guidance provided here may also help in the modelling of more specific conservation problems. This guide is aimed at the intersection of three disciplines: ecology, economics and mathematical modelling, and addresses readers who have some knowledge in at least one of these disciplines and want to learn about the others to build and analyse generic ecological-economic models. Compared to textbooks, the guide focuses on the practice of modelling rather than lengthy explanations of theoretical concepts. We attempt to demonstrate that generic ecological-economic modelling does not require magical powers and instead is a manageable exercise.