BIOFRAG – a new database for analyzing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Ecology and Evolution

Marion Pfeifer²³  Veronique Lefebvre²³  Toby A. Gardner³⁹  Victor Arroyo-Rodriguez¹⁴  Lander Baeten¹⁵  Cristina Banks-Leite²³  Jos Barlow⁴⁰  Matthew G. Betts²⁹  Joerg Brunet²⁴  Alexis Cerezo¹⁹  Laura M. Cisneros⁴⁵  Stuart Collard^23,46  Neil D'Cruze^3,23  Catarina da Silva Motta^20,23  Stephanie Duguay^23,36  Hilde Eggermont^23,41  Felix Eigenbrod^23,28  Adam S. Hadley²⁹  Thor R. Hanson^23,26  Joseph E. Hawes^23,35  Tamara Heartsill Scalley^9,23  Brian T. Klingbeil⁴⁵  Annette Kolb^1,23  Urs Kormann^7,39  Sunil Kumar^32,39  Thibault Lachat^16,39  Poppy Lakeman Fraser^4,39  Victoria Lantschner^39,48  William F. Laurance^30,39  Inara R. Leal^6,39  Luc Lens^23,41  Charles J. Marsh^31,39  Guido F. Medina-Rangel^27,39  Stephanie Melles^39,44  Dirk Mezger^14,25  Johan A. Oldekop^14,42  William L. Overal^8,14  Charlotte Owen²³  Carlos A. Peres^23,35  Ben Phalan^23,28  Anna M. Pidgeon^14,33  Oriana Pilia²³  Hugh P. Possingham²³  Max L. Possingham^14,34  Dinarzarde C. Raheem^10,14  Danilo B. Ribeiro^13,14  Jose D. Ribeiro Neto^6,39  W Douglas Robinson^11,14  Richard Robinson^14,43  Trina Rytwinski^14,17  Christoph Scherber^7,39  Eleanor M. Slade^15,47  Eduardo Somarriba^15,22  Philip C. Stouffer^2,15  Matthew J. Struebig^15,21  Jason M. Tylianakis²³  Teja Tscharntke^7,39  Andrew J. Tyre^15,37  Jose N. Urbina Cardona^15,38  Heraldo L. Vasconcelos^15,18  Oliver Wearn²³  Konstans Wells^5,15  Michael R. Willig⁴⁵  Eric Wood^14,33  Richard P. Young^12,15  Andrew V. Bradley²³ 

[1] Institute of Ecology, FB2, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany;School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana;The World Society for the Protection of Animals, London, U.K;OPAL, Imperial College London, London, U.K;The Environment Institute, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia;Departamento de Botânica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil;Agroecology, Department of Crop Sciences, Goettingen University, Goettingen, Germany;Departamento de Entomologia, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (MPEG), Belém, Brazil;International Institute of Tropical Forestry, USDA Forestry Service, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico;Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium;Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon;Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Trinity, Jersey, U.K;Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, Brazil;Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Morelia, Mexico;Department of Forest & Water Management, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium;Swiss Federal Institute for Forest Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland;Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada;Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil;Departmento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Sistemas de Información, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina;Departamento de Entomologia, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA), Manaus, Brazil;Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, U.K;Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE), Turrialba, Costa Rica;Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot, U.K;Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden;Department of Zoology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois;Friday Harbor, Washington;Instituto de Ciencias Naturales – ICN, National University of Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia;Centre for Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, U.K;Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon;Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science and School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Cairns, Qld, Australia;Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, U.K;Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado;Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin;Marden, Australia;School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K;Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Laboratory, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada;School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska;Ecology and Territory Department, School of Rural and Environmental Studies, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia;Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden;Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, U.K;Terrestrial Ecology Unit, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium;Sheffield Institute for International Development, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, U.K;Department of Parks and Wildlife, Manjimup Research Centre, Manjimup, WA, Australia;Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada;Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut;Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia;Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K;INTA EEA, Bariloche – CONICET, Bariloche, Argentina

关键词: Bioinformatics;    data sharing;    database;    edge effects;    forest fragmentation;    global change;    landscape metrics;    matrix contrast;    species turnover;   

DOI  :  10.1002/ece3.1036

来源: Wiley

【 摘 要 】

Abstract

Habitat fragmentation studies have produced complex results that are challenging to synthesize. Inconsistencies among studies may result from variation in the choice of landscape metrics and response variables, which is often compounded by a lack of key statistical or methodological information. Collating primary datasets on biodiversity responses to fragmentation in a consistent and flexible database permits simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. We present a relational database that links such field data to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes, and environmental characteristics. Field assessments include measurements of the response(s) (e.g., presence, abundance, ground cover) of one or more species linked to plots in fragments within a partially forested landscape. The database currently holds 9830 unique species recorded in plots of 58 unique landscapes in six of eight realms: mammals 315, birds 1286, herptiles 460, insects 4521, spiders 204, other arthropods 85, gastropods 70, annelids 8, platyhelminthes 4, Onychophora 2, vascular plants 2112, nonvascular plants and lichens 320, and fungi 449. Three landscapes were sampled as long-term time series (>10 years). Seven hundred and eleven species are found in two or more landscapes. Consolidating the substantial amount of primary data available on biodiversity responses to fragmentation in the context of land-use change and natural disturbances is an essential part of understanding the effects of increasing anthropogenic pressures on land. The consistent format of this database facilitates testing of generalizations concerning biologic responses to fragmentation across diverse systems and taxa. It also allows the re-examination of existing datasets with alternative landscape metrics and robust statistical methods, for example, helping to address pseudo-replication problems. The database can thus help researchers in producing broad syntheses of the effects of land use. The database is dynamic and inclusive, and contributions from individual and large-scale data-collection efforts are welcome.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© 2014 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.