4.7 Article

Beta diversity determinants in Badagongshan, a subtropical forest in central China

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep17043

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Program on Key Basic Research Project [2014CB954004]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31200329, 31270562]
  3. Chinese Forest Biodiversity Monitoring Network [29200931131101919]
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology [1354741] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Niche and neutral theories emphasize different processes contributing to the maintenance of species diversity. In this study, we calculated the local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD) of every cell, using variation partitioning in combination with spatial distance and environmental variables of the 25-ha Badagongshan plot (BDGS), to determine the contribution of environmentally-related variation versus pure spatial variation. We used topography and soil characteristics as environmental variables, distance-based Moran's eigenvectors maps (dbMEM) to describe spatial relationships among cells and redundancy analysis (RDA) to apportion the variation in beta diversity into three components: pure environmental, spatially-structured environmental, and pure spatial. Results showed LCBD values were negatively related to number of common species and positively related to number of rare species. Environment and space jointly explained similar to 60% of the variation in species composition; soil variables alone explained 21.6%, slightly more than the topographic variables that explained 15.7%; topography and soil together explained 27%, slightly inferior to spatial variables that explained 34%. The BDGS forest was controlled both by the spatial and environmental variables, and the results were consistent across different life forms and life stages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available