4.5 Article

Trees as templates for tropical litter arthropod diversity

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 164, 期 1, 页码 201-211

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-010-1607-3

关键词

Tree specialization hypothesis; Abundance; Leaf litter; Arthropods

类别

资金

  1. NSF [0212386]
  2. Adams scholarship
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology [0212386] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences [0842038, 842258] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased tree species diversity in the tropics is associated with even greater herbivore diversity, but few tests of tree effects on litter arthropod diversity exist. We studied whether tree species influence patchiness in diversity and abundance of three common soil arthropod taxa (ants, gamasid mites, and oribatid mites) in a Panama forest. The tree specialization hypothesis proposes that tree-driven habitat heterogeneity maintains litter arthropod diversity. We tested whether tree species differed in resource quality and quantity of their leaf litter and whether more heterogeneous litter supports more arthropod species. Alternatively, the abundance-extinction hypothesis states that arthropod diversity increases with arthropod abundance, which in turn tracks resource quantity (e.g., litter depth). We found little support for the hypothesis that tropical trees are templates for litter arthropod diversity. Ten tree species differed in litter depth, chemistry, and structural variability. However, the extent of specialization of invertebrates on particular tree taxa was low and the more heterogeneous litter between trees failed to support higher arthropod diversity. Furthermore, arthropod diversity did not track abundance or litter depth. The lack of association between tree species and litter arthropods suggests that factors other than tree species diversity may better explain the high arthropod diversity in tropical forests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据