4.6 Review

How functional is functional? Ecological groupings in terrestrial animal ecology: towards an animal functional type approach

期刊

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
卷 20, 期 11, 页码 2333-2345

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-011-9995-1

关键词

Ecological classification; Functional type; Guild; Functional trait; Trait selection; Effect group; Response group; Environmental relationships

资金

  1. German Ministry of Education and Research in the framework of BIOTA Southern Africa [01LC0624I]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding mechanisms to predict changes in plant and animal communities is a key challenge in ecology. The need to transfer knowledge gained from single species to a more generalized approach has led to the development of categorization systems where species' similarities in life strategies and traits are classified into ecological groups (EGs) like functional groups/types or guilds. While approaches in plant ecology undergo a steady improvement and refinement of methodologies, progression in animal ecology is lagging behind. With this review, we aim to initiate a further development of functional classification systems in animal ecology, comparable to recent developments in plant ecology. We here (i) give an overview of terms and definitions of EGs in animal ecology, (ii) discuss existing classification systems, methods and application areas of EGs (focusing on terrestrial vertebrates), and (iii) provide a roadmap towards an animal functional type approach for improving the application of EGs and classifications in animal ecology. We found that an animal functional type approach requires: (i) the identification of core traits describing species' dependency on their habitat and life history traits, (ii) an optimization of trait selection by clustering traits into hierarchies, (iii) the assessment of soft traits as substitute for hardly measurable traits, e.g. body size for dispersal ability, and (iv) testing of delineated groups for validation including experiments.

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

4.6
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