4.4 Article

Effects of livestock breed and grazing pressure on ground-dwelling arthropods in Cantabrian heathlands

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 466-475

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2008.01072.x

关键词

Biodiversity; Carabidae; goat; Lycosidae; Opiliones

资金

  1. European Union [QLK5-2001-00130]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. The effects of different goat breeds and grazing pressures on epigeal arachnids (Lycosidae and Opiliones) and ground beetles (Carabidae) were assessed in a heath-gorse shrubland located in the north of the Iberian Peninsula. Three treatments (low grazing pressure with Cashmere breed, high grazing pressure with Cashmere breed, and high grazing pressure with local Celtiberic breed) with three replicates of each treatment were allocated randomly to nine plots. 2. Arthropod fauna abundance, diversity, and species richness were estimated using pitfall trapping over 3 years (2003, 2004, and 2005). Vegetation cover, composition, and height were assessed along transects and above-ground plant biomass was sampled in quadrats. 3. Lower grazing pressure led to lower herbaceous cover and higher heather cover than high grazing pressure. Overall, it did not enhance arthropod diversity or abundance, but the abundance and species richness of carabids, and abundance of lycosids like Pardosa pullata, were higher under high stocking rates, whereas Opiliones were favoured by the low stocking rates. Although it has been assumed that traditional breeds enhance biodiversity, the present study found no significant differences for both arthropod fauna and vegetation between the goat breeds. 4. Arthropod-vegetation relationships were examined by constrained ordination. Fauna assemblages followed a gradient from closed canopy shrubland areas, in the lowest grazing pressure, to grassier open canopy areas resulting from higher grazing pressure, revealing the importance of grazing management as a driver of arthropod community structure of the heathland.

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

4.4
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