4.6 Article

Toward the use of testate amoeba functional traits as indicator of floodplain restoration success

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOIL BIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 -, 页码 85-91

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.05.008

关键词

Testate amoebae; Floodplain; Functional traits; Bioindication

资金

  1. CCES the Competence Center Environment and Sustainability of the ETH Domain
  2. Russian Foundation for basic Research [10-04-00496-a]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional traits (FT) offer a new framework to understand the ecology of organisms and overcome taxonomic difficulties that currently limit the study of minute soil taxa. FT are likely to be selected by environmental filters and hence they may provide more direct information on ecosystem characteristics than the species composition of a community. We tested the potential of testate amoeba (TA) functional traits as bioindicators of selected ecosystem processes in the context of a restored floodplain in north-western Switzerland. The floodplain was divided into six functional process zones (FPZs) associated to distinct post-restoration successional stages. We selected TA FT and computed three functional indices: functional richness (FRic), divergence (FDiv), evenness (FEve), and dispersion (FDis). We then compared the patterns of functional indices and classical diversity indices such as species richness, diversity and evenness. We assessed whether traits converged or were over-dispersed in the different FPZs using a randomization procedure. Finally, we related environmental variables and functional traits using the Fourth Corner statistic. This procedure enabled us to highlight relations that can potentially be used for bioindication. Promising candidates include the relationships between shell biovolume and vegetation structure and between shell compression and plant litter input variables. (C) 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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