Download Land use impacts on functional species diversity: proposal of

Land use impacts on functional species diversity: proposal of characterization factors to assess effects on ecosystem processes
Danielle Maia de Souza, Dan Flynn, Fabrice Declerk, Ralph K. Rosenbaum, Henrique de Melo Lisboa, Thomas Koellner
[email protected]
EC – DG JRC – Unit H08
LC Impact Project / SoilTrEC Project
CONTENT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
CONCLUSION
Biodiversity measures
Functional diversity
Aim of the research
Data sources
Functional trait data
Statistical Analysis
Results for the t‐tests
Results for the ANOVA and
Post‐hoc tests
INTRODUCTION: BIODIVERSITY MEASURES
SPECIES RICHNESS
Species are treated in a relatively similar way, no matter
the role they play in their habitat (species are assigned an
equal weight, regardless of their functional characteristics)
FUNC. DIVERSITY
BUT, the loss of species also implies a change in the
ecosystem related functions and therefore, current studies
emphasize FD as a more appropriate indicator for
ecosystem functioning
INTRODUCTION: BIODIVERSITY MEASURES
SPECIES RICHNESS
Species are treated in a relatively similar way, no matter
the role they play in their habitat (species are assigned an
equal weight, regardless of their functional characteristics)
FUNC. DIVERSITY
Roles played by species
Reflection of the range and value of the quantifiable aspects of species, measured at the level of the individual
(Petchey et al. 2009)
Rules for assembly of species into communities
How species influence the ecosystems dynamics
FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY
Functional traits Basis for calculation of functional diversity
Inherent
measurable
organism
features
or
characteristics of organisms which can reveal the
organisms ability to respond to environmental
pressures or to cause effects on ecosystem processes
(Harrington et al. 2010)
Change of functional effects of organisms in an ecosystem
Redundancy & Complementarity of species functions
Functional response of other organisms, to that change
FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY MEASURES
Functional group richness (Discontinuous measures of species traits)
Examination of the characteristics of species and assignment of
species to functional groups, according to these characteristics.
Non‐grouping measures of functional diversity (Continuous measures of species traits)
Traits of species used as foundation for estimation of components
of dispersion of species in the trait space.
9 Measures directly using trait values
9 Distance‐based measures
9 Dendrogram‐based measures
Which traits ?
How many traits ?
Which metrics ?
AIM
Proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity in order assess the potential contribution to biodiversity measures in land use impact assessment
CFFD x CFSR
Different taxonomic groups
Different environmental structures
Different land use types
METHODS
DATA SOURCES
Mammals
8 studies (Peru, Costa Rica, Mexico, USA & Canada)
Birds
5 studies (Costa Rica, Mexico & USA)
Plants
7 studies (Costa Rica, Nicaragua, USA & Canada)
LU types
23 land use types
FUNCTIONAL TRAIT DATA Mammals
Resource Use &
Behavioral Traits
Birds
Mass
Feeding guild (e.g. insectivore)
Food type (e.g. fish, nectar)
Foraging location (e.g. mid canopy)
Foraging habitat (e.g. aerial, stems)
Mass
Feeding guild (e.g. carnivore)
Food type (e.g. fish, nectar)
Activity (e.g. nocturnal, diurnal)
Nesting (e.g. arboreal, terrestrial)
FUNCTIONAL TRAIT DATA Morphological &
Anatomical Traits
Plants
Leaf area
Height
Fruit type (e.g. fleshy, not fleshy)
Fruit length
Foliage (e.g. deciduous evergreen)
Growth from (e.g. tree, tall herb)
Foraging habitat (e.g. legume, not legume)
METHODOLOGICAL PATH
SPECIES RICHNESS
FD
FUNCTIONAL TRAITS
Land use types (23)
FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY VALUES
Ecoregions
(17)
NORMALIZED SPECIES RICHNESS (SR) VALUES
CFSR
NORMALIZED FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY (FD) VALUES
CFFD
Taxonomic groups (03)
Studies
(20)
FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY INDICATOR
1. Construction of a matrix containing species trait values.
2. Calculation of the multivariate distances between species, using these
trait values.
3. Hierarchical clustering of the distance matrix into a dendrogram (tree
diagram used to depict the arrangement of the clusters).
4. Calculation of FD values based on the total branch length of the
dendrogram, for the species in a particular community.
METHODOLOGICAL PATH
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PAIR‐WISE
t‐TESTS
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
ANOVA + Post‐Hoc Test
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
CFSR x CFFD
(each taxonomic group)
CFSR and CFFD (for each land use type)
Different choices for the reference state
(among natural or close‐to‐natural land
use types) and resulting changes
RESULTS
RESULTS FOR THE t‐TESTS (CFFD versus CFSR)
CFFD
CFSR
CFSR versus CFSR
Mean
St Dv
Mean
St Dv
Diff Mena
df
p
Birds
0.38
0.27
0.42
0.28
‐0.043
45
0.0007
Mammals
0.23
0.25
0.24
0.28
‐0.008
35
0.6293
Plants
0.01
0.24
‐0.16
0.45
0.169
40
0.0069
RESULTS FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LAND USE TYPES
Close to natural areas
Forest
Forest, prim.
Forest, second.
Forest, extens.
Results for CFFD
Results for CFSR
Agric., mosaic
Agric., arable, non‐irrig., intens.
Grassland
Pasture/Meadow
Wetlands, inland
Agric., mosaic
Agric., arable, non‐irrig., intens.
Grassland
Pasture/Meadow
Wetlands, inland
Agric. perm. crop, non‐irrigated
Traffic area, railroad, embankment
Agric., arable, non‐irrig., intens.
Grassland
Agric., arable, non‐irrig., intens.
Grassland
Agric., mosaic
Pasture/Meadow
Wetlands, inland
Agric. perm. crop, non‐irrigated
Close to natural areas
Results for CFFD
Results for CFSR
Field margins/ Hedgerows
Agric., arable, non‐irrig., intens.
Agric. perm. crop, non‐irrigated
Grassland
Agric., arable, non‐irrig., intens.
Lakes, artificial
Rivers, artificial
Shrubland
Agric., arable, non‐irrig., intens.
Grassland
Agric., arable, non‐irrig., intens.
Lakes, artificial
Agric., mosaic
Agric., arable, non‐irrig., intens.
Agric. perm. crop, non‐irrigated
Grassland
Pasture/Meadow
Wetlands, inland
Agric., mosaic
Agric., arable, non‐irrig., intens.
Agric. perm. crop, non‐irrigated
Grassland
Pasture/Meadow
Wetlands, inland
Field margins/Hedgerows
Grassland for livestock/grazing
Traffic area, railroad, embankment
Rivers, artificial
LAND USE TYPES – CHARACTERIZATION FACTORS
Land use type category
Land use type sub‐category
Agriculture, intensive
Agriculture, mosaic
Agric. arable, non‐irrigated, intensive
Agric. perm. crop, non‐irrigated
Agricultural (other)
Forest
Grassland & Pasture
Agriculture, arable
Forest
Forest, natural
Forest, primary
Forest, secondary
Grassland
Pasture/Meadow
Lakes
Rivers
Lakes, artificial
Shrubland
Wetlands
Shrubland
Rivers, artificial
Wetlands, inland
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Taxonomic group
Mammals
Study
Husband (2009)
Mayfield et al. (2006)
Plants
Birds
Sanchez Merlos et al. (2005b)
Middleton & Merriam (1983)
Sanchez Merlos et al. (2005a)
Best et al. (1995)
Previous Reference Reference LU type applied in the new LU type
analysis
Forest (data 2005)
Forest (data 2006)
Forest, primary (tree‐fall gap in Forest, primary forested area)
(forested riverbank) Forest, primary (understory in forested area)
Forest, natural
Forest, extensive
Forest, natural
Floodplain forest
Forest, secondary
Forest, primary
Forest, secondary
Grassland (Upland forest)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LU types
9 Distinct CFs should apply for at least 8 land use types (among
the 23 identified):
Data availability on species versus land use types detailed
description.
9 Choice of adequate indicator or aggregated indices
Parameters to be considered
Consideration of different taxonomic groups, by means of different indices
9 Functional diversity
Consensus about traits? Measures?