FN Archimer Export Format
PT J
TI Forest fragmentation shapes the alpha–gamma relationship in plant diversity
BT 
AF Almoussawi, Ali
   Lenoir, Jonathan
   Jamoneau, Aurélien
   Hattab, Tarek
   Wasof, Safaa
   Gallet‐Moron, Emilie
   Garzon‐Lopez, Carol X.
   Spicher, Fabien
   Kobaissi, Ahmad
   Decocq, Guillaume
   Collins, Beverly
AS 1:1,2;2:1;3:1,3;4:1,4;5:1,5;6:1;7:1,6;8:1;9:2;10:1;11:;
FF 1:;2:;3:;4:PDG-RBE-MARBEC-LHM;5:;6:;7:;8:;9:;10:;11:;
C1 Unité de Recherche “Ecologie et Dynamique des Systèmes Anthropisés” EDYSAN UMR CNRS 7058 , Université de Picardie Jules Verne Amiens ,France
   Applied Plant Biotechnology Laboratory Life and Earth Sciences Department Faculty of Sciences Lebanese University Beirut ,Lebanon
   Aquatic Ecosystems and Global Changes Research Unit, IRSTEA ,Cestas ,France
   UMR MARBEC ,Institut Français de Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer Sète ,France
   Department of Environment, Forest & Nature Lab (ForNaLab) Ghent University ,Melle‐Gontrode ,Belgium
   Ecology and Plant Physiology group (Ecofiv), Universidad de los Andes Bogotá, Colombia
C2 UNIV PICARDIE JULES VERNE, FRANCE
   UNIV LEBANESE, LEBANON
   IRSTEA, FRANCE
   IFREMER, FRANCE
   UNIV GHENT, BELGIUM
   UNIV LOS ANDES, COLOMBIA
SI SETE
SE PDG-RBE-MARBEC-LHM
UM MARBEC
IN WOS Ifremer UMR
   copubli-france
   copubli-p187
   copubli-europe
   copubli-int-hors-europe
   copubli-sud
IF 2.685
TC 8
UR https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00592/70438/68577.pdf
LA English
DT Article
DE ;agricultural landscapes;alpha diversity;anthropogenic disturbances;community assembly;dispersal limitations;gamma diversity;habitat conservation strategies;habitat fragmentation;local-regional richness relationship;metacommunity dynamics
AB Questions Forest fragmentation affects biodiversity locally (α diversity) and beyond — at relatively larger scales (γ diversity) — by increasing dispersal and recruitment limitations. Yet, does an increase in fragmentation affect the relationship between α and γ diversity and what can we learn from it? Location Northern France. Methods We surveyed 116 forest patches across three fragmentation levels: none (continuous forest); intermediate (forest patches connected by hedgerows); and high (isolated forest patches). Plant species richness of both forest specialists and generalists was surveyed at five nested spatial resolutions across each forest patch: 1 m2; 10 m2; 100 m2; 1,000 m2; and total forest patch area. First, we ran log‐ratio models to quantify the α–γ relationship. We did that separately for all possible combinations of fragmentation level (none vs intermediate vs high) × spatial scale (e.g., α‐1 m2 vs γ‐10 m2) × species type (e.g., α‐specialists vs γ‐specialists). We then used linear mixed‐effects models to analyze the effect of fragmentation level, spatial scale, species type and all two‐way interaction terms on the slope coefficient extracted from all log‐ratio models. Results We found an interaction effect between fragmentation level and species type, such that forest specialists shifted from a linear (i.e., proportional sampling) to a curvilinear plateau (i.e., community saturation) relationship at low and high fragmentation, respectively, while generalists shifted from a curvilinear to a linear pattern. Conclusions The impact of forest fragmentation on the α–γ relationship supports generalist species persistence over forest specialists, with contrasting mechanisms for these two guilds. As fragmentation increases, forest specialists shift from proportional sampling towards community saturation, thus reducing α diversity likely due to dispersal limitation. Contrariwise, generalists shift from community saturation towards proportional sampling, thus increasing α diversity likely due to an increase in the edge:core ratio. To ensure long‐term conservation of forest specialists, one single large forest patch should be preferred over several small ones. 
PY 2020
PD JAN
SO Journal Of Vegetation Science
SN 1100-9233
PU Wiley
VL 31
IS 1
UT 000493723100001
BP 63
EP 74
DI 10.1111/jvs.12817
ID 70438
ER

EF