DOCSLIB.ORG

Dominance and Diversity Dominance Uses of Dominance Determining

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dominance and Diversity Dominance Uses of Dominance Determining Dominance and Diversity Dominance •Dominant – most conspicuous and abundant species •Dominance – relative importance of a species related to degree of influence it has on ecosystem components – Soils, other plants, animals • Based on competition for resources – Light, water, nutrients, space • Difficult to measure belowground influence Uses of Dominance Determining Dominance • Used to characterize plant communities, • Can be species, functional group, or plant habitat types and ecological sites life form based • Help identify system responses to climate and • Use several vegetation measures to arrive disease at dominant species • Useful for management – Frequency, density, biomass, cover • Dominants as indicators of proper management Determinates of Diversity In general: IF environmental complexity, THEN species diversity 1 Species Richness • Species richness - # of species – Done several times of year due to different phenologies – Labor intensive • Subsample using quadrats transect quadrat 1965 Species Richness **Can use line-point method supplemented by thorough searches for other species Increase in # of species: 1. Sampling more individuals increase chances of new species 2. Larger area is more environmentally heterogenous Herrick et al. 2009 Volume II Gurevitch et al. 2006, The Ecology of Plants Species Richness Species Evenness • Species evenness – relative abundance of species • HOWEVER, quadrat size depends on what plants are sampled – Trees v. grasses v. mosses 2 Measuring Diversity Calculating Diversity •Simpson’s Index: • Incorporates species richness and evenness s • Based on either: D = Σ (p 2) i=1 i – # individuals –biomass •D = Value of Simpson’s diversity index. •pi = proportion of individuals in the ith species. •s = # of species Calculating Diversity Calculating Diversity •Simpson’s Index: s s • Inverse of Simpson’s Index 2 D = Σ (pi ) D = Σ n (n -1) i=1 i=1 i i N(N-1) D •D = Value of Simpson’s diversity index. – As index increases, diversity decreases •ni = # of individuals (or biomass) in the ith species. 1 •N = total # of individuals or total biomass for all D species. – As index increases, diversity increases Advantages and Disadvantages Calculating Diversity of Simpson’s Index • Shannon-Wiener Index: • Does not require all species be s H’ = - Σ pi x ln(pi) represented i=1 • Measures chance that two individuals are •H’ = value of S-W diversity index. from same species •pi = proportion of individuals in the ith • Sensitive to changes in common species species. • Weighted towards most abundant species •ln = natural logarithm. • Opposite of dominance •s = Number of species in community. 3 Calculating Diversity Advantages and Disadvantages • Shannon-Wiener Index: Shannon-Wiener’s Index s s n n i x ln i • All species must be represented H’ = - Σ pi x ln(pi) H’ = - Σ ( N ) ( N ) i=1 i=1 • Relatively easy to calculate • Sensitive to changes in rare species •H’ = value of S-W diversity index. •ni = # of individuals (or biomass) in the ith species. •N = total # of individuals or total biomass •ln = natural logarithm. •s = number of species in community. Ch. 13 Diversity and Productivity Diversity and Productivity Great Smoky Mtns. North Dakota grassland Grasslands & forest - Estonia Fen in United Kingdom Gurevitch et al. 2006, The Ecology of Plants Diversity and Productivity Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis Connell 1978 4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Meadow Pond Final Report 1-28-10
    Comparison of Restoration Techniques to Reduce Dominance of Phragmites australis at Meadow Pond, Hampton New Hampshire FINAL REPORT January 28, 2010 David M. Burdick1,2 Christopher R. Peter1 Gregg E. Moore1,3 Geoff Wilson4 1 - Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824 2 – Natural Resources and the Environment, UNH 3 – Department of Biological Sciences, UNH 4 – Northeast Wetland Restoration, Berwick ME 03901 Submitted to: New Hampshire Coastal Program New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 50 International Drive Pease Tradeport Portsmouth, NH 03801 UNH Burdick et al. 2010 Executive Summary The northern portion of Meadow Pond Marsh remained choked with an invasive exotic variety of Phragmites australis (common reed) in 2002, despite tidal restoration in 1995. Our project goal was to implement several construction techniques to reduce the dominance of Phragmites and then examine the ecological responses of the system (as a whole as well as each experimental treatment) to inform future restoration actions at Meadow Pond. The construction treatments were: creeks, creeks and pools, sediment excavation with a large pool including native marsh plantings. Creek construction increased tides at all treatments so that more tides flooded the marsh and the highest spring tides increased to 30 cm. Soil salinity increased at all treatment areas following restoration, but also increased at control areas, so greater soil salinity could not be attributed to the treatments. Decreases in Phragmites cover were not statistically significant, but treatment areas did show significant increases in native vegetation following restoration. Fish habitat was also increased by creek and pool construction and excavation, so that pool fish density increased from 1 to 40 m-2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution and Genomic Basis of Beetle Diversity
    The evolution and genomic basis of beetle diversity Duane D. McKennaa,b,1,2, Seunggwan Shina,b,2, Dirk Ahrensc, Michael Balked, Cristian Beza-Bezaa,b, Dave J. Clarkea,b, Alexander Donathe, Hermes E. Escalonae,f,g, Frank Friedrichh, Harald Letschi, Shanlin Liuj, David Maddisonk, Christoph Mayere, Bernhard Misofe, Peyton J. Murina, Oliver Niehuisg, Ralph S. Petersc, Lars Podsiadlowskie, l m l,n o f l Hans Pohl , Erin D. Scully , Evgeny V. Yan , Xin Zhou , Adam Slipinski , and Rolf G. Beutel aDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; bCenter for Biodiversity Research, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; cCenter for Taxonomy and Evolutionary Research, Arthropoda Department, Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; dBavarian State Collection of Zoology, Bavarian Natural History Collections, 81247 Munich, Germany; eCenter for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; fAustralian National Insect Collection, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia; gDepartment of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Institute for Biology I (Zoology), University of Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany; hInstitute of Zoology, University of Hamburg, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany; iDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Wien, Wien 1030, Austria; jChina National GeneBank, BGI-Shenzhen, 518083 Guangdong, People’s Republic of China; kDepartment of Integrative Biology, Oregon State
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity and Trophic Ecology of Hydrothermal Vent Fauna Associated with Tubeworm Assemblages on the Juan De Fuca Ridge
    Biogeosciences, 15, 2629–2647, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-2629-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Biodiversity and trophic ecology of hydrothermal vent fauna associated with tubeworm assemblages on the Juan de Fuca Ridge Yann Lelièvre1,2, Jozée Sarrazin1, Julien Marticorena1, Gauthier Schaal3, Thomas Day1, Pierre Legendre2, Stéphane Hourdez4,5, and Marjolaine Matabos1 1Ifremer, Centre de Bretagne, REM/EEP, Laboratoire Environnement Profond, 29280 Plouzané, France 2Département de sciences biologiques, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, Canada 3Laboratoire des Sciences de l’Environnement Marin (LEMAR), UMR 6539 9 CNRS/UBO/IRD/Ifremer, BP 70, 29280, Plouzané, France 4Sorbonne Université, UMR7144, Station Biologique de Roscoff, 29680 Roscoff, France 5CNRS, UMR7144, Station Biologique de Roscoff, 29680 Roscoff, France Correspondence: Yann Lelièvre ([email protected]) Received: 3 October 2017 – Discussion started: 12 October 2017 Revised: 29 March 2018 – Accepted: 7 April 2018 – Published: 4 May 2018 Abstract. Hydrothermal vent sites along the Juan de Fuca community structuring. Vent food webs did not appear to be Ridge in the north-east Pacific host dense populations of organised through predator–prey relationships. For example, Ridgeia piscesae tubeworms that promote habitat hetero- although trophic structure complexity increased with ecolog- geneity and local diversity. A detailed description of the ical successional stages, showing a higher number of preda- biodiversity and community structure is needed to help un- tors in the last stages, the food web structure itself did not derstand the ecological processes that underlie the distribu- change across assemblages.
    [Show full text]
  • Vertical and Horizontal Trophic Networks in the Aroid-Infesting Insect Community of Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, Mexico
    insects Article Vertical and Horizontal Trophic Networks in the Aroid-Infesting Insect Community of Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, Mexico Guadalupe Amancio 1 , Armando Aguirre-Jaimes 1, Vicente Hernández-Ortiz 1,* , Roger Guevara 2 and Mauricio Quesada 3,4 1 Red de Interacciones Multitróficas, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz 91073, Mexico 2 Red de Biologia Evolutiva, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz 91073, Mexico 3 Laboratorio Nacional de Análisis y Síntesis Ecológica, Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Morelia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia 58190 Michoacán, Mexico 4 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia 58190 Michoacán, Mexico * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 June 2019; Accepted: 9 August 2019; Published: 15 August 2019 Abstract: Insect-aroid interaction studies have focused largely on pollination systems; however, few report trophic interactions with other herbivores. This study features the endophagous insect community in reproductive aroid structures of a tropical rainforest of Mexico, and the shifting that occurs along an altitudinal gradient and among different hosts. In three sites of the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, we surveyed eight aroid species over a yearly cycle. The insects found were reared in the laboratory, quantified and identified. Data were analyzed through species interaction networks. We recorded 34 endophagous species from 21 families belonging to four insect orders. The community was highly specialized at both network and species levels. Along the altitudinal gradient, there was a reduction in richness and a high turnover of species, while the assemblage among hosts was also highly specific, with different dominant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Variability of Large Marine Ecosystems in Response to Global Climate Change
    Sherman et al. ICESCM 2007/D:20 ICES CM 2007/D:20 Variability of Large Marine Ecosystems in response to global climate change K. Sherman, I. Belkin, J. O’Reilly and K. Hyde Kenneth Sherman, John O’Reilly, Kimberly Hyde USDOC/NOAA, NMFS Narragansett Laboratory 28 Tarzwell Drive Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 USA +1 401-782-3210 phone +1 401 782-3201 FAX [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Igor Belkin Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island 215 South Ferry Road Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 USA +1 401 874-6728 phone +1 401 874-6728 FAX [email protected] Abstract: A fifty year time series of sea surface temperature (SST) and time series on fishery yields are examined for emergent patterns relative to climate change. More recent SeaWiFS derived chlorophyll and primary productivity data were also included in the examination. Of the 64 LMEs examined, 61 showed an emergent pattern of SST increases from 1957 to 2006, ranging from mean annual values of 0.08°C to 1.35°C. The rate of surface warming in LMEs from 1957 to 2006 is 4 to 8 times greater than the recent estimate of the Japan Meteorological Society’s COBE estimate for the world oceans. Effects of SST warming on fisheries, climate change, and trophic cascading are examined. Concern is expressed on the possible effects of surface layer warming in relation to thermocline formation and possible inhibition of vertical nutrient mixing within the water column in relation to bottom up effects of chlorophyll and primary productivity on global fisheries resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Plant Dominance
    Measuring Plant Dominance I. Definition = measure of the relative importance of a plant species with repsect to the degree of influence that the species exerts on the other components (e.g., other plants, animal, soils) of the community. A. Influence based on competition for resources (e.g., light, water, nutrients) B. Difficult to measure influence below ground so dominance is usually estimated with above ground characteristics. II. Types of Dominance A. Aspect dominance: 1. Tallest layer is the dominant layer (reduces climatic extremes by intercepting light and precipitation, reducing wind velocity, and retaining heat). 2. Limitation: Ignores an understory that may be changing while the dominant plant remains the same B. Sociologic dominance 1. Used when interested in understory dominance. (Often used when overstory is constant and unchanging). 2. Limitation: doesn’t work well in systems with diverse overstory species C. Relative dominance 1. Examines the dominant species in each layer of the plant community 2. Useful for multiple use management (overcomes limitations of first two types) III. Why monitory dominance? A. Dominant species are often used to identify or classify and ecological type (e.g., Art.tri/Agr.spi. habitat type). B. If the dominant spp are identified, one can predict changes that may occur in response to long-term precipitation changes or disease. C. If the dominant spp are identified, management options can be more clearly understood. D. Can be used in long-term monitoring programs to determine if management or preservation regimes are positively affecting the ecosystem. IV. Evaluating dominance: A. Can be a single species, a group of species, or and entire growth form B.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridging the Gap Between Ecological Diversity Indices and Measures of Biodiversity with Shannon’S Entropy: Comment to Izsa´K and Papp
    Ecological Modelling 152 (2002) 1–3 www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel Bridging the gap between ecological diversity indices and measures of biodiversity with Shannon’s entropy: comment to Izsa´k and Papp Carlo Ricotta * Department of Plant Biology, Uni6ersity of Rome ‘‘La Sapienza’’, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy Received 31 May 2001; accepted 11 October 2001 Abstract Most ecological diversity indices summarize the information about the relative abundances of community species without reflecting taxonomic differences between species. Nevertheless, in the environmental conservation practice, data on species abundances are generally unknown. In such cases, to summarize the conservation value of a given site, so-called ‘biological diversity’ measures need to be used. Most of these measures are based on taxonomic relations among species and ignore species relative abundances. In a recent paper, Izsa´k and Papp suggest that the quadratic entropy index (Q) is the only diversity index used to date in the ecological practice that incorporates both species relative abundances and a measure of the pairwise taxonomic differences between species in the analyzed data set. I show here that a number of traditional ecological diversity measures can be generalized to take into account a taxonomic weighting factor. Since these new indices violate part of the mathematical properties that an index should meet to be termed an ecological diversity index, I defined this new family of indices ‘weak diversity indices’. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Biodiversity measures; Ecological diversity; Quadratic entropy; Shannon’s entropy; Species richness 1. Introduction data on species abundances are generally un- known.
    [Show full text]
  • Lakes: Ann, Gilchrist, Grove, Leven, Reno, Villard, Smith)
    Status and Trend Monitoring Summary for Selected Pope and Douglas County, Minnesota Lakes 2000 (Lakes: Ann, Gilchrist, Grove, Leven, Reno, Villard, Smith) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Environmental Outcomes Division Environmental Monitoring and Analysis Section Andrea Plevan and Steve Heiskary September 2001 Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10 percent fibers from paper recycled by consumers. This material may be made available in other formats, including Braille, large format and audiotape. MPCA Status and Trend Monitoring Summary for 2000 Pope County Lakes Part 1: Purpose of study and background information on MN lakes The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) core lake-monitoring programs include the Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP), the Lake Assessment Program (LAP), and the Clean Water Partnership (CWP) Program. In addition to these programs, the MPCA annually monitors numerous lakes to provide baseline water quality data, provide data for potential LAP and CWP lakes, characterize lake conditions in different regions of the state, examine year-to-year variability in ecoregion reference lakes, and provide additional trophic status data for lakes exhibiting trends in Secchi transparency. In the latter case, we attempt to determine if the trends in Secchi transparency are “real,” i.e., if supporting trophic status data substantiate whether a change in trophic status has occurred. The lake sampling efforts also provide a means to respond to citizen concerns about protecting or improving the lake in cases where no data exists to evaluate the quality of the lake. For efficient sampling, we tend to select geographic clusters of lakes (e.g., focus on a specific county) whenever possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Dominance: a Behavioral Mechanism for Resource Allocation in Crayfish
    SOCIAL DOMINANCE: A BEHAVIORAL MECHANISM FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN CRAYFISH Kandice Christine Fero A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2008 Committee: Paul Moore, Advisor Verner Bingman Graduate Faculty Representative Sheryl Coombs Rex Lowe Steve Vessey ii ABSTRACT Paul Moore, Advisor Social dominance is often equated with priority of access to resources and higher relative fitness. But the consequences of dominance are not always readily advantageous for an individual and therefore, testing of such assumptions is needed in order to appropriately characterize mechanisms of resource competition in animal systems. This dissertation examined the ecological consequences of dominance in crayfish. Specifically, the following questions were addressed: is resource allocation determined by dominance and how does the structure of resources in an environment affect dominance relationships? By examining the mechanism of how dominance may allocate resources in groups of crayfish, we can begin to answer questions concerning what environmental selective pressures are shaping social behavior in this system. Shelter acquisition and use was examined in a combination of natural, semi-natural, and laboratory studies in order to observe dominance relationships under ecologically relevant conditions. The work presented here shows that: (1) social status has persisting behavioral consequences with regard to shelter use, which are modulated by social context; (2) dominance relationships influence the spatial distribution of crayfish in natural environments such that dominant individuals possess access to more space; (3) resource use strategies differ depending on social history and these strategies may influence larger scale segregation across habitats; and finally, (4) shelter distribution modulates the extent to which social history and shelter ownership influence the formation of subsequent dominance relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Biodiversity Lab
    SCIENCE IN THE PARK: ROCK POOLS SPECIES BIODIVERSITY LAB Purpose: To understand the importance of biodiversity, calculate the indices of the Simpson’s Index, and quantify the biodiversity of a sample. Developed by E. A. Betts Time: 40 minutes BACKGROUND: Simpson's Diversity Index is a measure of diversity. In ecology, it is often used to quantify the biodiversity of a habitat. It takes into account the number of species present, as well as the abundance of each species. Before looking at Simpson's Diversity Index in more detail, it is important to understand the basic concepts. Biological diversity can be quantified in many different ways. The two main factors taken into account when measuring diversity are richness and evenness. Richness is a measure of the number of different kinds of organisms present in a particular area. For example, species richness is the number of different species present. However, diversity depends not only on richness, but also on evenness. Evenness compares the similarity of the population size of each of the species present. Richness - The number of species per sample is a measure of richness. The more species present in a sample, the 'richer' the sample. Species richness as a measure on its own takes no account of the number of individuals of each species present. It gives as much weight to those species which have very few individuals as to those which have many individuals. Thus, one daisy has as much influence on the richness of an area as 1000 buttercups. Evenness - Evenness is a measure of the relative abundance of the different species that make up the richness of an area.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems Peter M
    : . - : :: : . .. :: .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ...... ........ .. .... ..... ...... .. ... ... .... ... ..:. : .: :. : :::. ..:. :. .. ...5 .::.X'jC:' jj : 00 ,: ;; ;dA SV D ) 0 Sa C::: dS:: : :'; .SS;d. ;id)fV A .:Q ....;: ..:: ....; .: .: ..0 .....:: Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems Peter M. Vitousek, HaroldA. Mooney, Jane Lubchenco, Jerry M. Melillo Humanalteration of Earthis substantialand growing. Between one-thirdand one-half interactwith the atmosphere,with aquatic of the land surface has been transformedby human action; the carbon dioxide con- systems,and with surroundingland. More- centrationin the atmosphere has increased by nearly30 percent since the beginningof over, land transformationinteracts strongly the IndustrialRevolution; more atmospheric nitrogen is fixed by humanitythan by all with most other componentsof global en- naturalterrestrial sources combined;more than halfof all accessible surface fresh water vironmentalchange. is put to use by humanity;and about one-quarterof the birdspecies on Earthhave been The measurementof land transforma- drivento extinction. By these and other standards, it is clear that we live on a human- tion on a globalscale is challenging;chang- dominated planet. es can be measuredmore or less straightfor- wardly at a given site, but it is difficult to aggregatethese changesregionally and glo- bally. In contrastto analysesof human al- Aii organismsmodify their environment, reasonablywell quantified;all are ongoing. teration of the global carbon cycle, we and humans are no exception.
    [Show full text]
  • Indexes of Group Diversity 1 Some Common Indexes Of
    INDEXES OF GROUP DIVERSITY 1 SOME COMMON INDEXES OF GROUP DIVERSITY: UPPER BOUNDARIES1,2 ANTONIO SOLANAS Department of Behavioral Sciences Methods, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona Institute for Research in Brain, Cognition, and Behavior (IR3C), University of Barcelona REJINA M. SELVAM Department of Behavioral Sciences Methods, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona Institute for Research in Brain, Cognition, and Behavior (IR3C), University of Barcelona JOSÉ NAVARRO Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona DAVID LEIVA Department of Behavioral Sciences Methods, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona Institute for Research in Brain, Cognition, and Behavior (IR3C), University of Barcelona 1 Address correspondence to Antonio Solanas, Departament de Metodologia de les Ciències del Comportament, Facultat de Psicologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron, 171, 08035-Barcelona, Spain. Electronic mail may be sent to Antonio Solanas at: ([email protected]) 2This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, grant PSI2009-07076 and by the Generalitat of Catalonia’s Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca, grant 2009SGR1492. INDEXES OF GROUP DIVERSITY 2 Summary. —Workgroup diversity can be conceptualized as variety, separation, or disparity. Thus, the proper operationalization of diversity depends on how a diversity dimension has been defined. Analytically, the minimal diversity must be obtained when there are no differences
    [Show full text]