DOCSLIB.ORG

Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change. a Synthesis of the Biodiversity/Resilience/Stability Relationship in Forest Ecosystems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change. a Synthesis of the Biodiversity/Resilience/Stability Relationship in Forest Ecosystems Secretariat of the CBD Technical Series No. Convention on Biological Diversity Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change A Synthesis of the Biodiversity/Resilience/ Stability Relationship43 in Forest Ecosystems FOREST RESILIENCE, BIODIVERSITY, AND CLIMATE CHANGE A Synthesis of the Biodiversity/Resilience/Stability Relationship in Forest Ecosystems Ian Thompson, Canadian Forest Service, 1219 Queen St. East, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada P6A 2E5 Brendan Mackey, The Australian National University, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Canberra ACT, 200 Australia Steven McNulty, USDA Forest Service, Southern, Global Change Program, Department of Forestry and Environ- mental Resources, North Carolina State University, 920 Main Campus Dr., Suite 300, Raleigh, NC 27606 USA Alex Mosseler, Canadian Forest Service, 1350 Regent Street South, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B 5P7 Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change Acknowledgements This document was prepared by Ian Thompson (Canadian Forest Service), Brendan Mackey (The Australian National University and The Fenner School of Environment and Society), Steven McNulty (USDA Forest Service), and Alex Mosseler (Canadian Forest Service). The authors would like to thank the following persons and organizations for providing comments on an earlier draft of this paper: Z. Bennadji (FAO), A. Campbell (WCMC), T. Christophersen (CBD), P. Dewees (World Bank), S. Ferrier (CSIRO), V. Kapos (WCMC), P. Mayer (IUFRO), R. Nasi (CIFOR), J. Parrotta (U.S. Forest Service), O.L. Phillips (University of Leeds), J.A. Prado (FAO), C. Saint-Laurent (IUCN), B. Schamp (Algoma University), the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), and the United Na- tions Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the Government of Norway. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the Government of Norway. Published by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. ISBN 92-9225-137-6 Copyright © 2009, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Cover photo credits (from top to bottom): A. Couillaud, A. Zemdega, P. Skubisz, T. Gage The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the copyright holders concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication may be reproduced for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holders, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. Citation: Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., Mosseler, A. (2009). Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change. A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 43, 67 pages. For further information please contact: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity World Trade Centre 413 St. Jacques, Suite 800 Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9 Phone: 1 (514) 288 2220 Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://cbd.int 2 Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change Table of Contents Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................................4 Foreword ......................................................................................................................................................................6 Summary for Policy-makers .....................................................................................................................................7 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................9 1.1 Forests, climate, and climate change ......................................................................................................9 1.2 Definitions of and related to resilience ................................................................................................10 1.3 Components of biodiversity and definitions ......................................................................................12 1.4 Issues of scale and resilience .................................................................................................................13 2. Genetic diversity and resilience to change ........................................................................................................13 3. The relationships among biodiversity, productivity and function, and resilience and stability ................17 3.1 Theoretical background .........................................................................................................................17 3.2 Evidence of a diversity productivity relationship in forests ..............................................................18 3.2.1 Diversity-productivity relationships and forest resilience .........................................................21 3.3 Diversity and stability ............................................................................................................................22 3.3.1 Diversity and invasion of ecosystems ...........................................................................................23 3.3.2 Diversity and insect pests ...............................................................................................................24 3.3.3 Diversity and stability of processes in forests ..............................................................................25 3.4 Summary of diversity-resilience processes .........................................................................................25 4. Resilience, biodiversity, and forest carbon dynamics ......................................................................................25 4.1 Forests and the global carbon cycle .....................................................................................................25 4.2 Biodiversity and resilience of forest-carbon dynamics......................................................................27 5. Case studies of forest resilience and comparisons under climate change by forest biome .........................30 5.1 Boreal forest biome ................................................................................................................................30 5.1.1 Climate change and boreal forest resilience.................................................................................31 5.1.2 Case-study: western North American lodgepole pine ...............................................................31 5.1.3 Case-study: North American boreal mixedwoods .....................................................................31 5.2 Temperate forest biome .........................................................................................................................34 5.2.1 Temperate Forests and Environmental Stressors ........................................................................34 5.2.2 Case-study: Moist evergreen temperate forests ...........................................................................34 5.2.3 Case-study: southern Europe ........................................................................................................37 5.2.4 Case-study: eastern North American deciduous forests ............................................................37 5.3 Tropical forests ........................................................................................................................................39 5.3.1 Climate change and tropical forest resilience ..............................................................................41 5.3.2 Case study: Amazon rain forest .....................................................................................................41 5.4 Summary among forest biomes ............................................................................................................43 6. Conclusions and ecological principles ..............................................................................................................43 6.1 Ecological principles to foster forest ecosystem resilience and stability under climate change ...44 7. Literature cited ......................................................................................................................................................46 3 Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change Glossary Term Definition Source Adaptation Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or ex- UNFCCC pected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or ex- ploits beneficial opportunities. Adaptive The ultimate source of adaptive capacity in an ecosystem is the genetic capacity diversity within the populations of its component Biodiversity The variability among living organisms from all sources including ter- CBD or biological restrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological com- diversity plexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, among species, and of ecosystems. Biomass Organic material both above ground and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arachnozoogeographical Analysis of the Boundary Between Eastern Palearctic and Indomalayan Region
    Historia naturalis bulgarica, 23: 5-36, 2016 Arachnozoogeographical analysis of the boundary between Eastern Palearctic and Indomalayan Region Petar Beron Abstract: This study aims to test how the distribution of various orders of Arachnida follows the classical subdivision of Asia and where the transitional zone between the Eastern Palearctic (Holarctic Kingdom) and the Indomalayan Region (Paleotropic) is situated. This boundary includes Thar Desert, Karakorum, Himalaya, a band in Central China, the line north of Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands. The conclusion is that most families of Arachnida (90), excluding most of the representatives of Acari, are common for the Palearctic and Indomalayan Regions. There are no endemic orders or suborders in any of them. Regarding Arach- nida, their distribution does not justify the sharp difference between the two Kingdoms (Paleotropical and Holarctic) in Eastern Eurasia. The transitional zone (Sino-Japanese Realm) of Holt et al. (2013) also does not satisfy the criteria for outlining an area on the same footing as the Palearctic and Indomalayan Realms. Key words: Palearctic, Indomalayan, Arachnozoogeography, Arachnida According to the classical subdivision the region’s high mountains and plateaus. In southern Indomalayan Region is formed from the regions in Asia the boundary of the Palearctic is largely alti- Asia that are south of the Himalaya, and a zone in tudinal. The foothills of the Himalaya with average China. North of this “line” is the Palearctic (consist- altitude between about 2000 – 2500 m a.s.l. form the ing og different subregions). This “line” (transitional boundary between the Palearctic and Indomalaya zone) is separating two kingdoms, therefore the dif- Ecoregions.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Boreal Forests
    Forest Area Key Facts & Carbon Emissions Russia’s Boreal Forests from Deforestation Forest location and brief description Russia is home to more than one-fifth of the world’s forest areas (approximately 763.5 million hectares). The Russian landscape is highly diverse, including polar deserts, arctic and sub-arctic tundra, boreal and semi-tundra larch forests, boreal and temperate coniferous forests, temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, forest-steppe and steppe (temperate grasslands, savannahs, and shrub-lands), semi-deserts and deserts. Russian boreal forests (known in Russia as the taiga) represent the largest forested region on Earth (approximately 12 million km2), larger than the Amazon. These forests have relatively few tree species, and are composed mainly of birch, pine, spruce, fir, with some deciduous species. Mixed in among the forests are bogs, fens, marshes, shallow lakes, rivers and wetlands, which hold vast amounts of water. They contain more than 55 per cent of the world’s conifers, and 11 per cent of the world’s biomass. Unique qualities of forest area Russia’s boreal region includes several important Global 200 ecoregions - a science-based global ranking of the Earth’s most biologically outstanding habitats. Among these is the Eastern-Siberian Taiga, which contains the largest expanse of untouched boreal forest in the world. Russia’s largest populations of brown bear, moose, wolf, red fox, reindeer, and wolverine can be found in this region. Bird species include: the Golden eagle, Black- billed capercaillie, Siberian Spruce grouse, Siberian accentor, Great gray owl, and Naumann’s thrush. Russia’s forests are also home to the Siberian tiger and Far Eastern leopard.
    [Show full text]
  • North Yukon Planning Region Biophysical Landscape Classification
    North Yukon Planning Region Biophysical Landscape Classification (Landscape Types): Overview, Methods and Reference Images T F DRA Updated October 20, 2005 Project Team • John Meikle, Yukon Environment • Marcus Waterreus, Yukon Environment • Shawn Francis, NYPC • Jeff Hamm, YLUPC • Nancy Steffen, GLL • Biophysical working group – initial terrain and bioclimate concepts STUDY AREA • North Yukon Planning Region (55,000 km2) • Taiga Cordillera Ecozone • 6 Ecoregions: Eagle Plains, Old Crow Flats, Old Crow Basin, North Ogilvie Mountains, Davidson Mountains, Richardson Mountains • Basin, Plateau and Mountain Landscapes STUDY AREA Physiographic Basin Units and Ecodistricts Mountain Basin Plateau Old Crow Plateau Mountain Mountain MAPPING CONCEPTS • Mountain landscapes organized by elevation (Bioclimate Zone); Plateau landscapes organized by relative moisture gradient (Ecosite) • Beyond major Basin landscapes, surficial materials not controlling factor (unglaciated) • Mapping has regional applications (1:100K- 1:250K) • Available data sources are major determinant of potential methods DATA INPUTS • EOSD (25m LANDSAT Extent of 250K Regional Terrain supervised classification) Map (raster) • 90m DEM (raster) • 250K regional terrain map North Yukon Planning Region (vector) Peel Watershed …..due to importance of Planning Region EOSD and DEM, raster mapping approach was chosen METHODS • Field reconnaissance; develop concepts • Create regional terrain and Bioclimate Zone map through manual interpretation (refine Ecoregions and Ecodistricts to 250K)
    [Show full text]
  • Responses of Plant Communities to Grazing in the Southwestern United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service
    Responses of Plant Communities to Grazing in the Southwestern United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Daniel G. Milchunas General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-169 April 2006 Milchunas, Daniel G. 2006. Responses of plant communities to grazing in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-169. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 126 p. Abstract Grazing by wild and domestic mammals can have small to large effects on plant communities, depend- ing on characteristics of the particular community and of the type and intensity of grazing. The broad objective of this report was to extensively review literature on the effects of grazing on 25 plant commu- nities of the southwestern U.S. in terms of plant species composition, aboveground primary productiv- ity, and root and soil attributes. Livestock grazing management and grazing systems are assessed, as are effects of small and large native mammals and feral species, when data are available. Emphasis is placed on the evolutionary history of grazing and productivity of the particular communities as deter- minants of response. After reviewing available studies for each community type, we compare changes in species composition with grazing among community types. Comparisons are also made between southwestern communities with a relatively short history of grazing and communities of the adjacent Great Plains with a long evolutionary history of grazing. Evidence for grazing as a factor in shifts from grasslands to shrublands is considered. An appendix outlines a new community classification system, which is followed in describing grazing impacts in prior sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Taiga Plains
    ECOLOGICAL REGIONS OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Taiga Plains Ecosystem Classification Group Department of Environment and Natural Resources Government of the Northwest Territories Revised 2009 ECOLOGICAL REGIONS OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES TAIGA PLAINS This report may be cited as: Ecosystem Classification Group. 2007 (rev. 2009). Ecological Regions of the Northwest Territories – Taiga Plains. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NT, Canada. viii + 173 pp. + folded insert map. ISBN 0-7708-0161-7 Web Site: http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/index.html For more information contact: Department of Environment and Natural Resources P.O. Box 1320 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2L9 Phone: (867) 920-8064 Fax: (867) 873-0293 About the cover: The small photographs in the inset boxes are enlarged with captions on pages 22 (Taiga Plains High Subarctic (HS) Ecoregion), 52 (Taiga Plains Low Subarctic (LS) Ecoregion), 82 (Taiga Plains High Boreal (HB) Ecoregion), and 96 (Taiga Plains Mid-Boreal (MB) Ecoregion). Aerial photographs: Dave Downing (Timberline Natural Resource Group). Ground photographs and photograph of cloudberry: Bob Decker (Government of the Northwest Territories). Other plant photographs: Christian Bucher. Members of the Ecosystem Classification Group Dave Downing Ecologist, Timberline Natural Resource Group, Edmonton, Alberta. Bob Decker Forest Ecologist, Forest Management Division, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Hay River, Northwest Territories. Bas Oosenbrug Habitat Conservation Biologist, Wildlife Division, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Charles Tarnocai Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Tom Chowns Environmental Consultant, Powassan, Ontario. Chris Hampel Geographic Information System Specialist/Resource Analyst, Timberline Natural Resource Group, Edmonton, Alberta.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Issues: California Chaparral
    Author's personal copy Conservation Issues: California Chaparral RW Halsey, California Chaparral Institute, Escondido, CA, United States JE Keeley, U.S. Geological Survey, Three Rivers, CA, United States ã 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. What Is Chaparral? 1 California Chaparral Biodiversity 1 Chaparral Community Types 1 Measuring Chaparral Biodiversity 4 Diversity Within Individual Plant Taxa 5 Faunal Diversity 5 Influence of Geology 7 Influence of Climate 7 Influence of Fire 8 Impact of Climate Change 10 Preserving Chaparral Biodiversity 10 References 10 What Is Chaparral? Chaparral is a diverse, sclerophyllous shrub-dominated plant community shaped by a Mediterranean-type climate (hot, dry summers and mild, wet winters), a complex mixture of relatively young soils (Specht and Moll, 1983), and large, infrequent, high-intensity fires (30–150 year fire return interval) (Keeley and Zedler, 2009; Keeley et al., 2004; Lombardo et al., 2009). Large expanses of dense chaparral vegetation cover coastal mesas, canyons, foothills, and mountain slopes throughout the California Floristic Province (Figure 1), southward into Baja California, and extending north into the Rogue River Valley of southwest Oregon. Disjunct patches of chaparral can also be found in central and southeastern Arizona and northern Mexico (Keeley, 2000). Along with the four other Mediterranean-type climate regions of the world with similar shrubland vegetation (Central Chile, Mediterranean Basin, South Africa, and southwestern Australia) (Table 1), California has been designated a biodiversity hot spot (Myers et al., 2000). Twenty-five designated locations in all, these hot spots have exceptional concentrations of endemic species that are undergoing exceptional loss of habitat (Myers et al., 2000; Rundel, 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Woodlands of the Savanna Lands No
    Tropical Topics An interpretive newsletter for the tourism industry Woodlands of the savanna lands No. 71 December 2001 Conserving moisture Notes from the Life is tough for plants living in the seasonally dry tropics. Soils arepoorandforhalftheyearthelandisparchedandproneto Editor fireswhilefortheotherhalfitisinundatedwithwater.Only Millions of years ago, much of the plantswhichhavebeenabletoadapttothispunishingregime Australian continent was covered cangrowhere,havingdevelopedcertaincharacteristicsto with rainforest. However, as the makethispossible. climate changed and the continent became more arid, a new type of While trees in the rainforest tend to It seems that these vegetation evolved consisting of have spreading surface roots to make trees are simply using plants which adapted themselves the most of nutrients available on the different survival to the new harsh conditions – forest floor, those in savanna lands strategies. It is as if they notably eucalypts, acacias, generally have deep root systems, to make the choice between melaleucas, grevilleas and reach deep reserves of water. Some investing energy into producing a banksias. trees concentrate their resources in the strong, long-lasting product or early stages of growth on developing numerous poor-quality disposable These types of trees now occupy a deep and massive tap root. ones. Studies have shown that the much of the savanna lands. This ‘construction costs’ to a tree for Tropical Topics cannot, of course, Once obtained, water must be used production of deciduous leaves are describe them all but looks at economically. The thick bark on many lower than the costs of producing strategies for living in an tropical woodland trees, apart from evergreen leaves. inhospitable environment, giving protection from fire, can help to characteristics of the main groups conserve moisture.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011
    Appendix E Ecosystem Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Region Ecosystem Diversity Report George Washington National Forest April 2011 Appendix E Ecosystem Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. I 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION PROCESS ................................... 3 3.0 ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Background and Distribution of Ecosystems ..................................................................................................... 7 North-Central Appalachian Acidic Swamp ............................................................................................................ 10 3.2 Descriptions of the Ecological Systems ............................................................................................................ 10 3.2.1 Spruce Forest: Central and Southern Appalachian Spruce-Fir Forest .......................................................... 10 3.2.2 Northern Hardwood Forest : Appalachian (Hemlock)- Northern Hardwood Forest ..................................... 11 3.2.3 Cove Forest: Southern and Central
    [Show full text]
  • 5Th Grade Life Science: Ecosystems Unit
    5th Grade Life Science: Ecosystems Unit Developed for Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Northside Elementary School Outdoor Wonder & Learning (OWL) Initiative Unless otherwise noted, activities written by: Lauren Greene, Sarah Yelton, Dana Haine, & Toni Stadelman Center for Public Engagement with Science UNC Institute for the Environment In collaboration with 5th grade teachers at Northside Elementary School: Michelle Gay, Daila Patrick, & Elizabeth Symons ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to Dan Schnitzer, Coretta Sharpless, Kirtisha Jones and the many wonderful teachers and support staff at Northside Elementary for their participation in and support of the Northside OWL Initiative. Thanks also to Shelby Brown for her invaluable assistance compiling, editing, and proofreading the curriculum. Instructional materials and supplies to promote STEM-based outdoor learning were instrumental to the successful implementation of this curriculum. The purchase of these materials was made possible with funding provided by the Duke Energy Foundation to Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. Curriculum developed June 2018 – July 2019 For more information, contact: Sarah Yelton, Environmental Education & Citizen Science Program Manager UNC Institute for the Environment Center for Public Engagement with Science [email protected] 5th Grade Ecosystems Unit Northside Outdoor Wonder & Learning Initiative Overarching Unit Question How and why do organisms (including humans) interact with their environment, and what are the effects of these interactions? Essential Questions Arc 1: How can I describe and compare different ecosystems? Arc 2: How is energy transferred through an ecosystem? How can I explain the interconnected relationships between organisms and their environments? Transfer Goals o Use scientific thinking to understand the relationships and complexities of the world around them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chaparral Vegetation in Mexico Under Nonmediterranean Climate: the Convergence and Madrean-Tethyan Hypotheses Reconsidered1
    American Journal of Botany 85(10): 1398±1408. 1998. THE CHAPARRAL VEGETATION IN MEXICO UNDER NONMEDITERRANEAN CLIMATE: THE CONVERGENCE AND MADREAN-TETHYAN HYPOTHESES RECONSIDERED1 ALFONSO VALIENTE-BANUET,2,4 NOEÂ FLORES-HERNAÂ NDEZ,2 MIGUEL VERDUÂ ,3 AND PATRICIA DAÂ VILA3 2Instituto de EcologõÂa, Universidad Nacional AutoÂnoma de MeÂxico, Apartado Postal 70±275, UNAM, 04510 MeÂxico, D.F.; and 3UBIPRO, ENEP-Iztacala, Universidad Nacional AutoÂnoma de MeÂxico, Apartado Postal 314, MeÂxico, 54090, Tlalnepantla, MeÂxico A comparative study between an unburned evergreen sclerophyllous vegetation located in south-central Mexico under a wet-summer climate, with mediterranean regions was conducted in order to re-analyze vegetation and plant characters claimed to converge under mediterranean climates. The comparison considered ¯oristic composition, plant-community struc- ture, and plant characters as adaptations to mediterranean climates and analyzed them by means of a correspondence analysis, considering a tropical spiny shrubland as the external group. We made a species register of the number of species that resprouted after a ®re occurred in 1995 and a distribution map of the evergreen sclerophyllous vegetation in Mexico (mexical) under nonmediterranean climates. The TehuacaÂn mexical does not differ from the evergreen sclerophyllous areas of Chile, California, Australia, and the Mediterranean Basin, according to a correspondence analysis, which ordinated the TehuacaÂn mexical closer to the mediter- ranean areas than to the external group. All the vegetation and ¯oristic characteristics of the mexical, as well as its distribution along the rain-shadowed mountain parts of Mexico, support its origin in the Madrean-Tethyan hypothesis of Axelrod. Therefore, these results allow to expand the convergence paradigm of the chaparral under an integrative view, in which a general trend to aridity might explain ¯oristic and adaptive patterns detected in these environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Ecology Living Organisms and Their Non Living (Abiotic) Environment Are Interrelated and Interact with Each Other
    1 | P a g e Ecosystem Ecology Living organisms and their non living (abiotic) environment are interrelated and interact with each other. The term ‘ecosystem’ was proposed by A. G. Tansley and it was defined as the system resulting from the integration of all living and non living factors of the environment. Some parallel terms such as biocoenosis, microcosm, geobiocoenosis, holecoen, biosystem, bioenert body and ecosom were used for each ecological systems. However, the term ‘ecosystem’ is most preferred, where ‘eco’ stands for the environment, and ‘system’ stands for an interacting, interdependent complex. Any unit that includes all the organisms, i.e. communities, in a given area, interacts with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to a clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity and material cycle within the system, is known as an ecological system or ecosystem. It is usually an open system with regular but variable influx and loss of materials and energy. It is a basic functional unit with unlimited boundaries. Types of ecosystems The ecosystems can be broadly divided into the following two types; 1. Natural ecosystems 2. Artificial (man cultured ecosystems Natural ecosystems The ecosystems which are self-operating under natural conditions with any interference by man, are known as natural ecosystems. These ecosystems may be classified as follows: 1. Terrestrial ecosystems, e.g. Forests, grasslands and deserts 2. Aquatic ecosystems, which may be further classified as i) Freshwater: ecosystem, which in turn is divided into lentic (running water like streams, springs, rivers, etc.) and lentic (standing water like lakes, bonds, pools, swamps, ditches, etc.) ii) Marine ecosystem, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Mapping of World Grassland Types A
    Journal of Biogeography (J. Biogeogr.) (2014) SYNTHESIS Distribution mapping of world grassland types A. P. Dixon1*, D. Faber-Langendoen2, C. Josse2, J. Morrison1 and C. J. Loucks1 1World Wildlife Fund – United States, 1250 ABSTRACT 24th Street NW, Washington, DC 20037, Aim National and international policy frameworks, such as the European USA, 2NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Drive, Union’s Renewable Energy Directive, increasingly seek to conserve and refer- 7th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203, USA ence ‘highly biodiverse grasslands’. However, to date there is no systematic glo- bal characterization and distribution map for grassland types. To address this gap, we first propose a systematic definition of grassland. We then integrate International Vegetation Classification (IVC) grassland types with the map of Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World (TEOW). Location Global. Methods We developed a broad definition of grassland as a distinct biotic and ecological unit, noting its similarity to savanna and distinguishing it from woodland and wetland. A grassland is defined as a non-wetland type with at least 10% vegetation cover, dominated or co-dominated by graminoid and forb growth forms, and where the trees form a single-layer canopy with either less than 10% cover and 5 m height (temperate) or less than 40% cover and 8 m height (tropical). We used the IVC division level to classify grasslands into major regional types. We developed an ecologically meaningful spatial cata- logue of IVC grassland types by listing IVC grassland formations and divisions where grassland currently occupies, or historically occupied, at least 10% of an ecoregion in the TEOW framework. Results We created a global biogeographical characterization of the Earth’s grassland types, describing approximately 75% of IVC grassland divisions with ecoregions.
    [Show full text]