Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
blage, landscape), each of which presumably is m o r e or less equally important in assessing overall biodiversity. Incorporation of multiple organizational levels substantially complicates comparisons of the magnitude of biodiversity through space and/or time because diversity at one level need not be a function of diversity at other levels. For example, consider a landscape with four distinct habitats, each of which supports a species assemblage (Fig. 1 ). Differences in biodiversity b e t w e e n landscapes are ambiguous and depend on the scale of focus. Within-habitat species diversity is greater in landscape A, assemblage diversity is greater in landscape B, and within-landscape species diversity is equal b e t w e e n landscapes (Fig. 1 ). Analogous scenarios could be constructed for other pairs of nested organizational levels (such as genes within genomes and landscapes within biomes). Changes in biodiversity o c c u r through changes in either the n u m b e r of or similarities a m o n g biotic elements. Thus, outright element loss (extirpation) or erosion of inherent dissimilarity among elements ( c o n v e r g e n c e ) typically
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Jun 1, 1994
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.