CHARACTERIZING FISH COMMUNITY DIVERSITY ACROSS VIRGINIA LANDSCAPES: PREREQUISITE FOR CONSERVATION

CHARACTERIZING FISH COMMUNITY DIVERSITY ACROSS VIRGINIA LANDSCAPES: PREREQUISITE FOR CONSERVATION The number of community types occurring within landscapes is an important, but often unprotected, component of biological diversity. Generally applicable protocols for characterizing community diversity need to be developed to facilitate conservation. We used several multivariate techniques to analyze geographic variation in the composition of fish communities in Virginia streams. We examined relationships between community composition and six landscape variables: drainage basin, physiography, stream order, elevation, channel slope, and map coordinates. We compared patterns at two scales (statewide and subdrainage-specific) to assess sensitivity of community classification to spatial scale. We also compared patterns based on characterizing communities by species composition vs. ecological composition. All landscape variables explained significant proportions of the variance in community composition. Statewide, they explained 32%% of the variance in species composition and 48%% of the variance in ecological composition. Typical communities in each drainage or physiography were statistically distinctive. Communities in different combinations of drainage, physiography, and stream size were even more distinctive, but composition was strongly spatially autocorrelated. Ecological similarity and species similarity of community pairs were strongly related, but replacement by ecologically similar species was common among drainage––physiography combinations. Landscape variables explained significant proportions of variance in community composition within selected subdrainages, but proportions were less than at the statewide scale, and the explanatory power of individual variables varied considerably among subdrainages. Community variation within subdrainages appeared to be much more closely related to environmental variation than to replacement among ecologically similar species. Our results suggest that taxonomic and ecological characterizations of community composition are complementary; both are useful in a conservation context. Landscape features such as drainage, physiography, and water body size generally may provide a basis for assessing aquatic community diversity, especially in regions where the biota is poorly known. Systematic conservation of community types would be a major advance relative to most current conservation programs, which typically focus narrowly on populations of imperiled species. More effective conservation of aquatic biodiversity will require new approaches that recognize the value of both species and assemblages, and that emphasize protection of key landscape-scale processes. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Ecological Applications Ecological Society of America

CHARACTERIZING FISH COMMUNITY DIVERSITY ACROSS VIRGINIA LANDSCAPES: PREREQUISITE FOR CONSERVATION

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ecological-society-of-america/characterizing-fish-community-diversity-across-virginia-landscapes-LhycwUOhuK
Publisher
Ecological Society of America
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Ecological Society of America
Subject
Articles
ISSN
1051-0761
D.O.I.
10.1890/1051-0761%281999%29009%5B0335:CFCDAV%5D2.0.CO%3B2
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The number of community types occurring within landscapes is an important, but often unprotected, component of biological diversity. Generally applicable protocols for characterizing community diversity need to be developed to facilitate conservation. We used several multivariate techniques to analyze geographic variation in the composition of fish communities in Virginia streams. We examined relationships between community composition and six landscape variables: drainage basin, physiography, stream order, elevation, channel slope, and map coordinates. We compared patterns at two scales (statewide and subdrainage-specific) to assess sensitivity of community classification to spatial scale. We also compared patterns based on characterizing communities by species composition vs. ecological composition. All landscape variables explained significant proportions of the variance in community composition. Statewide, they explained 32%% of the variance in species composition and 48%% of the variance in ecological composition. Typical communities in each drainage or physiography were statistically distinctive. Communities in different combinations of drainage, physiography, and stream size were even more distinctive, but composition was strongly spatially autocorrelated. Ecological similarity and species similarity of community pairs were strongly related, but replacement by ecologically similar species was common among drainage––physiography combinations. Landscape variables explained significant proportions of variance in community composition within selected subdrainages, but proportions were less than at the statewide scale, and the explanatory power of individual variables varied considerably among subdrainages. Community variation within subdrainages appeared to be much more closely related to environmental variation than to replacement among ecologically similar species. Our results suggest that taxonomic and ecological characterizations of community composition are complementary; both are useful in a conservation context. Landscape features such as drainage, physiography, and water body size generally may provide a basis for assessing aquatic community diversity, especially in regions where the biota is poorly known. Systematic conservation of community types would be a major advance relative to most current conservation programs, which typically focus narrowly on populations of imperiled species. More effective conservation of aquatic biodiversity will require new approaches that recognize the value of both species and assemblages, and that emphasize protection of key landscape-scale processes.

Journal

Ecological ApplicationsEcological Society of America

Published: Feb 1, 1999

Keywords: biological conservation ; community types ; ecological composition ; fish communities ; geographic correlates ; regional diversity ; scale effects ; species composition

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off