Is Landscape Context Important for Riparian Conservation? Birds in Grassy Woodland

An important challenge for riparian management is to determine the extent to which landscape context influences the faunal assemblages of riparian habitats. We examined this challenge in the variegated landscapes of southeastern Queensland, Australia where riparian vegetation is surrounded by both extensive grazing and intensive cropping. We investigated whether riparian habitats adjacent to different landuses support similar bird assemblages. Three types of riparian habitat condition were sampled (uncleared ungrazed; uncleared grazed; cleared grazed) in four different land-use contexts (ungrazed woodland; grazed woodland; native pasture; crop) although only six of the twelve possible treatment combinations were available. Eighty percent of bird species responded significantly to changes in both riparian habitat condition and landscape context, while fewer than 50% of species were significantly influenced by landscape context alone. The influence of landscape context on the bird assemblage increased as the surrounding land use became more intensive (e.g. woodland to native pasture to crop). Riparian zones have been shown to have consistently high biodiversity values relative to their extent. These findings suggest it is not enough to conserve riparian habitats alone, conservation and restoration plans must also take into consideration landscape context, particularly when that context is intensively used land

Ecosystem resilience despite large-scale altered hydroclimatic conditions

Climate change is predicted to increase both drought frequency and duration, and when coupled with substantial warming, will establish a new hydroclimatological model for many regions. Large-scale, warm droughts have recently occurred in North America, Africa, Europe, Amazonia and Australia, resulting in major effects on terrestrial ecosystems, carbon balance and food security. Here we compare the functional response of above-ground net primary production to contrasting hydroclimatic periods in the late twentieth century (1975-1998), and drier, warmer conditions in the early twenty-first century (2000-2009) in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. We find a common ecosystem water-use efficiency (WUE e: Above-ground net primary production/ evapotranspiration) across biomes ranging from grassland to forest that indicates an intrinsic system sensitivity to water availability across rainfall regimes, regardless of hydroclimatic conditions. We found higher WUE e in drier years that increased significantly with drought to a maximum WUE e across all biomes; and a minimum native state in wetter years that was common across hydroclimatic periods. This indicates biome-scale resilience to the interannual variability associated with the early twenty-first century drought - that is, the capacity to tolerate low, annual precipitation and to respond to subsequent periods of favourable water balance. These findings provide a conceptual model of ecosystem properties at the decadal scale applicable to the widespread altered hydroclimatic conditions that are predicted for later this century. Understanding the hydroclimatic threshold that will break down ecosystem resilience and alter maximum WUE e may allow us to predict land-surface consequences as large regions become more arid, starting with water-limited, low-productivity grasslands. © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

Lithological influences on contemporary and long-term regolith weathering at the Luquillo Critical Zone Observatory

Lithologic differences give rise to the differential weatherability of the Earth’s surface and globally variable silicate weathering fluxes, which provide an important negative feedback on climate over geologic timescales. To isolate the influence of lithology on weathering rates and mechanisms, we compare two nearby catchments in the Luquillo Critical Zone Observatory in Puerto Rico, which have similar climate history, relief and vegetation, but differ in bedrock lithology. Regolith and pore water samples with depth were collected from two ridgetops and at three sites along a slope transect in the volcaniclastic Bisley catchment and compared to existing data from the granitic Río Icacos catchment. The depth variations of solid-state and pore water chemistry and quantitative mineralogy were used to calculate mass transfer (tau) and weathering solute profiles, which in turn were used to determine weathering mechanisms and to estimate weathering rates. Regolith formed on both lithologies is highly leached of most labile elements, although Mg and K are less depleted in the granitic than in the volcaniclastic profiles, reflecting residual biotite in the granitic regolith not present in the volcaniclastics. Profiles of both lithologies that terminate at bedrock corestones are less weathered at depth, near the rock-regolith interfaces. Mg fluxes in the volcaniclastics derive primarily from dissolution of chlorite near the rock-regolith interface and from dissolution of illite and secondary phases in the upper regolith, whereas in the granitic profile, Mg and K fluxes derive from biotite dissolution. Long-term mineral dissolution rates and weathering fluxes were determined by integrating mass losses over the thickness of solid-state weathering fronts, and are therefore averages over the timescale of regolith development. Resulting long-term dissolution rates for minerals in the volcaniclastic regolith include chlorite: 8.9 × 10‾¹⁴ mol m‾² s‾¹, illite: 2.1 × 10‾¹⁴ mol m‾² s‾¹ and kaolinite: 4.0 × 10‾¹⁴ mol m‾² s‾¹. Long-term weathering fluxes are several orders of magnitude lower in the granitic regolith than in the volcaniclastic, despite higher abundances of several elements in the granitic regolith. Contemporary weathering fluxes were determined from net (rain-corrected) solute profiles and thus represent rates over the residence time of water in the regolith. Contemporary weathering fluxes within the granitic regolith are similar to the long-term fluxes. In contrast, the long-term fluxes are faster than the contemporary fluxes in the volcaniclastic regolith. Contemporary fluxes in the granitic regolith are generally also slightly faster than in the volcaniclastic. The differences in weathering fluxes over space and time between these two watersheds indicate significant lithologic control of chemical weathering mechanisms and rates

Differential Response to Soil Salinity in Endangered Key Tree Cactus: Implications for Survival in a Changing Climate

Understanding reasons for biodiversity loss is essential for developing conservation and management strategies and is becoming increasingly urgent with climate change. Growing at elevations <1.4 m in the Florida Keys, USA, the endangered Key tree cactus (Pilosocereus robinii) experienced 84 percent loss of total stems from 1994 to 2007. The most severe losses of 99 and 88 percent stems occurred in the largest populations in the Lower Keys, where nine storms with high wind velocities and storm surges, occurred during this period. In contrast, three populations had substantial stem proliferation. To evaluate possible mortality factors related to changes in climate or forest structure, we examined habitat variables: soil salinity, elevation, canopy cover, and habitat structure near 16 dying or dead and 18 living plants growing in the Lower Keys. Soil salinity and elevation were the preliminary factors that discriminated live and dead plants. Soil salinity was 1.5 times greater, but elevation was 12 cm higher near dead plants than near live plants. However, distribution-wide stem loss was not significantly related to salinity or elevation. Controlled salinity trials indicated that salt tolerance to levels above 40 mM NaCl was related to maternal origin. Salt sensitive plants from the Lower Keys had less stem growth, lower root:shoot ratios, lower potassium: sodium ratios and lower recovery rate, but higher δ 13C than a salt tolerant lineage of unknown origin. Unraveling the genetic structure of salt tolerant and salt sensitive lineages in the Florida Keys will require further genetic tests. Worldwide rare species restricted to fragmented, low-elevation island habitats, with little or no connection to higher ground will face challenges from climate change-related factors. These great conservation challenges will require traditional conservation actions and possibly managed relocation that must be informed by studies such as these

BIOFRAG: A new database for analysing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Habitat fragmentation studies are producing inconsistent and complex results across which it is nearly impossible to synthesise. Consistent analytical techniques can be applied to primary datasets, if stored in a flexible database that allows simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. Method: We developed a relational database linking data collected in the field to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes and further environmental variables (e.g. information on biogeographic region. Typical field assessments include measures of biological variables (e.g. presence, abundance, ground cover) of one species or a set of species linked to a set of plots in fragments of a forested landscape. Conclusion: The database currently holds records of 5792 unique species sampled in 52 landscapes in six of eight biogeographic regions: mammals 173, birds 1101, herpetofauna 284, insects 2317, other arthropods: 48, plants 1804, snails 65. Most species are found in one or two landscapes, but some are found in four. Using the huge amount of primary data on biodiversity response to fragmentation becomes increasingly important as anthropogenic pressures from high population growth and land demands are increasing. This database can be queried to extract data for subsequent analyses of the biological response to forest fragmentation with new metrics that can integrate across the components of fragmented landscapes. Meta-analyses of findings based on consistent methods and metrics will be able to generalise over studies allowing inter-comparisons for unified answers. The database can thus help researchers in providing findings for analyses of trade-offs between land use benefits and impacts on biodiversity and to track performance of management for biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes.Fil: Pfeifer, Marion. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lefebvre, Veronique. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Gardner, Toby A.. Stockholm Environment Institute; SueciaFil: Arroyo Rodríguez, Víctor. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Baeten, Lander. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Banks Leite, Cristina. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Barlow, Jos. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Betts, Matthew G.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Brunet, Joerg. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: Cerezo Blandón, Alexis Mauricio. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Sistemas de Información; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros, Laura M.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Collard, Stuart. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia; AustraliaFil: D´Cruze, Neil. The World Society for the Protection of Animals; Reino UnidoFil: Da Silva Motta, Catarina. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Duguay, Stephanie. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Eggermont, Hilde. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Eigenbrod, Félix. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Hadley, Adam S.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Hanson, Thor R.. No especifíca;Fil: Hawes, Joseph E.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Heartsill Scalley, Tamara. United State Department of Agriculture. Forestry Service; Puerto RicoFil: Klingbeil, Brian T.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Kolb, Annette. Universitat Bremen; AlemaniaFil: Kormann, Urs. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Kumar, Sunil. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Lachat, Thibault. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest; SuizaFil: Lakeman Fraser, Poppy. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lantschner, María Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Laurance, William F.. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Leal, Inara R.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Lens, Luc. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Marsh, Charles J.. University of Leeds; Reino UnidoFil: Medina Rangel, Guido F.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Melles, Stephanie. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Mezger, Dirk. Field Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Oldekop, Johan A.. University of Sheffield; Reino UnidoFil: Overal , Williams L.. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Departamento de Entomologia; BrasilFil: Owen, Charlotte. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Peres, Carlos A.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Phalan, Ben. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Pidgeon, Anna Michle. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Pilia, Oriana. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Possingham, Hugh P.. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The University Of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Possingham, Max L.. No especifíca;Fil: Raheem, Dinarzarde C.. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences; Bélgica. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Ribeiro, Danilo B.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Ribeiro Neto, Jose D.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Robinson, Douglas W.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Robinson, Richard. Manjimup Research Centre; AustraliaFil: Rytwinski, Trina. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Scherber, Christoph. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Slade, Eleanor M.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Somarriba, Eduardo. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza; Costa RicaFil: Stouffer, Philip C.. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Struebig, Matthew J.. University of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Tylianakis, Jason M.. University College London; Estados Unidos. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Teja, Tscharntke. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Tyre, Andrew J.. Universidad de Nebraska - Lincoln; Estados UnidosFil: Urbina Cardona, Jose N.. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; ColombiaFil: Vasconcelos, Heraldo L.. Universidade Federal de Uberlandia; BrasilFil: Wearn, Oliver. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Wells, Konstans. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Willig, Michael R.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Wood, Eric. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Richard P.. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Bradley, Andrew V.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Ewers, Robert M.. Imperial College London; Reino Unid