info:eu-repo/semantics/article
BIOFRAG: A new database for analysing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation
Date
2014-05Registration in:
Pfeifer, Marion; Lefebvre, Veronique; Gardner, Toby A.; Arroyo Rodríguez, Víctor; Baeten, Lander; et al.; BIOFRAG: A new database for analysing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation; Wiley; Ecology and Evolution; 4; 9; 5-2014; 1524-1537
2045-7758
CONICET Digital
CONICET
Author
Pfeifer, Marion
Lefebvre, Veronique
Gardner, Toby A.
Arroyo Rodríguez, Víctor
Baeten, Lander
Banks Leite, Cristina
Barlow, Jos
Betts, Matthew G.
Brunet, Joerg
Cerezo Blandón, Alexis Mauricio
Cisneros, Laura M.
Collard, Stuart
D´Cruze, Neil
Da Silva Motta, Catarina
Duguay, Stephanie
Eggermont, Hilde
Eigenbrod, Félix
Hadley, Adam S.
Hanson, Thor R.
Hawes, Joseph E.
Heartsill Scalley, Tamara
Klingbeil, Brian T.
Kolb, Annette
Kormann, Urs
Kumar, Sunil
Lachat, Thibault
Lakeman Fraser, Poppy
Lantschner, María Victoria
Laurance, William F.
Leal, Inara R.
Lens, Luc
Marsh, Charles J.
Medina Rangel, Guido F.
Melles, Stephanie
Mezger, Dirk
Oldekop, Johan A.
Overal , Williams L.
Owen, Charlotte
Peres, Carlos A.
Phalan, Ben
Pidgeon, Anna Michle
Pilia, Oriana
Possingham, Hugh P.
Possingham, Max L.
Raheem, Dinarzarde C.
Ribeiro, Danilo B.
Ribeiro Neto, Jose D.
Robinson, Douglas W.
Robinson, Richard
Rytwinski, Trina
Scherber, Christoph
Slade, Eleanor M.
Somarriba, Eduardo
Stouffer, Philip C.
Struebig, Matthew J.
Tylianakis, Jason M.
Teja, Tscharntke
Tyre, Andrew J.
Urbina Cardona, Jose N.
Vasconcelos, Heraldo L.
Wearn, Oliver
Wells, Konstans
Willig, Michael R.
Wood, Eric
Young, Richard P.
Bradley, Andrew V.
Ewers, Robert M.
Abstract
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.