Conservation of wetlands: do infertile wetlands deserve a higher priority?

作者: Dwayne R.J. Moore , Paul A. Keddy , Connie L. Gaudet , Irene C. Wisheu

DOI: 10.1016/0006-3207(89)90065-7

关键词:

摘要: Abstract In this study we evaluate whether infertile wetlands had higher conservation value than fertile based on three criteria commonly used in ecological site evaluations: species richness, number of rare and composition. The data consisted composition n = 401 0·25 m 2 quadrats from a wide range types eastern Canada. Infertile richness many more did wetlands. Further, greater vegetation It is also probable that are sensitive to human disturbances. These results indicate desirable for presently accounted wetland evaluation systems. addition, because variation types, relatively reserves needed adequately represent the

参考文章(27)
R. Allen, World conservation strategy. Living resource conservation for sustainable development. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.. ,(1980)
Mark D. Morgan, Kurt R. Philipp, The effect of agricultural and residential development on aquatic macrophytes in the New Jersey Pine Barrens Biological Conservation. ,vol. 35, pp. 143- 158 ,(1986) , 10.1016/0006-3207(86)90047-9
P.A. Keddy, A.A. Reznicek, Great Lakes Vegetation Dynamics: The Role of Fluctuating Water Levels and Buried Seeds Journal of Great Lakes Research. ,vol. 12, pp. 25- 36 ,(1986) , 10.1016/S0380-1330(86)71697-3
P. A. Keddy, A. A. Reznicek, THE ROLE OF SEED BANKS IN THE PERSISTENCE OF ONTARIO'S COASTAL PLAIN FLORA American Journal of Botany. ,vol. 69, pp. 13- 22 ,(1982) , 10.1002/J.1537-2197.1982.TB13231.X
Thomas J. Givnish, Elizabeth L. Burkhardt, Ruth E. Happel, Jason D. Weintraub, CARNIVORY IN THE BROMELIAD BROCCHINIA REDUCTA, WITH A COST/BENEFIT MODEL FOR THE GENERAL RESTRICTION OF CARNIVOROUS PLANTS TO SUNNY, MOIST, NUTRIENT-POOR HABITATS The American Naturalist. ,vol. 124, pp. 479- 497 ,(1984) , 10.1086/284289
C. Margules, M.B. Usher, Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: A review Biological Conservation. ,vol. 21, pp. 79- 109 ,(1981) , 10.1016/0006-3207(81)90073-2