Untitled

Smart, Simon M.

doi:10.1023/a:1008948602316

Cited by 12 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This basic notion, conceptualised as bioindication, has been a subject of research for a long time (see review by Diekmann 2003). In bioindication, individual plant species are assigned so-called ecological indicator values (EIVs) on ordinal scales based on the "optima" or "centres" of their realised ecological niches along given environmental gradients (niche dimensions) (Smart 2000;Diekmann 2003). "Realised niche" refers to the occurrence of species in plant communities under the influence of competition (or facilitation) of co-occurring species, as opposed to the "fundamental niche" describing the occurrence and performance in monoculture (Leibold 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological Indicator Values for Europe (EIVE) 1.0

Dengler¹,

Jansen²,

Chusova³

et al. 2023

VCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To develop a consistent ecological indicator value system for Europe for five of the main plant niche dimensions: soil moisture (M), soil nitrogen (N), soil reaction (R), light (L) and temperature (T). Study area: Europe (and closely adjacent regions). Methods: We identified 31 indicator value systems for vascular plants in Europe that contained assessments on at least one of the five aforementioned niche dimensions. We rescaled the indicator values of each dimension to a continuous scale, in which 0 represents the minimum and 10 the maximum value present in Europe. Taxon names were harmonised to the Euro+Med Plantbase. For each of the five dimensions, we calculated European values for niche position and niche width by combining the values from the individual EIV systems. Using T values as an example, we externally validated our European indicator values against the median of bioclimatic conditions for global occurrence data of the taxa. Results: In total, we derived European indicator values of niche position and niche width for 14,835 taxa (14,714 for M, 13,748 for N, 14,254 for R, 14,054 for L, 14,496 for T). Relating the obtained values for temperature niche position to the bioclimatic data of species yielded a higher correlation than any of the original EIV systems (r = 0.859). The database: The newly developed Ecological Indicator Values for Europe (EIVE) 1.0, together with all source systems, is available in a flexible, harmonised open access database. Conclusions: EIVE is the most comprehensive ecological indicator value system for European vascular plants to date. The uniform interval scales for niche position and niche width provide new possibilities for ecological and macroecological analyses of vegetation patterns. The developed workflow and documentation will facilitate the future release of updated and expanded versions of EIVE, which may for example include the addition of further taxonomic groups, additional niche dimensions, external validation or regionalisation. Abbreviations: EIV = Ecological indicator value; EIVE = Ecological Indicator Values for Europe; EVA = European Vegetation Archive; GBIF = Global Biodiversity Information Facility; i = index for taxa; j = index for EIV systems; L = ecological indicator for light; M = ecological indicator for moisture; N = ecological indicator for nitrogen availability; R = ecological indicator for reaction; T = ecological indicator for temperature.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological Indicator Values for Europe (EIVE) 1.0

Dengler¹,

Jansen²,

Chusova³

et al. 2023

VCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessing the Ecological Impacts of Bioenergy Projects

Firbank¹

2008

Bioenerg. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the major objectives of the current expansion in bioenergy cropping is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions for environmental benefit. The cultivation of bioenergy and biofuel crops also affects biodiversity more directly, both positively and negatively. Ecological impact assessment methods for bioenergy projects (including changes to policy and land use) should address not simply changes to species abundance at field level, but include larger scale issues, including changes to landscape diversity, potential impacts to primary and secondary habitats and potential impacts on climate change. Such assessments require a correspondingly broad range of scientific methods, including modelling of climate and land use as well as the observation of biodiversity and landscape indicators. It is also possible to adopt evidence-based guidelines for good practice for situations where comprehensive assessments are not available. These might include favouring projects and policies that avoid gene flow to wild relatives of crops in centres of diversity, that do not result in invasion by the crop into other habitats, that enhance fieldscale biodiversity, that increase landscape diversity, that do not threaten valued habitats within the local landscape, that promote the sustainable management of biodiverse habitats, that do not increase the risk of loss of primary habitats and that result in a proportionately large reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

show abstract