Using the Landscape Ecosystem Approach to Assess Species and Ecosystem Diversity.

Diversity was determined for ground-cover species within and among landscape ecosystem groups of the University of Michigan Biological Station, nortbern lower Michigan, USA. The concept of ecosystem diversity, number, kinds, and patterns of landscape ecosystems and their processes, was introduced and illustrated. The 4000-ha area has been highly disturbed by logging and repeated post-logging fires. Early successional species now dominate the overstory of upland ecosystems. Twenty-one upland landscape ecosystem groups were identified, classified, described, and mapped on the basis of interrelationships among climate, physiography, soil, and vegetation. Six landscape ecosystem groups, representative of extremes along moisture, nutrient, and microclimate gradients, were selected for the analysis of alpha and beta diversity of ground-cover vegetation. Alpha diversity indices calculated were species richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity, Shannon-Wiener evenness, and Simpson's index. Beta diversity was measured by percentage similarity and Jaccard's coefficient. The most moist and nutrient-rich ecosystem group had the highest alpha diversity. The general pattern of decreasing alpha diversity was moist and nutrient-rich, moderately moist and moderately nutrient-rich, moist and nutrient-poor and climatically extreme, dry and nutrient-poor and climatically extreme, and dry and nutrient-poor. Beta diversity analysis revealed significant between-ecosystem diversity, despite the fact that the landscape appears relatively flat and strongly dominated by big-tooth (Populus grandidentata Michx.) and trembling (P. tremuloides Michx.) aspens. The richness of landscape ecosystems among four regional landscapes in Michigan, including the Biological Station was contrasted and described. Greater ecosystem richness of the Biological Station reflects greater geologic-physiographic complexity of the area due to its glacial history. Distinguishing and mapping landscape ecosystems proves an excellent framework for assessing alpha and beta diversity of plant species and for similar analyses of whole landscape ecosystems and their processes. Utilización del enfoque ecosistémico a nivel de paisaje para evaluar la diversidad de especies y ecosistemas.

[1]  W. Romme,et al.  FIRE AND LANDSCAPE DIVERSITY IN SUBALPINE FORESTS OF YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK , 1982 .

[2]  Paul R. Ehrlich,et al.  Population biology of checkerspot butterflies and the preservation of global biodiversity , 1992 .

[3]  Robert H. Whittaker,et al.  VEGETATION OF THE SANTA CATALINA MOUNTAINS, ARIZONA. V. BIOMASS, PRODUCTION, AND DIVERSITY ALONG THE ELEVATION GRADIENT' , 1975 .

[4]  V. T. Parker,et al.  The New Paradigm in Ecology: Implications for Conservation Biology Above the Species Level , 1992 .

[5]  R. Whittaker.  Evolution and measurement of species diversity , 1972 .

[6]  Reed F. Noss,et al.  A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity , 1983 .

[7]  A. Magurran.  Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement , 1988, Springer Netherlands.

[8]  Ma Shijun,et al.  An index of ecosystem diversity , 1991 .

[9]  T. Spies,et al.  Ecological Forest Site Classification , 1982, Journal of Forestry.

[10]  M. Werger,et al.  Diversity and pattern in plant communities , 1988 .

[11]  T. Spies,et al.  A multifactor ecological classification of the northern hardwood and conifer ecosystems of Sylvania Recreation Area, Upper Peninsula, Michigan , 1985 .

[12]  R. Whittaker.  Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California , 1960 .

[13]  John E. Estes,et al.  Species RichnessA geographic approach to protecting future biological diversity , 1987 .

[14]  J. Lawton,et al.  Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies , 1993, Nature.

[15]  A. Gentry,et al.  Tropical forest biodiversity : distributional patterns and their conservational significance , 1992 .

[16]  J. Rowe,et al.  The ecosystem approach to forestland management , 1992 .

[17]  K. Pregitzer,et al.  A comparison of presettlement and present-day forests on two bigtooth aspen-dominated landscapes in northern Lower Michigan , 1992 .

[18]  L. Archambault,et al.  Landscape ecosystems of disturbed oak forests of southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. , 1990 .

[19]  G. Host,et al.  Landscape variation in nitrogen mineralization and nitrification , 1986 .

[20]  R. Kirk.  Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .

[21]  J. Rowe.  The Level‐of‐Integration Concept and Ecology , 1961 .

[22]  Michael H. Kutner.  Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1974 .

[23]  K. Pregitzer,et al.  Classification and comparison of upland hardwood and conifer ecosystems of the Cyrus H. McCormick Experimental Forest, upper Michigan , 1984 .

[24]  Robert K. Peet,et al.  The Measurement of Species Diversity , 1974 .

[25]  J. Rowe,et al.  Ecological land classification: A survey approach , 1981 .

[26]  S. Bratton.  A Comparison of the Beta Diversity Functions of the Overstory and Herbaceous Understory of a Deciduous Forest , 1975 .

[27]  C. W. Ramm,et al.  Landform-mediated differences in successional pathways among upland forest ecosystems in northwestern Lower Michigan. , 1987 .

[28]  R. Forman.  Ecologically Sustainable Landscapes: The Role of Spatial Configuration , 1990 .

[29]  E. Wilson.  The Diversity of Life , 1992 .