English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Biodiversity patterns vary across space and time, and this variation is thought to be driven by several ecological/biogeographical processes that act upon species distributions and leave their imprint at various spatial and temporal scales (Huston, 1994; Ricklefs, 2004). The regional or geographical (gamma diversity) diversity patterns, in addition to local diversity (alpha diversity), are consequent upon the extent of “spatial” variation in species composition among sites (beta diversity) (Whittaker, 1960; 1972). Arrays of ecological hypotheses have been proposed as determinants of beta diversity patterns. It can arise from variation in environmental/habitat heterogeneity among sites, spatial constraints, disturbance regimes, and corresponding species-level variations in life history traits (e.g., dispersal, niche-breadth) (Harrison et al., 1992; Nekola & White, 1999; Chase, 2007; Veech & Crist, 2007; Baselga, 2008) as well as neutral and/or stochastic processes (Hubbell, 2001; Chase, 2010). Nevertheless, beta diversity patterns and the mechanisms by which ensembles of local communities maintain their variations and, consequently, influence diversity at regional scale remains a central challenge in ecological and conservation studies (Wilson & Shmida, 1984; Veech & Crist, 2007; Baselga, 2010; Chase, 2010; Tuomisto, 2010; Anderson et al., 2011). Despite its apparent conceptual simplicity, the empirical assessment of beta diversity has been mired with extensive debates over a perplexing array of indices, analytical approaches, or scales of analysis (Wilson & Shmida, 1984; Lande, 1996; Loreau, 2000; Koleff et al., 2003; Tuomisto & Ruokolainen, 2006; Legendre et al., 2008; Veech & Crist, 2010; for a detailed outline of the issues, see recent review by Anderson et al., 2011). One of the most fundamental and recurrent challenges in beta diversity studies has been distinguishing and quantifying the pure “spatial” turnover component of beta diversity from that caused by variation in species richness between local communities (Wilson & Shmida, 1984; Koleff et al., 2003; Veech & Crist,

Towards a Better Understanding of Beta Diversity: Deconstructing Composition Patterns of Saproxylic Beetles Breeding in Recently Burnt Boreal Forest