温带欧洲不同自然参考条件下植被结构驱动因素的差异

IF 6.3 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Elena A. Pearce, Charles W. Davison, Florence Mazier, Signe Normand, Ralph Fyfe, Maria-Antonia Serge, Paolo Scussolini, Jens-Christian Svenning
{"title":"温带欧洲不同自然参考条件下植被结构驱动因素的差异","authors":"Elena A. Pearce,&nbsp;Charles W. Davison,&nbsp;Florence Mazier,&nbsp;Signe Normand,&nbsp;Ralph Fyfe,&nbsp;Maria-Antonia Serge,&nbsp;Paolo Scussolini,&nbsp;Jens-Christian Svenning","doi":"10.1111/geb.70020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Pre-degradation baseline conditions (references) provide crucial context for restoration actions. Here, we compare vegetation structure and its driving processes across the main pre-agricultural references discussed for temperate Europe: the Last Interglacial and the early-mid Holocene—before and after the arrival of <i>Homo sapiens</i>, respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>Temperate Europe.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Time Period</h3>\n \n <p>The first ~4000–6000 years, excluding the initial early-successional phases, of the Last Interglacial (PAAZ III) and Holocene (8700–5700 BP).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Major Taxa Studied</h3>\n \n <p>Plants.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We use large datasets of pollen-based vegetation reconstructions (REVEALS) to compare open vegetation, light woodland and closed forest between the two periods. We use Random Forest modelling and downscaled climate data to assess whether climate-vegetation relations were consistent between periods, as expected if they reflected direct climatic effects on vegetation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Open vegetation was slightly higher in the early–mid Holocene than in the Last Interglacial, averaging 20% versus 16% in paired grid cells, respectively. In contrast, light woodland cover was lower in the early–mid Holocene, with mean values of 49% compared to 57% in paired cells. The combined open vegetation and light woodland cover was high in both periods, averaging 73% in the Last Interglacial and 69% in the early–mid Holocene. Closed forest cover was similar across both periods (Holocene = 24%; Last Interglacial = 23%). Notably, openness –climate relations from the early–mid Holocene cannot predict open vegetation in the Last Interglacial.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>These findings suggest that vegetation in the early–mid Holocene and Last Interglacial was affected by persistent, substantial disturbances, which were not controlled by direct climate effects, and that the main drivers differed between the periods, with the rich megafauna of the Last Interglacial and Mesolithic people as the primary candidates. Our findings support that early–mid Holocene ecosystems were already strongly shaped by <i>Homo sapiens</i> and differed from earlier temperate ecosystems.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":176,"journal":{"name":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","volume":"34 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/geb.70020","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drivers of Vegetation Structure Differ Between Proposed Natural Reference Conditions for Temperate Europe\",\"authors\":\"Elena A. Pearce,&nbsp;Charles W. Davison,&nbsp;Florence Mazier,&nbsp;Signe Normand,&nbsp;Ralph Fyfe,&nbsp;Maria-Antonia Serge,&nbsp;Paolo Scussolini,&nbsp;Jens-Christian Svenning\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/geb.70020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>Pre-degradation baseline conditions (references) provide crucial context for restoration actions. Here, we compare vegetation structure and its driving processes across the main pre-agricultural references discussed for temperate Europe: the Last Interglacial and the early-mid Holocene—before and after the arrival of <i>Homo sapiens</i>, respectively.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Location</h3>\\n \\n <p>Temperate Europe.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Time Period</h3>\\n \\n <p>The first ~4000–6000 years, excluding the initial early-successional phases, of the Last Interglacial (PAAZ III) and Holocene (8700–5700 BP).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Major Taxa Studied</h3>\\n \\n <p>Plants.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We use large datasets of pollen-based vegetation reconstructions (REVEALS) to compare open vegetation, light woodland and closed forest between the two periods. We use Random Forest modelling and downscaled climate data to assess whether climate-vegetation relations were consistent between periods, as expected if they reflected direct climatic effects on vegetation.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Open vegetation was slightly higher in the early–mid Holocene than in the Last Interglacial, averaging 20% versus 16% in paired grid cells, respectively. In contrast, light woodland cover was lower in the early–mid Holocene, with mean values of 49% compared to 57% in paired cells. The combined open vegetation and light woodland cover was high in both periods, averaging 73% in the Last Interglacial and 69% in the early–mid Holocene. Closed forest cover was similar across both periods (Holocene = 24%; Last Interglacial = 23%). Notably, openness –climate relations from the early–mid Holocene cannot predict open vegetation in the Last Interglacial.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>These findings suggest that vegetation in the early–mid Holocene and Last Interglacial was affected by persistent, substantial disturbances, which were not controlled by direct climate effects, and that the main drivers differed between the periods, with the rich megafauna of the Last Interglacial and Mesolithic people as the primary candidates. Our findings support that early–mid Holocene ecosystems were already strongly shaped by <i>Homo sapiens</i> and differed from earlier temperate ecosystems.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Ecology and Biogeography\",\"volume\":\"34 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/geb.70020\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Ecology and Biogeography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.70020\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.70020","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的退化前基线条件(参考文献)为恢复行动提供了关键的背景。在此,我们比较了温带欧洲在末次间冰期和全新世早中期(智人到来之前和之后)这两个主要农业前参考时期的植被结构及其驱动过程。地理位置:温带欧洲。末次间冰期(PAAZ III)和全新世(8700-5700 BP)的前~ 4000-6000年,不包括早期序列的初始阶段。研究植物的主要分类群。方法利用基于花粉的植被重建(reveal)的大型数据集,对两个时期的开放植被、轻林地和封闭森林进行比较。我们使用随机森林模型和缩小比例的气候数据来评估气候-植被关系在不同时期之间是否一致,如果它们反映了气候对植被的直接影响。结果全新世-中全新世开放植被比末次间冰期略高,平均20%比16%。相比之下,全新世早期-中期的轻林地覆盖度较低,平均为49%,而成对细胞的平均值为57%。两个时期开放植被和轻林地的综合覆盖度均较高,末次间冰期平均为73%,全新世早中期平均为69%。两个时期的封闭森林覆盖率相似(全新世= 24%;末次间冰期= 23%)。值得注意的是,全新世早中期的开放性-气候关系不能预测末次间冰期的开放性植被。这些发现表明,早中期全新世和末次间冰期的植被受到持续的、实质性的干扰,这些干扰不受直接气候效应的控制,并且不同时期的主要驱动因素不同,末次间冰期和中石器时代丰富的巨型动物是主要的候选人。我们的研究结果支持全新世早期-中期生态系统已经受到智人的强烈塑造,并且与早期温带生态系统不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Drivers of Vegetation Structure Differ Between Proposed Natural Reference Conditions for Temperate Europe

Drivers of Vegetation Structure Differ Between Proposed Natural Reference Conditions for Temperate Europe

Aim

Pre-degradation baseline conditions (references) provide crucial context for restoration actions. Here, we compare vegetation structure and its driving processes across the main pre-agricultural references discussed for temperate Europe: the Last Interglacial and the early-mid Holocene—before and after the arrival of Homo sapiens, respectively.

Location

Temperate Europe.

Time Period

The first ~4000–6000 years, excluding the initial early-successional phases, of the Last Interglacial (PAAZ III) and Holocene (8700–5700 BP).

Major Taxa Studied

Plants.

Methods

We use large datasets of pollen-based vegetation reconstructions (REVEALS) to compare open vegetation, light woodland and closed forest between the two periods. We use Random Forest modelling and downscaled climate data to assess whether climate-vegetation relations were consistent between periods, as expected if they reflected direct climatic effects on vegetation.

Results

Open vegetation was slightly higher in the early–mid Holocene than in the Last Interglacial, averaging 20% versus 16% in paired grid cells, respectively. In contrast, light woodland cover was lower in the early–mid Holocene, with mean values of 49% compared to 57% in paired cells. The combined open vegetation and light woodland cover was high in both periods, averaging 73% in the Last Interglacial and 69% in the early–mid Holocene. Closed forest cover was similar across both periods (Holocene = 24%; Last Interglacial = 23%). Notably, openness –climate relations from the early–mid Holocene cannot predict open vegetation in the Last Interglacial.

Main Conclusions

These findings suggest that vegetation in the early–mid Holocene and Last Interglacial was affected by persistent, substantial disturbances, which were not controlled by direct climate effects, and that the main drivers differed between the periods, with the rich megafauna of the Last Interglacial and Mesolithic people as the primary candidates. Our findings support that early–mid Holocene ecosystems were already strongly shaped by Homo sapiens and differed from earlier temperate ecosystems.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Global Ecology and Biogeography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
3.10%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Global Ecology and Biogeography (GEB) welcomes papers that investigate broad-scale (in space, time and/or taxonomy), general patterns in the organization of ecological systems and assemblages, and the processes that underlie them. In particular, GEB welcomes studies that use macroecological methods, comparative analyses, meta-analyses, reviews, spatial analyses and modelling to arrive at general, conceptual conclusions. Studies in GEB need not be global in spatial extent, but the conclusions and implications of the study must be relevant to ecologists and biogeographers globally, rather than being limited to local areas, or specific taxa. Similarly, GEB is not limited to spatial studies; we are equally interested in the general patterns of nature through time, among taxa (e.g., body sizes, dispersal abilities), through the course of evolution, etc. Further, GEB welcomes papers that investigate general impacts of human activities on ecological systems in accordance with the above criteria.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信