scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Xiangcheng Mi

Bio: Xiangcheng Mi is an academic researcher from Chinese Academy of Sciences. The author has contributed to research in topics: Biodiversity & Species richness. The author has an hindex of 28, co-authored 95 publications receiving 3395 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
01 Mar 2009-Ecology
TL;DR: This work investigated the effects of pure habitat, pure spatial, and spatially structured habitat processes on the distributions of species richness and species composition in a recently established 24-ha stem-mapping plot in the subtropical evergreen broad-leaved forest of Gutianshan National Nature Reserve in East China.
Abstract: The classical environmental control model assumes that species distribution is determined by the spatial variation of underlying habitat conditions. This niche-based model has recently been challenged by the neutral theory of biodiversity which assumes that ecological drift is a key process regulating species coexistence. Understanding the mechanisms that maintain biodiversity in communities critically depends on our ability to decompose the variation of diversity into the contributions of different processes affecting it. Here we investigated the effects of pure habitat, pure spatial, and spatially structured habitat processes on the distributions of species richness and species composition in a recently established 24-ha stem-mapping plot in the subtropical evergreen broad-leaved forest of Gutianshan National Nature Reserve in East China. We used the new spatial analysis method of principal coordinates of neighbor matrices (PCNM) to disentangle the contributions of these processes. The results showed that (1) habitat and space jointly explained approximately 53% of the variation in richness and approximately 65% of the variation in species composition, depending on the scale (sampling unit size); (2) tree diversity (richness and composition) in the Gutianshan forest was dominantly controlled by spatially structured habitat (24%) and habitat-independent spatial component (29%); the spatially independent habitat contributed a negligible effect (6%); (3) distributions of richness and species composition were strongly affected by altitude and terrain convexity, while the effects of slope and aspect were weak; (4) the spatial distribution of diversity in the forest was dominated by broad-scaled spatial variation; (5) environmental control on the one hand and unexplained spatial variation on the other (unmeasured environmental variables and neutral processes) corresponded to spatial structures with different scales in the Gutianshan forest plot; and (6) five habitat types were recognized; a few species were statistically significant indicators of three of these habitats, whereas two habitats had no significant indicator species. The results suggest that the diversity of the forest is equally governed by environmental control (30%) and neutral processes (29%). In the fine-scale analysis (10 x 10 m cells), neutral processes dominated (43%) over environmental control (20%).

541 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Kristina J. Anderson-Teixeira1, Kristina J. Anderson-Teixeira2, Stuart J. Davies2, Stuart J. Davies3, Amy C. Bennett1, Erika Gonzalez-Akre1, Helene C. Muller-Landau2, S. Joseph Wright2, Kamariah Abu Salim, Angelica M. Almeyda Zambrano1, Angelica M. Almeyda Zambrano4, Angelica M. Almeyda Zambrano5, Alfonso Alonso1, Jennifer L. Baltzer6, Yves Basset2, Norman A. Bourg1, Eben N. Broadbent1, Eben N. Broadbent5, Eben N. Broadbent4, Warren Y. Brockelman7, Sarayudh Bunyavejchewin8, David F. R. P. Burslem9, Nathalie Butt10, Nathalie Butt11, Min Cao12, Dairon Cárdenas, George B. Chuyong13, Keith Clay14, Susan Cordell15, H. S. Dattaraja16, Xiaobao Deng12, Matteo Detto2, Xiaojun Du17, Alvaro Duque18, David L. Erikson3, Corneille E. N. Ewango, Gunter A. Fischer, Christine Fletcher19, Robin B. Foster, Christian P. Giardina15, Gregory S. Gilbert20, Gregory S. Gilbert2, Nimal Gunatilleke21, Savitri Gunatilleke21, Zhanqing Hao17, William W. Hargrove15, Terese B. Hart, Billy C.H. Hau22, Fangliang He23, Forrest M. Hoffman24, Robert W. Howe25, Stephen P. Hubbell26, Stephen P. Hubbell2, Faith Inman-Narahari27, Patrick A. Jansen28, Patrick A. Jansen2, Mingxi Jiang17, Daniel J. Johnson14, Mamoru Kanzaki29, Abdul Rahman Kassim19, David Kenfack2, David Kenfack3, Staline Kibet30, Margaret F. Kinnaird31, Lisa Korte1, Kamil Král, Jitendra Kumar24, Andrew J. Larson32, Yide Li, Xiankun Li17, Shirong Liu, Shawn K. Y. Lum33, James A. Lutz34, Keping Ma17, Damian M. Maddalena24, Jean-Remy Makana31, Yadvinder Malhi11, Toby R. Marthews11, Rafizah Mat Serudin, Sean M. McMahon2, Sean M. McMahon35, William J. McShea1, Hervé Memiaghe36, Xiangcheng Mi17, Takashi Mizuno29, Michael D. Morecroft37, Jonathan Myers38, Vojtech Novotny39, Alexandre Adalardo de Oliveira40, Perry S. Ong41, David A. Orwig42, Rebecca Ostertag43, Jan den Ouden28, Geoffrey G. Parker35, Richard P. Phillips14, Lawren Sack26, Moses N. Sainge, Weiguo Sang17, Kriangsak Sri-ngernyuang44, Raman Sukumar16, I-Fang Sun45, Witchaphart Sungpalee44, H. S. Suresh16, Sylvester Tan, Sean C. Thomas46, Duncan W. Thomas47, Jill Thompson48, Benjamin L. Turner2, María Uriarte49, Renato Valencia50, Marta I. Vallejo, Alberto Vicentini51, Tomáš Vrška, Xihua Wang52, Xugao Wang, George D. Weiblen53, Amy Wolf25, Han Xu, Sandra L. Yap41, Jess K. Zimmerman48 
Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute1, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute2, National Museum of Natural History3, University of Alabama4, Stanford University5, Wilfrid Laurier University6, Mahidol University7, Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation8, University of Aberdeen9, University of Queensland10, Environmental Change Institute11, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden12, University of Buea13, Indiana University14, United States Forest Service15, Indian Institute of Science16, Chinese Academy of Sciences17, National University of Colombia18, Forest Research Institute Malaysia19, University of California, Santa Cruz20, University of Peradeniya21, University of Hong Kong22, University of Alberta23, Oak Ridge National Laboratory24, University of Wisconsin–Green Bay25, University of California, Los Angeles26, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources27, Wageningen University and Research Centre28, Kyoto University29, University of Nairobi30, Wildlife Conservation Society31, University of Montana32, Nanyang Technological University33, Utah State University34, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center35, Centre national de la recherche scientifique36, Natural England37, Washington University in St. Louis38, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic39, University of São Paulo40, University of the Philippines Diliman41, Harvard University42, University of Hawaii at Hilo43, Maejo University44, National Dong Hwa University45, University of Toronto46, Washington State University Vancouver47, University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras48, Columbia University49, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador50, National Institute of Amazonian Research51, East China Normal University52, University of Minnesota53
TL;DR: The broad suite of measurements made at CTFS-ForestGEO sites makes it possible to investigate the complex ways in which global change is impacting forest dynamics, and continued monitoring will provide vital contributions to understanding worldwide forest diversity and dynamics in an era of global change.
Abstract: Global change is impacting forests worldwide, threatening biodiversity and ecosystem services including climate regulation. Understanding how forests respond is critical to forest conservation and climate protection. This review describes an international network of 59 long-term forest dynamics research sites (CTFS-ForestGEO) useful for characterizing forest responses to global change. Within very large plots (median size 25ha), all stems 1cm diameter are identified to species, mapped, and regularly recensused according to standardized protocols. CTFS-ForestGEO spans 25 degrees S-61 degrees N latitude, is generally representative of the range of bioclimatic, edaphic, and topographic conditions experienced by forests worldwide, and is the only forest monitoring network that applies a standardized protocol to each of the world's major forest biomes. Supplementary standardized measurements at subsets of the sites provide additional information on plants, animals, and ecosystem and environmental variables. CTFS-ForestGEO sites are experiencing multifaceted anthropogenic global change pressures including warming (average 0.61 degrees C), changes in precipitation (up to +/- 30% change), atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and sulfur compounds (up to 3.8g Nm(-2)yr(-1) and 3.1g Sm(-2)yr(-1)), and forest fragmentation in the surrounding landscape (up to 88% reduced tree cover within 5km). The broad suite of measurements made at CTFS-ForestGEO sites makes it possible to investigate the complex ways in which global change is impacting forest dynamics. Ongoing research across the CTFS-ForestGEO network is yielding insights into how and why the forests are changing, and continued monitoring will provide vital contributions to understanding worldwide forest diversity and dynamics in an era of global change.

470 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
James A. Lutz, Tucker J. Furniss, Daniel J. Johnson, Stuart J. Davies1, David Allen, Alfonso Alonso, Kristina J. Anderson-Teixeira2, Ana Andrade, Jennifer L. Baltzer, Kendall M. L. Becker, Erika M. Blomdahl, Norman A. Bourg3, Norman A. Bourg2, Sarayudh Bunyavejchewin, David F. R. P. Burslem4, C. Alina Cansler, Ke Cao5, Min Cao5, Dairon Cárdenas, Li-Wan Chang, Kuo-Jung Chao, Wei-Chun Chao, Jyh-Min Chiang, Chengjin Chu, George B. Chuyong, Keith Clay, Richard Condit, Susan Cordell6, H. S. Dattaraja, Alvaro Duque7, Corneille E. N. Ewango, Gunter A. Fischer, Christine Fletcher, James A. Freund, Christian P. Giardina6, Sara J. Germain, Gregory S. Gilbert, Zhanqing Hao, Terese B. Hart, Billy C.H. Hau8, Fangliang He, Andy Hector, Robert W. Howe, Chang-Fu Hsieh9, Yue-Hua Hu5, Stephen P. Hubbell, Faith Inman-Narahari6, Akira Itoh, David Janík, Abdul Rahman Kassim, David Kenfack1, Lisa Korte, Kamil Král, Andrew J. Larson10, Yide Li, Yiching Lin, Shirong Liu, Shawn K. Y. Lum, Keping Ma5, Jean-Remy Makana, Yadvinder Malhi11, Sean M. McMahon12, William J. McShea2, Hervé Memiaghe13, Xiangcheng Mi5, Michael D. Morecroft11, Paul M. Musili, Jonathan Myers, Vojtech Novotny14, Alexandre Adalardo de Oliveira, Perry S. Ong15, David A. Orwig16, Rebecca Ostertag, Geoffrey G. Parker12, Rajit Patankar17, Richard P. Phillips, Glen Reynolds18, Lawren Sack, Guo-Zhang Michael Song, Sheng-Hsin Su, Raman Sukumar, I-Fang Sun, Hebbalalu S. Suresh, Mark E. Swanson, Sylvester Tan, Duncan W. Thomas, Jill Thompson, María Uriarte, Renato Valencia, Alberto Vicentini, Tomáš Vrška, Xugao Wang, George D. Weiblen, Amy Wolf, Shu-Hui Wu19, Han Xu, Takuo Yamakura, Sandra L. Yap15, Jess K. Zimmerman 
TL;DR: Because large-diameter trees constitute roughly half of the mature forest biomass worldwide, their dynamics and sensitivities to environmental change represent potentially large controls on global forest carbon cycling.
Abstract: Aim: To examine the contribution of large-diameter trees to biomass, stand structure, and species richness across forest biomes. Location: Global. Time period: Early 21st century. Major taxa studied: Woody plants. Methods: We examined the contribution of large trees to forest density, richness and biomass using a global network of 48 large (from 2 to 60 ha) forest plots representing 5,601,473 stems across 9,298 species and 210 plant families. This contribution was assessed using three metrics: the largest 1% of trees >= 1 cm diameter at breast height (DBH), all trees >= 60 cm DBH, and those rank-ordered largest trees that cumulatively comprise 50% of forest biomass. Results: Averaged across these 48 forest plots, the largest 1% of trees >= 1 cm DBH comprised 50% of aboveground live biomass, with hectare-scale standard deviation of 26%. Trees >= 60 cm DBH comprised 41% of aboveground live tree biomass. The size of the largest trees correlated with total forest biomass (r(2) 5.62, p < .001). Large-diameter trees in high biomass forests represented far fewer species relative to overall forest richness (r(2) = 5.45, p < .001). Forests with more diverse large-diameter tree communities were comprised of smaller trees (r(2) = 5.33, p < .001). Lower large-diameter richness was associated with large-diameter trees being individuals of more common species (r(2) =5.17, p=5.002). The concentration of biomass in the largest 1% of trees declined with increasing absolute latitude (r(2) = 5.46, p < .001), as did forest density (r(2) = 5.31, p < .001). Forest structural complexity increased with increasing absolute latitude (r(2) = 5.26, p < .001). Main conclusions: Because large-diameter trees constitute roughly half of the mature forest biomass worldwide, their dynamics and sensitivities to environmental change represent potentially large controls on global forest carbon cycling. We recommend managing forests for conservation of existing large-diameter trees or those that can soon reach large diameters as a simple way to conserve and potentially enhance ecosystem services.

297 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Aug 2012-Ecology
TL;DR: The results show that abiotic filtering plays a role in structuring local assemblages and governing spatial turnover in community composition and that phylogenetic measures of alpha and beta diversity are not strong predictors of functional alpha and Beta diversity in the forests studied.
Abstract: The study of biodiversity has tended to focus primarily on relatively information-poor measures of species diversity. Recently, many studies of local diversity (alpha diversity) have begun to use measures of functional and phylogenetic alpha diversity. Investigations into the phylogenetic and functional dissimilarity (beta diversity) of communities have been far less numerous, but these dissimilarity measures have the potential to infer the mechanisms underlying community assembly and dynamics. Here, we relate levels of phylogenetic and functional alpha diversity to levels of phylogenetic and functional beta diversity to infer the mechanism or mechanisms responsible for the assembly of tree communities in six forests located in tropical and temperate latitudes. The results show that abiotic filtering plays a role in structuring local assemblages and governing spatial turnover in community composition and that phylogenetic measures of alpha and beta diversity are not strong predictors of functional alpha and beta diversity in the forests studied.

201 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Nov 2009-Ecology
TL;DR: It is suggested that heterogeneous habitat and dispersal limitation are two predominant mechanisms for maintaining the spatial distributions of the species in these two forests.
Abstract: Species-area relationships (SARs) characterize the spatial distribution of species diversity in community ecology, but the biological mechanisms underlying the SARs have not been fully explored. Here, we examined the roles of dispersal limitation and habitat heterogeneity in shaping SARs in two large-scale forest plots. One is a 24-ha subtropical forest in Gutianshan National Nature Reserve, China. The other is a 50-ha tropical rain forest in Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Spatial point pattern models were applied to investigate the contributions of dispersal and habitat heterogeneity and their interactions to the formation of the SARs in the two sites. The results showed that, although dispersal and habitat heterogeneity each could significantly contribute to the SARs, each alone was insufficient to explain the SARs. Their joint effects sufficiently explained the real SARs, suggesting that heterogeneous habitat and dispersal limitation are two predominant mechanisms for maintaining the spatial distributions of the species in these two forests. These results add to our understanding of the ecological processes underlying the spatial variation of SARs in natural forest communities.

150 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols used xiii 1.
Abstract: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

14,171 citations

Book ChapterDOI
31 Jan 1963

2,885 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A single ‘fast–slow’ plant economics spectrum that integrates across leaves, stems and roots is a key feature of the plant universe and helps to explain individual ecological strategies, community assembly processes and the functioning of ecosystems.
Abstract: Summary 1. The leaf economics spectrum (LES) provides a useful framework for examining species strategies as shaped by their evolutionary history. However, that spectrum, as originally described, involved only two key resources (carbon and nutrients) and one of three economically important plant organs. Herein, I evaluate whether the economics spectrum idea can be broadly extended to water – the third key resource –stems, roots and entire plants and to individual, community and ecosystem scales. My overarching hypothesis is that strong selection along trait trade-off axes, in tandem with biophysical constraints, results in convergence for any taxon on a uniformly fast, medium or slow strategy (i.e. rates of resource acquisition and processing) for all organs and all resources. 2. Evidence for economic trait spectra exists for stems and roots as well as leaves, and for traits related to water as well as carbon and nutrients. These apply generally within and across scales (within and across communities, climate zones, biomes and lineages). 3. There are linkages across organs and coupling among resources, resulting in an integrated whole-plant economics spectrum. Species capable of moving water rapidly have low tissue density, short tissue life span and high rates of resource acquisition and flux at organ and individual scales. The reverse is true for species with the slow strategy. Different traits may be important in different conditions, but as being fast in one respect generally requires being fast in others, being fast or slow is a general feature of species. 4. Economic traits influence performance and fitness consistent with trait-based theory about underlying adaptive mechanisms. Traits help explain differences in growth and survival across resource gradients and thus help explain the distribution of species and the assembly of communities across light, water and nutrient gradients. Traits scale up – fast traits are associated with faster rates of ecosystem processes such as decomposition or primary productivity, and slow traits with slow process rates. 5. Synthesis. Traits matter. A single ‘fast–slow’ plant economics spectrum that integrates across leaves, stems and roots is a key feature of the plant universe and helps to explain individual ecological strategies, community assembly processes and the functioning of ecosystems.

2,246 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A roadmap of the most widely used and ecologically relevant approaches for analysis through a series of mission statements is provided, distinguishing two types of β diversity: directional turnover along a gradient vs. non-directional variation.
Abstract: A recent increase in studies of β diversity has yielded a confusing array of concepts, measures and methods. Here, we provide a roadmap of the most widely used and ecologically relevant approaches for analysis through a series of mission statements. We distinguish two types of β diversity: directional turnover along a gradient vs. non-directional variation. Different measures emphasize different properties of ecological data. Such properties include the degree of emphasis on presence/absence vs. relative abundance information and the inclusion vs. exclusion of joint absences. Judicious use of multiple measures in concert can uncover the underlying nature of patterns in β diversity for a given dataset. A case study of Indonesian coral assemblages shows the utility of a multi-faceted approach. We advocate careful consideration of relevant questions, matched by appropriate analyses. The rigorous application of null models will also help to reveal potential processes driving observed patterns in β diversity.

1,995 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify ten contrasting perspectives that shape the vulnerability debate but have not been discussed collectively and present a set of global vulnerability drivers that are known with high confidence: (1) droughts eventually occur everywhere; (2) warming produces hotter Droughts; (3) atmospheric moisture demand increases nonlinearly with temperature during drought; (4) mortality can occur faster in hotter Drought, consistent with fundamental physiology; (5) shorter Drought can become lethal under warming, increasing the frequency of lethal Drought; and (6) mortality happens rapidly
Abstract: Patterns, mechanisms, projections, and consequences of tree mortality and associated broad-scale forest die-off due to drought accompanied by warmer temperatures—“hotter drought”, an emerging characteristic of the Anthropocene—are the focus of rapidly expanding literature. Despite recent observational, experimental, and modeling studies suggesting increased vulnerability of trees to hotter drought and associated pests and pathogens, substantial debate remains among research, management and policy-making communities regarding future tree mortality risks. We summarize key mortality-relevant findings, differentiating between those implying lesser versus greater levels of vulnerability. Evidence suggesting lesser vulnerability includes forest benefits of elevated [CO2] and increased water-use efficiency; observed and modeled increases in forest growth and canopy greening; widespread increases in woody-plant biomass, density, and extent; compensatory physiological, morphological, and genetic mechanisms; dampening ecological feedbacks; and potential mitigation by forest management. In contrast, recent studies document more rapid mortality under hotter drought due to negative tree physiological responses and accelerated biotic attacks. Additional evidence suggesting greater vulnerability includes rising background mortality rates; projected increases in drought frequency, intensity, and duration; limitations of vegetation models such as inadequately represented mortality processes; warming feedbacks from die-off; and wildfire synergies. Grouping these findings we identify ten contrasting perspectives that shape the vulnerability debate but have not been discussed collectively. We also present a set of global vulnerability drivers that are known with high confidence: (1) droughts eventually occur everywhere; (2) warming produces hotter droughts; (3) atmospheric moisture demand increases nonlinearly with temperature during drought; (4) mortality can occur faster in hotter drought, consistent with fundamental physiology; (5) shorter droughts occur more frequently than longer droughts and can become lethal under warming, increasing the frequency of lethal drought nonlinearly; and (6) mortality happens rapidly relative to growth intervals needed for forest recovery. These high-confidence drivers, in concert with research supporting greater vulnerability perspectives, support an overall viewpoint of greater forest vulnerability globally. We surmise that mortality vulnerability is being discounted in part due to difficulties in predicting threshold responses to extreme climate events. Given the profound ecological and societal implications of underestimating global vulnerability to hotter drought, we highlight urgent challenges for research, management, and policy-making communities.

1,786 citations