6 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2026
    1. This suggests that the loss of b-diversity is likelyto have been caused by the increased movement of nativespecies among forest site

      If there happens to be migratory paths for these native species, is it possible that the numbers for this study might be off, since they data was collected once per month (if I'm remembering correctly) and those studying the behavior might not have given more thought as to if those native species might be further or nearer by?

    2. The decreased turnover appears to be driven byan increase in dispersal (i.e., spillover) of native species among patches

      Does this mean native species are lowering biodiversity? I usually hear that it tends to be nonnative species that throw ecosystems out of balance by introducing something without proper competition, so I would have assumed nonnative species creating less biodiversity by dominating where they are in comparison to native organisms.

    3. We used onemotion-activated camera-trap (Cuddeback Capture orCuddeback Capture-IR Plus; recovery time of 30 s perphotograph) in each forest site, placing it in locationsfavorable for mammal detection

      Doing this to not scare off any test subjects is a good idea, but I wonder how well this method of testing works with larger animals that might be territorial and not allow many other animals to walk around freely in the area

  2. moodle-courses2527.wolfware.ncsu.edu moodle-courses2527.wolfware.ncsu.edu
    1. Smoke from fires in the Amazon does not dispersequickly

      That's interesting. For some reason, I would've thought they did with the high amount of trees in the area.

    2. Emmons’ study was the firststudy to suggest a regional effect of smoke on a non-human animal species independent of the local effectsof fire on population dynamics and habitat structure

      Have there been other studies since then? Especially for regions with different regional levels of precipitation, where smoke could have a higher or lower effect on the wildlife?

    3. be-cause trees can tap ground water.

      While I can see the reasoning for this train of thought, I find myself skeptical that ground water alone can sustain large parts of the Amazon