KEY SPECIES AS CENTERS OF THE BIODIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT

Biol. Stud. 2019: 13(1); 161–168 • DOI: https://doi.org/10.30970/sbi.1301.590

Y. V. Tsaryk, O. S. Reshetylo, I. Y. Tsaryk


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30970/sbi.1301.590

Abstract


In this article, the interrelation of key species with the biotic diversity in the ecosystems is considered. Attention is drawn to actual scientific problem of the biodiversity research of all variety forms and on all of its levels. The further humankind existence depends on the solution of the problem. It is possible to conduct biodiversity research in two aspects: integral (global) and differential (local). These aspects differ in final results and their outlay sources for the realization. Knowledge of total biodiversity on the planet is a result of global approach, and the knowledge of certain groups of organisms (taxonomic, ecological etc.) for the certain territory is the result for local approach. Both of them substantially differ in methodology approaches.
One of the effective methodology approaches for study of the local biodiversity is a study of key species’ role in its development. In this work, the following categorization of key species is accepted: ecological, protective, economical, social, adventitious etc. The examples of the role of key species in the development of species diversity in ecosystems are reviewed. In particular, it was ascertained that such ant species as Lasius niger and L. flavus settle abandoned arable lands in mass, create specific micro-landscapes there, and influence positively on the development and growth of some grass plant species. European mole Talpa europaea changes soil structure significantly and has a huge influence on plant species diversity due to its burrowing activity. Such species of amphibians as Fire-bellied toad Bombina bombina, Crested newt Triturus cristatus, Moor frog Rana arvalis, Spadefoot Pelobates fuscus, Green toad Bufotes viridis etc. are worthy of notice as the indicators of environment (habitat) status.
The attention is drawn to the consortive analysis as the most effective instrument in the research of interrelations between key species and biodiversity. The analysis is focused on the research of obligate and facultative organisms of different taxonomic groups which are functioning as a whole.

Keywords: biodiversity, key species, key species’ categories, consortive analysis, consortive interrelations, ecosystem


References


1. Begon M., Harper J., Townsend C. Ecology. Individuals, Populations and Communities: Vol. 1. Мoscow: Мir, 1989. 667 p. (In Russian)

2. Bilonoha V., Gynda L., Danylyk I., Dmytrakh R., Zhylyayev G., Kyyak V., Kobiv V., Kobiv Y., Mykitchak T., Nesteruk Y., Reshetylo O., Serednytska S., Sytschak N., Sosnovska S., Tsaryk Y., Shtupun V. / Ed. Tsaryk Y. The mechanisms of self-renewal of populations. Lviv: Spolom, 2014. 216 p. (In Ukrainian)

3. Description of Key Species Groups in the Northern Planning Area / Australian Government, National Oceans Office. PML, 2004. 323 p.

4. Gilarov A.M. Population ecology: Students' Book. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1990. 191 p. (In Russian)

5. Hanski I. The shrinking world: ecological consequences of habitat loss. Moscow: KMK, 2015. 340 p. (In Russian)

6. Holubets M. Ecosystemology. Lviv: Polli, 2000. 315 p. (In Ukrainian)

7. Holubets M. From biosphere to sociosphere. Lviv: Polli, 1997. 251 p. (In Ukrainian)

8. Ivashov A.V. Genetic peculiarities of the green oak tortrix micropopulations in the individual consortions of sessile and pubescent oaks. Reports of NAS of Ukraine, 2000; 10: 196-201. (In Ukrainian)

9. Kutseryb T., Tsaryk J. The role of burrowing mammals in soil formation processes and plant successions in mountain systems (on the example of the Ukrainian Carpathians and Subcarpathians regions). Lviv: LSUPhC, 2018. 188 p. (In Ukrainian)

10. Mezhzherin S.V. Animal resources of Ukraine in the context of sustainable development strategy: analytical guide-book. Kyiv: Logos, 2008. 281 p. (In Russian)

11. Mykitchak T.I., Reshetylo O.S. Distribution and spatial dissemination of crustacean plankton (Crustacea, Cladocera) in water bodies of Chornohora massif (Ukrainian Carpathians). Visn. zool., 2009; 43. 5: 441-447. (In Ukrainian)
Google Scholar

12. Mykitchak T.I., Rozhko I.M., Lenko O.V., Reshetylo O.S. Bioindication of the quality of lentic water bodies. In: Prykhodko M.M., Kyseluk O.I., Yavorskyy A.I. (Eds.) Carpathian National Nature Park. Ivano-Frankivsk: Foliant, 2009: 260-275. (In Ukrainian)

13. Reshetylo O. Diversity of amphibian communities in the Ukrainian part of the Prypiat river basin. Visn. of Lviv Univ. Ser. Biol., 2011; 56: 111-120. (In Ukrainian)
Google Scholar

14. Reshetylo O., Rizun V., Kanarskyy Y. Structure of amphibian communities in the flood-lands of the upper Dnister river basin. Sci. Visn. of Uzhgorod Univ. Ser. Biol., 2007; 21: 117-120. (In Ukrainian)
Google Scholar

15. Sustainable development of society: 25 questions and answers. Interpretative dictionary. Kyiv: Polygraph-Express, 2001. 28 p. (In Ukrainian)

16. Tsaryk I. Formicidae as indicator of changes in biotic and abiotic components of ecosystems. Visn. of Lviv Univ. Ser. Biol., 2012; 59: 3-11. (In Ukrainian)
Google Scholar

17. Tsaryk I.Y. The obligate consorts of Pinus mugo Turra in Chornohora (the Ukrainian Carpathians). Ukr. Botan. Zhurn., 1996; 53. 6: 749-751. (In Ukrainian)

18. Tsaryk Y., Tsaryk I., Sushko A. Disposal of ant-hills (Formicidae) in the agricultural habitats. Visn. of Lviv Univ. Ser. Biol., 2015; 69: 214-219. (In Ukrainian)
Google Scholar

19. Tsaryk Y., Zhylyayev G., Kyyak V., Bilonoha V., Dmytrakh R., Kobiv Y., Sytschak N., Danylyk I., Reshetylo O., Mykitchak T., Kobiv V. / Ed. Tsaryk Y. Conservation of biodiversity in the highlands of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Scientific recommendations. Lviv: Merkator, 2009. 52 p. (In Ukrainian).

20. Tsaryk Y.V. Consortion and biodiversity conservation. Ecological Issue of NTS, 2001; VII: 237-248. (In Ukrainian)

21. Watson D.M., Herring M. Mistletoe as a keystone resource: an experimental test. Proc. R. Soc. B, 2012; 279: 3853-3860.
CrossrefPubMedPMCGoogle Scholar

22. Yablokov A.V., Yusufov A.G. Doctrine of evolution. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola, 2006. 310 p. (In Russian)


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 Studia biologica

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.