Antarktis-bibliografi er en database over den norske Antarktis-litteraturen.
Hensikten med bibliografien er å synliggjøre norsk antarktisforskning og annen virksomhet/historie i det ekstreme sør. Bibliografien er ikke komplett, spesielt ikke for nyere forskning, men den blir oppdatert.
Norsk er her definert som minst én norsk forfatter, publikasjonssted Norge eller publikasjon som har utspring i norsk forskningsprosjekt.
Antarktis er her definert som alt sør for 60 grader. I tillegg har vi tatt med Bouvetøya.
Det er ingen avgrensing på språk (men det meste av innholdet er på norsk eller engelsk). Eldre norske antarktispublikasjoner (den eldste er fra 1894) er dominert av kvalfangst og ekspedisjoner. I nyere tid er det den internasjonale polarforskninga som dominerer. Bibliografien er tverrfaglig; den dekker både naturvitenskapene, politikk, historie osv. Skjønnlitteratur er også inkludert, men ikke avisartikler eller upublisert materiale.
Til høyre finner du en «HELP-knapp» for informasjon om søkemulighetene i databasen. Mange referanser har lett synlige lenker til fulltekstversjon av det aktuelle dokumentet. For de fleste tidsskriftartiklene er det også lagt inn sammendrag.
Bibliografien er produsert ved Norsk Polarinstitutts bibliotek.
Your search
Result 1 resource
-
Tests of biodiversity theory have been controversial partly because alternative formulations of the same theory seemingly yield different conclusions. This has been a particular challenge for neutral theory, which has dominated tests of biodiversity theory over the last decade. Neutral theory attributes differences in species abundances to chance variation in individuals’ fates, rather than differences in species traits. By identifying common features of different neutral models, we conduct a uniquely robust test of neutral theory across a global dataset of marine assemblages. Consistently, abundances vary more among species than neutral theory predicts, challenging the hypothesis that community dynamics are approximately neutral, and implicating species differences as a key driver of community structure in nature.Explaining patterns of commonness and rarity is fundamental for understanding and managing biodiversity. Consequently, a key test of biodiversity theory has been how well ecological models reproduce empirical distributions of species abundances. However, ecological models with very different assumptions can predict similar species abundance distributions, whereas models with similar assumptions may generate very different predictions. This complicates inferring processes driving community structure from model fits to data. Here, we use an approximation that captures common features of “neutral” biodiversity models—which assume ecological equivalence of species—to test whether neutrality is consistent with patterns of commonness and rarity in the marine biosphere. We do this by analyzing 1,185 species abundance distributions from 14 marine ecosystems ranging from intertidal habitats to abyssal depths, and from the tropics to polar regions. Neutrality performs substantially worse than a classical nonneutral alternative: empirical data consistently show greater heterogeneity of species abundances than expected under neutrality. Poor performance of neutral theory is driven by its consistent inability to capture the dominance of the communities’ most-abundant species. Previous tests showing poor performance of a neutral model for a particular system often have been followed by controversy about whether an alternative formulation of neutral theory could explain the data after all. However, our approach focuses on common features of neutral models, revealing discrepancies with a broad range of empirical abundance distributions. These findings highlight the need for biodiversity theory in which ecological differences among species, such as niche differences and demographic trade-offs, play a central role.
Explore
Topic
- biodiversitet (1)
- biologi (1)
- marin økologi (1)
- marine økosystemer (1)
- polarområdene (1)
- Sørishavet (1)
- zoologi (1)
Resource type
- Journal Article (1)
Publication year
-
Between 2000 and 2024
(1)
-
Between 2010 and 2019
(1)
- 2014 (1)
-
Between 2010 and 2019
(1)
Online resource
- no (1)