Stephen Michael Turton

Prof. Stephen Michael Turton

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

13Years (2014-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 June 2015 in Applied Geography
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MAMohammed Alamgir
Mohammed Alamgir
Sharif A. MukulSharif A. Mukul
Sharif A. Mukul
STStephen Michael Turton
Stephen Michael Turton

1 March 2015 in Forest Ecology and Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EPElizabeth Clare Pryde
Elizabeth Clare Pryde
GHGreg J. Holland
Greg J. Holland
SWSimon J. Watson
Simon J. Watson
STStephen Michael Turton
Stephen Michael Turton
DNDale G. Nimmo
Dale G. Nimmo

22 February 2017 in Geographical Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
STStephen Michael Turton
Stephen Michael Turton

1 October 2018 in Ecological Indicators
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Mohammed AlamgirMohammed Alamgir
Mohammed Alamgir
STStephen Michael Turton
Stephen Michael Turton
MCMason J. Campbell
Mason J. Campbell
CMColin Macgregor
Colin Macgregor
PPPetina L. Pert
Petina L. Pert

6 December 2018 in Ecology and Evolution
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HSHemchandranauth Sambhu
Hemchandranauth Sambhu
ANAlliea Nankishore
Alliea Nankishore
STStephen Michael Turton
Stephen Michael Turton
TNTobin Northfield
Tobin Northfield
The accelerating expansion of human populations and associated economic activity across the globe have made maintaining large, intact natural areas increasingly challenging. The difficulty of preserving large intact landscapes in the presence of growing human populations has led to a growing emphasis on landscape approaches to biodiversity conservation with a complementary strategy focused on improving conservation in human‐modified landscapes. This, in turn, is leading to intense debate about the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation in human‐modified landscapes and approaches to better support biodiversity in those landscapes. Here, we compared butterfly abundance, alpha richness, and beta diversity in human‐modified landscapes (urban, sugarcane) and natural, forested areas to assess the conservation value of human‐modified landscapes within the Wet Tropics bioregion of Australia. We used fruit‐baited traps to sample butterflies and analyzed abundance and species richness in respective land uses over a one‐year period. We also evaluated turnover and spatial variance components of beta diversity to determine the extent of change in temporal and spatial variation in community composition. Forests supported the largest numbers of butterflies, but were lowest in each, alpha species richness, beta turnover, and the spatial beta diversity. Sugarcane supported higher species richness, demonstrating the potential for conservation at local scales in human‐modified landscapes. In contrast, beta diversity was highest in urban areas, likely driven by spatial and temporal variation in plant composition within the urban landscapes. Thus, while improving conservation on human‐modified landscapes may improve local alpha richness, conserving variation in natural vegetation is critical for maintaining high beta diversity.

1 October 2014 in Journal of Rural Studies
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NSNigel Stork
Nigel Stork
STStephen Michael Turton
Stephen Michael Turton
RHRosemary Hill
Rosemary Hill
MLMarcus B. Lane
Marcus B. Lane