Advertisement

Phylogenetic attributes, conservation status and geographical origin of species gained and lost over 50 years in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve

  • T. L. ElliottEmail author
  • T. J. Davies
Original Paper
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Global change has been occurring at unprecedented rates throughout the last century. A source of recent heated debate has been how such global changes, including land transformation, affect species richness and ecosystem functioning. Growing scientific consensus suggests that more diverse communities support greater ecosystem functioning; however, species numbers might fluctuate over time, and ecosystem processes are shaped by both species richness and species identities. In recent decades, habitat loss and major biodiversity change has occurred on the edge of urban centres because of land transformation to suburban development. Biological surveys provide a valuable record of how biodiversity has responded to this habitat transformation, especially if they have been conducted in the same location over time. Here, we examine changes in species richness, composition and phylogenetic structure between two surveys of vascular plants conducted over 50 years apart on Mont St. Hilaire, Québec, Canada—a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve surrounded by residential development. We found 198 more species in the more recent survey, but failed to detect 70 species that had been recorded in the earlier survey. A significant number of species gains were closely-related introduced non-native species. Species found only during the first survey (species losses) were frequently native species of special conservation status, and these species tended to be more evolutionarily distinct than species gained. Our results demonstrate that, in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, there have been significant changes in species richness and composition over the last half-century that might have far-reaching effects on ecosystem properties.

Keywords

Evolutionary distinctiveness Extinctions Introductions Phylogenetic clustering Phylogenetic overdispersion Species richness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank D. Maneli and S. Shooner for their help in the field, as well as R. Beauséjour, K. Flinn, M. Lapointe, A. Lavoie, M. Lechowicz, C. Polcz and M. Waterway for helping to locate additional species on Mont St. Hilaire. We are also grateful to G. Argus, P. Catling, N. Cavallin, R. Fréchon, G. Hall, K. Han, K. Martins, E.V. Pérez, J. Phipps, A. Reznicek, J. Saarela, M. Waterway and countless volunteers for their help either identifying or processing herbarium specimens. Furthermore, we thank S. Joly for his assistance with the phylogenetic reconstruction. Funding for TLE was provided by McGill University, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Québec Centre for Biodiversity Science (QCBS) and the W. Garfield Weston Foundation.

Supplementary material

10531_2018_1688_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (148 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 148 kb)
10531_2018_1688_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (104 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 104 kb)
10531_2018_1688_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (142 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 142 kb)
10531_2018_1688_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (76 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 75 kb)
10531_2018_1688_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (63 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 62 kb)
10531_2018_1688_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (80 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (PDF 80 kb)
10531_2018_1688_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (135 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (PDF 134 kb)
10531_2018_1688_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (2.1 mb)
Supplementary material 8 (PDF 2107 kb)
10531_2018_1688_MOESM9_ESM.pdf (104 kb)
Supplementary material 9 (PDF 103 kb)
10531_2018_1688_MOESM10_ESM.pdf (113 kb)
Supplementary material 10 (PDF 112 kb)

References

  1. Ahrends A, Rahbek C, Bulling MT et al (2011) Conservation and the botanist effect. Biol Conserv 144:131–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballantyne M, Pickering CM (2015) The impacts of trail infrastructure on vegetation and soils: current literature and future directions. J Environ Manag 164:53–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauséjour R, Handa IT, Lechowicz MJ et al (2015) Historical anthropogenic disturbances influence patterns of non-native earthworm and plant invasions in a temperate primary forest. Biol Invasions 17:1267–1281.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0794-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauvais M-P, Pellerin S, Lavoie C (2016) Beta diversity declines while native plant species richness triples over 35 years in a suburban protected area. Biol Conserv 195:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Béliveau M, Germain D, Ianăş A-N (2017) Fifty-year spatiotemporal analysis of landscape changes in the Mont Saint-Hilaire UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (Quebec, Canada). Environ Monit Assess 189:215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-5938-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell G (2003) The interpretation of biological surveys. Proc R Soc B 270:2531–2542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brouillet L, Coursol F, Meades S et al (2013) VASCAN, the database of vascular plants of Canada. http://data.canadensys.net/vascan/
  8. Cadotte MW, Davies TJ (2010) Rarest of the rare: advances in combining evolutionary distinctiveness and scarcity to inform conservation at biogeographical scales. Divers Distrib 16:376–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadotte MW, Hamilton MA, Murray BR (2009) Phylogenetic relatedness and plant invader success across two spatial scales. Divers Distrib 15:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cavender-Bares J, Ackerly DD, Baum DA, Bazzaz FA (2004) Phylogenetic overdispersion in Floridian oak communities. Am Nat 163:823–843.  https://doi.org/10.1086/386375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavender-Bares J, Kozak KH, Fine PVA, Kembel SW (2009) The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. Ecol Lett 12:693–715.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01314.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen I-C, Hill JK, Ohlemüller R et al (2011) Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333:1024–1026.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christenhusz MJ, Byng JW (2016) The number of known plants species in the world and its annual increase. Phytotaxa 261:201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1998) A taxonomic distinctness index and its statistical properties. J Appl Ecol 35:523–531.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.3540523.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J-P et al (2004) Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:113–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Culley TM (2013) Why vouchers matter in botanical research. Appl Plant Sci 1:1300076.  https://doi.org/10.3732/apps.1300076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darwin AT, Ladd D, Galdins R et al (2004) Response of forest understory vegetation to a major ice storm. J Torrey Bot Soc 131:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeStefano S, DeGraaf RM (2003) Exploring the ecology of suburban wildlife. Front Ecol Environ 1:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Développement durable, Environment et Lutte contre les changements climatiques (2017) Espèces menacées ou vulnérables au Québec. Gouvernement du Québec, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  20. Dornelas M, Gotelli NJ, McGill B et al (2014) Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss. Science 344:296–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dupras J, Drouin C, André P, Gonzalez A (2015) Towards the establishment of a green infrastructure in the region of Montreal (Quebec, Canada). Plan Pract Res 30:355–375.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1058073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elliott TL, Davies TJ (2014) Challenges to barcoding an entire flora. Mol Ecol Resour 14:883–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Faith DP (1992) Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv 61:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Filion L, Payette S, Robert EC et al (2006) Insect-induced tree dieback and mortality gaps in high-altitude balsam fir forests of northern New England and adjacent areas. Écoscience 13:275–287.  https://doi.org/10.2980/i1195-6860-13-2-275.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (1993) Flora of North America North of Mexico, 19 + vols. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Flynn DFB, Mirotchnick N, Jain M et al (2011) Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity–ecosystem-function relationships. Ecology 92:1573–1581.  https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1245.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forest F, Grenyer R, Rouget M et al (2007) Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in biodiversity hotspots. Nature 445:757–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Francis G (2004) Biosphere Reserves in Canada: ideals and some experience. Environ J Interdiscip Stud 32:3–25Google Scholar
  30. Gilbert B, Lechowicz MJ (2004) Neutrality, niches, and dispersal in a temperate forest understory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:7651–7656.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400814101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gilbert B, Lechowicz MJ (2005) Invasibility and abiotic gradients: the positive correlation between native and exotic plant diversity. Ecology 86:1848–1855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gleason HA, Cronquist A (1991) Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, 2nd edn. The New York Botanical Garden, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gonzalez A, Cardinale BJ, Allington GRH et al (2016) Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity. Ecology 97:1949–1960.  https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1759.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haines A (2011) Flora Novae Angliae. New England Wildflower Society & Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  35. Hamilton MA, Murray BR, Cadotte MW et al (2005) Life-history correlates of plant invasiveness at regional and continental scales. Ecol Lett 8:1066–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Helmus MR, Savage K, Diebel MW et al (2007) Separating the determinants of phylogenetic community structure. Ecol Lett 10:917–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ho LST, Ané C (2014) A linear-time algorithm for Gaussian and non-Gaussian trait evolution models. Syst Biol 63:397–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hooper MC, Arii K, Lechowicz MJ (2001) Impact of a major ice storm on an old-growth hardwood forest. Can J Bot 79:70–75Google Scholar
  39. Hudson JMG, Henry GHR (2009) Increased plant biomass in a high arctic heath community from 1981 to 2008. Ecology 90:2657–2663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huot M, Lebel F (2012) Plan de gestion du cerf de Virginie au Québec 2010–2017. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune – secteur Faune Québec, Direction générale de l’expertise sur la faune et ses habitatsGoogle Scholar
  41. Kapfer J, Hédl R, Jurasinski G et al (2016) Resurveying historical vegetation data—opportunities and challenges. Appl Veg Sci 20:164–171.  https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kembel SW, Cowan PD, Helmus MR et al (2010) Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26:1463–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Knight TM, Caswell H, Kalisz S (2009) Population growth rate of a common understory herb decreases non-linearly across a gradient of deer herbivory. For Ecol Manag 257:1095–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lundmark C (2003) BioBlitz: getting into backyard biodiversity. Bioscience 53:329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maycock PF (1961) Botanical studies on Mont St. Hilaire, Rouville County, Quebec. I—General description of the area and a floristic survey. Can J Bot 39:1293–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation: the impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. Bioscience 52:883–890.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052%5b0883:UBAC%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mitchell MG, Bennett EM, Gonzalez A et al (2015) The Montérégie Connection: linking landscapes, biodiversity, and ecosystem services to improve decision making. Ecol Soc 20:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Morrison SA, Sillett TS, Funk WC et al (2017) Equipping the 22nd-century historical ecologist. Trends Ecol Evol 32:578–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Myers JA, Vellend M, Gardescu S, Marks PL (2004) Seed dispersal by white-tailed deer: implications for long-distance dispersal, invasion, and migration of plants in eastern North America. Oecologia 139:35–44.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1474-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nitoslawski SA, Steenberg JW, Duinker PN, Bush PG (2017) Assessing the influence of location attributes on urban forest species composition in suburban neighbourhoods. Urban For Urban Green 27:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Connor NE, Crowe TP (2005) Biodiversity loss and ecosystem functioning: distinguishing between number and identity of species. Ecology 86:1783–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Olden JD, Poff NL, Douglas MR et al (2004) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends Ecol Evol 19:18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oredsson A (2000) Choice of surveyor is vital to the reliability of floristic change studies. Watsonia 23:287–292Google Scholar
  56. Parmesan C (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:637–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pereira HM, Leadley PW, Proença V et al (2010) Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330:1496–1501.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pickering C, Mount A (2010) Do tourists disperse weed seed? A global review of unintentional human-mediated terrestrial seed dispersal on clothing, vehicles and horses. J Sustain Tour 18:239–256.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580903406613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pyke GH, Ehrlich PR (2010) Biological collections and ecological/environmental research: a review, some observations and a look to the future. Biol Rev 85:247–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Redding DW, Mooers AØ (2006) Incorporating evolutionary measures into conservation prioritization. Conserv Biol 20:1670–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reznicek AA, Voss EG (2012) Field manual of Michigan Flora. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rodrigues AS, Gaston KJ (2002) Maximising phylogenetic diversity in the selection of networks of conservation areas. Biol Conserv 105:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rooney TP (2009) High white-tailed deer densities benefit graminoids and contribute to biotic homogenization of forest ground-layer vegetation. Plant Ecol 202:103–111.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-008-9489-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rooney TP, Wiegmann SM, Rogers DA, Waller DM (2004) Biotic impoverishment and homogenization in unfragmented forest understory communities. Conserv Biol 18:787–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sastre P, Lobo JM (2009) Taxonomist survey biases and the unveiling of biodiversity patterns. Biol Conserv 142:462–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Savage J, Vellend M (2014) Elevational shifts, biotic homogenization and time lags in vegetation change during 40 years of climate warming. Ecography 38:546–555.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sax DF, Gaines SD (2003) Species diversity: from global decreases to local increases. Trends Ecol Evol 18:561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sax DF, Gaines SD (2008) Species invasions and extinction: the future of native biodiversity on islands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11490–11497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Snaddon J, Petrokofsky G, Jepson P, Willis KJ (2013) Biodiversity technologies: tools as change agents. Biol Lett 9:20121029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Soberón J, Llorente J, Benitez H (1996) An international view of national biological surveys. Ann Mo Bot Gard 83:562–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Srivastava DS, Cadotte MW, MacDonald AAM et al (2012) Phylogenetic diversity and the functioning of ecosystems. Ecol Lett 15:637–648.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01795.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Steffen W, Grinevald J, Crutzen P, McNeill J (2011) The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc A 369:842–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stöckli V, Wipf S, Nilsson C, Rixen C (2011) Using historical plant surveys to track biodiversity on mountain summits. Plant Ecol Divers 4:415–425.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17550874.2011.651504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tait CJ, Daniels CB, Hill RS (2005) Changes in species assemblages within the Adelaide metropolitan area, Australia, 1836–2002. Ecol Appl 15:346–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. USDA (2018) The PLANTS database. The National Plant Data Team, GreensboroGoogle Scholar
  77. Vamosi SM, Heard SB, Vamosi JC, Webb CO (2009) Emerging patterns in the comparative analysis of phylogenetic community structure. Mol Ecol 18:572–592.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.04001.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vellend M, Baeten L, Myers-Smith IH et al (2013a) Global meta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale plant biodiversity over time. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:19456–19459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vellend M, Brown CD, Kharouba HM et al (2013b) Historical ecology: using unconventional data sources to test for effects of global environmental change. Am J Bot 100:1294–1305.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1200503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vellend M, Dornelas M, Baeten L et al (2017) Estimates of local biodiversity change over time stand up to scrutiny. Ecology 98:583–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vincent L, Zhang X, Brown R et al (2015) Observed trends in Canada’s climate and influence of low-frequency variability modes. J Clim 28:4545–4560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Webb CO (2000) Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: an example for rain forest trees. Am Nat 156:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Webb CO, Donoghue MJ (2004) Phylomatic: tree assembly for applied phylogenetics. Mol Ecol Notes 5:181–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Webb CO, Ackerly DD, McPeek MA, Donoghue MJ (2002) Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:475–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wheeler QD (1995) Systematics, the scientific basis for inventories of biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 4:476–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. White PJT, McGill BJ, Lechowicz MJ (2011) Human-disturbance and caterpillars in managed forest fragments. Biodivers Conserv 20:1745–1762.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0059-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wiens JJ (2004) Speciation and ecology revisited: phylogenetic niche conservatism and the origin of species. Evolution 58:193–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wiens JJ, Ackerly DD, Allen AP et al (2010) Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecol Lett 13:1310–1324.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01515.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Winter M, Schweiger O, Klotz S et al (2009) Plant extinctions and introductions lead to phylogenetic and taxonomic homogenization of the European flora. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:21721–21725.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907088106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  2. 2.Institut de recherche en biologie végétale, Département de sciences biologiquesUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Departments of Botany, Forest & Conservation SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  4. 4.African Centre for DNA BarcodingUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations