Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 75–96 | Cite as

Role of way of life, latitude, elevation and climate on the richness and distribution of orchid species

  • Spyros TsiftsisEmail author
  • Zuzana Štípková
  • Pavel Kindlmann
Original Paper
  • 137 Downloads

Abstract

We are experiencing climate warming that is likely to affect all regions worldwide, although in a different manner, when its consequences (e.g. increase of temperature, lower seasonality, lower environmental stochasticity) are considered. Thus, our prediction of how global change will affect distribution and survival of species can be estimated by using our knowledge, how species richness and distribution is related with latitude and elevation. We used 193 terrestrial orchid species and subspecies as an example and we classified them according to their root system. This trait represents the evolution of strategies for underground storage of resources and resource acquisition as well as a characteristics that can be described as a life history trait. Classification of orchid life history traits that focus on belowground strategies has never been examined in a macroecological study. We then explored the associations between species richness, mean niche breadth and mean distribution on one hand and selected predictors on the other hand, using regression techniques for all orchids, and then for their subsets with different root systems. The predictive power, as well as the significance of the predictors, was also tested using polynomial second order generalized linear models. Species richness for the three belowground strategies was significantly affected by the predictors, whereas their mean niche breadth and mean distribution were largely dependent on their evolutionary history. The correlations of mean niche breadth and mean distribution with maximum elevation, latitude and longitude were significant for all orchid taxa and their subsets. All the variables together accounted for almost 50% or more of the variance in each of the subsets. The maximum elevation was the most significant factor for rhizomatous and intermediate orchids, whereas minimum temperature in the coldest month was highly significant for the tuberous orchids. Spatial distribution of Greek orchids is associated with a combination of elevation, latitude and climate. The distributions of rhizomatous and intermediate orchids are mainly associated with the orographic configuration of Greece, whereas the tuberous orchids are widely distributed in the southern, central and north-western areas of Greece, where most of them are limited by the harsh winter climate.

Keywords

Diversity Elevational gradient Latitudinal gradient Macroecological preferences Calcareous substrates Mean distribution Niche breadth 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic Grant No. LO1415 to ZS and ST and by the Grant No. GB14-36098G of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic to PK. We are grateful to Dr. Schatz Bertrand, and an anonymous reviewer, who provided valuable comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We also thank Tony Dixon for his assistance to the linguistic improvement of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10531_2018_1637_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (130 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 130 kb)
10531_2018_1637_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (83 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 83 kb)
10531_2018_1637_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (78 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 78 kb)
10531_2018_1637_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (XLSX 25 kb)

References

  1. Acharya KP, Vetaas OR, Birks HJB (2011) Orchid species richness along Himalayan elevational gradients. J Biogeogr 38:1821–1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anon. (2009) PASW 18 for Windows. Rel. 18.0.0. SPSS Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Anon. (2012) ArcGIS—ArcMap: ArcInfo (version 10.1). Environmental Science Research Institute (ESRI) Inc, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonopoulos Z, Tsiftsis S (2017) Atlas of the Greek Orchids, vol II. Mediterraneo Editions, RethymnoGoogle Scholar
  5. Averyanov L (1990) A review of the genus Dactylorhiza. In: Arditti J (ed) Orchid biology—reviews and perspectives, vol V. Timber Press Inc, Portland, pp 159–206Google Scholar
  6. Bachman S, Baker WJ, Brummitt N, Dransfield J, Moat J (2004) Elevational gradients, area and tropical island diversity: an example from the palms of New Guinea. Ecography 27:299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhattarai KR, Vetaas OR (2003) Variation in plant species richness of different life forms along a subtropical elevation gradient in the Himalayas, east Nepal. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:327–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bjørndalen JE (2015) Protection of Norwegian orchids—a review of achievements and challenges. Eur J Environ Sci 5:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JH (1995) Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapin FS, Körner C (1995) Arctic and alpine biodiversity: patterns, causes and ecosystem consequences. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen S-B, Ferry Slik JW, Gao J, Mao L-F, Bi M-J, Shen M-W, Zhou K-X (2015) Latitudinal diversity gradients in bryophytes and woody plants: roles of temperature and water availability. J Syst Evol 53:535–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colwell RK, Hurtt GC (1994) Nonbiological gradients in richness and a spurious Rapoport effect. Am Nat 144:570–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conord C, Gurevitch J, Fady B (2012) Large-scale longitudinal gradients of genetic diversity: a meta-analysis across six phyla in the Mediterranean basin. Ecol Evol 2:2600–2614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crame JA (2001) Taxonomic diversity gradients through geological time. Divers Distrib 7:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dafni A (1987) Pollination in Orchis and related genera: evolution from reward to deception. In: Adritti J (ed) Orchid biology, reviews and perspectives, vol IV. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 79–104Google Scholar
  16. Del Prete C, Mazzola P (1995) Endemism and speciation in the orchids of Mediterranean islands. Fl Medit 21:119–134Google Scholar
  17. Delforge P (2006) Orchids of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. A & C Black, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Dixon AFG, Kindlmann P, Lepš J, Holman J (1987) Why are there so few species of aphids, especially in the tropics? Am Nat 129:580–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dolédec S, Chessel D, Gimaret-Carpentier C (2000) Niche separation in community analysis: a new method. Ecology 81:2914–2927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dressler RL (1981) The orchids: natural history and classification. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Eccarius W (2016) Die Orchideengattung Dactylorhiza. Phylogenie, Taxonomie, Morphologie, Biologie, Verbreitung, Ökologie und Hybridisation. W. Eccarius, EisenachGoogle Scholar
  22. Essl F, Staudinger M, Stöhr O, Schratt-Ehrendorfer L, Rabitsch W, Nikfeld H (2009) Distribution patterns, range size and niche breadth of Austrian endemic plants. Biol Conserv 142:2547–2558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Francis AP, Currie DJ (2003) A globally consistent richness–climate relationship for angiosperms. Am Nat 161:523–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Füller F (1974) Epipactis und Cephalanthera. Orchideen Mitteleuropas, 5. Teil. Die Neue Brehm-Bücherei. A. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg LutherstadtGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (2000) Patterns and process in macroecology. Blackwell Science Ltd, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grytnes JA (2003) Species-richness patterns of vascular plants along seven altitudinal transects in Norway. Ecography 26:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hágsater E, Dumont V (eds) (1996) Orchids: status, survey and conservation action plan. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Hedrén M, Fay MF, Chase MW (2001) Amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLP) reveal details of polyploid evolution in Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae). Am J Bot 88:1868–1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hillebrand H (2004) On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Am Nat 163:192–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hrivnák R, Gömöry D, Slezák M, Ujházy K, Hédl R, Jarčuška B, Ujházyová M (2014) Species richness pattern along altitudinal gradient in central European beech forests. Folia Geobot 49:425–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. IGME (1983) Geological map of Greece, 1:500,000. IGME, AthensGoogle Scholar
  33. Jacquemyn H, Micheneau C, Roberts DL, Pailler T (2005) Elevational gradients of species diversity, breeding system and floral traits of orchid species on Reunion Island. J Biogeogr 32:1751–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacquemyn H, Duffy KJ, Selosse M-A (2017) Biogeography of orchid mycorrhizas. Ecol Stud 230:159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karamesouti M, Detsis V, Kounalaki A, Vasiliou P, Salvati L, Kosmas C (2015) Land-use and land degradation processes affecting soil resources: evidence from a traditional Mediterranean cropland (Greece). CATENA 132:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Körner C (2007) The use of “altitude” in ecological research. Trends Ecol Evol 22:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kostikova A, Litsios G, Salamin N, Pearman PB (2013) Linking life-history traits, ecology, and niche breadth evolution in North American eriogonoids (Polygonaceae). Am Nat 182:760–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  39. Marshall KE, Baltzer JL (2015) Decreased competitive interactions drive a reverse species richness latitudinal gradient in subarctic forests. Ecology 96:461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin K (2001) Wildlife in alpine and sub-alpine habitats. In: Johnson DH, O’Neil TA (eds) Wildlife habitats and relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 239–260Google Scholar
  41. Mateo RG, Broennimann O, Normand S, Petitpierre B, Araújo MB, Svenning J-C, Baselga A, Fernández-González F, Gómez-Rubio V, Muñoz J, Suarez GM, Luoto M, Guisan A, Vanderpoorten A (2016) The mossy North: an inverse latitudinal diversity gradient in European bryophytes. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25546 Google Scholar
  42. McCain CM, Knight KB (2013) Elevational Rapoport’s rule is not pervasive on mountains. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:750–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morinière J, Van Dam HM, Hawlitschek O, Bergsten J, Michat MC, Hendrich L, Ribera I, Toussaint EFA, Balke M (2016) Phylogenetic niche conservatism explains an inverse latitudinal diversity gradient in freshwater arthropods. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26340 Google Scholar
  44. Papacostas KJ, Freestone AL (2016) Latitudinal gradient in niche breadth of brachyuran crabs. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:207–2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Petřík P, Wild J (2006) Environmental correlates of the patterns of plant distribution at the mesoscale: a case study from Northern Bohemia (Czech Republic). Preslia 78:211–234Google Scholar
  46. Pfeifer M, Schatz B, Picó FX, Passalacqua NG, Fay MF, Carey PD, Jeltsch F (2009) Phylogeography and genetic structure of the orchid Himantoglossum hircinum (L.) Spreng. accross its European central-marginal gradient. J Biogeogr 36:2353–2365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Phitos D, Strid A, Snogerup S, Greuter W (eds) (1995) The red data book of rare and threatened plants of Greece. WWF for Nature, AthensGoogle Scholar
  48. Phitos D, Constantinidis T, Kamari G (eds) (2009) The red data book of rare and threatened plants of Greece, vol I: A–D. Hellenic Botanical Society, Patra (in Greek)Google Scholar
  49. Pillon Y, Fay M, Shipunov A, Chase M (2006) Species diversity versus phylogenetic diversity: a practical study in the taxonomically difficult genus Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae). Biol Conserv 129:4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pridgeon A, Cribb P, Chase M, Rasmussen F (eds) (2001) Genera Orchidacearum. vol. 2. Orchidoideae (Part 1). Oxford University Press Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 3 Feb 2016
  52. Rahbek C (1995) The elevational gradient of species richness: a uniform pattern? Ecography 18:200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rahbek C (2005) The role of spatial scale and the perception of large-scale species-richness patterns. Ecol Lett 8:224–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rasmann S, Alvarez N, Pellissier L (2014) The altitudinal niche-breadth hypothesis in insect–plant interactions. Ann Plant Rev 47:339–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rasmussen HN (1995) Terrestrial orchids from seed to mycotrophic plant. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ribas CR, Schoereder JH (2006) Is the Rapoport effect widespread? Null models revisited. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:614–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rohde K (1992) Latitudinal gradients in species-diversity: the search for the primary cause. Oikos 65:514–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosenzweig ML, Ziv Y (1999) The echo pattern of species diversity: patterns and processes. Ecography 22:614–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruggiero A, Werenkraut V (2007) One-dimensional analyses of Rapoport’s rule reviewed through meta-analysis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:401–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sanders NJ, Lessard J-P, Fitzpatrick MC, Dunn RR (2007) Temperature, but not productivity or geometry, predicts elevational diversity gradients in ants across spatial grains. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:640–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shipunov AB, Fay MF, Pillon Y, Bateman RM, Chase MW (2004) Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae) in European Russia: combined molecular and morphological analysis. Am J Bot 91:1419–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Steinbauer MJ, Grytnes J-Α, Jurasinski G, Kulonen A, Lenoir J, Pauli H, Rixen C, Winkler M, Bardy-Durchhalter M, Barni E, Bjorkman AD, Breiner FT, Burg S, Czortek P, Dawes MA, Delimat A, Dullinger S, Erschbamer B, Felde VA, Fernández-Arberas O, Fossheim KF, Gómez-García D, Georges D, Grindrud ET, Haider S, Haugum SV, Henriksen H, Herreros MJ, Jaroszewicz B, Jaroszynska F, Kanka R, Kapfer J, Klanderud K, Kühn I, Lamprecht A, Matteodo M, di Cella UM, Normand S, Odland A, Olsen SL, Palacio S, Petey M, Piscová V, Sedlakova B, Steinbauer K, Stöckli V, Svenning J-C, Teppa G, Theurillat J-P, Vittoz P, Woodin SJ, Zimmermann NE, Wipf S (2018) Accelerated increase in plant species richness on mountain summits is linked to warming. Nature 556:231–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stevens GC (1989) The latitudinal gradient in geographical range: how so many species coexist in the tropics. Am Nat 133:240–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stevens GC (1992) The elevational gradient in altitudinal range: an extension of Rapoport’s latitudinal rule to altitude. Am Nat 140:893–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Štípková Z, Romportl D, Černocká V, Kindlmann P (2017) Factors associated with the distributions of orchids in the Jeseníky Mountains, Czech Republic. Eur J Environ Sci 7:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strid A, Tan K (eds) (1997) Flora Hellenica, vol I. Koeltz Scientific Books, KönigsteinGoogle Scholar
  67. Swarts ND, Dixon KW (2009) Terrestrial orchid conservation in the age of extinction. Ann Bot 104:543–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tatarenko I (2007) Growth habits of temperate terrestrial orchids. In: Cameron KM, Arditti J, Kull T (eds) Orchid biology—reviews and perspectives, vol IX. The New York Botanical Garden Press. Bronx, New York, pp 91–161Google Scholar
  69. Thompson JD (2005) Plant evolution in the Mediterranean. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Trigas P, Panitsa M, Tsiftsis S (2013) Elevational gradient of vascular plant species richness and endemism in Crete—the effect of post-isolation mountain uplift on a continental island system. PLoS ONE 8(3):e59425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tsiftsis S, Antonopoulos Z (2017) Atlas of the Greek Orchids, vol I. Mediterraneo Editions, RethymnoGoogle Scholar
  72. Tsiftsis S, Tsiripidis I, Karagiannakidou V, Alifragis D (2008) Niche analysis and conservation of the orchids of east Macedonia (NE Greece). Acta Oecol 33:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ulrich W, Fattorini S (2013) Longitudinal gradients in the phylogenetic community structure of European Tenebrionidae (Coleoptera) do not coincide with the major routes of postglacial colonization. Ecography 36:1106–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vakhrameeva MG, Tatarenko IV, Varlygina TI, Torosyan GK, Zagulskii MN (2008) Orchids of Russia and adjacent countries (within the borders of the Former USSR). A.R.G. Gantner Verlag, Ruggell/LiechtensteinGoogle Scholar
  75. Vetaas OR, Grytnes JA (2002) Distribution of vascular plant species richness and endemic richness along the Himalayan elevation gradient in Nepal. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Webb TJ, Gaston KJ (2003) On the heritability of geographic range sizes. Am Nat 161:553–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhang S-B, Chen W-Y, Huang J-L, Bi Y-F, Yang X-F (2015a) Orchid species richness along elevational and environmental gradients in Yunnan, China. PLoS ONE 10(11):e0142621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zhang Z, Yan Y, Tian Y, Li J, He J-S, Tang Z (2015b) Distribution and conservation of orchid species richness in China. Biol Conserv 181:64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zheleznaya E (2015) Results of a study of Cypripedium in several regions of Siberia (Russia). Eur J Environ Sci 5:134–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Natural Environment ManagementEastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of TechnologyDramaGreece
  2. 2.Global Change Research Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic
  3. 3.Faculty of Science, Institute for Environmental StudiesCharles UniversityPrague 2Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations