Landscape Ecology

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 969–987 | Cite as

Scale-dependent importance of environment, land use and landscape structure for species richness and composition of SE Norwegian modern agricultural landscapes

  • Rune H. Økland
  • Harald Bratli
  • Wenche E. Dramstad
  • Anette Edvardsen
  • Gunnar Engan
  • Wendy Fjellstad
  • Einar Heegaard
  • Oddvar Pedersen
  • Heidi Solstad
Research Article


Knowledge of variation in vascular plant species richness and species composition in modern agricultural landscapes is important for appropriate biodiversity management. From species lists for 2201 land-type patches in 16 1-km2 plots five data sets differing in sampling-unit size from patch to plot were prepared. Variation in each data set was partitioned into seven sources: patch geometry, patch type, geographic location, plot affiliation, habitat diversity, ecological factors, and land-use intensity. Patch species richness was highly predictable (75% of variance explained) by patch area, within-patch heterogeneity and patch type. Plot species richness was, however, not predictable by any explanatory variable, most likely because all studied landscapes contained all main patch types – ploughed land, woodland, grassland and other open land – and hence had a large core of common species. Patch species composition was explained by variation along major environmental complex gradients but appeared nested to lower degrees in modern than in traditional agricultural landscapes because species-poor parts of the landscape do not contain well-defined subsets of the species pool of species-rich parts. Variation in species composition was scale dependent because the relative importance of specific complex gradients changed with increasing sampling-unit size, and because the amount of randomness in data sets decreased with increasing sampling-unit size. Our results indicate that broad landscape structural changes will have consequences for landscape-scale species richness that are hard or impossible to predict by simple surrogate variables.


Land use intensity Landscape structure Patch Spatial scale Spatial variation Variation partitioning Vascular plants 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anonymous 1992–2000. ArcView GIS 3.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Inc., Redlands, California.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous 2004. R Version 2.0.0 for Windows. The R foundation for statistical computing, Google Scholar
  3. Araújo, M.B., Densham, P.J., Williams, P.H. 2004Representing species in reserves from patterns of assemblage diversityJ. Biogeogr.3110371050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrhenius, O. 1921Species and areaJ. Ecol.99599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aune, B. 1993Temperaturnormalernormalperiode 1961–1990Det Norske Meteorol. Inst. Rapp. Klima1993163Google Scholar
  6. Austin, M.P. 1999The potential contribution of vegetation ecology to biodiversity researchEcography22465484Google Scholar
  7. Bellehumeur, C., Legendre, P., Marcotte, D. 1997Variance and spatial scales in a tropical rain forest: changing the size of sampling unitsPlant Ecol.1308998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benton, T.G., Vickery, J.A., Wilson, J.D. 2003Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the keyTrends Ecol. Evol.18182188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birks, H.J.B. 1993Quaternary palaeoecology and vegetation science – current contributions and possible future developmentsRev. Palaeobot. Palynol.79153177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birks, H.J.B. 1996Statistical approaches to interpreting diversity patterns in the Norwegian mountain floraEcography19332340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borcard, D., Legendre, P., Drapeau, P. 1992Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variationEcology7310451055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bratli H., Økland T., Økland R.H., Dramstad W.E., Elven R., Engan G., Fjellstad W., Heegaard E., Pedersen O. and Solstad H. 2006. Patterns of variation in vascular plant species richness and composition in SE Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Agricult. Ecosyst. Environ. in press.Google Scholar
  13. Brose, U. 2001Relative importance of isolation, area and habitat heterogeneity for vascular plant species richness of temporary wetlands in east-German farmlandEcography24722730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burel, F., Baudry, J., Butet, A., Clergeau, P., Delettre, Y., Le Coeur, D., Dubs, F., Morvan, N., Paillat, G., Petit, S., Thenail, C., Brunel, E., Lefeuvre, J.-C. 1998Comparative biodiversity along a gradient of agricultural landscapesActa Oecol.194760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cousins, S.A.O., Eriksson, O. 2001Plant species occurrences in a rural hemiboreal landscape: effects of remnant habitats: site history, topography and soilEcography24461469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cousins, S.A.O., Eriksson, O. 2002The influence of management history and habitat on plant species richness in a rural hemiboreal landscapeSwedenLandscape Ecol.17517529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crawley, M.J., Harral, J.E. 2001Scale dependence in plant biodiversityScience291864868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dauber, J., Hirsch, M., Simmering, D., Waldhardt, R., Otte, A., Wolters, V. 2003Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: matrix effects on species richnessAgric. Ecosyst. Environ.98321329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Snoo, G.R. 1997Arable flora in sprayed and unsprayed crop edgesAgric. Ecosyst. Environ.66223230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diekmann, M. 2003Species indicator values as an important tool in applied plant ecology – a reviewBasic Appl. Ecol.4493506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dramstad, W.E., Fjellstad, W.J., Strand, G.-H., Mathiesen, H.F., Engan, G., Stokland, J. 2002Development and implementation of the Norwegian monitoring programme for agricultural landscapesJ. Environ. Manage.644963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dumortier, M., Butaye, J., Jacquemyn, H., Camp, N., Lust, N., Hermy, M. 2002Predicting vascular plant species richness of fragmented forests in agricultural landscapes in central BelgiumFor. Ecol. Manage.15885102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dungan, J.L., Perry, J.N., Dale, M.R.T., Legendre, P., Citron-Pousty, S., Fortin, M.-J., Jakomulska, A., Miriti, M., Rosenberg, M.S. 2002A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysisEcography25626640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edvardsen A. and Økland R.H. 2006a. Variation in plant species richness in and adjacent to 64 ponds in SE Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Aquat. Bot. in press.Google Scholar
  25. Edvardsen A. and Økland R.H. 2006b. Variation in plant species composition in and adjacent to 64 ponds in SE Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Aquat. Bot. in press.Google Scholar
  26. Ejrnæs, R., Bruun, H.H. 2000Gradient analysis of dry grassland vegetation in DenmarkJ. Veg. Sci.11573584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ellenberg H., Weber H.E., Düll R., Wirth V. and Werner W. 2001. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobot. 18th ed. 3: 1–262.Google Scholar
  28. Eriksson, O. 1993The species-pool hypothesis and plant community diversityOikos68371374Google Scholar
  29. Ewald, J. 2003The calcareous riddle: why are there so many calciphilous species in the Central European flora?Folia Geobot.38357366Google Scholar
  30. Fédoroff, É., Ponge, J.-F., Dubs, F., Fernández-González, F., Lavelle, P. 2005Small-scale response of plant species to land-use intensificationAgric. Ecosyst. Environ.105283290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fjellstad, W.J., Dramstad, W.E. 1999Patterns of change in two contrasting Norwegian agricultural landscapesLandsc. Urban Plan.45177191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fjellstad, W.J., Dramstad, W.E., Strand, G.-H., Fry, G.L.A. 2001Heterogeneity as a measure of spatial pattern for monitoring agricultural landscapesNorw. J. Geogr.557176Google Scholar
  33. Førland, E.J. 1993Nedbørnormalernormalperiode 1961–1990Det Norske Meteorologiske Institutt Rapport Klima39163Google Scholar
  34. Forman, R.T.T., Godron, M. 1986Landscape EcologyWileyNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Fotheringham, A.S. 1989

    Scale-independent spatial analysis

    Goodchild, M.F.Gopal, S. eds. Accuracy of Spatial DatabasesTaylor and FrancisLondon221228
    Google Scholar
  36. Gauch, H.G.,Jr. 1982Noise reduction by eigenvector ordinationsEcology6316431649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greenacre, M.J. 1984Theory and Applications of Correspondence AnalysisAcademic PressLondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Grytnes, J.A., Birks, H.J.B., Peglar, S.M. 1999Plant species richness in Fennoscandia: evaluating the relative importance of climate and historyNord. J. Bot.19489503Google Scholar
  39. Haines-Young, R., Barr, C.J., Firbank, L.G., Furse, M., Howard, D.C., McGowan, G., Petit, S., Smart, S.M., Watkins, J.W. 2003Changing landscapes, habitats and vegetation diversity across Great BritainJ. Environ. Manage.67267281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harte, J., Conlisk, E., Ostling, A., Green, J.L., Smith, A.B. 2005A theory of spatial structure in ecological communities at multiple spatial scalesEcol. Monogr.75179197Google Scholar
  41. Hay, G.J., Marceau, D.J., Dubé, P., Bouchard, A. 2001A multi-scale framework for landscape analysis: object- specific analysis and upscalingLandscape Ecol.16471490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Heikkinen, R.K., Briks, H.J.B. 1996Spatial and environmental components of variation in the distribution patterns of subarctic plant species at KevoN Finland-a case study at the meso-scale level Ecography19341351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heikkinen, R.K., Neuvonen, S. 1997Species richness of vascular plants in the subarctic landscape of northern Finland: modelling relationships to the environmentBiodivers. Conserv.611811201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hietala-Koivu, R. 1999Agricultural landscape change: a case study in Yl¸anesouthwest FinlandLandsc. Urban Plan.46103108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hill, M.O. 1979DECORANA – A FORTRAN program for detrended correspondence analysis and reciprocal averagingCornell UniversityIthacaNew York, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. Hill, M.O., Carey, P.D. 1997Prediction of yield in the Rothamstead Park Grass experiment by Ellenberg indicator valuesJ. Veg. Sci.8579586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jeanneret, P., Schüpbach, B., Luka, H. 2003Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapesAgric. Ecosyst. Environ.98311320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jelinski, D.E., Wu, J. 1996The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecologyLandscape Ecol.11129140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kleijn, D., Snoeijing, I.J. 1997Field boundary vegetation and the effect of agrochemical drift: botanical change caused by low levels of herbicide and fertilizerJ. Appl. Ecol.3414131425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kleijn, D., Verbeek, M. 2000Factors affecting the species composition of arable field boundary vegetationJ. Appl. Ecol.37256266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Le Coeur, D., Baudry, J., Burel, F. 1997Field margins plant assemblages: variation partitioning between local and landscape factorsLandsc. Urban Plan.375771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Legendre, P., Legendre, L. 1998Numerical Ecology, 2nd edElsevierAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  53. Lennartsson, T., Oostermeijer, J.G.B. 2001Demographic variation and population viability in Gentianella campestris: effects of grassland management and environmental stochasticityJ. Ecol.89451463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Li, H., Wu, J. 2004Use and misuse of landscape indicesLandscape Ecol.19389399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lindborg, R., Eriksson, O. 2004Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant species diversityEcology8518401845Google Scholar
  56. Luoto, M., Rekolainen, S., Aakkula, J., Pykälä, J. 2003Loss of plant species richness and habitat connectivity in grasslands associated with agricultural change in FinlandAmbio32447452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Luoto, M., Toivonen, T., Heikkinen, R.K. 2002Prediction of total and rare plant species richness in agricultural landscapes from satellite images and topographic dataLandscape Ecol.17195217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McCullagh, P., Nelder, J.A. 1989Generalized Linear Models, 2nd edChapman and HallLondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Meisel, J.E., Turner, M.G. 1998Scale detection in real and artificial landscapes using semivariance analysisLandscape Ecol.13347362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moen, A. 1998Nasjonalatlas for Norge: VegetasjonStatens KartverkHønefossGoogle Scholar
  61. Moser, D., Zechmeister, H.G., Plutzar, C., Sauberer, N., Wrbka, T., Grabherr, G. 2002Landscape patch complexity as an effective measure for plant species richness in rural landscapesLandscape Ecol.17657669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Myklestad, Å. 2004Soil, site and management components of variation in species composition of agricultural grasslands in western NorwayGrass Forage Sci.59136143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Myklestad, Å., Sætersdal, M. 2004The importance of traditional meadow management techniques for conservation of vascular plant species richness in NorwayBiol. Cons.118133139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Norderhaug, A., Ihse, M., Pedersen, O. 2000Biotope patterns and abundance of meadow plant species in a Norwegian rural landscapeLandscape Ecol.15201218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Økland, R.H. 1990Vegetation ecology: theory, methods and applications with reference to FennoscandiaSommerfeltiaSuppl. 11233Google Scholar
  66. Økland, R.H. 1999On the variation explained by ordination and constrained ordination axesJ. Veg. Sci.10131136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Økland, R.H. 2003Partitioning the variation in a plot-by-species data matrix that is related to n sets of explanatory variablesJ. Veg. Sci.14693700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Økland, R.H., Bendiksen, E. 1985The vegetation of the forest-alpine transition in the Grunningsdalen areaTelemark, SE NorwaySommerfeltia21224Google Scholar
  69. Økland, R.H., Eilertsen, O., Økland, T. 1990On the relationship between sample plot size and beta diversity in boreal coniferous forestsVegetatio87187192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Økland, R.H., Økland, T., Rydgren, K. 2001Vegetation-environment relationships of boreal spruce swamp forests in Østmarka Nature ReserveSE NorwaySommerfeltia291190Google Scholar
  71. Økland, R.H., Rydgren, K., Økland, T. 1999Single-tree influence on understorey vegetation in a Norwegian boreal spruce forestOikos87488498Google Scholar
  72. Økland, R.H., Rydgren, K., Økland, T. 2003Plant species composition of boreal spruce swamp forests: closed doors and windows of opportunityEcology8419091919Google Scholar
  73. O’Neill, R.V., DeAngelis, D.L., Waide, J.B., Allen, T.F.H. 1986A Hierarchical Concept of EcosystemsPrinceton University PressPrinceton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  74. Oksanen, J. 2004Package ‘vegan’ Version 1.7–24Univ. of OuluOuluGoogle Scholar
  75. Openshaw, S., Taylor, P.J. 1979

    A million or so correlation coefficients: three experiments on the modifiable areal unit problem

    Wrigley, N. eds. Statistical Applications in the Spatial SciencesPionLondon127144
    Google Scholar
  76. Palmer, M.W., White, P.S. 1994Scale dependence and the species-area relationshipAm. Nat.144717740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pedersen, B. 1990Distributional patterns of vascular plants in Fennoscandia: a numerical approachNord. J. Bot.10163189Google Scholar
  78. Robinson, R.A., Sutherland, W.J. 2002Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great BritainJ. Appl. Ecol.39157176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schaffers, A.P., Sýkora, K.V. 2000Reliability of Ellenberg indicator values for moisturenitrogen and soil reaction: a comparison with field measurementsJ. Veg. Sci.11225244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Scott, W.A., Hallam, C.J. 2003Assessing species misidentification rates through quality assurance of vegetation monitoringPlant Ecol.165101115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shmida, A., Ellner, S. 1984Coexistence of plants with similar nichesVegetatio582955Google Scholar
  82. Sigmond, E.M., Gustavson, O.M., Roberts, D. 1984Berggrunnskart over Norge 1: 1000000Norges geologiske UndersøkelseTrondheimGoogle Scholar
  83. Smart, S.M., Clarke, R.T., Poll, H.M., Robertson, E.J., Shield, E.R., Bunce, R.G.H., Maskell, L.C. 2003National-scale vegetation change across Britain; an analysis of sample-based surveillance data from the Countryside Surveys of 1990 and 1998J. Environ. Manage.67239254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Svenning, J.-C. 2002A review of natural vegetation openness in Northwestern EuropeBiol. Conserv.104133148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. ter Braak, C.J.F. 1986Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysisEcology6711671179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. ter Braak, C.J.F., Šmilauer, P. 2002CANOCO reference manual CanoDraw for Windows user's guide:software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5)Microcomputer PowerIthacaNYGoogle Scholar
  87. Tikka, P.M., Högmander, H., Koski, P.S. 2001Road and railway verges serve as dispersal corridors for grassland plantsLandscape Ecol.16659666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tilman, D., Reich, P.B., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Mielke, T., Lehman, C. 2001Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experimentScience294843845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vandvik, V., Birks, H.J.B. 2002Partitioning floristic variance in Norwegian upland grasslands into within-site and between-site components: are the patterns determined by environment or by land-use?Plant Ecol.162233245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Venables, W.N., Ripley, B.D. 2002Modern Applied Statistics with SSpringerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  91. Wagner, H.H., Edwards, P.J. 2001Quantifying habitat specificity to assess the contribution of a patch to species richness at a landscape scaleLandscape Ecol.16121131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Waldhardt, R., Simmering, D., Otte, A. 2004Estimation and prediction of plant species richness in a mosaic landscapeLandscape Ecol.19211226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wamelink, G.W.W., Joosten, V., Dobben, H.F., Berendse, F. 2002Validity of Ellenberg indicator values judged from physico-chemical field measurementsJ. Veg. Sci.13269278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Whittaker, R.H. 1956Vegetation of the Great Smoky MountainsEcol. Monogr.26180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Whittaker, R.H. 1967Gradient analysis of vegetationBiol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc.42207264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Whittaker, R.J., Araújo, M.B., Jepson, P., Ladle, R.J., Watson, J.E.M., Willis, K.J. 2005Conservation Biogeography: assessment and prospectDivers. Distrib.11323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wiens, J.A. 1989Spatial scaling in ecologyFunct. Ecol.3385397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wilson, W.L., Abernethy, V.J., Murphy, K.J., Adam, A., McCracken, D.I., Downie, I.S., Foster, G.N., Furness, R.W., Waterhouse, A., Ribera, I. 2003Prediction of plant diversity response to land-use change on Scottish agricultural landAgric. Ecosyst. Environ.94249263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wu, J.G. 2004Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relationsLandscape Ecol.19125138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wu, J.G., Hobbs, R. 2002Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesisLandscape Ecol.17355365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wu, J., Levin, S.A. 1994A spatial patch dynamic modeling approach to pattern and process in an annual grasslandEcol. Monogr.64447464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zobel, M. 1992Plant species coexistence: the role of historical, evolutionary and ecological factorsOikos65314320Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rune H. Økland
    • 1
  • Harald Bratli
    • 1
  • Wenche E. Dramstad
    • 1
  • Anette Edvardsen
    • 1
  • Gunnar Engan
    • 1
  • Wendy Fjellstad
    • 1
  • Einar Heegaard
    • 1
  • Oddvar Pedersen
    • 1
  • Heidi Solstad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of botany, Natural history museumUniversity of OsloBlindernNorway

Personalised recommendations