Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Indicators of species richness at the local scale in an alpine region: a comparative approach between plant and invertebrate taxa

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies investigating congruent variations in species richness patterns in alpine habitats are scarce. We investigated the potential of using the indicator taxa approach for species richness in alpine habitats of the Scandes (Norway). In four areas, we investigated seven functional and taxonomic terrestrial groups of organisms and evaluated their contribution to the species diversity. The function of each group as a surrogate for the overall species diversity or for the diversity of another taxon was analysed. Three groups of invertebrates (spiders without Lycosids, Lycosids only, and ground beetles), three groups of plants (shrubs, graminoids, and herbs), and lichens were used for a cross-taxon analysis of species diversity. Congruence in species richness was restricted to several significant results, with vascular plants and spiders (Araneae) being best suited as surrogate taxa in alpine habitats of the Scandes. In the cross-taxon analyses they showed strongest significant positive correlations, covering the total species richness of the alpine habitats best. Species counts in one group account for up to 70% of the variation in total species richness. We found only limited evidence for an ideal, efficient biodiversity indicator taxon that could be applied without restrictions at different alpine habitats in low and middle alpine areas. Thus, our results suggest that it is very important to use more than one taxon as indicator for species richness in terrestrial alpine habitats. This should facilitate future conservation planning in alpine areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Andersen AN (1995) Measuring more of biodiversity: genus richness as a surrogate for species richness in Australian ant faunas. Biol Conserv 73:39–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell JR, Wheather CP (2001) Analysis of the most popular techniques for sampling spiders in large-scale ecological experiments in grasslands. Newsl Br Arachnol Soc 91:10–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand Y, Pteijel F, Rouse GW (2006) Taxonomic surrogacy in biodiversity assessments, and the meaning of Linnaean ranks. Syst Biodivers 4:149–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman WD (2001) Historical perspective and significance of alpine ecosystem studies. In: Bowman WD, Seastedt TR (eds) Structure and function of an alpine ecosystem. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Bragazza L (2009) Conservation priority of Italian Alpine habitats: a floristic approach based on potential distribution of vascular plant species. Biodivers Conserv 18:2823–2835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer A, Williamson M (1994) A new relationship for rarefaction. Biodivers Conserv 3:373–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks T, da Fonseca GAB, Rodrigues ASL (2004) Species, data, and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 18:1682–1688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks DR, Perry JN, Clark SJ et al (2008) National-scale metacommunity dynamics of carabid beetles in UK farmland. J Anim Ecol 77:265–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso P, Silva I, de Oliveira NG et al (2004) Higher taxa surrogates of spider (Araneae) diversity and their efficiency in conservation. Biol Conserv 117:453–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caro TM, O’Doherty G (1999) On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 13:805–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl E (1986) Zonation in arctic and alpine tundra and fellfield ecobiomes. In: Polunin N (ed) Ecosystem theory and application. Wiley, Chichester, pp 35–62

    Google Scholar 

  • DN (Direktoratet for naturforvaltning) (ed) (1998) Plan for overvågning biologisk mangfold. DN-rapport 1998 (Trondheim), 170 pp (in Norwegian)

  • Dormann CF, Schweiger O, Augenstein I et al (2007) Effects of landscape structure and land-use intensity on similarity of plant and animal communities. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:774–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P, Obrist MK (1998) In search for the best correlates for local organismal biodiversity in cultivated areas. Biodivers Conserv 7:297–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finch O-D, Blick T, Schuldt A (2008) Macroecological patterns of spider species richness across Europe. Biodivers Conserv 17:2849–2868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner TA, Barlow J, Araujo IS et al (2008) The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. Ecol Lett 11:139–150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ (2000) Biodiversity: higher taxon richness. Prog Phys Geogr 24:117–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Williams PH (1993) Mapping the world’s species—the higher taxon approach. Biodivers Lett 1:2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladstone W, Alexander T (2005) A test of the higher-taxon approach in the identification of candidate sites for marine reserves. Biodivers Conserv 14:3151–3168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollan JR, Ashcroft MB, Cassis G et al (2009) Testing common habitat-based surrogates of invertebrate diversity in a semi-arid rangeland. Biodivers Conserv 18:1147–1159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabherr G, Gottfried M, Gruber A (1995) Patterns and current changes in alpine plant diversity. In: Chapin FS III, Körner C et al (eds) Arctic and alpine biodiversity. Springer, Berlin, pp 167–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Green RE, Balmford A, Crane PR et al (2005) A framework for improved monitoring of biodiversity: responses to the world summit of sustainable development. Conserv Biol 19:56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hågvar S, Østbye E, Melåen J (1978) Pit-fall catches of surface-active arthropods in some high mountain habitats at Finse, South Norway. II. General results at group level, with emphasis on Opiliones, Araneida, and Coleoptera. Nor J Entomol 25:195–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Haukioja E (1981) Invertebrate herbivory at tundra sites. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard PC, Viskanic P, Davenport TRB et al (1998) Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature 394:472–475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Justus J, Sarkar S (2002) The principle of complementarity in the design of reserve networks to conserve biodiversity: a preliminary history. J Biosciences 27:421–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotze DJ, Samways MJ (1999) Support for the multi-taxa approach in biodiversity assessment, as shown by epigeic invertebrates in an Afromontane forest archipelago. J Insect Conserv 3:125–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C (1992) Assessing the indicator properties of species assemblages for natural areas monitoring. Ecol Appl 2:203–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Colwell RK, Erwin TL et al (1993) Terrestrial arthropod assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conserv Biol 7:796–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labaune C, Magnin F (2002) Pastoral management vs. land abandonment in Mediterranean uplands: impact on land snail communities. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:237–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton JH, Bignell DE, Bolton B et al (1998) Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391:72–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Löffler J (2003) Micro-climatic determination of vegetation patterns along topographical, altitudinal, and continental-oceanic gradients in the central Norwegian high mountains. Erdkunde 57:232–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löffler J, Finch O-D (2005) Spatio-temporal gradients between high mountain ecosystems of Central Norway. Arct Antarct Alp Res 37:499–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löffler J, Finch O-D, Naujok J et al (2001) Möglichkeiten der Integration zoologischer Aspekte in landschaftsökologische Untersuchungen von Hochgebirgen – Methodendiskussion am Beispiel ökologischer Prozesssysteme und Biozönosen. Natursch Landschaftspl 33:351–357 (in German with English abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  • Löffler J, Lundberg A, Rössler O et al (2004) The alpine tree line under changing land use and changing climate—approach and preliminary results from continental Norway. Nor J Geogr 58:183–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovell S, Hamer M, Slotow R et al (2007) Assessment of congruency across invertebrate taxa and taxonomic levels to identify potential surrogates. Biol Conserv 139:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G et al (2000) Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. J Environ Manage 59:47–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madelik Y, Dayan T, Chikatunov V et al (2007) Reliability of a higher-taxon approach to richness, rarity, and composition assessments at the local scale. Conserv Biol 21:1506–1515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGeoch MA (1998) The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biol Rev 73:181–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGeoch MA, Van Rensburg BJ, Botes A (2002) The verification and application of bioindicators: a case study of dung beetles in a savannah ecosystem. J Appl Ecol 39:661–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNally R, Fleishman E, Fay JP et al (2003) Modelling butterfly species richness using mesoscale environmental variables: model construction and validation for mountain ranges in the Great Basin of North America. Biol Conserv 110:21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naujok J, Finch O-D (2004) Communities and spatio-temporal patterns of epigeic beetles (Coleoptera) in high mountain habitats of the Central Norwegian Scandes, with special emphasis on carabid beetles (Carabidae). Nor J Entomol 51:31–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Oertli S, Müller A, Steiner D et al (2005) Cross-taxon congruence of species diversity and community similarity among three insect taxa in a mosaic landscape. Biol Conserv 126:195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottesen PS (1996) Niche segregation of terrestrial alpine beetles (Coleoptera) in relation to environmental gradients and phenology. J Biogeogr 23:353–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawar S (2003) Taxonomic chauvinism and the methodologically challenged. Bioscience 53:861–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson DL, Cassola F (1992) World-wide species richness patterns of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): indicator taxon for biodiversity and conservation studies. Conser Biol 6:376–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck SL, McQuaid B, Campbell CL (1998) Using ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as a biological indicator of agroecosystem condition. Environ Entomol 27:1102–1110

    Google Scholar 

  • Pharo EJ, Beattie AJ (1997) Bryophyte and lichen diversity: a comparing study. Austral J Ecol 22:151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Brooks TM (2007) Shortcuts for biodiversity conservation planning: the effectiveness of surrogates. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 38:713–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohr JR, Mahan CG, Kim KC (2007) Developing a monitoring program for invertebrates: guidelines and a case study. Conserv Biol 21:422–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sauberer N, Zulka KP, Abensberg-Traun M et al (2004) Surrogate taxa for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes of eastern Austria. Biol Conserv 117:181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sergio F, Pedrini P (2007) Biodiversity gradients in the Alps: the overriding importance of elevation. Biodivers Conserv 16:3243–3254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Similä M, Kouki J, Mönkkönen M et al (2006) Co-variation and indicators of species diversity: can richness of forest-dwelling species be predicted in northern boreal forests? Ecol Indic 6:686–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPSS Inc. (2003) SPSS für windows 12.0.1. SPSS Inc, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  • Teder T, Moora M, Roosaluste E et al (2007) Monitoring of biological diversity: a common-ground approach. Conserv Biol 21:313–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson DBA, Brown A (1992) Biodiversity in montane Britain: habitat variation, vegetation diversity and some objectives for conservation. Biodivers Conserv 1:179–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping CJ, Sunderland KD (1992) Limitations to the use of pitfall traps in ecological studies exemplified by a study of spiders in a field of winter wheat. J Appl Ecol 29:485–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welker JM, Bowman WD, Seastedt TR (2001) Environmental change and future directions in alpine research. In: Bowman WD, Seastedt TR (eds) Structure and function of an alpine ecosystem. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 304–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams PH, Gaston KJ (1994) Measuring more of biodiversity: can higher-taxon richness predict wholesale species richness? Biol Conserv 67:211–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

R. Pape, J. Naujok, and O. Roessler helped during the fieldwork. The landowners granted us access to their land, and the Standa and Vågå communities gave permission for our investigations. The study was partly sponsored by Colour Line AS, Oslo. Thanks to all!

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Animal Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Faculty V, Carl-von-Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, 26111, Oldenburg, Germany

    Oliver-D. Finch

  2. Climatology and Landscape Ecology Section, Department of Geography, University of Bonn, 53115, Bonn, Germany

    Jörg Löffler

Authors
  1. Oliver-D. Finch
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jörg Löffler
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver-D. Finch.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 2.

Table 2 List of species recorded in both investigation areas in Norway
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Finch, OD., Löffler, J. Indicators of species richness at the local scale in an alpine region: a comparative approach between plant and invertebrate taxa. Biodivers Conserv 19, 1341–1352 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9765-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9765-5

Keywords