Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 937–958 | Cite as

Landscape context determinants to plant diversity in the permanent meadows of Southern European Alps

  • Antonio T. Monteiro
  • Francesco Fava
  • João Gonçalves
  • Alfredo Huete
  • Fausto Gusmeroli
  • Gilberto Parolo
  • Donatela Spano
  • Stefano Bocchi
Original Paper

Abstract

In the Southern Alps, the role of landscape context on meadows plant diversity was evaluated using a multi-model information theoretic approach and five competing hypotheses of landscape context factors: habitat quality (H1), matrix quality (H2), habitat change (H3), matrix quality change (H4) and topography-environmental conditions (H5)- measured at three spatial scales (125, 250 and 500 m). Shannon diversity index and species richness represented plant diversity obtained in 34 plots (100 m2 size). Landscape context affected plant diversity measures differently. Matrix quality change at larger scale (500 m) was the most supported hypothesis explaining Shannon diversity index, while species richness responded mostly to topography-environmental conditions in the immediate surroundings (125 m). No effects of present-day habitat and matrix quality (H1 and H2) were found. Matrix quality change affected positively Shannon diversity index through an effect of landscape neighbourhood context on farming management practices. Due to the importance of exposure and inclination of slopes, topography-environmental conditions influenced species richness mostly through energy-driven processes and farming management strategies. In terms of scale, matrix quality change was the strongest hypothesis explaining Shannon diversity index at all scales, while the underlying process affecting species richness changed with scale (H5 or H3). Overall, landscape context explained only 25–28 % of the variation in plant diversity, suggesting that landscape management may support biodiversity conservation when comprised in a global strategy including farming practices. In the study area, change in landscape diversity may be a good indicator for Shannon diversity index and south-eastern facing meadows should be preserved.

Keywords

Multi-model inference Matrix quality change Topography-environmental conditions Habitat change Species richness Shannon diversity index AIC EVI 

References

  1. Addicott JF, Aho JM, Antolin MF et al (1987) Ecological Neighborhoods - Scaling Environmental Patterns. Oikos 49:340–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adriaens D, Honnay O, Hermy M (2006) No evidence of a plant extinction debt in highly fragmented calcareous grasslands in Belgium. Biol Conserv 133:212–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson DR, Burnham KP (2002) Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods. J Wildl Manage 66:912–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson DR, Burnham KP, White GC (2001) Kullback-Leibler information in resolving natural resource conflicts when definitive data exist. Wildlife Soc B 29:1260–1270Google Scholar
  5. Bailey D, Billeter R, Aviron S et al (2007) The influence of thematic resolution on metric selection for biodiversity monitoring in agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 22:461–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennie J, Hill MO, Baxter R et al (2006) Influence of slope and aspect on long-term vegetation change in British chalk grasslands. J Ecol 94:355–368Google Scholar
  7. Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D et al (2008) Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J Appl Ecol 45:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogaert J, Farina A, Ceulemans R (2005) Entropy increase of fragmented habitats: a sign of human impact? Ecol Indic 5:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braun-Blanquet J (1964) Plant sociology. Mcgraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cameron AC, Pravin KT (1998) Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cousins SAO (2008) The historical legacy on grassland plant diversity, in: Biodiversity and animal feed: future challenges for grassland production. Proceedings of the 22nd General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, 9–12 June 2008, pp 881–891. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  13. Cousins SAO (2009) Landscape history and soil properties affect grassland decline and plant species richness in rural landscapes. Biol Conserv 142:2752–2758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cousins S, Ohlson H, Eriksson O (2007) Effects of historical and present fragmentation on plant species diversity in semi-natural grasslands in Swedish rural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 22:723–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dauber J, Hirsch M, Simmering D et al (2003) Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: matrix effects on species richness. Agric Ecosyst & Environ 98:321–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dochtermann NA, Jenkins SH (2011) Developing multiple hypotheses in behavioral ecology. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dufour A, Gadallah F, Wagner HH et al (2006) Plant species richness and environmental heterogeneity in a mountain landscape: effects of variability and spatial configuration. Ecography 29:573–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ESRI (2005) Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)- ESRI Data ArcGIS Desktop 9.1. Redland, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142Google Scholar
  20. Ewers RM, Thorpe S, Didham RK (2007) Synergistic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88:96–106Google Scholar
  21. EXELIS (2009) ENVI- IDL 4.7, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. FAO (1988) Soil map of the world. FAO World Soil Resources ReportsGoogle Scholar
  23. Fava F, Parolo G, Colombo R et al (2010) Fine-scale assessment of hay meadow productivity and plant diversity in the European Alps using field spectrometric data. Agric Ecosyst Environ 137:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischer M, Rudmann-Maurer K, Weyand A et al (2008) Agricultural Land Use and Biodiversity in the Alps. MT Res Dev 28:148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gasso N, Pino J, Font X et al (2011) Regional context affects native and alien plant species richness across habitat types. Appl Veg Sci 15:4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glenn E, Huete A, Nagler P et al (2008) Relationship between remotely-sensed vegetation indices, canopy attributes and plant physiological processes: what vegetation indices can and cannot tell us about the landscape. Sensors 8:2136–2160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grueber CE, Nakagawa S, Laws RJ et al (2011) Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions. J Evol Biol 24:699–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gustavsson E, Lennartsson T, Emanuelsson M (2007) Land use more than 200 years ago explains current grassland plant diversity in a Swedish agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 138:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hall FG, Bergen K, Blair JB et al (2011) Characterizing 3D vegetation structure from space: mission requirements. Remote Sens Environ 115:2753–2775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Helm A, Hanski I, Partel M (2006) Slow response of plant species richness to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol Lett 9:72–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hobbs NT, Hilborn R (2006) Alternatives to statistical hypothesis testing in ecology: a guide to self teaching. Ecol Appl 16:5–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hofer G, Bunce RGH, Edwards PJ et al (2011) Use of topographic variability for assessing plant diversity in agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 142:144–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hovd H (2008) Occurrence of meadow herbs in sown and unsown ploughed strips in cultivated grassland. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect B 58:208–215Google Scholar
  34. Huete A, Didan K, Miura T et al (2002) Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens Environ 83:195–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klimek S, Kemmermann RA, Hofmann M et al (2007) Plant species richness and composition in managed grasslands: the relative importance of field management and environmental factors. Biol Conserv 134:559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knappova J, Hemrova Munzbergova Z (2012) Colonization of central European abandoned fields by dry grassland species depends on the species richness of the source habitats: a new approach for measuring habitat isolation. Landscape Ecol 27:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krauss J, Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I et al (2004) Effects of habitat area, isolation, and landscape diversity on plant species richness of calcareous grasslands. Biodivers Conserv 13:1427–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ, Chong GW (2006) Spatial heterogeneity influences native and nonnative plant species richness. Ecology 87:3186–3199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N et al (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindborg R, Eriksson O (2004) Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant species diversity. Ecology 85:1840–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Luth C, Tasser E, Niedrist G et al (2011) Plant communities of mountain grasslands in a broad cross-section of the Eastern Alps. Flora 206:433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacArthur R, Wilson E (2001) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  43. MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G et al (2000) Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. J Environ Manage 59:47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marini L, Scotton M, Klimek S, Isselstein J, Pecile A (2007) Effects of local factors on plant species richness and composition of Alpine meadows. Agric Ecosyst Environ 119:281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marini L, Scotton M, Klimek S et al (2008) Patterns of plant species richness in alpine hay meadows: local vs landscape controls. Basic Appl Ecol 9:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marini L, Fontana P, Klimek S et al (2009) Impact of farm size and topography on plant and insect diversity of managed grasslands in the Alps. Biol Conserv 142:394–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mathias Ö, Sara AO, Ove E (2007) Size and heterogeneity rather than landscape context determine plant species richness in semi-natural grasslands. J Veg Sci 18:859–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maurer K, Weyand A, Fischer M et al (2006) Old cultural traditions, in addition to land use and topography, are shaping plant diversity of grasslands in the Alps. Biol Conserv 130:438–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) Fragstats: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Massachusetts University, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  50. Monteiro AT, Fava F, Hiltbrunner E et al (2011) Assessment of land cover changes and spatial drivers behind loss of permanent meadows in the lowlands of Italian Alps. Landscape Urban Plann 100:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moser D, Dullinger S, Englisch T et al (2005) Environmental determinants of vascular plant species richness in the Austrian Alps. J Biogeogr 32:1117–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Neter JW, Kutner MH (1990) Applied linear statistical models. Burr Ridge, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  53. Niedrist G, Tasser E, Lüth C et al (2008) Plant diversity declines with recent land use changes in European Alps. Plant Ecol 202:195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. ORNL-DAAC (2011) MODIS subsetted land products, Collection 5. ORNL DAACGoogle Scholar
  55. Pickett STA, Thompson JN (1978) Patch dynamics and the design of nature reserves. Biol Conserv 13:27–37Google Scholar
  56. Piedallu C, Gégout JC (2008) Efficient assessment of topographic solar radiation to improve plant distribution models. Agr Forest Meteorol 148:1696–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org
  58. Raatikainen KM, Heikkinen RK, Luoto M (2009) Relative importance of habitat area, connectivity, management and local factors for vascular plants: spring ephemerals in boreal semi-natural grasslands. Biodivers Conserv 18:1067–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reitalu T, Johansson LJ, Sykes MT et al (2010) History matters: village distances, grazing and grassland species diversity. J Appl Ecol 47:1216–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sitzia T, Trentanovi G (2012) Maggengo meadow patches enclosed by forests in the Italian Alps: evidence of landscape legacy on plant diversity. Biodivers Conserv 20:945–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sjöström M, Ardö J, Arneth A et al (2011) Exploring the potential of MODIS EVI for modeling gross primary production across African ecosystems. Remote Sens Environ 115:1081–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith AC, Koper N, Francis CM et al (2009) Confronting collinearity: comparing methods for disentangling the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 24:1271–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith AC, Fahrig L, Francis CM (2011) Landscape size affects the relative importance of habitat amount, habitat fragmentation, and matrix quality on forest birds. Ecography 34:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spiegelberger T, Matthies D, Muller-Scharer H et al (2006) Scale-dependent effects of land use on plant species richness of mountain grassland in the European Alps. Ecography 29:541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Steffan-Dewenter I, Munzenberg U, Burger C et al (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432Google Scholar
  66. Strijker D (2005) Marginal lands in Europe - causes of decline. Basic Appl Ecol 6:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Symonds MRE, Moussalli A (2011) A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tasser E, Walde J, Tappeiner U et al (2007) Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the Eastern Central Alps. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Turner MG, Romme WH, Gardner RH et al (1993) A revised concept of landscape equilibrium: disturbance and stability on scaled landscapes. Landscape Ecol 8:213–227Google Scholar
  70. Weibull AC, Ostman O, Granqvist A (2003) Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodivers Conserv 12:1335–1355Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio T. Monteiro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Francesco Fava
    • 3
  • João Gonçalves
    • 4
  • Alfredo Huete
    • 5
  • Fausto Gusmeroli
    • 6
  • Gilberto Parolo
    • 7
  • Donatela Spano
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stefano Bocchi
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Science for Nature and Environmental ResourcesUniversity of SassariSassariItaly
  2. 2.Impacts on Agriculture, Forest and Natural Ecosystems Division (IAFENT)Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Climate ChangeSassariItaly
  3. 3.Remote Sensing of Environmental Dynamics LaboratoryUniversity of Milan-BicoccaMilanItaly
  4. 4.Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic ResourcesUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  5. 5.Plant Functional Biology and Climate Change Cluster, School of Environment, University Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  6. 6.Fojanini Foundation of SondrioSondrioItaly
  7. 7.Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  8. 8.Department of Crop ScienceUniversity of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations