Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diversity indices or floristic quality index: Which one is more appropriate for comparison of forest integrity in different land uses?

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

Abstract

Zagros forest in Iran has been heavily altered by anthropogenic disturbances such as farming, grazing and other activities. In this study, we first estimated the herbaceous plants coefficient of conservatism within this region. Forest integrity of different land uses was then assessed by common measures of plant diversity and the indices were specifically developed to estimate vegetation integrity (conservatism coefficient, floristic quality index and modified floristic quality index). As complementary approaches, some soil physiochemical properties were applied to judge forest integrity. A total of 81, 82, 88, native species were recorded in understory grazing (UG), abandoned fields (AF), and protected area (PA) land uses, respectively. Common species had higher abundance in AF land use, whereas specialized species were found in PA land use. Diversity indices and modified floristic quality index values were higher in AF land use compared to UG and PA land uses, and fisher alpha diversity index highlighted the significant differences in the plant diversity among land uses, while PA land use had high species richness with greater number of sensitive species and floristic quality index. Soils under PA land use showed the highest organic carbon, nitrogen and pH. Based on results, floristic quality index and mean coefficient of conservatism can be more informative than species-diversity measures in assessing floristic integrity and in contradiction to diversity indices, are accurate tools to determine differences in the integrity of land uses. Results indicate that PA land use have indeed progressed ecologically toward a vigorous ecosystem as observed by the development of its vegetation community.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abasi S, Hosseini SM, Pilevar B, Zare H (2006) Effects of conservation on woody species diversity in Oshtorankooh region, Lorestan. Iran J For 1(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrams M, Hulbert LC (1987) Effect of topographic position and fire of species composition in tall grass prairie in northeast Kansas. Am Midl Nat 117:442–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrari Vajari K, Veis Karami GH (2005) Floristic study of Hashtad- Pahlu region in Khorramabad (Lorestan). J Pajouhesh Sazandegi 67:58–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreas BK, Mack JJ, Mccormac JS (2004) Floristic quality assessment index (FQAI) for vascular plants and mosses for the state of Ohio. Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett DT, Stohlgren TJ, Kartesz JT (2003) The rich get richer: patterns of plant invasions in the United States. Front Ecol Environ. doi:10.1890/1540-295(2003)001[0011:TRGRPO]2.0.CO;2

  • Bernthal TW, Watermolen DJ, Cchrane TS (2003) Development of a floristic quality assessment methodology for Wisconsin: Final Report to USEPA-Region V. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

  • Botta-Dukat Z (2005) Rao’s quadratic entropy as a measure of functional diversity based on multiple traits. J Veg Sci. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2005.tb02393.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown CD, Boutin C (2009) Linking past land use, recent disturbance, and dispersal mechanism to forest composition. Biol Cons. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.035

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain SJ, Ingram HM (2012) Developing coefficients of conservatism to advance floristic quality assessment in the Mid-Atlantic region. J Torrey Bot Soc. doi:10.3159/TORREY-D-12-00007.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen MJ, Cartsenn S, Lane CR (2004) Floristic quality indices for biotic assessment of depressional marsh condition in Florida. Ecol Appl. doi:10.1890/02-5378

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins HP, Elliott ET, Paustian K, Bundy LG, Dick WA, Hugins DR, Smuker AJM, Paul EA (2000) Soil carbon pools in long-term corn belt agro ecosystems. Soil Biol Biochem. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00136-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell RK, Coddington JA (1994) Estimating the extent of terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond. doi:10.1098/rstb.1994.0091

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousins R, Mackay CJ, Clarke SD, Kelly C, Kelly PJ, Mccaig RH (2004) Management Standards and work-related stress in the UK: practical development. Work Stress. doi:10.1080/02678370410001734322

    Google Scholar 

  • Cretini KF, Visser JM, Krauss KW, Steyer GD (2012) Development and use of a floristic quality index for coastal Louisiana marshes. Environ Monit Assess. doi:10.1007/s10661-011-2125-4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Degryze S, Johan Six W, Keithpaustin Z, Sherrij W, Eldor M, Paul W, Merckx R (2004) Soil organic carbon pool changes following land-use conversions. Glob Chang Biol 10:1120–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeKeyser ES, Biondini M, Kirby D, Hargiss C (2009) Low prairie plant communities of wetlands as a function of disturbance: physical parameters. Ecol Indic. doi:10.1111/j.1529-8817.2003.00786.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species response to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev. doi:10.1017/S1464793105006949

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy S, Gernes M, Mack J, Wardrop DH (2001) Methods for evaluating wetland condition: using vegetation to assess environmental conditions in wetlands. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Filippi-Codaccioni O, Devictor V, Bas Y, Julliard B (2010) Toward more concern for specialization and less for species diversity in conserving farmland biodiversity. Biol Cons 143:1493–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Findlay CS, Houlahan J (1997) Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in Southeastern Ontario Wetlands. Conserv Biol. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96144.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Freyman WA, Masters LA, Packard S (2015) The universal floristic quality assessment (FQA) calculator: an online tool for ecological assessment and monitoring. Methods Ecol Evol. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12491

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerken Golay ME (2013) Assessing the composition and function of hardwood forest herbaceous flora: implications and applications for forest restoration. Dissertation, Iowa State University

  • Ghahraman A, Attar F (1999) Biodiversity of plant species in Iran. University of Tehran, Thran

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghazanfari H, Namiranian M, Sobhani H, Mohajer RM (2004) Traditional forest management and its application to encourage public participation for sustainable forest management in the northern Zagros Mountains of Kurdistan Province, Iran. Scand J Forest Cand Res. doi:10.1080/14004080410034074

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidari M, Jalilvand H, Haidari RH, Shabanian N (2012) Study of plant biodiversity in grazed and non-grazed areas in the Iran-o-Turanian ecological zones (case study: Yazd Province, Iran). Ann Biol Res 3(11):5019–5027

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidari M, Attar Roshan S, Hatami Kh (2010) The evaluation of herb layer biodiversity in relation to physiographical factors in south of Zagros forest ecosystem (case study: Dalab protected area). RNRRC 1(2):28–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Henareh Khalyani A, Mayer ANL, Falkowski MJ, Muralidharan D (2012) Deforestation and landscape structure changes related to socioeconomic dynamics and climate change in Zagros forests. J Land Use Sci 8(3):321–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrick JE (2000) Soil quality: an indicator of sustainable land management? Appl Soil Ecol 15:75–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti AP, Lavorel S et al (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr. doi:10.1890/04-0922

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi Y, Koike F (2010) Separating the effects of land-use history and topography on the distribution of woody plant populations in a traditional rural landscape in Japan. Landsc Urban Plan. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.11.003

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosmas C, Gerontidis ST, Marathianou M (2000) The effect of land use change on soils and vegetation over various lithological formations on Lesvos (Greece). Catena. doi:10.1016/S0341-162(99)00064-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology, 2nd edn. Addison-Welsey Educational, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb EG, Bayne E, Holloway G, Schieck J, Boutin S, Herbers J, Haughland DL (2009) Indices for monitoring biodiversity change: are some more effective than others? Ecol Indic. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.06.001

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavorel S, Garnier E (2002) Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct Ecol 16:545–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity: A comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez RD, Fennessy MS (2002) Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecol Appl. doi:10.2307/3060957

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabry C (2002) Effects of cattle grazing on woodlands in central Iowa. J Iowa Acad Sci 109:53–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Springer, Netherlands

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McLean E (1982) Soil pH and lime requirement. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. Springer, Madison, pp 199–223

    Google Scholar 

  • McNicoll M, Augspurger C (2010) A comparison of vegetation and seed bank community structure in a sand prairie in Illinois, USA. Am Midl Nat 164:136–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mensing DM, Galatowitsch SM, Tester JR (1998) Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of riparian wetlands of a northern temperate landscape. J Environ Manage. doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0215

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirzaei J, Akbarnia M, Hosseini SM, Sohrabi H, Hossein zadeh J (2008) Biodiversity of herbaceous species in related to physiographic factors in forest ecosystems in central Zagros. Iran J Biol 20(4):375–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozaffarian V (2004) Dictionary of Iranian plant names. Institute of Farhang-e Mo’aser, Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1982) Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. American Society of Agronomy, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP (1985) Trends expected in stressed ecosystems. Bioscience 35:419–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olff H, Ritchie ME (1998) Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity. Trends Ecol Evol. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01364-0

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen SR, Sommers LE (1982) Phosphorus. In: Miller AL, Keeney RH (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. Springer, Madison, pp 403–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Panzer R, Schwartz MW (1998) Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservation. Conserv Biol 12:693–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish JD, Braun DP, Unnasch RS (2003) Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. Bioscience 53:851–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltzer DA, Bast ML, Wilson SD, Gerry AK (2000) Plant diversity and tree responses following contrasting disturbances in boreal forest. For Ecol Manage. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00130-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietrzykowski M (2014) Soil quality index as a tool for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) monoculture conversion planning on afforested reclaimed mine land. J For Res 25(1):63–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pilehvar B, Veiskarami GH, Taheri Abkenar K, Soosani J (2010) Relative contribution of vegetation types to regional biodiversity in Central Zagross forests of Iran. Biodivers conserve. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9899-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkänen S (2000) Classification of vegetation diversity in managed boreal forests in eastern Finland. Plant Ecol. doi:10.1023/A:1009877403926

    Google Scholar 

  • Post WH, Kwon KC (2000) Soil carbon sequestration and land use change: processes and potential. Glob Chang Biol 6:317–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rechinger K H (1967–1998) Flora Iranica. Gruz, Austria

  • Rhemtulla JM, Mladenoff DJ, Clayton MK (2009) Legacies of historical land use on regional forest composition and structure in Wisconsin, USA (mid-1800s–1930s–2000s). Ecol Appl 19:1061–1078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts MR, Gilliam FS (1995) Patterns and mechanisms of plant diversity in forested ecosystems: implications for forest management. Ecol Appl 5:969–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts MR, Zhu L (2002) Early response of the herbaceous layer to harvesting in a mixed coniferous–deciduous forest in New Brunswick. For Ecol Manage, Canada. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00544-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooney TP, Rogers DA (2002) The modified floristic quality index. Nat Area J 22:340–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutigliano FA, Ascoli RD, De Santo AV (2004) Soil microbial metabolism and nutrient status in a Mediterranean area as affected by plant cover. Soil Biol Biochem. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.04.029

    Google Scholar 

  • Sala OE, Chapin FS III, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J et al (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffman PM, Johnson WC (1988) Phytomass and detrital carbon storage during forest regrowth in the southeastern United States Piedmont. Can J For Res 19:69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheil D, Burslem DFRP (2003) Disturbing hypotheses in tropical forests. Trends Ecol Evol. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00005-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature. doi:10.1038/163688a0

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims JT (2000) Soil fertility evaluation. In: Sumner ME (ed) Handbook of soil science. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp D-113–D-127

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith LM, Haukos DA (2002) Floral diversity in relation to playa wetland area and watershed sturbance. Conserv Biol 16:964–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spyreas G, Matthews JW (2006) Floristic conservation value, nested understory floras, and the development of second-growth forest. Ecol Appl 16:1351–1366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spyreas G, Meiners SG, Matthews GW, Molano-Flores B (2012) Successional trends in Floristic Quality. J Appl Ecol. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02100.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren TJ, Falkner MB, Schell LD (1995) A Modified–Whittaker nested vegetation sampling method. Plant Ecol. doi:10.1007/BF00045503

    Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren TJ, Chong GW, Kalkhan MA, Schell LD (1997a) Rapid assessment of plant diversity patterns: a methodology for landscapes. Environ Monit Assess. doi:10.1023/A:1005796618823

    Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren TJ, Coughenour MB, Chong GW, Binkley D, Kalkhan MA, Schell LD, Buckley DJ, Berry JK (1997b) Analysis of plant diversity. J Landsc Ecol. doi:10.1023/A:1007986502230

    Google Scholar 

  • Swink F, Wilhelm G (1979) Plants of the Chicago region. Morton Arboretum, Lisle

    Google Scholar 

  • Swink F, Wilhelm G (1994) Plants of the Chicago region, 4th edn. Indiana Academy of Science, Lisle

    Google Scholar 

  • Taft JB, Hauser C, Robertson KR (2006) Estimating floristic integrity in tallgrass prairie. Biolo Cons. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.006

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend CC, Guest E, Omar SA, Al-kayat AH (1985) Flora of Iraq. Ministry of Agriculture & Agrarian Reform, Republic of Iraq

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu WG, Gao XF, Wu N, Liu SH (2009) A novel method for floristic quality assessment using the vegetation of the Jiuding Mountain. Nord J Bot, Sichuan. doi:10.1111/j.1756-1051.2009.00203.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Vance-Chalcraft HD, Willig MR, Cox SB, Lugo AE, Scatena FN (2010) Relationship between aboveground biomass and multiple measures of biodiversity in subtropical forest of Puerto Rico. Biotropica. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00600.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang XL, Guo SL, Ma YH, Wu JS (2007) Effects of land use type on soil organic C and total N in a small watershed in loess hilly-gully region. Chin J Appl Ecol 18(6):1281–1285

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm GS, Masters LA (1995) Floristic quality assessment in the Chicago region and application computer programs. Morton Arboretum

  • Wohlgemuth T, Bürgi M, Scheidegger CH, Schütz M (2002) Dominance reduction of species through disturbance a proposed management principle for central European forests. For Ecol Manage. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00662-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu GL, Liu ZH, Zhang L, Hu TM, Chen JM (2010) Effects of artificial grassland establishment on soil nutrients and carbon properties in a black-soil-type degreded grassland. Plant Soil. doi:10.1007/s11104-010-0363-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Young TF, Sanzone S (2002) A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological condition. Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, Washington

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the expert panel of botanists for their generosity of time and expertise as well as their passionate contribution to the paper by assigning the C0C scores to the species. Much thanks to Gholam-Hasan Veiskarami for his assistance in vegetation surveys and identification of plant species. We would like to thank Michaeleen E. Gerken Golay for her helpful comments and contribution to the manuscript editing. Special thanks to the colleagues and students who collaborated in the data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forestry Department, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran

    Z. Mirazadi, B. Pilehvar & K. Abrari Vajari

Authors
  1. Z. Mirazadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Pilehvar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Abrari Vajari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Pilehvar.

Additional information

Communicated by Daniel Sanchez Mata.

This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Forest and plantation biodiversity.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mirazadi, Z., Pilehvar, B. & Abrari Vajari, K. Diversity indices or floristic quality index: Which one is more appropriate for comparison of forest integrity in different land uses?. Biodivers Conserv 26, 1087–1101 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1287-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1287-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation