Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 9, pp 2169–2185 | Cite as

Scale-dependent effects of landscape pattern on plant diversity in Hunshandak Sandland

  • Min Fan
  • Qinghui Wang
  • Kai Mi
  • Yu PengEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The influence of landscape pattern on plant diversity has strong scale-dependent effects. However, the relationship is still unclear for sandy land, which covers more than one-third of the world’s land mass. Aiming at exploring such scale-dependent effects in sandy land, we conducted a case study in Hunshandak Sandland, northern China. Principal component analysis (PCA) and Redundancy Analysis (RDA) was used to disentangle the relations between landscape pattern and alpha and beta plant diversity. Our results show that landscape pattern has an important influence on plant diversity, however, there existed scale effects. Landscape diversity enhanced the alpha diversity, conversely, reduced the beta diversity for all scales. PSSD (Patch Size Standard Deviation) positively related with alpha diversity whilst negatively related with beta diversity on moderate and large spatial scales, same as LPI (Largest Patch Index) on moderate scales. Shape complexity of patches can slightly increase both alpha and beta diversity at large scales. The adjustment of landscape pattern based on different spatial scales can enhance plant diversity. It is useful to improve plant diversity conservation in sandy land.

Keywords

Landscape metrics Plant species diversity Scale effects Sandy land Correlation analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was financially supported by the 111 Program of the Bureau of China Foreign Experts and the Ministry of Education (2008-B08044); the Top Discipline and First-class University Constriction Project (ydzxxk201618) of Minzu University of China; the 985 Project (MUC98504-14, MUC98507-8) of Minzu University of China.

References

  1. Alignier A, Baudry J (2016) Is plant temporal beta diversity of field margins related to changes in management practices? Acta Oecol 75:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amici V, Rocchini D, Filibeck G et al (2015) Landscape structure effects on forest plant diversity at local scale: exploring the role of spatial extent. Ecol Complex 21:44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Massada A, Radeloff VC (2012) Complex effects of scale on the relationships of landscape pattern versus avian species richness and community structure in a woodland savanna mosaic. Ecography 35(5):393–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beever E, Swihart R, Bestelmeyer B (2006) Linking the concept of scale to studies of biological diversity: evolving approaches and tools. Divers Distrib 12(3):229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennie J, Anderson K, Wetherelt A (2011) Measuring biodiversity across spatial scales in a raised bog using a novel paired-sample diversity index. J Ecol 99(2):482–490Google Scholar
  6. Doreen G, Carsten T, Teja T (2005) Local diversity of arable weeds increases with landscape complexity. Perspect Plant Eco Evol Syst 7:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gabriel D, Roschewitz I, Tscharntke T et al (2006) Beta diversity at different spatial scales: plant communities in organic and conventional agriculture. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Gering JC, Crist TO (2002) The alpha-beta-regional relationship: providing new insights into local-regional patterns of species richness and scale dependence of diversity components. Ecol Lett 5:433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. He G, Liu HY (2014) Vegetation evolution and its relationship with sand activities in Hebei Bashang region and Hunshandak Sandland vegetation. Acta Sci Nat Univ Pekin 40(4):669–675 (JCR Sci Ed) Google Scholar
  10. Hess GR, Bartel RA, Leidner AK, Rosenfeld KM, Rubino MJ, Snider SB et al (2006) Effectiveness of biodiversity indicators varies with extent, grain, and region. Biol Conserv 132(4):448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horak J, Peltanova A, Podavkova A et al (2013) Biodiversity responses to land use in traditional fruit orchards of a rural agricultural landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 178(9):71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janišová M, Michalcová D, Bacaro G et al (2014) Landscape effects on diversity of semi-natural grasslands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 182:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lepš J, Šmilauer P (2003) Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. López-Martínez JO, Hernández-Stefanoni JL, Dupuy JM et al (2012) Partitioning the variation of woody plant β-diversity in a landscape of secondary tropical dry forests across spatial scales. J Veg Sci 24(1):33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Malavasi M, Conti L, Carboni M et al (2016) Multifaceted analysis of patch-level plant diversity in response to landscape spatial pattern and history on Mediterranean dunes. Ecosystems 5:1–15Google Scholar
  17. Markham B, Storey J, Morfitt R (2015) Landsat-8 sensor characterization and calibration. Remote Sens 7(3):2279–2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC (2002) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/index.html
  19. Mi K (2015) Effects of urbanization on plant diversity and spatial structure optimization research—Shunyi District of Beijing as an example. MS Thesis of Minzu University of China, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  20. Monteiro AT, Fava F, Gonçalves et al (2013) Landscape context determinants to plant diversity in the permanent meadows of southern European Alps. Biodivers Conserv 22(4):937–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morelli F, Pruscini F, Santolini et al (2013) Landscape heterogeneity metrics as indicators of bird diversity: determining the optimal spatial scales in different landscapes. Ecol Indic 34(6):372–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peng Y, Jiang GM, Li YG, Niu SL, Liu MZ, Gao LM (2007) Photosynthesis, transpiration and water use efficiency of four typical grass along the gradient of grazing intensity in Hunshandak Sandland, China. J Arid Environ 70(2):304–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reitalu T, Purschke O, Johansson LJ (2012) Responses of grassland species richness to local and landscape factors depend on spatial scale and habitat specialization. J Veg Sci 23(1):41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schindler S, Wehrden HV, Poirazidis K et al (2013) Multiscale performance of landscape metrics as indicators of species richness of plants, insects and vertebrates. Ecol Indic 31(1):41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schindler S, Wehrden HV, Poirazidis K et al (2014) Performance of methods to select landscape metrics for modeling species richness. Ecol Model 295:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sork VL, Smouse PE (2006) Genetic analysis of landscape connectivity in tree population. Landsc Ecol 21(6):821–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steffan-Dewenter I, Münzenberg U, Bürger C et al (2008) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83(5):1421–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Torras O, Gil-tena A, Saura S (2008) How does forest landscape structure explain tree species richness in a Mediterranean context? Biodivers Conserv 17(5):1227–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turtureanu PD, Palpurina S, Becker T et al (2014) Scale- and taxon-dependent biodiversity patterns of dry grassland vegetation in Transylvania. Agric Ecosyst Environ 182(4):15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Walz U (2011) Landscape structure, landscape metrics and biodiversity. Living Rev Landsc Res 5:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walz U (2015) Indicators to monitor the structural diversity of landscapes. Ecol Model 295:88–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walz U, Syrbe RU (2013) Linking landscape structure and biodiversity. Ecol Indic 31(8):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang N (2016) Grassland animal husbandry production relation with climate in Hunshandak Sandlandy—With Blue Flag as an example. PhD Thesis of Inner Mongolia Normal University, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  34. Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landsc Ecol 17:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yang J (2010) The study of the relationship between pattern of elm distribution in Hunshandak Sandland and the climate and groundwater. PhD Thesis of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang Y, Wang TW, Cai CF et al (2016) Landscape pattern and transition under natural and anthropogenic disturbance in an arid region of northwestern China. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinform 44:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Life & Environmental SciencesMinzu University of ChinaBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations