Abstract
Background and Aims
To counteract the ongoing worldwide biodiversity loss, conservation actions are required to re-establish populations of threatened species. Two key factors predominantly involved in finding the most suitable habitats for endangered plant species are the surrounding plant community composition and the physicochemical parameters of the soil rooting zone. However, such factors are likely to be context- and species-dependent, so it remains unclear to what extent they influence the performance of target species.
Methods
We studied large and small Swiss populations of the endangered orchid Cypripedium calceolus. We measured functional traits related to C. calceolus plant and population performance (clonal patch area, plant height, number, of leaf, stems, flowers and fruits), realized vegetation surveys, soil profile analyses, and tested for relationships between plant traits and the surrounding vegetation structure or soil physicochemical parameters.
Results
Large populations contained bigger patches with more stems and leaves, and produced more flower per individual than small populations. Neither vegetation alliances nor soil classes per se could predict C. calceolus functional traits and population size. However, functional traits explaining population performance and size were related to specific soil parameters (soil organic matter content, pH and phosphorus), in addition to a combination of presence-absence of plant indicator species, relating to ecotones between forests and clearings.
Conclusion
We show that even for species that can grow across a wide range of vegetation groups both indicator species and specific soil parameters can be used to assess the most favourable sites to implement (re)-introduction actions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
One-fifth of plant species worldwide are estimated to be at risk of extinction (Willis 2017) due to a number of factors, notably human-driven habitat perturbation and climate change (Barnosky et al. 2011; Ceballos et al. 2017). Such biodiversity erosion has led to an urgent need for conservation actions, particularly via habitat protection (Barnosky et al. 2017). Despite this, habitat loss, fragmentation and change mean that the survival and persistence of rare plant populations can seldom be achieved by natural recruitment and dispersal alone. Instead, species conservation must rely on active reintroduction efforts in previously selected and appropriate habitat types (Seddon 2010). Consequently, to develop efficient conservation strategies for plants, a necessary prerequisite is to gather the best knowledge of the most important ecological factors that might influence the survival and the vitality of a target species (Godefroid et al. 2011; Heywood and Iriondo 2003; Seddon et al. 2007). The field of conservation science thus aims to act rapidly to understand the causes of each species disappearance and find suitable habitats for implementing successful (re)-introduction plans (Pimm et al. 2014; Primack 2014; Swarts and Dixon 2009).
For plant establishment and perpetuation, soil (edaphic) properties and the composition of surrounding vegetation communities are critical parameters that need to be evaluated (Antonovics and Bradshaw 1970; Rusconi et al. 2022). Accordingly, it is crucial to identify the potential links between soil properties, vegetation communities and the success of the focal endangered plant species (Godefroid et al. 2011). For instance, Vittoz et al. (2006), by analysing the edaphic conditions, hydrology, microtopography, and vegetation types of the niche of the endangered herbaceous plant Saxifraga hirculus, identified four major themes of conservation activities, namely grazing, mowing, reintroduction and substrate management. Similarly, through field surveys and herbarium analyses, Ren et al. (2010) were able to decipher the ecological requirements of the endangered Primulina tabacum in China and to identify suitable reintroduction sites. Moreover, factors determining the survival of the endangered endemic limestone-associated Purshia subintegra were uncovered by measuring 16 environmental factors, including soil and vegetation variables, in natural and experimental reintroduction sites (Maschinski et al. 2004). Therefore, the best chance of finding suitable habitats for endangered species (re)-introductions plans is to take a holistic approach combining measures of two of the predominant facets of terrestrial ecosystems: soil and vegetation properties.
The orchids (Orchidaceae) are among the most threatened plant families. Orchids have been subjected to intense collection because of their intrinsic beauty, while their complex and delicate life cycle has led to slow the recovery, or even disappearance, of populations (Hinsley et al. 2017; Thomas 2006). A well-known emblematic and patrimonial orchid growing throughout Eurasia is the Lady’s slipper orchid Cypripedium calceolus L. (Fay and Taylor 2015). Although C. calceolus has a wide Eurasian distribution, ranging from the United Kingdom to the Pacific Ocean (Kull 1999), populations are in fact very scattered throughout its range (Devillers-Terschuren 1999). More so, the number and size of C. calceolus populations have drastically declined over the last decades in several European countries (Devillers-Terschuren 1999; Kull 1999). C. calceolus has been attributed to different conservation statuses across its distribution, being for example of Least Concern (LC) at a global scale, but marked as Vulnerable (VU) in Switzerland and Critically Endangered (CR) in the UK (Bornand et al. 2016; Gargiulo et al. 2018; Bilz 2011; Stroh et al. 2014).
The complexity and the eco-physiological particularities of this orchid, in addition to its patrimonial significance (Devillers-Terschuren 1999), have contributed to this species general decline (Gargiulo et al. 2021; Swarts and Dixon 2009). The physiological reasons for this decline might be that C. calceolus development is slow, and its life expectancy is long, theoretically up to more than 30 years (Käsermann and Moser 1999). From an ecological point of view, C. calceolus is endangered because its ecological requirements are mainly supposed to depend on an integrated sum of multiple parameters (Swarts and Dixon 2017). It is thought that C. calceolus requires a combination of three key ecological factors to thrive: (i) light intensity, (ii) soil moisture and (iii) soil base richness (Devillers-Terschuren 1999). For light intensity, C. calceolus populations should be primarily found in shady, deciduous, and mixed woodland forest types with a high canopy and very few bushes. This allows solar radiation to reach this species indirectly (Kull 1999; Rusconi et al. 2022). However, C. calceolus populations have also been shown to thrive in full sunlight at high elevations (Devillers-Terschuren 1999; Kull 1999). In Switzerland, C. calceolus has been found growing in as many as up to 14 different vegetation alliances, with a preference for the Cephalanthero-Fagenion (xerothermophilous beech forest) and the Erico-Pinion (basophilic subcontinental pine forest) alliances (Delarze et al. 2015; Käsermann and Moser 1999), suggesting that woodland type is not so constraining as previously thought. Concerning soil properties, it has been shown that C. calceolus can grow on a large variety of soil types (Kļaviņa and Osvalde 2017; Rusconi et al. 2022) – with some caveats. First, C. calceolus appears to grow better in base-rich soils containing calcium carbonates (Kull 1999), which usually occur over limestone or dolomite bedrock (Käsermann and Moser 1999; Kull 1999). On the one hand, according to Käsermann and Moser (1999) soil pH requirements of this species range from neutral to moderately acidic. On the other hand, Rusconi et al. (2022) described pH requirements from neutral to alkaline. Moreover, C. calceolus seems to prefer richer substrates when in the shade compared to when growing in sunnier conditions, which may be due to the competition effect with other plant species (Käsermann and Moser 1999). Indeed, Kļaviņa and Osvalde (2017) noticed a positive relationship between the population size of C. calceolus and soil organic matter concentration. Finally, Devillers-Terschuren (1999) showed that C. calceolus grow better on moderately moist soils. In short, while theory suggests that a narrow window of biotic and abiotic factors is required for C. calceolus to thrive, the ecological requirements for this species tend to be broad, widespread, and context-dependent making the selection of (re)introduction sites, at least at first sight, very complex and hard to predict.
With this study we aimed to determine the relationships between the performance of C. calceolus populations and soil and vegetation parameters, in order to improve this species conservation and but also to advance the theoretical underpinning of which facets of an ecosystem most influence a species fitness. To this end, we characterised the vegetation communities and edaphic properties in 34 Swiss populations of C. calceolus (17 small and 17 large populations) and measured functional traits related to plant growth and reproduction. Specifically, we assumed that several unique functional traits are indicators of plant fitness and population health, as highlighted by Adler et al. (2014). Specifically, we asked: 1) which plant functional traits best describe differences between small and large populations? 2) Is there a specific or recurrent pattern in vegetation composition or/and structure in relation to C. calceolus presence and population size? 3) Are there combinations of companion plant species that specifically dictate C. calceolus population size? 4) Is the population size of C. calceolus dependent on local edaphic properties? We hypothesised that while this plant species has broad ecological preferences, some facets of the vegetation or soil physico-chemical properties can be used to explain why some populations perform better than others (Devillers-Terschuren 1999; Kļaviņa and Osvalde 2017; Kull 1999; Onuch and Skwaryło-Bednarz 2014), and therefore, plant species performance, estimated using specific plant functional traits, could be linked to unique combinations of vegetation and soil properties, which ultimately would be used to inform more efficient conservation efforts.
Material and methods
Population selection criteria
We chose C. calceolus populations of varying sizes from throughout Switzerland based on known occurrences of viable populations (data provided by www.infoflora.ch). We selected a total of 34 populations, 17 small (i.e., less than 10 individuals per population) and 17 large (i.e., more than 20 individuals per population) (Figure S1), encompassing the six major biogeographic regions of Switzerland (Fig. 1A). Each population was visited between 2017 and 2021, once during the peak flowering period, between April and June, and once after the production of fruits (i.e., seed pods), between July and August.
Vegetation and plant traits
During the first visit to each C. calceolus population, we performed a comprehensive vegetation survey on a 10 × 10 m2 plot comprehending the most homogenous vegetation type of each site following the Braun-Blanquet method (Braun-Blanquet 1964). We used measured vegetation community structure (characteristic and most abundant species) to assign an alliance name to each vegetation type based on phytosociological nomenclature (Barkman et al. 1986), and according to Delarze et al. (2015) (Table 1). We next measured ten functional traits with known relationships with plant life history parameters (Adler et al. 2014; Díaz et al. 2016; Pérez-Harguindeguy et al. 2016) that could be quantified using non-intrusive methods. At each site, we sampled traits on a maximum of 10 randomly chosen individuals growing within a 100 m2 area and separated by a minimum of 2 m from each other (Fig. 1B). Each stem or group of stems (patch), separated by a minimum of 70 cm from each other, was considered as an individual (i.e., a clonal patch; Fig. 1B) (Kull 1999). For growth-related traits, we measured clonal patch area (cm2), the vegetative plant height (cm), leaf number and median leaf area (cm2, ellipse area formula) of the highest stem in a clonal patch and the median leaf photosynthetic activity (SPAD chlorophyllometer, Konica Minolta, Osaka Japan) and specific leaf area (SLA, mm2/mg) of 1 leaf per patch. For reproductive traits, we counted the number of stems and the number of flowers per patch on the first visit, and on the second visit counted, per patch, the number fruits (pods) and estimated median fruit volume (approximated as a cylinder; Fig. 1B).
Site and soil parameters
During the second visit, in each site, we dug a soil profile from the surface to the bedrock or parental material at a minimum distance of 40 cm from the nearest plant. We identified organic, organo-mineral and mineral horizons to characterise the soil type (Baize and Girard 2009; IUSS Working Group 2015) and corresponding humus forms (Zanella et al. 2018). Then, within the 100 m2 area of each site, we sampled approximately 300 g of the organo-mineral horizon (A) three times, corresponding to a depth of 20.9 ± 8.5 cm – i.e., the rooting zone of C. calceolus. From the A horizons we measured eight soil physicochemical parameters, including; 1) relative humidity (HR), obtained by subsequent desiccation at 105 °C and weighing. 2) Total organic carbon (Corg) to total nitrogen (Ntot), and subsequent carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (CN), which were measured using an elemental analyzer (Flash 2000, CHN-O Analyzer, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, United States). 3) Total soil organic matter content (SOM), measured via the loss of ignition (LOI) method, by heating the samples at 450 °C for two hours. 4) pH, measured in distilled water with a Metrohm 827 pH meter (Metrohm AG, Herisa, Switzerland). 5) Soil total cationic exchange capacity (CEC), using the “cobalt hexamine trichloride” method (Ciesielski and Sterckeman 1997). 6) Total carbonates, estimated by CaCO3 dissolution after HCl 6 M addition, and according to the Calcimeter Bernard method (Dreimanis 1962). 7) Bioavailable phosphorus (P) estimated by extraction with sodium bicarbonate (Olsen 1954). 8) Nitrate (NO3−) quantified after an extraction with potassium sulphate (Bremner and Shaw 1955). In addition, on soils that developed on a dolomitic substrate (geological information obtained from on www.mapgeo.admin.ch), we performed dolomite quantification using the Calcimeter Bernard method (Dreimanis 1962) and gypsum quantification using a method with successive weighing after a passage in the desiccator and in the oven (105 °C) (Lebron et al. 2009).
Statistical analyses
All analyses were performed in R (R Core Development Team 2021).
Cypripedium calceolus population functional traits
We performed a principal component analysis (PCA) to visualize the multivariate trait space of all C. calceolus populations (dudi.pca function in the package ade4, (Dray and Dufour 2007)). We next performed a Regularized Discriminant Analysis (RDA) with the rda function in the package vegan (Oksanen et al. 2013), and a one-way ANOVA on the first axis of the PCA to assess the effect of population size (two levels; small and large) on C. calceolus functional traits. Site was included as a blocking factor in the analyses.
Vegetation community relationship with C. calceolus population size and functional traits
First, we performed a clustering analysis on the entire vegetation matrix to potentially detect clusters of similar vegetation types that best explain C. calceolus population size and plant traits. For this, we calculated a distance matrix of the vegetation communities using the vegdist function in vegan (Bray–Curtis distance) and then calculated the optimal number of groups using pairwise dissimilarities (distances) between communities in the vegetation data set (daisy function metric = “gower” in the cluster package (Maechler et al. 2013)). To assess a potential correlation between vegetation structure and the C. calceolus functional traits we performed a Mantel test between the trait distance matrix (Euclidean distance) and the obtained vegetation distance matrix (Bray–Curtis distance) (mantel.test function in vegan). Using a phylogenetic signal approach, we also calculated a potential correlation between dendrogram branch length and values for the number of fruits (a trait most representative of C. calceolus fitness) and the first principal component (PC1; as shown in Fig. 2) using the phyloSignal function in the package phylobase (Hackathon 2020). Next, to assess the effect of C. calceolus population size (two levels; small and large) on the plant community structure of each site, we used a permutational ANOVA (PERMANOVA), using the adonis function in the vegan package. The Bray–Curtis metric was used to calculate dissimilarity among vegetation communities. Finally, independently of the vegetation community structure, we assessed potential indicator species associated with large or small C. calceolus populations species using the multipatt function in the indicspecies package (De Caceres et al. 2016).
Soil properties across site and relationship with C. calceolus population size and functional traits
First, we classified soil profiles following two nomenclatures, the Référentiel pédologique classification (Baize and Girard 2009)), and the world soil reference database WRB (IUSS Working Group 2015). Humus forms were classified according to Zanella et al. (2018). Next, we performed a principal component analysis (PCA) to visualize the multivariate space of soil properties for all C. calceolus populations (dudi.pca function in the package ade4 (Dray and Dufour 2007)). We performed a Regularized Discriminant Analysis (RDA) with the rda function in the package vegan (Oksanen et al. 2013), and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to assess the effect of population size (two levels; small and large) on the soil properties of C. calceolus populations. Site was included as a blocking factor in the analyses. Second, we assessed the potential correlation between individual soil properties and the C. calceolus population functional trait matrix using redundancy analysis (rda function) and the ordistep function (package vegan) to perform a backward selection of variables in the model.
Results
C. calceolus population functional traits – We found that large populations of C. calceolus contained on average 72% bigger patches with 2.5 times more stems, 18% bigger plants, 5.5% more leaves, and 20% bigger and 7% harder leaves, and produced 83% more flower per individual than small populations (Fig. 3, Table S1). Overall, multivariate trait space was significantly separated by the categorical variable of population size (Fig. 2A, RDA with 999; F1,221 = 4.39, p = 0.001), and accordingly, along the first axis of the PCA (Fig. 2B, population size treatment effect; F1,221 = 24.62, p < 0.001, and site effect; F32,221 = 4.65, p < 0.001).
Vegetation community relationships with C. calceolus population size and functional traits
Based on the vegetation surveys, we found that C. calceolus populations were associated with 349 vascular plant species in total and found in 10 different vegetation alliances (Table 1), with surrounding plant species richness ranging from 17 species to a maximum of 60 species per site (Table 1). The dominant species varied strongly between sites, with a total of 34 different plant species being dominant when considering all sites (Table 1). Overall, we found that the best clustering model identified 12 groups, suggesting a high variability in vegetation types across sites (Figure S2). Accordingly, we did not find a correlation between the population functional trait matrix and the vegetation community structure (Mantel test on 10,000 permutations, r = 0.14, z = 53.95, p = 0.14, Figure S2). Similarly, the population size had no effect on the surrounding vegetation community structure (PERMANOVA, F1,33 = 0.97, p = 0.48). These results were also supported by a generally weak dendrogram distance-based signal (k and lambda values) for all traits (see k and lambda values in Table S2 indicating a weak correlation between the trait values and the branch length of the dendrogram; i.e., more similar vegetation types do not correspond to more similar traits values; p > 0.05).
The indicator species analysis highlighted that the most discriminant species based on C. Calceolus population size were Ajuga reptans (r = 0.64, p = 0.014), Juniperus communis (r = 0.56, p = 0.019), Equisetum telmateia (r = 0.50, p = 0.037), and Gymnadenia conopsea (r = 0.50, p = 0.037). Indeed, A. reptans was 19 times more abundant (glm with quasipoisson distribution with Type II analysis of deviance, Chi-sq = 9.41, p = 0.002), J. communis was 1.7 times more abundant (Chi-sq = 12.56, p = 0.003), E. telmateia was in average present with a relative abundance of 2.11% in large populations, while virtually absent in small populations (Chi-sq = 7.83, p = 0.005), and G. conopsea was 12 times more abundant (Chi-sq = 9.02, p = 0.003) in large C. calceolus populations than in small populations. We also found that small population of C. calceolus were significantly associated to two species; Sesleria caerulea (Chi-sq = 0.68, p = 0.031), and Carex sempervirens (Chi-sq = 0.53, p = 0.044).
Soil properties across site and relationship with C. calceolus population size and functional traits
Overall, we identified three major soil classes according to Baize and Girard (2009), all being calcaric or dolomitic soils: 23 Calcosols (Calcaric Cambisol (IUSS Working Group 2015)), four Rendosols (Calcaric Leptosols, (IUSS Working Group 2015)), and seven Dolomitosols (Dolomitic Cambisols, (IUSS Working Group 2015) (Table 1 and Supplementary data D1). Humus forms ranged between Mull and Moder (Supplementary data D1). We found that small and large populations significantly differed in soil physicochemical properties, with small populations inhabiting a wider range of variance than large populations (Fig. 4; RDA with 999; F33,69 = 6.53, p = 0.001). Considering all traits together also revealed clear differences among sites (Fig. 5, MANOVA, population size effect; Pillai = 0.68, approximation10,60 = 12.98, p < 0.001, site effect; Pillai = 6.3, approximation320,6900 = 3.67, p < 0.001). Specifically, we found that sites occupied by small populations had soil containing 21% more SOM, 26% more Corg, and 40% more CaCO3, but 16% less CEC than soil beneath large populations of C. calceolus (Fig. 5 and Table S3). Through the RDA analysis and stepwise model selection, we found that the soil characteristics that best explain C. calceolus population functional traits were pH (F1,60 = 2.54, p = 0.05), HR (F1,60 = 2.61, p = 0.06°), P (F1,60 = 3.37, p = 0.03), SOM (F1,60 = 3.78, p = 0.02), and Corg (F1,60 = 4.25, p = 0.02) (Fig. 6). In other words, we observed that high values of pH (alkaline soils) correlated positively with leaf area and SLA. In addition, P, SOM and Corg were positively correlated with the patch area and the number of flowers, while high HR values were negatively correlated with population fitness traits (Fig. 6).
Discussion
Through extensive and fine-grained field work we explored the links between functional traits related to population size and vegetation and soil parameters. We found that large (> 20 individuals) populations of C. calceolus display a specific assemblage of measurable characteristics that discriminate them from small (< 10 individuals) populations, indicating that it is possible to assess the health of a population of a rare plant species by measuring a specific set of functional traits. While we could not highlight a direct link between vegetation alliances and soil types and population size, we show that the unique combination of companion plants, and several edaphic parameters, such as SOM, CaCO3, pH, and P, could be used to potentially assess the optimal sites to implement (re)-introduction actions for this emblematic and patrimonial orchid species.
Functional trait variation across small and large populations
We found that, based on our classification, small and large populations display different functional signatures, in which, large populations of C. calceolus displayed significantly higher values for most measured plant traits, compared to small populations. This indicates that classic plant functional traits (Díaz et al. 2016; Wright et al. 2004) could be used to characterize the size of C. calceolus populations (Adler et al. 2014). In plant evolutionary ecology and conservation, the predicted relationship between plant population size and fitness has been amply observed (Reed 2005). For instance, Leimu et al. (2006) performed a meta-analysis on 105 studies focusing on correlations between plant population size, fitness and genetic variation. They highlighted that all these correlations were significantly positive. Moreover, rather interestingly for our study, the same research also showed that these positive relationships were more pronounced for rare than for common species, an effect thus likely heightened when large population size differences exist in nature. Relationships between populations size and fitness may happen for two reasons: (i) an extinction vortex causing a decrease in genetic variation leading to inbreeding depression (Ruegg and Turbek 2022), a reduced mate availability or random genetic drift that consequently reduce populations fitness; or (ii) a difference in habitat quality (Ellstrand and Elam 1993; Fischer and Matthies 1998; Leimu et al. 2006). From a conservation point of view, these hypotheses are even more central in the case of an endangered species such as C. calceolus. Indeed, small populations, which can be crucial for a species survival, are more vulnerable to stochastic events and fluctuations (Honnay and Jacquemyn 2007; Reed 2005). The recovery time after a perturbation is lengthened by a reduced fitness and will make the population more prone to extinction when supplementary perturbations happen (Reed 2005). In fact, smaller populations appear to be less able to adapt to new environmental changes because of the loss of adaptative genetic variation through genetic drift (Reed et al. 2003; Willi et al. 2007). In addition, reduced pollinator activity in small populations of rare species generally contributes to reduced plant fitness (Leimu et al. 2006). For the C. calceolus populations studied here, further investigations should be made to understand whether the relationship between population size and fitness is due to inbreeding depression or to habitat quality. Genetic studies performed in Europe on C. calceolus populations showed that this species has a relatively high genetic diversity compared with rare taxa and taxa with the same life history (Brzosko 2002; Brzosko et al. 2002). On the other hand, signatures of a bottleneck effect and recent founder events were identified in Estonia, and genetic and genotypic diversity variables were significantly correlated with population size in Poland (Brzosko et al. 2011; Gargiulo et al. 2018). Finally, in addition to genetic studies and for conservation purposes, it would be necessary to understand the minimum size of C. calceolus populations so as not to be threatened by the extinction vortex and then ensure that populations stay under this threshold.
Vegetation communities associated with C. calceolus
Across our sampling, we found that C. calceolus grows on 11 vegetation alliances, with those where C. calceolus mostly occurred being xerothermophilic beech forests (Cephalanthero-Fagenion) and the low elevation mesophyll beech forest (Galio-Fagenion) – as observed by Käsermann and Moser (1999), but we couldn’t find a recurrent pattern between vegetation composition and C. calceolus population size. It is essential to highlight that vegetation alliances were difficult to assess because C. calceolus often grows in somewhat hybrid environments (i.e., transition zones) that do not always fit traditional classification methods (Delarze et al. 2015). Consequently, we were only able to associate our vegetation inventories with the closest vegetation alliances found in the literature (see Table 1). All identified vegetation alliances were forests, except for the pre-forest shrub stage (Sambuco-Salicion). Together, these findings indicate that C. calceolus prefer to grow at the forest edges, or in the ecotones, of mixed-stands forest type, therefore preferring intermediate levels of direct solar radiations (i.e., not in full light, but neither in full understory shading) (Rusconi et al. 2022). Along these lines, Hurskainen et al. (2017) highlighted that removing trees to create forest gaps favoured C. calceolus populations significantly. These observations point to the very complex ecology of this orchid and the delicate balance of light parameters it requires to grow (Kirillova and Kirillov 2019). Accordingly, because open forests are disappearing in Switzerland, recovery of C. calceolus populations might be impacted. In this regard, specific forest management plans should be implemented to favour this species optimal light requirements (Bornand et al. 2016). However, based on our findings, vegetation composition per se is not a sufficiently strong marker for the identification of suitable (re)introduction sites in Switzerland, and other parameters should be accounted for.
The use of indicator species for finding suitable habitats
Through species indicator analyses, we found that large and small C. calceolus populations were best discriminated by four species, positively by Ajuga reptans, Juniperus communis, Equisetum telmateia, and Gymnadenia conopsea, while negatively by Sesleria caerulea and Carex sempervirens. Interestingly, the ecological characteristics of A. reptans (the most discriminant species for large populations of C. calceolus) reflect the ecological needs of C. calceolus: clear forests with average humidity and average soil nutrients (Landolt et al. 2010). However, A. reptans would not be a good indicator species for finding C. calceolus suitable habitats, as it is even more broadly distributed than C. calceolus in Switzerland, growing in the sub-alpine regions (Lauber et al. 2018). The three other species positively discriminating large populations also shared similar or close ecological requirements to C. calceolus and the same elevation optimum (Landolt et al. 2010). The two species discriminating small populations had the same soil nutrient requirements than C. calceolus, but their ecological optima are at higher elevations (Landolt et al. 2010). Therefore, a combination of some of the observed positively and negatively discriminating species could be used to find suitable habitats for C. calceolus. Such an approach could be confirmed using a combination of fieldwork for assessing population fitness (as was done here) and species distribution modelling (Guisan et al. 2006). It is important to highlight that these results could be regional and should not be generalized for the entire distribution range of C. calceolus without further investigations (Devillers-Terschuren 1999).
Soil characteristics associated with C. calceolus population size
Based on the soil horizon profile analysis, we observed that C. calceolus grows on three, or two depending on the soil nomenclature, soil types, which corresponds to the observations made by Käsermann and Moser (1999). In opposition with the results of the vegetation types, and based on the total number of existing soil references (110 in Baize and Girard (2009) and 32 soil groups in IUSS (IUSS Working Group 2015)), we thus found that C. calceolus grows on a very limited range of soil types, attesting that C. calceolus preferentially grows on calcareous or dolomitic substrate (with average pH of 7.81). Moreover, the physicochemical characteristics results corroborate what is generally found in the literature: C. calceolus grows in soil with neutral to alkaline pH (Rusconi et al. 2022) with the presence of calcium carbonates (in the form of CaCO3 or CaMg(CO3)2) (Käsermann and Moser 1999) and with on average a high concentration of soil organic matter (Kļaviņa and Osvalde 2017). The observations regarding the humus forms, Mull-to-Moder, also support the notion that the rooting of this plant is where biological activity is relatively intense and where the organic matter is well and rapidly integrated into the soil matrix (Zanella et al. 2018). Moreover, through multivariate comparative analysis, we found that soil parameters that most strongly influenced C. calceolus functional traits were pH, HR, P, Corg and SOM. In this regard, our results contradict those found by Kļaviņa and Osvalde (2017), in which pH did not affect population vitality. A precise characterization of the edaphic niche of endangered species (as we did in this study) is crucial for implementing conservation plans and identifying suitable (re)introduction sites. Specifically for C. calceolus, we encourage to perform soil physicochemical analysis to verify that the preselected zone has the following edaphic properties: presence of CaCO3 or CaMg(CO3)2, neutral to alkaline pH, about 15% of organic matter and a CEC of about 40 cmol/kg.
That said, while we mostly focused on measuring the importance of physicochemical properties, we acknowledge that we did not take in account soil organisms, such as the orchid-associated mycorrhizal fungi (Sathiyadash et al. 2012). Indeed, the general dogma is that because orchids have dust-like seeds (0.3–14 μg), with minimal nutrients reserves, their interaction with orchid mycorrhizae (OM) is vital for the plant to overcome the first steps of germination and development (e.g., Sathiyadash et al. 2012; Smith and Read 2010). Accordingly, the rarity of some orchid species could be linked to the sparse distribution or narrow ecological requirements of their OM partners (e.g., Fay et al. 2015; Nurfadilah et al. 2013; Phillips et al. 2011). To date, however, broad-level ecological knowledge of OM associated with C. calceolus is largely lacking (Fay et al. 2018), and future work should address the soil community versus root community relationship, and the characterization of unique OM strains associated to well-performing orchid populations.
In conclusion, with this work, we provide an additional step toward a better understanding how the selection of (re)introduction sites for the conservation of endangered plant species can be resolved. Specifically, we argue that beyond the use of classic approaches for site selection, such as building species distribution models (Guisan et al. 2013; Pecchi et al. 2019; Prasad et al. 2016), or, on the opposite, using only practitioner-informed current or past occurrence knowledge (Rusconi et al. 2022), might not provide the most accurate predictions for finding optimal sites to enhance or protect the target species. Instead, a fine-grained analysis of multiple targeted ecosystem variables is generally needed (Prasad et al. 2016; Richardson et al. 2009). Moreover, the analyses derived from our fieldwork also highlighted a direct link between plant and population life history traits and in situ measurable functional traits. In return, we then highlighted that narrow ranges of edaphic factors best correlated with unique sets of the measured plant traits, ultimately corroborating the importance of above-belowground links in plant ecology (Wardle 2002), and conservation biology.
Data Availability
Because of the sensitive nature of this dataset linked to an endangered species, the datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Adler PB, Salguero-Gómez R, Compagnoni A, Hsu JS, Ray-Mukherjee J, Mbeau-Ache C, Franco M (2014) Functional traits explain variation in plant life history strategies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:740–745. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315179111
Antonovics J, Bradshaw AD (1970) Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations. VIII. Glinal patterns at a mine boundary. Heredity 25:349–362
Baize D, Girard M-C (2009) Référentiel pédologique 2008. Editions Quae, Versaille
Barkman J, Moravec J, Rauschert S (1986) Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature/Code der pflanzensoziologischen Nomenklatur/Code de nomenclature phytosociologique. Vegetatio: 145–195
Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Gonzalez P, Head J, Polly PD, Lawing AM, Eronen JT, Ackerly DD, Alex K, Biber E, Blois J, Brashares J, Ceballos G, Davis E, Dietl GP, Dirzo R, Doremus H, Fortelius M, Greene HW, Hellmann J, Hickler T, Jackson ST, Kemp M, Koch PL, Kremen C, Lindsey EL, Looy C, Marshall CR, Mendenhall C, Mulch A, Mychajliw AM, Nowak C, Ramakrishnan U, Schnitzler J, Das Shrestha K, Solari K, Stegner L, Stegner MA, Stenseth NC, Wake MH, Zhang Z (2017) Merging paleobiology with conservation biology to guide the future of terrestrial ecosystems. Science 355:eaah4787. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4787
Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GO, Swartz B, Quental TB, Marshall C, McGuire JL, Lindsey EL, Maguire KC (2011) Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471:51–57
Bilz M (2011) Cypripedium calceolus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2011:e.T162021A5532694
Bornand C, Gygax A, Juillerat P, Jutzi M, Möhl A, Romestsch S, Sager L, Santiago H, Eggenberg S (2016) Liste rouge plantes vasculaires: espèces menacées de Suisse. Office fédéral de l'environnement des forêts et du paysage, Berne et Info Flora, Genève
Braun-Blanquet J (1964) Pflanzensoziologie: Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. Springer-Verlag, Wien
Bremner J, Shaw K (1955) Determination of ammonia and nitrate in soil. J Agric Sci 46:320–328
Brzosko E (2002) Dynamics of island populations of Cypripedium calceolus in the Biebrza river valley (north-east Poland). Bot J Linn Soc 139:67–77. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1095-8339.2002.00049.x
Brzosko E, Wróblewska A, Ratkiewicz M (2002) Spatial genetic structure and clonal diversity of island populations of lady’s slipper (Cypripedium calceolus) from the Biebrza National Park (northeast Poland). Mol Ecol 11:2499–2509. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01630.x
Brzosko E, Wróblewska A, Tałałaj I, Wasilewska E (2011) Genetic diversity of Cypripedium calceolus in Poland. Plant Syst Evol 295:83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-011-0464-9
Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R (2017) Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:E6089–E6096
Ciesielski H, Sterckeman T (1997) Determination of cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations in soils by means of cobalt hexamine trichloride. Effects of Experimental Conditions. Agronomie 17:1–7
De Caceres M, Jansen F, De Caceres MM (2016) Package ‘indicspecies’. Indicators 8(1)
Delarze R, Gonseth Y, Eggenberg S, Vust M (2015) Guide des milieux naturels de Suisse: écologie, menaces, espèces caractéristiques. Rossolis, Bussigny, Switzerland
Devillers-Terschuren J (1999) Action plan for Cypripedium calceolus in Europe. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
Díaz S, Kattge J, Cornelissen JHC, Wright IJ, Lavorel S, Dray S, Reu B, Kleyer M, Wirth C, Colin Prentice I, Garnier E, Bönisch G, Westoby M, Poorter H, Reich PB, Moles AT, Dickie J, Gillison AN, Zanne AE, Chave J, Joseph Wright S, Sheremet’ev SN, Jactel H, Baraloto C, Cerabolini B, Pierce S, Shipley B, Kirkup D, Casanoves F, Joswig JS, Günther A, Falczuk V, Rüger N, Mahecha MD, Gorné LD (2016) The global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature 529:167–171. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16489
Dray S, Dufour A-B (2007) The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Stat Softw 22:1–20
Dreimanis A (1962) Quantitative gasometric determination of calcite and dolomite by using Chittick apparatus. J Sediment Res 32:520–529
Ellstrand NC, Elam DR (1993) Population genetic consequences of small population size: implications for plant conservation. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 217–242
Fay MF, Pailler T, Dixon KW (2015) Orchid conservation: making the links. Ann Bot 116:377–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcv142
Fay MF, Taylor I (2015) 801. Cypripedium calceolus: Orchidaceae. Curtis's Botanical Magazine 32: 24–32
Fay MF, Feustel M, Newlands C, Gebauer G (2018) Inferring the mycorrhizal status of introduced plants of Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae) in northern England using stable isotope analysis. Bot J Linn Soc 186(4):587–590
Fischer M, Matthies D (1998) Effects of population size on performance in the rare plant Gentianella germanica. J Ecol 86:195–204. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.1998.00246.x
Gargiulo R, Fay MF, Kull T (2021) Cypripedium calceolus L. as a model system for molecular ecology and conservation genomics. In: CY-CA Wang Y-T, Lee Y-I, Chen F-C, Tsai W-C (ed) Proceedings of the 2021 Virtual World Orchid Conference. Tainan City: Taiwan Orchid Growers Association
Gargiulo R, Ilves A, Kaart T, Fay MF, Kull T (2018) High genetic diversity in a threatened clonal species, Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae), enables long-term stability of the species in different biogeographical regions in Estonia. Bot J Linn Soc 186:560–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/botlinnean/box105
Godefroid S, Piazza C, Rossi G, Buord S, Stevens A-D, Aguraiuja R, Cowell C, Weekley CW, Vogg G, Iriondo JM (2011) How successful are plant species reintroductions? Biol Cons 144:672–682
Guisan A, Lehmann A, Ferrier S, Austin M, Overton JMC, Aspinall R, Hastie T (2006) Making better biogeographical predictions of species’ distributions. J Appl Ecol 43(3):386–392
Guisan A, Tingley R, Baumgartner JB, Naujokaitis-Lewis I, Sutcliffe PR, Tulloch AI, Regan TJ, Brotons L, McDonald-Madden E, Mantyka-Pringle C (2013) Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol Lett 16:1424–1435
Hackathon R (2020) Package ‘phylobase’
Heywood VH, Iriondo JM (2003) Plant conservation: old problems, new perspectives. Biol Cons 113:321–335
Hinsley A, de Boer HJ, Fay MF, Gale SW, Gardiner LM, Gunasekara RS, Kumar P, Masters S, Metusala D, Roberts DL, Veldman S, Wong S, Phelps J (2017) A review of the trade in orchids and its implications for conservation. Bot J Linn Soc 186:435–455. https://doi.org/10.1093/botlinnean/box083
Honnay O, Jacquemyn H (2007) Susceptibility of common and rare plant species to the genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation. Conserv Biol 21:823–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00646.x
Hurskainen S, Jäkäläniemi A, Ramula S, Tuomi J (2017) Tree removal as a management strategy for the lady’s slipper orchid, a flagship species for herb-rich forest conservation. For Ecol Manage 406:12–18
IUSS Working Group W (2015) World reference base for soil resources 2014, update 2015. World Soil Resources Report 106
Käsermann C, Moser DM (1999) Fiches pratiques pour la conservation: plantes à fleurs et fougères: état octobre 1999. Office fédéral de l'environnement des forêts et du paysage
Kirillova IA, Kirillov DV (2019) Effect of lighting conditions on the reproductive success of Cypripedium calceolus L. (Orchidaceae, Liliopsida). Biology Bulletin 46:1317–1324. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359019100157
Kļaviņa D, Osvalde A (2017) Comparative chemical characterisation of soils at Cypripedium calceolus sites in Latvia. Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. De Gruyter Poland
Kull T (1999) Cypripedium calceolus L. J Ecol 87:913–924
Landolt E, Bäumler B, Ehrhardt A, Hegg O, Klötzli F, Lämmler W, Nobis M, Rudmann-Maurer K, Schweingruber FH, Theurillat J-P (2010) Flora indicativa: Okologische Zeigerwerte und biologische Kennzeichen zur Flora der Schweiz und der Alpen. Haupt, Bern
Lauber K, Wagner G, Gygax A (2018) Flora helvetica. P. Haupt Vienna, Bern, Stuttgart
Lebron I, Herrero J, Robinson DA (2009) Determination of gypsum content in dryland soils exploiting the gypsum–bassanite phase change. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:403–411. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2008.0001
Leimu R, Mutikainen P, Koricheva J, Fischer M (2006) How general are positive relationships between plant population size, fitness and genetic variation? J Ecol 94:942–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01150.x
Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K, Studer M (2013) Package ‘cluster’. Dosegljivo Na
Maschinski J, Baggs JE, Sacchi CF (2004) Seedling recruitment and survival of an endangered limestone endemic in its natural habitat and experimental reintroduction sites. Am J Bot 91:689–698
Nurfadilah S, Swarts ND, Dixon KW, Lambers H, Merritt DJ (2013) Variation in nutrient-acquisition patterns by mycorrhizal fungi of rare and common orchids explains diversification in a global biodiversity hotspot. Ann Bot 111:1233–1241. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mct064
Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’hara R, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2013) Package ‘vegan’. Community ecology package, version 2: 1-295
Olsen SR (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate (No. 939). US Department of Agriculture
Onuch J, Skwaryło-Bednarz B (2014) The impact of soil properties on the occurrence of lady’s slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus L.). Acta Agrophys 21:315–325
Pecchi M, Marchi M, Burton V, Giannetti F, Moriondo M, Bernetti I, Bindi M, Chirici G (2019) Species distribution modelling to support forest management. A Literature Review. Ecol Model 411:108817
Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Garnier E, Lavorel S, Poorter H, Jaureguiberry P, Bret-Harte MS, Cornwell WK, Craine JM, Gurvich DE, Urcelay C, Veneklaas EJ, Reich PB, Poorter L, Wright IJ, Ray P, Enrico L, Pausas JG, de Vos AC, Buchmann N, Funes G, Quétier F, Hodgson JG, Thompson K, Morgan HD, ter Steege H, Sack L, Blonder B, Poschlod P, Vaieretti MV, Conti G, Staver AC, Aquino S, Cornelissen JHC (2016) Corrigendum to: New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot 64:715–716. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT12225_CO
Phillips RD, Barrett MD, Dixon KW, Hopper SD (2011) Do mycorrhizal symbioses cause rarity in orchids? J Ecol 99:858–869. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01797.x
Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Abell R, Brooks TM, Gittleman JL, Joppa LN, Raven PH, Roberts CM, Sexton JO (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344:1246752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752
Prasad AM, Iverson LR, Matthews SN, Peters MP (2016) A multistage decision support framework to guide tree species management under climate change via habitat suitability and colonization models, and a knowledge-based scoring system. Landscape Ecol 31:2187–2204
Primack RB (2014) Essentials of conservation biology (6th ed.). Sinauer Associates
R Core Development Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria
Reed DH (2005) Relationship between population size and fitness. Conserv Biol 19:563–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00444.x
Reed DH, Lowe EH, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (2003) Fitness and adaptation in a novel environment: effect of inbreeding, prior environment, and lineage. Evolution 57:1822–1828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00589.x
Ren H, Zhang Q, Wang Z, Guo Q, Wang J, Liu N, Liang K (2010) Conservation and possible reintroduction of an endangered plant based on an analysis of community ecology: a case study of Primulina tabacum Hance in China. Plant Species Biol 25:43–50
Richardson DM, Hellmann JJ, McLachlan JS, Sax DF, Schwartz MW, Gonzalez P, Brennan EJ, Camacho A, Root TL, Sala OE (2009) Multidimensional evaluation of managed relocation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:9721–9724
Ruegg K, Turbek S (2022) Estimating global genetic diversity loss. Science 377:1384–1385. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.add0007
Rusconi O, Broennimann O, Storrer Y, Le Bayon R-C, Guisan A, Rasmann S (2022) Detecting preservation and reintroduction sites for endangered plant species using a two-step modeling and field approach. Conservation Science and Practice n/a: e12800. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12800.
Sathiyadash K, Muthukumar T, Uma E, Pandey RR (2012) Mycorrhizal association and morphology in orchids. J Plant Interact 7:238–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2012.699105
Seddon PJ (2010) From reintroduction to assisted colonization: moving along the conservation translocation spectrum. Restor Ecol 18:796–802
Seddon PJ, Armstrong DP, Maloney RF (2007) Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conserv Biol 21:303–312
Smith SE, Read DJ (2010) Mycorrhizal symbiosis. Academic press, London
Stroh P, Leach S, August T, Walker K, Pearman D, Rumsey F, Harrower C, Fay M, Martin J, Pankhurst T (2014) A vascular plant red list for England. BSBI News 9:1–193
Swarts N, Dixon KW (2017) Conservation methods for terrestrial orchids. J. Ross Publishing, United States
Swarts ND, Dixon KW (2009) Terrestrial orchid conservation in the age of extinction. Ann Bot 104:543–556
Thomas BA (2006) Slippers, thieves and smugglers—Dealing with the illegal international trade in orchids. Environ Law Rev 8:85–92
Vittoz P, Wyss T, Gobat J-M (2006) Ecological conditions for Saxifraga hirculus in Central Europe: a better understanding for a good protection. Biol Cons 131:594–608
Wardle DA (2002) Communities and ecosystems: linking the aboveground and belowground components (MPB-34). Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA
Willi Y, Van Buskirk J, Schmid B, Fischer M (2007) Genetic isolation of fragmented populations is exacerbated by drift and selection. J Evol Biol 20:534–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01263.x
Willis K (2017) State of the world's plants 2017. Royal Botanics Gardens Kew
Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T, Cornelissen JHC, Diemer M, Flexas J, Garnier E, Groom PK, Gulias J, Hikosaka K, Lamont BB, Lee T, Lee W, Lusk C, Midgley JJ, Navas M-L, Niinemets Ü, Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter H, Poot P, Prior L, Pyankov VI, Roumet C, Thomas SC, Tjoelker MG, Veneklaas EJ, Villar R (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02403
Zanella A, Ponge J-F, Jabiol B, Sartori G, Kolb E, Le Bayon R-C, Gobat J-M, Aubert M, De Waal R, Van Delft B (2018) Humusica 1, article 5: Terrestrial humus systems and forms—Keys of classification of humus systems and forms. Appl Soil Ecol 122:75–86
Acknowledgements
We thank Rahel Boss, Gabrielle, Picenni, Julia Brahim and Arnaud Vallat for helping with field work, and Amandine Pillonel, Molly Baur, and Coralie Belgrano for help with laboratory analyses. We are grateful to The National Data and Information Center on the Swiss Flora team for providing precise locations of several C. calceolus populations, and the Jardin Botanique de la Ville de Neuchâtel for helping with logistics. We also thank Tom Walker for editing and commenting on previous versions of the manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Neuchâtel This work was financed by the University of Neuchâtel, and by Swiss National Science foundation grants (31003A_179481 and 310030_204811) to SR.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
OR and SR conceived the ideas and designed the experiments, OR, TS, GP, RB, and CLB collected the data, SR, OR and CLB analysed the data. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SR and OR and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Jonathan Richard De Long.
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Rusconi, O., Steiner, T., Le Bayon, C. et al. Soil properties and plant species can predict population size and potential introduction sites of the endangered orchid Cypripedium calceolus. Plant Soil 487, 467–483 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-05945-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-05945-4