Plant Ecology

, Volume 158, Issue 2, pp 247–268 | Cite as

Soil, biomass, and management of semi-natural vegetation – Part II. Factors controlling species diversity

  • André P. Schaffers
Article

Abstract

Using a wide range of conditions and plant community types, species diversity was investigated in relation to edaphic and non-edaphic site conditions, management, and biomass characteristics. Both standing biomass and aboveground production were investigated, and their effects compared. Three taxonomic assemblages were studied: (1) vascular plants only, (2) bryophytes also included, (3) terrestrial lichens included as well. Using a multivariate approach, both species richness and evenness could best be explained when only vascular plants were considered, emphasizing the role of taxonomic restrictions. The models best explaining species richness merely required abiotic conditions. This supports recent theories emphasizing the importance of an environmental regulation of the pool of (adapted) species from which the actual species are recruited. Explanatory soil properties were moisture and pH (both unimodal), and the soil available N:P ratio. Plots with large perimeter:area ratios had significantly more species than those with low ratios, indicating the importance of consistency in quadrat shape. Hump-shaped species richness relationships could be identified for both standing biomass and productivity, but they explained only a small part of the variation and were apparent only if soil and management effects were not accounted for. Unimodality (and notably the decreasing phase) was most pronounced when using maximum standing biomass, suggesting that the key factor is competition for light. At intermediate levels of standing biomass, the positive effects of habitat productivity and the negative effects of standing biomass itself are in balance, and high species numbers may be expected. When soil or management variables were allowed in the models, hump-shaped biomass relationships were no longer confirmed, suggesting that such relationships may arise from the covariation of biomass with other factors. Management explained a much larger part of the variation than the hump-shaped biomass relationship, suggesting that mowing and hay removal (both showing independent positive effects) regulate species richness in ways other than solely through the control of maximum standing biomass. Significantly higher evenness values were obtained at sites with low maximum biomass values, but only for the vascular plants. In addition, species evenness was positively related to the frequency of mowing. The numbers of both rare and endangered species were strongly curtailed by high standing biomass values, suggesting that these species are more susceptible to competitive exclusion than others. Through direct as well as indirect effects, management is confirmed to be beneficial not only for general species richness, but also for the occurrence of rare and endangered species.

Environmental gradient Maximum standing biomass Mowing Plant communities Productivity Rarity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarssen, L. W. 1997. High productivity in grassland ecosystems: effected by species diversity or productive species? Oikos 80: 183-184.Google Scholar
  2. Abrams, P. A. 1988. Resource productivity-consumer species diversity: simple models of competition in spatially heterogeneous environments. Ecology 69: 1418-1433.Google Scholar
  3. Abrams, P. A. 1995. Monotonic or unimodal diversity-productivity gradients: what does competition theory predict? Ecology 76: 2019-2027.Google Scholar
  4. Alatalo, R. V. 1981. Problems in the measurement of evenness in ecology. Oikos 37: 199-204.Google Scholar
  5. Al-Mufti, M. M., Sydes, C. L., Furness, S. B., Grime, J. P. & Band, S. R. 1977. A quantitative analysis of shoot phenology and dominance in herbaceous vegetation. J. Ecol. 65: 759-791.Google Scholar
  6. Bakker, J. P. 1987. Restoration of species-rich grassland after a period of fertilizer application. Pp. 185-200. In: Van Andel, J., Bakker, J.B. & Snaydon, R.W. (eds), Disturbances in grasslands; causes, effects and processes. Geobotanie 10. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Bakker, J. P. 1989. Nature Management by Grazing and Cutting. Junk, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Bakker, J. P., Bekker, R. M., Olff, H. & Strykstra, R. J. 1995. On the role of nutrients, seed bank and seed dispersal in restoration management of fen meadows. NNA-Berichte 2: 42-47.Google Scholar
  9. Bakker, J. P. & De Vries, Y. 1985. The results of different cutting regimes in grassland taken out of the agricultural system. Pp. 51-57. In: Schreiber, K.F. (ed.), Sukzession auf Grünlandbrachen. Münstersche Geographische Arbeiten 20. Schöningh, Paderborn.Google Scholar
  10. Berendse, F. 1999. Implications of increased litter production for plant biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 4-5.Google Scholar
  11. Berendse, F., Oomes, M. J. M., Altena, H. J. & De Visser, J. 1994. A comparative study of nitrogen flows in two similar meadows affected by different groundwater levels. J. Appl. Ecol. 31: 40-48.Google Scholar
  12. Bobbink, R. & Willems, J. H. 1988. Effects of management and nutrient availability on vegetation structure of chalk grassland. Pp. 183-193. In: During, H.J., Werger, M.J.A. & Willems, J.H. (eds), Diversity and pattern in plant communities. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague.Google Scholar
  13. Bobbink, R., During, H. J., Schreurs, J., Willems, J. H. & Zielman, R. 1987. Effects of selective clipping and mowing time on species diversity in chalk grassland. Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 22: 363-376.Google Scholar
  14. Bobbink, R., Hornung, M. & Roelofs, J. G. M. 1998. The effects of air-borne nitrogen pollutants on species diversity in natural and semi-natural European vegetation. J. Ecol. 86: 717-738.Google Scholar
  15. Braakhekke, W. G. 1980. On coexistence: a causal approach to diversity and stability in grassland vegetation. Agric. Res. Rep. (Wageningen) 902.Google Scholar
  16. Braakhekke, W. G. & Hooftman, D. A. P. 1999. The resource balance hypothesis of plant species diversity in grassland. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 187-200.Google Scholar
  17. CBS 1991. Botanisch Basisregister (Botanical Base Register: computerized version). Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Voorburg/Heerlen.Google Scholar
  18. Carson, W. P. & Peterson, C. J. 1990. The role of litter in an old-field community: impact of litter quantity in different seasons on plant species richness and abundance. Oecologia 85: 8-13.Google Scholar
  19. Dickinson, N. M. 1984. Seasonal dynamics and compartmentation of nutrients in a grassland meadow in lowland England. J. Appl. Ecol. 21: 695-701.Google Scholar
  20. Drobner, U., Bibby, J., Smith, B. & Wilson, J. B. 1998. The relation between community biomass and evenness: what does community theory predict, and can these predictions be tested? Oikos 82: 295-302.Google Scholar
  21. Eisto, A.-K., Kuitunen, M., Lammi, A., Saari, V., Suhonen, J., Syrjäsuo, S & Tikka, P. M. 2000. Population persistence and offspring fitness in the rare bellflower Campanula cervicaria in relation to population size and habitat quality. Conserv. Biol. 14: 1413-1421.Google Scholar
  22. Foster, B. L. & Gross, K. L. 1998. Species richness in a successional grassland: effects of nitrogen enrichment and plant litter. Ecology 79: 2593-2602.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, J. F. 1979. Intermediate-disturbance hypothesis. Science 204: 1344-1345.Google Scholar
  24. Gough, L., Grace, J. B. & Taylor, K. L. 1994. The relationship between species richness and community biomass: the importance of environmental variables. Oikos 70: 271-279.Google Scholar
  25. Grace, J. B. 1999. The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities: an assessment. Persp. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2: 1-28.Google Scholar
  26. Grace, J. B. & Pugesec, B. H. 1997. A structural equation model of plant species richness and its application to a coastal wetland. Am. Nat. 149: 436-460.Google Scholar
  27. Greulich, S., Bornette, G. & Amoros, C. 2000. Persistence of a rare aquatic species along gradients of disturbance and sediment richness. J. Veg. Sci. 11: 415-424.Google Scholar
  28. Griggs, R. F. 1940. The ecology of rare plants. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 67: 575-594.Google Scholar
  29. Grime, J. P. 1973a. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242: 344-347.Google Scholar
  30. Grime, J. P. 1973b. Control of species diversity in herbaceous vegetation. J. Environ. Manag. 1: 151-167.Google Scholar
  31. Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Grytnes, J. A. 2000. Fine-scale vascular plant richness in different alpine vegetation types: relationships with biomass and cover. J. Veg. Sci. 11: 87-92.Google Scholar
  33. Hansson, M. & Fogelfors, H. 2000. Management of semi-natural grassland; results from a 15-year-old experiment in southern Sweden. J. Veg. Sci. 11: 31-38.Google Scholar
  34. Hill, M. O. 1973. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54: 427-432.Google Scholar
  35. Huston, M. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. Am. Nat. 113: 81-101.Google Scholar
  36. Huston, M. 1980. Soil nutrients and tree species richness in Costa Rican forests. J. Biogeogr. 7: 147-157.Google Scholar
  37. Keizer, P. J., Van Tooren, B. F. & During, H. J. 1985. Effects of bryophytes on seedling emergence and establishment of short-lived forbs in chalk grassland. J. Ecol. 73: 493-504.Google Scholar
  38. Kopecky, K. & Hejny, S. 1974. A new approach to the classification of anthropogenic plant communities. Vegetatio 29: 17-20.Google Scholar
  39. Kopecky, K. & Hejny, S. 1978. Die Anwendung einer deduktiven Methode syntaxonomischer Klassification bei der Bearbeitung der straßenbegleitenden Pflanzengesellschaften Nordostböhemens. Vegetatio 36: 43-51.Google Scholar
  40. Kunin, W. E. & Gaston, K. J. (eds) 1997. The biology of rarity. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  41. Newman, E. I. 1973. Competition and diversity in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 244: 310.Google Scholar
  42. Odum, E. P. 1963. Ecology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  43. Oksanen, J. 1996. Is the humped relationship between species richness and biomass an artefact due to plot size? J. Ecol. 84: 293-295.Google Scholar
  44. Olff, H. & Bakker, J. P. 1991. Long-term dynamics of standing crop and species composition after the cessation of fertilizer application to mown grassland. J. Appl. Ecol. 28: 1040-1052.Google Scholar
  45. Oomes, M. J. M. 1990. Changes in dry matter and nutrient yields during the restoration of species-rich grasslands. J. Veg. Sci. 1: 333-338.Google Scholar
  46. Oomes, M. J. M. 1992. Yield and species density of grasslands during restoration management. J. Veg. Sci. 3: 271-274.Google Scholar
  47. Oomes, M. J. M. & Mooi, H. 1981. The effect of cutting and fertilizing on the floristic composition and production of an Arrhenatherion elatioris grassland. Vegetatio 47: 233-239.Google Scholar
  48. Oomes, M. J. M. & Mooi, H. 1985. The effect of management of succession and production of formerly agricultural grassland after stopping fertilization. Pp. 59-67. In: Schreiber, K.F. (ed.), Sukzession auf Grünlandbrachen. Münstersche Geographische Arbeiten 20. Schöningh, Paderborn.Google Scholar
  49. Parr, T. W. & Way, J. M. 1988. Management of roadside vegetation: the long term effects of cutting. J. Appl. Ecol. 25: 1073-1087.Google Scholar
  50. Pärtel, M., Zobel, M., Zobel, K. & Van der Maarel, E. 1996. The species pool and its relation to species richness: evidence from Estonian plant communities. Oikos 75: 111-117.Google Scholar
  51. Petraitis, P. S., Latham, R. E. & Niesenbaum, R. A. 1989. The maintenance of species diversity by disturbance. Quart. Rev. Biol. 64: 393-418.Google Scholar
  52. Pollock, M. M., Naiman, R. J. & Hanley, T. A. 1998. Plant species richness in riparian wetlands - a test of biodiversity theory. Ecology 79: 94-105.Google Scholar
  53. Puerto, A., Rico, M. Matias, M. D. & García, J.A. 1990. Variation in structure and diversity in Mediterranean grasslands related to trophic status and grazing intensity. J. Veg. Sci. 1: 445-452.Google Scholar
  54. Rabinowitz, D., Rapp, J. K. & Dixon, P. M. 1984. Competitive abilities of sparse grass species: means of persistence or cause of abundance. Ecology 65: 1144-1154.Google Scholar
  55. Rapson, G. L., Thompson, K. & Hodgson, J. G. 1997. The humped relationship between species richness and biomass-testing its sensitivity to sample quadrat size. J. Ecol. 85: 99-100.Google Scholar
  56. Richerson, P. J. & Lum, K. 1980. Patterns of plant species diversity in California: relation to weather and topography. Am. Nat. 116: 504-536.Google Scholar
  57. Roem, W. J. & Berendse, F. 2000. Acidification and changes in nutrient supply ratio as possible causes of declining plant species diversity in grassland and heathland communities. Biol. Cons. 92: 151-161.Google Scholar
  58. Rozenzweig, M. L. & Abramsky, Z. 1993. How are diversity and productivity related? Pp. 52-65. In: Ricklefs, R.E. & Schluter, D. (eds), Species Diversity in Ecological Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  59. Schaffers, A. P. 2000. Ecology of Roadside Plant Communities. PhD Thesis, Wageningen Univ., Wageningen.Google Scholar
  60. Schaffers, A. P. 2001. Soil, biomass, and management of semi-natural vegetation. I. Mutual soil-biomass relationships. Plant Ecol. 158: 229-246Google Scholar
  61. Schaffers, A. P. & Sýkora, K. V. 2000. Reliability of Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, nitrogen and soil reaction: a comparison with field measurements. J. Veg. Sci. 11: 225-244.Google Scholar
  62. Schaffers, A. P., Vesseur, M. C. & Sýkora, K. V. 1998. Effects of delayed hay removal on the nutrient balance of roadside plant communities. J. Appl. Ecol. 35: 349-364.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, B. & Wilson, J. B. 1996. A consumer's guide to evenness indices. Oikos 76: 70-82.Google Scholar
  64. Sokal, R. S. & Rohlf, F. J. 1995. Biometry - the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.Google Scholar
  65. Tilman, D. 1993. Species richness of experimental productivity gradients: how important is colonization limitation? Ecology 74: 2179-2191.Google Scholar
  66. Tilman, D. & Pacala, S. 1993. The maintenance of species richness in plant communities. Pp. 13-25. In: Ricklefs, R.E. & Schluter, D. (eds), Species Diversity in Ecological Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  67. Tilman, D., Wedin, D. & Knops, J. 1993. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379: 718-720.Google Scholar
  68. Van der Maarel, E. 1979. Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effects on community similarity. Vegetatio 39: 97-114.Google Scholar
  69. Van Schaik, A. W. J. & Van den Hengel, L. C. 1994. De effecten van een aantal maairegimes op flora en vegetatie in wegbermen (The effects of a number of mowing regimes on flora and vegetation in roadside verges). Report no. P-DWW-94-706. Rijkswaterstaat/DWW, Delft.Google Scholar
  70. Vermeer, J. G. & Berendse, F. 1983. The relation between nutrient availability, shoot biomass and species richness in grassland and wetland communities. Vegetatio 53: 121-126.Google Scholar
  71. Wheeler, B. D. & Giller, K. E. 1982. Species richness of herbaceous fen vegetation in Broadland, Norfolk in relation to the quantity of above-ground plant material. J. Ecol. 70: 179-200.Google Scholar
  72. Wheeler, B. D. & Shaw, S. C. 1991. Above-ground crop mass and species richness of the principal types of herbaceous rich-fen vegetation of lowland England and Wales. J. Ecol. 79: 285-301.Google Scholar
  73. Weiher, E. & Keddy, P. A. 1999. Relative abundance and evenness patterns along diversity and biomass gradients. Oikos 87: 355-361.Google Scholar
  74. Whittaker, R. H. & Niering, W. A. 1975. Vegetation of the Santa Catalina mountains, Arizona. V. Biomass, production, and diversity along an elevational gradient. Ecology 56: 771-790.Google Scholar
  75. Zobel, K. & Liira, J. 1997. A scale-independent approach to the richness vs biomass relationship in ground-layer plant communities. Oikos 80: 325-332.Google Scholar
  76. Zobel, M., Van der Maarel, E. & Dupré, C. 1998. Species pool: the concept, its determination and significance for community restoration. Appl. Veg. Sci. 1: 55-66.1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • André P. Schaffers
    • 1
  1. 1.Nature Conservation and Plant Ecology Group, Department of Environmental SciencesWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations