Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 13, Issue 8, pp 1427–1439 | Cite as

Effects of habitat area, isolation, and landscape diversity on plant species richness of calcareous grasslands

  • Jochen Krauss
  • Alexandra-Maria Klein
  • Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter
  • Teja Tscharntke


Calcareous grasslands harbour a high biodiversity, but are highly fragmented and endangered in central Europe. We tested the relative importance of habitat area, habitat isolation, and landscape diversity for species richness of vascular plants. Plants were recorded on 31 calcareous grasslands in the vicinity of the city of Göttingen (Germany) and were divided into habitat specialist and generalist species. We expected that habitat specialists were more affected by area and isolation, and habitat generalists more by landscape diversity. In multiple regression analysis, the species richness of habitat specialists (n = 66 species) and habitat generalists (n = 242) increased with habitat area, while habitat isolation or landscape diversity did not have significant effects. Contrary to predictions, habitat specialists were not more affected by reduced habitat area than generalists. This may have been caused by delayed extinction of long-living plant specialists in small grasslands. Additionally, non-specialists may profit more from high habitat heterogeneity in large grasslands compared to habitat specialists. Although habitat isolation and landscape diversity revealed no significant effect on local plant diversity, only an average of 54% of habitat specialists of the total species pool were found within one study site. In conclusion, habitat area was important for plant species conservation, but regional variation between habitats contributed also an important 46% of total species richness.

Conservation Generalists Habitat fragmentation Specialists Species density Species–area relationships 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bässler M., Jäger E.J. and Werner K. 1999. Rothmaler, Exkursionsflora von Deutschland, Bd. 2, Gefässpflanzen: Grundband. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  2. Beinlich B. and Plachter H. 1995. Ein Naturschutzkonzept für Kalkmagerrasen der Mittleren Schwäbischen Alb (Baden-Württemberg): Schutz, Nutzung und Entwicklung. Beihefte zu den Veröffentlichungen für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in Baden-Württemberg 83: 1–520.Google Scholar
  3. Bruun H.H. 2000. Patterns of species richness in dry grassland patches in an agricultural landscape. Ecography 23: 641–650.Google Scholar
  4. De Blois S., Domon G. and Bouchard A. 2002. Landscape issues in plant ecology. Ecography 25: 244–256.Google Scholar
  5. Deutscher Wetterdienst 2001. Klimadaten der Wetterstation Göttingen. In: Stadt Göttingen, Amt für Statistik und Stadtforschung (eds), Statistikjournal 1/2001.Google Scholar
  6. Eriksson O. 1996. Regional dynamics of plants: a review of evidence for remnant, source-sink and metapopulations. Oikos 77: 248–258.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer M. and Stöcklin J. 1997. Local extinctions of plants in remnants of extensively used calcareous grasslands 1950-1985. Conservation Biology 11: 727–737.Google Scholar
  8. GEOsat GmbH 1998. GEOlink Version 1. 46. Wuppertal, Germany.Google Scholar
  9. Gonzales A. 2000. Community relaxation in fragmented landscapes: the relation between species richness, area and age. Ecology Letters 3: 441–448.Google Scholar
  10. Grashof-Bokdam C. 1997. Forest species in an agricultural landscape in the Netherlands: effects of habitat fragmentation. Journal of Vegetation Science 8: 21–28.Google Scholar
  11. Hanski I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Hanski I., Kuussaari M. and Nieminen M. 1994. Metapopulation structure and migration in the butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Ecology 75: 747–762.Google Scholar
  13. Holt R.D., Lawton J.H., Polis G.A. and Martinez N.D. 1999. Trophic rank and species-area relationship. Ecology 80: 1495–1504.Google Scholar
  14. Honnay O., Endels P., Vereecken H. and Hermy M. 1999. The role of patch area and habitat diversity in explaining native plant species richness in disturbed suburban forest patches in northern Belgium. Diversity and Distribution 5: 129–141.Google Scholar
  15. Jonsen I.D. and Fahrig L. 1997. Response of generalist and specialist insect herbivores to landscape spatial structure. Landscape Ecology 12: 185–197.Google Scholar
  16. Kelly B.J., Bastow W.J. and Mark A.F. 1989. Causes of the species-area relation: a study of islands in lake Manapouri, New Zealand. Journal of Ecology 77: 1021–1028.Google Scholar
  17. Köchy M. and Rydin H. 1997. Biogeography of vascular plants on habitat islands, peninsulas and mainlands in an east-central Swedish agricultural landscape. Nordic Journal of Botany 17: 215–223.Google Scholar
  18. Kohn D.D. and Walsh D.W. 1994. Plant species richness - the effect of island size and habitat diversity. Journal of Ecology 82: 367–377.Google Scholar
  19. Kollmann J. and Schneider B. 1999. Landscape structure and diversity of fleshy-fruited species at forest edges. Plant Ecology 144: 37–48.Google Scholar
  20. Krauss J., Steffan-Dewenter I. and Tscharntke T. 2003. How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? Journal of Biogeography 30: 889–900.Google Scholar
  21. Krebs C.J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. Harper Collins Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Lawesson J.E., de Blust G., Grashof C., Firbank L., Honnay O., Hermy M., Hobitz P. and Jensen L.M. 1998. Species diversity and area-relationships in Danish beech forests. Forest Ecology and Management 106: 235–245.Google Scholar
  23. Metzger J.P. 2000. Tree functional group richness and landscape structure in a Brazilian tropical fragmented landscape. Ecological Applications 10: 1147–1161.Google Scholar
  24. Moilanen A. and Nieminen M. 2002. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83: 1131–1145.Google Scholar
  25. Oostermeijer J.G.B., Vant't Veer R. and Den Nijs J.C.M. 1994. Population structure of the rare, longlived perennial Gentiana pneumonanthe in relation to vegetation and management in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 31: 428–438.Google Scholar
  26. Ouborg N.J. 1993. Isolation, population size and extinction: the classical and metapopulation approaches applied to vascular plants along the Dutch Rhine-system. Oikos 66: 298–308.Google Scholar
  27. Poschlod P. and WallisDeVries M.F. 2002. The historical and socioeconomic perspective of calcareous grasslands - lessons from the distant and recent past. Biology Conservation 104: 361–376.Google Scholar
  28. Ricketts T.H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. The American Nationalist 158: 87–99.Google Scholar
  29. Riecken U., Ries U. and Ssymank A. 1994. Rote Liste der gefährdeten Biotoptypen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Kilda-Verlag, Greven, Germany.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenzweig M.L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  31. Söderström B., Svensson B., Vessby K. and Glimskär A. 2001. Plants, insects and birds in semi-natural pastures in relation to local habitat and landscape factors. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1839–1863.Google Scholar
  32. Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F. 1995. Biometry. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Statgraphics 1995. Statgraphics plus for Windows, Version 3.0. Manugistics, Inc, Rockville, Mary land.Google Scholar
  34. Steffan-Dewenter I. and Tscharntke T. 2000. Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats. Ecology Letters 3: 449–456.Google Scholar
  35. Steffan-Dewenter I. and Tscharntke T. 2002. Insect communities and biotic interactions on fragmented calcareous grasslands - a mini review. Biological Conservation 104: 275–284.Google Scholar
  36. Steffan-Dewenter I., Münzenberg U., Bürger C., Thies C. and Tscharntke T. 2002. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83: 1421–1432.Google Scholar
  37. Tilman D., May R.M., Lehman C.L. and Nowak M.A. 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371: 65–66.Google Scholar
  38. Tscharntke T., Steffan-Dewenter I., Kruess A. and Thies C. 2002. Characteristics of insect populations on habitat fragments: a mini review. Ecological Research 17: 229–239.Google Scholar
  39. Van Ruremonde R.H.A.C. and Kalkhoven J.T.R. 1991. Effects of woodlot isolation on the dispersion of plants with fleshy fruits. Journal of Vegetation Science 2: 377–384.Google Scholar
  40. Van Swaay C.A.M. 2002. The importance of calcareous grasslands for butterflies in Europe. Biological Conservation 104: 315–318.Google Scholar
  41. Veech J.A., Summerville K.S., Crist T.O. and Gering J.C. 2002. The additive partitioning of species diversity: recent revival of an old idea. Oikos 99: 3–9.Google Scholar
  42. Von Drachenfels O. 1994. Kartierschlüssel für Biotoptypen in Niedersachsen. Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege Niedersachsen 4: 1–192.Google Scholar
  43. WallisDeVries M.F., Poschlod P. and Willems J.H. 2002. Challenges for the conservation of calcareous grasslands in northwestern Europe: integrating the requirements of flora and fauna. Biological Conservation 104: 265–273.Google Scholar
  44. Warren M.S., Hill J.K., Thomas J.A., Asher J., Fox R., Huntley B. et al. 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414: 65-69.Google Scholar
  45. Wiens J.A. 1997. Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. In: Hanski I. and Gilpin M.E. (eds) Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. Academic Press, London, pp. 43–62.Google Scholar
  46. Zschokke S., Dolt C., Rusterholz H.-P., Oggier P., Braschler B., Thommen G.H. et al. 2000. Short-term responses of plants and invertebrates to experimental small-scale grassland fragmentation. Oecologia 125: 559–572.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen Krauss
    • 1
  • Alexandra-Maria Klein
    • 1
  • Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter
    • 1
  • Teja Tscharntke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AgroecologyUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations