Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Estimation and prediction of plant species richness in a mosaic landscape

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Traditional agricultural mosaic landscapes are likely to undergo dramatic changes through either intensification or abandonment of land use. Both developmental trends may negatively affect the vascular plant species richness of such landscapes. Therefore, sustainable land-use systems need to be developed to maintain and re-establish species richness at various spatial scales. To evaluate the sustainability of specific land-use systems, we need approaches for the effective assessment of the present species richness and models that can predict the effects on species richness as realistically as possible. In this context, we present a methodology to estimate and predict vascular plant species richness at the local and the regional scale. In our approach, the major determinants of vascular plant species richness within the study area are taken into consideration: These are according to Duelli's mosaic concept the number of habitat types and of habitat patches within area units. Furthermore, it is based on the relative frequencies of species within habitat types. Our approach comprises six steps: (i) the determination of present habitat patterns within an observation area, (ii) the creation of a land-use scenario with simulated habitat patterns, (iii) the determination of species frequencies within habitat types of this area, (iv) a grouping of habitat-specific species, (v) the estimation of the probabilities for all species (or habitat specialists) to occur, either in stepwise, exponentially enlarged landscape tracts (local scale), or in the entire observation area (regional scale), and (vi) the validation of the estimated species numbers. The approach will be exemplified using data from the municipal district of Erda, Lahn-Dill Highlands, Germany. The current species numbers to be expected on the basis of probability calculations were compared with those recorded on the basis of extensive field work. This comparison shows that, on the basis of our simple calculations, the current local plant species richness can be predicted well, with a slight underestimation.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arx von G., Bosshard A. and Dietz H. 2002. Land-use intensity and border structures as determinants of vegetation diversity in an agricultural area. Bulletin Geobotanical Institute ETH 68: 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austrheim G. and Olsson E.G. 1999. How does continuity in grassland management after ploughing affect plant community patterns? Plant Ecology 145: 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldock D., Beaufoy G., Brouwer F. and Godeschalk F. 1996. Farming at the Margins. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouma J., Varallyay G. and Batjes N.H. 1998. Principal land use changes anticipated in Europe. Agriculture Ecosystems Environment 67: 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burel F., Butet A., Delettre Y.R. and Millàn de la Peña N. in press. Differential response of selected taxa to landscape context and agricultural intensification. Landscape and Urban Planning

  • Case T.J. and Cody M.L. 1987. Testing theories of island biogeography. American Scientist 75: 402–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chytrý M., Tichý L., Holt J. and Botta-Dukát Z. 2002. Determination of diagnostic species with statistical fildelity measures. Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousins S.A.O. and Eriksson O. 2001. Plant species occurrences in a rural hemiboreal landscape: effects of remnant habitats, site history, topography and soil. Ecography 24: 461–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csecserits A. and Redei T. 2001. Secondary succession on sandy old-fields in Hungary. Applied Vegetation Science 4: 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dauber J., Hirsch M., Simmering D., Waldhardt R., Otte A. and Wolters V. 2003. Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: matrix effects on species richness. Agriculture Ecosystems Environment 98: 321–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P. 1992. Mosaikkonzept und Inseltheorie in der Kulturlandschaft. Verhandlungen der Geselschaft Ökologie 21: 379–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P. 1997. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: An approach at two different scales. Agriculture Ecosystems Environment 62: 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P. and Obrist K. 1998. In search oft the best correlates for local organismal biodiversity in cultivated areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning J.B., Danielson B.J. and Pulliam H.R. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65: 169–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellenberg H. 1992. Zeigerwerte der Gefäßpflanzen (ohne Rubus). Scripta Geobotanica 18: 9–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman E., Murphy D. D. and Brussard P.E. 2000. A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecological Applications 10: 569–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO 1998. World reference base for soil resources. FAO, Rome, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster B.L. and Tilman B. 2000. Dynamic and static views of succession: Testing the descriptive power of the chronosequence approach. Plant Ecology 146: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freemark K.E. and Kirk D.A. 2001. Birds on organic and conventional farms in Ontario: partitioning effects of habitat and practices on species composition and abundance. Biological Conservation 101: 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths G.H., Lee J. and Eversham B.C. 2000. Landscape pattern and species richness; regional scale analysis from remote sensing. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21: 2685–2704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E.J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1: 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R. and Chopping M. 1996. Quantifying landscape structure: a revies of landscape indices and their application to forested landscapes. Programming Physics Geographic 20: 418–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen A.J. and di Castri F. 1992. Landscape Boundaries — Consequences for Biotic Diversity and Ecological Flows. Ecology Studies 92.

  • Harris L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris L.D. 1988. Edge effects and conservation of biotic diversity. Conservation Biology 2: 330–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay G.J., Marceau D.J., Dubé P. and Bouchard A. 2001. A multiscale framework for landscape analysis: Object-specific analysis and upscaling. Landscape Ecology 16: 471–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann J., Kretschmer H. and Pfeffer H. 2001. Effects of patterning on biodiversity in Northeast German agro-landscapes. Ecology Studies 147: 325–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulshoff R.M. 1995. Landscape indices describing a Dutch landscape. Landscape Ecology 10: 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hüpp J. and Hofmeister H. 1990. Syntaxonomische Fassung und Übersicht über die Ackerunkrautgesellschaften der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Berichte der Reinhold-Tüxen-Gesellschaf 2: 61–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M.P. and Simberloff D.S. 1974. Environmental determinants of island species numbers in the British Isles. Journal of Biogeography 1: 149–154.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen I.D. and Fahrig L. 1997. Response of generalist and specialist insect herbivores to landscape spatial structure. Landscape Ecology 12: 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohl M. 1978. Die Dynamik der Kulturlandschaft im oberen Lahn-Dillkreis. Wandlungen von Haubergswirtschaft und Ackerbau zu neuen Formen der Landnutzung in der modernen Regionalentwicklung. Giessener Geographische Schrifte 45.

  • Korneck D., Schnittler M. and Vollmer I. 1996. Rote Liste der Farn-und Blütenpflanzen (Pteridophyta et Spermatophyta) Deutschlands. Schriftenreihe fü Vegetationskunde 28: 21–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Forestry Ecological Management 106: 235–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Coeur D., Baudry J., Burel F. and Thenail C. 2002. Why and how we should study field boundary biodiversity in an agrarian landscape context. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 89: 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin S.A. 2000. Multiple scales and the maintenance of biodiversity. Ecosystems 3: 498–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luczaj L. and Sadowska B. 1997. Edge effect in different groups of organisms: Vascular plant, bryophyte and fungi species richness across a forest-grassland border. Folia Geobotanica and Phytotaxonomica 32: 343–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luoto M. 2000. Modelling of rare plant species richness by landscape variables in an agriculture area in Finland. Plant Ecology 149: 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luoto M., Toivonen T. and Heikkinen R.K. 2002. Prediction of total and rare plant species richness in agricultural landscapes from satellite images and topographic data. Landscape Ecology 17: 195–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma M.H., Tarmi S. and Helenius J. 2002. Revisiting the species-area relationship in a semi-natural habitat: floral richness in agricultural buffer zones in Finland. Agricultural Ecosystems Environment 89: 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur R.H. and Wilson E.O. 1963. An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17: 373–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur R.H. and Wilson E.O. 2001. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald D., Crabtree J.R., Wiesinger G., Dax T., Stamou N., Fleury P., Lazpita J.G. and Gigon A. 2000. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environment Management 59: 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall E.J.P. and Moonen A.C. 2002. Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Acricultural Ecosystems Environment 89: 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matson P.A., Parton W.J., Power A.G. and Swift M.J. 1997. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277: 504–509.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maudsley M. and Marshall E.J.P. 1999. Heterogeneity in Landscape Ecology: Pattern and Scale. Proc. IALE (UK) conference, Bristol, UK.

  • McCracken D.I., Dennis P., Milligan A.L., Cole L.J., Downie I.S., Murphy K.J., Furness R.W., Waterhouse A., Foster G.N. and Milne J.A. 2000. Biodiversity and landscape interactions on Scottish farmland. In: Clare T. and Howard D. (eds), Quantitative Approaches to Landscape Ecology, pp. 97–106. International Association for Landscape Ecology (UK Region), Bangor, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald A.W. 2001. Succession during the re-creation of a flood-meadow 1985–1999. Applicable Vegetation Science 4: 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller D., Weinmann B., Kirschner M. and Kuhlmann F. 1999. Effects of political and structural changes on the spatial distribution and key indicators of land-use: GIS based simulation with ProLand. Journal of Rural Engineering and Development 40: 197–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller D., Fohrer N. and Steiner N. 2002. Quantifizierung regionaler Multifunktionalität land-und forstwirtschaftlicher Nutzungssysteme. Berichte über Landwirtschaft 80: 393–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norderhaug A., Ihse M. and Pedersen O. 2000. Biotope patterns and abundance of meadow plant species in a Norwegian rural landscape. Landscape Ecology 15: 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss R.F. 1990. Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 355–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill R.V., Krummel J.R., Gardner R.H., Sugihara G., Jackson B., DeAngelis D.L., Milne B.T., Turner M.G., Zygmunt B., Christensen S.W., Dale V.H. and Graham R.L. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1: 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P., Verboom J, Pouwels R. 2003. Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 18: 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parody J.M., Cuthbert F.J. and Decker E.H. 2001. The effect of 50 years of landscape change on species richness and community composition. Global Ecology Biogeographic Letters 10: 305–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pärtel M. and Zobel M. 1999. Small-scale plant species richness in calcareous grasslands determined by the species pool, community age and shoot density. Ecography 22: 153–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pysek P., Kucera T. and Jarosik V. 2002. Plant species richness of nature reserves: the interplay of area, climate and habitat in a central European landscape. Global Ecological Biogeography 11: 279–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig M.L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlen G. and Ekestubbe K. 2001. Identification of dragonflies (Odonata) as indicators of general species richness in boreal forest lakes. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 673–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala O.E., Chapin F.S., Armesto J.J., Berlow E., Bloomfield J., Dirzo R., Huber-Sanwald E., Huenneke L.F., Jackson R.B., Kinzig A., Leemans R., Lodge D.M., Mooney H.A., Oesterheld M., Poff N.L., Sykes M.T., Walker B.H., Walker M. and Wall D.H. 2000. Biodiversity — global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer C.L. 1990. Island theory and conservation practice. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmering D., Waldhardt R. and Otte A. 2001a. Syndynamik und Ökologie von Besenginsterbeständen des Lahn-Dill-Berglands unter Berücksichtigung ihrer Genese aus verschiedenen Rasengesellschaften. Tuexenia 21: 51–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmering D., Waldhardt R. and Otte A. 2001b. Zur vegetationsökologischen Bedeutung von scharfen Grenzlinien in Agrarlandschaften — Beispiele aus einer kleinstrukturierten Mittelgebirgslandschaft. Peckiana 1: 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith R.S. and Rushton S.P. 1994. The effects of grazing management on the vegetation of mesotrophic (meadow) grassland in northern England. Journal of Applicable Ecology 31: 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderström B., Svennsson 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I., Münzenberg U., Bürger C., Thies, C. and Tscharntke T. 2003. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83: 1421–1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg M., Gutmann M., Perevolotsky A., Ungar E.D. and Kigel J. 2000. Vegetation response to grazing management in a Mediterranean herbaceous community: a functional group approach. Journal of Applicable Ecology 37: 224–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren T.J., Chong G.W., Kalkhan M.A. and Schell L.D. 1997a. Rapid assessment of plant diversity patterns: A methodology for landscapes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessing 48: 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren T.J., Chong G.W., Kalkhan M.A. and Schell L.D. 1997b. Multiscale sampling of plant diversity: Effects of minimum mapping unit size. Ecological Application 7: 1064–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren T.J., Coughenour M.B., Chong G.W., Binkley D., Kalkhan M.A., Schell L.D., Buckley D.J. and Berry J.K. 1997c. Landscape analysis of plant diversity. Landscape Ecology 12: 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thies C. and Tscharntke T. 1999. Landscape structure and biological control in agroecosystems. Science 285: 893–895.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L. 2001. Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecology 16: 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G., O'Neill R.V., Gardner R.H. and Milne B.T. 1989. Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 3: 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos C.C., Baveco H. and Grashof-Bokdam C.J. 2002. Corridors and species dispersal. In: Gutzwiller K.J. (ed.), Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner H.H. and Edwards P.J. 2001. Quantifying habitat specificity to assess the contribution of a patch to species richness at a landscape scale. Landscape Ecology 16: 121–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldhardt R. 2003. Die Bedeutung von Landnutzungsdynamik für die Vielfalt der Ackerwildkrautflora. Nova Acta Leopoldina NF 87: 237–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldhardt R., Fuhr-Boßdorf K., Otte A., Schmidt J. and Simmering D. 1999. Classification, localization and regional extrapolation of vegetation potentials in a peripheral cultural landscape. Journal of Rural Engineering Development 40: 246–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldhardt R. and Otte A. 2000. On the use of the concept ‘biodiversity’. Wasser Boden 52: 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldhardt R. and Otte A. 2003. Indicators of plant species and community diversity in grasslands. Agricultural Ecosystems Environment 98: 393–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldhardt R., Simmering D., Fuhr-Boßdorf K. and Otte A. 2000. Floristisch-phytocoenotische Diversitäten einer peripheren Kulturlandschaft in Abhängigkeit von Landnutzung, Raum und Zeit. Agrarspectrum 31: 121–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weibull A.C., Ostmann O. and Granqvist A. 2003. Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1335–1355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker R.J., Willis K.J. and Field R. 2001. Scale and species richness: towards a general hierarchical theory of species diversity. Journal of Biogeography 28: 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A. 2002. Central concepts and issues of landscape ecology. In: Gutzwiller K.J. (eds), Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A., Stenseth N.C., van Horne B. and Ims R.A. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson W.L., Abernethy V.J., Murphy K. J., Adam A., McCracken D.I., Downie I.S, Foster G.N., Furness R. W., Waterhouse A. and Ribera I. 2003. Prediction of plant diversity response to land use change on Scottish agricultural land. Agricultural Ecosystems Environment 94: 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisskirchen R. and Haeupler H. 1998. Standardliste der Farn-und Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands. Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolters V., Dauber J., Hirsch M. and Steiner N. 1999. Fauna in a mosaic landscape at the peripheral region. Journal of Rural Engineering and Deversity 40: 253–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrbka T., Szerencsits E., Moser D. and Reiter K. 1999. Biodiversity patterns in cultivated landscapes: experiences and first results from a nationwide Austrian survey. In: Maudsley M. and Marshall E.J.P. (eds), Heterogeneity in Landscape Ecology: Pattern and Scale. Proc. IALE (UK) conference, Bristol, UK.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Landscape Ecology and Resources Management, Division of Landscape Ecology and Landscape Planning, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, IFZ, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, D-35392, Giessen, Germany

    Rainer Waldhardt, Dietmar Simmering & Annette Otte

Authors
  1. Rainer Waldhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dietmar Simmering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annette Otte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rainer Waldhardt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waldhardt, R., Simmering, D. & Otte, A. Estimation and prediction of plant species richness in a mosaic landscape. Landscape Ecology 19, 211–226 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000021722.08588.58

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000021722.08588.58

Search

Navigation