Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 117–125 | Cite as

Abiotic and biotic changes due to spread of Brachypodium genuense (DC.) Roem. & Schult. in sub-Mediterranean meadows

  • A. Catorci
  • S. Cesaretti
  • R. Gatti
  • G. Ottaviani
Article

Abstract

The present research deals with the impact of the invasive species Brachypodium genuense in central Apennine meadows. The study compares meadows under different management types (mown versus abandoned). B. genuense spread in the abandoned condition alters the ecological status of the site. It lowers soil temperature, moisture and pH, while it increases soil C/N ratio and litter production. In terms of biotic features, phenological analysis indicated that the abandoned condition is less rich in flowering species and individuals in each analysed date. We observed a less affected temporal niche (during the first phase of B. genuense leaf growth) and two strongly influenced phases (in early spring and in correspondence with phases when

Keywords

Floristic richness Management type Phenological patterns Plant functional traits Soil parameter changes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrams, P.A. 1995. Monotonic or unimodal diversity-productivity gradients: What does competition theory predict? Ecology 76: 2019–2027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Mufti, M.M., C.L. Sydes, S.B. Furness, J.P. Grime and S.R. Band. 1977. A quantitative analysis of shoot phenology and dominance in herbaceous vegetation. J. Ecol. 65: 759–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, H., J.P. Bakker, B. Brongers, B. Heydemann and U. Irm-ler. 1990. Long-term changes of salt marsh communities by cattle grazing. Vegetatio 89: 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beatty, S.W. and O.D.V. Sholes. 1988. Leaf litter effect on plant species composition of deciduous forest treefall pits. Can. J. For. Res. 18: 553–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergelson, J. 1990. Life after death: site pre-emption by the remains of Poa annua. Ecology 71: 2157–2165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bobbink, R. and J.H. Willems. 1987. Increasing dominance of B. pinnatum (L.) Beauv. in chalk grasslands: a threat to a species-rich ecosystem. Biol. Conserv. 40: 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobbink, R. and J.H. Willems. 1988. Effects of management and nutrient availability on vegetation structure of chalk grassland. In: H.J. During, M.J.A. Werger and J.H. Willems (eds.), Diversity and Pattern in Plant Communities. SPB Academic Publishers, The Hague. pp. 123–132.Google Scholar
  8. Bobbink, R., L. Bik and J.H. Willems. 1988. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on vegetation structure and dominance of B. pinnatum (L.) Beauv. in chalk grassland. Acta Bot. Neerl. 37: 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bobbink, R. and J.H. Willems. 1991. Impact of different cutting regimes on the performance of B. pinnatum in Dutch chalk grassland. Biol. Conserv. 56: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonan, G. 2008. Ecological climatology. Concepts and Applications. University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonanomi, G. and M. Allegrezza. 2004. Effetti della colonizzazione di Brachypodium rupestre (Host) Roemer et Schultes sulla di-versità di alcune fitocenosi erbacee dell’Appennino centrale. Fi-tosociologia 41(2): 51–69.Google Scholar
  12. Bonanomi, G., S. Caporaso and M. Allegrezza. 2006. Short-term effects of nitrogen enrichment, litter removal and cutting on a Mediterranean grassland. Acta Oecol. 30: 419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonanomi, G., S. Caporaso and M. Allegrezza. 2009. Effects of nitrogen enrichment, plant litter removal and cutting on a species-rich Mediterranean calcareous grassland. Plant Biosyst. 143: 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil. 2002. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.Google Scholar
  15. Buckland, S.M., K. Thompson, J.G. Hodgson and J.P. Grime. 2001. Grassland invasions: effects of manipulations of climate and management. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 289–294.Google Scholar
  16. Camiz, S., G. Dowgiallo and F. Lucchese. 1991. Edaphic characters of Brachypodium communities on the Alps and the Apennines. Ecol. Medit. 17: 33–49.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, B.D., J.P. Grime and J.M.L. Mackey. 1992. Shoot thrust and its role in plant competition. J. Ecol. 80: 633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Catorci, A., S. Cesaretti and M. Foglia. 2007a. Inquadramento pae-saggistico-ambientale e distribuzione spaziale delle praterie del settore maceratese dell’Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano. Braun-Blanquetia 42: 11–17.Google Scholar
  19. Catorci, A., R. Gatti and S. Ballelli. 2007b. Studio fitosociologico della vegetazione delle praterie montane dell’Appennino mac-eratese (Italia centrale). Braun-Blanquetia 42: 101–143.Google Scholar
  20. Catorci, A., S. Ballelli, R. Gatti and A. Vitanzi. 2008. Phytosoci-ological study of Ambro Valley’s grasslands (Sibillini Mountains National Park). Info Bot. It. 40(2): 193–241.Google Scholar
  21. Conti, F., G. Abbate, A. Alessandrini and C. Blasi. 2005. An Annotated Checklist of the Italian Vascular Flora. Palombi, Roma.Google Scholar
  22. Critchley, C.N.R., B.J. Chambers, J.A. Fowbert, R.A. Sanderson, A. Bhogaol and SC. Rose. 2002. Association between lowland grassland plant communities and soil properties. Biol. Conserv. 105: 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crofts, A. and R.G. Jefferson. 1994. (eds.) The Lowland Grassland Management Handbook. English Nature/Royal Society for Nature Conservation, Ashford.Google Scholar
  24. During, H.J. and J.H. Willems. 1984. Diversity models as applied to a chalk grassland. Vegetatio 57: 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. During, H.J., A.J. Schenkeveld, H.J. Verkaar and J.H. Willems. 1985. Demography of short-lived forbs in chalk grassland in relation to vegetation structure. In: J. White (ed.), Handbook of Vegetation Science 3: The Population Structure of Vegetation. Dr. W. Junk, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp. 341–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eckert, C.G. 2002. The loss of sex in clonal plants. Evol. Ecol. 15: 501–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Endresz, G., Á. Zöld-Balogh and T. Kalapos. 2005. Local distribution pattern of Brachypodium pinnatum (Poaceae) – Field experiments in xeric loess grassland in N. Hungary. Phyton 45: 249–265.Google Scholar
  28. Eriksson, O. 1995. Seedling recruitment in deciduous forest herbs: the effects of litter, soil chemistry and seed bank. Flora 190: 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Facelli, J.M. and S.T.A. Pickett. 1991. Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot. Rev. 57: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fenner, M. 1998. The phenology of growth and reproduction in plants. Perspectives Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 1: 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Foglia, M., D. Sparvoli and A. Catorci. 2007. Analisi multi tempo-rale dell’uso del suolo della dorsale appenninica marchigiana nel XIX e XX secolo. Braun-Blanquetia 42: 47–72.Google Scholar
  32. Friedman, D. and P. Alpert. 1991. Reciprocal transport between ra-mets increases growth in Fragaria chiloensis when light and nitrogen occur in separate patches but only if patches are rich. Oecologia 86: 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gratani, L., A. Rossi, M.F. Crescente and A.R. Frattaroli. 1999. Ecologia dei pascoli di Campo Imperatore (Gran Sasso d’Italia) e Carta della biomassa vegetale. Braun-Blanquetia 16: 227–247.Google Scholar
  34. Grime, J.P. 2001. Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties. 2nd ed., Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Grubb, P.J., D. Kelly and J. Mitchley. 1982. The control of relative abundance in communities of herbaceous plants. In: E. Newman (ed.), The Plant Community as a Working Mechanism. Black-well, Oxford. pp. 77–97.Google Scholar
  36. Howard, P.J.A. 1969. The classification of humus types in relation to soil ecosystems. In: J.G. Sheals (ed.),The Soil Ecosystem. The Systematics Association (Publication N. 8), London. pp. 51–54.Google Scholar
  37. Huhta, AP, P. Rautio, J. Tuomi and K. Laine. 2001. Restorative mowing on an abandoned semi-natural meadow: short-term and predicted long-term effects. J. Veg. Sci. 12: 677–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hurst, A. 1997. Community dominance: an investigation into the competitive mechanisms of B. pinnatum and possible methods of reducing its dominance on ancient chalk grassland. PhD thesis, University of Sussex, Sussex.Google Scholar
  39. Hurst, A. and E. John. 1999. The biotic and abiotic changes associated with Brachypodium pinnatum dominance in chalk grassland in south-east England. Biol. Conserv. 88: 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klimešová, J. and L. Klimeš. 2006. Clo-Pla3: A database of clonal growth architecture of Central-European plants. Available from: https://doi.org/clopla.butbn.cas.cz/.
  41. Klotz, S., I. Kühn and W. Durka. 2002. Biolflor: Eine Datenbank zu biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen der Gefäßpflanzen in Deutschland. Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38. Bonn, Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Available from: https://doi.org/www.ufz.de/biolflor/index.jsp.
  42. Knapp, A.K. and T.R. Seastedt. 1986. Detritus accumulation limits productivity of tallgrass prairie. BioScience 36: 622–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lucchese, F. 1987. Ruolo di alcune specie del genere Brachypodium nelle associazioni prative e forestali. Not. Fitosoc. 23: 173–188.Google Scholar
  44. Lucchese, F. 1988. La distribuzione dei complessi Brachypodium pinnatum e B. rupestre nelle Alpi orientali e Dinariche. Atti del simposio della Società Estalpino-Dinarica difitosociologia. Fel-tre 29 giugno-3 luglio 1988. pp. 147–160.Google Scholar
  45. Magurran, AE. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Markham, J.H., J.P. Grime and S. Buckland. 2009. Reciprocal interactions between plants and soil in an upland grassland. Ecol. Res. 24: 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miles, J. 2004. Le dinamiche delle relazioni suolo-vegetazione negli ecosistemi naturali. In: M. Amato, A. Migliozzi and S. Maz-zoleni (eds.), Il sistema suolo vegetazione. Liguori, Napoli. pp. 126–136.Google Scholar
  48. Pastor, J., B. Dewey, R.J. Naiman, P.F. McInnes and Y. Cohen. 1993. Moose browsing and soil fertility in the boreal forests of Isle Royale National Park. Ecology 74: 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pieruccini, P. 2007. Suoli e geomorfologia delle praterie montane nell’Appennino Umbro-Marchigiano. Braun-Blanquetia 42: 19–36.Google Scholar
  50. Pignatti, S. 1982. Flora d’Italia. 1–3. Edagricole, Bologna.Google Scholar
  51. Pignatti, S. 2005. Bioindicator values of vascular plants of the Flora of Italy. Braun- Blanquetia 39.Google Scholar
  52. Podani, J. 2001. SYN-TAX2000: Computer Program for Data Analysis in Ecology and Systematics. Scientia, Budapest.Google Scholar
  53. Podani, J. 2007. Analisi ed esplorazione multivariata dei dati in ecologia e biologia. Liguori, Napoli.Google Scholar
  54. Roem, W.J. and F. Berendse, 2000. Soil acidity and nutrient supply ratio as possible factors determining changes in plant species diversity in grassland and heathland communities. Biol.Con-serv. 92: 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roggero, P.P., S. Bagella and R. Farina. 2002. Un archivio dati di Indici specifici per la valutazione integrata del valore pastorale. Rivista di Agronomia 36(2): 149–156.Google Scholar
  56. Sebastià M.T., F. de Bello, L. Puig and M. Taull. 2008. Grazing as a factor structuring grasslands in the Pyrenees. Appl. Veg. Sci. 11:CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Silvertown, J. 1980. Leaf-canopy-induced seed dormancy in a grassland flora. New Phytologist 85: 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. SPSS Inc. 2005. SPSS for Windows. Version 13.0, Chicago.Google Scholar
  59. Sydes, C. and J.P. Grime. 1981a. Effects of tree leaf litter on herbaceous vegetation in deciduous woodland. I field investigations. J. Ecol. 69: 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sydes, C. and J.P. Grime. 1981b. Effects of tree leaf litter on herbaceous vegetation in deciduous woodland. II An experimental investigation. J. Ecol. 69: 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tissue, D.T., and P.S. Nobel. 1988. Parent-ramet connections in Agave desert: influences of carbohydrates on growth. Oecologia 75: 266–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vinton, M.A. and I.C. Burke. 1995. Interactions between individual plant species and soil nutrient status in shortgrass steppe. Ecol-ogy76: 1116–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wedin, D.A. and D. Tilman. 1990. Species effects on nitrogen cycling: a test with perennial grasses. Oecologia 84: 433–441.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Wedin, D.A. and J. Pastor. 1993. Nitrogen mineralisation dynamics in grass monocultures. Oecologia 96: 186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Willems, J.H., R.K. Peet and L. Bik. 1993. Changes in chalk-grassland structure and species richness resulting from selective nutrient additions. J. Veg. Sci. 4: 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilson, E.J., T.C.E. Wells and T.H. Sparks. 1995. Are calcareous grasslands in the UK under threat from nitrogen deposition? -An experimental determination of a critical load. J. Ecol. 83: 823–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Xiang, S and C. Nilsson. 1999. The effect of plant litter on vegetation: A meta-analysis. J. Ecol. 27: 984–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zobel, M., M. Suurkask, E. Rosén and M. Pärtel. 1996. The dynamics of species richness in an experimentally restored calcareous grassland. J. Veg. Sci. 7: 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2011

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Catorci
    • 1
  • S. Cesaretti
    • 2
  • R. Gatti
    • 1
  • G. Ottaviani
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of CamerinoCamerino (MC)Italy
  2. 2.School of Advanced Studies PhD Course in Environmental Sciences and Public HealthUniversity of CamerinoItaly

Personalised recommendations