Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 45–54 | Cite as

Correlates of vascular plant species richness in fragmented indigenous forests: assessing the role of local and regional factors

  • R. OhlemüllerEmail author
  • P. Bannister
  • K. J. M. Dickinson
  • S. Walker
  • B. J. Anderson
  • J. B. Wilson
Article

Abstract

Both local and regional factors determine local species richness. We investigated the relative role of local (13 soil and tree stand structure variables) and regional factors (19 climate, land cover and geographic location variables) in determining the richness of several vascular plant functional groups in indigenous forest fragments in southeastern New Zealand. The predictor variables explaining the largest fraction of the variation in species richness were identified using a backward and forward stepwise procedure, with adjustments for the number of variables and testing for multicollinearity. The total proportion of variation explained by local and regional factors was highest for tree species richness (54.1%) and lowest for herbaceous species richness (28.2%). We found differences between the functional groups in the extent to which species richness was explained by local vs. regional factors, but both showed some ability to explain the species richness of all functional groups. The abundance of the strongly competitive tree species Nothofagus menziesii (silver beech) had a strong negative effect on total, tree and herb species richness, but it had only minor effects on woody and fern species richness. Once the effect of this local variable was accounted for, the remaining variation in tree and woody species richness was mainly explained by regional variables. Herbaceous and fern species richness, on the other hand, was strongly correlated with local as well as regional variables. We emphasize the importance of using a fixed plot size when the relative effects of local and regional factors on patterns of species richness are to be compared and evaluated.

Keywords

Biodiversity Fragmentation Landscape matrix New Zealand Plant functional group 

Abbreviations

AIC

Akaike Information Criterion

CV

Coefficient of Variation

dbh

diameter at breast height

PCA

Principal Component Analysis

VIF

Variance Inflation Factor

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allan, H.H. 1961. Flora of New Zealand, Vol 1, Government Printer, Wellington.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, M.P., J.G. Pausas and A.O. Nicholls. 1996. Patterns of tree species richness in relation to environment in southeastern New South Wales, Australia. Australian J. Ecol. 21: 154–164.Google Scholar
  3. Bastin, L. and C.D. Thomas. 1999. The distribution of plant species in urban vegetation fragments. Landscape Ecol. 14: 493–507.Google Scholar
  4. Bellingham, P.J., G.H. Stewart and R.B. Allen. 1999. Tree species richness and turnover throughout New Zealand forests. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 825–832.Google Scholar
  5. Bullock, J.M., I.L. Moy, R.F. Pywell, S.J. Coulson, A.M. Nolan and H. Caswell. 2002. Plant dispersal and colonisation processes at local and landscape scales. In: J.M. Bullock, R.E. Kenward and R.S. Hails (eds.), Dispersal Ecology. Blackwell, Oxford. pp. 279–302.Google Scholar
  6. Collinge, S.K. and T.T. Forman. 1998. A conceptual model of land conversion processes: predictions and evidence from a micro-landscape experiments with grassland insects. Oikos 82: 66–84.Google Scholar
  7. Crawley, M.J. 1993. GLIM for Ecologists, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. de Blois, S., G. Domon and A. Bouchard. 2002. Landscape issues in plant ecology. Ecography 25: 244–256.Google Scholar
  9. Dumortier, M., J. Butaye, H. Jacquemyn, N. van Camp, N. Lust and M. Hermy. 2002. Predicting vascular plant species richness of fragmented forests in agricultural landscapes in central Belgium. Forest Ecol. Manag. 158: 85–102.Google Scholar
  10. Dupré, C. and J. Ehrlen. 2002. Habitat configuration, species traits and plant distributions. J. Ecol. 90: 796–805.Google Scholar
  11. Freund, R.J. and W.J. Wilson. 1998. Regression Analysis: Statistical Modeling of a Response Variable, Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  12. Gaston, K.J. 2000. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405: 220–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Godefroid, S. and N. Koedam. 2003. How important are large vs. small forest remnants for the conservation of the woodland flora in an urban context? Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 12: 287–298.Google Scholar
  14. Guisan, A., Theurillat, J.-P. and F. Kienast. 1998. Predicting the potential distribution of plant species in an alpine environment. J. Veg. Sci. 9: 65–74.Google Scholar
  15. Guisan, A.T., T.C. Edwards and T. Hastie. 2002. Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions; setting the scene: Ecol. Modelling 157: 89–100.Google Scholar
  16. Guisan, A. and N. Zimmermann. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135: 147–186.Google Scholar
  17. Haila, Y. 2002. A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecol. Applications 12: 321–334.Google Scholar
  18. Hirzel, A. and A. Guisan. 2002. Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modelling. Ecol. Modelling 157: 331–341.Google Scholar
  19. Honnay, O., M. Hermy and P. Coppin. 1999. Effects of area, age and diversity of forest patches in Belgium on plant species richness, and implications for conservation and reforestation. Biol. Conservation 87: 73–84.Google Scholar
  20. Huston, M.A. 1999. Local processes and regional patterns: appropriate scales for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and animals. Oikos 86: 393–401.Google Scholar
  21. Kareiva, P. 1987. Habitat fragmentation and the stability of predator-prey interactions. Nature 326: 388–390.Google Scholar
  22. Leathwick, J.R. and M.P. Austin. 2001. Competitive interactions between tree species in New Zealand’s old-growth indigenous forests. Ecology 82: 2560–2573.Google Scholar
  23. Leathwick, J.R., B.R. Burns and B.D. Clarkson. 1998. Environmental correlates of tree alpha-diversity in New Zealand primary forests. Ecography 21: 235–246.Google Scholar
  24. Leathwick, J.R. and R.T.T. Stephens. 1998. Climate surfaces for New Zealand, Landcare Research Contract Report LC9798/126. Landcare Research, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  25. Leathwick, J. R., G. Wilson, D. Rutledge, P. Wardle, F. Morgan, K. Johnston, M. McLeod and R. Kirkpatrick. 2003. Land environments of New Zealand, David Bateman, Auckland.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, W.K., K. von Gadow and A. Akça. 1999. Waldstruktur und Lorenz-Modell. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 170: 220–223.Google Scholar
  27. Lomolino, M.V. 2000. A call for a new paradigm of island biogeography. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 9: 1–6.Google Scholar
  28. Mac Nally, R. 2002. Multiple regression and inference in ecology and conservation biology: further comments on identifying important predictor variables. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 1397–1401.Google Scholar
  29. MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  30. McCullagh, P. and J.A. Nelder. 2000. Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  31. McCune, B. and T.F.H. Allen. 1985. Will similar forests develop on similar sites? Can. J. Bot. 63: 367–376.Google Scholar
  32. Metzger, J.P. 1997. Relationships between landscape structure and tree species diversity in tropical forests of South-East Brazil. Landscape and Urban Planning 37: 29–35.Google Scholar
  33. Ministry for the Environment. 2001. New Zealand Land Cover Data Base (LCDB1), Terralink International, Wellington.Google Scholar
  34. Nekola, J.C. and P.S. White. 1999. The distance decay similarity in biogeography and ecology. J. Biogeogr. 26: 867–878.Google Scholar
  35. Ogden, J. 1995. The long-term conservation of forest diversity in New Zealand. Pacific Conservation Biology 2: 77–90.Google Scholar
  36. Ohlemüller, R. 2003. Indigenous forest fragments: Modelling present-day species richness and potential natural vegetation, PhD Thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  37. Ohlemüller, R. and J.B. Wilson. 2000. Vascular plant species richness along latitudinal and altitudinal gradients: a contribution from New Zealand temperate rainforests. Ecology Letters 3: 262–266.Google Scholar
  38. Ohmann, J.L. and T.A. Spies. 1998. Regional gradient analysis and spatial pattern of woody plant communities of Oregon forests. Ecol. Monogr. 68: 151–182.Google Scholar
  39. Pickett, S.T.A. and M.L. Cadenasso. 1995. Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science 269: 331–334.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pyšek, P., T. Kucera and V. Jarošík. 2002. Plant species richness of nature reserves: the interplay of area, climate and habitat in a central European landscape. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 11: 279–289.Google Scholar
  41. Ricklefs, R.E.. 1987. Community diversity: relative roles of local and regional processes. Science 235: 167–171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Ross, K.A., B.J. Fox and M.D. Fox. 2002. Changes to plant species richness in forest fragments: fragment age, disturbance and fire history may be as important as area. J. Biogeogr. 29: 749–765.Google Scholar
  43. Steffan-Dewenter, I., U. Münzenburg, C. Bürger, C. Thies and T. Tscharntke. 2002. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83: 1421–1432.Google Scholar
  44. Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape Ecology: The Effect of Pattern on Process. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20: 171–197.Google Scholar
  45. Vellend, M. 2003. Habitat loss inhibits recovery of plant diversity as forests regrow. Ecology 84: 1158–1164.Google Scholar
  46. Venables, W.N. and B.D. Ripley. 1999. Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Vincent, P.J. and J.M. Haworth. 1983. Poisson regression models of species abundance. J. Biogeogr. 10: 153–160.Google Scholar
  48. Wardle, P. 1991. Vegetation of New Zealand, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2004

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

  • R. Ohlemüller
    • 3
    Email author
  • P. Bannister
    • 2
  • K. J. M. Dickinson
    • 2
  • S. Walker
    • 1
  • B. J. Anderson
    • 2
  • J. B. Wilson
    • 2
  1. 1.Landcare ResearchDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Botany DepartmentUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations