| Literature DB >> 24260328 |
Takeshi Osawa1, Kazunori Kohyama, Hiromune Mitsuhashi.
Abstract
Human-driven land-use changes increasingly threaten biodiversity. In agricultural ecosystems, abandonment of former farmlands constitutes a major land-use shift. We examined the relationships between areas in which agriculture has been abandoned and the distribution records of threatened plant species across Japan. We selected 23 plant species that are currently identified as threatened but were previously common in the country as indicators of threatened plant species. The areas of abandoned farmlands within the distribution ranges of the indicator species were significantly larger than the proportion of abandoned farmland area across the whole country. Also, abandoned farmland areas were positively correlated with the occurrence of indicator species. Therefore, sections of agricultural landscape that are increasingly becoming abandoned and the distribution ranges of indicator species overlapped. These results suggest that abandoned farmland areas contain degraded or preferred habitats of threatened plant species. We propose that areas experiencing increased abandonment of farmland can be divided into at least two categories: those that threaten the existence of threatened species and those that provide habitats for these threatened species.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24260328 PMCID: PMC3832657 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079978
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Study area and units selected for this study.
Locations and sizes of grids were defined by the Japanese government.
The statuses of the 23 PT species selected.
| Family | Name | Local RDB | National RL rank | Main habitat | Life forms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Azollaceae |
| 35 | VU | Paddy, Ditch | perennial fern |
| Hydrocharitaceae |
| 42 | VU | Paddy, Ditch | annual |
| Alismataceae |
| 37 | VU | Pond, Lake, Paddy | perennial |
| Compositae |
| 40 | VU | Forest edge | annual |
| Isoetaceae |
| 36 | NT | Pond, Paddy, Ditch | perennial fern |
| Compositae |
| 40 | VU | Grassland, Roadside | perennial |
| Labiatae |
| 39 | VU | Grassland | perennial |
| Marsileaceae |
| 46 | VU | Paddy, Ditch | perennial fern |
| Pontederiaceae |
| 39 | NT | Lake, River, Ditch, Paddy(fallow) | annual |
| Labiatae |
| 36 | NT | Roadside | annual |
| Najadaceae |
| 40 | NT | Pond, Paddy | annual |
| Menyanthaceae |
| 40 | NT | Lake, Pond, Paddy | perennial |
| Saxifragaceae |
| 41 | NT | Swamp | perennial |
| Polygonaceae |
| 36 | VU | Swamp, Paddy(fallow), Pond | annual |
| Polygonaceae |
| 36 | VU | Swamp, Paddy | annual |
| Potamogetonaceae |
| 44 | NT | Lake, Pond, River, Ditch | perennial |
| Salviniaceae |
| 40 | NT | Paddy, Ditch | annual fern |
| Compositae |
| 39 | VU | Grassland, Forest edge | annual |
| Sparganiaceae |
| 41 | NT | Lake, Pond, River | perennial |
| Sparganiaceae |
| 41 | VU | Lake, Pond | perennial |
| Trapaceae |
| 37 | VU | Lake, Pond, Ditch, Paddy | annual |
| Lentibulariaceae |
| 43 | NT | Swamp | perennial |
| Asclepiadaceae |
| 44 | NT | Grassland | perennial |
For the National Red List (NRL) ranks, VU = vulnerable and NT = near-threatened according to the NRL for Japan. Primary habitat and life-form were derived from the NRL and books of endangered plants.
Local RDBs indicated the number of prefectures that assigned the species threatened status.
Results of Mann-Whitney U-tests comparing the proportional area of abandoned farmland within the distribution ranges of PT species and the proportional area of abandoned farmland across the whole of Japan in 2001 and 2007.
| Species name | Number of occurrences in 2001 mesh records | Average abandonment area with the species records | p | Number of occurrences in 2007 mesh records | Average abandonment area with the species records | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All of Japan released at 2005 data set | 4854 | 80.62 ± 115.39 | (Whole Japan) | |||
| 87.88 ± 117.71 | (Excluded no-abandonment meshes) | |||||
|
| 253 | 141.86±132.29 | *** | 357 | 155.41±148.93 | *** |
|
| 226 | 209.72±191.95 | *** | 288 | 205.75±182.59 | *** |
|
| 210 | 124.5±107.55 | *** | 256 | 121.93±110.76 | *** |
|
| 182 | 184.3±157.9 | *** | 255 | 176.62±157.71 | *** |
|
| 163 | 200.32±167.53 | *** | 247 | 186.77±156.2 | *** |
|
| 140 | 130.69±103.29 | *** | 172 | 130.66±105.41 | *** |
|
| 121 | 154.5±144.18 | *** | 202 | 154.29±134.08 | *** |
|
| 118 | 219.14±210.19 | *** | 152 | 209.07±192.68 | *** |
|
| 117 | 184.76±166.72 | *** | 136 | 132.03±123.93 | *** |
|
| 104 | 140.75±140.18 | *** | 159 | 139.76±140.04 | *** |
|
| 102 | 218.26±211.95 | *** | 141 | 205.45±205.8 | *** |
|
| 101 | 122.31±99.39 | *** | 118 | 118.6±97.4 | *** |
|
| 98 | 151.05±127.61 | *** | 141 | 148.5±127.04 | *** |
|
| 85 | 179.9±157.96 | *** | 120 | 161.66±155.29 | *** |
|
| 83 | 155.01±122.86 | *** | 113 | 172.48±144.82 | *** |
|
| 82 | 155.73±141.39 | *** | 99 | 161.33±138.33 | *** |
|
| 71 | 159.74±122.92 | *** | 81 | 157.13±129.99 | *** |
|
| 71 | 159.75±132.43 | *** | 93 | 158.71±125.53 | *** |
|
| 65 | 206.01±194.63 | *** | 88 | 196.58±224.01 | *** |
|
| 62 | 161.82±154.97 | *** | 81 | 154.77±157.51 | *** |
|
| 56 | 148.22±148.38 | *** | 73 | 150.31±140.7 | *** |
|
| 54 | 231.59±201.91 | *** | 85 | 218.87±201.06 | *** |
|
| 52 | 186.86±135.56 | *** | 108 | 191.96±165.44 | *** |
Significant effects identified by U-tests are provided (n.s.: not significant, *: p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001)
Figure 2Distribution maps of abandoned farmland (a) and total farmland (b).
Results of GLMs based on Wald test for the presence/absence (non record) of each PT species.
| 2001 | 2007 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species name | Abandoned area | Total farmland | Abandoned area | Total farmland |
|
| *** | n.s. | *** | n.s. |
|
| *** | *** | *** | *** |
|
| n.s. | *** | n.s. | *** |
|
| *** | *** | *** | *** |
|
| *** | *** | *** | *** |
|
| ** | n.s. | ** | n.s. |
|
| ** | *** | *** | *** |
|
| *** | ** | *** | *** |
|
| *** | ** | * | n.s. |
|
| * | n.s. | * | *** |
|
| *** | * | *** | ** |
|
| * | n.s. | * | n.s. |
|
| * | ** | ** | *** |
|
| ** | *** | * | *** |
|
| ** | n.s. | *** | n.s. |
|
| *** | n.s. | *** | n.s. |
|
| n.s. | *** | n.s. | *** |
|
| *** | n.s. | *** | n.s. |
|
| *** | *** | *** | *** |
|
| n.s. | *** | n.s. | *** |
|
| n.s. | *** | n.s. | *** |
|
| *** | * | *** | * |
|
| ** | n.s. | *** | * |
Statistical significance are shown. All significant factors were positively influenced for precenses of PT species. Estimated values were shown at appendix table 2. Significant effects identified by Wald tests are provided (n.s.: not significant, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001)
Results of Bagging GLMs for the presence/absence (no-record) of each PT species.
| 2001 | 2007 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species name | Abandoned area | Total farmland | Abandoned area | Total farmland |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | - | + | - |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | - | + | - |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | - | + | - |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
|
| + | + | + | + |
All estimated values were shown at appendix table 3. Contributions of positive (+) or negative (-) are shown. "+" means that variables were positively influenced for the species occurrences. "-" means that variables were negatively influenced for the species occurrences.