| Literature DB >> 24942513 |
Ana D Caperta1, M Dalila Espírito-Santo2, Vasco Silva3, Ana Ferreira3, Ana P Paes4, Ana S Róis4, José C Costa2, Pedro Arsénio2.
Abstract
Coastal areas and other saline environments are major contributors to regional and global biodiversity patterns. In these environments, rapidly changing gradients require highly specialized plants like halophytes. In European coastal cliff-tops, rocky and sandy seashores, and saltmarshes, typical halophytes from the genus Limonium are commonly found. Among them, the aneuploid tetraploid (2n = 4x = 35, 36, 37) Limonium multiflorum, endemic to the west coast of Portugal, is an interesting case study for investigating the ecology and conservation of a halophyte agamospermic species. Although it is listed in the IUCN red list of threatened species, information on its population size or rarity, as well as its ecology, in some respects is still unknown. Field surveys in the largest known population were performed (Raso cape, Portugal) in order to determine habitat requirements and conservation status. A total of 88 quadrats were monitored, 43 of which contained at least one L. multiflorum individual. For each sampled quadrat, four abiotic and four biotic variables as well as two spatially derived variables were recorded. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis showed narrow habitat specificity for this species which appeared to be intolerant to competition with invasive alien plants. We conclude that in situ conservation in a local 'hotspot' of this rare and vulnerable species emerges as a priority in order to ensure that biodiversity is not lost. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company.Entities:
Keywords: Agamospermic species; Limonium.; cliff-dwelling species; conservation; habitat specificity; halophyte
Year: 2014 PMID: 24942513 PMCID: PMC4106687 DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plu032
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AoB Plants Impact factor: 3.276
Figure 1.Map of L. multiflorum distribution in the western coast of Portugal.
Figure 2.Schematic drawing of the quadrat sampling of L. multiflorum in the coast of Raso cape.
Figure 3.Thermopluviometric diagram based on the weather station in the coast of Raso cape. The red line corresponds to mean monthly temperature (°C) and the blue line corresponds to mean monthly precipitation (mm).
Figure 4.Wind regime diagrams based on the weather station in the coast of Raso cape during L. multiflorum flowering peak (May–July).
Figure 5.Two first axes of PCA based on L. multiflorum presence and absence quadrats. Red symbols mean that L. multiflorum was recorded whereas blue symbols signify that it was absent. Axis 1 represents 44.8 % of variation, and Axis 2, 19.7 %. CoarseSd, coarse sand; Cobble, cobble; Coverage, vegetation cover; Dist_coa, distance from coast; DOM, dead organic matter cover; FineSand, fine sand; INNS, invasive non-native species cover; Mean_slo, mean slope; Residues, litter cover; RockForm, rock formation.
Figure 6.Cluster dendogram of the four clusters containing L. multiflorum. The dissimilarity between groups was calculated based on species variables using Euclidean distance and the Ward aggregation method. Cluster definition 1 accounts for a high percentage of C. edulis (>65 %); Cluster 2 by a moderate percentage of C. edulis (<35 %); Cluster 3 is defined by A. welwitschii (9.67 %) and P. incurva (21.33 %); and Cluster 4 represents quadrats with the highest L. multiflorum frequency (0.84 %).
Mean values ± standard error of abiotic, biotic and spatial-related variables in each of four environmental groups based on the presence data of PCA. Bold letters within a row indicate non-significant with post hoc multiple comparison Tukey's test (α = 0.05; P < 0.001). P value <0.001. ns, non-significant; CoarseSD, coarse sand; Cobble, cobble; Coverage, vegetation cover; Dist_coa, distance from coast; DOM, dead organic matter cover; FineSd, fine sand; INNS, invasive non-native species cover; Mean_slo, mean slope; Residues, litter cover; RockForm, rock formation.
| Environmental groups | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 ( | 2 ( | 3 ( | 4 ( | |
| Coverage (%)* | 54.83 ± 47.54 ( | 47.17 ± 11.07 ( | 37.67 ± 11.68 ( | 3.10 ± 7.44 ( |
| FineSd (%)* | 0.00 ± 0.00 ( | 3.17 ± 2.75 ( | 0.00 ± 0.00 ( | 0.00 ± 0.00 ( |
| INNS (%)* | 73.00 ± 6.24 ( | 33.00 ± 3.46 ( | 0.00 ± 0.00 ( | 0.88 ± 2.55 ( |
| RockForm (%)* | 5.00 ± 4.00 ( | 6.00 ± 5.29 ( | 40.00 ± 11.79 ( | 74.49 ± 23.58 ( |
| CoarseSd (%) ns | 5.67 ± 8.14 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 11.67 ± 4.16 | 3.37 ± 9.17 |
| Dist_coa (m) ns | 11.36 ± 8.24 | 16.51 ± 3.95 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 16.31 ± 9.88 |
| Cobble (%) ns | 4.77 ± 6.60 | 45.00 ± 8.23 | 8.67 ± 10.017 | 13.63 ± 19.85 |
| DOM (%) ns | 2.67 ± 4.62 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 5.33 ± 9.24 | 0.41 ± 1.23 |
| Mean_slo (m) ns | 16.63 ± 5.66 | 17.25 ± 0.82 | 68.92 ± 28.97 | 25.21 ± 21.50 |
| Residues (%) ns | 0.33 ± 0.58 | 0.42 ± 0.52 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.09 ± 0.19 |
Mean coverage (%) of the most frequent species in each of the four environmental groups (clusters) based on the presence data of PCA.
| Floristic list | Mean coverage (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Psammophilous | 1.17 | 2.34 | 9.67 | 0.03 | |
| 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 1.33 | ||
| 0.00 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 0.07 | ||
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.00 | ||
| 0.50 | 0.00 | 21.33 | 0.70 | ||
| 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.03 | ||
| 0.17 | 0.33 | 0.58 | 0.06 | ||
| 0.00 | 2.75 | 0.00 | 0.02 | ||
| 3.33 | 0.77 | 1.00 | 0.98 | ||
| 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.25 | 0.40 | ||
| 0.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.03 | ||
| 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | ||
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | ||
| 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.25 | 0.09 | ||
| Chamosphilous | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.33 | 0.03 | |
| 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.07 | ||
| 0.02 | 0.17 | 0.75 | 0.07 | ||
| 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.84 | ||
| 0.83 | 1.67 | 1.00 | 1.03 | ||
| 0.30 | 3.67 | 0.23 | 0.66 | ||
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | ||
| Nitrophilous | 73.00 | 33.00 | 0.00 | 0.88 | |
| 0.08 | 0.33 | 0.50 | 0.28 | ||
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | ||
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | ||
| 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.06 | ||
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | ||