| Literature DB >> 27069582 |
François Gillet1, Leslie Mauchamp2, Pierre-Marie Badot2, Arnaud Mouly2.
Abstract
Understanding how land-use changes affect different facets of plant biodiversity in seminatural European grasslands is of particular importance for biodiversity conservation. As conclusions of previous experimental or synchronic observational studies did not converge toward a general agreement, assessing the recent trends in vegetation change in various grassland systems using a diachronic approach is needed. In this resurvey study, we investigated the recent changes in grassland vegetation of the French Jura Mountains, a region with a long tradition of pastoralism. We compared the floristic composition of 150 grassland plots recorded between 1990 and 2000 with new relevés made in 2012 on the same plots. We considered taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity as well as ecological characteristics of the plant communities derived from ecological indicator values and life strategies of the species. PCA of the floristic composition revealed a significant general trend linked to the sampling year. Wilcoxon paired tests showed that contemporary communities were generally more dominated by grass species and presented a higher tolerance to defoliation, a higher pastoral value, and a higher nutrient indicator value. Comparisons revealed a decrease in phylogenetic and functional diversity. By contrast, local species richness has slightly increased. The intensity of change in species composition, measured by Hellinger distance between pairs of relevés, was dependent on neither the time lag between the two surveys, the author of the first relevé nor its location or elevation. The most important changes were observed in grasslands that previously presented low pastoral value, low grass cover, low tolerance to defoliation, and high proportion of stress-tolerant species. This trend was likely linked to the intensification of grassland management reported in the region, with a parallel increase in mowing frequency, grazing pressure, and fertilization level. More restrictive specifications should be applied to agricultural practices to avoid overexploitation of mountain species-rich grasslands and its negative consequences on their biodiversity and resilience.Entities:
Keywords: Anthropogenic changes; CSR strategies; Jura Mountains; community diversity; diachronic survey; ecological indicator values; grassland; resampling vegetation plots; vegetation dynamics
Year: 2016 PMID: 27069582 PMCID: PMC4782259 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1987
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Geographical location of the 150 past floristic relevés resampled in 2012.
Figure 2Principal component analysis of the Hellinger‐transformed species composition: sample plots. Each gray arrow represents the shift in floristic composition for each plot from the first survey (white points) to the second survey (gray points). The year and elevation of the relevés were projected a posteriori on the PCA plot.
Figure 3Principal component analysis of the Hellinger‐transformed species composition: species. Only species far from the origin are labeled.
Figure 4Principal component analysis of the Hellinger‐transformed species composition: fitted variables. Green arrows: functional composition (CSR strategies, sociological–ecological groups, life forms); red arrows: ecological indicator values; orange arrows: diversity indices. See Table 1 for an explanation of abbreviations.
Results of the paired Wilcoxon signed rank tests comparing 32 community descriptors between old and new relevés made in each plot (n = 150). P‐values, before and after Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons, are given for two alternative hypotheses: decrease (greater for old relevés) or increase (less for old relevés). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. Significant results in bold
| Alternative hypothesis: decrease | Alternative hypothesis: increase | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity | |||||
| N0 | Species richness | 0.999 | 1.000 |
|
|
| E20 | Species evenness N2/N0 |
| 0.119 | 0.995 | 1.000 |
| N2 | Simpson diversity | 0.283 | 1.000 | 0.718 | 1.000 |
| PD | Rao phylogenetic diversity |
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Functional diversity | |||||
| FDhmax | Maximum height | 0.981 | 1.000 |
| 0.431 |
| FDsm | Seed mass |
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 |
| FDldmc | LDMC |
| 0.153 | 0.994 | 1.000 |
| FDsla | SLA | 0.122 | 1.000 | 0.878 | 1.000 |
| FDld | Leaf distribution |
|
| 0.999 | 1.000 |
| FDcgo | Clonal growth organs |
|
| 0.999 | 1.000 |
| FDcsr | CSR strategy |
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 |
| CSR strategies | |||||
| straC | Competitive ability | 0.981 | 1.000 |
| 0.431 |
| straS | Stress tolerance | 0.119 | 1.000 | 0.881 | 1.000 |
| straR | Disturbance tolerance | 0.272 | 1.000 | 0.729 | 1.000 |
| Ecological indicator values | |||||
| ivT | Temperature | 0.775 | 1.000 | 0.226 | 1.000 |
| ivK | Continentality |
| 0.824 | 0.963 | 1.000 |
| ivL | Light |
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 |
| ivN | Soil nutrients | 1.000 | 1.000 |
|
|
| ivR | Soil pH |
| 0.988 | 0.953 | 1.000 |
| ivD | Soil aeration |
| 0.241 | 0.990 | 1.000 |
| ivF | Soil moisture | 0.441 | 1.000 | 0.559 | 1.000 |
| ivH | Soil organic matter | 0.404 | 1.000 | 0.597 | 1.000 |
| defol | Defoliation tolerance | 1.000 | 1.000 |
|
|
| GraTol | Grazing tolerance | 1.000 | 1.000 |
|
|
| MowTol | Mowing tolerance | 1.000 | 1.000 |
|
|
| TraTol | Trampling tolerance | 1.000 | 1.000 |
|
|
| Other indices | |||||
| neo | Importance of allochthonous flora | 0.801 | 1.000 | 0.200 | 1.000 |
| artif | Artificialization degree | 0.994 | 1.000 |
| 0.148 |
| PV | Pastoral value | 1.000 | 1.000 |
|
|
| grass | Relative cover of grasses | 1.000 | 1.000 |
|
|
| forb | Relative cover of forbs |
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 |
| legume | Relative cover of legumes | 0.055 | 1.000 | 0.945 | 1.000 |
Figure 5Comparison of alpha, beta, and gamma diversities between surveys 1 and 2. Gamma diversity is the sum of mean alpha diversity (gray bar) and beta additive diversity (white bar). Percentages are proportions of beta diversity in the additive partitioning of gamma diversity. Taxonomic diversity is inverse Simpson index N2.
Results of simple linear regression models explaining the intensity of change in each plot by various potential sources of variation: methodological constraints, geographical location, or characteristics of the plant community at the first survey (n = 150). The table gives P‐values before and after Holm correction, the adjusted coefficient of determination and the sign of the slope of the corresponding linear model if significant. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. Significant results in bold
|
|
| Adj. | Sign of slope (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methodological constraints | |||||
| Author | Identity of the first observer | 0.141 | 0.985 | 2.0 | |
| Year | Year of the first observation (nominal) | 0.392 | 1.000 | 0.1 | |
| delayd | Time elapsed between the 2 observations (days) | 0.496 | 1.000 | 0.0 | |
| delaydy | Difference in day‐of‐the‐year (days) | 0.524 | 1.000 | 0.0 | |
| Geographical location | |||||
| Longitude | Longitude E (decimal degrees, GWS84) | 0.910 | 1.000 | 0.0 | |
| Latitude | Latitude N (decimal degrees, GWS84) | 0.731 | 1.000 | 0.0 | |
| Elevation | Elevation (m a.s.l.) | 0.664 | 1.000 | 0.0 | |
| Diversity indices of the old community | |||||
| N2 | Taxonomic diversity (inverse Simpson) |
| 0.152 | 3.0 | + |
| PD | Phylogenetic diversity (Rao) |
|
| 4.5 | + |
| FDcsr | Functional diversity (CSR) |
|
| 12.8 | + |
| Indicator values of the old community | |||||
| straS | Stress tolerance |
|
| 10.2 | + |
| ivN | Nutrient availability |
|
| 7.4 | − |
| defol | Defoliation tolerance |
|
| 7.9 | − |
| artif | Artificialization degree |
|
| 9.1 | − |
| PV | Pastoral value |
|
| 11.9 | − |