How a river course influences the species richness and ecological requirements on two opposite riverbanks in a forest area

• Autorzy: Czarnecka B. , Rysiak A. , Chabudzinski L.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The goal of the present research was to find correlations between the topographic attributes of a river valley and local ground-floor vegetation and its habitat requirements expressed by ecological indicator values (EIV), using the geographical information systems (GIS), digital elevation model (DEM), and multivariate statistical analysis. We paid special attention to the river course, which determines the differentiation in slope aspects and the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground surface. The model object was an almost latitudinal, ca. 4-km-long break section of the Sopot river, crossing the escarpment zone of the Central Roztocze Highlands, southeastern Poland. The main material comprised species lists (with estimated abundance) for each ca. 200-m-long section, according to the river valley course, separately for the left and right riverbanks, 40 sections altogether, ca. 15 000 vegetation records, and physical and chemical soil measurements. A 3-meter resolution DEM was derived from a 1:10 000 topographic map. We calculated the correlations between the topographic attributes of the valley, species richness, and the EIVs for all the species recognized in each section of the valley. We found 241 herb plant species in the ground-floor vegetation of the study area. We did not find significant differences between the two riversides (61 ±13 species per one section for the left and 63 ±17 for the right side). Thus, the parallel course of the river valley does not change the species richness on a more “sunny” and more “shiny” riverbank. However, this factor “cooperating” with other topographic attributes of the valley significantly differentiates the shape of species showing various requirements for basic habitat resources: light, moisture, soil trophy, reaction, dispersion, and organic-matter content.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

river course; species richness; species diversity; riparian landscape; solar radiation; moisture index; ecological requirement; opposite river bank; river bank; forest area; multivariate analysis

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 84
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.13-22,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Czarnecka B.

• Department of Ecology, Faculty of Biology and Biotechnology, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, Akademicka 19, 20-033 Lublin, Poland

autor

Rysiak A.

• Department of Ecology, Faculty of Biology and Biotechnology, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, Akademicka 19, 20-033 Lublin, Poland

autor

Chabudzinski L.

• Geoinformation Laboratory, Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, Krasnicka 2c,d, 20-718 Lublin, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Kolasa J, Rolle CD. Introduction. The heterogeneity of heterogeneity: a glossary. In: Kolasa J, Pickett STA, editors. Ecological heterogeneity.New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1999. p. 1–23.
• 2. Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones: focus on links between land and water.Bioscience. 1991;41(8):540–551.
• 3. Lyon J, Sagers CL. Structure of herbaceous plant assemblages in a forested riparian landscape. Plant Ecol. 1998;138:1–16.
• 4. Werner KJ, Zedler JB. How sedge meadows, soils, microtopography, and vegetation respond to sedimentation. Wetlands. 2002;22(3):451–466. http://dx.doi/org/10.1672/0277-5212(2002)022[0451:HSMSMA]2.0.CO;2
• 5. Francis RA, Tibaldeschi P, McDougall L. Fluvially-deposited large wood and riparian plant diversity. Wetlands Ecol Manage.2008;16(5):371–382. http://dx.doi/org/10.1007/s11273-007-9074-2
• 6. Duru M, Ansquer P, Jouany C, Theau JP, Cruz P. Comparison of methods for assessing the impact of different disturbances and nutrientconditions upon functional characteristics of grassland communities.Ann Bot. 2010;106(5):823–831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcq178
• 7. Jolley RL, Lockaby BG, Cavalcanti GG. Changes in riparian forest composition along a sedimentation rate gradient. Plant Ecol.2010;210(2):317–330. http://dx.doi/org/10.1007/s11258-010-9759-0
• 8. Angiolini C, Nucci A, Frignani F, Landi M. Using multivariate analyses to assess effects of fluvial type on plant species distribution in aMediterranean river. Wetlands. 2011;31(1):167–177. http://dx.doi/org/10.1007/s13157-010-0118-7
• 9. Tabacchi E, Correll DL, Hauer R, Pinay G, Planty-Tabacci AM, Wissmar RC. Development, maintenance and role of riparian vegetation inthe river landscape. Freshw Biol. 1998;40(3):497–516. http://dx.doi/org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1998.00381.x
• 10. Decocq G. Patterns of plant species and community diversity at different organization levels in a forested riparian landscape. J VegSci. 2002;13(1):91–106. http://dx.doi/org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2002.tb02026.x
• 11. Czarnecka B, Janiec B. Przełomy rzeczne Roztocza jako modelowe obiekty w edukacji ekologicznej. Lublin: Maria Curie-SkłodowskaUniversity Press; 2002.
• 12. Czarnecka B, Janiec B. Krajobrazy roślinne jako wyraz naturalnych i antropogenicznych przemian środowiska małych dolin rzecznychRoztocza. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu. 2006;16:171–184.
• 13. Dunn WC, Milne BT, Mantilla R, Gupta VK. Scaling relation between riparian vegetation and stream order in the Whitewater River Network,Kansas, USA. Landsc Ecol. 2011;26(7):983–977. http://dx.doi/org/10.1007/s10980-011-9622-2
• 14. Czarnecka B, Chabudziński Ł. Assessment of flora diversity in a minor river valley using ecological indicator values, geographicalinformation systems and digital elevation models. Centr Eur J Biol.2014;9(2):220–231. http://dx.doi/org/10.2478/s11535-013-0263-0
• 15. Muller E. Mapping riparian vegetation along rivers: old concepts and new methods. Special issue: geographic information systems andremote sensing in aquatic botany. Aquatic Bot. 1997;58(3–4): 411–437.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(97)00049-1
• 16. Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Tappeiner G. Modelling vegetation patterns using natural and anthropogenic influence factors: preliminaryexperience with a GIS based model applied to an Alpine area.Ecol Modell. 1998;113(1–3):225–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(98)00145-8
• 17. Pfeffer K, Pebesma EJ, Burrough PA. Mapping alpine vegetation using vegetation observations and topographic attributes. Landsc Ecol. 2003;18(8):759–776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/ B:LAND.0000014471.78787.d0
• 18. Fitterer JL, Nelson TA, Coops NC, Wulder MA. Modelling the ecosystem indicators of British Columbia using Earth observationdata and terrain indices. Ecol Indic. 2012;20:151–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.024
• 19. Ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P. CANOCO reference manual and Cano- Draw for Windows. User’s guide: software for canonical communityordination, Version 4.5. Ithaca, NY: Microcomputer Power; 2002.
• 20. Lepš J, Šmilauer P. Multivariate analysis of ecological data using Canoco. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
• 21. Seidling W. Ground floor vegetation assessment within the intensive (level II) monitoring of forest ecosystems in Germany: chancesand challenges. Eur J For Res. 2005;124(4):301–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10342-005-0087-1
• 22. Petřik P, Wild J. Environmental correlates of the patterns of plant distribution at the meso-scale: a case study from Northern Bohemia(Czech Republic). Preslia. 2006;78:211–234.
• 23. Kopecký M, Čižkova Š. Using topographic wetness index in vegetation ecology: does the algorithm matter? Appl Veg Sci. 2010;13(4):450–459.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2010.01083.x
• 24. Willson JP, Gallant JC, editors. Terrain analysis. Principles and applications, New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 2000.
• 25. Kraak MJ, Ormeling F. Cartography. Visualisation of geospatial data. Glasgow: Bell and Brain Ltd.; 2003.
• 26. Urbański J. GIS w badaniach przyrodniczych [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 Mar 16]. Available from: http://ocean.ug.edu.pl/~oceju/CentrumGIS/dane/GIS_w_badaniach_przyrodniczych_12_2.pdf
• 27. Ellenberg H. Zeigerwerte der Gefäßpflanzen Mitteleuropas. Scr Geobot. 1974;9:9–160.
• 28. Ertsen ACD, Alkemade JRM, Wassen MJ. Calibrating Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, acidity, nutrient availability and salinityin the Netherlands. Plant Ecol. 1998;135:113–124.
• 29. Wamelink GWW, Joosten V, van Dobben HF, Berendse F. Validity of Ellenberg indicator values judged from physico-chemicalfield measurements. J Veg Sci. 2002;13(2):269–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2002.tb02047.x
• 30. Lawesson JE, Fosaa AM, Olsen E. Calibration of Ellenberg indicator values for the Faroe Islands. Appl Veg Sci. 2003;6(1):53–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2003.tb00564.x
• 31. Crosti R, de Nicola C, Fanelli G, Testi A. Ecological classification of beech woodlands in the Central Apennine through frequency distribution of Ellenberg indicators [Internet]. Ann Bot (Roma). 2010 [cited 2015 Mar 16]. Available from: http://ojs.uniroma1.it/index.php/ Annalidibotanica/article/view/9112/9052
• 32. Balkovič J, Kollár J, Šimonovič V. Experience with using Ellenberg’s R indicator values in Slovakia: oligotrophic and mesotrophic submontanebroad-leaved forests. Biologia. 2012;67(3):474–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/s11756-012-0027-8
• 33. Schaffers AP, Sýkora KV. Reliability of Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, nitrogen and soil reaction: a comparison withfield measurements. J Veg Sci. 2000;11(2):225–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3236802
• 34. Czarnecka B, Janiec B. Factors affecting the distribution and properties of forest soils in river breaks of Roztocze. Acta Agrophys.2001;50:81–93.
• 35. Janiec B, Czarnecka B. The “Czartowe Pole” landscape reserve in Roztocze (SE Poland) in the light of interdisciplinary research. Ekologia(Bratislava). 2001;20(4 suppl):222–232.
• 36. European Commission 2007. Interpretation manual of European Union habitats. Eur 27. DG Environment.
• 37. Dobrzański B, Uziak S, Klimowicz Z, Melke J. Badanie gleb w laboratorium i w polu. Lublin: Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press; 1992.
• 38. Sapek A, Sapek B. Metody analizy chemicznej gleb organicznych. Falenty: IMUZ; 1997.
• 39. Hengl T. Finding the right pixel size. Comput Geosci. 2006;32(9):1283– 1298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2005.11.008
• 40. Bergès L, Gègout JC, Franc A. Can understory vegetation accurately predict site index? A comparative study using floristic and abioticindices in sessile oak (Quercus petraea Liebl.) stands in northernFrance. Ann For Sci. 2006;63(1):31–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/forest:2005091
• 41. Zarzycki K, Trzcińska-Tacik H, Różański W, Szeląg Z. Wołek J, Korzeniak U. Ecological indicator values of vascular plants of poland. Biodiversity of Poland 2. Kraków: W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences; 2002.
• 42. Dorner B, Lertzman K, Fall J. Landscape pattern in topographically complex landscapes: issues and techniques for analysis. Landsc Ecol.2002:17(8):729–743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022944019665
• 43. Kumar L, Skidmore AK, Knowles E. Modelling topographic variation in solar radiation in a GIS environment. Int J Geogr Inf Sci.1997;11(5):475–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136588197242266
• 44. Moore DM, Lees BG, Davey SM. A new method for predicting vegetation distributions using decision tree analysis in a geographicinformation system. Environ Manage. 1991;15(1):59–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02393838
• 45. Sørensen R, Zinko U, Seibert J. On the calculations of the topographic wetness index evaluation of different methods based on field observation.Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2006;10(1):101–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-101-2006
• 46. Franklin J. Predictive vegetation mapping: geographic modelling of biospatial patterns in relation to environmental gradients.Prog Phys Geogr. 1995;19(4):474–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030913339501900403
• 47. Feldmeyer-Christe E, Ecker K, Küchler M, Graf U, Waser L. Improving predictive mapping in Swiss mire ecosystems through re-calibrationof indicator values. Appl Veg Sci. 2007;10(2):183–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2007.tb00516.x

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5586/asbp.2014.032