Spatial structure of grassland patches in Poland: implications for nature conservation

• Autorzy: Szymura T.H. , Szymura M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Grasslands provide wide range of ecosystem services, however, their area and quality are still diminishing in Europe. Nowadays, they often create isolated patches inside “sea” of other habitats. We have examined basic structural landscape metrics of grasslands in Poland using CORINE land use database. Characteristics for both all individual patches as well as average values for 10 × 10-km grid covering Poland were examined. We also assessed the percentage of grasslands within protected areas and ecological corridors. We found that in Poland rather small patches (0.3–1 km²) dominate, usually located 200–500 m away from each other. The grasslands had clumped distribution, thus in Poland exist large areas where grasslands patches are separated kilometers from each other. Almost all indices calculated for 10 × 10-km² were correlated, i.e., in regions with high percentage of grasslands, the patches were large, more numerous, placed close to each other, and had more irregular shapes. Our results revealed that the percentage of grasslands within protected areas and ecological corridors did not differ from the average value for Poland. On the other hand, forests were significantly over-represented in protected areas and ecological corridors. These findings suggest that there is no planned scheme for grassland protection at the landscape scale in Poland. Development the scheme is urgent and needs high-quality data regarding distribution of seminatural grasslands patches. In practice, nature conservationists and managers should consider spatial processes in their plans in order to maintain grassland biodiversity.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: 88
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: Article 3615 [13p.],fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Szymura T.H.

• Department of Ecology, Biogeochemistry and Environmental Protection, University of Wrolław, Kanonia 6/8, 50-328 Wroclaw, Poland

autor

Szymura M.

• Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production, Faculty of Life Sciences and Technology, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, pl.Grunwaldzki 24A, 50-363 Wroclaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Lemaire G, Hodgson J, Chabbi A, editors. Grassland productivity and ecosystem services. Wallingford: CABI; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938093.0000
• 2. Hönigová I, Vačkář D, Lorencová E, Melichar J, Götzl M, Sonderegger G, et al. Survey on grassland ecosystem services. Report to the EEA – European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity. Prague: Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic; 2012.
• 3. Habel JC, Dengler J, Janišová M, Török P, Wellstein C, Wiezik M. European grassland ecosystems: threatened hotspots of biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv. 2013;22(10):2131– 2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0537-x
• 4. Mücher CA, Hennekens SM, Bunce RG, Schaminée JH, Schaepman ME. Modelling the spatial distribution of Natura 2000 habitats across Europe. Landscape Urban Plan. 2009;92(2):148–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.04.003
• 5. Pe’er G, Dicks LV, Visconti P, Arlettaz R, Báldi A, Benton TG. EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science. 2014;344(6188):1090–1092. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253425
• 6. Duer I, Fotyma M, Madej A. Kodeks dobrej praktyki rolniczej. Warszawa: Fundacja Programów Pomocy dla Rolnictwa; 2004.
• 7. Janssen JA, Rodwell JS, Criado MG. European red list of habitats. Part 2. Terrestrial and freshwater habitats. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2016.
• 8. Soons MB, Messelink JH, Jongejans E, Heil GW. Habitat fragmentation reduces grassland connectivity for both short‐distance and long‐distance wind‐dispersed forbs. J Ecol. 2005;93(6):1214–1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01064.x
• 9. Helm A, Hanski I, Pärtel M. Slow response of plant species richness to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol Lett. 2006;9(1):72–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00841.x
• 10. Cousins SA. Extinction debt in fragmented grasslands: paid or not? J Veg Sci. 2009;20(1):3–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.05647.x
• 11. Brückmann SV, Krauss J, Steffan‐Dewenter I. Butterfly and plant specialists suffer from reduced connectivity in fragmented landscapes. J Appl Ecol. 2010;47(4):799–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01828.x
• 12. Bischoff A. Dispersal and establishment of floodplain grassland species as limiting factors in restoration. Biol Conserv. 2002;104(1):25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00151-3
• 13. Öster M, Ask K, Römermann C, Tackenberg O, Eriksson O. Plant colonization of ex-arable fields from adjacent species-rich grasslands: the importance of dispersal vs. recruitment ability. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2009;130(3–4):93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.12.005
• 14. Kiehl K, Kirmer A, Donath TW, Rasran L Hölzel N. Species introduction in restoration projects – evaluation of different techniques for the establishment of semi-natural grasslands in Central and Northwestern Europe. Basic Appl Ecol. 2010;11(4):285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2009.12.004
• 15. Baasch A, Engst K, Schmiede R, May K, Tischew S. Enhancing success in grassland restoration by adding regionally propagated target species. Ecol Eng. 2016;94:583–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.06.062
• 16. Bakker JP, Poschlod P, Strykstra RJ, Bekker RM, Thompson K. Seed banks and seed dispersal: important topics in restoration ecology. Acta Botanica Neerlandica. 1996;45(4):461–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.1996.tb00806.x
• 17. Kuiters AT, Huiskes HPJ. Potential of endozoochorous seed dispersal by sheep in calcareous grasslands: correlations with seed traits. Appl Veg Sci. 2010;13(2):163–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2009.01058.x
• 18. Walker KJ, Stevens PA, Stevens DP, Mountford JO, Manchester SJ, Pywell RF. The restoration and re-creation of species-rich lowland grassland on land formerly managed for intensive agriculture in the UK. Biol Conserv. 2004;119(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.10.020
• 19. Prach K, Fajmon K, Jongepierová I, Řehounková K. Landscape context in colonization of restored dry grasslands by target species. Appl Veg Sci. 2015;18(2):181–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12140
• 20. Pinto SM, Pearson DE, Maron JL. Seed dispersal is more limiting to native grassland diversity than competition or seed predation. J Ecol. 2014;102(5):1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12282
• 21. Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature. 2004;427(6970):145. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02121
• 22. Kiviniemi K, Eriksson O. Size‐related deterioration of semi‐natural grassland fragments in Sweden. Divers Distrib. 2002;8(1):21–29. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1366-9516.2001.00125.x
• 23. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan‐Dewenter I, Thies C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity–ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett. 2005;8(8):857–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x
• 24. Aavik T, Helm A, Restoration of plant species and genetic diversity depends on landscape‐scale dispersal. Restor Ecol. 2017;26(2):92–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12634
• 25. Durka W, Michalski SG, Berendzen KW, Bossdorf O, Bucharova A, Hermann JM, et al. Genetic differentiation within multiple common grassland plants supports seed transfer zones for ecological restoration. J Appl Ecol. 2017;54(1):116–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12636
• 26. Schuster C, Schmidt T, Conrad C, Kleinschmit B, Förster M. Grassland habitat mapping by intra-annual time series analysis – comparison of RapidEye and TerraSAR-X satellite data. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 2015;34:25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2014.06.004
• 27. Ciołkosz A, Dąbrowska-Zielińska K. Wykorzystanie teledetekcji satelitarnej do szacowania produkcji trwałych użytków zielonych. Prace Instytutu Geodezji i Kartografii. 1993;40(1):85–102.
• 28. Zając A. Atlas of distribution of vascular plants in Poland (ATPOL). Taxon. 1978;27(5– 6):481–484. https://doi.org/10.2307/1219899
• 29. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. CORINE Land Cover – CLC 2012 [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2018 May 6]. Available from: http://clc.gios.gov.pl/index.php/clc-2012/o-clc2012
• 30. Ripley BD. Spatial statistics. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons; 1981. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471725218
• 31. Verey M. Teoretyczna analiza i praktyczne konsekwencje przyjęcia modelowej siatki ATPOL jako odwzorowania stożkowego definiującego konwersję współrzędnych płaskich na elipsoidę WGS 84. Fragm Florist Geobot Pol. 2017;24(2):469–488.
• 32. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E. FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2018 May 6]. Available from: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
• 33. Generalna Dyrekcja Ochrony Środowiska. Dostęp do danych geoprzestrzennych [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 May 6]. Available from: http://www.gdos.gov.pl/dane-i-metadane
• 34. Conrad O, Bechtel B, Bock M, Dietrich H, Fischer E, Gerlitz L, et al. System for Automated Geoscientific Analyses (SAGA) v. 2.1.4. Geosci Model Dev. 2015;8:1991– 2007. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1991-2015
• 35. Baddeley A, Turner R, Rubak E. Package “spatstat”. The comprehensive R archive network [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 May 6]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=spatstat
• 36. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. The lowland grasslands of Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge: IUCN Publications Unit; 1991. (Environmental Research Series, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; vol 4).
• 37. Jankowska-Huflejt H, Domański JP. Aktualne i możliwe kierunki wykorzystania trwałych użytków zielonych w Polsce. Woda – Środowisko – Obszary Wiejskie. 2008;8:31–49.
• 38. Diacon‐Bolli JC, Edwards PJ, Bugmann H, Scheidegger C. Wagner HH. Quantification of plant dispersal ability within and beyond a calcareous grassland. J Veg Sci. 2013;24(6):1010–1019. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12024
• 39. Aavik T, Holderegger R, Edwards PJ, Billeter R. Patterns of contemporary gene flow suggest low functional connectivity of grasslands in a fragmented agricultural landscape. J Appl Ecol. 2013;50(2):395–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12053
• 40. Helm A. Habitat restoration requires landscape‐scale planning. Appl Veg Sci. 2015;18(2):177–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12159
• 41. Deutschewitz K, Lausch A, Kühn I, Klotz S. Native and alien plant species richness in relation to spatial heterogeneity on a regional scale in Germany. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2003;12(4):299–311. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2003.00025.x
• 42. Honnay O, Piessens K, van Landuyt W, Hermy M, Gulinck H. Satellite based land use and landscape complexity indices as predictors for regional plant species diversity. Landsc Urban Plan. 2003;63(4):241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00194-9
• 43. Moser D, Zechmeister HG, Plutzar C, Sauberer N, Wrbka T, Grabherr G. Landscape patch shape complexity as an effective measure for plant species richness in rural landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 2002;17(7):657–669. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021513729205
• 44. Central Statistical Office [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 May 5]. Available from: http://stat.gov.pl/en/
• 45. Szymura M, Szymura TH, Wolski K. Invasive Solidago species: how large area do they occupy and what would be the cost of their removal? Pol J Ecol. 2016;64(1):25–34. https://doi.org/10.3161/15052249PJE2016.64.1.003
• 46. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos. 2000;90(1):7–19. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900102.x
• 47. Jankowska-Huflejt H. The need of protecting permanent grasslands as a premise for the development of organic meadow farms. Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering. 2016;61(3):186–192.
• 48. Wasilewski Z. Stan obecny i kierunki gospodarowania na użytkach zielonych zgodne z wymogami Wspólnej Polityki Rolnej. Woda – Środowisko – Obszary Wiejskie. 2009;9:169–184.
• 49. Jankowski K, Kolczarek R, Jankowska J, Sosnowski J. The strategies of grassland management in farms of northeastern part of Poland. Journal of Life Sciences. 2013;7(7):727–731.
• 50. Török P, Helm A. Ecological theory provides strong support for habitat restoration. Biol Conserv. 2017;206:85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.024
• 51. Török P, Vida E, Deák B, Lengyel S, Tóthmérész B. Grassland restoration on former croplands in Europe: an assessment of applicability of techniques and costs. Biodiv Conserv. 2011;20(11):2311–2332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-9992-4
• 52. Kącki Z, Szymura M. Szkody w siedliskach łąkowych. In: Lubaczewska S, editor. Strażnicy Natury 2000: zapobieganie szkodom w praktyce. Wrocław: Fundacja EkoRozwoju; 2010. p. 67–90.
• 53. Pawluśkiewicz B, Janicka M, Piekut K. Restoration of Cnidion dubii meadows on Warsaw cross-section of the Middle Vistula Valley. Annals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW. Land Reclamation. 2017;49(4):277–287. https://doi.org/10.1515/sggw-2017-0022
• 54. Kiehl K, Kirmer A, Shaw N, Tischew S Guidelines for native seed production and grassland restoration. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar Publishing; 2014.
• 55. Bucharova A, Bossdorf O, Hölzel N, Kollmann J, Prasse R, Durka W. Mix and match: regional admixture provenancing strikes a balance among different seed-sourcing strategies for ecological restoration. Conserv Genet; 2018;20:7–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-018-1067-6
• 56. Swacha G, Botta-Dukát Z, Kącki Z, Pruchniewicz D, Żołnierz L. A performance comparison of sampling methods in the assessment of species composition patterns and environment–vegetation relationships in species-rich grasslands. Acta Soc Bot Pol. 2017;86(4):3561. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.3561
• 57. Pawlaczyk P. Kryteria szkody w środowisku. In: Lubaczewska S, editor. Strażnicy Natury 2000: zapobieganie szkodom w praktyce. Wrocław: Fundacja EkoRozwoju; 2010. p. 47–65.
• 58. European Environmental Agency. Corine land cover [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 May 6]. Available from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover
• 59. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. CORINE Land Cover – CLC. Definicje klas [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 May 6]. Available from: http://clc.gios.gov.pl/index.php/o-clc/definicje-klas
• 60. European Environment Agency. Crosswalk between EUNIS habitats classification and Corine land cover [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 May 6]. Available from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ds_resolveuid/bcc6db38c6a24c739c655e897ed730c5
• 61. Schaminée JH, Chytrý M, Dengler J, Hennekens SM, Janssen JA, Jiménez- Alfaro B, et al. Development of distribution maps of grassland habitats of EUNIS habitat classification [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 May 6]. Available from: https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-biodiversity/library/eunis_classification/ report-2016-eunis-grasslands-ii-incl-plot-maps/download/en/1/Report%202016% 20EUNIS%20Grasslands%20II%20incl%20plot%20maps.pdf?action=view

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5586/asbp.3615