Summary1. Biotic homogenization (BH), a dominant process shaping the response of natural communities to human disturbance, reflects both the expansion of exotic species at large scales and other mechanisms that often operate at smaller scales. 2. Here, we examined the relationship between BH in plant communities and spatio-temporal landscape disturbance (habitat fragmentation and surrounding habitat conversion) at a local scale (1 km 2 ), using data from a standardized monitoring programme in France. We quantified BH using both a spatial partitioning of taxonomic diversity and the average habitat specialization of communities, which informs on functional BH. 3. We observed a positive relationship between local taxonomic diversity and landscape fragmentation or instability. This increase in local taxonomic diversity was, however, paralleled by a decrease in average community specialization in more fragmented landscapes and in more unstable landscapes around forest sites. The decrease in average community specialization suggests that landscape disturbance causes functional BH, but there was limited evidence for concurrent taxonomic BH. 4. Synthesis. Our results show that landscape disturbance is partly responsible for functional BH at small scales via the extirpation of specialist species, with possible consequences for ecosystem functioning. However, this change in community composition is not systematically associated with taxonomic BH. This has direct relevance in designing biodiversity indicators: metrics incorporating species sensitivity to disturbance (such as species specialization to habitat) appear much more reliable than taxonomic diversity for documenting the response of communities to disturbance.

International audienceMonitoring programs that assess species-richness and turnover are now regarded as essential to document biodiversity loss worldwide. Implementation of such programs is impeded by a general decrease in the number of skilled naturalists. Here we studied how morphotypes, instead of species, might be used by unskilled participants (referred to as “volunteers”) to survey common plant communities. Our main questions were: (1) Can morphotypes be used as a robust estimator of species-richness (alpha-diversity) and assemblage turnover (Beta-diversity)? and (2) What is the robustness (reproducibility and repeatability) of such methods? Double inventories were performed on 150 plots in arable Weld margins, one by a non-expert using morphotypes, the other by a taxonomist using species. To test the robustness of morphotype identiWcation among participants, 20 additional plots were surveyed by eight volunteers using the same protocol. We showed that (1) the number of morphotypes identiWed by unskilled volunteers in a plot was always strongly correlated with species-richness. (2) Morphotypes were sensitive to diVerences among habitats but were less accurate than species to detect these diVerences. (3) Morphotype identiWcation varied signiWcantly within and between volunteers. Due to this lack of repeatability and reproducibility, parataxonomy cannot be considered a good surrogate for taxonomy. Nevertheless, assuming that morphotypes are identiWed with standardized methods, and that results are used only to evaluate gross species-richness but not species turnover, parataxonomy might be a valuable tool for rapid biodiversity assessment of common wild flora

Large monitoring programs exist in many countries and are necessary to assess present and past biodiversity status and to evaluate the consequences of habitat degradation or destruction. Using such an extensive data set of the floristic richness in the Paris Ile-deFrance region (France), we compared different sampling efforts and protocols in different habitat units to highlight the best methods for assessing the actual plant biodiversity. Our results indicate that existing data can be used for a general understanding of site differences, but analysts should be aware of the limitations of the data due to non-random selection of sites, inconsistent observer knowledge, and inconsistent sampling period. The average species diversity recorded in a specific habitat does not necessarily reflect its actual diversity, unless the monitoring effort was very strong. Overall, increasing the sampling effort in a given region allows improvement of the (1) number of habitats visited, (2) the total sampled area for a given habitat type, (3) the number of seasons investigated. Our results indicate that the sampling effort should be planned with respect to these functional, spatial and temporal heterogeneities, and to the question examined. While the effort should be applied to as many habitats as possible for the purpose of capturing a large proportion of regional diversity, or comparing different regions, inventories should be conducted in different seasons for the purpose of comparing species richness in different habitats.