Checklist of the vascular plants of the Cantabrian Mountains

Abstract

We present the first standardized list of the vascular flora of the Cantabrian Mountains, a transitional zone between the Eurosiberian and Mediterranean biogeographic regions in northwestern Spain. The study area comprises 15000 km2 divided in UTM grid cells of 10 km x 10 km, for which we revised occurrence data reported in the Spanish Plant Information System (Anthos) and the online database of Iberian and Macaronesian Vegetation (SIVIM). We used a semi-automatic procedure to standardize taxonomic concepts into a single list of names, which was further updated by expert-based revision with the support of national and regional literature. In the current version, the checklist of the Cantabrian Mountains contains 2338 native species and subspecies, from which 56 are endemic to the study area. The nomenclature of the checklist follows Euro+Med in 97% of taxa, including annotations when other criteria has been used and for taxa with uncertain status. We also provide a list of 492 non-native taxa that were erroneously reported in the study area, a list of local apomictic taxa, a phylogenetic tree linked to The Plant List, a standardized calculation of Ellenberg Ecological Indicator Values for 80% of the flora, and information about life forms, IUCN threat categories and legal protection status. Our review demonstrates how the Cantabrian mountains represent a key floristic region in southern Europe and a relevant phytogeographical hub in south-western Europe. The checklist and all related information are freely accessible in a digital repository for further uses in basic and applied research

Ellenberg‐type indicator values for European vascular plant species

“…In contrast, some species shift and narrow their niche towards the edges of their distribution range (Papuga et al, 2018) relative to their centre of distribution (Englisch & Karrer, 2001). This is consistent with our comparisons of regional data sets, which showed the largest deviations from the original Ellenberg values for data sets from regions that are geographically and climatically farthest away from Germany, e.g., the Cantabrian Mountains in Spain (Jiménez‐Alfaro et al, 2021) and the South Aegean region of Greece (Böhling et al, 2002). It is also likely that local endemics in these marginal regions outcompete species with broader geographic ranges from a part of their fundamental niche, resulting in the narrowing of the realized niche.…”

“…The 13 indicator‐value data sets that met the above conditions included: Great Britain (Hill et al, 2000); the Cantabrian Mountains in Spain (Jiménez‐Alfaro et al, 2021); France (Julve, 2015); Switzerland and the Alps (Landolt et al, 2010; temperature values only, as the other values use coarser scales than Ellenberg); Germany (Ellenberg et al, 2001, taken from Ellenberg & Leuschner, 2010); Czech Republic (Chytrý et al, 2018); Austria (Karrer, 1992); Hungary (Borhidi, 1995); Ukraine (Didukh, 2011; only the light, temperature and moisture values, as the others cannot be matched to the Ellenberg scales); Italy (Guarino & La Rosa, 2019, a corrected version prepared by R. Guarino for this study); South Aegean region of Greece (Böhling et al, 2002); European mires (Hájek et al, 2020); and saline habitats in Central Europe (Dítě et al, 2023). The scales of these 13 data sets had 12 degrees for moisture and some of them also for temperature, 10 degrees for salinity, and nine degrees for the other values.…”

“…The 13 indicator-value data sets that met the above conditions included: Great Britain (Hill et al, 2000); the Cantabrian Mountains in Spain (Jiménez-Alfaro et al, 2021); France (Julve, 2015); Switzerland and the Alps (Landolt et al, 2010; temperature values only, as the other values use coarser scales than Ellenberg); Germany (Ellenberg et al, 2001, taken from Ellenberg & Leuschner, 2010; Czech Republic (Chytrý et al, 2018); Austria (Karrer, 1992); Hungary (Borhidi, 1995); Ukraine (Didukh, 2011; only the light, temperature and moisture values, as the others cannot be matched to the Ellenberg scales); Italy (Guarino & La Rosa, 2019, a corrected version prepared by R.…”

“…These data sets included many species that were missing from Ellenberg's original data set and often contained different values for the same species, reflecting shifted optima of their realized niches between regions (e.g. Landolt, 1977;Tsyganov, 1983;Jurko, 1990;Karrer, 1992;Borhidi, 1995;Mayor López, 1996;Böhling et al, 2002;Zarzycki et al, 2002;Hill et al, 2004;Pignatti, 2005;Landolt et al, 2010;Didukh, 2011;Chytrý et al, 2018;Domina et al, 2018;Guarino & La Rosa, 2019;Jiménez-Alfaro et al, 2021;Tyler et al, 2021). Specialized data sets of indicator values for species limited to a specific habitat type but covering large areas were moisture, 7282 for reaction, 7193 for nutrients, and 7507 for salinity), of which 398 species have been newly assigned to at least one indicator value.…”

“…viations from the original Ellenberg values for data sets from regions that are geographically and climatically farthest away from Germany, e.g., the Cantabrian Mountains in Spain(Jiménez-Alfaro et al, 2021) and the South Aegean region of Greece(Böhling et al, 2002). It is also likely that local endemics in these marginal regions outcompete species with broader geographic ranges from F I G U R E 3 Recommended area for application of the harmonized European data set of Ellenberg-type indicator values.…”