Factors explaining shrub species distribution in hedgerows of a mountain landscape

Campagne, Pascal; Roche, Philip; Tatoni, Thierry

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.02.016

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Microclimatic conditions, the intensity and quality of light, resource availability and other ecological variables can explain the relationship between tree canopy structure and species richness (e.g., Parker & Brown 2000). Our results support and extend previous findings describing the relationship between woody species richness and a variety of local hedgerow attributes (Willmot 1980, Sutton 1992, Herlin & Fry 2000, Deckers et al 2004a, Campagne et al 2006) also to the spatial arrangement of tree and shrub growth forms. Most notably, the present study indicates that the identification of hedge stand types, obtained through a visual survey, may allow estimation of native woody species richness across a wide range of hedgerow network densities and landscape types, favoring interaction between decision makers, researchers and landscape users (Vos & Meekes 1999).…”

Section: Assessment Of Hedge Stand Typessupporting

confidence: 89%

“…However, woody species richness is influenced by many factors among which hedgerow structure is of great importance (Hooper 1970, Willmot 1980, Sutton 1992, Herlin & Fry 2000, Boutin et al 2002, Deckers et al 2004a, Deckers et al 2004b, Campagne et al 2006. Hedgerow structure has been defined in many ways, including as: (i) a combination of different biometric values (Sutton 1992, Bates & Harris 2009; (ii) the percentage cover of the different vegetation layers (Bennett et al 1994); (iii) a combination of these two sets of variables (Osborne 1984, Green et al 1994, Fritz & Merriam 1996, Herlin & Fry 2000, Sykes & Hannon 2001; and (iv) all of the above, combined with size and other physical measures (Deckers et al 2004a, Campagne et al 2006, Roy & de Blois 2008, Wehling & Diekmann 2008. However, despite the number of structure classification schemes, little attention has been paid to the significance of stand biometric differences among the structure types, which are always recognized through visual estimation in the field and hence highly subject to error.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of hedge stand types as determinants of woody species richness in rural field margins

Sitzia¹,

Trentanovi²,

Marini³

et al. 2013

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The woody component along field edges often provides the only permanent elements of structural and biological diversity in landscapes that have lost much of their naturalness to agriculture and urban use. The main aims of this study were (i) to investigate how four hedge stand types, i.e., systems of management distinguished on the basis of the natural and managed growth forms of trees and shrubs (low single-storied, high single-storied, two-storied and multi-storied), differ in their biometric parameters and (ii) to identify the primary management-related determinants of native woody species richness. The study used a large dataset of hedgerows (n=538) sampled in seven sites in Northern Italy. The four hedge stand types exhibited highly significant differences in size and biometric parameters. The multi-storied hedges, associated with the highest stand structural diversity index values, supported the highest number of tree species, followed by high single-storied hedges. The low single-storied hedge stand type contained the lowest number of species. We found a positive effect of hedge area as well as a marginal negative effect of basal area on native woody species richness. The management implications addressed by our study include conversion of single-storied into two- or multi-storied types, increasing hedge size and controlling hedge stand basal area

show abstract

Section: Assessment Of Hedge Stand Typessupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of hedge stand types as determinants of woody species richness in rural field margins

Sitzia¹,

Trentanovi²,

Marini³

et al. 2013

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patch variables, such as high connectedness and large, continuous patches of Artemisia steppes in the cell (also the overall cover of semi-natural vegetation), correlate with higher naturalness, which is in good correspondence with the findings of Campagne et al (2006); namely that species richness -as a qualitative measure -is affected more by local than landscape factors.…”

Section: Patch and Landscape Factors Affecting Habitat Quality 189supporting

confidence: 73%

“…This reflects the importance of management factors, as reported by Klimek et al (2007) and Campagne et al (2006). Grazing had been the dominant disturbance and land use type of Artemisia steppes (Molnár and Borhidi 2003) for thousands of years, and thus, this vegetation type became adapted to temporal over or undergrazing.…”

Section: Patch and Landscape Factors Affecting Habitat Quality 189mentioning

confidence: 76%

“…size of a patch, vegetation cover in the patch), and landscape or matrix variables (e.g. proportion of different habitat types in the surroundings) influence species richness (Wagner et al 2000, Dauber et al 2003, Mitchell et al 2006 and species composition (Vandvik and Birks 2002, Campagne et al 2006, Barbaro et al 2007, Raatikainen et al 2007, we analysed the effects at both scales. Therefore, our particular questions were: 1) what are the factors affecting the naturalness-based quality of certain model grassland habitats; 2) what is the overall relative importance of patch and matrix attributes; 3) is it possible to draw general conclusions for grassland habitats or is the naturalness of the different model habitats explained by different factors?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patch and landscape factors affecting the naturalness-based quality of three model grassland habitats in Hungary

Illyés

Botta‐Dukát

Molnár

2008

Acta Botanica Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective conservation of (semi-)natural grasslands requires an understanding of the factors affecting naturalness (i.e. the actual quality of a habitat or vegetation patch) and the importance of the particular factors. Both local or patch and landscape or matrix variables affect habitat quality, and the proportions of the effects need to be identified. Therefore, we performed a hypothesis generating and testing analysis with generalised linear models on three typical grassland habitat types (forest steppe meadows, Artemisia alkali steppes, and lowland wet meadows), differing in their fragmentation, ecology and history, and representing characteristic types of grassland habitats with the use of the national database of the vegetation of Hungary (MÉTA). Our results, in general, show that naturalness depends upon both intra-habitat and matrix attributes: presence or proportion of other habitat types in the surrounding landscape, threatening factors and landscape ecological attributes. Higher number of habitat types and higher proportions of (semi-)natural habitats in the landscape have significant effects: presence of other grassland types similar in ecological demands to the model habitat positively affect the naturalness, while non-characteristic, secondary or disturbed habitats and invasive alien species have negative effects. However, there are clear differences among the three habitat types, indicating that for effective conservation, good knowledge of conserved habitat types is essential. Landscape or matrix factors, both compositional and structural, affecting habitat patch quality have significant effects that cannot be overlooked. In the case of fragmented grasslands, matrix factors might be even more important than patch or local factors.

show abstract

Fine‐scale response to landscape structure in Primula vulgaris Huds.: does hedgerow network connectedness ensure connectivity through gene flow?

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variation in pollen flow, mating performances, and seed dispersal were examined using direct and indirect approaches in contrasted hedgerow networks (i.e., dense vs. sparse) of the distylous Primula vulgaris. Seed dispersal reached negligible distances, and no difference was observed between the two hedgerow networks. On the contrary, pollen flow through Bombylius sp. activity was impeded in the dense hedgerow network. Furthermore, P. vulgaris was found to be partially self-compatible in our study site. The lower pollen flow in the dense hedgerow network, and especially in small populations, is likely to have unusually favoured self-compatibility and hence selfing in P. vulgaris short-style morph. In addition, the inbreeding depression values recorded were higher in the dense hedgerow network. Our results suggested that a dense hedgerow network does not necessarily ensure connectivity in Primula vulgaris in terms of gene flow. This study provides evidence for considering landscape structure in the microevolutionary processes.

show abstract

Factors explaining shrub species distribution in hedgerows of a mountain landscape

Cited by 10 publications

References 17 publications

Assessment of hedge stand types as determinants of woody species richness in rural field margins

Assessment of hedge stand types as determinants of woody species richness in rural field margins

Patch and landscape factors affecting the naturalness-based quality of three model grassland habitats in Hungary

Fine‐scale response to landscape structure in Primula vulgaris Huds.: does hedgerow network connectedness ensure connectivity through gene flow?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About