Floristic composition and diversity in stands of Elaeagnus angustifolia L. (Elaeagnaceae)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.acbi.329337Keywords:
canopy, diversity, Elaeagnus angustifolia, floristic composition, herbaceousAbstract
A study was carried out in Valdemoro (Madrid), Spain, in order to assess changes in floristic composition and diversity of plant community that develop under and outside of Elaeagnus angustifolia L. canopy, with the purpose of understanding how the herbaceous community is organized after the establishment of this species, in a place whose prevalence in the first half of the XX century was pastures. This study was conducted in two areas, which differed in anthropic disturbance and moisture soil. A total of 60 sampling plots, each one of asquare meter, were laid out at random. In each quadrant, cover percentage was estimated for all herbaceousplant species. A total of 34 species in 16 families and 30 genera were found in two areas. Eight species were found with a covering > 10%. The floristic composition between the two areas was moderately similar with 10 species in common. The factorial analysis of main components reflected a separation among the two places, but it didn’t show an ordination of the sampling units with regard to the canopy effect. Species diversity waslow in the two areas because of the high covering of some species and, although the areas were contiguous, they differed in the floristic composition and diversity (F = 22.726; p < 0.001). The establishment of E. angustifolia in Valdemoro influenced floristic composition, through a change in the herbaceous community.
Downloads
References
Allue-Andrade JL. 1990. Atlas fitoclimático de España:Taxonomías. Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Ali-mentación. Instituto Nacional de InvestigacionesAgrarias. Madrid, España.
Ayuntamiento de Valdemoro. 2001. Parajes de Valdemoro(VI): Parque Bolitas del Airón. Informativo Munici-pal Valdemoro, 113:22-25.
Ayuntamiento de Valdemoro. 2003. Informe de Gestión1999-2003. Publicaciones Ayuntamiento deValdemoro. Madrid, España.
Andersen UV. 1995. Resistance of Danish coastalvegetation types to human trampling. BiologicalConservation, 71:223-230.
Barbour MG. 1970. Is any angiosperm an obligatehalophyte? American Midland Naturalist,84:105-120.
Barbour MG. 1978. The effect of competition and salinityon the growth of a salt marsh plant species.Oecologia, 37:93-99.
Bermúdez de Castro F. 1988. Las plantas actinorrizas y lasucesión. Pp. 435-439. En: L. Villar (ed.). Homenaje aPedro Montserrat. Monografía del Instituto Pirenai-co de Ecología 4, Jaca. Publicaciones CSIC. Zarago-za, España.
Bourgón PM, Campos JC, Vegas MR, Pérez GA, MíquezMF. 1975. Hoja de Getafe.Mapa Geológico de Es-paña, escala 1:50.000. Servicio de PublicacionesMinisterio de Industria. Madrid, España.
Bunce RGH, Shaw MW. 1973. A standarized procedure forecological survey. Journal Environmental andManagement, 1:239-285.
Canham C, Finzi A, Pacala S, Burbank D. 1994. Causesand consequences of resource heterogeneity inforests: interspecific variation in light transmissionby canopy trees. Canadian Journal of ForestResearch, 24:337-349.
Castroviejo S, Laínz M, López-González G, Montserrat P,Muñoz-Garmendia F, Paiva J, Villar L (eds.). 1986-2001. Flora Ibérica. Ediciones Real Jardín Botánico,CSIC. Madrid, España.
Catovsky S, Bazzaz F. 2000. The role of resourceinteractions and seedling regeneration in maintaininga positive feedback in hemlock stand. Journal ofEcology, 88:100-112.
Cavelier J, Vargas G. 2002. Procesos hidrológicos. Pp 145-165. En: Guariguata MR, Kattan GH (eds.). Ecologíay conservación de bosques neotropicales. Edicio-nes Libro Universitario Regional (LUR). Cartago,Costa Rica.
Damascos MA, Rapoport EH. 2002. Diferencias en la floraherbácea y arbustiva entre claros y áreas bajo doselen un bosque de Nothofagus pumilio en Argentina.Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 75:465-472.
FAO. 1989. Mapa mundial de suelos. FAO. Roma, Italia.
Fernández RP, Porras TCJ. 1998. La Dehesa. Algunosaspectos para la regeneración del arbolado. Infor-maciones técnicas 58/98. Dirección General de In-vestigación y Formación Agraria, Servicio de Publi-caciones y Divulgación. Sevilla, España.
Finzi A, Canham C. 2000. Sapling growth in responseto light and availability in a southern NewEngland Forest. Forest Ecology andManagement, 131:153-165.
García LV, Marañón T, Moreno A, Clemente L. 1993.Above-ground biomass and species richness in amediterranean salt marsh. Journal Vegetation ofScience, 4:417-424.
Girón VMM. 2004. Evolución del bosquete de Elaeagnusangustifolia L. en Valdemoro (Madrid). Tesis docto-ral. Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de CienciasBiológicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Madrid, España.
Gómez Gutiérrez JM. 1992. Orígenes del monte adehesadoy situación actual. Pp. 19-32. En: Gómez-GutiérrezJM (ed.). El libro de las dehesas salmantinas. Juntade Castilla y León, Consejería del Medio Ambiente yO. T., Secretaría General, Servicio de Educación Am-biental. Salamanca, España.
González-Bernáldez F. 1986. Gramíneas pratenses de Ma-drid. Comunidad de Madrid. Madrid, España.
González-Bernáldez F, Morey M, Velasco F. 1969.Influences of Quercus ilex rotundifolia on the herblayer at the El Pardo forest (Madrid). Boletín de laReal Sociedad Española de Historia Natural, Sec-ción Biológica, 67:265-284.
Gough L, Osenberg CW, Gross KL, Collins SL. 2000.Fertilization effects on species density and primaryproduction in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos,89:428-439.
Grime JP. 1979. Plant strategies and vegetationprocesses. John Wiley & Sons. New York, UnitedStates.
Hector A, Schmid B, Beierkuhnlein C, Caldeira MC,Diemer M, Dimitrakopoulus PG, Finn JA, FreitasH, Giller PS, Good J, Harris R, Högberg P, Huss-Danell K, Joshi J, Jumpponen A, Körner C, LeadleyPW, Loreau M, Minns A, Mulder CPH, O’DonovanG, Otway SJ, Pereira JS, Prinz A, Read DJ, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schulze ED, Siamantziouras ASD,Spehn E, Terry AC, Troumbis AY, Woodward FA,Yachi S, Lawton JH. 1999. Plant diversity andproductivity experiments in European grasslands.Science, 286:1123-1127.
Huenneke LF, Hamburg SP, Koide R, Mooney HA,Vitousek PM. 1990. Effects of soil resources on plantinvasion and community structure in CalifornianSerpentine Grassland. Ecology, 71(2):478-491.
Ikeda H. 2003. Testing the intermediate disturbancehypothesis on species diversity in herbaceous plantcommunities along a human trampling gradient usinga 4-year experiment in an old-field. EcologicalResearch, 18:185-197.
Katz GL, Shafroth PB. 2003. Biology, ecology andmanagement of Elaeagnus angustifolia L. (Russianolive) in Western North America. Wetlands,23(4):763-777.
Kent M, Coker P. 1996. Vegetation description andanalysis: A practical approach. John Wiley & Sons.New York, USA.
Klich MG. 2000. Leaf variations in Elaeagnusangustifoliarelated to environmental heterogeneity. Environ-mental and Experimental Botany, 44(3):171-183.
Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP,Hector A. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functio-ning: current knowledge and future challenges.Science, 294:804-808.
Magurran AE. 1988. Ecological diversity and itsmeasurement. Princeton University Press. New Jer-sey, U. S. A.
Marañón T. 1985. Diversidad florística y heterogeneidadambiental en una dehesa de Sierra Morena. Analesde Edafología y Agrobiología, 44:1183-1197.
Marañón T. 1997. Ponencia: Biodiversidad de las comu-nidades vegetales: Escalas y componentes. Pp. 15-24. En: S. E. P. P. (eds.). Los pastos extensivos: Pro-ducir conservando. XXXVII Reunión Científica dela Sociedad Española para el Estudio de los Pastos.Junta de Andalucía, Conserjería de Agricultura yPesca. Sevilla-Huelva, España.
Montalvo J, Casado MA, Levassor C, Pineda FD. 1993.Species diversity patterns in Mediterraneangrasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science, 4:213-222.
Montoya OJM. 1982. Efectos del arbolado de las dehesassobre los factores ecológicos que actúan al niveldel sotobosque. Anales del INIA (Serie Forestal),5:61-85.
Montoya OJM, Meson GML. 1982. Intensidad y efectosde la influencia del arbolado de las dehesas sobre lafenología y composición específica del sotobosque.Anales del INIA (Serie Forestal), 5:43-59.
Monturiol RF, Alcalá del Olmo BL. 1990. Mapa de aso-ciaciones de suelos de la comunidad de Madrid.Ediciones CSIC. Madrid, España.
Perry JE, Atkinson RB. 1997. Plant diversity along asalinity gradient of four marshes on the York andPamunkey rivers in Virginia. Castanea, 62(2):112-118.
Pielou EC. 1975. Ecological diversity. John Wiley & Sons.New York, U. S. A.Pineda FD, Nicolás JP, Ruiz M, Peco B, Bernáldez FG.1981. Succession, diversité et amplitude de nichedans les pâturages du centre de la péninsule ibérique.Vegetatio, 47:267-277.
Pineda FD, Di Castri F, Orcoyen CG, Villanueva JR. 1991.Estudio y conservación de la diversidad biológica.Pp. 15-19. En: Pineda FD, Casado MA, De MiguelJM, Montalvo J (eds.). Diversidad biológica/Biological diversity. Ediciones Areces-Adena/WWF-SCOPE. Madrid, España.
Poole RW. 1974. An introduction to quantitative ecology.McGraw-Hill. New York, U. S. A.Rajaniemi TK. 2002. Why does fertilization reduce plantspecies diversity? Testing three competition-basedhypotheses. Journal of Ecology, 90:316-324.
Rajaniemi TK. 2003. Explaining productivity-diversityrelationships in plants. Oikos, 101:449-457.Ron ME. 1971. Sobre el carácter subespontáneo deElaeagnus angustifolia L. Anales de la Real Acade-mia de Farmacia, 37:229-240.
Schade JD, Sponseller R, Collins SL, Stiles A. 2003.Theinfluence of Prosopis canopies on understoreyvegetation: Effects of landscape position. Journalof Vegetation Science, 14:743-750.
Shaltout KH, El-Ghareeb R. 1992. Diversity of the saltmarsh plant communities in the WesternMediterranean region of Egypt. Journal of UniversityKuwait (Sciences), 19:75-84.
Shaltout KH, El-Kady HF, Al-Soday YM. 1995. Vegetationanalysis of the Mediterranean region of Nile Delta.Vegetatio, 116:73-83.
Simons SB, Seastedt TR. 1999. Decomposition andnitrogen release form foliage of cottonwood(Populus deltoides) and Russian-olive (Elaeagnusangustifolia) in a riparian ecosystem. TheSouthwestern Naturalist, 44(3):256-260.
Tewksbury JJ, Lloyd JD. 2001. Positive interactions undernurse-plants: spatial scale, stress gradients and be-nefactor size. Oecologia, 127:425-434.
Tilman D. 1982. Nutrient limitations to plant growth inCalifornia serpentine grassland. American MidlandNaturalist, 107:95-99.
Tilman D. 1987. Secondary succession and thepattern of plant dominance along experimentalnitrogen gradients. Ecological Monographs,57:189-214.
Tilman D. 1993. Species richness of experimentalproductivity gradients: how important is colonizationlimitation? Ecology, 74:2179-2191.
Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Moore DM, ValentineDH, Walters SM, Webb DA (eds.). 1964-1980. FloraEuropea. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge,England.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Actualidades Biológicas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The authors exclusively authorize the Actualidades Biológicas journal to edit and publish the submitted manuscript if its publication is recommended and accepted, without this representing any cost to the Journal or the University of Antioquia.
All the ideas and opinions contained in the articles are sole responsibility of the authors. The total content of the issues or supplements of the journal is protected under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, so they cannot be used for commercial purposes, but for educational purposes. However, please mention the Actualidades Biológicas journal as a source and send a copy of the publication in which the content was reproduced.
