Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Biologia

12 Issues per year




Online
ISSN
1336-9563
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 64, Issue 1

Issues

Variation in life-cycle between three rare and endangered floodplain violets in two regions: implications for population viability and conservation

Rolf Eckstein
  • Department of Landscape Ecology and Resource Management, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, DE-35392, Giessen, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jiří Danihelka
  • Department of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of Science Masaryk University, CZ-61137, Brno, Czech Republic
  • Department of Ecology Brno, Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Poříčí 3b, CZ-60300, Brno, Czech Republic
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Annette Otte
  • Department of Landscape Ecology and Resource Management, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, DE-35392, Giessen, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2009-01-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-009-0002-1

Abstract

We studied the demography of Viola elatior, V. pumila, and V. stagnina, three rare and endangered Central European floodplain species, to (i) analyse variation in life-cycles among congeners and between regions (Dyje-Morava floodplains, Czech Republic; Upper Rhine, Germany), (ii) to define sensitive stages in the life-cycles, and (iii) to identify possible threats for population viability and species conservation.

Matrix models were based on the fate of marked individuals from a total of 27 populations over two years. We analysed population growth rate (λ), stage distribution, net reproductive rate (R 0), generation time, age at first reproduction, and elasticity and calculated a life table response experiment (LTRE).

Most populations were declining and λ did not differ between species or regions during the observed interval. Despite higher probabilities for survival and flowering in the Dyje populations, R 0 was higher in the Rhine populations. Also other demographic traits showed consistent differences between regions and/or species. Complex life-cycles and large variation in λ precluded unequivocal identification of sensitive stages or vital rates for conservation. Variation between regions may be a consequence of differences in habitat quality.

Our results suggest that deterministic processes such as reduced management, succession, habitat destruction, and lack of disturbance through reduced or eliminated flooding present the strongest threat for the viability and persistence of populations of the three floodplain violets as compared with stochastic processes. However, the persistent seed bank of the species may buffer populations against environmental variation and represents a reservoir for recovery after resumption of suitable land-use management.

Keywords: Viola elatior; Viola pumila; Viola stagninaI; conservation; demography; life table response experiment (LTRE); matrix models

  • [1] Adams V.M., Marsh D.M. & Knox J.S. 2005. Importance of the seed bank for population viability and population monitoring in a threatened wetland herb. Biol. Cons. 124: 425–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.02.001CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [2] Bissels S., Hölzel N. & Otte A. 2004. Population structure of the threatened perennial Serratula tinctoria in relation to vegetation and management. Appl. Veg. Sci. 7: 267–274. Google Scholar

  • [3] Bühler C. & Schmid B. 2001. The influence of management regime and altitude on the population structure of Succisa pratensis: implications for vegetation monitoring. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 689–698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00640.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [4] Burkart M. 2001. River corridor plants (Stromtalpflanzen) in Central European lowlands: a review of a poorly understood plant distribution pattern. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 10: 449–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822x.2001.00270.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [5] Brys R., Jacquemyn H., Endels P., DeBlust G. & Hermy M. 2005. Effect of habitat deterioration on population dynamics and extinction risks in a previously common perennial. Cons. Biol. 19: 1633–1643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00216.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [6] Cabin R.J. & Marshall D.L. 2000. The demographic role of soil seed banks. I. Spatial and temporal comparison of below- and above-ground populations of the desert mustard Lesquerella fendleri. J. Ecol. 88: 283–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00443.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [7] Caswell H. 1996. Analysis of life table response experiments II. Alternative parameterizations for size- and stage-structured models. Ecol. Model. 88: 73–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(95)00070-4CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [8] Caswell H. 2001. Matrix population models. Construction, analysis and interpretation. 2nd ed. Sinauer, Sunderland, 722 pp. Google Scholar

  • [9] Chapin F.S. III, Walker B.H., Hobbs R.J., Hooper D.U., Lawton J.H., Sala O.E. & Tilman D. 1997. Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science 277: 500–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.500CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [10] Colling G., Matthies D. & Reckinger C. 2002. Population structure and establishment of the threatened long-lived perennial Scorzonera humilis in relation to environment. J. Appl. Ecol. 39: 310–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00714.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [11] Croft J.M. & Preston C.D. 1996. Species recovery programme: Fen Violet (Viola persicifolia Schreber). 3rd Progress Report, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Google Scholar

  • [12] de Kroon H., Plaisir A., van Groenendael J. & Caswell H. 1986. Elasticity: the relative contribution of demographic parameters to population growth rate. Ecology 67: 1427–1431. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1938700CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [13] Dixon P.M. 1993. The bootstrap and the jackknife: Describing the precision of ecological indices, pp. 290–318. In: Scheiner S.M. & Gurevitch J. (eds), Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. Chapman & Hall, New York. Google Scholar

  • [14] Donath T.W., Hölzel N., Bissels S. & Otte A. 2004. Perspectives for incorporating biomass from non-intensively managed temperate flood-meadows into farming systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 104: 439–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.039CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [15] Durka W. 1999. Genetic diversity in peripheral and subcentral populations of Corrigiola litoralis L. (Illecebraceae). Heredity 83: 476–484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6886000CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [16] Eckstein R.L., Danihelka J., Hölzel N. & Otte A. 2004. The effects of management and environmental variation on population stage structure in three river-corridor violets. Acta Oecol. 25: 83–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2003.11.003CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [17] Eckstein R.L. & Donath T.W. 2005. Interactions between litter and water availability affect seedling emergence in four familial pairs of floodplain species. J. Ecol. 93: 807–816. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01015.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [18] Eckstein R.L., Hölzel N. & Danihelka J. 2006a. Biological Flora of Central Europe: Viola elatior, V. pumila, and V. stagnina. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 8: 45–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2006.01.001CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [19] Eckstein R.L., O’Neill R., Danihelka J., Otte A. & Köhler W. 2006b. Genetic structure among and within peripheral and central populations of three endangered floodplain violets. Mol. Ecol. 15: 2367–2379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02944.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [20] Eckstein R.L. & Otte A. 2005. Effects of cleistogamy and pollen source on seed production and offspring performance in three endangered violets. Basic Appl. Ecol. 6: 339–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2004.12.002CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [21] Endels P., Jacquemyn H., Brys R., Hermy M. & De Blust G. 2002. Temporal changes (1986–1999) in populations of primrose (Primula vulgaris Huds.) in an agricultural landscape and implications for conservation. Biol. Cons. 105: 11–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00173-2CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [22] Eriksson O. 1996. Regional dynamics of plants: a review of evidence for remnant, source-sink and metapopulations. Oikos 77: 248–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3546063CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [23] Eriksson O., Cousins S.A.O. & Bruun H.H. 2002. Land-use history and fragmentation of traditionally managed grasslands in Scandinavia. J. Veg. Sci. 13: 743–748. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [24] Facelli J.M. & Pickett S.T.A. 1991. Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot. Rev. 57: 1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02858763CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [25] Gaston K.J. & Kunin W.E. 1997. Concluding comments, pp. 262–272. In: Kunin W.E. & Gaston K.J. (eds.), The Biology of Rarity. Causes and Consequences of Rare-common Differences. Chapman & Hall, London. Google Scholar

  • [26] Grime J.P. 2002. Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystems Properties. Wiley, Chichester, 417 pp. Google Scholar

  • [27] Hölzel N. 2003. Re-assessing the ecology of rare flood-meadow violets (Viola elatior, V. pumila and V. persicifolia) with large phytosociological data sets. Folia Geobot. 38: 281–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02803200CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [28] Hölzel N., Bissels S., Donath T.W., Handke K., Harnisch M. & Otte A. 2006. Renaturierung von Stromtalwiesen am hessischen Oberrhein. Naturschutz und biologische Vielfalt 31: 1–263. Google Scholar

  • [29] Hölzel N. & Otte A. 2004. Assessing the soil seed bank persistence in flood-meadows: The search for reliable traits. J. Veg. Sci. 15: 93–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02241.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [30] Honnay O., Jacquemyn H., Bossuyt B. & Hermy M. 2005. Forest fragmentation effects on patch occupancy and population viability of herbaceous plant species. New Phytol. 166: 723–736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01352.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [31] Hood G.M. 2005. PopTools version 2.6.7. http://www.cse.csiro. au/poptools (accessed 15.03.2005). Google Scholar

  • [32] Huenneke L.F. 1991. Ecological implications of genetic variation in plant populations, pp. 31–44. In: Falk D.A. & Holsinger K.E. (eds), Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford University Press, New York. Google Scholar

  • [33] Hultén E. & Fries M. 1986. Atlas of North European Vascular Plants (North of the Tropic of Cancer). Koeltz Scientific Books, Koenigstein, 1172 pp. Google Scholar

  • [34] Jacquemyn H., Brys R. & Hermy M. 2003. Short-term effects of different management regimes on the response of calcareous grassland vegetation to increased nitrogen. Biol. Cons. 111: 137–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00256-2CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [35] Jensen K. & Meyer C. 2001. Effects of light competition and litter on the performance of Viola palustris and on species composition and diversity of an abandoned fen meadow. Plant Ecol. 155: 169–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1013270628964CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [36] Jongejans E. & de Kroon H. 2005. Space versus time variation in the population dynamics of three co-occurring perennial herbs. J. Ecol. 93: 681–692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01003.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [37] Kiviniemi K. 2002. Population dynamics of Agrimonia eupatoria and Geum rivale, two perennial grassland species. Plant Ecol. 159: 153–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015506019670CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [38] Kluth C. & Bruelheide H. 2005. Central and peripheral Hornungia petraea populations: patterns and processes. J. Ecol. 93: 584–595. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.00997.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [39] Korneck D., Schnittler M. & Vollmer I. 1996. Rote Liste der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen (Pteridophyta et Spermatophyta) Deutschlands. Schriftenreihe Vegetationsk. 28: 21–187. Google Scholar

  • [40] Korneck D., Schnittler M., Klingenstein F., Ludwig G., Takla M., Bohn U. & May R. 1998. Warum verarmt unser Flora? Auswertung der Roten Listen der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands. Schriftenreihe Vegetationsk. 29: 299–444. Google Scholar

  • [41] Lammi A., Siikamäki P. & Mustajärvi K. 1999. Genetic diversity, population size, and fitness in central and peripheral populations of a rare plant Lychnis viscaria. Cons. Biol. 13: 1069–1078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98278.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [42] Lawton J.H. 1993. Range, population abundance and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 409–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(93)90043-OCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [43] Lennartsson T. & Oostermeijer G.B. 2001. Demographic variation and population viability in Gentianella campestris: effects of grassland management and environmental stochasticity. J. Ecol. 89: 451–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2001.00566.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [44] Lepš J. 1999. Nutrient status, disturbance and competition: an experimental test of relationships in a wet meadow copy. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 219–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3237143CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [45] Lesica P. & Allendorf F.W. 1995. When are peripheral populations valuable for conservation? Cons. Biol. 9: 753–760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09040753.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [46] Lindborg R., Cousins S.A.O., Eriksson O. 2005. Plant response to land use change — Campanula rotundifolia, Primula veris and Rhinantus minor. Ecography 28: 29–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.03989.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [47] Manly B.F.J. 2001. Randomization and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. Chapman & Hall, London, 399 pp. Google Scholar

  • [48] McCue K.A. & Holtsford T.P. 1998. Seed bank influences on genetic diversity in the rare annual Clarkia springvillensis (Onagraceae). Am. J. Bot. 85: 30–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2446551CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [49] McPeek M.A. & Kalisz S. 1993. Population sampling and bootstrapping in complex designs: demographic analysis, pp. 232–252. In: Scheiner S.M. & Gurevitch J. (eds), Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. Chapman & Hall, New York. Google Scholar

  • [50] Menges E.S. 2000. Population viability analyses in plants: challenges and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 51–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01763-2CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [51] Moora M., Sõber V. & Zobel M. 2003. Responses of a rare (Viola elatior) and a common (Viola mirabilis) congeneric species to different management conditions in grassland — is different light competition ability responsible for different abundances? Acta Oecol. 24: 169–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1146-609X(03)00082-1CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [52] Morris W.F. & Doak D.F. 2002. Quantitative Conservation Biology: Theory and Practice of Population Viability Analysis. Sinauer, Sunderland, 480 pp. Google Scholar

  • [53] Newell S.J., Solbrig O.T. & Kincaid D.T. 1981. Studies on the population biology of the genus Viola. III. The demography of Viola blanda and Viola pallens. J. Ecol. 69: 997–1016. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2259650CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [54] Nicolè F., Brzosko E. & Till-Bottraud I. 2005. Population viability analysis of Cypripedium calceolus in a protected area: longevity, stability and persistence. J. Ecol. 93: 716–726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01010.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [55] Oostermeijer J.G.B., Brugman M.L., de Boer E.R. & den Nijs H.C.M. 1996. Temporal and spatial variation in the demography of Gentiana pneumonanthe, a rare perennial herb. J. Ecol. 84: 153–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2261351CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [56] Oostermeijer J.G.B., van’t Veer R. & den Nijs J.C.M. 1994. Population structure of the rare, long-lived perennial Gentiana pneumonanthe in relation to vegetation and management in the Netherlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 31: 428–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2404440CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [57] Pullin A.S. & Woodell S.R.J. 1987. Response of the fen violet, Viola persicifolia Schreber, to different management regimes at Woodwalton Fen National Nature Reserve, Cambridgeshire, England. Biol. Cons. 41: 203–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(87)90103-0CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [58] Quinn G.P. & Keough M.J. 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 537 pp. Google Scholar

  • [59] Reger B., Otte A. & Waldhardt R. 2007. Identifying patterns of land-cover change and their physical attributes in a marginal European landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 81: 104–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.10.018CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [60] Sagarin R.D. & Gaines S.D. 2002. The ‘abundant centre’ distribution: to what extent is it a biogeographical rule? Ecol. Lett. 5: 137–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00297.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [61] Sala O.E., Chapin F.S. III, Armesto J.J., Berlow E., Bloomfield J., Dirzo R., Huber-Sanwald E., Huenneke L.F., Jackson R.B., Kinzig A., Leemans R., Lodge D.M., Mooney H.A., Oesterheld M., LeRoy Poff N., Sykes M.T., Walker B.H., Walker M. & Wall D.H. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [62] Schemske D.W., Husband B.C., Ruckelhaus M.H., Goodwillie C., Parker I.M. & Bishop J.G. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75: 584–606. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1941718CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [63] Schnittler M. & Günther K.-F. 1999. Central European vascular plants requiring priority conservation measures — an analysis from national Red Lists and distribution maps. Biodiv. Cons. 8: 891–925. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008828704456CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [64] Silvertown J., Franco M. & Menges E. 1996. Interpretation of elasticity matrices as an aid to the management of plant populations for conservation. Cons. Biol. 10: 591–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020591.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [65] Silvertown J., Franco M., Pisanty I. & Mendoza A. 1993. Comparative plant demography — relative importance of life-cycle components to the finite rate of increase in woody and herbaceous perennials. J. Ecol. 81: 465–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2261525CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [66] Solbrig O.T., Curtis W.F., Kincaid D.T. & Newell S.J. 1988. The population biology of the genus Viola. VI. The demography of V. fimbriatula and V. lanceolata. J. Ecol. 76: 301–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2260595CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [67] Solbrig O.T., Newell S.J. & Kincaid D.T. 1980. The population biology of the genus Viola. I. The demography of Viola sororia. J. Ecol.68: 521–546. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2259420CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [68] Svensson B.M., Carlsson B. Å., Karlsson P.S. & Nordell K.O. 1993. Comparative long-term demography of three species of Pinguicula. J. Ecol. 81: 635–645. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2261662CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [69] Tolvanen A., Schroderus J. & Henry G.H.R. 2001. Demography of three dominant sedges under contrasting grazing regimes in the High Arctic. J. Veg. Sci. 12: 659–670. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3236906CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [70] Valverde T. & Silvertown J. 1998. Variation in the demography of a woodland understorey herb (Primula vulgaris) along the forest regeneration cycle: projection matrix analysis. J. Ecol. 86: 545–562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.1998.00280.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [71] Vitousek P.M., Mooney H.A., Lubchenko J. & Melillo J.M. 1997. Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277: 494–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.494CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2009-01-30

Published in Print: 2009-02-01


Citation Information: Biologia, Volume 64, Issue 1, Pages 69–80, ISSN (Online) 1336-9563, ISSN (Print) 0006-3088, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-009-0002-1.

Export Citation

© 2009 Slovak Academy of Sciences. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Jessica Gurevitch, Gordon A. Fox, Norma L. Fowler, and Catherine H. Graham
The Quarterly Review of Biology, 2016, Volume 91, Number 4, Page 459
[2]
Vigdis Vandvik, Kari Klanderud, Eric Meineri, Inger E. Måren, and Joachim Töpper
Oikos, 2016, Volume 125, Number 2, Page 218
[3]
Jesús Villellas, William F. Morris, and María B. García
Ecology, 2013, Volume 94, Number 6, Page 1378
[4]
Tomáš Dostálek and Zuzana Münzbergová
Folia Geobotanica, 2013, Volume 48, Number 1, Page 75
[6]
Eelke Jongejans, Linda D. Jorritsma-Wienk, Ute Becker, Petr Dostál, Mikael Mildén, and Hans de Kroon
Journal of Ecology, 2010, Volume 98, Number 2, Page 279

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in