Research Article
Print
Research Article
Patterns of floral resources and pollination interactions along dry grassland succession
expand article infoEdy Fantinato, Leonardo Lorenzato, Gabriella Buffa
‡ Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy
Open Access

Abstract

Succession following the abandonment of traditional management practices can pose severe consequences for the conservation of semi-natural dry grassland communities. In the present study, we investigated whether the quantity of floral resources changes during succession of semi-natural dry grasslands and how this is related to pollinator richness and the number of pollination interactions at the community level. We addressed this issue by quantifying floral resources (i.e., number of flowers, nectar volume and number of pollen grains) and monitoring pollination interactions in dry grassland communities at different stages of succession, defined as the total cover of plant species of forest edges. The relationship between the quantity of floral resources and cover of plant species of forest edges was significantly hump-shaped, i.e., regardless of the type of floral resource, all peaked at intermediate values of cover of plant species of forest edges. The richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom also showed a hump-shaped relationship with the cover of plant species of forest edges, while the richness of pollinator species and the number of pollination contacts were indirectly related to the cover of plant species of forest edges, as they were significantly associated with the number of flowers and the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom. Results suggest that succession of dry grasslands after abandonment may affect a crucial function in terrestrial ecosystems, namely animal-mediated pollination. Nevertheless, the conditions of early succession, which could be achieved by the presence of scattered shrubs, could ultimately be favourable for the pollination function in dry grasslands.

Keywords

Abandonment, flowers, nectar, pollen, pollinators

Introduction

Human-induced environmental transformations are leading to biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation (IPBES 2019).

In rural areas, two contrasting processes are affecting local biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, namely agricultural intensification and land abandonment, especially in remote, less productive areas (Cramer et al. 2008; Plieninger et al. 2014).

While the impacts of intensification have been extensively studied (see e.g., Tscharntke et al. 2005; Rakosy et al. 2022), comparatively little is known about land abandonment. The exclusion of human intervention can trigger 'passive rewilding' (Navarro and Pereira 2015), which facilitates the restoration of natural ecosystems and opens new opportunities for conservation. Rewilded areas can provide habitat for species (Boitani and Linnell 2015); forest regrowth can enhance carbon sequestration (Pugh et al. 2019), promote soil recovery (Pointereau et al. 2008) and help regulate the hydrological cycle (Stoate et al. 2009). However, while potentially beneficial, these processes often come at the expense of semi-natural open habitats, particularly pastures and grasslands, which are often of great conservation concern (Carboni et al. 2015).

This is especially true for semi-natural grasslands, which are secondary formations, created and maintained through centuries of traditional and low-intensity human practices (Valkó et al. 2018) and have become part of the traditional agricultural landscape. Among the semi-natural grassland types, dry grasslands are unique species-rich assemblages (e.g., Wilson et al. 2012) that harbour a high diversity of plant species and provide habitat for higher trophic level species, especially arthropods (Zulka et al. 2014; Labadessa et al. 2015). Not only do they have high conservation value, but they are also recognised for providing regulating, provisioning, and cultural ecosystem services (Tscharntke et al. 2005; Bengtsson et al. 2019).

Like all other semi-natural habitats, semi-natural dry grasslands are particularly vulnerable to abandonment (Schrautzer et al. 2009). After abandonment or under use, semi-natural grasslands undergo natural vegetation dynamics. Although successional patterns can be stochastic (Chesson 2012) and vary from site to site, they generally result in species turnover and/or changes in the three-dimensional architecture of the plant community (Pickett et al. 2003). In temperate Europe, the pattern of species turnover is associated with the loss of specialised grassland species (Gustavsson et al. 2007), the rapid establishment and spread of competitive graminoids (Carboni et al. 2015), and the increase of herbaceous and shrub species typical of forest edges, and tree seedlings (Schrautzer et al. 2009).

Several studies have investigated changes in plant species composition and structure during the succession process (e.g., Bonanomi and Allegrezza 2004; Habel et al. 2013), as well as the relationships between plant community composition and structure and higher trophic level species (e.g., Elliott et al. 2023), both from taxonomic (e.g., species richness) and functional perspectives (e.g., life history traits or ecological strategies; e.g., Kelemen et al. 2017). Overall, research has shown that abandoned grasslands have lower diversity than extensively managed semi-natural grasslands (Pykälä et al. 2005; Klimek et al. 2007). Conversely, species richness of higher trophic levels has been reported to increase, at least in the early stages of succession (Öckinger et al. 2006), as higher and structurally heterogeneous plant communities facilitate the occurrence of more diverse arthropod communities (Kruess and Tscharntke 2002), which respond strongly to habitat changes (Öckinger et al. 2006; Colom et al. 2021).

Although the relationship between grassland succession and plant and animal species richness and composition has been widely studied (e.g., Habel et al. 2013; Elliott et al 2023), little is known about how grassland succession affects interactions between species belonging to different trophic levels. Among the multiple biotic interactions, animal-mediated pollination has received considerable attention in semi-natural dry grasslands, as they provide resources (i.e., nectar and pollen), breeding, nesting and overwintering habitats for pollinators and effectively promote their conservation (Fantinato et al. 2021). Furthermore, plant-pollinator interactions have been shown to contribute to the assemblage and maintenance of grassland communities (Benadi and Pauw 2018; Fantinato et al. 2018, 2019a). Therefore, plant species turnover and changes in vegetation structure following grassland abandonment are likely to have noticeable effects on species dynamics, pollination interactions and pollination service (Fantinato et al. 2019b). Plant species turnover may lead to changes in floral resources availability on grasslands, e.g., by reducing the total number of entomophilous species by favouring competitive wind-pollinated grasses. Changes in plant species composition could thus have a major impact on pollination, as changes in the type or quantity of floral rewards pose a major threat to pollinators (Goulnik et al. 2021). Understanding the effects of grassland abandonment on floral resources and pollination interactions can therefore help inform management plans for semi-natural grasslands that ensure the maintenance of a diverse plant and pollinator community and the services they provide.

In light of the above, this research aimed to answer the following questions: (i) How does the quantity of different types of floral resources (i.e., number of flowers, nectar volume, and number of pollen grains) change during succession of semi-natural dry grasslands? (ii) How does the species richness of plants and pollinators and their interactions change during the succession of semi-natural dry grasslands?

Materials and methods

Study area

Sampling took place in semi-natural dry grasslands of the Euganean Hills in northeastern Italy (45.265706 N, 11.698977 E; Fig. 1). The area is characterized by a warm, rainy climate with an average annual temperature of 13.0 °C, with a mean maximum temperature of 23.8 °C in July and a mean minimum temperature of 3.2 °C in January; the mean annual precipitation is 720 mm, with peaks in April and September (Fantinato et al. 2021). The long history of human influence on the area originated a complex rural landscape where arable fields, orchards, olive groves, vineyards, and semi-natural grasslands are intermingled with natural habitats, such as forests and rocky outcrops (Fantinato et al. 2019a).

Figure 1. 

Map of the study area and picture of one of the studied grasslands.

The study focused on meso-xerophilous semi-natural grasslands that establish on shallow calcareous soils. Based on Terzi (2015), Euganean meso-xerophilous grasslands can be included in the Festuco-Brometea Br.-Bl. And Tx. Ex Klika and Hadač 1944 class and the SE-European-Illyrian order Scorzoneretalia villosae Kovačević 1959 (=Scorzonero-Chrysopogonetalia), and to the alliance Saturejion subspicatae Tomić-Stanković 1970 (Fantinato et al. 2016).

When subjected to proper management, the community is dominated by few, highly covering, anemophilous species (e.g., Bromopsis erecta, Bothriochloa ischaemum, Carex halleriana, Koeleria pyramidata) and several entomophilous species, including Bupleurum baldense, Convolvulus cantabrica, Fumana procumbens, Globularia bisnagarica, Helianthemum nummularium subsp. obscurum, and Scabiosa triandra. The proximity of roads and cultivated fields causes the entry of ruderal opportunistic species such as Avena barbata, Euphorbia falcata, Melampyrum barbatum subsp. carstiense, Sonchus oleraceus and Trifolium angustifolium.

Field sampling and data collection

The study was conducted on four grasslands with an average area of 6.89 ± 1.11 ha (M ± SD) and a minimum distance between grasslands of 1.2 km. While in the past, study grasslands were regularly (i.e., yearly) exploited for haymaking or cattle grazing, nowadays they are irregularly mown every three years (Slaviero et al. 2016). The inconsistency of management practices over time makes these grasslands crucial example of the first dynamic stages after abandonment, characterised by the spread of competitive graminoids (e.g., Brachypodium rupestre), and the increase in both herbaceous and shrub species typical of forest edges (e.g., Cervaria rivini, Teucrium chamaedrys, Rosa canina, Spartium junceum).

We placed 27 permanent plots of 2 m x 2 m in the four grasslands, in a number proportional to each grassland surface, using a stratified random sampling design (Random points inside polygons; Quantum Gis Development Team 2020). None of the 27 plots were closer than 25 m. Each plot was monitored every 15 days for a total of 12 surveys (from 1st April to 30th September of 2016). In each survey, we recorded the presence of entomophilous plants and the number of flowers per plant species. For plant species with flowers occurring together in a floral unit (e.g., Thymus pulegioides), we calculated the total number of flowers by multiplying the number of floral units by the average number of flowers per floral unit, based on counts of five specimens of each species. Flower heads of Asteraceae, Dipsacaceae and Plantaginaceae were treated as single flowers. We also recorded pollination interactions between plant and animal species during each survey. Animals were considered pollinators if they landed on the flowers, had direct contact with the reproductive organs of the flower and visited the flower for more than 1 second, so they were considered potential pollinators. Pollination interactions were recorded for 14 min in two 7-min sets per survey (between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., and between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m.) to ensure observation of animals with different daily activity times (Lázaro et al. 2016). Overall, pollination interactions were observed for 3,276 min and 42 plant species and 76 species or morphospecies of pollinators were recorded.

At each survey, we also quantified for each plot the total volume of nectar (µl) and the number of pollen grains. The total volume of nectar and the number of pollen grains were determined by multiplying the number of flowers by the mean value of the nectar volume and the mean number of pollen grains for each species, respectively. The mean value of nectar and pollen grains was determined by averaging the quantity of nectar and pollen from 5-10 randomly selected flowers growing within a radius of 10 m from each plot (for details on floral resource quantification, see Fantinato et al. 2021).

During the peak of the community's growing season (from mid-May to mid-June), all vascular plant species were recorded, and their percentage cover was visually estimated. Plant nomenclature was standardised following Bartolucci et al. (2018). In addition, for each plant species we retrieved ecological information on its habitat preferences (i.e., ruderal, grassland and forest edge species; Tab. I in Appendix) based on a) the definition in the BiolFlor database as “occurrence" within the "Grassland utilisation indicator values” (Klotz et al. 2002), b) Italian Vegetation Prodrome (Biondi et al. 2014; http://www.prodromo-vegetazione-italia.org/) and c) specific literature (Tasinazzo 2014).

Data analysis

We assumed the cover of plant species typical of forest edges as a proxy of the degree of succession. In this way, different successional stages were detectable based on the total cover of species typical of forest edges, whether herbaceous or woody. As a first step, we determined the degree of succession towards forest edges of each plot, by summing the cover of all plant species of forest edges and scaled the results to 100%. To explore the relationship between the cover of plant species of forest edges and the number of flowers, the volume of nectar, the number of pollen grains and the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom we used generalised linear mixed models (GLMMs, R version 3.4.3; package lme4). Specifically, each model included the cover of plant species of forest edges as independent variable, the number of flowers, the volume of nectar, the number of pollen grains and the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom as dependent variables and the plot identity as random factor. Moreover, we included the quadratic term of the cover of plant species of forest edges in the GLMMs to account for possible nonlinear relationships (without removing the linear term). We performed GLMMs using (a) Gamma error distribution and log link functions for the number of flowers, the volume of nectar and the number of pollen grains and (b) Poisson error distribution and log link function for the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom (after checking data overdispersion; dispersiontest function; package AER; Kleiber and Zeileis 2008). The significance of models was based on likelihood ratio tests (LRT; drop1 function; package stats) and the conditional and marginal coefficients of determination (R2c and R2m) for the GLMM models were calculated (r.squared function; package MuMIn; Barton 2015). R2c shows the model variance explained by both fixed and random factors, while R2m represents the variance explained by fixed factors alone.

Since the richness of pollinator species per plot showed an excess of zero counts, using a GLMM with Poisson marginal distribution would lead to a bias in the conclusions. Therefore, we opted for a zero-inflated model (Zuur et al. 2009; Buffa et al. 2021). Zero inflated Poisson model is the result of two distinct stochastic models. In the first model, a binomial family GLM is used to predict the probability of a non-zero count π (i.e., structural zeros); in the second model, a Poisson distribution is used to predict the richness of pollinator species recorded in a plot, with a probability 1-π and with mean λ. In the second model there is a non-zero probability to generate zeros. The resulting expected number of pollinator species is given by (1·π)λ. Higher values of π foster the absence of pollinator species, instead larger values of λ foster the richness of pollinator species. In our modelling framework, parameters π and λ are estimated jointly. We specified a zero-inflated model for the richness of pollinator species by including the (i) cover of plant species of forest edges, (ii) the number of flowers, (iii) the volume of nectar, (iv) the number of pollen grains and (v) the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom ad covariates. All covariates were ln-transformed before analysis. The same procedure was used to determine which covariates influence the number of pollination contacts.

In both the GLMMs and zero-inflated models, the values of the response variables quantified for each survey were used as replicates.

Results

The sampled plots had different cover of plant species of forest edges, varying from 0.33% to 90.21% (mean ± SD; 29.26% ± 24.21%), indicating that the dry grassland communities recorded in the sampled plots were at different stages of succession. Plant species of forest edges that firstly occurred in the plots were Brachypodium rupestre, Asparagus acutifolius, Teucrium chamaedrys, Geranium sanguineum and Cervaria rivini. As soon as succession progressed (namely the cover of plant species of forest edges increased), seedlings of shrubs and trees also occurred, such as Cornus sanguinea, Rosa canina, Spartium junceum, Fraxinus ornus, and Quercus pubescens.

The quantity of floral resources varied greatly between the sampled plots. The number of flowers varied from 0.00 to 18,512.60 flowers per plot (mean ± SD; 465.38 ± 1570.45), the volume of nectar varied from 0.00 µl to 2,885.28 µl (mean ± SD; 75.44 µl ± 283.52 µl), while the number of pollen grains varied from 0.00 to 912,733,383.23 (mean ± SD; 2,148,660.32 ± 8,371,645.95).

The relationship between the number of flowers, the volume of nectar and the number of pollen grains with the cover of plant species of forest edges were all significantly hump-shaped, suggesting that regardless of the type of floral resource, all peaked at intermediate values of cover of plant species of forest edges (Table 1; Fig. 2).

Overall, 42 animal-pollinated plant species and 76 pollinator species were recorded in sampled plots. The richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom per plot varied from 0.00 to 7.00 (mean ± SD; 1.51 ± 1.63); most frequent animal-pollinated plants in bloom were Thymus pulegioides (59% of sampled plots), Helianthemum nummularium subsp. obscurum (56%), Globularia bisnagarica (52%) and Stachys recta (48%). The richness of pollinator species varied from 0.00 to 8.00 (mean ± SD; 1.00 ± 1.50); the most frequent pollinator species were Apis mellifera (63% of sampled plots), Bombus hortorum (56%), Epicometis hirta (48%), Episyrphus balteatus (41%) and Eristalis tenax (41%). The number of pollination contacts varied from 0.00 to 16.00 (mean ± SD; 1.73 ± 3.04). The most visited plant species per plot were Globularia bisnagarica (mean ± SD; 7.70 ± 8.36), Potentilla pusilla (mean ± SD; 4.66 ± 2.88), Pilosella officinarum (mean ± SD; 2.85 ± 3.07) and Geranium sanguineum (mean ± SD; 2.15 ± 2.65).

The relationship between the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom with the cover of plant species of forest edges was significantly hump-shaped (Table 1; Fig. 2), suggesting that the peak of richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom was at low-intermediate values of cover of plant species of forest edges. Finally, the richness of pollinator species and the number of pollination contacts were significantly related to the same covariates, i.e. the probability of absence of pollinator species and of pollination contacts was negatively associated with the number of flowers (ln-transformed; Table 2; Fig. 3), with the probability of absence decreasing to zero once at least ten flowers were present, while the expected richness of pollinator species and the expected number of pollination contacts were positively related to the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom (ln-transformed; Table 2; Fig. 3). In other words, the probability of pollinator presence and pollination contacts depended on the number of flowers in the plot, while the expected richness of pollinators and the expected number of pollination contacts depended on the richness of animal-pollinated plants.

Table 1.

Statistics of the relationships between the number of flowers, the volume of nectar, the number of pollen grains and the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom and the cover of plant species of forest edges.

Dependent variable Independent variable t-value p χ2 R2c R2m
Number of flowers Cover of plant species of forest edges^2 -2.154 0.048 3.884 0.033 0.432
Volume of nectar Cover of plant species of forest edges^2 -4.697 <0.001 15.191 0.077 0.581
Number of pollen grains Cover of plant species of forest edges^2 -2.159 0.038 4.288 0.030 0.597
Richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom Cover of plant species of forest edges^2 -2.209 0.044 4.047 0.059 0.321
Figure 2. 

Relationship between the number of flowers, the volume of nectar (µl), the number of pollen grains and the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom and the cover of plant species of forest edges. The line represents the estimate of the Generalised Linear Mixed Model (GLMM). Fuzzy grey points are original data points (color intensity increases from light grey to black when points overlap), while the grey band represents 95% confidence interval around the regression line.

Table 2.

Results of the zero-inflated Poisson model. Here π is the probability of not observing any individual pollinator or pollination contact in a plot, while λ is the expected richness of pollinators or the expected number of pollination contacts. Positive values of βπ indicate positive associations between covariates and the absence of pollinators or of pollination contact, while positive values of βλ indicate positive associations between covariates and the expected richness of pollinators or the expected number of pollination contacts. Only coefficients of significant covariates were included.

Dependent variable Covariate variable Estimate βπ Standard Error βπ P-value βπ Estimate βλ Standard Error βλ P-value βλ
Richness of pollinator species Number of flowers (ln-transformed) -6.818 1.629 <0.001 . . .
Richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom (ln-transformed) . . . 0.814 0.149 <0.001
Number of pollination contacts Number of flowers (ln-transformed) -1.199 0.189 <0.001 . . .
Richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom (ln-transformed) . . . 0.643 0.131 <0.001

Discussion

The abandonment of traditional management practices has been shown to lead to significant changes in the environmental characteristics and structural attributes of dry grassland communities (Valkó et al. 2018).

In the present study, we have shown that succession of dry grasslands after abandonment affects structural properties of plant communities and has critical implication for a crucial function in terrestrial ecosystems, namely animal-mediated pollination, even in correspondence of the first dynamic stages.

Patterns of animal-mediated pollination interactions at community level are related to the type and quantity of floral resources (Fantinato et al. 2021). Our results have shown that the quantity of floral resources provided at the community level changed during dry grassland succession. In particular, the quantity of floral resources peaked at low-intermediate values of percentage cover of plant species of forest edges, regardless of the type of floral resource. Floral traits such as the number of flowers, the volume of nectar and the number of pollen grains produced have been shown to be genetically regulated (e.g., Tsuchimatsu et al. 2020), but they also respond to local environmental conditions. Roth et al. (2023), for example, have shown that plants produce fewer flowers per plant under drought conditions. Furthermore, the flowers tend to become smaller (Kuppler and Kotowska 2021), bloom for a shorter time (Turner 1993) and produce less nectar (Phillips et al. 2018). In addition to soil moisture, soil nutrients have also been shown to influence floral traits and are positively correlated with flower size, nectar concentration and volume, and pollen grain number (Vaudo et al. 2022). In the early stages of grassland abandonment, the accumulation of litter leads to increased soil moisture and nutrient availability (e.g., Hassan et al. 2021), which can promote flower production as well as nectar volume and pollen grain number (e.g., Plos et al. 2023; Roth et al. 2023). However, as succession progresses, the spread of competing graminoids such as Brachypodium rupestre (Bonanomi and Allegrezza 2004) may ultimately lead to the exclusion of animal-pollinated plant species from the community, reducing the quantity of floral resources.

Dry grasslands are biodiversity hotspots harbouring a large diversity of animal-pollinated species (Fantinato et al. 2021). In our study, we have shown that succession following the abandonment of traditional management practices affects the richness of animal-pollinated species in bloom. Consistently with previous studies that found a hump-shaped relationship between vascular plant species richness and grassland succession (Kesting et al. 2015), we showed that the richness of animal-pollinated plants peaked at low-intermediate levels of cover of plant species of forest edges. In the early stages of grassland succession, the presence of plant species of forest edges in the community may initially increase overall plant richness. However, once dense stands of clonally growing graminoids dominate the community, the richness of plant species rapidly decreases. In addition, the accumulation of organic matter and increasing soil moisture promoted by grassland abandonment can alter soil fertility and nutrient cycling over time, further affecting the suitability of the habitat for grassland species (Deng et al. 2016). As the succession process progresses, increasing woody plant density and abundance reduces the overall grassland species diversity (Schrautzer et al. 2009).

Interestingly, the richness of pollinator species and the number of pollination contacts were not directly related to the percentage cover of plant species of forest edges, but rather indirectly, as they were significantly related to the number of flowers and the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom. Our results showed that the probability of absence of pollinators and of pollination contacts decreased to zero once at least ten flowers were present. In other words, the probability of pollinator presence and pollination contact was significantly related to the presence of flowers. Although the presence of floral resources such as nectar and pollen may ultimately lead pollinators to develop floral fidelity and therefore continue to visit flowers of the same species because they have learned that floral resources are present (Brosi 2016), it is attractive features of flowers (e.g., flower size, shape, colour, floral scent, etc.) that initially enable pollinators to locate floral resources (van der Kooi et al. 2023). This could explain why neither the volume of nectar nor the number of pollen grains influenced the probability of absence (or, conversely, presence) of pollinators and of pollination contacts.

The richness of plant species then significantly influenced the richness of pollinator species and the number of pollination contacts. These results can be explained by the fact that taxonomic richness usually positively correlates with functional richness (e.g., Dovrat et al. 2021), i.e., the richer the community of animal-pollinated plants, the higher the probability of plant species that differ in their floral traits and in the type and quantity of floral resources. This in turn would attract pollinators with different feeding preferences and flower handling abilities, ultimately increasing the richness of pollinator species and the chance of pollination contacts.

Conclusions

The abandonment of traditional management practices and the subsequent succession of dry grasslands towards forest edges has been shown to lead to biodiversity conservation issues and ecosystem changes, such as changes in soil properties and grassland productivity. In the present study, we have shown that the succession of dry grasslands also affects animal-mediated pollination, even in correspondence of early stages. Although animal-pollinated shrubs (e.g., Cornus sanguinea, Rosa canina, Spartium junceum) and trees (e.g., Fraxinus ornus) can provide floral resources, they only flower for a limited period of the year (usually in early spring) and rarely for more than a month. Beside showing restricted blooming periods, in some cases, shrubs and trees show high degrees of pollinator specialisation, namely, their floral morphology can be effectively handled only by a narrow group of pollinator species. This is the case, for example, of S. junceum, which shows mass blooming in late spring. However, the high degree of pollination specialisation of S. junceum, resulting from the complexity of its floral morphology and the thickness of its flowers, which allow only a few pollinators to forage, means that it occupies a peripheral position in the network of pollination interactions (i.e., it cannot sustain a broad community of pollinators on its own). Ultimately, this means that the contribution of dry grasslands to pollinator conservation cannot be replaced by shrub and forest communities.

Our results could provide useful insights for planning management practices that optimise the conservation of plants and pollinators in dry grasslands as well as pollination interactions.

The hump-shaped relationships that both the richness of animal-pollinated plants and the quantity of floral resources evidenced with the cover of plant species of forest edges suggest that the first dynamic stages ensure both an increase in plant species richness and in the quantity of floral resources supplied. Such a situation cannot be achieved through complete abandonment or even irregular management, that over time predictably lead to passive rewilding and grassland loss. Rather, improving grassland heterogeneity, leaving spatially scattered small areas where the frequency of mowing is temporarily slowed down to create conditions of early succession, can increase the number of niches for plant and animal species and improve the pollination function in dry grasslands.

This approach allows to create and maintain conditions of early succession, that contribute to increase the number of niches for plant and animal species and improve the pollination function in dry grasslands.

Figure 3. 

Association between the probability of absence of pollinator species and the number of flowers (ln-transformed), the probability of absence of pollination contacts and the number of flowers (ln-transformed), the richness of pollinator species and the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom (ln-transformed) and the number of pollination contacts and the richness of animal-pollinated plants in bloom (ln-transformed). For each covariate, the probability of absence was estimated as function of the selected covariate, setting the other covariates equal to their mean values.

Bibliography

  • Bartolucci F, Peruzzi L, Galasso G, Albano A, Alessandrini A, Ardenghi NMG et al. (2018) An updated checklist of the vascular flora native to Italy. Plant Biosystems 152: 179–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2017.1419996
  • Barton K (2015) . MuMIn: Multi- model inference. R package version 1.43.17.
  • Benadi G, Pauw A (2018) Frequency dependence of pollinator visitation rates suggests that pollination niches can allow plant species coexistence. Journal of Ecology 106: 1892–1901. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13025
  • Bengtsson J, Bullock JM, Egoh B, Everson C, Everson T, O’Connor T, O’Farrell PJ, Smith HG, Lindborg R (2019) Grasslands-more important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere 10. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2582
  • Bonanomi G, Allegrezza M (2004) Effetti della colonizzazione di Brachypodium rupestre (Host) Roemer et Schultes sulla diversità fitocenotica in un settore dell’Appennino umbro-marchigiano. Fitosociologia 41: 51–69.
  • Buffa G, Gaetan C, Piccoli S, Vecchio S Del, Fantinato E (2021) Using fine-scale field data modelling for planning the management of invasions of Oenothera stucchii in coastal dune systems. Ecological Indicators 125: 107564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107564
  • Carboni M, Dengler J, Mantilla-Contreras J, Venn S, Török P (2015) Conservation Value, Management and Restoration of Europe’S Semi-Natural Open Landscapes. Hacquetia 14: 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1515/hacq-2015-0017
  • Colom P, Traveset A, Stefanescu C (2021) Long-term effects of abandonment and restoration of Mediterranean meadows on butterfly-plant interactions. Journal of Insect Conservation 25: 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-021-00307-w
  • Deng L, Wang K, Li J, Zhao G, Shangguan Z (2016) Effect of soil moisture and atmospheric humidity on both plant productivity and diversity of native grasslands across the Loess Plateau, China. Ecological Engineering 94: 525–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.06.048
  • Dovrat G, Meron E, Shachak M, Moshe Y, Osem Y (2021) The relationship between species diversity and functional diversity along aridity gradients in semi-arid rangeland. Journal of Arid Environments 195: 104632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2021.104632
  • Elliott T, Thompson A, Klein AM, Albert C, Eisenhauer N, Jansen F, Schneider A, Sommer M, Straka T, Settele J, Sporbert M, Tanneberger F, Mupepele AC (2023) Abandoning grassland management negatively influences plant but not bird or insect biodiversity in Europe. Conservation Science and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13008
  • Fantinato E, Del Vecchio S, Buffa G (2019a) The co-occurrence of different grassland communities increases the stability of pollination networks. Flora: Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 255: 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2019.03.017
  • Fantinato E, Del Vecchio S, Gaetan C, Buffa G (2019b) The resilience of pollination interactions: Importance of temporal phases. Journal of Plant Ecology 12: 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rty005
  • Fantinato E, Del Vecchio S, Giovanetti M, Acosta ATR, Buffa G (2018) New insights into plants coexistence in species-rich communities: the pollination interaction perspective. Journal of Vegetation Science: 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12592
  • Fantinato E, Giovanetti M, Del Vecchio S, Buffa G (2016) Altitudinal patterns of floral morphologies in dry calcareous grasslands. Plant Sociology 53: 83–90. https://doi.org/10.7338/pls2016531/05
  • Fantinato E, Sonkoly J, Török P, Buffa G (2021) Patterns of pollination interactions at the community level are related to the type and quantity of floral resources. Functional Ecology 35: 2461–2471. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13915
  • Goulnik J, Plantureux S, Dajoz I, Michelot-Antalik A (2021) Using matching traits to study the impacts of land-use intensification on plant–pollinator interactions in european grasslands: A review. Insects 12: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12080680
  • Gustavsson E, Lennartsson T, Emanuelsson M (2007) Land use more than 200 years ago explains current grassland plant diversity in a Swedish agricultural landscape. Biological Conservation 138: 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.04.004
  • Habel JC, Dengler J, Janišová M, Török P, Wellstein C, Wiezik M (2013) European grassland ecosystems: Threatened hotspots of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 22: 2131–2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0537-x
  • Hassan N, Sher K, Rab A, Abdullah I, Zeb U, Naeem I, Shuaib M, Khan H, Khan W, Khan A (2021) Effects and mechanism of plant litter on grassland ecosystem: A review. Acta Ecologica Sinica 41: 341–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHNAES.2021.02.006
  • IPBES (2019) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat.
  • Kelemen A, Tóthmérész B, Valkó O, Miglécz T, Deák B, Török P (2017) New aspects of grassland recovery in old-fields revealed by trait-based analyses of perennial-crop-mediated succession. Ecology and Evolution 7: 2432–2440. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2869
  • Kesting S, Petersen U, Isselstein J (2015) Humped-back shaped response of plant species richness to increasing shrub encroachment in calcareous grasslands. Community Ecology 16: 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2015.16.2.6
  • Klimek S, Richter gen. Kemmermann A, Hofmann M, Isselstein J (2007) Plant species richness and composition in managed grasslands: The relative importance of field management and environmental factors. Biological Conservation 134: 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.09.007
  • Klotz S, Kühn I, Durka W, Briemle G (2002) BIOLFLOR: Eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, 334 pp.
  • Kuppler J, Kotowska MM (2021) A meta-analysis of responses in floral traits and flower–visitor interactions to water deficit. Global Change Biology 27: 3095–3108. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15621
  • Lázaro A, Tscheulin T, Devalez J, Nakas G, Stefanaki A, Hanlidou E, Petanidou T (2016) Moderation is best: effects of grazing intensity on plant-flower visitor networks in Mediterranean communities. Ecological Applications 26: 796–807. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0202
  • Navarro LM, Pereira HM (2015) Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. In: Pereira HM, Navarro LM (Eds) Rewilding European Landscapes. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12039-3
  • Öckinger E, Eriksson AK, Smith HG (2006) Effects of grassland abandonment, restoration and management on butterflies and vascular plants. Biological Conservation 133: 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.06.009
  • Phillips BB, Shaw RF, Holland MJ, Fry EL, Bardgett RD, Bullock JM, Osborne JL (2018) Drought reduces floral resources for pollinators. Global Change Biology 24: 3226–3235. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14130
  • Plieninger T, Hui C, Gaertner M, Huntsinger L (2014) The impact of land abandonment on species richness and abundance in the Mediterranean Basin: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098355
  • Plos C, Stelbrink N, Römermann C, Knight TM, Hensen I (2023) Abiotic conditions affect nectar properties and flower visitation in four herbaceous plant species. Flora: Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2023.152279
  • Pointereau P, Coulon F, Girard P, Lambotte M, Stuczynski T, Sánchez Ortega V, Del Rio A (2008) Analysis of the Driving Forces behind Farmland Abandonment and the Extent and Location of Agricultural Areas that are Actually Abandoned or are in Risk to be Abandoned. European Commission, Luxemburg. Available from: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC46185
  • Pugh TAM, Lindeskog M, Smith B, Poulter B, Arneth A, Haverd V, Calle L (2019) Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116: 4382–4387. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810512116
  • Pykälä J, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Kontula T (2005) Plant species richness and persistence of rare plants in abandoned semi-natural grasslands in northern Europe. Basic and Applied Ecology 6: 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2004.10.002
  • Quantum GIS Development Team. (2000) . QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. Retrieved from http://qgis.osgeo.org
  • Rakosy D, Motivans E, Ştefan V, Nowak A, Świerszcz S, Feldmann R et al. (2022) Intensive grazing alters the diversity, composition and structure of plant-pollinator interaction networks in Central European grasslands. PLoS ONE 17: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263576
  • Roth N, Kimberley A, Guasconi D, Hugelius G, Cousins SAO (2023) Floral resources in Swedish grasslands remain relatively stable under an experimental drought and are enhanced by soil amendments if regularly mown. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 4: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12231
  • Schrautzer J, Jansen D, Breuer M, Nelle O (2009) Succession and management of calcareous dry grasslands in the Northern Franconian Jura, Germany. Tuexenia: 339–351.
  • Slaviero A, Del Vecchio S, Pierce S, Fantinato E, Buffa G (2016) Plant community attributes affect dry grassland orchid establishment. Plant Ecology 217: 1533–1543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-016-0666-x
  • Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, de Snoo GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C (2009) Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe - A review. Journal of Environmental Management 91: 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005
  • Tasinazzo S (2014) La vegetazione dei Colli Berici. Provincia di Vicenza.
  • Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity - Ecosystem service management. Ecology Letter s 8: 857–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x
  • Tsuchimatsu T, Kakui H, Yamazaki M, Marona C, Tsutsui H, Hedhly A et al. (2020) Adaptive reduction of male gamete number in the selfing plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature Communications 11: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16679-7
  • Turner LB (1993) The effect of water stress on floral characters, pollination and seed set in white clover (Trifolium repens L.). Journal of Experimental Botany 44: 1155–1160. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/44.7.1155
  • Valkó O, Venn S, Zmihorski M, Biurrun I, Labadessa R, Loos J (2018) The challenge of abandonment for the sustainable management of Palaearctic natural and semi-natural grasslands. Hacquetia 17: 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/hacq-2017-0018
  • Vaudo AD, Erickson E, Patch HM, Grozinger CM, Mu J (2022) Impacts of soil nutrition on floral traits, pollinator attraction, and fitness in cucumbers (Cucumis sativus L.). Scientific Reports 12: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26164-4
  • Zulka KP, Abensperg-Traun M, Milasowszky N, Bieringer G, Gereben-Krenn BA, Holzinger W et al. (2014) Species richness in dry grassland patches of eastern Austria: A multi-taxon study on the role of local, landscape and habitat quality variables. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 182: 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.11.016

Appendix: List of plant species recorded on sampled plots

Table AI.

List of plant species recorded on sampled plots. For each species, the habitat preferences, the number of plot in which they were recorded and the mean percentage cover (± standard deviation) are provided. Species nomenclature follows Bartolucci et al. (2018).

HABITAT PREFERENCES PLOT PRESENCE MEAN COVER (%) ± SD
Bromopsis erecta Grassland 27 50.56 ± 24.63
Poterium sanguisorba Grassland 25 1.42 ± 1.30
Artemisia alba Grassland 22 14.55 ± 13.91
Dactylis glomerata Grassland 20 4.48 ± 5.35
Thymus pulegioides Grassland 16 1.94 ± 1.38
Helianthemum nummularium subsp. obscurum Grassland 15 3.50 ± 4.02
Globularia bisnagarica Grassland 14 2.07 ± 1.48
Silene vulgaris subsp. tenoreana Grassland 14 0.75 ± 0.43
Stachys recta Grassland 13 3.00 ± 2.84
Koeleria pyramidata Grassland 11 2.91 ± 3.74
Galium verum Grassland 11 3.82 ± 6.10
Eryngium amethystinum Grassland 10 2.35 ± 1.70
Euphorbia cyparissias Grassland 10 1.10 ± 0.91
Linum tenuifolium Grassland 10 1.35 ± 1.42
Scabiosa triandra Grassland 10 1.25 ± 1.40
Bupleurum baldense Grassland 9 3.28 ± 3.08
Medicago falcata Grassland 8 2.38 ± 1.98
Bothriochloa ischaemum Grassland 7 24.36 ± 21.20
Plantago lanceolata Grassland 7 0.57 ± 0.19
Convolvulus cantabrica Grassland 7 6.86 ± 4.10
Fumana procumbens Grassland 7 5.64 ± 5.45
Lotus corniculatus Grassland 7 0.57 ± 0.19
Odontites luteus Grassland 7 0.71 ± 0.57
Ononis reclinata Grassland 7 3.00 ± 2.63
Salvia pratensis Grassland 7 3.00 ± 2.06
Cleistogenes serotina Grassland 6 6.50 ± 6.66
Lotus dorycnium subsp. herbaceus Grassland 6 3.67 ± 3.44
Thliphthisa purpurea Grassland 5 2.20 ± 1.89
Medicago minima Grassland 5 0.70 ± 0.27
Potentilla pusilla Grassland 5 1.40 ± 1.08
Carex halleriana Grassland 4 2.25 ± 0.50
Anacamptis pyramidalis Grassland 4 0.88 ± 0.25
Galatella linosyris Grassland 4 1.00 ± 0.00
Hippocrepis comosa Grassland 4 1.75 ± 2.18
Onobrychis arenaria Grassland 4 8.25 ± 5.38
Ononis natrix Grassland 4 9.50 ± 7.59
Thymus oenipontanus Grassland 4 1.13 ± 0.63
Trifolium campestre Grassland 4 4.75 ± 4.50
Carex flacca Grassland 3 3.67 ± 2.31
Allium sphaerocephalon Grassland 3 0.50 ± 0.00
Colchicum autumnale Grassland 3 0.67 ± 0.29
Galium lucidum Grassland 3 2.67 ± 2.08
Pilosella officinarum Grassland 3 4.00 ± 1.73
Catapodium rigidum Grassland 2 1.25 ± 1.06
Centaurea scabiosa Grassland 2 1.75 ± 1.77
Crupina vulgaris Grassland 2 0.50 ± 0.00
Dianthus sylvestris Grassland 2 0.50 ± 0.00
Leontodon hispidus Grassland 2 0.75 ± 0.35
Filago pyramidata Grassland 1 1.00
Achillea roseoalba Grassland 1 1.00
Cynanchica pyrenaica Grassland 1 5.00
Centaurea deusta Grassland 1 5.00
Crepis taraxacifolia Grassland 1 0.50
Pilosella piloselloides Grassland 1 0.50
Teucrium montanum Grassland 1 1.00
Tragopogon pratensis Grassland 1 0.50
Trifolium scabrum Grassland 1 1.00
Euphorbia falcata Ruderal 6 1.33 ± 1.81
Erigeron annuus Ruderal 3 0.50 ± 0.00
Triticum vagans Ruderal 3 3.00 ± 1.73
Melampyrum barbatum subsp. carstiense Ruderal 2 3.00 ± 0.00
Sonchus oleraceus Ruderal 2 0.50 ± 0.00
Centaurium erythraea Ruderal 2 0.50 ± 0.00
Arabis hirsuta Ruderal 1 0.50
Myosotis arvensis Ruderal 1 0.50
Allium vineale Ruderal 1 0.50
Avena barbata Ruderal 1 0.50
Campanula rapunculus Ruderal 1 0.50
Cota tinctoria Ruderal 1 0.50
Erigeron canadensis Ruderal 1 0.50
Muscari neglectum Ruderal 1 0.50
Trifolium angustifolium Ruderal 1 1.00
Brachypodium rupestre Forest edge 22 36.57 ± 34.8
Teucrium chamaedrys Forest edge 14 8.00 ± 13.52
Asparagus acutifolius Forest edge 10 3.10 ± 1.96
Geranium sanguineum Forest edge 8 8.56 ± 12.43
Cervaria rivini Forest edge 8 1.19 ± 0.70
Fraxinus ornus Forest edge 5 1.10 ± 0.55
Rubus caesius Forest edge 5 2.10 ± 1.88
Vitis vinifera Forest edge 4 4.00 ± 4.08
Hypericum perforatum Forest edge 4 0.63 ± 0.25
Cornus sanguinea Forest edge 3 2.00 ± 2.60
Lathyrus latifolius Forest edge 3 1.50 ± 0.87
Rosa canina Forest edge 3 2.83 ± 2.25
Spartium junceum Forest edge 3 0.50 ± 0.00
Ligustrum vulgare Forest edge 2 1.50 ± 0.71
Quercus pubescens Forest edge 2 1.25 ± 1.06
Trifolium rubens Forest edge 2 1.50 ± 0.71
Agrimonia eupatoria Forest edge 2 1.50 ± 0.71
Berberis vulgaris Forest edge 2 0.75 ± 0.35
Buphthalmum salicifolium Forest edge 2 0.50 ± 0.00
Crataegus monogyna Forest edge 2 1.50 ± 0.71
Cytisus hirsutus Forest edge 2 6.50 ± 4.95
Pentanema spiraeifolium Forest edge 2 1.00 ± 0.00
Orchis purpurea Forest edge 2 0.75 ± 0.35
Viburnum lantana Forest edge 2 0.50 ± 0.00
Cotinus coggygria Forest edge 1 3.00
Ostrya carpinifolia Forest edge 1 1.00
Clematis vitalba Forest edge 1 2.00
Genista tinctoria Forest edge 1 0.50
Himantoglossum adriaticum Forest edge 1 0.50
Muscari comosum Forest edge 1 0.50
Robinia pseudoacacia Forest edge 1 0.50
login to comment