Relationships between Species Diversity and Biomass in Mountainous Habitats in Zagros Rangeland (Case Study: Baneh, Kurdistan, Iran)
محورهای موضوعی : BiodiversityBakhtiar Fattahi 1 , Mohammad Ali Zare chahouki 2 , Mohammad Jafari 3 , Hossein Azarnivand 4 , Pejman Tahmasebi 5
1 - Tehran University
2 - Tehran University
3 - Tehran University
4 - Tehran University
5 - Shahr Kord University
کلید واژه: Environmental factors, Disturbance, Species Diversity, Zagros rangelan,
چکیده مقاله :
Species diversity, richness and biomasses (aboveground biomass) and their relationships are the key variables of ecosystems. This study was conducted to determine the relationship of Species Diversity (SD) and Species Richness (SR) with Above-Ground Biomass (AGB) at a local scale at 5 different habitats (shrubland, forbland, grassland, shrub-forbland and forb-shrubland) in Zagros mountains in west of Iran (2015). For each habitat, 50 plots (2m2) were determined. SD was estimated by Shannon–Wiener’s index, SR was defined as the number of species per plot and AGB was detected per unit of area (gm-2). Results indicated that all of relationship patterns existed in these habitats. The unimodal relationship was found in shrub-forbland and forb-shrubland whereas the relationship of SD/SR vs.AGB in shrubland was linear and negative, and in forbland and grassland, it was positive. There were many complex and variable mechanisms dealing with the SD/SR vs. AGB relationship. The unimodal relationship indicates that SR and SD peaked at intermediate levels of AGB, and it is an inherent attribute of the spatially heterogeneous habitats affected by life forms, micro-sites, facilitation and competition. The positive linear was related to positive response of SD, SR and AGB to environmental factors or because of any reason (grazing, disturbance level…), the AGB may not reach to the highest possible level; thus, it may only show a positive relationship. When SD and AGB are affected in the opposite directions by environmental factors such as soil fertility, negative patterns may be caused. The negative pattern represents short gradients indicating a similar species composition among plots. Greater R2 in SD vs. AGB than SR vs. AGB at all habitats showed that evenness and richness (components of SD) are more important than just SR; thus, SD vs. AGB relationship is better and more reliable to predict the variations (SD and AGB).
Aarssen, L. W., 2001. On correlations and causations between productivity and species richness in vegetation: Predictions from habitat attributes. Basic and Applied Ecology, 2 (2):105–114.
Alahamad, M.N., Oswald, B.P., Bataineh, M.M., Alrababah, M.A., Al-Gharaibeh, M.M. 2010. Relationships between herbaceous diversity and biomass in two habitats in arid Mediterranean rangeland. Journal of Arid Environments, 74 (2): 277–283.
Baer, S.G., Blair, J.M., Collins, S.L. & Knapp, A.K., 2003. Soil resources regulate productivity and diversity in newly established tall grass prairie. Ecology, 84 (3): 724–735.
Bai, Y.F., Wu, J.G., Pan, Q.M., Huang, J.H., Wang, Q.B., Li, F.S., Buyantuyev, A. & Han, X.G., 2007. Positive linear relationship between productivity and diversity: evidence from the Eurasian steppe. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44 (5): 1023–1034.
Bruun, H.H. & Ejrnæs, R., 2006. Community-level birth rate: a missing link between ecology, evolution and diversity. Oikos, 113 (1): 185-191.
Cardinale, B.J., Palmer, M.A., Collins, S.L., 2002. Species diversity enhances ecosystem functioning through interspecific facilitation. Nature, 415: 426–429.
Chalcraft, D.R., Williams, J.W., Smith, M.D. & Willig, M.R., 2004. Scale dependence in the species-richness–productivity relationship: the role of species turnover. Ecology, 85 (10): 2701–2708.
Chase, J. M., Leibold, M. A., 2002. Spatial scale dictates the productivity–biodiversity relationship. Nature, 416: 427-430.
Chase, J.M., Ryberg, W.A., 2004. Connectivity, scale dependence, and the productivity–diversity relationship. Ecological Letters, 7 (8): 676–683.
Ejtehadi, H., Sepehry, A., Akkafi, H. R., 2009. Methods of measuring biodiversity. Ferdowsi University Publication, Mashhad-Iran. 228 p. (In Persian).
Fox, J.W., 2003. The long-term relationship between diversity and total plant biomass depends on the mechanism maintaining diversity. Oikos, 102 (3): 630–640.
Fridley, J.D., 2002. Resource availability dominates and alters the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem productivity in experimental plant communities. Oecologia, 132 (2): 271–277.
Ghahreman, A., 1983-2014. Flora of Iran. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Iran. 27 Volumes.
Gillman, L.N. & Wright, S.D., 2006. The influence of productivity on the species richness of plants: a critical assessment. Ecology, 87 (5): 1234-1243.
Grace, J.B., Anderson, T.M., Smith, M.D., Seabloom, E., Andelman, S.J., Meche, G., Weiher, E., Allain, L., Jutila, H., Sankaran, M., Knops, J., Ritchie, M. & Willig, M., 2007. Does species diversity limit productivity in natural grassland communities? Ecology Letters, 10 (8): 680–689
Grime, J. P. 2002. Declining plant diversity: Empty niches or functional shifts? Journal of Vegetation Science, 13 (4): 457-460.
Gross, K.L., Willig, M.R., Gough, L., Inouye, R. & Cox, S.B., 2000. Patterns of species density and productivity at different spatial scales in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos, 89 (3): 417–427.
Grytnes, J.A. & Birks, H.J.B., 2003. The influence of scale and species pool on the relationship between vascular plant species richness and cover in an alpine area in Norway. Plant Ecology, 169 (2): 273–284.
Guo Q., 2007. The diversity–biomass–productivity relationships in grassland management and restoration. Basic and Applied Ecology, 8(3): 199-208.
Harrison, S. & Grace, J.B., 2007. Biogeographic affinity helps explain productivity–richness relationships at regional and local scales. The American Naturalist, 170 (2): 5–15.
Harrison, S., Davies, K.F., Safford, H.D., Viers, J.H., 2006. Beta diversity and the scale dependence of the productivity–diversity relationship: a test in the Californian serpentine flora. Journal of Ecology 94 (2): 110–117.
Kahmen, A., Perner, J. & Buchmann, N., 2005. Diversity dependent productivity in semi-natural grasslands following climate perturbations. Functional Ecology, 19 (4): 594–601.
Keddy, P. 2005. Putting the plants back into plant ecology: six pragmatic models for understanding and conserving plant diversity. Annuals of Botany, 96 (2):177–189.
Kikvidze, Z., Pugnaire, F. I., Brooker, R. W., Choler, P., Lortie, C. J., Michalet, R., and Callaway, R. M., 2005. Linking patterns and processes in alpine plant communities: a global study. Ecology, 86 (6):1395-1400.
Loreau, M., 2000. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos, 91 (1): 3-17.
Loreau, M., Naeem, S., & Inchausti, P., 2002. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Synthesis and perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Great Britain, 312 p.
Ma, W., He, J. S., Yang, Y., Wang, X., Liang, C., Anwar, M., Zeng, H., Fang, J., Schmid, B., 2010. Environmental factors covary with plant diversity–productivity relationships among Chinese grassland sites. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19 (2): 233–243.
Ma, W.H. & Fang, J.Y., 2006. The relationship between species richness and productivity in four typical grasslands of northern China [in Chinese]. Biodiversity Science, 14 (1): 21–28.
Mahdavi, A., Eshaghi Rad, J., Jamshidifard. M., 2012.The Effect of Altitude and Aspect on Rangeland Plant Diversity (Case Study: Dashte Zahab, Kermanshah, Iran). Journal of Rangeland Science, 3(1): 11-20.
McIntosh, R. P., 1967. An index of diversity and the relation of certain concepts to diversity. Journal of Ecology, 48 (3): 392-303.
Mirzaei, J., Karami, A. 2015. Plant Diversity and Richness in Relation to Environmental Gradient in Zagros Ecosystems, West of Iran. Journal of Rangeland Science, 5(4): 294-302.
Mittelbach, G. G., Steiner, C. F., Scheiner, S. M., Gross, K. L., Reynolds, H. L., Waide, R. B., Willig, M. R., Dodson, S. I., and Gough, L., 2001. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology, 82 (9): 2381–2396.
Moghaddam, M, 2006. Range and Range Management. Tehran University Publication. 470 p. (In Persian).
Ni, J., Wang, G.H., Bai, Y.F. & Li, X.Z., 2007. Scale-dependent relationships between plant diversity and above-ground biomass in temperate grasslands, south-eastern Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments, 68 (1): 132–142.
Partel, M., and Zobel, M., 2007. Dispersal limitation may result in the unimodal productivity-diversity relationship: a new explanation for a general pattern. Ecology, 95 (1): 90–94.
Partel, M., Laanisto, L. & Zobel, M., 2007. Contrasting plant productivity–diversity relationships across latitude: the role of evolutionary history. Ecology, 88(5):1091-1097.
Potter, K. M., Woodall, C. W. 2014. Does biodiversity make a difference? Relationships between species richness, evolutionary diversity, and aboveground live tree biomass across U.S. forests. Forest Ecology and Management 321 (4): 117-129.
Sadeghinia, M., Jafari, M., Zahedi Amiri, Gh., Baghestani Maybodi, N., Tavili, A., 2012. Investigation on Effects of Environmental and Soil Factors on Establishment of Vegetation Types (Case Study: Sabzdasht, Bafgh). Journal of Rangeland Science, 3(1): 1-10.
Scheiner, S.M. and Willig, M.R., 2005. Developing unified theories in ecology as exemplified with diversity gradients. American Naturalist, 116 (3): 458 – 469
Scheiner, S.M. and Jones, S., 2002. Diversity, productivity and scale in Wisconsin vegetation. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 4 (8): 1097–1117.
Schmid, B., 2002. The species richness–productivity controversy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17 (3): 113–114.
Schwartz, M.W., Brigham, C.A., Hoeksema, J.D., Lyons, K.G., Mills, M.H., van Mantgem, P.J., 2000. Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for conservation ecology. Oecologia, 122 (3): 297–305.
Shannon, C. E., 1949. A mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Song, Y., Wang, P., Li, G., Zhou D., 2014. Relationships between functional diversity and ecosystem functioning: A review. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 34(2): 85-91.
Stevens, M.H., 2006. Placing local plant species richness in the context of environmental drivers of meta -community richness. Journal of Ecology, 94 (1): 58-65.
Stohlgren, T.J., Barnett, D.T., Kartesz, J.T., 2003. The rich get richer: patterns of plant invasions in the United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1 (1): 11–14
Thebault, E., Loreau, M., 2003. Foodweb constraints on biodiversity ecosystem functioning relationships. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100 (25): 14949–14954.
VanderMeulen, M.A., Hudson, A.J. & Scheiner, S.M., 2001. Three evolutionary hypotheses for the hump-shaped productivity-diversity curve. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 3 (4): 379 –392.
Weiner, J., 2001. The nature of tree growth and the ‘‘age-related decline in forest productivity’’. Oikos, 94 (2): 374–376.
Yazdanshenas, H., Jafari, M., Azarnivand, H., Arzani, H., Nasiri M., 2013. Investigating the Effects of Soil Factors on Biodiversity in Plant Communities of Karvan Rangeland (Case Study: Isfahan Province, Iran). Journal of Rangeland Science, 4 (1): 34-42.
Zohary, M., Feinbrum-Dothan, N., 1966–1986. Flora Palaestina, vol. 4. The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
