Patterns of change in α and β taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity in the secondary succession of semi-natural grasslands in the Northern Apennines

We studied the secondary succession in semi-natural grasslands (dry grasslands and hay meadows) located in the eastern side of the Tuscan Apennines (Tuscany, Central Italy). We compared these habitats, investigating: (i) the changes in species richness, composition and phylogenetic diversity during the succession; (ii) whether the trends in species loss and species turnover in taxonomic diversity matched those in phylogenetic diversity. We performed a stratified random sampling, in a full factorial design between habitat type and succession stage (60 sampled plots, 10 × 2 types of habitat × 3 stages of succession). We constructed a phylogenetic tree of the plant communities and compared the differences in taxonomic/phylogenetic α- and β-diversity between these two habitats and during their succession. We identified indicator species for each succession stage and habitat. Looking at α-diversity, both habitats displayed a decrease in species richness, with a random process of species selection in the earlier succession stages from the species regional pool. Nevertheless, in the latter stage of dry grasslands we recorded a shift towards phylogenetic overdispersion at the higher-level groups in the phylogenetic tree. In both habitats, while the richness decreased with succession stage, most species were replaced during the succession. However, the hay meadows were characterized by a higher rate of new species’ ingression whereas the dry grasslands became dominated with Juniperus communis. Accordingly, the two habitats showed similar features in phylogenetic β-diversity. The main component was true phylogenetic turnover, due to replacement of unique lineages along the succession. Nevertheless, in dry grasslands this trend is slightly higher than expected considering the major importance of difference in species richness of dry grasslands sites and this is due to the presence of a phylogenetically very distant species (J. communis)

Global and Regional IUCN Red List Assessments: 5

In this contribution, the conservation status of four vascular plants according to IUCN categories and criteria are presented. It includes the assessment of Arceuthobium oxycedri (DC.) M.Bieb., Ionopsidium albiflorum Durieu, Trifolium latinum Sebast., and Vicia incisa M.Bieb. at a Regional level (Italy)

Contributi per una flora vascolare di Toscana. XI (664-738)

Vengono presentate nuove località e/o conferme relative 75 taxa specifici e sottospecifici di piante vascolari della flora vascolare toscana, appartenenti a 67 generi e 41 famiglie: Delosperma (Aizoaceae), Dysphania (Amaranthaceae), Leucojum, Nothoscordum (Amaryllidaceae), Bupleurum, Coriandrum (Apiaceae), Araujia (Apocynaceae), Lemna (Araceae), Hydrocotyle (Araliaceae), Aristolochia (Aristolochiaceae), Bellevalia (Asparagaceae), Asphodelus (Asphodelaceae), Artemisia, Crepis, Eclipta, Erigeron, Hieracium, Senecio, Symphyotrichum, Tolpis (Asteraceae), Symphytum (Boraginaceae), Alyssum, Cardamine, Eruca, Isatis (Brassicaceae), Valerianella (Caprifoliaceae), Petrorhagia, Scleranthus (Caryophyllaceae), Commelina (Commelinaceae), Dichondra (Convolvulaceae), Sedum (Crassulaceae), Diospyros (Ebenaceae), Moneses (Ericaceae), Euphorbia (Euphorbiaceae), Medicago, Trifolium (Fabaceae), Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae), Juncus (Juncaceae), Salvia, Teucrium (Lamiaceae), Broussonetia (Moraceae), Spiranthes (Orchidaceae), Phelipanche (Orobanchaceae), Papaver (Papaveraceae), Passiflora (Passifloraceae), Cedrus, Pseudotsuga (Pinaceae), Bromopsis, Calamagrostis, Cenchrus, Drymochloa, Melica, Oloptum, Phleum, Sporobolus, Tragus (Poaceae), Stuckenia (Potamogetonaceae), Lysimachia (Primulaceae), Anemone, Aquilegia (Ranunculaceae), Eriobotrya (Rosaceae), Crucianella (Rubiaceae), Verbascum (Scrophulariaceae), Typha (Typhaceae), Urtica (Urticaceae), Viola (Violaceae). Infine, viene discusso lo status di conservazione delle entità e gli eventuali vincoli di protezione dei biotopi segnalati.New localities and/or confirmations concerning 75 specific and subspecific plant taxa of Tuscan vascular flora, belonging to 67 genera and 41 families are presented: Delosperma (Aizoaceae), Dysphania (Amaranthaceae), Leucojum, Nothoscordum (Amaryllidaceae), Bupleurum, Coriandrum (Apiaceae), Araujia (Apocynaceae), Lemna (Araceae), Hydrocotyle (Araliaceae), Aristolochia (Aristolochiaceae), Bellevalia (Asparagaceae), Asphodelus (Asphodelaceae), Artemisia, Crepis, Eclipta, Erigeron, Hieracium, Senecio, Symphyotrichum, Tolpis (Asteraceae), Symphytum (Boraginaceae), Alyssum, Cardamine, Eruca, Isatis (Brassicaceae), Valerianella (Caprifoliaceae), Petrorhagia, Scleranthus (Caryophyllaceae), Commelina (Commelinaceae), Dichondra (Convolvulaceae), Sedum (Crassulaceae), Diospyros (Ebenaceae), Moneses (Ericaceae), Euphorbia (Euphorbiaceae), Medicago, Trifolium (Fabaceae), Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae), Juncus (Juncaceae), Salvia, Teucrium (Lamiaceae), Broussonetia (Moraceae), Spiranthes (Orchidaceae), Phelipanche (Orobanchaceae), Papaver (Papaveraceae), Passiflora (Passifloraceae), Cedrus, Pseudotsuga (Pinaceae), Bromopsis, Calamagrostis, Cenchrus, Drymochloa, Melica, Oloptum, Phleum, Sporobolus, Tragus (Poaceae), Stuckenia (Potamogetonaceae), Lysimachia (Primulaceae), Anemone, Aquilegia (Ranunculaceae), Eriobotrya (Rosaceae), Crucianella (Rubiaceae), Verbascum (Scrophulariaceae), Typha (Typhaceae), Urtica (Urticaceae), and Viola (Violaceae). In the end, the conservation status of the units and eventual protection of the cited biotopes are discussed

Different components of plant diversity suggest the protection of a large area for the conservation of a riparian ecosystem

Riparian ecosystems host an high level of biodiversity but anthropic activities have deeply altered their naturalness and functionality. The present study was carried out in a protected area along a recently regulated tract of the upper River Tiber (Tuscany, central Italy). The study's aim is to explore different components of plant diversity (species richness, species composition, \uce\ub2-diversity) in the riparian habitats to determine the most relevant conservation issues. Twelve transects were allocated along the riparian zone and a stratified random sampling was performed on the habitat detected along the transects with 184 plots of 1 x 1 m. Species richness was analysed by the use of set of species-richness estimators. The different patterns of plant diversity were analysed by NMDS, Indicator Species Analysis and SDR with symplex analysis. Five habitat types were detected in the study area. Three well-represented habitats (riparian woodlands, shrublands and dry bars) showed a higher number of species; flooded banks and marshlands were much less common and were also less species rich. Species composition and indicator species analysis showed however that marshlands were the richest in taxa having high conservation value and in indicator species. The habitats differed greatly in species composition; \uce\ub2-diversity analysis showed a low number of shared species between the habitats. High values of species replacement and low similarity values were recorded between the plots within the habitats. The study shows some differences between quantitative and qualitative patterns of biodiversity in the study area. The results suggest that to maintain habitat species diversity, the best conservation strategy for the study area is to protect as large an area as possible

Contribution to the knowledge of marsh vegetation of montane and submontane areas of Northern Apennines (Italy)

Freshwater ecosystems are crucial for biodiversity conservation. They are among the most threatened habitats in the world. However, the wetlands of southern European mountains still lack fine-scale plant community studies. Here we studied submontane and montane palustrine communities of the Tuscan-Romagna Apennines. Data from 123 vegetation plots dominated by palustrine species were analysed by means of cluster analysis. We identified 18 vegetation types that we attributed to five classes (Phragmito-Magnocaricetea, Montio-Cardaminetea, Isoëto-Nanojuncetea, Molinio-Arrhenatheretea, and Epilobietea angustifolii), and to two Natura 2000 habitats (3130 - Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea, and 6430 - Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels). According the 4th edition of the International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature we corrected the names Phragmition communis Koch 1926 nom. inept. in P. australis Koch 1926 nom. corr., Phragmitetum communis Savič 1926 nom. inept. in P. australis Savič 1926 nom. corr., Glycerietum plicatae Kulczyński 1928 nom. inept. in G. notatae Kulczyński 1928 nom. corr., Beruletum angustifoliae Roll 1938 nom. inept. in Beruletum erectae Roll 1938 nom. corr., and we mutated the name Scirpetum lacustris Chouard 1924 nom. inept. in Schoenoplectetum lacustris Chouard 1924 nom. mut. nov. Our study highlights the diversity of marsh vegetation of montane and submontane areas of Northern Apennines. Most of the palustrine communities, though important from the point of view of conservation, cannot be attributed at present to any habitat type legally protected at the European level

Environmental drivers of plant assemblages: are there differences between palustrine and lacustrine wetlands? A case study from the northern Apennines (Italy)

Mountain wetlands are among the most vulnerable habitats in the Mediterranean basin. Their conservation requires knowledge of plant species assemblages and their environmental drivers. In this study, we investigated what the main environmental factors driving species composition in mountain wetlands are. Differences in environmental control and floristic composition between palustrine and lacustrine wetlands were explored. We used a dataset of 168 vegetation plots (relevés), sampled at 45 mountain wetlands in the northern Apennines (central Italy). Direct ordination showed that water depth, geology type and altitude were the main factors responsible for species distribution. The most important gradient was linked to soil moisture, with hygrophilous species increasing with moisture levels. Indicator Species Analysis underlined a clear distinction in the distribution of aquatic plants between wetland subsystems. Geology and rainfall affected species assemblages in lacustrine and palustrine subsystems. Indirect ordination and Generalized Additive Models revealed that plant species and their attributes significantly changed in the wetland subsystems with an increase in hydrophytes with increasing rainfall in palustrine wetlands and a decrease in thermophilous species along an altitudinal gradient in lacustrine wetlands. Management and conservation guidelines for northern Apennines wetlands are suggested