Drivers of plant diversity in Bulgarian dry grasslands vary across spatial scales and functional-taxonomic groups

Questions: Studying dry grasslands in a previously unexplored region, we asked: (a) which environmental factors drive the diversity patterns in vegetation; (b) are taxonomic groups (vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens) and functional vascular plant groups differently affected; and (c) how is fine-grain beta diversity affected by environmental drivers? Location: Northwestern and Central Bulgaria. Methods: We sampled environmental data and vascular plant, terricolous bryophyte and lichen species in 97 10-m2 plots and 15 nested-plot series with seven grain sizes (0.0001–100 m2) of ten grassland sites within the two regions. We used species richness as measure of alpha-diversity and the z-value of the power-law species–area relationship as measure of beta-diversity. We analysed effects of landscape, topographic, soil and land-use variables on the species richness of the different taxonomic and functional groups. We applied generalised linear models (GLMs) or, in the presence of spatial autocorrelation, generalised linear mixed-effect models (GLMMs) in a multi-model inference framework. Results: The main factors affecting total and vascular plant species richness in 10-m2 plots were soil pH (unimodal) and inclination (negative). Species richness of bryophytes was positively affected by rock cover, sand proportion and negatively by inclination. Inclination and litter cover were also negative predictors of lichen species richness. Elevation negatively affected phanerophyte and therophyte richness, but positively that of cryptophytes. A major part of unexplained variance in species richness was associated with the grassland site. The z-values for total richness showed a positive relationship with elevation and inclination. Conclusions: Environmental factors shaping richness patterns strongly differed among taxonomic groups, functional vascular plant groups and spatial scales. The disparities between our and previous findings suggest that many drivers of biodiversity cannot be generalised but rather depend on the regional context. The large unexplained variance at the site level calls for considering more site-related factors such as land-use history

European vegetation archive (EVA). An integrated database of European vegetation plots

The European Vegetation Archive (EVA) is a centralized database of European vegetation plots developed by the IAVS Working Group European Vegetation Survey. It has been in development since 2012 and first made available for use in research projects in 2014. It stores copies of national and regional vegetation- plot databases on a single software platform. Data storage in EVA does not affect on-going independent development of the contributing databases, which remain the property of the data contributors. EVA uses a prototype of the database management software TURBOVEG 3 developed for joint management of multiple databases that use different species lists. This is facilitated by the SynBioSys Taxon Database, a system of taxon names and concepts used in the individual European databases and their corresponding names on a unified list of European flora. TURBOVEG 3 also includes procedures for handling data requests, selections and provisions according to the approved EVA Data Property and Governance Rules. By 30 June 2015, 61 databases from all European regions have joined EVA, contributing in total 1 027 376 vegetation plots, 82% of them with geographic coordinates, from 57 countries. EVA provides a unique data source for large-scale analyses of European vegetation diversity both for fundamental research and nature conservation applications. Updated information on EVA is available online at http://euroveg.org/eva-database

sPlot:a new tool for global vegetation analyses

Abstract Aims: Vegetation‐plot records provide information on the presence and cover or abundance of plants co‐occurring in the same community. Vegetation‐plot data are spread across research groups, environmental agencies and biodiversity research centers and, thus, are rarely accessible at continental or global scales. Here we present the sPlot database, which collates vegetation plots worldwide to allow for the exploration of global patterns in taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity at the plant community level. Results: sPlot version 2.1 contains records from 1,121,244 vegetation plots, which comprise 23,586,216 records of plant species and their relative cover or abundance in plots collected worldwide between 1885 and 2015. We complemented the information for each plot by retrieving climate and soil conditions and the biogeographic context (e.g., biomes) from external sources, and by calculating community‐weighted means and variances of traits using gap‐filled data from the global plant trait database TRY. Moreover, we created a phylogenetic tree for 50,167 out of the 54,519 species identified in the plots. We present the first maps of global patterns of community richness and community‐weighted means of key traits. Conclusions: The availability of vegetation plot data in sPlot offers new avenues for vegetation analysis at the global scale

sPlot - A new tool for global vegetation analyses

Aims: Vegetation-plot records provide information on the presence and cover or abundance of plants co-occurring in the same community. Vegetation-plot data are spread across research groups, environmental agencies and biodiversity research centers and, thus, are rarely accessible at continental or global scales. Here we present the sPlot database, which collates vegetation plots worldwide to allow for the exploration of global patterns in taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity at the plant community level. Results: sPlot version 2.1 contains records from 1,121,244 vegetation plots, which comprise 23,586,216 records of plant species and their relative cover or abundance in plots collected worldwide between 1885 and 2015. We complemented the information for each plot by retrieving climate and soil conditions and the biogeographic context (e.g., biomes) from external sources, and by calculating community-weighted means and variances of traits using gap-filled data from the global plant trait database TRY. Moreover, we created a phylogenetic tree for 50,167 out of the 54,519 species identified in the plots. We present the first maps of global patterns of community richness and community-weighted means of key traits. Conclusions: The availability of vegetation plot data in sPlot offers new avenues for vegetation analysis at the global scale

Benchmarking plant diversity of Palaearctic grasslands and other open habitats

Abstract Aims: Understanding fine-grain diversity patterns across large spatial extents is fundamental for macroecological research and biodiversity conservation. Using the GrassPlot database, we provide benchmarks of fine-grain richness values of Palaearctic open habitats for vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens and complete vegetation (i.e., the sum of the former three groups). Location: Palaearctic biogeographic realm. Methods: We used 126,524 plots of eight standard grain sizes from the GrassPlot database: 0.0001, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100 and 1,000 m² and calculated the mean richness and standard deviations, as well as maximum, minimum, median, and first and third quartiles for each combination of grain size, taxonomic group, biome, region, vegetation type and phytosociological class. Results: Patterns of plant diversity in vegetation types and biomes differ across grain sizes and taxonomic groups. Overall, secondary (mostly semi-natural) grasslands and natural grasslands are the richest vegetation type. The open-access file ”GrassPlot Diversity Benchmarks” and the web tool “GrassPlot Diversity Explorer” are now available online (https://edgg.org/databases/GrasslandDiversityExplorer) and provide more insights into species richness patterns in the Palaearctic open habitats. Conclusions: The GrassPlot Diversity Benchmarks provide high-quality data on species richness in open habitat types across the Palaearctic. These benchmark data can be used in vegetation ecology, macroecology, biodiversity conservation and data quality checking. While the amount of data in the underlying GrassPlot database and their spatial coverage are smaller than in other extensive vegetation-plot databases, species recordings in GrassPlot are on average more complete, making it a valuable complementary data source in macroecology