The quality of flower-based ecosystem services in field margins and road verges from human and insect pollinator perspectives |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Tartu, Lai 40, 51005 Tartu, Estonia;2. Institute of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Oldenburg, Carl von Ossietzky-Straÿe 9-11, D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany;1. State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China;2. Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia;1. INRA, UMR 0980 BAGAP, BP 84215, 35042 Rennes, France;2. LTER - « Zone Atelier Armorique », Rennes, France;1. Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Nature Conservation and Landscape Planning, D-06406 Bernburg, Germany;2. Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences, Vegetation Ecology and Botany, D-49090 Osnabrück, Germany;1. TERRA Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège, Passage des Déportés 2, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium;2. Biodiversity and Landscape, Department of Biosystems Engineering, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liege, Passage des Déportés 2, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium;3. Natagriwal ASBL, Passage des Déportés 2, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium;4. Functional and Evolutionary Entomology, Department of Agronomy, Biology and Chemistry, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Passage des Déportés 2, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium |
| |
| Abstract: | We contrasted traditionally used indicators of service provision quality, such as overall species richness and growth form composition, to three more specific functional properties: functional diversity, functional intensity, and functional stability. We defined flower colour as a functional trait perceived differently by humans and insect pollinators, and used user specific colour richness, flower size, and species richness within colour group as indicators of these three properties. We asked (1) do field margins and road verges provide flower-based ecosystem services with the quality of permanent grasslands; and (2) do traditional and detailed functional indicators of service provision quality agree on the service quality ranking of habitats?In an agricultural landscape of central and south-eastern Estonia (115 ÿ 95 km area, centroid 26°49?43? and 58°54?49?) we sampled 87 field margins and 111 road verges as linear grassland-substitution habitats, and 84 permanent grasslands to scale their service quality.Linear habitats generally provided service of lower quality than permanent grasslands, but detailed indicators showed less evident contrast among habitat types than the overall species richness and stronger contrast than the proportion of forbs. Detailed indices, however, had strong seasonal dynamics to take into account. Vegetation in the first year field margins had greater colour richness (functional diversity) and species richness within colour groups (functional stability), but the smallest flower size (functional intensity), in contrast to road verges. By the third year of succession, field margins had become more similar to road verges. Indication of service provision quality differed between humans and pollinators, but their estimates were correlated across habitats.We showed that (1) combinations of specific service quality indicators provide more adequate information than generalized richness or growth form system, and (2) single grassland surrogate habitat type is an insufficient service providing substitute for permanent grasslands, although a mosaic of these habitats might be more efficient. Therefore, remnant fragments of semi-natural grasslands should receive top priority attention for conservation and restoration, particularly in agriculture dominated landscapes. |
| |
| Keywords: | Aesthetic service Flower color Grassland conservation Linear habitat Service providing unit Sown flower strip |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
