4.7 Article

Old cultural traditions, in addition to land use and topography, are shaping plant diversity of grasslands in the Alps

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 130, 期 3, 页码 438-446

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.01.005

关键词

biodiversity; grazing; mowing; species richness; conservation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Socio-economically motivated land use changes are a major threat for species diversity of grasslands throughout the world. Here, we comprehensively explore how plant species diversity of grasslands in the species-rich cultural landscape of the Swiss Alps depends on recent land use changes, and, neglected in previous studies, on old cultural traditions. We studied diversity in 216 grassland parcels at three altitudinal levels in 12 villages of three cultural traditions (Romanic, Germanic, and Walser). In valleys of Romanic villages more different parcel types tended to occur than in those of Germanic and Walser villages, suggesting that socio-economic differences among cultural traditions still play a role in shaping landscape diversity. Moreover, at the village level, higher man-made landscape diversity was associated with higher plant species richness. All observed changes in land use reduced the farmers' workload. Plant species richness was lower in fertilized than in unfertilized parcels and in abandoned compared with used parcels. Grazing slightly reduced species richness compared with mowing among unfertilized parcels, while in fertilized parcels it had a positive influence. The highest species diversity was found in mown unfertilized subalpine grasslands. Nevertheless, moderate grazing of former meadows can be a valuable alternative to abandonment. We conclude that the ongoing changes in land use reduce plant species richness within parcels and at the landscape level. To preserve plant species diversity at the landscape level a high diversity of land use types has to be maintained. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据