Plant species as predictors of soil pH: Replacing expert judgement with measurements

Abstract Question: The use of expert-based indicator values to estimate abiotic conditions from vegetation is widespread. However, recent research has shown that expert judgement may contain considerable bias and thereby introduces a large amount of uncertainty. Could expert based indicator values be replaced by indicator values based on field measurements? Location: Europe. Methods: We developed a method to estimate species response based on measured physical data, and a method to predict abiotic conditions from the vegetation composition using these responses. This method was tested for soil pH. Results: We were able to estimate the pH response of 556 species of the Dutch flora. Ca. 20% of the responses were, at least, bimodal and many responses had a very wide range. The simplest method (‘raw mean’) yielded the best prediction of pH; the indicator value of a species is the mean of the soil pH values of the sites where it was observed. A list of all raw-mean estimates per species is given. The predicted pH of a new site is the mean of the indicator values of the present species. The estimated species responses were validated on independent Dutch and European data sets. Older successional stages seem to be predicted better than younger stages. Conclusions: Our method performed better than the popular Ellenberg indicator system for the Dutch data set, while being just as easy to use, because it only needs a single value per species. We foresee that, when more data become available, our method has the potential to replace the Ellenberg system. Abbreviation: RMSEP = Root mean squared error prediction.

[1]  Simon N. Wood,et al.  Generalized Additive Models , 2006, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application.

[2]  P. Goedhart,et al.  Measurement errors and regression to the mean cannot explain bias in average Ellenberg indicator values , 2004 .

[3]  S. Smart,et al.  Bias in Ellenberg indicator values – problems with detection of the effect of vegetation type , 2004 .

[4]  S. Godefroid,et al.  Interspecific variation in soil compaction sensitivity among forest floor species , 2004 .

[5]  M. Hermy,et al.  Population structure and adult plant performance of forest herbs in three contrasting habitats , 2004 .

[6]  J. Lawesson pH optima for Danish forest species compared with Ellenberg reaction values , 2003, Folia Geobotanica.

[7]  Knut Rydgren,et al.  Species response curves along environmental gradients. A case study from SE Norwegian swamp forests , 2003 .

[8]  F. Maestre,et al.  POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, AND NET EFFECTS IN GRASS–SHRUB INTERACTIONS IN MEDITERRANEAN SEMIARID GRASSLANDS , 2003 .

[9]  J. Witte,et al.  Do we really need phytosociological classes to calibrate Ellenberg indicator values? , 2003 .

[10]  F. Berendse,et al.  Apparently we do need phytosociological classes to calibrate Ellenberg indicator values! , 2003 .

[11]  M. von Numers,et al.  A mesoscale analysis of floristic patterns in the south‐west Finnish Archipelago , 2003 .

[12]  R. Clarke,et al.  National-scale vegetation change across Britain; an analysis of sample-based surveillance data from the Countryside Surveys of 1990 and 1998. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.

[13]  F. Houllier,et al.  Prediction of forest soil nutrient status using vegetation , 2003 .

[14]  Gert Jan Reinds,et al.  Intensive monitoring of forest ecosystems in Europe: 1. Objectives, set-up and evaluation strategy , 2003 .

[15]  Olivier Bouriaud,et al.  Leaf area index from litter collection: impact of specific leaf area variability within a beech stand , 2003 .

[16]  F. Berendse,et al.  Validity of Ellenberg indicator values judged from physico-chemical field measurements , 2002 .

[17]  Z. Dzwonko Assessment of light and soil conditions in ancient and recent woodlands by Ellenberg indicator values , 2002 .

[18]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges , 2001, Science.

[19]  C. ter Braak,et al.  Relationship between epiphytic lichens, trace elements and gaseous atmospheric pollutants. , 2001, Environmental pollution.

[20]  F. Pugnaire,et al.  Changes in plant interactions along a gradient of environmental stress , 2001 .

[21]  A. P. Schaffers,et al.  Reliability of Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, nitrogen and soil reaction: a comparison with field measurements , 2000 .

[22]  C. Braak,et al.  Ranking of Epiphytic Lichen Sensitivity to Air Pollution Using Survey Data: A Comparison of Indicator Scales , 1999, The Lichenologist.

[23]  Jan G. M. Roelofs,et al.  The effects of air‐borne nitrogen pollutants on species diversity in natural and semi‐natural European vegetation , 1998 .

[24]  G. Józefaciuk,et al.  Hundredth molar calcium chloride extraction procedure. Part II: Calibration with conventional soil testing methods for pH , 1998 .

[25]  M. Diekmann,et al.  A new species index for forest vascular plants: development of functional indices based on mineralization rates of various forms of soil nitrogen , 1998 .

[26]  M. Wassen,et al.  Calibrating Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, acidity, nutrient availability and salinity in the Netherlands , 1998, Plant Ecology.

[27]  M. Diekmann Use and improvement of Ellenberg's indicator values in deciduous forests of the Boreo-nemoral zone in Sweden , 1995 .

[28]  W. Slooff,et al.  Ecological standards for eutrophication and desiccation: Perspectives for a risk assessment , 1994 .

[29]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  Determining species response functions to an environmental gradient by means of a β‐function , 1994 .

[30]  B. Silverman,et al.  Nonparametric Regression and Generalized Linear Models: A roughness penalty approach , 1993 .

[31]  J. P. Grime,et al.  An Experimental Test of Plant Strategy Theory , 1992 .

[32]  M. Hill,et al.  Data analysis in community and landscape ecology , 1987 .

[33]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .

[34]  C. Braak,et al.  Ecological amplitudes of plant species and the internal consistency of Ellenberg's indicator values for moisture , 2004, Vegetatio.

[35]  H. Dobben,et al.  Uncertainty of critical loads based on the Ellenberg indicator value for acidity , 2003 .

[36]  M. Diekmann Species indicator values as an important tool in applied plant ecology – a review , 2003 .

[37]  H. Kros,et al.  Dynamic modelling and the calculation of critical loads for biodiversity , 2001 .

[38]  de W. Vries,et al.  Intensive monitoring of forest ecosystems in Europe; evaluation of the programme in view of its objectives and proposals for the scientific evaluation of the data; a strategy document , 2000 .

[39]  M. Schütz,et al.  Errechnete Ökogramme für Schweizer Wälder , 1999 .

[40]  G.W.W. Wamelink,et al.  Spatial modeling in landscape ecology , 1999 .

[41]  H. Dobben,et al.  Experimental calibration of Ellenberg's indicator value for nitrogen , 1998 .

[42]  H. V. Dobben,et al.  Eerste opname van de ondergroei in het Meetnet Bosvitaliteit , 1997 .

[43]  K. Dijkema,et al.  Monitoring the effects of subsidence of the coastal island Ameland in the Wadden Sea , 1995 .

[44]  B. Silverman,et al.  Nonparametric regression and generalized linear models , 1994 .

[45]  Ruprecht Düll,et al.  Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa , 1992 .

[46]  A. Davy Comparative plant ecology: A functional approach to common British species , 1990 .

[47]  A. A. Kruijne,et al.  Bijdrage tot de oecologie van de Nederlandse graslandplanten , 1967 .