Next Article in Journal
Phylogeny of Serpulidae (Annelida, Polychaeta) Inferred from Morphology and DNA Sequences, with a New Classification
Next Article in Special Issue
Eco-Coenotic and Diversity Patterns in Artemisia alba Open Scrubs from Romania within the Context of Similar Communities from Neighbouring Regions
Previous Article in Journal
Habitat and Features of Development of Plankton Communities in Salt Lakes (South-Eastern Transbaikalia, Russia)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Reproductive Biology of Fritillaria aurea Schott (Liliaceae), a Rare Species Endemic to Turkey
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/d15030397
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Distribution of the Riparian Salix Communities in and around Romanian Carpathians

by
Claudia Bita-Nicolae
Department of Ecology & Nature Conservation, Institute of Biology Bucharest, Romanian Academy, 296 Splaiul Independentei, 060031 Bucharest, Romania
Diversity 2023, 15(3), 397; https://doi.org/10.3390/d15030397
Submission received: 6 February 2023 / Revised: 2 March 2023 / Accepted: 7 March 2023 / Published: 9 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diversity and Conservation of Scrublands Flora and Vegetation)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Salix riparian communities are particularly diverse and of extraordinary ecological importance. This study will analyze the diversity of Salix riparian communities (S. alba, S. fragilis, S. purpurea and S. triandra), their distribution, ecological importance, and conservation. There were 444 records for S. alba, 417 for S. fragilis, 457 for S. purpurea, and 375 for S. triandra, both from the literature and herbaria. Thus, it can be seen that the distribution of the four Salix species studied is very widespread throughout the territory where this study was carried out. According to EIVE (Ecological Indicator Values of Europe) but also to the national list values for niche positions and niche widths, they were noted to be very close for all ecological indicators: M (soil moisture), L (light), and T (temperature), but not for the ecological indicator of soil nitrogen (N) availability or R (soil reaction). Obviously, those riparian Salix communities are important for the functions they indicate, primarily for climate change mitigation, but also for regulating water flow, improving water quality, and providing habitats for wildlife. Conservation and management of these important ecosystems are necessary to maintain their biodiversity, and ecological services and strategies that can be used to protect and manage these communities are outlined.

1. Introduction

Riparian communities are habitats that are located near bodies of water such as rivers, streams, ponds, lakes, and wetlands, and they are important habitats for many species of wildlife, providing shelter, food, and water sources [1,2,3,4,5]. They also act as buffers between land and water, filtering pollutants from the water and protecting the shoreline from erosion [6,7]. These communities’ presence can help improve water quality and maintain biodiversity [8,9,10]. The composition of riparian communities varies greatly depending on the climate, soil type, and land use in the area [9,11]. In general, riparian communities tend to be more diverse in warmer climates and on soils with higher organic matter content [9]. In some cases, land use can have a major impact on the species composition of riparian communities, as activities such as logging, grazing, and urban development can change the vegetation structure and reduce the diversity of species [10,12]. Riparian areas contain a variety of vegetation and are important features in watersheds [3], but Salix species are a major component of riparian areas and provide multiple ecosystem services [6,10]. The diversity of Salix species is high, and about 450 species are found worldwide [4]. In many regions, multiple species coexist in riparian areas, and the composition of these communities can vary significantly between watersheds [6,7].
The genus Salix consists of species that occupy different ecological environments and can be broadly classified into two groups: those found near water bodies (riparian or alluvial) and those in wetland habitats [13]. The distribution of riparian Salix communities occur in temperate and boreal climates and are found throughout most of the northern hemisphere, where they are particularly abundant along riverbanks and streams [11]. In some areas, they can also be found in wetlands and along lakeshores [5]. They are adapted to a wide range of soil and moisture conditions, including high water tables and seasonal flooding [2,11].
Changes in climate are predicted to have a significant impact on Salix communities [12], as shifts in temperature and precipitation can alter the species composition of Salix stands, their regeneration, and the ability of Salix communities to provide important ecosystem services [14,15]. As temperatures increase, the range of suitable habitats for many Salix species is expected to shift, with some species likely to become more dominant in northern regions and others in the southern regions [16]. Changes in precipitation are also likely to have an impact [17], as increased levels of precipitation in some areas can lead to decreased water availability in others [18,19], potentially reducing the suitability of certain habitat types for certain Salix species [20]. In addition, changes in fire regimes and other disturbances such as flooding, drought, and herbivory are likely to have an effect on willow communities [14,16].
Riparian habitats have received attention from researchers worldwide, including studies by Niman et al. [9], who emphasized their importance in preserving biodiversity, and by Poff et al. [6], who focused on their ecological integrity. Recent research has focused on the management and conservation of these habitats, which are considered unique and essential [8,10,11,12].
Recently, a study by Cannone et al. [14] found that changes in the European Alps ecosystem are taking place, with Salix shrubs spreading beyond their typical riparian and wetland habitats into subalpine and alpine shrublands, meadows, snowbeds, pioneer vegetation, and barren lands of the nival belt. Myklestad and Birks [21] analyzed the distribution of 65 native Salix species in Europe, finding a possible connection between certain habitats, altitudes, and species occurrences due to temperature tolerance. Previous studies in Romania have described Salix communities only in isolated areas. There is, however, a study of the distribution of the Salix genus nationwide [22], but the significant role of these riparian communities is overlooked in conservation and management efforts. An exception is a study that includes Salix alba communities together with Populus alba in the Natura 2000 site Muresul Mediociu-Cugir [23].
This study provides an overview of riparian Salix (S. alba, S. fragilis, S. purpurea, and S. triandra) communities in and around the Romanian Carpathians, including their diversity, distribution, ecological importance, and conservation. In the context of climatic changes, the role of these communities is vital for local and regional ecosystems.

2. Material and Methods

The Carpathian Mountains span across Romania and are an important mountain range in Eastern Europe. They form a natural border between Romania and its neighbors and are home to a number of unique flora and fauna [24]. The Romanian Carpathians are the source of most of Romania’s rivers. The Romanian rivers network consists of a large number of rivers, including the Danube. These rivers flow through the country and form the backbone of Romania’s hydrography [25]
MGRS (Military Grid Reference System) is a standardized grid system used to specify the location of points on the Earth’s surface. The system divides the Earth’s surface into a grid of squares, with each square identified by a unique combination of letters and numbers. The MGRS system is based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system and is commonly used for navigation, mapping, and targeting. It provides a precise and globally consistent way of referencing locations, allowing users to quickly and accurately communicate the location of a target or objective [26]. The software that enabled these can visually present syntaxis chorology at a scale of 1:6,000,000; the map used shows the multi-year average temperature per year [27,28].
This paper gathers information from the national literature and the main herbaria from Romania [22].
Vegetation in the study area was analyzed using phytosociological methods from the Braun–Blanquet School (Zurich-Montpellier) [29]. The study focused on plant communities dominated by Salix species. The approach involves a systematic sampling of plant species throughout the study area, using squares of 50 or 100 m2. The squares are randomly placed in the study area, and the species encountered in each square are recorded, together with their frequency. Finally, the vegetation was classified according to EuroVegChecklist [30]. For a large number of surveys and to simplify the analysis, we use a synoptic table with constancy values coded in percentages. Using synoptic tables allows reusing published material presenting only simplified frequency class values, and we have recorded the categories as follows: V—90%, IV—70%, III—50%, II—30%, I—10%.
The research was carried out along the main watersheds of the mountain region of the Romanian Carpathians and in their surroundings. The angiosperms group taxonomy was performed according to the Euro + MedPlantBase [31] and The Plant List [32]. We used national literature as well [33].
Vegetation data were obtained from our own database but also from the literature [22].
Ellenberg has made significant contributions to the study of vegetation ecology, in particular through the Ellenberg Indicator Values [34]. However, the EIVE (Ecological Indicator Value System) is currently the most comprehensive ecological indicator system for European vascular plants. It uses consistent metric scales for niche position and width, allowing new opportunities for large-scale analysis of vegetation patterns. According to EIVE, for each of the Salix studied species, we considered the five dimensions: soil moisture (M), soil nitrogen (N), soil reaction (R), light (L), and temperature (T), and we calculated European values for niche position and niche width by combining values from individual EIV systems [35].
We used Microsoft Excel [36] to build and maintain our own database and Past [37] to create the graphs.

3. Results

By searching the literature in Romania, we have gathered 312 records for Salix alba, 269 records for S. fragilis, 305 records for S. purpurea, and 240 records for S. triandra. Additionally, another 132 records for S. alba, 102 for S. fragilis, 152 for S. purpurea, and 135 for S. triandra have been collected from herbaria (Figure 1).
For a better understanding, we considered that a percentage diagram completes the overview of the distribution of studied Salix communities (Figure 2).
Therefore, the number of records for all four species studied is much higher than the number of records in the literature (70.27% records for S. alba, 64.5 records for S. fragilis, 60.73 records for S. purpurea, and 64 records for S. triandra), and only 29.72% of the records for S. alba, 24.46 for S. fragilis, 33.26 for S. purpurea, and 36% for S. triandra were collected from herbaria.
Based on the MGRS code database collected from the literature and herbarium, we compiled distribution maps for each of the four Salix species studied (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6). Our findings revealed a wide geographic range of locations where these willow species can be found. It is also observed that this wide distribution of the four Salix species connects different regions of the study area.
Overall, the number of records was 444 for S. alba (Figure 3), 417 for S. fragilis (Figure 4), 457 for S. purpurea (Figure 5), and 375 for S. triandra (Figure 6).
The values for niche position and niche width by combining the values from the individual EIV systems were noted (Table 1):
In analyzing the four communities, there are 419 surveys, and we have extracted the most common species found in each community from the data we hold. The analysis was performed on 150 surveys where we found S. alba and S. fragilis as the co-dominant species, 123 surveys where we found S. purpurea as the dominant, and 146 surveys where we found S. triandra as the dominant. We listed a synoptic table in Table S1. We found 189 unique species in those four communities.

4. Discussion

In our research, the diversity of riparian communities is exemplified by the presence of four species of willow shrubs belonging to the genus Salix (S. alba, S. fragilis, S. purpurea, and S. triandra). Phytosociologically, the communities they define belong to Salicetea purpureae Moor 1958 [30]. These species can be found in a wide range of ecosystems, demonstrating the versatility and adaptability of these riparian willow communities. Our study highlights the importance of these communities that can have an influential role in maintaining biodiversity and ecological balance in various habitats. Information on the geographical distribution of species is essential to understand their evolutionary history and classification within the taxonomic system. Maps of 125 Salix species from the North American area were produced by Argus [38] and included herbarium data. Similar to our study, it is based on thousands of verified specimens deposited in herbaria.
We found them as did many other authors, in wetland ecosystems, such as bogs, marshes, and fens, as well as along streams, rivers, and lakes [5]. Salix species vary in size, shape, and growth form, and they can range from shrubby and mat-forming to taller and more upright [7]. These species possess a close approximation of environmental requirements, and as a result, it is not uncommon for them to be found together in a shared habitat. This can be observed through the presence of overlapping locations on the map, which indicates that these species can occur in the same area.
Salix community distribution maps provide mean annual temperature information as shown in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6. The purpose of including this ecological indicator was to obtain information on the temperature preferences of Salix species. Analyzing these maps, it is evident that these species usually live in communities that fall within the average temperature range (also evident from the list of ecological indicator values, Table 1). This suggests that temperature plays a crucial role in shaping the distribution and abundance of these communities, as observed in previous research [1]. Consequently, the decision to use mean annual temperature as an indicator for distribution maps was based on the idea that it is an important factor in understanding the distribution of Salix communities.
Information about the geographical distribution of species is crucial in comprehending their evolutionary history and classification within the taxonomic system. The four Salix species can be found in a wide range of locations within the study region, a pattern that is consistent with previous studies [39,40].
As claimed by other authors, Salix alba is found from Europe to Western Asia, and in the area surveyed on the riverbanks of hilly rivers [41].
Plant species commonly found in Salix alba communities include other willow species (S. fragilis [42] which can sometimes be codominant or subdominant), Alnus incana, Angelica sylvestris, Cardamine pratensis, Cruciata laevipes, Populus alba, Rumex obtusifolius (Table S1) in the study area, as mentioned by other authors [43,44]. It is also a common component of disturbed sites [45,46].
Salix fragilis is a species of willow native to North America and Europe [47]. Like many authors, we found it in moist habitats, such as wetlands, riparian areas, and meadows [48]. It is a deciduous shrub, growing to a height of up to 6 m [49].
Salix purpurea is a species of willow that is found in a variety of wetland habitats (Figure 3), including wet meadows, marshes, fens, and swamps [50,51]. It is often found in wetlands that have been disturbed by human activities, such as agricultural drainage and the construction of dams and roads [51]. S. purpurea communities are typically composed of a mixture of other willow species, such as S. alba and S. fragilis [52,53]. It is a fast-growing, short-lived tree that is capable of colonizing disturbed areas and forming dense thickets. The other species are Aegopodium podagraria, Alnus incana, Calamagrostis pseudophragmites, Myricaria germanica, Salix caprea, S. elaeagnos, S. viminalis.
Salix triandae communities are found in a variety of habitats ranging from river banks and wetlands to alpine meadows and open forests (Figure 4) [53]. These communities are dominated by the small, deciduous willow shrub, S. triandae, which often forms dense stands along streambanks and in wet meadows [54]. In addition to S. triandae, these communities contain a variety of other plant species as Echinocystis lobata, Galeopsis speciosa, Helianthus decapetalus, Heracleum sphondylium, Morus alba, Populus nigra (Table S1).
As S. triandae grows in dense stands, it can create an environment that is not suitable for other trees to survive in [54]. The values for niche position and niche width are very close for all ecological indicators: M (soil moisture), R (soil reaction), L (light), and T (temperature) but not for the ecological indicator for soil nitrogen availability (N) [34]. Therefore, the four Salix species are found in separate communities within the same riparian habitat because of their distinct ecological needs. Although most Salix species are able to thrive in low oxygen conditions, some may have a preference for soil with more minerals than organic matter [13].
According to the national list of ecological indicators [33], it is evident that all Salix riparian species in the study have the same high M and T values because they are hydrophytic and also mesothermophilic species. The value of R is different and even more different for Salix triandra: it prefers very acidic soils unlike S. alba and S. fragilis which are found on weakly acid-neutrophilic soils. The use of ecological indicator values of plants to indicate environmental variables such as humidity, temperature, or pH is a powerful tool for research in plant ecology. This approach can be used to detect early changes in vegetation concluded by Saatkamp et al. [55]. Temperature and moisture were the main factors influencing the composition of the sites studied using Ellenberg indicator values [56]. They are interacting factors and not independent variables [57].
To better appreciate the distribution of these Salix species, we have displayed the synoptic table for each community studied (Table S1).
Hence, there are common species for each of the two Salix communities. For example, the common species of S. purpurea and S. alba together with S. fragilis are Ranunculus repens, Geranium robertianum, Solanum dulcamara, Glechoma hederacea, Crataegus monogyna and Acer campestre. Similarly, common species of S. alba communities together with S. fragilis and S. triandra: Cucubalus baccifer, Lycopus europaeus, Stellaria aquatica, Oenothera biennis, Sambucus nigra and the common species of S. purpurea and S. triandra are Petasites hybridus, Cirsium oleraceum, Agropyron caninum, Phalaris arundinacea, Veronica beccabunga, Epilobium hirsutum, Polygonum minus.
From our studies species characteristic of the Salicetalia alliance are found in all four communities (Populus alba, P. nigra, Calystegia sepium, Eupatorium cannabinum, Humulus lupulus, Rubus caesius, Urtica dioica, Lysimachia vulgaris, Saponaria officinalis, Polygonum hydropiper). In order to fully understand the dynamics of these Salix communities, further research is necessary in the future.

4.1. Ecological Importance

Below, we assess the status of the analyzed communities based on their ecological significance. The more widespread Salix riparian communities are, the more beneficial they are for providing important ecological functions and services. The distribution maps indicate that all four species analyzed have a wide distribution throughout the area under consideration [58]. One of riparian Salix communities’ most important ecological functions is their ability to stabilize streambanks and prevent erosion [59]. The deep roots of willow trees and shrubs help to anchor the soil and keep it in place, reducing the risk of landslides and sediment runoff [60]. This is especially important in areas where human activities, such as agriculture and urban development, have increased the risk of erosion [61].
Riparian Salix communities also play a critical role in maintaining water quality [56]. The leaves and branches of willow trees and shrubs act as natural filters, trapping sediment and pollutants before they can enter rivers and streams [59,62]. Moreover, the root system of these plants helps absorb and break down pollutants, reducing the risk of contamination.
In this regard, distribution maps clearly demonstrate a wide range of locations where willow species are found. This species diversity in riparian habitats provides a rich range of resources and environments for many different plant and animal species. This includes birds, mammals, amphibians, and insects. The presence of these diverse species enhances the biodiversity and ecological richness of these habitats, which are considered important for maintaining a balanced and healthy ecosystem [63].
Climate change is significantly impacting riparian Salix communities [64]. For a long time, researchers have focused on clarifying the principles that govern how temperature influences the distribution of species and vegetation [55]. Rising temperatures due to climate change can lead to increased evapotranspiration, which is the loss of water from plants and the surrounding air, stressing Salix communities and making them more vulnerable to disease and insect invasion [65]. Furthermore, changes in precipitation patterns, such as decreasing snow cover and earlier snowmelt, can alter the timing and availability of water for willows [66], which can lead to reduced growth and survival. These impacts emphasize the need for effective management strategies to preserve these communities and their important roles in stabilizing river banks and providing habitats for a diversity of species [23,65].

4.2. Conservation

The maps display the distribution of four Salix in the Romanian Carpathians. It may show areas where willows are more or less abundant, as well as any patterns or trends in their distribution [67]. The map could be useful for researchers studying the ecology of the region, or for conservationists interested in preserving important habitats for willows and the species that depend on them [68].
According to the synoptic table (Table S1), there are 189 unique species in our studied communities. The Salicetalia alliance, which includes a diverse group of plant species adapted to moist and wet habitats, was found to be present in varying abundances across all the communities studied.
While Salicetalia vegetation plays an important ecological role, it is not considered to be a highly diverse plant community, and there are typically no endemic species associated with it [69]. However, one major challenge facing these communities is the presence of invasive plant species. Invasive plants can quickly outcompete native vegetation and disrupt the balance of the ecosystem, leading to negative impacts on water quality, wildlife habitat, and other ecological processes [69]. Some of the most invasive species in our studied communities but also in Southeast Europe [70] are Amorpha fruticosa and Rudbeckia laciniata (Table S1). A. fruticosa was introduced for ornament and land protection but has quickly spread, invading natural Populus and Salix forests, outcompeting native species, and reducing floodplain carrying capacity [71]. Interestingly, this species has been noticed to form an amorphosum fruticosae subassociation (Borza 1954 n.n.) Coste 1975 (Syn.: Amorphetum fruticosae Borza 1954 n.n.), within the association Salicetum triandrae, as well as in that of Salicetum albae amorphosum fruticosae Morariu et Danciu 1970 [72]. Similarly, R. laciniata is found in riparian habitats, forms dense clusters, and can outcompete native plants [71]. The presence of these invasive species can have serious implications for ecological health, and it’s crucial to monitor and control their spread to protect biodiversity [7,67]. The study also highlights the decline in biodiversity data quality and the need for more resources for biodiversity research and conservation.
Salix riparian communities are vital habitats for biodiversity and ecological balance, but they are threatened by human activities, such as canalization, plant invasion, and climate change. This results in a decline in their quality and biodiversity [63]. Protecting and conserving these areas is crucial for the survival and prosperity of different species, especially Salix alba [70,73]. In recognition of their ecological significance, Salix alba and Populus alba galleries are part of the protected habitat in the N2000 network, which is a network of protected areas established in accordance with the EU Habitats Directive [74]. This network plays a crucial role in safeguarding the biodiversity of Europe and preserving its unique habitats and species.
According to distribution maps, there is a significant opportunity to apply the concept of creating connected riparian community corridors and enhancing habitat connectivity in the study area [75]. This will help to improve the overall health and functioning of the riparian ecosystem and enhance the resilience of these habitats to the impacts of human activities and environmental changes [76,77]. By implementing these measures, it will be possible to conserve these vital habitats and maintain their ecological significance for future generations [3,78].
Conservation status of S. alba communities: Emerald: G1.11—Riverine Salix woodland; Table S1: *91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae); 92A0 Salix alba and Populus alba galleries.
Conservation status of S. triandra communities: EUNIS: F9.121: Almond willow-osier scrub MAES-2: Heathland and shrub IUCN: Temperate shrubland.
Conservation status of S. purpurea communities: Emerald: F9.1 Temperate and boreal riparian scrub, Table S1 of the Habitats Directive: 3230 Alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Myricaria germanica; 3240 Alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Salix elaeagnos.

5. Conclusions

Salix riparian communities are vegetation communities found in riparian areas [13,67] and are characterized by the growth of several species of willow, shrubs, and herbaceous plants [15]. The distribution of four Salix species and the communities in which they are found were analyzed. Depending on the environmental conditions, the species in a Salix riparian community may include one or more of the species studied (S. alba, S. fragilis, S. purpurea, and S. triandra) as well as other trees and shrubs such as Populus alba, Alnus glutinosa, Humulus lupulus, Rubus caesius [16]. In these communities, herbaceous plants such as Urtica dioica, Galium aparine, Stellaria aquatica, Agrostis stolonifera, Ranunculus repens, Poa trivialis, Solanum dulcamara, Lysimachia nummularia can also be found. [16,17].
The analyzed species have a widespread distribution in riparian habitats from studied areas and provide important ecological functions such as stabilizing streambanks and preventing erosion, maintaining water quality, and enhancing biodiversity [61]. The four Salix species found in a riparian habitat have different ecological needs, primarily due to differences in soil nitrogen availability (N). Despite having similar values for other indicators such as soil moisture (M), temperature (T), and light (L), they are found in separate communities. All Salix species are hydrophytic and mesothermophilic, with varying preferences for soil reaction (R), with Salix triandra preferring very acidic soils and others preferring weakly acidic to neutral soils.
Salix riparian communities are important habitats for biodiversity and ecological balance [3]. Effective management strategies are necessary to preserve these communities and their ecological roles [61]. The N2000 network, established under the EU Habitats Directive, protects these habitats and plays a major role in biodiversity conservation in Europe. Several strategies can be used to conserve these habitats, such as maintaining existing populations, restoring degraded habitats, carrying out research and monitoring, and promoting education and outreach activities. The conservation status of S. alba, S. fragilis, S. triandra, and S. purpurea communities varies and are recognized as important habitats for conservation.
Further in-depth investigations are needed to gain a comprehensive understanding of riparian habitats and the species that occupy these environments. In addition, future research efforts should also focus on other important tree and shrub species found in these habitats to expand our knowledge and improve our understanding of these important ecosystems.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d15030397/s1, Table S1: Synoptic table of Salix communities.

Funding

This research was funded by the project RO1567-IBB01/2022 of the Romanian Academy.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data is contained within the manuscript and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Sorin Ștefănuț for his help in data analysis. I would also like to extend my thanks to the anonymous reviewers whose constructive feedback and thoughtful suggestions helped to strengthen the clarity and rigor of the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fremier, A.K.; Kiparsky, M.; Gmur, S.; Aycrigg, J.; Craig, R.K.; Svancara, L.K.; Goble, D.D.; Cosens, B.; Davis, F.W.; Scott, J.M. A riparian conservation network for ecological resilience. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 191, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Naiman, R.J.; Bilby, R.E.; Bisson, P.A. Riparian Ecology and Management in the Pacific Coastal Rain Forest. Bioscience 2000, 50, 996–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Macfarlane, W.W.; Gilbert, J.T.; Jensen, M.L.; Gilbert, J.D.; Hough-Snee, N.; McHugh, P.A.; Wheaton, J.M.; Bennett, S.N. Riparian vegetation as an indicator of riparian condition: Detecting departures from historic condition across the North American West. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 202, 447–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Helfenstein, J.; Bauer, L.; Clalüna, A.; Bolliger, J.; Kienast, F. Landscape ecology meets landscape science. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1109–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fischer, R.A.; Martin, C.O.; Fischenich, J.C. Riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds. In International Conference on American Water Resources Association; American Water Resources Association: Middleburg, VA, USA, 2000; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  6. Poff, N.L.; Allan, J.D.; Bain, M.B.; Karr, J.R.; Prestegaard, K.L.; Richter, B.D.; Sparks, R.E.; Stromberg, J.C. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 1997, 47, 769–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yin, X.A.; Yang, Z.F.; Petts, G.E. A New Method to Assess the Flow Regime Alterations in Riverine Ecosystems. River Res. Appl. 2014, 31, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ren, K.; Huang, S.; Huang, Q.; Wang, H.; Leng, G. Environmental flow assessment considering inter- and intra-annual streamflow variability under the context of non-stationarity. Water 2018, 10, 1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Naiman, R.J.; Decamps, H.; Pollock, M. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 1993, 3, 209–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stella, J.C.; Vick, J.C.; Orr, B.K. Riparian vegetation dynamics on the Merced River. In California Riparian Systems: Processes and Floodplains Management, Ecology, and Restoration (2001 Riparian Habitat and Floodplains Conference Proceedings); University of California Press: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 302–314. [Google Scholar]
  11. Capon, S.; Chambers, L.E.; Mac Nally, R.; Naiman, R.J.; Davies, P.; Marshall, N.; Pittock, J.; Reid, M.; Capon, T.; Douglas, M.; et al. Riparian ecosystems in the 21st century: Hotspots for climate change adaptation? Ecosystems 2013, 16, 359–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Young, K.A. Riparian zone management in the Pacific Northwest: Who’s cutting what? Environ. Manag. 2000, 26, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kuzovkina, Y.A.; Quigley, M.F. Willows beyond wetlands: Uses of Salix L. species for environmental projects. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2005, 162, 183–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cannone, N.; Guglielmin, M.; Casiraghi, C.; Malfasi, F. Salix shrub encroachment along a 1000 m elevation gradient triggers a major ecosystem change in the European Alps. Ecography 2022, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Roloff, A.; Korn, S.; Gillner, S. The Climate-Species-Matrix to select tree species for urban habitats considering climate change. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Guilloy, H.; González, E.; Muller, E.; Hughes, F.M.R.; Barsoum, N. Abrupt drops in water table level influence the development of Populus nigra and Salix alba seedlings of different ages. Wetlands 2011, 31, 1249–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jones, M.H.; Macdonald, S.E.; Henry, G.H. Sex-and habitat-specific responses of a high arctic willow, Salix arctica, to experimental climate change. Oikos 1999, 87, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jones, M.H.; Bay, C.; Nordenhäll, U. Effects of experimental warming on arctic willows (Salix spp.): A comparison of responses from the Canadian High Arctic, Alaskan Arctic, and Swedish Subarctic. Glob. Change Biol. 1997, 3, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wheeler, J.A.; Cortés, A.J.; Sedlacek, J.; Karrenberg, S.; van Kleunen, M.; Wipf, S.; Hoch, G.; Bossdorf, O.; Rixen, C. The snow and the willows: Earlier spring snowmelt reduces performance in the low-lying alpine shrub Salix herbacea. J. Ecol. 2016, 104, 1041–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bret-Harte, M.S.; Shaver, G.R.; Chapin, F.S., III. Primary and secondary stem growth in arctic shrubs: Implications for community response to environmental change. J. Ecol. 2002, 90, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Myklestad, A.; Birks, H.J.B. A numerical analysis of the distribution patterns of Salix L. species in Europe. J. Biogeogr. 1993, 20, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sanda, V.; Barabas, N.; Stefanut, S. Atlas Florae Romaniae. IV. Salix; Ion Borcea’ Press: Bacău, Romania, 2005; 172p, ISBN 973-86586-5-9. [Google Scholar]
  23. Avram, C.M.; Proorocu, M.; Mălinaș, A.; Mălinaș, C. The Effectiveness of Natura 2000 Network in Conserving Salix alba and Populus alba Galleries against Invasive Species: A Case Study of Mureșul Mijlociu—Cugir Site, Romania. Forests 2023, 14, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Matenco, L.; Krézsek, C.; Merten, S.; Schmid, S.M.; Cloetingh, S.; Andriessen, P. Characteristics of collisional orogens with low topographic build-up: An example from the Carpathians. Terra Nova 2010, 22, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rãdoane, M.; Rãdoane, N.; Dumitriu, D. Geomorphological evolution of longitudinal river profiles in the Carpathians. Geomorphology 2003, 50, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. A Quick Guide to Using MGRS Coordinates. Available online: https://www.maptools.com/tutorials/mgrs/quick_guide (accessed on 17 December 2022).
  27. Ştefănuţ, S. The Hornwort and Liverwort Atlas of Romania; Edit. Ars Docendi—Universitatea din Bucureşti: Bucureşti, Romania, 2008; p. 510. ISBN 978-973-558-387-3. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bita-Nicolae, C. Distribution and Conservation Status of the Mountain Wetlands in the Romanian Carpathians. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Braun-Blanquet, J. Pflanzensoziologie: Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde, 3rd ed.; Springer: Vienna, Austria; New York, NY, USA, 1964; 631p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mucina, L.; Bültmann, H.; Dierßen, K.; Theurillat, J.; Raus, T.; Čarni, A.; Šumberová, K.; Willner, W.; Dengler, J.; García, R.G.; et al. Vegetation of Europe: Hierarchical floristic classification system of vascular plant, bryophyte, lichen, and algal communities. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2016, 19, 3–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Euro+MedPlantBase—The Information Resource for Euro-Mediterranean Plant Diversity. 2012. Available online: http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/ (accessed on 14 November 2022).
  32. The Plant List Version 1.1. 2013. Available online: http://www.theplantlist.org/ (accessed on 17 November 2022).
  33. Biță-Nicolae, C.; Sanda, V. Cormophlora of Romania: Spontaneous and Cultivated Cormophytes in Romania; Lambert Academic Publishing: Saarbrucken, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ellenberg, H.H. Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dengler, J.; Jansen, F.; Chusova, O.; Hüllbusch, E.; Nobis, M.P.; Van Meerbeek, K.; Axmanová, I.; Bruun, H.H.; Chytrý, M.; Guarino, R.; et al. Ecological Indicator Values for Europe (EIVE) 1.0. Veg. Classif. Surv. 2023, 4, 7–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel. 2018. Available online: https://office.microsoft.com/excel (accessed on 23 November 2022).
  37. Past 4—The Past of the Future. Available online: https://www.nhm.uio.no/english/research/resources/past/ (accessed on 30 December 2022).
  38. Argus, G.W. Salix (Salicaceae) distribution maps and a synopsis of their classification in North America, north of Mexico. Harv. Pap. Bot. 2007, 12, 335–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cooper, D.J.; Chimner, R.A.; Merritt, D.M. Western Mountain Wetlands; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 313–328. [Google Scholar]
  40. Busch, D.E.; Smith, S.D. Mechanisms Associated With Decline of Woody Species in Riparian Ecosystems of the Southwestern U.S. Ecol. Monogr. 1995, 65, 347–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Wagner, N.D.; He, L.; Hörandl, E. The evolutionary history, diversity, and ecology of willows (Salix L.) in the European Alps. Diversity 2021, 13, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Merritt, D.M.; Shafroth, P.B. Edaphic, salinity, and stand structural trends in chronosequences of native and non-native dominated riparian forests along the Colorado River, USA. Biol. Invasions 2012, 14, 2665–2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Beauchamp, V.B.; Stromberg, J.C.; Stutz, J.C. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated with Populus–Salix stands in a semiarid riparian ecosystem. New Phytol. 2006, 170, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Poldini, L.; Vidali, M.; Ganis, P. Riparian Salix alba: Scrubs of the Po lowland (N-Italy) from an European perspective. Plant Biosyst. 2011, 145, 132–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Buma, B.; Bisbing, S.M.; Wiles, G.; Bidlack, A.L. 100 yr of primary succession highlights stochasticity and competition driving community establishment and stability. Ecology 2019, 100, e02885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. López, D. Production capacity of biomass of the floodpain community of Salix alba L. in southern Moravia. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2007, 55, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Serra, M.N.; Albariño, R.; Villanueva, V.D. Invasive Salix fragilis alters benthic invertebrate communities and litter decomposition in northern Patagonian streams. Hydrobiologia 2013, 701, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lewerentz, A.; Egger, G.; Householder, J.E.; Reid, B.; Braun, A.C.; Garófano-Gómez, V. Functional assessment of invasive Salix fragilis L. in north-western Patagonian flood plains: A comparative approach. Acta Oecol. 2019, 95, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ens, J.; Farrell, R.E.; Bélanger, N. Early effects of afforestation with willow (Salix purpurea, “Hotel”) on soil carbon and nutrient availability. Forests 2013, 4, 137–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cloutier-Hurteau, B.; Turmel, M.-C.; Mercier, C.; Courchesne, F. The sequestration of trace elements by willow (Salix purpurea)—Which soil properties favor uptake and accumulation? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 4759–4771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Silc, U. Vegetation of the class Salicetea purpureae in Dolenjska (SE Slovenia). Fitosociologia 2003, 40, 3–27. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zheng, J.-M.; Wang, L.-Y.; Li, S.-Y.; Zhou, J.-X.; Sun, Q.-X. Relationship between community type of wetland plants and site elevation on sandbars of the East Dongting Lake, China. For. Stud. China 2009, 11, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mosner, E.; Schneider, S.; Lehmann, B.; Leyer, I. Hydrological prerequisites for optimum habitats of riparian Salix communities—Identifying suitable reforestation sites. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2011, 14, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rather, T.A.; Qaiser, K.N.; Khan, M.A. Growth and productivity of wicker willow (Salix triandra L.) plantation in Kashmir. Environ. Ecol. 2009, 27, 281–288. [Google Scholar]
  55. Saatkamp, A.; Falzon, N.; Argagnon, O.; Noble, V.; Dutoit, T.; Meineri, E. Calibrating ecological indicator values and niche width for a Mediterranean flora. Plant Biosyst. 2022, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Woodward, F.I. Temperature and the distribution of plant species. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 1988, 42, 59–75. [Google Scholar]
  57. Fanelli, G.; Tescarollo, P.; Testi, A. Ecological indicators applied to urban and suburban floras. Ecol. Indic. 2006, 6, 444–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Franklin, J. Mapping Species Distributions: Spatial Inference and Prediction; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  59. Riis, T.; Kelly-Quinn, M.; Aguiar, F.C.; Manolaki, P.; Bruno, D.; Bejarano, M.D.; Clerici, N.; Fernandes, M.R.; Franco, J.C.; Pettit, N.; et al. Global overview of ecosystem services provided by riparian vegetation. Bioscience 2020, 70, 501–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Aparício, B.A.; Nunes, J.P.; Bernard-Jannin, L.; Dias, L.F.; Fonseca, A.; Ferreira, T. Modelling the role of ground-true riparian vegetation for providing regulating services in a Mediterranean watershed. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2022, 11, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zu, J.; Xia, J.; Zeng, Z.; Liu, X.; Cai, W.; Li, J.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Dou, C. Distribution Pattern and Structure of Vascular Plant Communities in Riparian Areas and Their Response to Soil Factors: A Case Study of Baoan Lake, Hubei Province, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. George, M.R.; Jackson, R.D.; Boyd, C.S.; Tate, K.W. A scientific assessment of the effectiveness of riparian management practices. In Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Practices: Assessment, Recommendations, and Knowledge Gaps; American Water Resources Association: Middleburg, VA, USA, 2011; pp. 213–252. ISBN 1882132513. [Google Scholar]
  63. González, E.; Shafroth, P.B.; Lee, S.R.; Ostoja, S.M.; Brooks, M.L. Combined effects of biological control of an invasive shrub and fluvial processes on riparian vegetation dynamics. Biol. Invasions 2020, 22, 2339–2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nilsson, C.; Jansson, R.; Kuglerová, L.; Lind, L.; Ström, L. Boreal riparian vegetation under climate change. Ecosystems 2012, 16, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rivaes, R.; Rodríguez-González, P.M.; Albuquerque, A.; Pinheiro, A.N.; Egger, G.; Ferreira, M.T. Riparian vegetation responses to altered flow regimes driven by climate change in Mediterranean rivers. Ecohydrology 2013, 6, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Trimmel, H.; Weihs, P.; Leidinger, D.; Formayer, H.; Kalny, G.; Melcher, A. Can riparian vegetation shade mitigate the expected rise in stream temperatures due to climate change during heat waves in a human-impacted pre-alpine river? Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 437–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Henriques, M.; McVicar, T.R.; Holland, K.L.; Daly, E. Riparian vegetation and geomorphological interactions in anabranching rivers: A global review. Ecohydrology 2022, 15, e2370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Fourcade, Y. Comparing species distributions modelled from occurrence data and from expert-based range maps. Implication for predicting range shifts with climate change. Ecol. Inform. 2016, 36, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kiss, T.; Nagy, J.; Fehérváry, I.; Vaszkó, C. Management of floodplain vegetation: The effect of invasive species on vegetation roughness and flood levels. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 686, 931–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Radovanović, N.; Kuzmanović, N.; Vukojičić, S.; Lakušić, D.; Jovanović, S. Floristic diversity, composition and invasibility of riparian habitats with Amorpha fruticosa: A case study from Belgrade (Southeast Europe). Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 24, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Samarghitan, M.; Oroian, S.; Tanase, C. Contributions to the study of the alien and invasive species in some protected areas in Mures County, Romani. Acta Horti Bot. Bucur. 2018, 45, 33–46. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sanda, V.; Ollerer, K.; Burescu, P.; Fitocenozele din Romania, E. Ars Docendi; Universitatea Bucuresti: Bucharest, Romania, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  73. Schilling, K.E.; Mount, J.; Suttles, K.M.; McLellan, E.L.; Gassman, P.W.; White, M.J.; Arnold, J.G. An Approach for Prioritizing Natural Infrastructure Practices to Mitigate Flood and Nitrate Risks in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin. Land 2023, 12, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. State of Nature in the EU: Results from Reporting under the Nature Directives 2013–2018. Available online: www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu-2020 (accessed on 16 November 2022).
  75. Bennett, A.F.; Nimmo, D.G.; Radford, J.Q. Riparian vegetation has disproportionate benefits for landscape-scale conservation of woodland birds in highly modified environments. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 514–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Corkum, L.D. Conservation of running waters: Beyond riparian vegetation and species richness. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1999, 9, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mandžukovski, D.; Čarni, A.; Sotirovski, K. Interpretative Manual of European Riparian Forests and Shrublands; Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Hans Em Faculty of Forest Sciences: Skopje, North Macedonia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  78. Salinas, M.J.; Blanca, G.; Romero, A.T. Evaluating riparian vegetation in semi-arid Mediterranean watercourses in the south-eastern Iberian Peninsula. Environ. Conserv. 2000, 27, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Diversity 15 00397 g001 550
Figure 1. Number of Salix species records.
Figure 1. Number of Salix species records.
Diversity 15 00397 g001
Diversity 15 00397 g002 550
Figure 2. Data of Salix communities. (a) S. alba, (b) S. fragilis, (c) S. purpurea, (d) S. triandra.
Figure 2. Data of Salix communities. (a) S. alba, (b) S. fragilis, (c) S. purpurea, (d) S. triandra.
Diversity 15 00397 g002
Diversity 15 00397 g003 550
Figure 3. Distribution of 🔴 Salix alba communities.
Figure 3. Distribution of 🔴 Salix alba communities.
Diversity 15 00397 g003
Diversity 15 00397 g004 550
Figure 4. Distribution of 🔴 Salix fragilis communities.
Figure 4. Distribution of 🔴 Salix fragilis communities.
Diversity 15 00397 g004
Diversity 15 00397 g005 550
Figure 5. Distribution of 🔴 Salix purpurea communites.
Figure 5. Distribution of 🔴 Salix purpurea communites.
Diversity 15 00397 g005
Diversity 15 00397 g006 550
Figure 6. Distribution of 🔴 Salix triandra comunities.
Figure 6. Distribution of 🔴 Salix triandra comunities.
Diversity 15 00397 g006
Table
Table 1. Values for niche position and niche width.
Table 1. Values for niche position and niche width.
a
S. alba S. fragilis S. purpurea S. triandra
npnwnpnwnpnwnpnw
6.53.16.72.564.76.72.8
7.24.36.42.95.15.95.15
7.93.9--7.93.57.53.2
5.85.84.52.87.84.37.54.4
4.83.7--43.63.93.6
b
SalixS. albaS. fragilisS. purpureaS. triandra
M5555
T3333
R443.50
M = ecological indicator for soil moisture; N = ecological indicator for soil nitrogen availability; R = ecological indicator for soil reaction; L = ecological indicator for light; T = ecological indicator for temperature according to a. EIVE b. national list. np = niche position indicator, nw = niche width indicator.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bita-Nicolae, C. Distribution of the Riparian Salix Communities in and around Romanian Carpathians. Diversity 2023, 15, 397. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15030397

AMA Style

Bita-Nicolae C. Distribution of the Riparian Salix Communities in and around Romanian Carpathians. Diversity. 2023; 15(3):397. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15030397

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bita-Nicolae, Claudia. 2023. "Distribution of the Riparian Salix Communities in and around Romanian Carpathians" Diversity 15, no. 3: 397. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15030397

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop