Next Article in Journal
Melatonin Regulatory Mechanisms and Phylogenetic Analyses of Melatonin Biosynthesis Related Genes Extracted from Peanut under Salinity Stress
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Alpha-Amylase Inhibitory, Antioxidant, and Antimicrobial Potential and Phytochemical Contents of Polygonum hydropiper L.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 9
Issue 7
10.3390/plants9070853
plants-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:
Review

A Synopsis of Sardinian Studies: Why Is it Important to Work on Island Orchids?

by
Michele Lussu
1,2,*,
Michela Marignani
1,
Roberta Lai
1,
Maria Cecilia Loi
1,
Annalena Cogoni
1 and
Pierluigi Cortis
1
1
Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell’Ambiente, Università degli Studi di Cagliari, 09130 Cagliari, Italy
2
Istituto Regionale per la Floricoltura (IRF), 18038 Sanremo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2020, 9(7), 853; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070853
Submission received: 6 April 2020 / Revised: 1 July 2020 / Accepted: 2 July 2020 / Published: 6 July 2020
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Biological and ecological investigations of islands are crucial to explain ecosystem functioning. Many studies on island biodiversity are carried out on oceanic islands. In contrast, information on continental islands, such as those in the Mediterranean Sea, is very often fragmented in space and time. Here, a synopsis of the Orchidaceae of Sardinia is presented based on literature surveys and recent botanical field studies. Our final list comprises of 64 species and 14 genera: thirteen species and subspecies were recognized as endemic and four new species were recorded for the flora of the island: Anacamptis palustris (Jacq.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase; Himantoglossum hircinum (L.) Spreng; Orchis italica Poir.; and Platanthera kuenkelei subsp. kuenkelei var. sardoa R.Lorenz, Akhalk., H.Baumann, Cortis, Cogoni & Scrugli. This orchid richness reflects the geological history of the island that was linked to the mainland several times, facing long periods of isolation. We also discuss a critical point-of-view of the biodiversity shortfalls still problematic for insular orchids. Indeed, within the Mediterranean Basin, the greatest amount of endemism occurs mainly on large islands, and, despite a long history of botanical exploration in European countries, many of them are scarcely investigated. This annotated synopsis shows the potential of continental islands to understand trends in ecology and evolution. Further studies are required to complete our knowledge of the orchid diversity on continental islands in order to propose scientific-based conservation programs to preserve these unique taxa.

1. Introduction

Islands are natural laboratories to develop and test evolutionary and ecological theories [1,2,3,4,5]. Geographic isolation is one of the main causes of speciation [1]. When populations of the same breeding group are separated, they face independent evolutionary histories defined by natural selection, genetic drift, adaptation and colonization to local conditions [1,6]. Driven mainly by allopatry [7], island biodiversity is influenced by the distance from the mainland, the size and the age of the island [8]. Nevertheless, the idea that islands should not be seen merely as target areas for plant colonization but also as “halting places” was proposed by Darwin [9] but surprisingly has only recently been demonstrated [10,11]. On the basis of their origin, islands might be divided into two groups: oceanic islands, which have a volcanic origin and do not lay on the continental shelves, and continental islands, which lay on the continental shelves and have been linked with the mainland at some point in their past. Species–area and species–elevation relationships are the most common patterns adopted in ecology as descriptors of species richness because their increase corresponds to greater environmental diversity [12]. The relation between species recorded and area observed, species–area relationships (SARs), is considered as one of ecology’s few laws [12] and it is widely used to explain several ecological and biogeographic theories as the equilibrium theory of island biogeography [3]. The elevational diversity gradient (EDG) is influenced by temperature, precipitation and productivity which drastically change along elevational gradient shaping niches diversity [13]. Then, elevation is considered to be a surrogate of topographic complexity and habitat diversity [8,14,15,16,17]. Studies on insular biodiversity have been historically conducted on oceanic islands [3,4,5,7] and only recently on continental islands [8]. With more than 12,000 islands, the Mediterranean Basin is a hotspot of biodiversity [18,19]. Many of these islands are continental and originated during the Holocene, but few, such as Stromboli, Vulcano, Ischia, Pantelleria and Santorini, are volcanic. Each island or islet represents a small universe where ecological and evolutionary patterns have led to a unique ecosystem [19]. However, due to its complexity, the total number of plant species in the Mediterranean Basin is still uncertain and varies, depending on the author, from 25,000 to 30,000 [20,21]. The current structure, distribution and species diversification of Mediterranean flora have been deeply affected by dramatic palaeogeographic events and climatic changes occurred during the late Tertiary and Quaternary [22,23,24]. Within Angiosperms, the cosmopolitan family of Orchidaceae is one of the most species-rich and new species are described every year [25]. The extraordinary variability of their flowers and the peculiarity of their relationships with pollinators has attracted humans from remote times, allowing them to be adopted as model in biological studies [9,26]. Nevertheless, the concept of species in orchids still generates a vibrant debate and the literature about which character is taxonomically relevant is particularly rich [26,27,28]. Sardinia is the second largest island in the Mediterranean Basin and has a remarkable plant diversity [29]. One of our aims is to fill and summarize the distributional information (Wallacean shortfall [30]) on orchid across the island, which is a pivotal feature required by different international protection tools such as IUCN Red List and Important Plant Areas (IPAs) [31] and European ones (e.g., European Red List of Vascular Plants [32]), as uncertain knowledge on species biogeography easily leads to an inadequate prioritization [33,34,35,36]. Circa 85% of the island surface still lacks a detailed biogeographic study [37] and the field effort is concentrated mainly on the coasts and mountains [38]. This richness originated mainly as a portion of the continental biota transported during the fragmentation processes of the continental platform. Indeed, during the Early Oligocene, Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearic Islands were part of a mountain chain present in Iberia [37] that migrated to the actual location in the Western Mediterranean experiencing episodes of reunification with the continental platforms during the Messinian salinity crisis and Pleistocene glaciations [31,32,39]. A further route of plant colonization is long-distance dispersal (LDD). In the Mediterranean Basin, this mechanism has been proposed to explain the colonization of Quercus suber from Africa to Southern Europe, as well as the colonization of species with dust-like seeds, such as Platanthera kuenkelei subsp. kuenkelei var. sardoa [40,41]. The most important published contribution on orchids of Sardinia dates back to 1990 [42], followed, eighteen years later, by a PhD thesis [43], which represents the most updated available synthesis for the island, including 60 species in 15 genera. Since studies on Mediterranean plant biogeography are often run at species levels but rarely higher levels [8] and due to the recent progresses in different biological fields, we decided to update knowledge on Sardinian orchids. The aims of this paper are: (i) to update the check-list of Sardinian Orchidaceae presenting some notes about the observed orchid taxa; (ii) to propose an identification key; (iii) to relate insular orchid species and endemisms richness with area and maximum elevation; and (iv) to discuss the relevance of orchids in island conditions for evolutionary and conservation research and why they should have more attention.

2. Results

2.1. Current Knowledge

Our final list comprises 64 species and 14 genera: thirteen species are recognized as endemic (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). The chorologic spectrum of the endemic units is dominated by Sardo-Corsican taxa (6), followed by Sardinian (5), Sardo-Sicilian (1) and Sardo-Tunisian (1) ones (Table 3). Flowering period begins in January and ends in November (Table 4). The identification key is proposed in Supplementary File 1.

2.2. Local Conservation Status

Out of 64 species, 33 were classified as Least Concern, 18 as Vulnerable, 8 as Endangered and 5 as Critically Endangered. In contrast with the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, in our analysis, six species were classified as Vulnerable from Least Concern (Anacamptis laxiflora, A. pyramidalis, Cephalanthera damasonium, C. rubra, Epipactis palustris and Neotinea tridentata), three from Near Threatened to Vulnerable (Limodorum trabutianum, Platanthera algeriensis and Serapias nurrica), four from Least Concern to Endangered (Himantoglossum hircinum, Orchis brancifortii, O.italica and O. purpurea), two from Least Concern to Critically Endangered (Anacamptis palustris and Epipactis helleborine subsp. muelleri) and one from Near Threatened to Critically Endangered (Dactylorhiza elata subsp. sesquipedalis).

2.3. Species–Area and Species–Elevation Relationships

The results of the regression on species richness indicated the two predictors explained 34.4% of the variance (R2 = 0.3171, F1,50 = 21.58, p < 0.01). It was found that species richness was significantly predicted by area (β = 0.37, p =0.00836) but not by elevation (p = 0.07293). Our results on endemisms show that area and elevation explained 56.9% of the variance (R2 = 0.3171, F2,49 = 32.28, p < 0.01); the endemisms richness of an island was significantly predicted by area (β = 0.739, p = 1.93e-07) but not by elevation (p = 0.8585) (Figure 1).

2.4. Key Shortfalls

In the last decades, the number of orchid species recorded in Sardinia has varied from 55 in 1990 to 64 in this review, reflecting the increasing efforts of previous and current researchers to fill gaps in knowledge (Supplementary Files 2 and 3). We are still far from an exhaustive knowledge on Sardinian orchids and several gaps still affect our knowledge about them. The main causes probably are because ecological and evolutionary studies are hindered by gaps about identity, evolution, distribution and ecological dynamics of biodiversity [44]. At the core of all the shortfalls nests the notion of species [45]. The classification of organisms into different groups (species) is still a crucial debate. Indeed, it interferes with all other aspects of biodiversity, and thus the scarcity of information about the number of species occurring is one of the most relevant deficiencies in biodiversity [45]. Since orchids are highly specialized organisms where eco-ethological adaptations are not always reflected in genotypes, species circumscription has rarely found agreement among taxonomists [26,46,47]. Thus, this debate is a losing game in the presence of a disproportion of knowledge between morphofunctional data and molecular data, as we recorded for many Sardinian orchids (see Table 1 and Supplementary Files 2 and 3). Indeed, molecular data useful for phylogenetic reconstruction, Darwinian shortfall [48], are a crucial tool to understand evolutionary patterns in Mediterranean orchids [49]. From our field experience, we noticed the diversity of endemic entities and we strongly believe that a lumper approach could lead to the loss of some or all the nuances that orchids evolve in insular conditions. Indeed, only two (Ophrys holoserica subsp. chestermanii and O. normanii) out of five endemic taxa exclusive of Sardinia have been investigated from a phylogenetic perspective, underlining the relevance of this analysis to clarify species boundaries [50]. The remaining three, O. subfusca subsp. liveranii, O. fusca subsp. ortuabis and O. panattensis, are still not investigated and their phylogenetic positions is only partially supported [51]. In our case, the scarcity of the island’s surface investigated [37] raises several questions about the distribution of species already recorded as well as for those that have a potential distribution area on the island. Thus far, one of the major problems we encountered is that many of the previous publications are based on species distribution and rarely on their abundance. If Marignani et al. (2014) [52] asked if time is on our side or not, the local recent discovery and similarly rapid disappearance of Anacamptis palustris, and the current status of Ophrys scolopax subsp. apiformis and Dactylorhiza elata subsp. sesquipedalis, in line with the global reports [36], do not allow to waste precious time. In the last years, there has been an increase of studies based on functional traits in relation to reproductive success rather than their taxonomic or phylogenetic affiliations [53,54], the Raunkiæran shortfall [55], these studies must be conducted in parallel between island and continental species to understand, for example, the success of some taxonomic groups. Ecological studies on functional traits in Sardinian orchids have been focused mainly on pollination biology of endemisms [56,57,58]. However, pollinators are still not clear for some of them such as Ophrys scolopax subsp. conradiae and Platanthera kuenkelei subsp. kuenkelei var. sardoa, implying a partial circumscription of these species. Nevertheless, to make our data more usable and contextualized in a context that goes beyond the borders of the island, we responded to TRY’s initiative to contribute to new datasets for TRY version 6 with our unpublished data on functional traits (Lussu et al. unpublished). Given the current knowledge and supported by technical tools such as bioinformatic software and less expensive molecular analyses, the integration of results from different area of natural sciences have the potential to fill gaps in shorter times. This, we know, is a race against time because biodiversity is disappearing as Anacamptis palustris and Dactylorhiza elata subsp. sesquipedalis have taught us. Due to the lack of knowledge described above, our final list should not be considered definitive. Instead, it should be used to plan further studies on orchids in insular conditions.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

3.1.1. Topography

Sardinia is located in the central western Mediterranean Sea between 38°51′ and 41°15′ latitude N and 8°80′ and 9°50′ E longitude with an area of 24,090 km², being 270 km long and 145 km wide. The nearest island is Corsica, 11 km way, and the Italian peninsula is 187 km away.
Relevant mountain peaks are: Punta La Marmora (1834 m) and Monte Limbara (1362 m). The main wide alluvial valleys and flatlands are the Campidano and the Nurra. Seasonal rivers are relevant, while perennial rivers include the Tirso, 151 km, the Coghinas, 115 km, and the Flumendosa, 127 km. The only natural lake is Lago di Baratz, all the others are artificial. Large, shallow, salt-water lagoons are characteristic of the coast, particularly relevant is Molentargius lagoon in the city of Cagliari used for centuries for salt production.

3.1.2. Geology

The age of schistore sedimentary rocks varies from Lower Cambrian to Lower Carboniferous. These metamorphites result intruded by pleitonic granitoid rocks of Permo-Carboniferous age, belonging to the wide Sardinian-Corsican batholith [59]. Thick marine carbonatic sediments lie discordant on the Paleozoic Basement eroded during the Permo-Triassic period. A very thick Cenozoic succession constituted by continental and marine sediments, marles and limestones, of Eocene to Pliocene ages, rests on the Mesozoic sequence or, more frequently, directly on the Paleozoic Basement. Acid to basic volcanites of Oligocene–Miocene and Pliocene–Pleistocene volcanic cycles are associated to the above-mentioned sediments. Finally, detritic, prevalently continental, deposits of the ancient and recent Quaternary discontinuously cover all the previous geological formations [59].

3.1.3. Climate

Sardinia has a Mediterranean climate with two macrobioclimates: Mediterranean pluviseasonal oceanic and temperate oceanic. The continentality varies from weak semihyperoceanic to weak subcontinental including four classes, while eight thermotypic horizons ranging from lower thermomediterranean to upper supratemperate and seven ombrothermic horizons from lower dry to lower hyperhumid are described. Annual temperature ranges from 11 to 17 °C. Precipitations are typical of autumn and winter months and they vary from 400 to 1100 mm per year; spring and summer are usually hot and dry. Snowfalls are generally rare, but quite frequent in the highest mountain chains. The most relevant winds are the cold Mistral and the hot Scirocco from Sahara [60].

3.1.4. Plant Diversity

Sardinia, as a part of Mediterranean Basin, is classified within one of the 34 most important biodiversity hotspot in the world [19]: there are 2333 species, of which 347 are endemics [61,62]. The dominant chorological element is the Stenomediterranean (29%), followed by the Eurasian (17%) and the Eurimediterranean (16%) [63].

3.1.5. Human Impact

It is still unclear when Homo sapiens colonized Sardinia; however, first evidence of a stable human presence is recorded during the Upper Paleolithic [62,63]. During the Bronze Age, the Nuragic civilization arose. Through the following centuries, coasts were colonized in succession from Phoenicians, Romans, Vandals, Goths, Byzantines and Saracens, leaving the inner part of the island particularly isolated, causing, therefore, a strong genetic isolation in Sardinians.
The most ancient and relevant human activity on the island is sheep grazing [64]. In the last fifty years, the island has suffered of land abandonment and an increasing human pressure on coasts caused mainly by new touristic settlements. A constant and inadequate landscape management is a direct cause of soil salinification and desertification [65]. Since 1956, Sardinia hosts four North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military bases in strategic locations for a total of 213.6 sq km.
Three regional parks have been established, namely Regional natural park of Porto Conte (1999), Regional Natural park of Molentargius-Saline (1999) and Regional Natural park of Tepilora, Sant’Anna and Rio Posada (2014). and recognized as a biosphere reserve by UNESCO in 2017. In addition, three National parks were created: the archipelago of La Maddalena National Park in 1994, Asinara National Park in 1997 and Gulf of Orosei and Gennargentu National Park in 1998. National and Regional Parks cover an area of 1141 km2

3.2. Check-List of Sardinian Orchids

We carried out a literature search through ISI® Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar as well as through cross-referencing. The initial search terms for the query (23 February 2020) included “Orchids” AND “Sardinia”; we also performed a second query including each taxon recorded in Scrugli [42] and Lai [43] AND “Sardinia”. In addition, we implemented our investigation in the NIH genetic sequence database (GenBank) and the global archive of plant traits [66] using the previous keywords. We included studies meeting the following criteria: (i) performed in Sardinia; (ii) involved taxa listed in Sardinia; and (iii) published in peer-reviewed journals. Because of its useful local relevance, we also took into account the grey literature not published in peer-reviewed journals or published in Italian, German and French. To assess the conservation status of each taxa, we consulted IUCN Red List of Threatened Species databases, and we also investigated their legal protection. A specific search was conducted on the check-lists of Europe and Italy [42,43,62,67,68,69,70,71]. We decided to base our list on the work of Lai [43], updating it with new records and nomenclature changes. In addition to the bibliographic research, we also included unpublished data collected during almost 10 years of fieldwork carried out across the island during the decade (2009–2018). We included flowering period data taken from literature and integrated with our field observations. Descriptions of species and hybrids were prepared from both living specimens and herbarium material. New samples were deposited at the Herbarium CAG of Università degli Studi di Cagliari. Species identification was carried out adopting Lai [43] (2008) and [72] Kühn, Pedersen and Cribb (2019). A separate search was conducted on the orchid flora of the other Mediterranean Islands (Supplementary File 4). Nomenclature follows The International Plant Name Index.

3.3. Assessment of Local Conservation Status

To assess the local conservation status of orchid species, we used the terminology and the set of criteria and adopted by IUCN Red List of Threatened Species because it is widely recognized. However, Despite the data required by IUCN, our assessment is a simplified version based on the number of populations and the number of mature plants. Following Liu et al. (2005) [72], our categories consist of: Least Concern, >5000 individuals and many locations; Vulnerable, >5000 mature individuals and only 1–5 locations; Endangered, >250 mature individuals; Critically Endangered. <50 mature individuals or only known locations threatened with destruction; and Data Deficient, data were not sufficient.

3.4. Species–Area and Species–Elevation Relationships

Multiple regression analysis was used to test if the area and elevation significantly predicted species and endemic richness in Mediterranean Basin. We enumerated the orchid flora of 52 islands in the Mediterranean biogeographic region according to Médail and Quézel [18] and Thompson [23]. species–area relationships (SARs), endemics–area relationships (EARs) [19,29,73] and species–elevation relationships were investigated using standard linear regression. For SARs and EARs, the log–log representation of the power model was applied [12,74]. Statistical analyses were performed using R Core Team 2015.

4. Discussion

Both Wallace [75] and Darwin [1] underlined the role of islands to explain biological processes and their relevance in biogeography. In studies of island systems, particular emphasis has been placed on how biogeographic processes and island traits influence patterns of species diversity (e.g., [4,5,76,77]). The high level of biodiversity recorded in the Mediterranean shows the potential of continental islands to explain bio-ecological patterns [23]. Despite ecological investigations such as species–area or species–elevation relationships are ordinarily tested on oceanic island contest [5,11], studies on continental archipelagos are becoming relevant, also due to the availability in grey literature of long-term data [78,79,80]. The larger is the island, the more ecological niches available are expected and island area is a predictor of orchid species richness in the Mediterranean Basin. Big islands, such as Sardinia, are definitely more diversified in terms of habitats exploitable from drought tolerant genera such as Ophrys L. and Anacamptis Rich., which represent a significant portion of the Mediterranean orchid flora. On the contrary, elevation does not play a dominant role in orchid species richness and only six islands exceed the elevation of 1500 m. This might depend on several climatic oscillations encountered by this region during the Quaternary, which led to the current subtropical and xeric climate prompting the radiation of bee orchids. Indeed, simultaneously, the same oscillations would have led to extinction of the mesophilic taxa or pushing them to refuge in the very few niches survived on peaks [24]. Paleoclimatic species distribution models have shown that the Sardo-Corsican plate were probably the refuge of Dactylorhiza species during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) [81]. Indeed, allotetraploid taxa such as those of the majalis complex (ssp. lapponica, ssp. majalis, ssp. traunsteinerii) originated well before the last ice age. This would explain the limited distribution of D. elata subsp. sesquipedalis in Sardinia in one area, the Ogliastra, considered a glacial refugium from Médail et al. (2009) [24]. D. elata subsp. sesquipedalis prospers exclusively in nitrogen-poor substrates and it has a very narrow distribution similar to other refugia of D. majalis s.l. [82,83]. As reported for other plant families [84], within the Mediterranean Basin orchid endemic taxa show ecological difference compared to their congeners in the mainland. In Cyclamen, narrow endemic taxa occur in different habitats to their widespread species [84]. We observed the same pattern in at least three Ophrys. While O. fusca subsp. ortuabis clearly grows in association with Salvia rosmarinus Spenn., O. holoserica subsp. chestermanii and O. normanii prefer shady positions and deep soil if compared to their analogous mainland species. We also noticed that these three taxa exhibit specific phenotypic differences with their counterparts. Despite the large number of zoological studies, the Foster’s rule is still underestimated as well as controversial in plant sciences [85]. This ecogeographic rule states that on islands species tend to be bigger (insular gigantism) or smaller (insular dwarfism) due to resources availability [86]. Given the massive distributional and morphological data on Mediterranean orchids and the numerous cases of Mediterranean vertebrates that support this theory [68,70,87], orchids would be a consistent model to test in plants.
When compared to the other two big islands in West and Central Mediterranean, i.e., Corsica and Sicily, the uniqueness of the Sardinian orchid flora lies in its isolation and its habitat diversity. Indeed, despite the short distance that separates Sardinia and Corsica (only 11 km), their orchid flora diverges considerably because Corsican substrates are formed by a granite backbone while Sardinian are more heterogeneous. Specifically, Sardinia has fewer orchid genera but a higher number of species that prefer calcareous soils. Thus, Corsica hosts typically Apennine genera such as Epipogium Borkh. and Gymnadenia R.Br., suggesting its strong linkage with the continental plate. Moreover, all Corsican orchid endemisms have a Sardo-Corsican chorology while Sardinia hosts several single island endemisms, emphasizing the importance of Sardinia in driving speciation processes within the Mediterranean Basin. When compared with Sicily, instead, Sardinia has an analogous orchid flora but Sardinia displays the presence of the monospecific genus Gennaria Parl. and a higher number of endemisms as a consequence of its isolation. Notably, Sicily is only 3 km from the Italian Peninsula, and, therefore, its orchid flora is particularly influenced by this proximity, as suggested by the greater species richness of the genus Dactylorhiza Neck. ex Nevski and Epipactis temperate-boreal genera. In comparison with East Mediterranean islands, Sardinia is species poorer, but it is richer in terms of single island endemisms. The explanation may lie, again, in the remoteness of Sardinia in space and time that might have influenced processes of founder events or immigration by LDD generally accepted to explain distributional pattern in Dactylorhiza [81]. Adriatic, Aegean and Ionian Archipelagos are made up of dozens of islands and islets closely interconnected with each other and with the mainland. Moreover, their proximity to the continental plates, their recent geological separation and strong winds blowing from the mainland may have reduced genetic isolation on each island, providing seed dispersion within archipelagos.
Although DNA-based analyses have been particularly useful in resolving phylogenies of the main Mediterranean clades, by far intragenetic mechanisms of some charismatic Mediterranean orchid genera are still a challenge for present and future research [49]. In Sardinia, haplotype network constructions have revealed the complex phylogeographic mechanisms of the local genetic diversity in Epipactis Zinn and Platanthera Rich. [41,88]. In the same way, the recent use of Next-Generation Sequencing and its integration with morphometric, distributional and reproductive biology datasets has contributed to the knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms within the major groups of aggregate species such as the fusca group in Ophrys and the helleborine group in Epipactis. For instance, Bateman et al. (2020) [49] attempted to construct the phylogeny of the genus Ophrys noting that fusca branch obtained by the cladistic tree and RAD-seq tree is definitely long, suggesting a high rate of evolution. In Sardinia, this group is encompassed by four geographically, morphologically and ethologically well-defined microspecies. An interesting evolutionary question would be to analyze more precisely molecular patterns in co-occurring taxa at insular level [89,90]. Indeed, unfortunately, no molecular investigation involving these microspecies on a single island has yet been conducted, contributing to a lack of taxonomic clarity and therefore a proliferation of names not yet tested with scientific rigor. A locally defined sampling might be useful to define species and then be applicable in other insular contexts.
There are many eco-evolutionary questions that continental islands raise: Do orchids on continental and volcanic islands follow the same evolutionary patterns? At what stage of their evolutionary life are endemisms on the islands? What is the most suitable concept of species to describe these organisms that are still not very differentiated or poorly studied? What are the most suitable tools to protect orchids in this contest? We are confident that one of the most relevant threats to island orchids in the Mediterranean is the lack of knowledge on several fundamental aspects of their life such as pollination, their ecology and their genetic linkage. Irregular knowledge on species and their distribution has deep consequences on their conservation [44]. The variation of the number of orchid species recorded in Sardinia over time depends on the evolution of the concept of species from 1990 to today, but it also reflects the increase of a research based on extensive campaigns. However, this situation is not exclusive to Sardinia only, and we believe it can be extended to many other Mediterranean contexts. For instance, the only available data on the status of Dactylorhiza elata subsp. sesquipedalis concern exclusively the very small Italian population and no other information are available for other countries where it is recorded, i.e., France, Spain and Portugal [91]. We should also reflect more on the potential of non-academic involvement to gain data useful to science. Indeed, the integration of non-orthodox data sources into research has led to interesting phenological and distributional results [92,93]. In Sardinia, the discovery of new species would not have been possible without the field support of enthusiasts and orchid lovers. Furthermore, studies on endemic taxa have contributed to clarify strategies of evolution within the Orchidaceae family such as pollinator convergence [28,50,57] or define mechanisms of colonization in a complex system such as the Mediterranean Basin [41]. The ambiguous morphology of Ophrys normanii was the reason it was identified for decades as the hybrid between O. holoserica subsp. chestermanii and O. tenthredinifera and named O. × maremmae nsubsp. normanii (J.J. Wood) H. Baumann & Künkele. AFLP analysis, GC-EAD analyses and pollination experiments clarified that O. normanii is phylogenetically isolated by its putative parents and the sharing of Bombus vestalis as pollinator with O. holoserica subsp. chestermanii depends on convergent evolution [57]. On the other hand, Pavarese et al. (2011) [41] pointed out the role of LDD in defining the current Sardinian flora. In fact, they found that the single population of Platanthera kuenkelei subsp. kuenkelei var. sardoa is more closely related with Algerian samples than with Plantanthera bifolia (L.) Rich. from the Italian Peninsula. Linking the African, Arabian and Eurasian plates, the Mediterranean Basin is represented by groups of islands with intricate geopolitical history and this leads to a heterogeneous biodiversity management with direct consequence on conservation [52,91,92,93]. Nevertheless, the need of further research to fill gaps in knowledge has been already expressed [26,94].
Although much work has been done, much more effort is required to fill the gaps in knowledge with the non-secondary purpose of preserving biodiversity from anthropic pressure. Climate changes towards overheating affect species in quantity and distribution [95] and Ongaro and collaborators [96] suggested that several species will increase their range. The nine species investigated by Ongaro et al. [96] are overspread all over the island and they tolerate a wide range of habitats. Consequently, it is speculative to make predictions about the future distribution of taxa with restricted geographic location not knowing or knowing only partially what explains their actual occurrence. In Europe, where the human pressure lasted for centuries, orchids are dramatically threatened by habitat reduction and fragmentation [97,98], limiting orchid lifespan [99,100,101] and affecting their reproductive success. Nevertheless, habitat management might positively affect local orchid richness: for example, mowing could preserve orchids because it allows higher light intensities [102]. Even in Sardinia, mowing management actions could explain the orchid richness on roadside. In fact, in April and May, to prevent summer fires, local municipalities promote a haphazard mowing of grasses, but this time span corresponds to the blooming season of many orchid species. A better timing in the scheduled mowing, taking into account the life cycle of plant species—not only orchids—would certainly be significant to conserve plant diversity. Human impact might also influence plants affecting pollinator communities [103,104]. Globally, the main causes of the decrease of insects are landscape management and intense agricultural activities [98,105,106]. These pressures are generally not intense in low populated islands such as Sardinia [66] but, unfortunately, studies on pollinators distribution are absent in Sardinia. In Mediterranean islands, anthropic pressure is directly expressed with touristic coastal settlements whose impact is particularly consistent. It is not a case that the two most endangered species in Sardinia, Anacamptis palustris and Dactylorhiza elata subsp. sesquipedalis are located on the coast in fragile habitats such as humid herb grasslands (Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC)). Their peculiar life cycle exposes orchids to a greater danger of extinction when compared to other plants [107,108]. The Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) is an important European tool to protect biodiversity but it does not preserve orchids directly. Indeed, it mentions “semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (important orchid sites), code 6210”. Currently, Italy does not have a more exhaustive national regulation to directly protect orchids, and thus it has delegated the legislative provisions to the regions and autonomous provinces. The Autonomous Region of Sardinia has not issued any law yet. Although at regional level the requests for a regional law for the protection of the flora have not yet been accepted, positive local conservation actions are guided by small municipalities that have shown, despite their economic constraints, particular interests in developing protection and conservation initiatives. Under this light, at the Mediterranean level, the answers to questions of which conservation approach would be more adequate or which species or groups of species should have a conservation priority are really intricate to provide. A necessary step to deal with is to really understand the potential integrated and coordinated studies between islands and, at least countries members of the European Community, to make valid decisions before time begins to run against us. Many studies adopt the island of Sardinia to develop new approaches on conservation program both at theoretical and practical levels ([109,110,111] and references therein); nonetheless, a deeper analysis on orchids is required because of their peculiar biology. Indeed, we should remember that, on the 2018 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, four of the five extinct orchids are island endemism and this should be an alarm bell to warn us of the risk island orchid biodiversity currently faces.

5. Conclusions

Thus far, this synopsis is the most comprehensive analysis of studies on orchids on Sardinia and it could be helpful to reflect on how much we know about orchid diversity in continental island conditions: due to the complexity of the biology and evolution of orchids, we are aware that this list will face, in time, some thrilling changes. Knowledge about orchids is still deeply affected by critical gaps. Defining this lack is essential to draw future investigations on these charismatic organisms because of the peculiar location, geological, history and biogeographic gradient of Sardinia. Moreover, the exclusive and often fragile ecosystems of islands stimulate the rise of new questions, the development and testing of new theories at every ecosystem’s level and the investigation on how species interact. Hence, especially for islands where organisms have followed unique evolutionary trends, more integrated studies are necessary to fill existing knowledge deficits, in order to answer new eco-biological questions and to develop adequate programs to protect these intriguing lifeforms.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/9/7/853/s1, Supplementary File 1: Identification key to the orchids of Sardinia; Supplementary File 2: scientific literature concerned Sardinian orchids; Table Supplementary File 3: grey literature on Sardinian orchids; Supplementary File 4: literature on distribution of Mediterranean orchids.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L., M.M. and P.C.; methodology, M.C.L. and M.L.; validation, M.M. and A.C.; formal analysis, M.L.; investigation, M.L.; resources, R.L., M.L.; data curation, M.L., R.L., P.C. and A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.; writing—review and editing, M.L., M.M., P.C. and M.C.L.; visualization, M.M.; and supervision, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Darwin, C. On the Origin of Species, 6th ed.; John Murray: London, UK, 1859. [Google Scholar]
  2. Wallace, A.R. The Malay Archipelago: The Land of the Oranguatan, and the Bird of Paradise. A Narrative of Travel, with Studies of Man and Nature; Macmillan Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1869. [Google Scholar]
  3. MacArthur, R.H.; Wilson, E.O. The Theory of Island Biogeography; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  4. Losos, J.B.; Schluter, L. Analysis of an evolutionary species–area relationship. Nature 2000, 408, 847–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Whittaker, R.J.; Triantis, K.A.; Ladle, R.J. A general dynamic theory of oceanic island biogeography. J. Biogeogr. 2008, 35, 977–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mayr, E. Criteria of subspecies, species and genera in ornithology. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1943, 44, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bramwell, D.; Caujapé-Castells, J. The Biology of Island Floras; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  8. Traveset, A.; Fernández-Palacios, J.M.; Kueffer, C.; Bellingham, P.J.; Morden, C.; Drake, D.R. Introduction to the special issue: Advances in island plant biology since Sherwin Carlquist’s Island Biology. AoB PLANTS 2016, 8, plv148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Darwin, C. On the Various Contrivances by Which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects, and on the Good Effects of Intercrossing; John Murray: London, UK, 1862. [Google Scholar]
  10. Harbaugh, D.T.; Wagner, W.L.; Allan, G.J.; Zimmer, E.A. The Hawaiian Archipelago is a stepping stone for dispersal in the Pacific: An example from the plant genus Melicope (Rutaceae). J. Biogeogr. 2009, 36, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ackerman, J.D.; Trejo-Torres, J.C.; Crespo-Chuy, Y. Orchids of the West Indies: Predictability of diversity and endemism. J. Biogeogr. 2007, 34, 779–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rosenzweig, M.L. Species Diversity in Space and Time; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  13. McCain, C.M.; Grytnes, J.A. Elevational Gradients in Species Richness. In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS); John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kerr, J.T.; Packer, L. Habitat heterogeneity as a determinant of mammal species richness in high-energy regions. Nature 1997, 385, 252–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rahbek, C.; Graves, G.R. Multiscale assessment of patterns of avian species richness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 4534–4539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Jetz, W.; Rahbek, C. Geographic range size and determinants of avian species richness. Science 2002, 297, 1548–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Kreft, H.; Jetz, W. Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 5925–5930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Médail, F.; Quézel, P. Biodiversity hotspots in the Mediterranean Basin: Setting global conservation priorities. Conserv. Biol. 1999, 13, 1510–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mittermeier, R.A.; van Dijk, P.P.; Rhodin, A.G.J.; Nash, S.D. Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Ecoregions. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 2004, 14, 200. [Google Scholar]
  20. Quézel, P. Definition of the Mediterranean region and the origin of its flora. Geobotany 1985, 7, 9–24. [Google Scholar]
  21. Greuter, W. Botanical diversity, endemism, rarity, and extinction in the mediterranean area: An analysis based on the published volumes of med-checklist. Bot. Chron. 1991, 10, 63–79. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kadereit, J.W.; Greibler, E.M.; Comes, H.P. Quaternary diversification in European alpine plants: Pattern and process. Philos Trans. R. Soc. B 2004, 59, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Thompson, J.D. Plant Evolution in the Mediterranean; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  24. Médail, F.; Diadema, K. Glacial refugia influence plant diversity patterns in the Mediterranean Basin. J. Biogeogr. 2009, 36, 1333–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chase, M.; Cameron, K.M.; Freudenstein, J.V.; Pridgeon, A.M.; Salazar, G.; Berg, C.V.D.; Schuiteman, A. An updated classification of Orchidaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2015, 177, 151–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Bateman, R.M.; Bradshaw, E.; Devey, D.S.; Glover, B.J.; Malmgren, S.; Sramkó, G.; Thomas, M.M.; Rudall, P.J. Species arguments: Clarifying competing concepts of species delimitation in the pseudo-copulatory orchid genus Ophrys. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2011, 165, 336–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Devey, D.S.; Bateman, R.M.; Fay, M.F.; Hawkins, J.A. Friends or Relatives? Phylogenetics and Species Delimitation in the Controversial European Orchid Genus Ophrys. Ann. Bot. 2008, 101, 385–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Gögler, J.; Stökl, J.; Cortis, P.; Beyrle, H.; Lumaga, M.R.B.; Cozzolino, S.; Ayasse, M. Increased divergence in floral morphology strongly reduces gene flow in sympatric sexually deceptive orchids with the same pollinator. Evol. Ecol. 2015, 29, 703–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; Da Fonseca, G.A.B.; Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 2000, 403, 853–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Whittaker, R.J.; Araujo, M.B.; Jepson, P.; Ladle, R.J.; Watson, J.; Willis, K.J. Conservation Biogeography: Assessment and prospect. Divers. Distrib. 2005, 11, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Blasi, C.; Marignani, M.; Copiz, R.; Fipaldini, M.; Bonacquisti, S.; Del Vico, E.; Rosati, L.; Zavattero, L. Important Plant Areas in Italy: From data to mapping. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 220–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bilz, M.; Kell, S.P.; Maxted, N.; Lansdown, R.V. European Red List of Vascular Plants; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  33. Riddle, B.R.; Ladle, R.J.; Lourie, S.A.; Whittaker, R.J. Basic Biogeography: Estimating Biodiversity and Mapping Nature. In Conservation Biogeography; Ladle, R.J., Whittaker, R.J., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 45–92. [Google Scholar]
  34. De Lange, P.; Norton, D.A.; Courtney, S.P.; Heenan, P.B.; Barkla, J.W.; Cameron, E.K.; Hitchmough, R.; Townsend, A.J. Threatened and uncommon plants of New Zealand (2008 revision). N. Z. J. Bot. 2009, 47, 61–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Marignani, M.; Blasi, C. Looking for important plant areas: Selection based on criteria, complementarity, or both? Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21, 1853–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Humphreys, A.M.; Govaerts, R.; Ficinski, S.Z.; Nic Lughadha, E.; Vorontsova, M.S. Global dataset shows geography and life form predict modern plant extinction and rediscovery. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 1043–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mansion, G.; Selvi, F.; Guggisberg, A.; Conti, E. Origin of Mediterranean insular endemics in the Boraginales: Integrative evidence from molecular dating and ancestral area reconstruction. J. Biogeogr. 2009, 36, 1282–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hsu, K.J.; Ryan, W.B.F.; Cita, M.B.; Hsü, K.J. Late Miocene Desiccation of the Mediterranean. Nature 1973, 242, 240–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Petit, R.J.; Aguinagalde, I.; De Beaulieu, J.-L.; Bittkau, C.; Brewer, S.; Cheddadi, R.; Ennos, R.; Fineschi, S.; Grivet, D.; Lascoux, M.; et al. Glacial Refugia: Hotspots But Not Melting Pots of Genetic Diversity. Science 2003, 300, 1563–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Magri, D.; Fineschi, S.; Bellarosa, R.; Buonamici, A.; Sebastiani, F.; Schirone, B.; Simeone, M.C.; Vendramin, G.G. The distribution of Quercus suberchloroplast haplotypes matches the palaeogeographical history of the western Mediterranean. Mol. Ecol. 2007, 16, 5259–5266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pavarese, G.; Tranchida-Lombardo, V.; Cogoni, A.; Cristaudo, A.; Cozzolino, S. Where do Sardinian orchids come from: A putative African origin for the insular population of Platanthera bifolia var. kuenkelei? Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2011, 167, 466–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Scrugli, A. Orchidee Spontanee della Sardegna Origine, Morfologia, Riproduzione, Impollinazione, Ibridazione, Anomalie, Fioritura; Edizioni Della Torre: Cagliari, Italy, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lai, R. Aggiornamento Corologico, Tassonomico, Nomenclaturale della Flora Orchidologica della Sardegna. Dottorato di Ricerca in Botanica Ambientale e Applicata. Ciclo XX; Università degli Studi di Cagliari: Cagliari, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hortal, J.; De Bello, F.; Diniz-Filho, J.A.; Lewinsohn, T.M.; Lobo, J.M.; Ladle, R.J. Seven Shortfalls that Beset Large-Scale Knowledge of Biodiversity Seven shortfalls biodiversity that beset knowledge on. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2015, 46, 523–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Brown, J.H.; Lomolino, M.V. Biogeography; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 1998; 691p. [Google Scholar]
  46. Cortis, P.; Vereecken, N.J.; Schiestl, F.; Lumaga, M.R.B.; Scrugli, A.; Cozzolino, S. Pollinator convergence and the nature of species’ boundaries in sympatric Sardinian Ophrys (Orchidaceae). Ann. Bot. 2008, 104, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Jin, W.-T.; Schuiteman, A.; Chase, M.; Li, J.-W.; Chung, S.-W.; Hsu, T.-C.; Jin, X.-H. Phylogenetics of subtribe Orchidinae s.l. (Orchidaceae; Orchidoideae) based on seven markers (plastid matK, psaB, rbcL, trnL-F, trnH-psba, and nuclear nrITS, Xdh): Implications for generic delimitation. BMC Plant Biol. 2017, 17, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Diniz-Filho, J.A.F.; Loyola, R.; Raia, P.; Mooers, A.O.; Bini, L.M. Darwinian shortfalls in biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013, 28, 689–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Bateman, R.M.; Sramkó, G.; Paun, O. Integrating restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (RAD-seq) with morphological cladistic analysis clarifies evolutionary relationships among major species groups of bee orchids. Ann. Bot. 2018, 121, 85–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Gögler, J.; Twele, R.; Francke, W.; Ayasse, M. Two phylogenetically distinct species of sexually deceptive orchids mimic the sex pheromone of their single common pollinator, the cuckoo bumblebee Bombus vestalis. Chemoecology 2011, 21, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Scrugli, A.; Cogoni, A.; Pessei, A. Eine neue interspezifische Hybride aus Sardinien: Ophrys × panattensis Scrugli, Cogoni et Pessei, nothosp. nov. Ophrys morisii (Martelli) Soó × Ophrys scolopax Cav. Die Orchid. 1992, 43, 224–227. [Google Scholar]
  52. Marignani, M.; Bacchetta, G.; Bagella, S.; Caria, M.C.; Delogu, F.; Farris, E.; Fenu, G.; Filigheddu, R.; Blasi, C. Is time on our side? Strengthening the link between field efforts and conservation needs. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Violle, C.; Navas, M.-L.; Vile, D.; Kazakou, E.; Fortunel, C.; Hummel, I.; Garnier, E. Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos 2007, 116, 882–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Díaz, S.; Purvis, A.; Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Mace, G.M.; Donoghue, M.J.; Ewers, R.M.; Jordano, P.; Pearse, W.D. Functional traits, the phylogeny of function, and ecosystem service vulnerability. Ecol. Evol. 2013, 3, 2958–2975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Kingsolver, J.G.; Berrigan, D.; Hill, C.E.; Hoang, A.; Gibert, P.; Beerli, P.; Hoekstra, J.M. The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations. Am. Nat. 2001, 157, 245–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Bacchetta, G.; Pontecorvo, C.; Vacca, R. La flora del Monte Arcuentu (Sardegna sud occidentale). Webbia 2007, 62, 175–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gögler, J.; Stökl, J.; Sramkova, A.; Twele, R.; Francke, W.; Cozzolino, S.; Cortis, P.; Scrugli, A.; Ayasse, M. Ménage à trois-Two endemic species of deceptive orchids and one pollinator species. Evolution 2009, 63, 2222–2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Lussu, M.; De Agostini, A.; Cogoni, A.; Marignani, M.; Cortis, P. Does size really matter? A comparative study on floral traits in orchids with two different pollination strategies. Plant Biol. 2019, 21, 961–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Carmignani, L.; Oggiano, G.; Funedda, A.; Conti, P.; Pasci, S. The geological map of Sardinia (Italy) at 1:250,000 scale. J. Maps 2015, 12, 826–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Canu, S.; Rosati, L.; Fiori, M.; Motroni, A.; Filigheddu, R.; Farris, E. Bioclimate map of Sardinia (Italy). J. Maps 2014, 11, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Spoor, F. The human fossils from Corbeddu Cave, Sardinia: A reappraisal. Deinsea 1999, 7, 297–302. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bartolucci, F.; Peruzzi, L.; Galasso, G.; Albano, A.; Alessandrini, A.; Ardenghi, N.M.G.; Astuti, G.; Bacchetta, G.; Ballelli, S.; Banfi, E.; et al. An updated checklist of the vascular flora native to Italy. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. Asp. Plant Biol. 2018, 152, 179–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bacchetta, G.; Fenu, G.; Mattana, E. A checklist of the exclusive vascular flora of Sardinia with priority rankings for conservation. An. Jardín Botánico Mad. 2012, 69, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bajocco, S.; De Angelis, A.; Perini, L.; Ferrara, A.; Salvati, L. The Impact of Land Use/Land Cover Changes on Land Degradation Dynamics: A Mediterranean Case Study. Environ. Manag. 2012, 49, 980–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Zucca, C.; Canu, A.; Previtali, F. Soil degradation by land use change in an agropastoral area in Sardinia (Italy). Catena 2010, 83, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kattge, J.; Diaz, S.; Lavorel, S.; Prentice, I.C.; Leadley, P.; Bonisch, G.; Garnier, E.; Westoby, M.; Reich, P.B.; Wright, I.J.; et al. TRY—A global database of plant traits. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 2905–2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Delforge, P. Orchids of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, 1st ed.; Timber Press: Portland, OR, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  68. Delforge, P. Guide des Orchidées d’Europe, d’Afrique du Nord et du Proche-Orient; Delachaux et Niestlé: Lonay, France, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  69. GIROS. Orchidee d’Italia. Ediz. Illustrata; Il Castello: Milano, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  70. GIROS. Orchidee d’Italia, 2nd ed; Il Castello: Milano, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  71. Kühn, R.; Pedersen, H.; Cribb, P. Field Guide to the Orchids of Europe and the Mediterranean; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Richmond, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  72. Liu, Q.; Chen, J.; Corlett, R.T.; Fan, X.; Yu, N.; Yang, H.; Gao, J.-Y. Orchid conservation in the biodiversity hotspot of southwestern China. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 1563–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Hobohm, C. (Ed.) Endemism in Vascular Plants Hobohm; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  74. Matthews, T.J.; Triantis, K.A.; Whittaker, R.J.; Guilhaumon, F. Sars: An R package for fitting, evaluating and comparing species—Area relationship models. Ecography 2019, 42, 1446–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Wallace, A.R. On the tendency of varieties to depart indefinitely from the original type. J. Proc. Linn. Soc. 1858, 3, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hamilton, T.H.; Rubinoff, I.; Barth, R.H.; Bush, G.L. Species Abundance: Natural Regulation of Insular Variation. Science 1963, 142, 1575–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Johnson, M.P.; Raven, P.H. Species Number and Endemism: The Galapagos Archipelago Revisited. Science 1973, 179, 893–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Robinson, G.R.; Yurlina, M.E.; Handel, S.N. A Century of Change in the Staten Island Flora: Ecological Correlates of Species Losses and Invasions. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 1994, 121, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Aggemyr, E.; Cousins, S.A.O. Landscape structure and land use history influence changes in island plant composition after 100 years. J. Biogeogr. 2012, 39, 1645–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chiarucci, A.; Fattorini, S.; Foggi, B.; Landi, S.; Lazzaro, L.; Podani, J.; Simberloff, D. Plant recording across two centuries reveals dramatic changes in species diversity of a Mediterranean archipelago. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Naczk, A.M.; Kolanowska, M. Glacial Refugia and Future Habitat Coverage of Selected Dactylorhiza Representatives (Orchidaceae). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Pillon, Y.; Fay, M.F.; Hedrén, M.; Bateman, R.M.; Devey, D.S.; Shipunov, A.B.; Van Der Bank, M.; Chase, M.W.; Chase, M.; van der, B.W. Evolution and temporal diversification of western European polyploid species complexes in Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae). Taxon 2007, 56, 1185–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Pedersen, H. Ærenlund Dactylorhiza majalis s.l. (Orchidaceae) in acid habitats: Variation patterns, taxonomy, and evolution. Nord. J. Bot. 2002, 22, 641–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Thompson, J.D.; Lavergne, S.; Affre, L.; Gaudeul, M.; Debussche, M. Ecological differentiation of Mediterranean endemic plants. Taxon 2005, 54, 967–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Biddick, M.; Hendriks, A.; Burns, K.C. Plants obey (and disobey) the island rule. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 17632–17634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Foster, J.B. Evolution of Mammals on Islands. Nature 1964, 202, 234–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lomolino, M.V.; Van Der Geer, A.A.; Lyras, G.A.; Palombo, M.R.; Sax, D.F.; Rozzi, R. Of mice and mammoths: Generality and antiquity of the island rule. J. Biogeogr. 2013, 40, 1427–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bateman, R.M. Implications of next-generation sequencing for the systematics and evolution of the terrestrial orchid genus Epipactis, with particular reference to the British Isles. Kew Bull. 2020, 75, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Iliadou, E.; Panitsa, M.; Dimopoulos, P. Flora and factors affecting species diversity in the islet groups of the protected “ Natura 2000” sites of the Amvrakikos Gulf and Mesologgi Lagoon (Ionian area, Greece). Willdenowia 2014, 44, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Vogt-Schilb, H.; Pradel, R.; Geniez, P.; Hugot, L.; Delage, A.; Richard, F.; Schatz, B. Responses of orchids to habitat change in Corsica over 27 years. Ann. Bot. 2016, 118, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Fenu, G.; Fois, M.; Cañadas, E.M.; Bacchetta, G. Using endemic-plant distribution, geology and geomorphology in biogeography: The case of Sardinia (Mediterranean Basin). Syst. Biodivers. 2014, 12, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Prather, L.A.; Alvarez-Fuentes, O.; Mayfield, M.H.; Ferguson, C.J. Implications of the decline in plant collecting for systematic and floristic research. Syst. Bot. 2004, 29, 216–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Robbirt, K.M.; Davy, A.J.; Hutchings, M.J.M.; Roberts, D.L. Validation of biological collections as a source of phenological data for use in climate change studies: A case study with the orchid Ophrys sphegodes. J. Ecol. 2011, 99, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lussu, M.; De Agostini, A.; Marignani, M.; Cogoni, A.; Cortis, P. Ophrys annae and Ophrys chestermanii: An impossible love between two orchid sister species. Nord. J. Bot. 2018, 36, e01798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sletvold, N.; Dahlgren, J.P.; Øien, D.-I.; Moen, A.; Ehrlén, J. Climate warming alters effects of management on population viability of threatened species: Results from a 30-year experimental study on a rare orchid. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 2729–2738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ongaro, S.; Martellos, S.; Bacaro, G.; De Agostini, A.; Cogoni, A.; Cortis, P. Distributional pattern of Sardinian Orchids under a Climate Change Distributional pattern of Sardinian Orchids under a Climate Change Scenario. Community Ecol. 2018, 19, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Fenu, G.; Giotta, C.; Piccitto, M.; Scrugli, A.; Bacchetta, G. Dactylorhiza elata (Poir.) Soó subsp. sesquipedalis (Willd.) Soó. Italian Botanist. 2010, 42, 539–613. [Google Scholar]
  98. Pellegrino, G.; Bellusci, F. Effects of human disturbance on reproductive success and population viability of Serapias cordigera (Orchidaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2014, 176, 408–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Coates, D.; Dixon, K. Current perspectives in plant conservation biology. Aust. J. Bot. 2007, 55, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Swarts, N.; Dixon, K. Terrestrial orchid conservation in the age of extinction. Ann. Bot. 2009, 104, 543–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  101. Parra-Tabla, V.; Vargas, C.F.; Naval, C.; Calvo, L.M.; Ollerton, J. Population Status and Reproductive Success of an Endangered Epiphytic Orchid in a Fragmented Landscape. Biotropica 2011, 43, 640–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Dorland, E.; Willems, J.H. High light availability alleviates the costs of reproduction in Ophrys insectifera (Orchidaceae). J. Eur. Orchid. 2006, 38, 501–518. [Google Scholar]
  103. Smithson, A. Pollinator limitation and inbreeding depression in orchid species with and without nectar rewards. New Phytol. 2005, 169, 419–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Hegland, S.J.; Nielsen, A.; Lá.zaro, A.; Bjerknes, A.-L.; Totland, Ø. How does climate warming affect plant-pollinator interactions? Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Bukovinszky, T.; Verheijen, J.; Zwerver, S.; Klop, E.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Wäckers, F.L.; Prins, H.H.; Kleijn, D. Exploring the relationships between landscape complexity, wild bee species richness and reproduction, and pollination services along a complexity gradient in the Netherlands. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 214, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Balfour, N.J.; Ollerton, J.; Castellanos, M.C.; Ratnieks, F.L. British phenological records indicate high diversity and extinction rates among late-summer-flying pollinators. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 222, 278–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Fay, M.F. Island plants, comparative morphology and genetic integrity. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2012, 170, 285–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Hinsley, A.; De Boer, H.J.; Fay, M.F.; Gale, S.W.; Gardiner, L.M.; Gunasekara, R.S.; Kumar, P.; Masters, S.; Metusala, D.; Roberts, D.L.; et al. A review of the trade in orchids and its implications for conservation. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2017, 186, 435–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Fenu, G.; Bacchetta, G.; Charalambos, S.C.; Fournaraki, C.; Del Galdo, G.P.G.; Gotsiou, P.; Kyratzis, A.; Piazza, C.; Vicens, M.; Pinna, M.S.; et al. An early evaluation of translocation actions for endangered plant species on Mediterranean islands. Plant Divers. 2019, 41, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Fois, M.; Cuena-Lombraña, A.; Fenu, G.; Bacchetta, G. Using species distribution models at local scale to guide the search of poorly known species: Review, methodological issues and future directions. Ecol. Model. 2018, 385, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Fois, M.; Fenu, G.; Bacchetta, G. Estimating land market values from real estate offers: A replicable method in support of biodiversity conservation strategies. Ambio 2018, 48, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Plants 09 00853 g001 550
Figure 1. Endemic and species area-relationships of orchid richness for Mediterranean islands. For a better graphic representation, only islands with area greater than 500 km2 are named.
Figure 1. Endemic and species area-relationships of orchid richness for Mediterranean islands. For a better graphic representation, only islands with area greater than 500 km2 are named.
Plants 09 00853 g001
Table
Table 1. Species list and databases review. In TRY Plant Trait Database, columns refer to: ObsNum, Number of Observations; ObsGRNum, number of geo-referenced observations; ObsPubNum, number of public observations; MeasNum, number of measurements; MeasGRNum, number of geo-referenced measurements; TraitNum, number of traits.
Table 1. Species list and databases review. In TRY Plant Trait Database, columns refer to: ObsNum, Number of Observations; ObsGRNum, number of geo-referenced observations; ObsPubNum, number of public observations; MeasNum, number of measurements; MeasGRNum, number of geo-referenced measurements; TraitNum, number of traits.
IUCN Red ListGenBank ItemsTRY Plant Trait Database
SpeciesGlobalLocal ObsNumObsGRNumMeasNumMeasGRNumTraitNum
Anacamptis
A. collinaLeast ConcernLeast Concern6
A. fragransLeast ConcernLeast Concern2
A. laxifloraLeast ConcernVulnerable70
A. longicornu Least Concern38
A. palustrisLeast ConcernCritically Endangered24
A. papilionacea var. papilionaceaLeast ConcernLeast Concern4
A. papilionacea var. grandiflora Least Concern4
A. pyramidalisLeast ConcernVulnerable252443144787120
Cephalanthera
C. damasoniumLeast ConcernVulnerable86
C. longifoliaLeast ConcernLeast Concern10632957827334111
C. rubraLeast ConcernVulnerable1314694113
Dactylorhiza
D. elata subsp. sesquipedalisNear ThreatenedCritically Endangered
D. insularis Vulnerable2
Epipactis
E. gracilis Vulnerable
E. helleborine Least Concern17345091171458738145
E. helleborine subsp. muelleriLeast ConcernCritically Endangered1374 164 74
E. microphylla Least Concern4110012236881
E. palustrisLeast ConcernVulnerable1622712542725120
E. tremolsii Vulnerable1
Gennaria
G. diphyllaLeast ConcernLeast Concern11
Himantoglossum
H. robertianumLeast ConcernLeast Concern41
H. hircinumLeast ConcernEndangered
Limodorum
L. abortivumLeast ConcernLeast Concern9793 234
L. trabutianumNear ThreatenedVulnerable1
Neotinea
N. lacteaLeast ConcernLeast Concern7
N. maculataLeast ConcernLeast Concern16
N. tridentataLeast ConcernVulnerable9
Neottia
N. nidus-avisLeast ConcernLeast Concern844342170123127
N. ovata Vulnerable34
Ophrys 84
O. apiferaLeast ConcernLeast Concern102
O. bombylifloraLeast ConcernLeast Concern161
O. eleonorae Least Concern
O. exaltata subsp. morisii Least Concern9
O. funerea Endangered5
O. fuscaLeast ConcernLeast Concern79
O. fusca subsp. ortuabis Endangered0
O. garganica Vulnerable64
O. holoserica subsp. annae Vulnerable0
O. holoserica subsp. chestermanii Least Concern0
O. incubacea Least Concern17
O. luteaLeast ConcernLeast Concern26
O. normaniiEndangeredEndangered0
O. panattensis Endangered0
Ophrys scolopax subsp. apiformis Critically Endangered1
O. scolopax. subsp. conradiae Vulnerable
O. sicula Least Concern11
O. speculumLeast ConcernLeast Concern18
O. sphegodes subsp. praecox Vulnerable0
O. subfusca subsp. liveraniiLeast ConcernLeast Concern0
O. tenthrediniferaLeast ConcernLeast Concern
Orchis
O. anthropophoraLeast ConcernLeast Concern61
O. brancifortiiLeast ConcernEndangered2
O.italicaLeast ConcernEndangered
Orchis mascula subsp. ichnusae Vulnerable0
O. provincialisLeast ConcernLeast Concern261
O. purpureaLeast ConcernEndangered29
Platanthera
P. algeriensisNear ThreatenedVulnerable4
P.kuenkelei subsp. kuenkelei var. sardoaCritically EndangeredCritically Endangered8
Serapias
S. cordigeraLeast ConcernLeast Concern122 3 2
S. linguaLeast ConcernLeast Concern196 17 9
S. nurricaNear ThreatenedVulnerable5
S. parvifloraLeast ConcernLeast Concern113 19 12
Spiranthes
S. aestivalisData DeficientVulnerable12
S. spiralisLeast ConcernLeast Concern47
Table
Table 2. Orchid hybrids recorded in Sardinia.
Table 2. Orchid hybrids recorded in Sardinia.
HybridParental SpeciesDistribution
Anacamptis × bornemannii Asch.Anacamptis papilionacea × Anacamptis longicornuW-Medit.
Anacamptis × caccabaria VerguinAnacamptis laxiflora × Anacamptis papilionaceaMedit.-Atl.
Anacamptis × sarcidani Scrugli et GrassoAnacamptis laxiflora × Anacamptis longicornuEndem. SA
Ophrys × barbaricina M. Allard et M.P.GrassoOphrys speculum × Ophrys morisiiEndem. SA
Ophrys × cosana H. Baumann et KunkeleOphrys bombyliflora × Ophrys incubaceaW-Medit.
Ophrys × daissiorum (H. Baumann, Giotta, Künkele, Lorenz & Piccitto) P. DelforgeOphrys holoserica subsp. chestermanii × Ophrys morisiiEndem. SA
Ophrys × domus-maria M.P. GrassoOphrys apifera × Ophrys morisiiEndem. SA
Ophrys × fernandii RolfeOphrys bombyliflora × Ophrys speculumW-Medit.
Ophrys × heraultii G. Keller ex SchrenkOphrys tenthredinifera× Ophrys speculumMedit.
Ophrys × laconensis Scrugli et GrassoOphrys exaltata subsp. morisii × Ophrys tenthrediniferaEndem. SA
Ophrys × maladroxiensis Scrugli, Todde e CogoniOphrys exaltata subsp. morisii × Ophrys holoserica subsp. annaeEndem. SA
Ophrys × manfredoniae O. & E. DaneschOphrys incubacea × Ophrys tenthrediniferaW-Medit.
Ophrys × sommieri E.G. Camus ex CortesiOphrys bombyliflora × Ophrys tenthrediniferaMedit.
Ophrys × spanui P. DelforgeOphrys holoserica subsp. annae × Ophrys tenthrediniferaEndem. SA-CO
Ophrys × sulcitana Scrugli, Todde e CogoniOphrys holoserica subsp. annae × Ophrys bombylifloraEndem. SA
Ophrys × tavignanensis H. & J.M. Mathé & M. PenaOphrys eleonorae × Ophrys incubaceaW-Medit.
Orchis × penzigiana A. Camus nsubsp. sardoa Scrugli et GrassoOrchis provincialis × Orchis mascula subsp. ichnusaeEndem. SA
Serapias × ambigua RouySerapias cordigera × Serapias linguaMedit.-Atl.
Serapias × cortoghianae, Grasso M.PSerapias nurrica × Serapias cordigeraW-Medit.
Serapias × semilingua E.G. Camus et al.Serapias lingua × Serapias parvifloraMedit.-Atl.
Table
Table 3. List of endemic taxa and their distribution.
Table 3. List of endemic taxa and their distribution.
Chorological RankTaxa
Endem. SAOphrys holoserica subsp. chestermanii
Endem. SAOphrys normanii
Endem. SAOphrys fusca subsp. ortuabis
Endem. SAOphrys panattensis
Endem. SAOphrys subfusca subsp. liveranii
Endem. SA-COOphrys holoserica subsp. annae
Endem. SA-COOphrys funerea
Endem. SA-COOphrys exaltata subsp. morisii
Endem. SA-COOphrys scolopax subsp. conradiae
Endem. SA-COOphrys sphegodes subsp. praecox
Endem. SA-COOrchis mascula subsp. ichnusae
Endem. SA-SIOrchis brancifortii
Endem. SA-TUPlatanthera kuenkelei subsp. kuenkelei var. sardoa
Table
Table 4. Flowering period of Sardinian orchids during the year.
Table 4. Flowering period of Sardinian orchids during the year.
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXIXII
Anacamptis
A. collina
A. fragrans
A. laxiflora
A. longicornu
A. palustris
A. papilionacea subsp. grandiflora
A. papilionacea subsp. papilionacea
A. pyramidalis
Cephalanthera
C. damasonium
C. longifolia
C. rubra
Dactylorhiza
D. elata subsp. sesquipedalis
D. insularis
Epipactis
E. helleborine
E. helleborine subsp. muelleri
E. microphylla
E. palustris
E. persica subsp. exilis
E. tremolsii
Gennaria
G. diphylla
Himantoglossum
H. robertianum
H. hircinum
Limodorum
L. abortivum
L. trabutianum
Neotinea
N. lactea
N. maculata
N. tridentata
Neottia
N. nidus-avis
N. ovata
Ophrys
O. apifera
O. bombyliflora
O. eleonorae
O. exaltata subsp. morisii
O. funerea
O. fusca
O. fusca subsp. ortuabis
O. garganica
O. holoserica subsp. annae
O. holoserica subsp. chestermanii
O. incubacea
O. lutea
O. normanii
O. panattensis
O.scolopax subsp. apiformis
O. scolopax. subsp. conradiae
O. sicula
O. speculum
O. sphegodes subsp. praecox
O. subfusca subsp. liveranii
O. tenthredinifera
Orchis
O. anthropophora
O. brancifortii
O. italica
O. mascula subsp. ichnusae
O. provincialis
O. purpurea
Platanthera
P. algeriensis
P.kuenkelei subsp. kuenkelei var. sardoa
Serapias
S. cordigera
S. lingua
S. nurrica
S. parviflora
Spiranthes
S. aestivalis
S. spiralis

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lussu, M.; Marignani, M.; Lai, R.; Loi, M.C.; Cogoni, A.; Cortis, P. A Synopsis of Sardinian Studies: Why Is it Important to Work on Island Orchids? Plants 2020, 9, 853. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070853

AMA Style

Lussu M, Marignani M, Lai R, Loi MC, Cogoni A, Cortis P. A Synopsis of Sardinian Studies: Why Is it Important to Work on Island Orchids? Plants. 2020; 9(7):853. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070853

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lussu, Michele, Michela Marignani, Roberta Lai, Maria Cecilia Loi, Annalena Cogoni, and Pierluigi Cortis. 2020. "A Synopsis of Sardinian Studies: Why Is it Important to Work on Island Orchids?" Plants 9, no. 7: 853. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070853

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