Abstract
Abstract Questions Which environmental variables are most important in determining plant species composition in subarctic springs? Do observed patterns differ between typical wetland and general matrix‐derived species? Location Helocrenic (seepage) springs, Northern Norway. Methods We sampled 49 helocrenic spring sites, measuring environmental variables (water temperature, water pH, electrical conductivity, discharge volume, geographic position) and recording all species present. We performed a partial canonical correspondence analysis (pCCA) to determine the relative importance of water quality, spatial, and climatic variables for patterns in species composition and to compare the differences in these patterns between wetland and matrix‐derived species. Results We found that climatic and water quality variables were almost equally important in determining species composition in subarctic springs, with climatic variables explaining 26.62% of variation in species composition and water quality variables explaining 26.14%. Spatial variables explained the least variation (21.53%). When looking at the variables individually, altitude (10.93%) and mean summer temperature (9.25%) explained the most variation. The trend was the same for matrix‐derived species and wetland species, with climatic variables explaining the most variation (matrix‐derived: 27.26%; wetland: 24.42%), followed by water quality (matrix‐derived: 26.40%; wetland: 24.13%) and spatial variables (matrix‐derived: 24.87%; wetland: 16.27%). The main difference between matrix‐derived species and typical wetland species was that the spatial variables explained less variation for wetland species. Conclusions The close relationship of species composition (total vegetation as well as separated into wetland and matrix‐derived species) with climatic and water quality conditions indicates a sensitivity of subarctic springs to future climate change. In combination with altitude, which was found to be the most important individual variable, it is likely that the future distribution of spring species tracking climate change will be limited by the occurrence of suitable spring habitats, especially at high altitudes.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 13
Claim · model-written summary
Climate explained 26.62% of variation in spring species composition.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“climatic variables explaining 26.62% of variation in species composition”
Claim · model-written summary
Water quality explained 26.14% of variation in spring species composition.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“water quality variables explaining 26.14%”
Claim · model-written summary
Spatial variables explained 21.53% of composition variation.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“Spatial variables explained the least variation (21.53%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Altitude explained 10.93% of composition variation.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“altitude (10.93%) and mean summer temperature (9.25%) explained the most variation”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean summer temperature explained 9.25% of composition variation.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“mean summer temperature (9.25%) explained the most variation”
Claim · model-written summary
Climate explained 27.26% of composition variation among matrix-derived species.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“climatic variables explaining the most variation (matrix‐derived: 27.26%; wetland: 24.42%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Climate explained 24.42% of composition variation among wetland species.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“climatic variables explaining the most variation (matrix‐derived: 27.26%; wetland: 24.42%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water quality explained 26.40% for matrix-derived species.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“water quality (matrix‐derived: 26.40%; wetland: 24.13%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water quality explained 24.13% for wetland species.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“water quality (matrix‐derived: 26.40%; wetland: 24.13%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spatial variables explained 24.87% for matrix-derived species.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“spatial variables (matrix‐derived: 24.87%; wetland: 16.27%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spatial variables explained 16.27% for wetland species.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“spatial variables (matrix‐derived: 24.87%; wetland: 16.27%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Wetland species showed less variation explained by spatial variables than matrix-derived species.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“the spatial variables explained less variation for wetland species”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors infer spring species distribution tracking climate change may be limited by suitable high-altitude habitat.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“future distribution of spring species tracking climate change will be limited by the occurrence of suitable spring habitats, especially at high altitudes”