Multi‐user quality of floral services along a gradient of margin habitats between semi‐natural grasslands and forests

Abstract

AbstractQuestionDo mid‐field forest fragments and margins around them compensate for the loss of floral ecosystem services provided by semi‐natural grasslands?LocationSeven habitat types in central and southeast Estonia.MethodsUsing three properties of service quality – functional Diversity, functional Intensity, and functional Stability (DIS‐system)– we addressed flower colour richness, flower size, and species richness within colour group, respectively. We also considered the human and pollinator perspective, and the seasonal dynamics of flowering.ResultsClosed‐canopy edges of forests and forest core areas contrasted to semi‐natural grasslands and grassland surrogates in some indicators of species composition, such as proportion of forbs, but less unequivocally in more specific indicators of service quality. Habitats ranked quite similarly from both a human and pollinator perspective, except the human perspective overstated the compositional and service quality of all open habitats. From a human perspective, forest service quality was downgraded in all three service provision properties in comparison to other habitats, while pollinators would see the strong contrast of forests only in flower size (functional intensity). Only south‐exposed close‐canopy edges and particularly outer grassy edges of forests somewhat resembled the quality of grassland surrogates for both user groups.ConclusionsThe ecosystem service provision quality of a habitat should be evaluated using a set of functional indicators, considering user group specific perception and phenology. Small mid‐field forests only partly substitute for the floral‐based services provided by grasslands, but their role can be improved by selectively opening up the overstorey at forest margins and expanding outer forest margin grasslands.