Data Paper
Print
Data Paper
Dive into the Italian PONDY dataset: Pond vegetation data and water physico-chemical parameters*
expand article infoSilvia Cannucci§, Rossano Bolpagni|, Gianmaria Bonari§, Francesco Candini§, Alice Dalla Vecchia|, Emanuele Fanfarillo§, Tiberio Fiaschi, Simona Maccherini§, Francesco Mascia, Lorenzo Scalia|, Claudia Angiolini§
‡ University of Siena, Siena, Italy
§ NBFC, National Biodiversity Future Center, Palermo, Italy
| University of Parma, Parma, Italy
¶ University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
Open Access

Abstract

Ponds are widespread yet highly vulnerable freshwater habitats that support diverse aquatic and terrestrial plant communities influenced by land use and water characteristics. The PONDY (Pond vegetation data and water physico-chemical parameters) dataset integrates vegetation and water physico-chemical data that have been collected to understand the responses of vegetation to environmental parameters. The dataset comprises 575 plots, of which 232 are aquatic and 343 are terrestrial, derived from 115 ponds across continental and insular areas of Italy. The dataset includes 743 vascular plant taxa and 5 macroalgae encompassing 364 genera and 89 families. Terrestrial plots host 690 taxa belonging to 87 families, while aquatic plots host 117 taxa belonging to 36 families. The dataset includes 10 taxa belonging to the Italian Red List and 39 alien species. Moreover, 11% of the aquatic plots have been classified in a Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC habitat type, while 48% have been classified in a EUNIS habitat type. The dataset contains, for each plot, measurements of physico-chemical water variables such as dissolved oxygen, water depth, and temperature, pH, turbidity, conductivity, and nutrient concentration. The PONDY dataset provides comprehensive information on plant diversity and abundance, community composition, habitat types, and water chemistry in Italian ponds, serving as a key resource for studying plant–environment relationships, developing predictive models, and supporting freshwater conservation efforts.

Keywords

Aquatic vegetation, physico-chemical parameters, ponds, pondscape, vegetation data

Introduction

Ponds offer vital resources and living spaces for a wide range of both aquatic and terrestrial organisms (Fehlinger et al. 2023). These small permanent aquatic systems, regardless of their origin (artificial or natural), provide habitats to plants, amphibians, insects, and birds (Simaika et al. 2016; Bubíková and Hrivnák 2018a; Zamora-Marín et al. 2021) and often rare species that are not found in larger water bodies (Oertli et al. 2002; Bolpagni et al. 2019). Despite their ecological importance, they are among the most vulnerable and endangered habitats in the world (Dudgeon et al. 2006). In particular, aquatic vegetation is undergoing significant decline driven by human activities, including urban expansion, habitat fragmentation and destruction, pollution, eutrophication, and the spread of invasive species (Akasaka et al. 2010; Bolpagni et al. 2019, 2020; Bolpagni 2020, 2021; Fernández-Aláez et al. 2020; Du Toit et al. 2021). Ponds represent one of the most common and widespread freshwater habitats, especially in human-modified landscapes. Despite their small size, ponds are essential for biodiversity conservation (Biggs et al. 2017) since they tend to host significantly higher numbers of species, including more unique and rarer species, than other types of water bodies (Oertli et al. 2005).

Pond vegetation is typically composed of wetland plants, including emergent species that are rooted in the sediment but extend their vegetative parts above the water, and aquatic plants, which include submerged species with entirely underwater leaves, along with rooted floating and free-floating types (Ervin 2023). Beyond hosting a rich diversity of strictly aquatic flora, ponds also provide suitable conditions for surrounding semi-terrestrial plant species, namely riparian vegetation (Scheff et al. 2022). These plants occupying the transition zone between land and water interact closely with aquatic habitats and, as wetland and aquatic species, are shaped both by land use and water characteristics (Wang et al. 2021; Musisi et al. 2025). Pond identity is relevant in defining plant species richness and community composition (Cannucci et al. 2025) given the interplay of multiple filtering processes, particularly local environmental filters such as physical aspects of ponds (e.g., area, depth) and physico-chemical properties of water, which influence the diversity patterns of plant species (Hrivnák et al. 2013). Plant diversity metrics can change in relation to the type of water body which can contribute uniquely and significantly to plant diversity (Bubíková and Hrivnák 2018b; Grasel et al. 2021). The observation of the ecological patterns occurring in ponds is essential to summarize the vegetation-environment relationships. Many studies on ponds have investigated the responses of plant communities to environmental drivers (Gallego et al. 2015; Fernández-Aláez et al. 2018; Sieben et al. 2021), leading to different outcomes on the most relevant drivers of plant species composition.

Accessible datasets are key tools for providing an overview of species and habitat distribution, and they support biodiversity conservation actions by highlighting the occurrence of species of conservation interest or alien species (Santoianni et al. 2025). Given the strong relationship between plant communities and environmental characteristics, we present the PONDY dataset: Pond vegetation data and water physico-chemical parameters. PONDY combines vegetation data of ponds with water physico-chemical parameters, thus aiming to serve as a tool to evaluate the ecological status of water bodies and to analyze how environmental conditions, related to water quality, affect species presence, abundance, and cover.

Study area and methodology

The study area (Fig. 1) encompasses 115 permanent farmland ponds distributed across continental (Fig. 1a, b) and insular (Fig. 1c) areas of Italy. We selected permanent ponds ranging from 70 m2 to 3 ha. In each area (Suppl. material 1: fig. S1a), we chose three zones, namely pondscapes (interconnected pond networks in a landscape) based on the extent of agricultural land use (Suppl. material 1: fig. S1b). The percentage of agricultural land was calculated within a 10 km radius using Corine Land Cover maps (ISPRA 2018). Three pondscapes, based on agricultural land-use extent, were established: low (<30% agricultural land-use extent), intermediate (30–60% agricultural land-use extent), and high (>60% agricultural land-use extent). Ponds were identified within each pondscape (Suppl. material 1: fig. S2) by extracting water bodies classified under the “Water Bodies” category (5.1.2) from the Corine Land Cover map (ISPRA 2018) using QGIS (QGIS Development Team 2023). In each pondscape, the 10 km buffer zone was divided into a 500 m × 500 m grid, which was overlaid on the extracted water bodies. From this grid, we randomly selected one pond per grid cell, using QGIS’s Random Selection tool within subsets. To overcome potential accessibility issues, the selection process was repeated three times, ensuring a minimum distance of 1 km in a straight line between selected ponds. Within each area, between 10 and 15 ponds were randomly selected (see Suppl. material 1: fig. S1c). For each pond, using the QGIS Random Points Along Lines plugin, we generated three points along the pond perimeter, setting a minimum distance of 15 m between points. In the field, in proximity of these points we positioned the plots and at each point we surveyed one aquatic plot measuring 2 m × 2 m, along with one terrestrial plot of the same size located 1 m away from the aquatic plot (Suppl. material 1: fig. S1d), thus obtaining a total of 6 plots (3 aquatic and 3 terrestrial plots) for each pond. With this sampling design, some aquatic plots resulted empty (no species recorded); these latter plots were therefore removed from the dataset due to the absence of vegetation.

Figure 1. 

Distribution of the sampled ponds across pondscapes (high, intermediate, and low) and the continental (a, b), and insular (c) areas of Italy.

Data collection

All ponds were sampled during the peak of the growing season. Specifically, ponds in the continental areas of Italy were surveyed between June and August 2020, 2021, and 2023, those in insular Italy in late April 2024. In each plot, we recorded all the occurring species, including vascular plants and macroalgae of the Characeae family. Vascular plant species nomenclature follows the Portal to the Flora of Italy (2025). Nomenclature of Characeae follows Bazzichelli and Abdelahad (2009). In the field, together with vegetation data, we also collected physico-chemical water parameters to obtain data influencing aquatic and riparian species. Multiparametric probe (Aquaread 2000-d) was used to record several parameters at the center of each aquatic plot, between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., including water temperature (°C), depth (m), dissolved oxygen (expressed in percentage, %), pH, turbidity (NTU – Nephelometric Turbidity Unit), and electrical conductivity (µS/cm). Within each plot, a water sample was collected and immediately filtered through a 0.7 μm glass fiber filter (GF/F, Whatman) for subsequent analyses. In the laboratory, soluble reactive phosphorus (as phosphate ion, PO43−; µg/L) was measured spectrophotometrically following the method by Valderrama (1977). The remaining water was filtered using a 0.2 μm nylon membrane, and concentrations of dissolved nitrate (NO3; mg/L) and ammonium (NH4+; mg/L) were quantified via ion chromatography (883 Basic IC plus, Metrohm, Herisau, Switzerland). Given the higher relevance of aquatic vegetation for conservation assessment compared to agricultural lands, we classified aquatic plots to i) Annex I habitat types of 92/43/EEC Habitats Directive and ii) EUNIS habitat types (v2025-10-03; Chytrý et al. 2020). For these classifications, we used an expert-base approach and the code implemented by Bruelheide et al. (2021) in R 4.5.0 (R Core Team 2025), respectively.

Structure of the dataset

Species and vegetation

The dataset includes 575 georeferenced vegetation plots (232 aquatic and 343 terrestrial) including 743 vascular plant taxa and 5 macroalgae. The species richness of plots varies between one to 40, with 443 (64.2%) plots having less than 10 species and 121 (17.5%) plots having 20 or more taxa (Fig. 2A). The average species richness in aquatic and terrestrial plots is 2 and 16, respectively. A total of 748 taxa belonging to 364 genera and 89 families were identified. Overall, 690 taxa of 87 families were recorded in terrestrial plots and 117 taxa of 36 families were recorded in aquatic plots. Asteraceae is the largest family in terrestrial plots, with 101 species, followed by Poaceae (93 species), and Fabaceae (84 species, Fig. 2B), while Ranunculaceae is the largest family in aquatic plots, with 11 taxa, followed by Potamogetonaceae (10 taxa), and Cyperaceae (9 taxa, Fig. 2C). Trifolium is the most represented genus in the terrestrial plots, with 21 species (Fig. 2D), while in aquatic plots Ranunculus is the genus having the highest number of species (9 species; Fig. 2E). The most frequent species in the terrestrial plots is Daucus carota (occurring in 17% of plots) followed by Phragmites australis and Rubus ulmifolius (Fig. 2F). Typha angustifolia, Chara vulgaris, and Potamogeton natans are the most frequent taxa in the aquatic plots (all occurring in at least 30% of plots; Fig. 2G).

The dominant life forms are Hemicryptophytes (39%) and Therophytes (37%) in terrestrial plots and Hemicryptophytes (35%) and Hydrophytes (20%) in aquatic plots. Chamaephytes are the least frequent life form in both plot types (Suppl. material 1: fig. S3). Moreover, the dataset contains a total of 10 threatened taxa of the Italian Red List (Table 1), mostly linked to the aquatic environment, highlighting the critical conservation status of plant species ecologically connected with freshwater ecosystems. More precisely, these species are mostly threatened by modification of the natural system and by agriculture and aquaculture (Orsenigo et al. 2020).

The dataset contains a total of 39 alien species, mostly found in terrestrial plots, 33 of which are categorised as invasive in Italy (Table 2).

Table 1.

Threatened taxa, their statuses from the Italian Red List, and major threats (Orsenigo et al. 2020). Major threats: 1 = Residential and commercial development; 2 = Agriculture and aquaculture; 4 = Transportation and service corridors; 5 = Biological resource use; 6 = Human intrusions and disturbance; 7 = Natural system modifications; 8 = Invasive and other problematic species, genes and diseases; 9 = Pollution; and 11 = Climate change and severe weather.

Species Status Major threats
Baldellia ranunculoides Endangered (EN) 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11
Butomus umbellatus Vulnerable (VU) 7, 8, 9, 11
Carex microcarpa Near Threatened (NT) 1, 2, 7
Hottonia palustris Endangered (EN) 2, 5, 6, 7, 8
Leucojum aestivum subsp. aestivum Vulnerable (VU) 5, 7
Plagius flosculosus Endangered (EN) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8
Ranunculus cordiger subsp. diffusus Endangered (EN) 2, 7
Ranunculus ophioglossifolius Vulnerable (VU) 2, 4, 6, 7, 9
Thelypteris palustris Vulnerable (VU) 7, 8, 9
Zannichellia palustris Near Threatened (NT) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11
Table 2.

The alien species present in this dataset and their associated status (Portal to the Flora of Italy 2025) in Italy, as well as their distribution in aquatic or terrestrial plots. Plant species are ordered alphabetically.

Species Neophyte/ Archaeophyte Status Plot
Acalypha virginica Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Acer negundo Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Amaranthus blitoides Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Amaranthus cruentus Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Amaranthus retroflexus Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Amorpha fruticosa Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Arundo donax Archaeophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Avena strigosa Neophyte Casual Terrestrial
Bidens connata Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Bidens frondosa Neophyte Invasive Aquatic
Cyperus strigosus Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Erigeron annuus Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Erigeron bonariensis Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Erigeron canadensis Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Erigeron sumatrensis Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Eucalyptus camaldulensis Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Euphorbia humifusa Neophyte Naturalized Terrestrial
Galinsoga parviflora Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Hesperocyparis arizonica Neophyte Naturalized Terrestrial
Humulus japonicus Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Lemna aequinoctialis Neophyte Naturalized Aquatic
Lemna minuta Neophyte Invasive Aquatic
Lindernia dubia Neophyte Invasive Aquatic
Ludwigia hexapetala Neophyte Invasive Aquatic
Oenothera stucchii Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Oxalis pes-caprae Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Panicum capillare Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Panicum dichotomiflorum Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Paspalum distichum Neophyte Invasive Aquatic
Sicyos angulatus Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Solidago gigantea Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Sorghum halepense Archaeophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Symphyotrichum lanceolatum Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Symphyotrichum squamatum Neophyte Invasive Aquatic
Trifolium alexandrinum Neophyte Naturalized Terrestrial
Verbena bonariensis Neophyte Naturalized Terrestrial
Veronica persica Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Xanthium spinosum Neophyte Invasive Terrestrial
Figure 2. 

Graphics showing species richness per plot (A), the five most frequent families in terrestrial plots (B), the five most frequent families in aquatic plots (C), the five most abundant genera in terrestrial plots (D), the five most abundant genera in aquatic plots (E), the ten most frequent taxa in terrestrial plots (F), and the ten most frequent taxa in aquatic plots (G).

Habitat types

Overall, we classified 64 aquatic plots (11%) under a Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC habitat type and 275 plots (48%; based on Suppl. material 1: table S1) under a EUNIS habitat type (Table 3). More precisely, we assigned 21 plots to 92/43/EEC habitat type 3140 (Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.) and 43 plots to habitat 3150 (Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type vegetation). The conservation status of both habitats is considered unfavorable in Italy (ISPRA 2021). In particular, habitat 3140 is classified as having unfavorable conservation status in the Alpine and Continental biogeographical regions, while habitat 3150 in the Mediterranean region (ISPRA 2021). The rest of the plots (N = 511) could not be assigned to any 92/43/EEC habitat type. Moreover, 116 plots (based on Suppl. material 1: table S1) have been classified to macrohabitat type “P” (Inland waters) and related sublevels of EUNIS classification, while 159 plots (based on Suppl. material 1: table S1) to macrohabitat type “Q” (Wetlands) and related sublevels.

Table 3.

Classification of the vegetation plots according to EUNIS habitat types. Only habitats occurring in more than 3% of plots classified in the given habitat are reported. The complete table is provided in Suppl. material 1: table S1.

EUNIS No. plots Percentage
Fresh-water small pleustophyte vegetation (P3b) 32 5.6
Fresh-water submerged vegetation (P3d) 18 3.1
Fresh-water nymphaeid vegetation (P3e) 24 4.2
Stonewort vegetation (P3h) 39 6.8
Tall-helophyte bed (Q51) 96 16.7
Helophyte beds (Qb) 36 6.3

Physico-chemical water parameters

The dataset includes key parameters describing physical aspects, water chemistry, and trophic indicators (Fig. 3). The summary of the physico-chemical water parameters recorded in the study ponds, including mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum (Min), and maximum (Max) values is reported in Suppl. material 1: table S2.

Figure 3. 

Violin plots of physico-chemical water parameters measured for each aquatic plot. Water temperature (A), dissolved oxygen (B), pH (C), turbidity (D), water depth (E), electrical conductivity (F), nitrate ion (G), ammonium ion (H), and phosphate ion (I).

Conclusions

The information present in the PONDY dataset strengthens the knowledge of pond plant diversity along insular and continental Italy. This dataset, which provides comprehensive data on plant species, community composition, habitat types, and physico-chemical water parameters, is important for understanding the plant diversity hosted in these freshwater systems and studying its relationship with physico-chemical water parameters. This dataset can be the base for future studies on the relationships between plant communities and environmental conditions and can be used for developing predictive models for species distribution based on chemical parameters. Furthermore, in the future, the dataset might be expanded with functional trait data to provide an assessment of functional composition of plant communities in relation to water chemistry. Additionally, it can contribute to define conservation status of lentic systems by assessing conservation indices, similarly to the ECELS index used in Catalonia (Sala et al. 2004), based on water characteristics, land use, and vegetation status aspects.

Data availability

The vegetation plot data are available in the CircumMed database (GIVD: EU-00-026 - CircumMed database https://www.givd.info/ID/EU-00-026).

Author contributions

SC and RB collected the data in the field with contributions from CA, EF, TF, and FM. SC, CA, RB, and SM designed the sampling plan. SC and RB identified vascular plant species with contributions from FM and TF. TF identified Charophyceae species. ADV performed the chemical analysis in the laboratory. SC and RB assembled the dataset with contribution from LS. FC performed the semi-automatic habitat EUNIS classification. SC did the analyses. SC led the writing with contributions from GB. SC prepared the figures with contributions from GB. CA and GB supervised the research. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

Competing interests

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Acknowledgements

Silvia Cannucci, Emanuele Fanfarillo, Claudia Angiolini, Simona Maccherini, and Gianmaria Bonari were funded under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.4 - Call for tender No. 3138 of 16 December 2021, rectified by Decree n.3175 of 18 December 2021 of Italian Ministry of University and Research funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU; Award Number: Project code CN_00000033, Concession Decree No. 1034 of 17 June 2022 adopted by the Italian Ministry of University and Research, CUP B63C22000650007, Project title “National Biodiversity Future Center - NBFC”. Rossano Bolpagni benefited from the equipment and framework of the COMP-R Initiative, funded by the ‘Departments of Excellence’ program of the Italian Ministry for University and Research (MUR, 2023–2027) and is partially funded under the NRRP, Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.4, funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU; Call for tender: Project code CN_00000033, CUP B63C22000650007, Project title “National Biodiversity Future Center - NBFC”, Cascading grant call by Spoke 3 “Assessing and monitoring terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity and its evolution: from taxonomy to genomics and citizen science”, Project title “development of the Italian MAcrophytes Database (iMAD)”. Alice Dalla Vecchia is currently funded by a MSCA-Global-2023 fellowship DIVE IN “Predicting DIVErsity of INvasive aquatic plants” (GA No. 101147317).

We thank Giovanni Rivieccio for the logistics and Jacopo Cristoni for his contribution to sampling and characterization of ponds.

References

  • Bazzichelli G, Abdelahad N (2009) Flora analitica delle Caroficee. La Sapienza University of Rome, 80 pp.
  • Biggs JA, von Fumetti S, Kelly-Quinn M (2017) The importance of small waterbodies for biodiversity and ecosystem services: Implications for policy makers. Hydrobiologia 793: 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-3007-0
  • Bolpagni R (2020) Linking vegetation patterns, wetlands conservation, and ecosystem services provision: From publication to application. Aquatic Conservation 30(9): 1734–1740. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3358
  • Bolpagni R, Poikane S, Laini A, Bagella S, Bartoli M, Cantonati M (2019) Ecological and conservation value of small standing-water ecosystems: A systematic review of current knowledge and future challenges. Water (Basel) 11: 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030402
  • Bolpagni R, Laini A, Buldrini F, Ziccardi G, Soana E, … Nascimbene J (2020) Habitat morphology and connectivity better predict hydrophyte and wetland plant richness than land-use intensity in overexploited watersheds: Evidence from the Po plain (northern Italy). Landscape Ecology 35: 1827–1839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01060-2
  • Bruelheide H, Tichý L, Chytrý M, Jansen F (2021) Implementing the formal language of the vegetation classification expert systems (ESy) in the statistical computing environment R. Applied Vegetation Science 24: e12562. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12562
  • Bubíková K, Hrivnák R (2018a) Artificial ponds in Central Europe do not fall behind the natural ponds in terms of macrophyte diversity. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 419: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2017055
  • Cannucci S, Fanfarillo E, Maccherini S, Bolpagni R, Bonari G, … Angiolini C (2025) Mediterranean farmland ponds as unique habitats for plant diversity across different pondscapes. Hydrobiologia: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-025-05884-4
  • Chytrý M, Tichý L, Hennekens SM, Knollová I, Janssen JAM, … Schaminée JHJ (2020) EUNIS Habitat Classification: Expert system, characteristic species combinations and distribution maps of European habitats. Applied Vegetation Science 23(4): 648–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12519
  • Du Toit MJ, Du Preez C, Cilliers SS (2021) Plant diversity and conservation value of wetlands along a rural–urban gradient. Bothalia. African Biodiversity & Conservation 51(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.38201/btha.abc.v51.i1.4
  • Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI, Knowler DJ, … Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 81(2): 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
  • Fehlinger L, Misteli B, Morant D, Juvigny-Khenafou N, Cunillera-Montcusí D, … Rimcheska B (2023) The ecological role of permanent ponds in Europe: A review of dietary linkages to terrestrial ecosystems via emerging insects. Inland Waters 13(1): 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2022.2111180
  • Fernández-Aláez C, Fernández-Aláez M, García-Criado F, García-Girón J (2018) Environmental drivers of aquatic macrophyte assemblages in ponds along an altitudinal gradient. Hydrobiologia 812: 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2832-5
  • Fernández-Aláez M, García-Criado F, García-Girón J, Santiago F, Fernández-Aláez C (2020) Environmental heterogeneity drives macrophyte beta diversity patterns in permanent and temporary ponds in an agricultural landscape. Aquatic Sciences 82(2): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-020-0694-4
  • Gallego I, Pérez-Martínez C, Sánchez-Castillo PM, Fuentes-Rodríguez F, Juan M, Casas JJ (2015) Physical, chemical, and management-related drivers of submerged macrophyte occurrence in Mediterranean farm ponds. Hydrobiologia 762(1): 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2352-8
  • Grasel D, Giehl ELH, Wittmann F, Jarenkow JA (2021) Patterns of plant diversity and composition in wetlands across a subtropical landscape: Comparisons among ponds, streambanks and riverbanks. Wetlands 41(7): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-021-01487-6
  • Hrivnák R, Ot’ahel’ová H, Kochjarová J, Pal’ove-Balang P (2013) Effect of environmental conditions on species composition of macrophytes – study from two distinct biogeographical regions of Central Europe. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 411(09): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2013076
  • Istituto Superiore Protezione Ricerca Ambientale (2021) Rapporti Direttive Natura (2013–2018). Sintesi dello stato di conservazione delle specie e degli habitat di interesse comunitario e delle azioni di contrasto alle specie esotiche di rilevanza unionale in Italia. Serie Rapporti 349/2021.
  • Musisi M, Quadros C, Sellappan K (2025) Impact of anthropogenic pollution on the plant species diversity and composition along the riparian ecotones of Goa’s Sal and Zuari rivers. Plant-Environment Interactions 6(2): 648–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/pei3.70037
  • Oertli B, Joye DA, Castella E, Juge R, Cambin D, Lachavanne JB (2002) Does size matter? The relationship between pond area and biodiversity. Biological Conservation 104(1): 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00154-9
  • Oertli B, Biggs J, Céréghino R, Grillas P, Joly P, Lachavanne J-B (2005) Conservation and monitoring of pond biodiversity: Introduction. Aquatic Conservation 15(6): 535–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.752
  • Portal to the Flora of Italy (2025) Portal to the Flora of Italy. http:/dryades.units.it/floritaly [Accessed on April 2025]
  • QGIS Development Team (2023) QGIS geographic information system. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project (version 3.28.12).
  • R Core Team (2025) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org
  • Sala J, Gascón S, Boix D, Gesti J (2004) Proposal of a rapid methodology to assess the conservation status of Mediterranean wetlands and its application in Catalunya (NE Iberian Peninsula). Ad Scripta Botanica Notae 57(2–3): 141–152.
  • Santoianni LA, Bartolucci F, Carboni M, Conti F, La Bella G, … Stanisci A (2025) MARA Vegetation Database: Monitoring Alien species along mountain Roads in the central Apennines. Vegetation Ecology and Diversity 62: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3897/ved.139363
  • Scheff J, Unger S, Niland E, Turley B, Harper D (2022) Seeing the pond for the reeds: Biodiversity of rural ponds. Journal of Student Research 11(2): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.47611/jsr.v11i2.1615
  • Sieben EJJ, Subbiah A, Job N, Chatanga P, Collins N, Corry FTH (2021) Components of plant species diversity along environmental gradients at various spatial scales in wetland environments of southern Africa. Journal of Vegetation Science 32: e13097. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.13097
  • Simaika JP, Samways MJ, Frenzel PP (2016) Artificial ponds increase local dragonfly diversity in a global biodiversity hotspot. Biodiversity and Conservation 25: 1921–1935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1168-9
  • Valderrama JC (1977) Methods used by the Hydrographic Department of the National Board of Fisheries. In: Grasshoff K (Ed.) Report of the Baltic Intercalibration Workshop — Annex. Interim Commission for the Protection of the Environment of the Baltic Sea, Goteborg, 14–34.
  • Wang Z, Wang W, Zhang Z, Hou X, Ma Z, Chen B (2021) River-groundwater interaction affected species composition and diversity perpendicular to a regulated river in an arid riparian zone. Global Ecology and Conservation 27: e01595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01595
  • Zamora-Marín JM, Ilg C, Demierre E, Bonnet N, Wezel A, … Oertli B (2021) Contribution of artificial waterbodies to biodiversity: A glass half empty or half full? The Science of the Total Environment 753: 141987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141987

Topical Collection: “Vegetation databases: enhancing data integration and accessibility for ecological research”. Edited by Adrian Indreica, Kiril Vassilev, Pauline Delbosc, Federico Fernández-González, Irena Axmanová, Borja Jiménez-Alfaro, Gianmaria Bonari.
2Silvia Cannucci and Rossano Bolpagni share the first authorship.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 

Suppl. figures and tables

Silvia Cannucci, Rossano Bolpagni, Gianmaria Bonari, Francesco Candini, Alice Dalla Vecchia, Emanuele Fanfarillo, Tiberio Fiaschi, Simona Maccherini, Francesco Mascia, Lorenzo Scalia, Claudia Angiolini

Data type: docx

Explanation note: figure S1: Spatial representation of the sampling design followed, spanning (a) the regions, (b) the selection of pondscapes, (c) the selection of ponds, and (d) the localisation of vegetation plots (2 m × 2 m) within each pond. A = aquatic plot, T = terrestrial plot. figure S2: Examples of ponds of the three pondscapes: (a) High agricultural land-use extent pondscape (Monastir, Sud Sardegna, Italy); (b) Low agricultural land-use extent pondscape (Montieri, Grosseto, Italy); (c) Intermediate agricultural land-use extent pondscape (San Venanzio, Modena, Italy). Photo credits: (a, b) S. Cannucci; (c) R. Bolpagni. figure S3: Number of different life forms for both the terrestrial and aquatic plots. table S1: Classification of the vegetation plots according to EUNIS habitat types. table S2: Summary statistics of environmental parameters measured across the plots of the studied ponds.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (11.46 MB)
login to comment