Next Article in Journal
Towards Sustainable Production: An Adaptive Intelligent Optimization Genetic Algorithm for Solid Wood Panel Manufacturing
Previous Article in Journal
Closing the Loop: Exploring Food Waste Management in the Near East and North Africa (NENA) Region during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Special Issue
Spatio-Temporal Variation in Landforms and Surface Urban Heat Island in Riverine Megacity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 9
10.3390/su16093784
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Vegetation Analysis in the Archaeological Area of Pasargadae WHS (Iran) Enhancing the Naturalistic Value of the Site within the Occurring Environmental Changes

by
Giulio Zangari
,
Zohreh Hosseini
* and
Giulia Caneva
Department of Science, University of Roma Tre, Viale Marconi 446, 00146 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(9), 3784; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093784
Submission received: 29 March 2024 / Revised: 26 April 2024 / Accepted: 29 April 2024 / Published: 30 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Regional Climate Change and Application of Remote Sensing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study provides pioneering research on the vegetation of archaeological areas in Iran to enhance its naturalistic and bioindication values by selecting the Pasargadae World Heritage Site (WHS). Vegetation surveys were carried out in different homogeneous habitats, analyzing the plant communities through statistical elaboration, syntaxonomic role, mapping, and enhancement of plants with conservation interest. In an ecological approach, the study included an analysis of the recent climate changes and human interventions influencing the water resources. Results revealed seven main vegetation types reflecting ecological gradients shaped by environmental, edaphic, and anthropogenic factors. The syntaxonomic analysis showed a primary subdivision in semi-natural grasslands and synanthropic vegetation. Several key species were identified as bioindicators of multiple factors, such as: Launaea acanthodes, Stipa barbata, Alhagi maurorum, Bellevalia saviczii, Glycyrrhiza glabra, Convolvulus arvensis, and Hordeum murinum. The vegetation map showed how the hilly grassland communities hosted the highest number of species with conservation interest and their need to be better protected. Bio-climatic data, such as the construction of dams and the exploitation for irrigation purposes, pointed to the increasing xeric conditions, which make urging conservation efforts for the site’s historical and naturalistic values. The study underscores the importance of preserving places with high plant diversity for effective site management, and enhances the intricate relationship between vegetation and natural features in the occurring environmental changes.

1. Introduction

Archaeological sites display the interaction of the natural environment and human activities [1,2,3,4,5,6]. In this interaction, multiple dynamics are involved, in which vegetation can have both a negative and sometimes a positive action in the conservation of archaeological structures [7]. Indeed, the growth of plants in archaeological areas recurrently gives rise to biodeterioration phenomena, which is related to the development of their roots [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. However, less consideration has been given to the benefits and values that the plants can provide, both in terms of the direct benefits they offer and the indirect advantages gained from understanding their role. In fact, the presence of plants in archaeological areas has a mitigating effect on the microclimate, thus ensuring higher stability and durability of the monuments and offering better comfort for those who visit these places [18,19]. Indeed, several studies demonstrated the mitigating action of plants by reducing solar radiation, maintaining a higher relative humidity, and reducing weathering, contaminant deposition, and wind erosion as well [20,21,22,23]. Moreover, some contributions [18,24,25,26] provided a methodological framework for evaluating the heritage value of vegetation. Furthermore, wild plants can also show indications of buried archaeological structures, thus adding information to the history of the site [27,28,29,30,31].
In addition, archaeological areas, being better protected from anthropogenic disturbance compared to other human-managed areas, have proven to be valuable refuges for biodiversity conservation [5,6,32,33]. The permanence of natural habitats and the floristic richness found in these areas is considerable, with the occurrence of a high number of species of conservation interest [6,32,34,35,36,37].
Analyzing plant communities in archaeological areas, such as their distribution and bioindication values, can greatly enhance the efficiency of site management and enrichment activities [18,20]. In fact, understanding how plant species are spatially and numerically distributed within the archaeological areas can facilitate management planning and activities, minimizing their negative impacts and promoting the benefits that plant communities can provide in these contexts [11,38,39]. Conversely, the vegetation growing on archaeological sites is influenced not only by human activities, but also by environmental and climatic conditions, as well as their ecological characteristics can serve as a bioindicator of these changes [40,41]. Due to severe climatic conditions, vegetation in arid or semi-arid environments shows a relative adaptive capacity, which becomes more significant considering current climate changes [42,43]. Vegetation maps of archaeological sites are useful tools for management planning, providing insight into the reading of the site characteristics, both for precise location of the various types of plant communities and contribution to the conservation of monuments [39].
In the Mediterranean areas, while several studies have addressed the vegetation of archaeological areas, research carried out on archaeological sites in arid or semi-arid environments is limited [6,32,44], despite their relevance and fragility caused by the occurring climatic changes. Notably, the UNESCO World Heritage Site (WHS) of Pasargadae, dating back to the 6th century BC [45,46], is of significant historical importance for its age, and its value since it is the place where the Persian Garden originated. The origin of the garden itself can be related to the favorable rainfall and hydrological conditions, since in the past the site had a high availability of water. However, the aridity has increased over the centuries, and this phenomenon has evidently intensified more recently. The present desiccation of the river was the consequence of both direct human interventions and the current climate change [47,48]. Moreover, Pasargadae is located in the border zone of the Zagros mountains, and the Irano-Turanian region, and it results in a rich ecotone from a biodiversity point of view, as well as a high naturalistic interest [6]. Following our recent floristic assessment [6] and the biodeterioration evaluation due to plant growth [17,49], we wish to deepen the knowledge of the site, by adding detailed insights into the vegetation’s naturalistic values that characterize the various parts of the site and the emerging issues linked to the climatic changes. In particular, this study will analyze the different types of vegetation growing in the archaeological area to: (1) assess their ecological and syntaxonomic characteristics and enhance their bioindication values; (2) evaluate the naturalistic interest and the distribution in the area through their mapping; and (3) give a preliminary assessment of the effects of the increasing stresses induced by the warming and desiccation of the area.
The findings will be useful for both the enhancement of natural values and the protection of monuments on the site, thus ensuring a balance between the need to preserve natural and cultural values, which is an aspect that should be better considered in the management plan of archeological sites [5,10,24,39,49,50].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Study Area: Pasargadae World Heritage Site

The Pasargadae Plain (Figure 1), also known as the Morghab Plain, is one of the vast alluvial sedimentary intermountain basins that is characteristic of the central and eastern part of the Zagros Mountains range [48] which form a plateau at 1400–1800 m above sea level, surrounded by a 2200–2500 m high mountain range [51]. It was formed during the Zagros orogeny, dating back to the Mesozoic era [52], and it is located in a unique position in High Zagros, where it experienced Wurm glaciation and later pluvial stages [51]. Polvar/Sivand River, the principal watercourse of Pasargadae, crosses the region from northeast to southwest, joining the plain of Persepolis downstream [48].
Pasargadae holds significant historical and geographical importance in the Fars Province of Iran since it was the location of the first capital of the Achaemenid Empire, the ancient Persian capital founded by Cyrus the Great around 546 BCE, due to the favorable orographic and hydrogeological conditions [45,46]. In fact, the plain is surrounded by a range of hills and mountains radiating from the Zagros Mountains chains, and the conditions of a well-watered basis and a wide area of arable land played an important role in the site’s choice and provided a favorable environment for agricultural development [48,53]. The natural landscape of the area not only consists of Zagros and Irano-Turanian biodiversity but has also been impacted by human activities such as agriculture and pastoral activities over centuries. The plain features archaeological remains, notably the tomb of Cyrus the Great, along with other structures showcasing ancient Persian architecture and cultural achievements.
The climate of the Pasargadae area is classified within the Mediterranean xeric continental bioclimate, characteristic of southern Iran and northern Fars [54], which exhibits semi-arid features, including warm and dry summers and relatively cold winters.
Previous elaborations (2006–2021) [6] showed a certain variation in rainfall with average values of approximately only 222.8 mm, primarily concentrated from December to May, including occasional snow at higher altitudes, followed by a dry period from June to September. At the same time, the annual temperature typically ranged between 14.7–17.5 °C, with the lowest absolute temperature recorded at −10.6 °C in February and the highest at 44.4 °C in July. Relative humidity averaged around 39–41%, showcasing significant fluctuations throughout the day, with winter temperatures often falling below 0 °C [47].

2.2. Methodology

2.2.1. Vegetation Sampling

Following the phytosociological approach of the Zurich–Montpellier school [55], the vegetation survey was conducted (May 2022) in sampling areas selected on the basis of homogeneous edaphic and stational conditions in order to avoid ecotones and overlapping among different communities. In total, 33 plots of 10 m × 10 m (Figure 2) were carried out randomly in the different areas, such as highly disturbed areas near the monuments, dry riverbed areas, remnants of the Royal Garden watercourses, semi-natural grasslands, shrublands under several edaphic conditions, and stony and rocky hills. In each plot, the vegetation survey was carried out visually estimating the plant coverage index of the Braun-Blanquet scale: + = <1%; 1 = 1–5%; 2 = 5–25%; 3 = 25–50%; 4 = 50–75%; 5 = 75–100%. In addition, the most relevant environmental variables and edaphic factors, such as slope, aspect, altitude, and soil characteristics, were collected.
For the vascular plant species identification, we used the Flora Iranica [56], comparing data with those obtained from the floristic study of Hosseini et al. [6] and with the herbarium specimens stored in the Herbarium of the University of Roma Tre. The nomenclature followed the “World of Flora Online” [57].

2.2.2. Statistical Elaborations and Syntaxonomic Analysis of Plant Communities

To analyze the different communities based on their plant composition, as well as the similarities and differences between them, a cluster analysis was performed to group plots into vegetation units based on a set of species and cover abundances. Data dissimilarity matrices were calculated using the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity index. A hierarchical cluster analysis was performed on this matrix using the mean agglomeration method (UPGMA), and the optimal number of clusters was determined using the Silhouette index [58]. A dendrogram was derived to illustrate the dissimilarities between samples and species, sorted according to the distance matrices [59]. Furthermore, to study the ecological gradients between the vegetation clusters, an ordination graph of sampling sites was created using the Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) method. The latter is an unconstrained method which attempts to represent, as closely as possible, the pairwise dissimilarity between objects in a low-dimensional space, unlike maximizing the variance or correspondence between objects in an ordination, as other methods do [60]. We also passively projected the environmental variables measured in the field on the NMDS plots to highlight the ecological drivers between the vegetation clusters.
Furthermore, we conducted a syntaxonomic analysis of the plant communities based on the ecological interpretation, mainly following Zohary [61]. However, given that Zohary’s work is somewhat dated and lacks detailed regional information, we compared our findings with the more recent analysis of vegetation types in Fars province [62]. To address this gap, species identified in our study but not listed in Zohary [61] were attributed to specific syntaxa based on the group divisions done by Khodagholi [62].
An investigation on bioindication values of the plant communities was carried out based on the scientific literature, considering the habitats that commonly host the most recurrent species within each community.

2.2.3. Evaluation of Plant and Communities of Conservation Interest

The natural and conservation status of the species found in the plots were cross-referenced with the Red Data Book of Iran [63], scientific literature [6,64,65,66], and the International Directives of CITES. New records and notes on species from the scientific literature were also evaluated.

2.2.4. Vegetation Mapping

The vegetation map was created through field surveys and photo interpretation. Indeed, for each vegetation type identified in the field, the extent and distribution within the perimeter of the archaeological site were estimated by recording the GPS coordinates of each area boundary The QGIS Software version 3.36 was utilized to map the distribution of the different vegetation units, providing a spatial representation of different plant communities. A photointerpretation of areas was also carried out, comparing collected data with orthophotos taken from Google Satellite.
Subsequently, we produced a map that illustrates the distribution of species with conservation interest, highlighting areas with the highest and lowest abundance among the different clusters.

2.2.5. Preliminary Evaluation of Recent Environmental Changes

The climate analysis involved meteorological data from Fars, sourced from nearby synoptic stations (Persepolis, Safashahr, and Arsenjan) through http://www.irimo.ir, (accessed on 11 July 2023). This analysis included diagrams covering the past 16 years (2006–2022), and we developed the occurring trends. We also conducted analytical diagrams focusing on the most recent 4 years to evaluate possible recent drastic changes.
We also evaluated the occurrence of further anthropic activities which could influence the climatic conditions of the site, analyzing the recent documentation referred to water management [67,68,69,70,71].

3. Results

3.1. Ecological and Syntaxonomic Characteristics of the Plant Communities and Their Bioindication Values

The resulting dendrogram of the 33 plots carried out in the site (Figure 3), based on similarities in species composition and cover abundances, highlighted the presence of seven main distinct clusters, which correspond to: 1. hilly grasslands; 2. grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata Desf.; 3. shrublands dominated by Alhagi maurorum Medik; 4. Grasslands dominated by Bellevalia saviczii Woronow; 5. grasslands dominated by Glycyrrhiza glabra L.; 6. ruderal vegetation of the Royal Garden watercourses; and 7. grasslands dominated by Hordeum murinum L. Three of them differ the most from all the others, in particular, in order of relevance, the groups 1, 2, and 3. The remaining four groups are divided into two subgroups (groups 4–5 and 6–7), which show a certain internal similarity:
The ordinations with the cluster arrangements in an ecological space resulting from the NMDS are displayed in Figure 4. This ordination confirms the cluster analysis results, regarding the organization of the groups. Two ecological gradients are evident: one along the x-axis from cluster 1 to cluster 5, and another along the y-axis from clusters 1 and 2 to cluster 7. The y-axis variability appears to be influenced by edaphic and geomorphological factors, since the observed hilly grasslands and grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata (clusters 1 and 2) grow in rockier and more sloped soils or with the presence of humps, and the other grasslands grow mainly in clay and loamy soils. The variability observed along the x-axis seems to be linked mainly to the anthropogenic disturbance, which has the highest values in clusters 7 and 3, characterized also by higher plant covers, and the lowest in clusters 1 and 2.
The syntaxonomic analysis of the vegetation showed the presence of different alliances and orders of plant communities, which can be subdivided into the main categories of synanthropic vegetation and semi-natural grasslands (Table 1). The classes attributed to each category resulted in Chenopodietea Oberd. 1957 and Secalinetea Orientalia Zohary 1973, for the synanthropic vegetation, and Artemisietea herbae-albae iranica Zohary 1973 and Astragaletea iranica Zohary 1973 for the semi-natural grasslands (Table 1, Table 2 and Table S1–S5) [61,62].
The dominant species for each cluster, as evidenced by Table 1 and Table S1–S5, were: for cluster 1, Launaea acanthodes, Helichrysum leucocephalum, and Dianthus crinitus subsp. kermanensis; for cluster 2, Stipa barbata; for cluster 3, Alhagi maurorum; for cluster 4, Bellevalia saviczii; for cluster 5, Glycyrrhiza glabra; for cluster 6, Convolvulus arvensis and Tragopogon collinus; and for cluster 7, Hordeum murinum. Such dominant species enhance the following bioindication values for the different clusters:
  • dry and windy rocky slopes of lands abandoned after extensive grazing [72,73,74];
  • dry and stony soils of semi-natural habitats [75];
  • disturbed areas and extreme dry conditions [72,76,77,78];
  • clayey soils [78];
  • silty-sandy alluvial deposits, subject to grazing and post-cultivation in steppe areas [79,80];
  • ruderal areas [17,81];
  • trampled areas [82].
Vegetation found in steppe soils was predominantly co-dominated by species from the genus Astragalus, and is commonly associated with extensive pastures undergoing post-abandonment succession.

3.2. Naturalistic Interest of the Species and the Distribution in the Area

Fifteen endemic species of conservation interest were found at the site, and their distribution and conservation status are detailed in Table 3. These endemic species fall into three distribution groups (Table 3). Most are distributed both in Fars and other Iranian regions (12 species); Cousinia nekarmanica and Astragalus cemerinus were not reported before [6] for the Fars region. Therefore, this site represents their only regional station; Acantholimon serotinum is endemic to the Fars region; Cousinia gracilis Boiss. Represents a new discovery within the site, which was not reported by Hosseini et al. [6].
The IUCN Conservation Status of each species obtained from [63] is reported in Table 3, showing that most of the species are considered at Low Risk (LR), but also three species are data deficient (DD), including Acantholimon serotinum, which is Fars endemic.
Table 4 shows the distribution of the endemic species with conservation interest among the different clusters. Cluster 1, which corresponds to the hilly areas furthest from visitor paths, is the one that holds the highest number of species with conservation interest, with a total of nine species, including five found exclusively here. Cluster 2, i.e., grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata, occurring sporadically within the site, comes next, with five species, two of which were exclusive. Combining the previous data, we can also note that among the semi-natural grasslands, Artemisietalia iranica tragacantha Zohary 1973, within the class Artemisietea herbae-albae iranica Zohary 1973, resulted in the richest in terms of species composition, particularly within clusters 1 and 2.
Clusters 3, 4, 6, and 7 appear similar, with two or three species, one of which was exclusive, while Cluster 5, which comprises grasslands dominated by Glycyrrhiza glabra, exhibited the lowest richness, with only one species and no exclusive ones.
By analyzing the distribution of plant communities, as derived from QGIS 3.36 software, we can note the significant heterogeneity in the distribution and size of the clusters (Figure 5). Clusters 5, 1, and 7 have the largest size, with the first predominantly in the central part of the site, the second covered almost the entire northernmost part, and the third was mainly found in the southernmost part. The remaining clusters exhibit a more scattered presence: clusters 2 and 3 are sparsely distributed within the site, cluster 4 stretches across a central strip, corresponding to a dry riverbed, and cluster 6 was mainly found in a small area of the central part, around the remnants of the Royal Garden watercourses (Figure 5A).

3.3. Warming and Desiccation of the Area as Threats to Plant Biodiversity

The climatic data from 2006 to 2022 revealed an increasing trend in temperature and a fluctuation in precipitation values, marked by a significant alteration in average precipitation (222.8 mm), with variations from 120 mm to 314 mm. More recently, despite a peak in average rainfall in 2019 (Figure 6a), the overall trend indicated a relevant decrease in precipitation during traditionally rainy months, especially in Spring and in a more limited way throughout the Fall season (Figure 6b–e). This decline is evident when comparing the monthly rain-temperature chart for the last four years, and the lowest precipitation amounts were recorded in 2008, 2017, and 2022.
Adding to the climatic challenges, the Polvar River, like all watercourses in the province of Fars, has been experiencing a gradual desiccation influenced by a combination of increasing warming and other human interventions, such as the construction of dams and the considerable exploitation for irrigation purposes, that further exacerbated the dryness [67,68,70]. Since the mid-1990s, episodes of drought have become increasingly frequent, significantly affecting the river’s flow [67,68,83]. Currently, this river is completely dried up, marking a significant shift from its past status as a perennial river.

4. Discussion

This pioneering research on vegetation in archaeological sites of Iran contributes to the knowledge of plant communities in archaeological areas, particularly in arid or semi-arid environments, such as in Iran.
Previous studies on the flora of the Pasargadae site and its interaction with stone monuments revealed the importance of understanding the microhabitat of plant colonization on the remaining structures as a tool for controlling biodeterioration phenomena [17,49]. Additionally, the plant diversity of the site [6] and the distribution of the endemic species with conservation interest emphasized the importance of conservation strategies that consider both the natural and cultural values of the site [5,18,24,33,84]. This is particularly important in the context of plant diversity, as the conservation of these sites can help to ensure the protection of plant diversity [39,85].
In this contribution, we have expanded the syntaxonomical attribution of species missing in Zohary [61] to their respective syntaxa, achieved through comparisons with species groupings made by Khodagholi [62].
The presence of the class Astragaletea iranica Zohary 1973 is especially noteworthy, as it is typically associated with mountainous environments. Its occurrence in this context likely reflects dynamics related to ecological refuges [61].
The vegetation primarily influenced by human activity is predominantly represented by the Secalinetea Orientalia Zohary 1973 class, one of the most prevalent vegetation classes in the Middle East. This class represents the weed communities commonly observed in non-irrigated winter and summer crops. It often occupies abandoned fields that have become partially overgrown by tragacanth astragals. Consequently, this community appears to represent an early post-agricultural phase in the succession towards Artemisietea herbae-albae iranica Zohary 1973 communities [61]. This class was more frequent within clusters 3, 4, and 5. The Chenopodietea Oberd. (1957) class, notably prevalent in clusters 6 and 7, is characterized by synanthropic vegetation dominated by annual and biennial nitrophilous and semi-nitrophilous species thriving in ruderal and disturbed environments [86]. This component is predominantly found within the site in areas closest to the most trafficked visitor paths and subjected to trampling.
This also explains the similarity in species composition (Figure 3 and Figure 4) and the distribution of the endemic species with conservation interest among the different clusters. Indeed, the highest number of species with conservation interest held by clusters 1 and 2 (Table 4) is in accord with findings made by several authors, namely that when grazing is conducted in a non-intensive manner, it tends to promote greater biodiversity, and the effects of such practices can persist for an extended period of time [87,88,89,90,91,92].
Additionally, the higher number of species with conservation interest observed in clusters 1 and 2 can be attributed to the microhabitats formed by variations in bedrock and erosion processes. These conditions reduce the competition of dominant species and foster the growth of therophyte species that require environments with lower nutrient and water availability [93,94].
Plant bioindication values have provided significant insights into historical human activities and land-use practices, such as cultivation, corresponding to cluster 5, located in the central and flat parts of the site (see also Figure 5). While the activities proposed by bioindication lack certainty, the likelihood of their occurrence in the region is notably high, particularly in light of the land use management pattern observed in several rangelands of Iran [95]. The land use with extensive grazing has primarily impacted the hilly areas (cluster 1), which are rockier and more sloped, making them less suitable for cultivation. The clayey soils in cluster 4, which likely correspond to a dry riverbed, and the silty-sandy alluvial deposits in areas of cluster 5, indicated fertile soils suitable for cultivation. The ruderal communities in clusters 6 and 7 are instead due, respectively, to the limited availability of soil for the rock outcrop in the remnant of the Royal Garden watercourses and to the influences given from visitor trampling.
Furthermore, the study has highlighted the importance of vegetation maps as a tool for managing different habitats within the site. These maps are instrumental in identifying areas that require protection from anthropogenic pressures such as trampling and mowing, as well as areas hosting invasive species that need to be managed [18,96]. In fact, human activities, including livestock grazing, mowing, and the use of herbicides, also contribute significantly to vegetation distribution [40,97], as seen in the differential coverage around Cyrus the Great’s Tomb and the more natural northern hills. This distinction is crucial for developing targeted conservation strategies that respect the site’s dual natural and historical significance.
Integrating naturalistic and cultural values in conservation planning ensures not only the preservation of biodiversity, but also the continuity of the landscape’s historical narrative [98,99]. Additionally, for the valorization of the Royal Garden of Cyrus the Great, great information could be obtained from vegetation surveys, and analyzing the plant species within and around the presumed location of the lost garden can contribute to the valorization scenario by respecting both ancient and current landscapes [96]. The phytosociological syntaxa could also support the understanding of ancient (cereal and pulse) crop husbandry regimes [100,101].
Finally, the observed recent shifts in precipitation and temperature patterns may have profound implications for the conservation of biodiversity and cultural heritage. The decrease in rainfall of recent years, particularly during critical growth phases, not only may impact phenological patterns and distribution of plants [102,103,104], but also may threaten species that already have small ranges [105,106,107,108], increasing the risk of extinction for many species [109,110,111,112,113]. This is especially concerning for the endemic and restricted-range species found in the study area, which exhibit a heightened vulnerability to environmental change [114]. Such species are vital not only for their intrinsic ecological value, but also as indicators of historical land-use practices, which are part of the cultural narrative of the site.
When looking at our previous floristic data collected in 2019 [6], we can now underline some changes in the dominant species, and an anticipation of the flowering period, such data underscores the increasing stresses induced by the warming and desiccation of the area, posing challenges to the naturalistic value of the site. In general, the impact of climate change in northern Fars will determine a reduction of precipitation in the future [71] and an increase in the duration and severity of drought [115]. Based on the climate scenarios, by 2025, the Fars region (in Tashk, Bakhtegan, and Maharlu lakes) will experience a 5.67–15.15% reduction in runoff [116,117].

5. Conclusions

This research has advanced our understanding of vegetation in Iran’s archaeological sites, shedding light on plant communities and their interactions with human activity and the natural environment, which have been relatively underexplored in the country. Through vegetation analyses and classification within a syntaxonomic framework, the research has yielded significant findings, particularly in identifying rich species compositions within different vegetation classes. Notably, it highlighted the importance of understanding both natural and human-induced influences on vegetation distribution, emphasizing the critical role of human activities in shaping plant communities.
Furthermore, the bioclimatic analysis in recent years dramatically confirmed the impact of climate change on vegetation patterns and biodiversity, underscoring the urgent need for adaptive conservation strategies. The observed shifts in temperature patterns and the increasing dryness conditions pose significant challenges to both plant diversity and cultural heritage preservation, necessitating proactive measures to mitigate these impacts within the broader context of cultural heritage preservation and sustainable management practices.
Moreover, the work emphasized the importance of integrating ecological and cultural values in conservation planning. By considering both naturalistic and cultural aspects, conservation efforts can ensure the preservation of biodiversity while safeguarding historical monuments.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16093784/s1. Table S1: Analytic table of cluster 1, hilly grasslands; Table S2: Analytic table of cluster 2, grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata Desf.; Table S3: Analytic table of cluster 3, shrublands dominated by Alhagi maurorum Medik.; Table S4: Analytic table of clusters 4–5, respectively, grasslands dominated by Bellevalia saviczii Woronow and grasslands dominated by Glycyrrhiza glabra L.; Table S5: Analytic table of clusters 6–7, respectively, ruderal vegetation of remnant of the Royal garden watercourses and grasslands dominated by Hordeum murinum L.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.C.; methodology, G.Z., Z.H. and G.C.; investigation, G.Z., Z.H. and G.C.; data curation, G.Z. and Z.H.; writing—review and editing, G.Z., Z.H. and G.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was conducted as part of a PhD study and funded as a PhD scholarship by the University Roma Tre, Science Department. The Grant of Excellence Departments, MIUR, Italy (Art. 1, commi 314–337 legge 232/2016), is gratefully acknowledged.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data present in this study are available within the text and in the Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Hamid Fadaei, site manager, and other colleagues at Pasargadae World Heritage Site for their support during field surveys. We would like to mention that any errors are our own and should not tarnish the reputations of these esteemed persons.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mercuri, A.M.; Florenzano, A.; Massamba N’siala, I.; Olmi, L.; Roubis, D.; Sogliani, F. Pollen from Archaeological Layers and Cultural Landscape Reconstruction: Case Studies from the Bradano Valley (Basilicata, Southern Italy). Plant Biosyst. 2010, 144, 888–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pauknerová, K.; Salisbury, R.B.; Baumanová, M. Human-Landscape Interaction in Prehistoric Central Europe: Analysis of Natural and Built Environments. Anthropologie 2013, 51, 131–142. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sadori, L.; Allevato, E.; Bellini, C.; Bertacchi, A.; Boetto, G.; Di Pasquale, G.; Giachi, G.; Giardini, M.; Masi, A.; Pepe, C. Archaeobotany in Italian Ancient Roman Harbours. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 2015, 218, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ackermann, O.; Greenbaum, N.; Bruins, H.; Ayalon, A.; Bar-Matthews, M.; Cabanes, D.; Horwitz, L.K.; Neumann, F.H.; Osband, M.; Porat, N. Ancient Environment and Human Interaction at Tell Eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near East. Archaeol. 2017, 80, 244–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Caneva, G.; Benelli, F.; Bartoli, F.; Cicinelli, E. Safeguarding Natural and Cultural Heritage on Etruscan Tombs (La Banditaccia, Cerveteri, Italy). Rend. Lincei 2018, 29, 891–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hosseini, Z.; Bartoli, F.; Cicinelli, E.; Lucchese, F. First Floristic Investigation in Archaeological Sites of Iran: Features and Plant Richness of the Pasargadae World Heritage Site. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 2023, 157, 605–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Caneva, G.; Nugari, M.P.; Salvadori, O. Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation; Getty Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008; ISBN 0892369396. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cozzolino, A.; Adamo, P.; Bonanomi, G.; Motti, R. The role of lichens, mosses, and vascular plants in the biodeterioration of historic buildings: A review. Plants 2022, 24, 3429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Almeida, M.T.; Mouga, T.; Barracosa, P. The Weathering Ability of Higher Plants. The Case of Ailanthus altissima (Miller) Swingle. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 1994, 33, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Caneva, G.; Ceschin, S.; De Marco, G. Mapping the Risk of Damage from Tree Roots for the Conservation of Archaeological Sites: The Case of the Domus Aurea, Rome. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2006, 7, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Motti, R.; Bonanomi, G. Vascular Plant Colonisation of Four Castles in Southern Italy: Effects of Substrate Bioreceptivity, Local Environment Factors and Current Management. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2018, 133, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Isola, D.; Bartoli, F.; Langone, S.; Ceschin, S.; Zucconi, L.; Caneva, G. Plant DNA Barcode as a Tool for Root Identification in Hypogea: The Case of the Etruscan Tombs of Tarquinia (Central Italy). Plants 2021, 10, 1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Elgohary, Y.M.; Mansour, M.M.; Salem, M.Z. Assessment of the potential effects of plants with their secreted biochemicals on the biodeterioration of archaeological stones. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2022, 26, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Caneva, G.; Galotta, G.; Cancellieri, L.; Savo, V. Tree Roots and Damages in the Jewish Catacombs of Villa Torlonia (Roma). J. Cult. Herit. 2009, 10, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tiano, P. Biodeterioration of stone monuments: A critical review. In Recent Advances in Biodeterioration and Biodegradation: Volume 1: Biodeterioration of Cultural Heritage; Naya Prokash: Calcutta, India, 1993; pp. 301–321. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jain, K.K.; Mishra, A.K.; Singh, T. Biodeterioration of stone: A review of mechanisms involved. In Recent Advances in Biodeterioration and Biodegredation: Volume 1: Biodeterioration of Cultural Heritage; Naya Prokash: Calcutta, India, 1993; pp. 323–354. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hosseini, Z.; Zangari, G.; Carboni, M.; Caneva, G. Substrate Preferences of Ruderal Plants in Colonizing Stone Monuments of the Pasargadae World Heritage Site, Iran. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Caneva, G. A Botanical Approach to the Planning of Archaeological, Parks in Italy. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 1999, 3, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Carcangiu, G.; Casti, M.; Desogus, G.; Meloni, P.; Ricciu, R. Microclimatic Monitoring of a Semi-Confined Archaeological Site Affected by Salt Crystallisation. J. Cult. Herit. 2015, 16, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fabbri, K.; Canuti, G.; Ugolini, A. A Methodology to Evaluate Outdoor Microclimate of the Archaeological Site and Vegetation Role: A Case Study of the Roman Villa in Russi (Italy). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 35, 107–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chiusoli, A. La Scienza Del Paesaggio; Clueb: Bologna, Italy, 1999; ISBN 8849111762. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bussotti, F.; Grossoni, P.; Batistoni, P.; Ferretti, M.; Cenni, E. Preliminary Studies on the Ability of Plant Barriers to Capture Lead and Cadmium of Vehicular Origin. Aerobiologia 1995, 11, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Caneva, G.; Langone, S.; Bartoli, F.; Cecchini, A.; Meneghini, C. Vegetation Cover and Tumuli’s Shape as Affecting Factors of Microclimate and Biodeterioration Risk for the Conservation of Etruscan Tombs (Tarquinia, Italy). Sustainability 2021, 13, 3393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cicinelli, E.; Salerno, G.; Caneva, G. An Assessment Methodology to Combine the Preservation of Biodiversity and Cultural Heritage: The San Vincenzo al Volturno Historical Site (Molise, Italy). Biodivers. Conserv. 2018, 27, 1073–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Batista, T.; de Mascarenhas, J.M.; Mendes, P.; Pinto-Gomes, C. Assessing Vegetation Heritage Value: The Alentejo Central (Portugal) as a Case Study. Land 2021, 10, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Batista, T.; Mascarenhas, J.M.D.; Mendes, P.; Pinto-Gomes, C. Methodological proposal for the assessment of vegetation heritage value: Application in Central Alentejo (Portugal). In Proceedings of the ECLAS Conference of Landscape a Place of Cultivation, Porto, Portugal, 21 September 2014; pp. 266–270. [Google Scholar]
  27. Merola, P.; Allegrini, A.; Guglietta, D.; Sampieri, S. Study of Buried Archaeological Sites Using Vegetation Indices. In Proceedings of the Remote Sensing for Environmental Monitoring, GIS Applications, and Geology VI; SPIE, Stockholm, Sweden, 20 October 2006; Volume 6366, pp. 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rosen, B.; Galili, E.; Weinstein-Evron, M. Thorny Burnet (Sarcopoterium spinosum L.) in a Roman Shipwreck off the Israeli Coast and the Role of Non-Timber Shrubs in Ancient Mediterranean Ships. Environ. Archaeol. 2009, 14, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bennett, R.; Welham, K.; Hill, R.A.; Ford, A.L.J. The Application of Vegetation Indices for the Prospection of Archaeological Features in Grass-Dominated Environments. Archaeol. Prospect. 2012, 19, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ceschin, S.; Caneva, G. Plants as Bioindicators for Archaeological Prospection: A Case of Study from Domitian’s Stadium in the Palatine (Rome, Italy). Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 5317–5326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Minissale, P.; Sciandrello, S. The Wild Vascular Flora of the Archaeological Park of Neapolis in Syracuse and Surrounding Areas (Sicily, Italy). Biodivers. J. 2017, 8, 87–104. [Google Scholar]
  32. Abdelkreem, M.I.M.; Ibrahim, D.A. Check List of Flora and Vegetation of an Archaeological Habitat in North Sudan. Pyrex J. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  33. Zangari, G.; Bartoli, F.; Lucchese, F.; Caneva, G. Plant Diversity in Archaeological Sites and Its Bioindication Values for Nature Conservation: Assessments in the UNESCO Site Etruscan Necropolis of Tarquinia (Italy). Sustainability 2023, 15, 16469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pignatti Wikus, E.; Giomi Visentin, M. Ostia Antica and Its Vegetation. Braun-Blanquetia 1989, 3, 271–278. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lucchese, F.; Pignatti, E. La Vegetazione Nelle Aree Archeologiche Di Roma e Della Campagna Romana. Quad. Bot. Ambient. Appl. 2009, 20, 3–89. [Google Scholar]
  36. Heneidy, S.Z.; Al-Sodany, Y.M.; Bidak, L.M.; Fakhry, A.M.; Hamouda, S.K.; Halmy, M.W.A.; Alrumman, S.A.; Al-Bakre, D.A.; Eid, E.M.; Toto, S.M. Archeological Sites and Relict Landscapes as Refuge for Biodiversity: Case Study of Alexandria City, Egypt. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Albani Rocchetti, G.; Bartoli, F.; Cicinelli, E.; Lucchese, F.; Caneva, G. Linking Man and Nature: Relictual Forest Coenosis with Laurus nobilis L. and Celtis australis L. in Antica Lavinium, Italy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kanellou, E.; Papafotiou, M.; Saitanis, C.; Economou, G. Ecological Analysis and Opportunities for Enhancement of the Archaeological Landscape: The Vascular Flora of Seven Archaeological Sites in Greece. Environments 2024, 11, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Minissale, P.; Trigilia, A.; Brogna, F.; Sciandrello, S. Plants and Vegetation in the Archaeological Park of Neapolis of Syracuse (Sicily, Italy): A Management Effort and Also an Opportunity for Better Enjoyment of the Site. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2015, 17, 340–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Matthiesen, H.; Fenger-Nielsen, R.; Harmsen, H.; Madsen, C.K.; Hollesen, J. The Impact of Vegetation on Archaeological Sites in the Low Arctic in Light of Climate Change. Arctic 2020, 73, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Caneva, G.; Pacini, A.; Cutini, M.; Merante, A. The Colosseum Floras as Bio-Indicators of the Climatic Changes in Rome. Clim. Chang. 2005, 70, 431–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chesson, P.; Gebauer, R.L.E.; Schwinning, S.; Huntly, N.; Wiegand, K.; Ernest, M.S.K.; Sher, A.; Novoplansky, A.; Weltzin, J.F. Resource Pulses, Species Interactions, and Diversity Maintenance in Arid and Semi-Arid Environments. Oecologia 2004, 141, 236–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Cowling, R.M.; Esler, K.J.; Midgley, G.F.; Honig, M.A. Plant Functional Diversity, Species Diversity and Climate in Arid and Semi-Arid Southern Africa. J. Arid Environ. 1994, 27, 141–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Karakuş, Ş.; Tuna, A. Flora of Archaeological Landscape: Case Study of Arslantepe Mound and Its Territory. In Innovating Strategies and Solutions for Urban Performance and Regeneration; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 303–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Boucharlat, R. Pasargadae. Iran 2002, 40, 279–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stronach, D. Excavations at Pasargadae: First Preliminary Report. Iran 1963, 1, 19–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chambrade, M.-L.; Gondet, S.; Laisney, D.; Mehrabani, M.; Mohammadkhani, K.; Zareh-Kordshouli, F. The Canal System of Ju-i Dokhtar: New Insight into Water Management in the Eastern Part of the Pasargadae Plain (Fars, Iran). Water Hist. 2020, 12, 449–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rigot, J.-B.; Gondet, S.; Chambrade, M.-L.; Djamali, M.; Mohammadkhani, K.; Thamó-Bozsó, E. Pulvar River Changes in the Pasargadae Plain (Fars, Iran) during the Holocene and the Consequences for Water Management in the First Millennium BCE. Quat. Int. 2022, 635, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hosseini, Z.; Caneva, G. Evaluating Hazard Conditions of Plant Colonization in Pasargadae World Heritage Site (Iran) as a Tool of Biodeterioration Assessment. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2021, 160, 105216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Papafotiou, M.; Bertsouklis, K.F.; Martini, A.N.; Vlachou, G.; Akoumianaki-Ioannidou, A.; Kanellou, E.; Kartsonas, E.D. Evaluation of the Establishment of Native Mediterranean Plant Species Suggested for Landscape Enhancement in Archaeological Sites of Greece. Acta Hortic. 2017, 1189, 177–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bahrami, B.; Aminzadeh, B. Discovering the Ancient Lakelet of the Archeological Site of Pasargadae in Iran Using a Multi-Layer Technique. Environ. Geol. 2007, 53, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Emami, M.; Eslami, M.; Fadaei, H.; Karami, H.R.; Ahmadi, K. Mineralogical–Geochemical Characterization and Provenance of the Stones Used at the Pasargadae Complex in Iran: A New Perspective. Archaeometry 2018, 60, 1184–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sami, A. Pasargadae: The Oldest Imperial Capital of Iran; Musavi Printing Office: Shiraz, Iran, 1956. [Google Scholar]
  54. Djamali, M.; Akhani, H.; Khoshravesh, R.; Andrieu-Ponel, V.; Ponel, P.; Brewer, S. Application of the Global Bioclimatic Classification to Iran: Implications for Understanding the Modern Vegetation and Biogeography. Ecol. Mediterr. 2011, 37, 91–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Braun-Blanquet, J. Plant Sociology. The Study of Plant Communities, 1st ed.; McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1932. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rechinger, K.H.; Rechinger, W. Flora Iranica: Flora des Iranischen Hochlandes und der Umrahmenden Gebirge: Persien, Afghanistan, Teile von West-Pakistan, Nord-Iraq, Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan; Akademische Druck: Graz, Austria, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  57. WFO. World Flora Online. 2020. Available online: http://www.worldfloraonline.org (accessed on 5 November 2023).
  58. Rousseeuw, P.J. Silhouettes: A Graphical Aid to the Interpretation and Validation of Cluster Analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 1987, 20, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cáceres, M.D.; Legendre, P. Associations between Species and Groups of Sites: Indices and Statistical Inference. Ecology 2009, 90, 3566–3574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chahouki, M.A.Z. Multivariate Analysis Techniques in Environmental Science; INTECH Open Access Publisher: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 953307468X. [Google Scholar]
  61. Zohary, M. Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East; Gustav Fischer Verlag Press: Stuttgart, Germany, 1973; Volume 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  62. Khodagholi, M. Ecological Regions of Iranvegetation Types of Fars Province; Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands: Tehran, Iran, 2017; 337p.
  63. Jalili, A.; Jamzad, Z. Red Data Book of Iran: A Preliminary Survey of Endemic, Rare and Endangered Plant Species in Iran; Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands: Tehran, Iran, 1999.
  64. Sharififar, F.; Koohpayeh, A.; Motaghi, M.M.; Amirkhosravi, A.; Puormohseni Nasab, E.; Khodashenas, M. Study the Ethnobotany of Medicinal Plants in Sirjan, Kerman Province, Iran. J. Med. Herbs 2010, 1, 19–28. [Google Scholar]
  65. Jalali, M.; Sharifi-Tehrani, M.; Shirmardi, H.-A. Flora of Jahanbin Mountain Area: A Contribution to Flora of the Central Zagros Region of Iran. J. Genet. Resour. 2016, 2, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Parvizi, M.; Sharifi-Tehrani, M.; Jafari, A. Plant Species Diversity in Jokhaneh Plain and Southern Slope of the Nil Mt. in Kohgilouyeh va Boyerahmad Province (Central Zagros Region of Iran). J. Genet. Resour. 2016, 2, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Heydari, M.; Othman, F.; Noori, M. A review of the Environmental Impact of Large Dams in Iran. Int. J. Adv. Civ. Struct. Environ. Eng. IJACSE 2013, 1, 4. [Google Scholar]
  68. Hajibagheri, R.; Bazaee, A.; Aghamajidi, R. Statistical Estimation of Natural Flood and Discharge Estimation with Different Return Periods (Case Study, Sivand River). Civ. Proj. 2022, 4, 11–25. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ahmadi, M.H.; Yousefi, H.; Farzin, S.; Rajabpour, R. Management of water resources and demands in Mulla Sadra, Doroodzan and Sivand Dams located in Bakhtegan-Maharlou watershed. Iran. J. Watershed Manag. Sci. Eng. 2018, 12, 31–41. [Google Scholar]
  70. Samani, N.; Jamshidi, Z. Climate change trend in Fars Province, Iran and its effect on groundwater crisis. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Recent Trends in Environmental Science and Engineering RTESE’17, Toronto, ON, Canada, 23–25 August 2017; p. 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Naderi, M. Extreme climate events under global warming in northern Fars Province, southern Iran. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2020, 142, 1221–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mohseni, M.R.; Rad, S.P. The Effect of Edaphic Factors on the Distribution and Abundance of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Iran. Biodivers. Data J. 2021, 9, e54843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Noroozi, J.; Talebi, A.; Doostmohammadi, M.; Bagheri, A. The Zagros Mountain Range. In Plant Biogeography and Vegetation of High Mountains of Central and South-West Asia; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 185–214. [Google Scholar]
  74. Nadaf, M.; Ejtehadi, H.; Mesdaghi, M.; Farzam, M. Recognizing Ecological Species Groups and Their Relationships with Environmental Factors at Chamanbid-Jozak Protected Area, North Khorasan Province, Iran. J. Rangel. Sci. 2017, 7, 253–264. [Google Scholar]
  75. Khajeddin, S.J.; Yeganeh, H. Plant Communities of the Karkas Hunting-Prohibited Region, Isfahan-Iran. Plant Soil Environ. 2008, 54, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Iqbal, U.; Ali, A.; Daad, A.; Aslam, M.U.; Rehman, F.U.; Farooq, U.; Gul, M.F. Unraveling the Defensive Strategies of Camel Thorn Alhagi Maurorum Medik. For Thriving in Arid and Semi-Arid Environments. J. Arid Environ. 2023, 219, 105076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Salama, F.M.; Abd El-Ghani, M.M.; Gaafar, A.E.; Hasanin, D.M.; Abd El-Wahab, D.A. Adaptive Eco-Physiological Mechanisms of Alhagi Graecorum in Response to Severe Aridity in the Western Desert of Egypt. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 2022, 156, 528–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ghahraman, A.; Heydari, J.; Atar, F.; Hamzehei, B. A Floristic Study of the Southwestern Slopes of Binaloud Elevations (Iran: Khorassan Province). J. Sci. 2006, 32, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rahchamani, R.; Faramarzi, M.; Moslemipor, F.; Bayat Kohsar, J. Effect of Supplementing Sheep Diet with Glycyrrhiza glabra and Urtica dioica Powder on Growth Performance, Rumen Bacterial Community and Some Blood Biochemical Constituents. Iran. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2019, 9, 95–103. [Google Scholar]
  80. Roozitalab, M.H.; Siadat, H.; Farshad, A. The Soils of Iran; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; ISBN 3319690485. [Google Scholar]
  81. Pourrezaei, J.; Khajeddin, S.J.; Karimzadeh, H.R.; Vahabi, M.R.; Mozaffarian, V.A.; Esfahani, M.T. Phytogeographical Distribution of Roadside Flora along the Plain to Mountainous Natural Areas (Northern Khorasan Province, Iran). Flora 2017, 234, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Davison, A.W. The Ecology of Hordeum murinum L.: II. The Ruderal Habit. J. Ecol. 1971, 59, 493–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Brisset, E.; Djamali, M.; Bard, E.; Borschneck, D.; Gandouin, E.; Garcia, M.; Stevens, L.; Tachikawa, K. Late Holocene hydrology of Lake Maharlou, southwest Iran, inferred from high-resolution sedimentological and geochemical analyses. J. Paleolimnol. 2019, 61, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Taylor, K.; Lennon, J. Cultural Landscapes: A Bridge between Culture and Nature? Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2011, 17, 537–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Davis, S.D.; Heywood, V. Centres of Plant Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for Their Conservation: Volume 1: Europe, Africa, South West Asia and the Middle East; World Conservation Union: London, UK, 1994.
  86. Mucina, L.; Bültmann, H.; Dierßen, K.; Theurillat, J.; Raus, T.; Čarni, A.; Šumberová, K.; Willner, W.; Dengler, J.; García, R.G. Vegetation of Europe: Hierarchical Floristic Classification System of Vascular Plant, Bryophyte, Lichen, and Algal Communities. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2016, 19, 3–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fóti, S.; Bartha, S.; Balogh, J.; Pintér, K.; Koncz, P.; Biró, M.; Süle, G.; Petrás, D.; De Luca, G.; Mészáros, Á. Fluctuations and Trends in Spatio-temporal Patterns of Plant Species and Diversity in a Sandy Pasture. J. Veg. Sci. 2023, 34, e13190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kun, R.; Babai, D.; Csathó, A.I.; Erdélyi, A.; Hartdégen, J.; Lengyel, A.; Kálmán, N.; Mártonffy, A.; Hábenczyus, A.A.; Szegleti, Z. Effects of Management Complexity on the Composition, Plant Functional Dominance Relationships and Physiognomy of High Nature Value Grasslands. Nat. Conserv. 2024, 55, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Marini, L.; Fontana, P.; Scotton, M.; Klimek, S. Vascular Plant and Orthoptera Diversity in Relation to Grassland Management and Landscape Composition in the European Alps. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Marini, L.; Scotton, M.; Klimek, S.; Isselstein, J.; Pecile, A. Effects of Local Factors on Plant Species Richness and Composition of Alpine Meadows. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 119, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Orlandi, S.; Probo, M.; Sitzia, T.; Trentanovi, G.; Garbarino, M.; Lombardi, G.; Lonati, M. Environmental and Land Use Determinants of Grassland Patch Diversity in the Western and Eastern Alps under Agro-Pastoral Abandonment. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016, 25, 275–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rahmanian, S.; Hejda, M.; Ejtehadi, H.; Farzam, M.; Pyšek, P.; Memariani, F. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Plant Species Diversity Vary along a Climatic Gradient in Northeastern Iran. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2020, 23, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Grace, J.B. The Factors Controlling Species Density in Herbaceous Plant Communities: An Assessment. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 1999, 2, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wellstein, C.; Campetella, G.; Spada, F.; Chelli, S.; Mucina, L.; Canullo, R.; Bartha, S. Context-Dependent Assembly Rules and the Role of Dominating Grasses in Semi-Natural Abandoned Sub-Mediterranean Grasslands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 182, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Moradi, E.; Heshmati, G.A.; Ghilishli, F.; Mirdeilami, S.Z.; Pessarakli, M. Grazing Intensity and Environmental Factors Effects on Species Composition and Diversity in Rangelands of Iran. J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 39, 2002–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Hosseini, Z.; Caneva, G. Lost Gardens: From Knowledge to Revitalization and Cultural Valorization of Natural Elements. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Dai, A. Drought under global warming: A review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Crawford, G.W. Palaeoethnobotanical Contributions to Human-Environment Interaction. In Environmental archaeology: Current Theoretical and Methodological Approaches; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 155–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pavlik, B.M.; Louderback, L.A.; Vernon, K.B.; Yaworsky, P.M.; Wilson, C.; Clifford, A.; Codding, B.F. Plant Species Richness at Archaeological Sites Suggests Ecological Legacy of Indigenous Subsistence on the Colorado Plateau. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2025047118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Halbrooks, M.C. The English Garden at Stan Hywet Hall and Gardens: Interpretation, Analysis, and Documentation of a Historic Garden Restoration. Horttechnology 2005, 15, 196–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Jones, G. Weed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry: Identifying a Contrast between Ancient and Modern Practice. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 1992, 73, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Guo, X.Y.; Zhang, H.Y.; Wang, Y.Q. Comparison of the spatio-temporal dynamics of vegetation between the Changbai Mountains of eastern Eurasia and the Appalachian Mountains of eastern North America. J. Mt. Sci. 2018, 15, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Deng, S.F.; Yang, T.B.; Zeng, B.; Zhu, X.F.; Xu, H.J. Vegetation cover variation in the Qilian Mountains and its response to climate change in 2000–2011. J. Mt. Sci. 2013, 10, 1050–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kayiranga, A.; Ndayisaba, F.; Nahayo, L.; Karamage, F.; Nsengiyumva, J.B.; Mupenzi, C.; Nyesheja, E.M. Analysis of climate and topography impacts on the spatial distribution of vegetation in the Virunga Volcanoes Massif of East-Central Africa. Geosciences 2017, 7, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Manne, L.L.; Pimm, S.L. Beyond Eight Forms of Rarity: Which Species Are Threatened and Which Will Be Next? In Animal Conservation Forum; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; Volume 4, pp. 221–229. [Google Scholar]
  106. Mawdsley, J.R.; O’Malley, R.; Ojima, D.S. A Review of Climate-change Adaptation Strategies for Wildlife Management and Biodiversity Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 1080–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Behroozian, M.; Ejtehadi, H.; Townsend Peterson, A.; Memariani, F.; Mesdaghi, M. Climate Change Influences on the Potential Distribution of Dianthus Polylepis Bien. Ex Boiss. (Caryophyllaceae), an Endemic Species in the Irano-Turanian Region. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0237527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Velásquez-Tibatá, J.; Salaman, P.; Graham, C.H. Effects of Climate Change on Species Distribution, Community Structure, and Conservation of Birds in Protected Areas in Colombia. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2013, 13, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Nabout, J.C.; Magalhães, M.R.; de Amorim Gomes, M.A.; Da Cunha, H.F. The Impact of Global Climate Change on the Geographic Distribution and Sustainable Harvest of Hancornia Speciosa Gomes (Apocynaceae) in Brazil. Environ. Manag. 2016, 57, 814–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Xu, X.; Zhang, H.; Xie, T.; Xu, Y.; Zhao, L.; Tian, W. Effects of Climate Change on the Potentially Suitable Climatic Geographical Range of Liriodendron Chinense. Forests 2017, 8, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Cuena-Lombraña, A.; Fois, M.; Fenu, G.; Cogoni, D.; Bacchetta, G. The Impact of Climatic Variations on the Reproductive Success of Gentiana Lutea L. in a Mediterranean Mountain Area. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2018, 62, 1283–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Guisan, A.; Holten, J.I.; Spichiger, R.; Tessier, L. Potential Ecological Impacts of Climate Change in the Alps and Fennoscandian Mountains. An Annex to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report, Working Group II-C (Impacts of Climate Change on Mountain Regions); Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  113. Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J.; van Treuren, R.; Hoekstra, R.; van Hintum, T.J.L. Crop Wild Relatives Range Shifts and Conservation in Europe under Climate Change. Divers. Distrib. 2017, 23, 739–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Casazza, G.; Giordani, P.; Benesperi, R.; Foggi, B.; Viciani, D.; Filigheddu, R.; Farris, E.; Bagella, S.; Pisanu, S.; Mariotti, M.G. Climate Change Hastens the Urgency of Conservation for Range-Restricted Plant Species in the Central-Northern Mediterranean Region. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 179, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Modarres, R.; Sarhadi, A.; Burn, D.H. Changes of extreme drought and flood events in Iran. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2016, 144, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Soltani, M.; Laux, P.; Kunstmann, H.; Stan, K.; Sohrabi, M.M.; Molanejad, M.; Sabziparvar, A.A.; Ranjbar SaadatAbadi, A.; Ranjbar, F.; Rousta, I.; et al. Assessment of climate variations in temperature and precipitation extreme events over Iran. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2016, 126, 775–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Karimi, V.; Karami, E.; Keshavarz, M. Climate change and agriculture: Impacts and adaptive responses in Iran. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 03784 g001
Figure 1. Views of the Pasargadae archaeological area: (a) the areal map of the site with the location of monuments in the site, riverbeds, Zagros Mountain, farmlands, and villages; 1. Cyrus the Great Tomb, 2. Caravanserai, 3. Private Palace, 4. Watercourses of Royal Garden, 5. Pavilion B, 6. Pavilion A, 7. Audience Hall, 8. Gate Palace, 9. Stone Tower, 10. Fortification terrace.; (b) the landscape of the surrounding area with trees of Pistacia atlantica (Babak Sedighi: archive of Pasargadae research center); and (c) the landscape of the Cyrus Tomb (Author, May 2019).
Figure 1. Views of the Pasargadae archaeological area: (a) the areal map of the site with the location of monuments in the site, riverbeds, Zagros Mountain, farmlands, and villages; 1. Cyrus the Great Tomb, 2. Caravanserai, 3. Private Palace, 4. Watercourses of Royal Garden, 5. Pavilion B, 6. Pavilion A, 7. Audience Hall, 8. Gate Palace, 9. Stone Tower, 10. Fortification terrace.; (b) the landscape of the surrounding area with trees of Pistacia atlantica (Babak Sedighi: archive of Pasargadae research center); and (c) the landscape of the Cyrus Tomb (Author, May 2019).
Sustainability 16 03784 g001
Sustainability 16 03784 g002
Figure 2. WHS of Pasargadae, Fars Province (Iran): map of the 33 surveys carried out within the site. The sampling locations covered: highly disturbed areas near the monuments (1–3,23,25), dry riverbed area (11,12,14,29,32), remnants of the Royal Garden watercourses (16–18), semi-natural grasslands and shrublands under several edaphic conditions (4–7,10,24,26,28,31,33), and stony and rocky hills (8,9,13,15,19–22,27,30).
Figure 2. WHS of Pasargadae, Fars Province (Iran): map of the 33 surveys carried out within the site. The sampling locations covered: highly disturbed areas near the monuments (1–3,23,25), dry riverbed area (11,12,14,29,32), remnants of the Royal Garden watercourses (16–18), semi-natural grasslands and shrublands under several edaphic conditions (4–7,10,24,26,28,31,33), and stony and rocky hills (8,9,13,15,19–22,27,30).
Sustainability 16 03784 g002
Sustainability 16 03784 g003
Figure 3. Dendrogram of vegetation trough cover data and corresponding pictures of vegetation types growing in the Pasargadae (May 2022). Plant communities (clusters): 1. hilly grasslands; 2. grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata Desf.; 3. shrublands dominated by Alhagi maurorum Medik; 4. Grasslands dominated by Bellevalia saviczii Woronow; 5. grasslands dominated by Glycyrrhiza glabra L.; 6. ruderal vegetation of the Royal Garden watercourses; and 7. grasslands dominated by Hordeum murinum L. The numbers not in bold from 1 to 33 indicate the different sampling areas.
Figure 3. Dendrogram of vegetation trough cover data and corresponding pictures of vegetation types growing in the Pasargadae (May 2022). Plant communities (clusters): 1. hilly grasslands; 2. grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata Desf.; 3. shrublands dominated by Alhagi maurorum Medik; 4. Grasslands dominated by Bellevalia saviczii Woronow; 5. grasslands dominated by Glycyrrhiza glabra L.; 6. ruderal vegetation of the Royal Garden watercourses; and 7. grasslands dominated by Hordeum murinum L. The numbers not in bold from 1 to 33 indicate the different sampling areas.
Sustainability 16 03784 g003
Sustainability 16 03784 g004
Figure 4. NMDS ordination of the vegetation samples carried out in the Pasargadae WHS, Iran (NMDS stress  =  0.14; Shepard plot non-metric fit R2  =  0.95 and linear fit R2  =  0.78). Clusters are circled and over-imposed on NMDS plots. 1. Hilly grasslands; 2. Grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata Desf.; 3. Shrublands dominated by Alhagi maurorum Medik; 4. Grasslands dominated by Bellevalia saviczii Woronow; 5. Grasslands dominated by Glycyrrhiza glabra L.; 6. Ruderal vegetation of the Royal Garden watercourses; and 7. Grasslands dominated by Hordeum murinum L. The numbers not in bold from 1 to 33 indicate the different sampling areas.
Figure 4. NMDS ordination of the vegetation samples carried out in the Pasargadae WHS, Iran (NMDS stress  =  0.14; Shepard plot non-metric fit R2  =  0.95 and linear fit R2  =  0.78). Clusters are circled and over-imposed on NMDS plots. 1. Hilly grasslands; 2. Grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata Desf.; 3. Shrublands dominated by Alhagi maurorum Medik; 4. Grasslands dominated by Bellevalia saviczii Woronow; 5. Grasslands dominated by Glycyrrhiza glabra L.; 6. Ruderal vegetation of the Royal Garden watercourses; and 7. Grasslands dominated by Hordeum murinum L. The numbers not in bold from 1 to 33 indicate the different sampling areas.
Sustainability 16 03784 g004
Sustainability 16 03784 g005
Figure 5. Vegetation maps of the Pasargadae WHS elaborated with QGIS Software, showing: (A) the distribution of the different clusters, and (B) the distribution of the species with conservation interest that occurred within the clusters considering both the total amount and the presences exclusively found in the specific cluster (in parenthesis).
Figure 5. Vegetation maps of the Pasargadae WHS elaborated with QGIS Software, showing: (A) the distribution of the different clusters, and (B) the distribution of the species with conservation interest that occurred within the clusters considering both the total amount and the presences exclusively found in the specific cluster (in parenthesis).
Sustainability 16 03784 g005
Sustainability 16 03784 g006
Figure 6. The chart of total rain and maximum temperature of three synoptic Fars stations (Persepolis, Safashar, and Arsenjan): (a) the annual chart during 2006–2022; the monthly bioclimatic variation in (b) 2019, (c) 2020, (d) 2021, and (e) 2022.
Figure 6. The chart of total rain and maximum temperature of three synoptic Fars stations (Persepolis, Safashar, and Arsenjan): (a) the annual chart during 2006–2022; the monthly bioclimatic variation in (b) 2019, (c) 2020, (d) 2021, and (e) 2022.
Sustainability 16 03784 g006
Table 1. Syntaxonomic scheme of the main resulting vegetation types.
Table 1. Syntaxonomic scheme of the main resulting vegetation types.
1. SYNANTHROPIC VEGETATION
1.1 RUDERAL AND SEGETAL VEGETATION OF MAN-MADE HABITATS
CHENOPODIETEA Oberd. 1957
SECALINETEA ORIENTALIA Zohary 1973
Tricetalia 7apsica77a Zohary 1950
Prosopidion farctae segetale Zohary 1973
Triticetalia iranica Zohary 1973
Secalion cereale segetale Zohary 1973
Hulthemion persicae segetale Zohary 1973
2. SEMI-NATURAL GRASSLANDS
2.1 SEMI-DESERTS AND STEPPES VEGETATION
ARTEMISIETEA HERBAE-ALBAE IRANICA Zohary 1973
Artemisietalia iranica typica Zohary 1973
Artemisietalia iranica tragacantha Zohary 1973
ASTRAGALETEA IRANICA Zohary 1973
Table 2. Synoptic Table showing the classes of frequency (from I to V) of the species occurring among the different clusters. Clusters: 1. Hilly grasslands; 2. Grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata Desf.; 3. Shrublands dominated by Alhagi maurorum Medik; 4. Grasslands dominated by Bellevalia saviczii Woronow; 5. Grasslands dominated by Glycyrrhiza glabra L.; 6. Ruderal vegetation of the Royal Garden watercourses; and 7. Grasslands dominated by Hordeum murinum L. Life forms: Ch = chamaephyte, G = geophyte, H = hemicryptophyte, T = therophyte.
Table 2. Synoptic Table showing the classes of frequency (from I to V) of the species occurring among the different clusters. Clusters: 1. Hilly grasslands; 2. Grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata Desf.; 3. Shrublands dominated by Alhagi maurorum Medik; 4. Grasslands dominated by Bellevalia saviczii Woronow; 5. Grasslands dominated by Glycyrrhiza glabra L.; 6. Ruderal vegetation of the Royal Garden watercourses; and 7. Grasslands dominated by Hordeum murinum L. Life forms: Ch = chamaephyte, G = geophyte, H = hemicryptophyte, T = therophyte.
Synoptic Table
ClustersLife Form1234567
Artemisietalia iranica tragacantha Zohary 1973
Stipa barbata Desf.HIIIVII II
Launaea acanthodes (Boiss.) KuntzeHIVIIIIV IIIIII
Astragalus cancellatus BungeH IIIIIIIII IIIII
Medicago sativa L.H IIIIIII IIV
Helichrysum leucocephalum Boiss.HIV
Salvia macrosiphon Boiss.ChIII IIII II
Noaea mucronata (Forssk.) Asch. & Schweinf.ChIIII II II
Centaurea balsamita subsp. kermanensis (Bornm.) WagenitzTIIIII I
Centaurea bruguierana subsp. belangeriana (DC.) Bornm.TI IV I
Lomelosia olivieri (Coult.) Greuter & BurdetTIIII II
Senecio glaucus L.T II IV
Astragalus cemerinus BeckChIII
Astragalus fasciculifolius Boiss.HI
Hertia angustifolia (DC.) KuntzeCh II
Picris strigosa M.Bieb.HI II I
Astragalus borraginaceus Rech.f.H III
Phlomis persica Boiss.HI II
Zosima absinthifolia LinkH II
Cousinia gracilis Boiss.H II
Peganum harmala L.Ch II
Phlomis aucheri Boiss.H II
Phlomis orientalis Mill.HI I
Pimpinella aurea DC.HI I
Reseda alba L.H I I
Acantholimon serotinum Rech.f. & Schiman-CzeikaHI
Centaurea calcitrapa L.H I
Cousinia leptomera Rech.f.H I
Cousinia nekarmanica Rech.f.HI
Polygonum hyrcanicum Rech.f.H I
Silene sisianica Boiss. & BuhseTI
Stachys inflata Benth.H I
Artemisietalia iranica typica Zohary 1973
Bellevalia saviczii WoronowG IVIIVIVIII
Boissieria squarrosa (Banks & Sol.) NevskiTIVIIVIV IIIIII
Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) NevskiTIVIIIIIVII I
Euphorbia dracunculoides Lam.TIIIIIIII II
Dianthus crinitus subsp. kermanensis Rech.filHIV
Aegilops tauschii Coss.T I I
Aegilops crassa Boiss.T III
Lactuca orientalis (Boiss.) Boiss.Ch I I
Stipa hohenackeriana Trin. & Rupr.HIII
Bellevalia glauca (Lindl.) KunthG II
Crupina vulgaris Pers. ex Cass.TI I
Diarthron lessertii (Wikstr.) Kit TanChI
Eryngium billardieri DelileH I
Euphorbia sororia SchrenkT I
Stipa lessingiana Trin. & Rupr.H I
Astragaletea iranica Zohary 1973
Achillea vermicularis Trin.H IVIIIVVIII
Allium sphaerocephalon L.GI IIIIV III
Onosma microcarpum DC.HII
Secalion cereale segetale Zohary 1973
Glycyrrhiza glabra L.GIIVVIVVIIIIV
Lactuca serriola L.TI IVIIIIIIV
Zoegea leptaurea L.TIIIIIIII II II
Hyoscyamus reticulatus L.G IIIIIIII
Medicago monantha (C.A.Mey.) Trautv.TIIIIIIII
Consolida orientalis (J.Gay) SchrödingerT I III I
Medicago persica (Boiss.) E.SmallTII III
Sisymbrium irio L.T III II
Alcea kurdica Alef.H IIII
Centaurea virgata subsp. squarrosa (Boiss.) GuglerH II
Convolvulus argyracanthus Rech. f., Aellen & Esfand.ChII
Galium tricornutum DandyT I
Sisymbrium irio L.TI I
Turgenia latifolia (L.) Hoffm.T II
Anchusa azurea Mill.H I
Matthiola chenopodiifolia Fisch. & C.A. Mey.T I
Reseda lutea L.H I
Hulthemion persicae segetale Zohary 1973 and Tricetalia iranica Zohary 1973
Bromus tectorum L.TIIIII IIIIII
Gundelia tournefortii L.HIVI
Papaver argemone L.T I III
Carthamus oxyacantha M.Bieb.TI II
Koelpinia linearis Pall.T II I
Valerianella szovitsiana Fisch. & C.A. Mey.T III
Tragopogon graminifolius DC.H II
Camelina hispida Boiss.TI II
Lepidium draba L.GI I
Prosopidion farctae segetale Zohary 1973, Triticetalia orientalia Zohary 1949–50 and Secalinetea orientalia Zohary 1973
Alhagi maurorum Medik. ChIVV II I
Alhagi pseudalhagi (M. Bieb.) Desv. ex B. Keller & Shap.H IIII II
Centaurea solstitialis L.H I III
Falcaria vulgaris Bernh.T I IIV
Gypsophila pilosa Huds.G II
Bongardia chrysogonum (L.) SpachH I
Chenopodietea Oberd. (1957)T
Hordeum murinum subsp. glaucum (Steud.)T VIIIIIIIIIV
Cyanus depressus (M.Bieb.) SojákHII IIIIIIIIIV
Onopordum leptolepis DC.GIIIIIVIIIIIIIV
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.HIIIIV II
Convolvulus arvensis L.T II IIIII
Chardinia orientalis (L.) KuntzeTIIIII II
Erodium cicutarium (L.) ’‘Hér.G I II
Scorzonera tunicata Rech.f. & KöieH II
Tragopogon collinus DCT III II
CompanionsT
Nigella oxypetala Boiss.TIIIIIIIIV II
Eremopyrum bonaepartis (Spreng.) NevskiH IIIIIVIVIIII
Festuca arundinacea Schreb.HIIII III I
Marrubium crassidens Boiss.TI II
Crepis sancta subsp. nemausensis (P.Fourn.) Babc.T II II
Tragopogon porrifolius subsp. longirostris (Sch.Bip.) GreuterH III
Chorispora tenella (Pall.) DC.T I II
Descurainia sophia (L.) Webb ex PrantlT I II
Hordeum spontaneum K.KochT II I
Marrubium vulgare L.G I I
Nonea caspica (Willd.) G.DonTI II
Siebera nana (DC.) Bornm.TII
Agrostis gigantea RothTII
Filago pyramidata L.TII
Garhadiolus hedypnois Jaub. & SpachT II
Plantago lanceolata L.H I
Rochelia disperma (L.f.) K.KochT II
Scabiosa persica Boiss.T II
Barbarea plantaginea DC.H I
Hordeum vulgare L.TI
Leopoldia tenuiflora (Tausch) Heldr.G I
Minuartia meyeri (Boiss.) Bornm.T I
Moltkia gypsacea Rech.f. & AellenHI
Muscari neglectum Guss. ex Ten.G I
Prunus arabica (Olivier) MeiklePI
Rhaponticum repens (L.) HidalgoH I
Scirpoides holoschoenus (L.) SojákG I
Solanum villosum Mill. (heterotypic synonym)T I
Zeravschania membranacea (Boiss.) PimenovH I
Table 3. Endemic species to Iran recorded in the site and their conservation status, defined following Rechinger [56] and the Red Data Book of Iran [63].
Table 3. Endemic species to Iran recorded in the site and their conservation status, defined following Rechinger [56] and the Red Data Book of Iran [63].
FamilySpeciesRechingerDistributionConservation
Status
ApiaceaeZeravschania membranacea (Boiss.) Pimenov Fars and other Iran regionsDD
AsteraceaeCentaurea balsamita subsp. kermanensis (Bornm.) Wagenitz Fars and other Iran regionsLR
AsteraceaeCousinia gracilis Boiss.Iran EndmFars and other Iran regionsDD
AsteraceaeCousinia nekarmanica Rech.f. Other Iran regionsLR
AsteraceaeHelichrysum leucocephalum Boiss. Fars and other Iran regionsLR
AsteraceaeHertia angustifolia Kuntze Fars and other Iran regionsLR
BoraginaceaeMoltkia gypsacea Rech.f. & AellenIran EndmFars and other Iran regionsLR
FabaceaeAstragalus cemerinus Beck Other Iran regionsLR
FabaceaeAstragalus fasciculifolius Boiss. subsp. fasciculifoliusIran EndmFars and other Iran regionsLR
FabaceaeMedicago persica (Boiss.) E.Small Fars and other Iran regionsLR
LamiaceaePhlomis aucheri Boiss.Iran EndmFars and other Iran regionsLR
LamiaceaePhlomis persica Boiss.Iran EndmFars and other Iran regionsLR
PlumbaginaceaeAcantholimon serotinum Rech.f. & Schiman-CzeikaIran EndmFarsDD
PolygonaceaePolygonum hyrcanicum Rech.f. Fars and other Iran regionsLR
SolanaceaeHyoscyamus kotschyanus Pojark.Iran EndmFars and other Iran regionsLR
Table 4. Distribution of the endemic species with conservation interest among the different clusters. For each cluster, the species were assigned frequency classes using Roman numerals I to V, except for cluster 6, which contains three reliefs, in which Arabic numerals 1 to 3 were used. The average coverage values are given in superscript. 1. hilly grasslands; 2. grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata Desf.; 3. shrublands dominated by Alhagi maurorum Medik; 4. Grasslands dominated by Bellevalia saviczii Woronow; 5. grasslands dominated by Glycyrrhiza glabra L.; 6. ruderal vegetation of the Royal Garden watercourses; and 7. grasslands dominated by Hordeum murinum L.
Table 4. Distribution of the endemic species with conservation interest among the different clusters. For each cluster, the species were assigned frequency classes using Roman numerals I to V, except for cluster 6, which contains three reliefs, in which Arabic numerals 1 to 3 were used. The average coverage values are given in superscript. 1. hilly grasslands; 2. grasslands dominated by Stipa barbata Desf.; 3. shrublands dominated by Alhagi maurorum Medik; 4. Grasslands dominated by Bellevalia saviczii Woronow; 5. grasslands dominated by Glycyrrhiza glabra L.; 6. ruderal vegetation of the Royal Garden watercourses; and 7. grasslands dominated by Hordeum murinum L.
Clusters
Species1234567
Acantholimon serotinum Rech.f. & Schiman-CzeikaI +
Astragalus cemerinus BeckII 1I +
Astragalus fasciculifolius Boiss. subsp. fasciculifoliusI 5
Centaurea balsamita subsp. kermanensis (Bornm.) WagenitzI +II +II + I +
Cousinia gracilis Boiss. II +
Cousinia nekarmanica Rech.f.I +
Helichrysum leucocephalum Boiss.IV 2
Hertia angustifolia Kuntze II 1
Hyoscyamus kotschyanus Pojark. II +III +III +
Medicago persica (Boiss.) E.SmallI +I + 2 +I +
Moltkia gypsacea Rech.f. & AellenI +
Phlomis aucheri Boiss. II +
Phlomis persica Boiss.I + 2 +
Polygonum hyrcanicum Rech.f. I +
Zeravschania membranacea (Boiss.) Pimenov 1 +
Total9522133
Species found exclusively in the specific cluster5201011
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zangari, G.; Hosseini, Z.; Caneva, G. Vegetation Analysis in the Archaeological Area of Pasargadae WHS (Iran) Enhancing the Naturalistic Value of the Site within the Occurring Environmental Changes. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093784

AMA Style

Zangari G, Hosseini Z, Caneva G. Vegetation Analysis in the Archaeological Area of Pasargadae WHS (Iran) Enhancing the Naturalistic Value of the Site within the Occurring Environmental Changes. Sustainability. 2024; 16(9):3784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093784

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zangari, Giulio, Zohreh Hosseini, and Giulia Caneva. 2024. "Vegetation Analysis in the Archaeological Area of Pasargadae WHS (Iran) Enhancing the Naturalistic Value of the Site within the Occurring Environmental Changes" Sustainability 16, no. 9: 3784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093784

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