@article{HeinrichsAmmerMundetal.2019, author = {Heinrichs, Steffi and Ammer, Christian and Mund, Martina and Boch, Steffen and Budde, Sabine and Fischer, Markus and Mueller, Joerg and Schoening, Ingo and Schulze, Ernst-Detlef and Schmidt, Wolfgang and Weckesser, Martin and Schall, Peter}, title = {Landscape-Scale Mixtures of Tree Species are More Effective than Stand-Scale Mixtures for Biodiversity of Vascular Plants, Bryophytes and Lichens}, series = {Forests}, volume = {10}, journal = {Forests}, number = {1}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {1999-4907}, doi = {10.3390/f10010073}, pages = {34}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Tree species diversity can positively affect the multifunctionality of forests. This is why conifer monocultures of Scots pine and Norway spruce, widely promoted in Central Europe since the 18th and 19th century, are currently converted into mixed stands with naturally dominant European beech. Biodiversity is expected to benefit from these mixtures compared to pure conifer stands due to increased abiotic and biotic resource heterogeneity. Evidence for this assumption is, however, largely lacking. Here, we investigated the diversity of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens at the plot (alpha diversity) and at the landscape (gamma diversity) level in pure and mixed stands of European beech and conifer species (Scots pine, Norway spruce, Douglas fir) in four regions in Germany. We aimed to identify compositions of pure and mixed stands in a hypothetical forest landscape that can optimize gamma diversity of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens within regions. Results show that gamma diversity of the investigated groups is highest when a landscape comprises different pure stands rather than tree species mixtures at the stand scale. Species mainly associated with conifers rely on light regimes that are only provided in pure conifer forests, whereas mixtures of beech and conifers are more similar to beech stands. Combining pure beech and pure conifer stands at the landscape scale can increase landscape level biodiversity and conserve species assemblages of both stand types, while landscapes solely composed of stand scale tree species mixtures could lead to a biodiversity reduction of a combination of investigated groups of 7 up to 20\%.}, language = {en} } @article{PenoneAllanSoliveresetal.2019, author = {Penone, Caterina and Allan, Eric and Soliveres, Santiago and Felipe-Lucia, Maria R. and Gossner, Martin M. and Seibold, Sebastian and Simons, Nadja K. and Schall, Peter and van der Plas, Fons and Manning, Peter and Manzanedo, Ruben D. and Boch, Steffen and Prati, Daniel and Ammer, Christian and Bauhus, Juergen and Buscot, Francois and Ehbrecht, Martin and Goldmann, Kezia and Jung, Kirsten and Mueller, Joerg and Mueller, Joerg C. and Pena, Rodica and Polle, Andrea and Renner, Swen C. and Ruess, Liliane and Schoenig, Ingo and Schrumpf, Marion and Solly, Emily F. and Tschapka, Marco and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Wubet, Tesfaye and Fischer, Markus}, title = {Specialisation and diversity of multiple trophic groups are promoted by different forest features}, series = {Ecology letters}, volume = {22}, journal = {Ecology letters}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1461-023X}, doi = {10.1111/ele.13182}, pages = {170 -- 180}, year = {2019}, abstract = {While forest management strongly influences biodiversity, it remains unclear how the structural and compositional changes caused by management affect different community dimensions (e.g. richness, specialisation, abundance or completeness) and how this differs between taxa. We assessed the effects of nine forest features (representing stand structure, heterogeneity and tree composition) on thirteen above- and belowground trophic groups of plants, animals, fungi and bacteria in 150 temperate forest plots differing in their management type. Canopy cover decreased light resources, which increased community specialisation but reduced overall diversity and abundance. Features increasing resource types and diversifying microhabitats (admixing of oaks and conifers) were important and mostly affected richness. Belowground groups responded differently to those aboveground and had weaker responses to most forest features. Our results show that we need to consider forest features rather than broad management types and highlight the importance of considering several groups and community dimensions to better inform conservation.}, language = {en} } @article{SchallGossnerHeinrichsetal.2017, author = {Schall, Peter and Gossner, Martin M. and Heinrichs, Steffi and Fischer, Markus and Boch, Steffen and Prati, Daniel and Jung, Kirsten and Baumgartner, Vanessa and Blaser, Stefan and B{\"o}hm, Stefan and Buscot, Francois and Daniel, Rolf and Goldmann, Kezia and Kaiser, Kristin and Kahl, Tiemo and Lange, Markus and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg Hans and Overmann, J{\"o}rg and Renner, Swen C. and Schulze, Ernst-Detlef and Sikorski, Johannes and Tschapka, Marco and T{\"u}rke, Manfred and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Wemheuer, Bernd and Wubet, Tesfaye and Ammer, Christian}, title = {The impact of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests}, series = {Journal of applied ecology : an official journal of the British Ecological Society}, volume = {55}, journal = {Journal of applied ecology : an official journal of the British Ecological Society}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0021-8901}, doi = {10.1111/1365-2664.12950}, pages = {267 -- 278}, year = {2017}, abstract = {1. For managed temperate forests, conservationists and policymakers favour fine-grained uneven-aged (UEA) management over more traditional coarse-grained even-aged (EA) management, based on the assumption that within-stand habitat heterogeneity enhances biodiversity. There is, however, little empirical evidence to support this assumption. We investigated for the first time how differently grained forest management systems affect the biodiversity of multiple above- and below-ground taxa across spatial scales. 2. We sampled 15 taxa of animals, plants, fungi and bacteria within the largest contiguous beech forest landscape of Germany and classified them into functional groups. Selected forest stands have been managed for more than a century at different spatial grains. The EA (coarse-grained management) and UEA (fine-grained) forests are comparable in spatial arrangement, climate and soil conditions. These were compared to forests of a nearby national park that have been unmanaged for at least 20years. We used diversity accumulation curves to compare -diversity for Hill numbers D-0 (species richness), D-1 (Shannon diversity) and D-2 (Simpson diversity) between the management systems. Beta diversity was quantified as multiple-site dissimilarity. 3. Gamma diversity was higher in EA than in UEA forests for at least one of the three Hill numbers for six taxa (up to 77\%), while eight showed no difference. Only bacteria showed the opposite pattern. Higher -diversity in EA forests was also found for forest specialists and saproxylic beetles. 4. Between-stand -diversity was higher in EA than in UEA forests for one-third (all species) and half (forest specialists) of all taxa, driven by environmental heterogeneity between age-classes, while -diversity showed no directional response across taxa or for forest specialists. 5. Synthesis and applications. Comparing EA and uneven-aged forest management in Central European beech forests, our results show that a mosaic of different age-classes is more important for regional biodiversity than high within-stand heterogeneity. We suggest reconsidering the current trend of replacing even-aged management in temperate forests. Instead, the variability of stages and stand structures should be increased to promote landscape-scale biodiversity.}, language = {en} }