Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (5)
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5) (remove)
Keywords
- forest management (2)
- gamma diversity (2)
- Beech forests (1)
- Biodiversity Exploratories (1)
- Conifer plantations (1)
- Cryptogams (1)
- Ecological guilds (1)
- Fagus sylvatica (1)
- Forest management (1)
- Hill numbers (1)
Institute
Land-use intensification is a major driver of biodiversity loss(1,2). Alongside reductions in local species diversity, biotic homogenization at larger spatial scales is of great concern for conservation. Biotic homogenization means a decrease in beta-diversity (the compositional dissimilarity between sites). Most studies have investigated losses in local (alpha)-diversity(1,3) and neglected biodiversity loss at larger spatial scales. Studies addressing beta-diversity have focused on single or a few organism groups (for example, ref. 4), and it is thus unknown whether land-use intensification homogenizes communities at different trophic levels, above-and belowground. Here we show that even moderate increases in local land-use intensity (LUI) cause biotic homogenization across microbial, plant and animal groups, both above- and belowground, and that this is largely independent of changes in alpha-diversity. We analysed a unique grassland biodiversity dataset, with abundances of more than 4,000 species belonging to 12 trophic groups. LUI, and, in particular, high mowing intensity, had consistent effects on beta-diversity across groups, causing a homogenization of soil microbial, fungal pathogen, plant and arthropod communities. These effects were nonlinear and the strongest declines in beta-diversity occurred in the transition from extensively managed to intermediate intensity grassland. LUI tended to reduce local alpha-diversity in aboveground groups, whereas the alpha-diversity increased in belowground groups. Correlations between the alpha-diversity of different groups, particularly between plants and their consumers, became weaker at high LUI. This suggests a loss of specialist species and is further evidence for biotic homogenization. The consistently negative effects of LUI on landscape-scale biodiversity underscore the high value of extensively managed grasslands for conserving multitrophic biodiversity and ecosystem service provision. Indeed, biotic homogenization rather than local diversity loss could prove to be the most substantial consequence of land-use intensification.
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%.
We studied the effect of three major forest management types (unmanaged beech, selection beech, and age class forests) and stand variables (SMId, soil pH, proportion of conifers, litter cover, deadwood cover, rock cover and cumulative cover of woody trees and shrubs) on bryophyte species richness in 1050 forest plots in three regions in Germany. In addition, we analysed the species richness of four ecological guilds of bryophytes according to their colonized substrates (deadwood, rock, soil, bark) and the number of woodland indicator bryophyte species. Beech selection forests turned out to be the most species rich management type, whereas unmanaged beech forests revealed even lower species numbers than age-class forests. Increasing conifer proportion increased bryophyte species richness but not the number of woodland indicator bryophyte species. The richness of the four ecological guilds mainly responded to the abundance of their respective substrate. We conclude that the permanent availability of suitable substrates is most important for bryophyte species richness in forests, which is not stringently linked to management type. Therefore, managed age-class forests and selection forests may even exceed unmanaged forests in bryophyte species richness due to higher substrate supply and therefore represent important habitats for bryophytes. Typical woodland indicator bryophytes and their species richness were negatively affected by SMId (management intensity) and therefore better indicate forest integrity than the species richness of all bryophytes. Nature conservation efforts should focus on the reduction of management intensity. Moreover, maintaining and increasing a variability of substrates and habitats, such as coarse woody debris, increasing structural heterogeneity by retaining patches with groups of old, mature to over-mature trees in managed forests, maintaining forest climate conditions by silvicultural methods that assure stand continuity, e.g. by selection cutting rather than clear cutting and shelterwood logging might promote bryophyte diversity and in particular the one of woodland indicator bryophytes.
Specialisation and diversity of multiple trophic groups are promoted by different forest features
(2019)
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.
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.