Abstract
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 11-18 |
Journal | Forest Ecology and Management |
Volume | 270 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2012 |
Keywords
- Biodiversity
- Carabid beetle
- Management
- Monoculture
- Mixed plantation
- Moth
- Spider
- Forest
Access to Document
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Can mixed species stands enhance arthropod diversity in plantation forests?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 270, 2012, p. 11-18.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (journal) › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Can mixed species stands enhance arthropod diversity in plantation forests?
AU - Oxbrough, Anne
AU - French, Veronica
AU - Irwin, Sandra
AU - Kelly, Thomas C
AU - Smiddy, Patrick
AU - O'Halloran, John
N1 - Albers, D., Migge, S., Schaefer, M., Scheu, S., 2004. Decomposition of beech leaves (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce needles (Picea abies) in pure and mixed stands of beech and spruce. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36, 155–164. Ammer, S., Weber, K., Abs, C., Ammer, C., Prietzel, J., 2006. Factors influencing the distribution and abundance of earthworm communities in pure and converted Scots pine stands. Appl. Soil Ecol. 33, 10–21. Anderson, M.J., 2001. Permutation tests for univariate or multivariate analysis of variance and regression. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58, 626–639. Anderson, D.R., 2008. Model Based Inference in the Life Sciences: A Primer on Evidence. Springer, New York. Anon., 2006. EU Forest Action Plan, Commission of the European Communities. Berger, A.L., Puettmann, K., 2000. Overstorey composition and stand structure influence herbaceous plant diversity in the mixed aspen forest of Northern Minnesota. Am. Midl. Nat. 143, 111–125. Blanchet, F.G., Legendre, P., Borcard, D., 2008. Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89, 2623–2632. Bond, K.G.M., Gittings, T., 2008. Database of Irish Lepidoptera. 1 – Macrohabitats, microsites and traits of Noctuidae and butterflies. In: Irish Wildlife Manual No. 35. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Bultman, T.L., Uetz, G.W., 1984. Effect of structure and nutritional quality of litter on abundances of litter-dwelling arthropods. Am. Midl. Nat. 111, 165–172. Cardoso, P., Erwin, T.L., Borges, P.A.V., New, T.R., 2011. The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2647–2655. Dhôte, J., 2005. Implication of forest diversity in resistance to strong winds. In: Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Körner, C. (Eds.), Forest Diversity and Function: Temperate and Boreal Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Docherty, M., Leather, S.R., 1997. Structure and abundance of arachnid communities in Scots and lodgepole pine plantations. For. Ecol. Manage. 95, 197–207. Dray, S., Legendre, P., Blanchet, F.G., 2007. Packfor: Forward Selection with Permutation (Canoco p.46). R package version 0.0-7/r99. Available from: <http://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/sedar/>. Elmer, M., La France, M., Forster, G., Roth, M., 2004. Changes in the decomposer community when converting spruce monocultures to mixed spruce/beech stands. Plant Soil 264, 97–109. Emmet, A., Heath, J. (Eds.), 1991. The Moths and Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 7, part 2. Lasciocampidae to Thyatiridae, with Life History Chart of the British Lepidoptera. Harley Books, Colchester. European Environment Agency, 2008. European Forests – ecosystem conditions and sustainable use. EEA Report, Copenhagen. Forest Service, 2000. Forest Biodiversity Guidelines. Forest Service, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Dublin. Forest Service, 2004. Forestry statistics. Department of Agriculture and Food, Dublin. Available from: <http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/forestry/files/ standard.xls>. Forest Service, 2007. National forest inventory: republic of Ireland results. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Wexford, Ireland. Forsythe, T., 2000. Ground Beetles. The Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd, Slough. Fry, R., Waring, P., 2001. A Guide To Moth Traps and Their Use. Amateur Entomologists’ Society, Orpington, Kent, England. Gotelli, N.J., Colwell, R.K., 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 4, 379–391. Guillemain, M., Loreau, M., Daufresne, T., 1997. Relationships between the regional distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) and the abundance of their potential prey. Acta Oecol. 18, 465–483. Harvey, P., Nellist, D., Telfer, M., 2002. Provisional Atlas of British spiders (Arachnida, Araneae), vols. 1 and 2. Biological Records Centre, Huntingdon. Jactel, H., Brockerhoff, E.G., Duelli, P., 2005. A test of the biodiversity-stability theory: meta-analysis of tree species diversity effects on insect pest infestations, and re-examination of responsible factors. In: Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Körner, C. (Eds.), Forest Diversity and Function: Temperate and Boreal Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 235–262. Laganière, J., Paré, D., Bradley, R.L., 2008. Linking the abundance of aspen with soil faunal communities and rates of belowground processes within single stands of mixed aspen-black spruce. Appl. Soil Ecol. 41, 19–28. Legendre, P., 2008. Studying beta diversity: ecological variation partitioning by multiple regression and canonical analysis. J. Plant Ecol. 1, 3–8. Legendre, P., Gallagher, E., 2001. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129, 271–280. Lepsˆ, J., Spitzer, K., Jarosˆ, J., 1998. Food plants, species composition and variability of the moth community in undisturbed forest. Oikos 81, 538–548. Luff, M., 2007. RES Handbook, Vol. 4, part 2: The Carabidae (Ground Beetles) of Britain and Ireland. Field Studies Council, Shropshire, UK. Lust, N., Muys, B., Nachtergale, L., 1998. Increase of biodiversity in homogeneous Scots pine stands by an ecologically diversified management. Biodivers. Conserv. 7, 249–260. Magurran, A., 2008. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. MCPFE, UNECE, FAO, 2007. State of Europe’s forests 2007. In: The MCPFE report of Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. MCPFE Liason Unit, Vienna, Warsaw. Merckx, T., Feber, R.E., Riordan, P., Townsend, M.C., Bourn, N.A.D., Parsons, M.S., Macdonald, D.W., 2009. Optimizing the biodiversity gain from agrienvironment schemes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 130, 177–182. Nilsson, C., Engelmark, O., Cory, J., Forsslund, A., Carlborg, E., 2008. Differences in litter cover and understorey flora between stands of introduced lodgepole pine and native Scots pine in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 1900–1905. Nolan, M., 2010. Database of Irish spiders. In: Irish Wildlife Manual No. XX. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F.G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., O’Hara, R.B., Simpson, G.L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M.H.H., Wagner, H., 2010. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.0-2. Available from: <http://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=vegan>. Oxbrough, A., Gittings, T., O’Halloran, J., Giller, P.S., Smith, G.F., 2005. Structural indicators of spider communities across the forest plantation cycle. For. Ecol. Manage. 212, 171–183. Oxbrough, A., Irwin, S., Kelly, T.C., O’Halloran, J., 2010. Ground-dwelling invertebrates in reforested conifer plantations. For. Ecol. Manage. 259, 2111– 2121. Pautasso, M., Holdenrieder, O., Stenlid, J., 2005. Susceptibility to fungal pathogens of forests differing in tree diversity. In: Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Körner, C. (Eds.), Forest Diversity and Function: Temperate and Boreal Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 263–289. Roberts, M., 1993. The Spiders of Great Britain and Ireland (compact edition) Part One. Harley Books, Colchester. Roberts, D., 2010. Labdsv: Ordination and Multivariate Analysis for Ecology. R package version 1.4-1. Available from: <http://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=labdsv>. Roche, J., Mitchell, F., Waldren, S., 2009. Plant community ecology of Pinus sylvestris, an extirpated species reintroduced to Ireland. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 2185– 2203. Saetre, P., Saetre, L.S., Brandtberg, P.-O., Lundkvist, H., Bengtsson, J., 1997. Ground vegetation composition and heterogeneity in pure Norway spruce and mixed Norway spruce–birch stands. Can. J. For. Res. 27, 2034–2042. Salamon, J.-A., Scheu, S., Schaefer, M., 2008. The Collembola community of pure and mixed stands of beech (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce (Picea abies) of different age. Pedobiology 51, 385–396. Summerville, K., Crist, T., 2004. Contrasting effects of habitat quantity and quality on moth communities in fragmented landscapes. Ecography 27, 3–12. R Development Core Team (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3- 900051-07-0. Available from: <http://www.R-project.org/>. Thiele, H., 1977. Carabid Beetles in their Environments. A Study on Habitat Selection by Adaptations in Physiology and Behaviour. Springer-Verlag. Uetz, G., 1991. Habitat structure and spider foraging. In: Bell, S., McCoy, E., Mushinsky, H. (Eds.), Habitat Structure. The Physical Arrangement of Objects in Space. Chapman and Hall, London. Waring, P., Townsend, T., 2007. Concise Guide to the Moths of Great Britain and Ireland. British Wildlife Publishing, Dorset, UK. Wirth, C., 2005. Fire regime and tree diversity in boreal forests: implications for the carbon cycle. In: Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Körner, C. (Eds.), Forest Diversity and Function: Temperate and Boreal Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 309–344. Work, T.T., Shorthouse, D.P., Spence, J.R., Volney, W.J.A., Langor, D., 2004. Stand composition and structure of the boreal mixedwood and epigaeic arthropods of the Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance (EMEND) landbase in northwestern Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 34, 417–430. Ziesche, T., Roth, A., 2007. Is the age of forest habitats affecting the reproductive rate of generalist predatory ground beetle species? Commun. Ecol. 8, 183–194. Ziesche, T.M., Roth, M., 2008. Influence of environmental parameters on small-scale distribution of soil-dwelling spiders in forests: what makes the difference, tree species or microhabitat? For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 738–752.
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - Tree species composition is a key driver of forest biodiversity, influencing structural components of the environment from soil and litter to vegetation layers and the canopy, and ecosystem processes, such as nutrient cycling. Single species stands, particularly intensively managed monoculture plantations, are typically more homogenous in habitat structure and the biotic communities supported, than mixed stands. Thus, international forest policy increasingly promotes the establishment of mixed stands as an alternative to enhance biodiversity in plantations. Forests represent around 10% of the land area of Ireland, with most being monocultures of non-native conifers. By contrast, natural forest cover, primarily comprised of deciduous species, is just 1%. In recent years there has been an increase in mixed plantations; however, optimum tree species combinations, which aim to promote biodiversity under sustainable forest management, have yet to be established. Arthropods (ground-dwelling spiders and Carabid beetles, and night-flying macrolepidoptera) were examined in twenty mixed and monoculture plantations in Ireland (Norway spruce–oak mix, Norway spruce–Scots pine mix, Norway spruce monoculture). Both oak and Scots pine were secondary mix components, comprising between 15% and 40% of stems. Spiders and Carabid beetles were sampled using pitfall traps during summer 2008 and moths using light traps during summer and autumn 2008 and spring 2009. There was no evidence for an influence of oak or Scots pine on the arthropod fauna when they were a secondary component in a mix. Overall, arthropod communities were similar in species richness, assemblage structure and habitat specialists among the forest types. Furthermore, the mixed stands exhibited similar environmental conditions to monocultures in terms of stand structure, vegetation and litter cover. This suggests that there is limited biodiversity value from an additional canopy species comprising 15–40% of the mix, at least for the taxa and tree species studied here. This has implications for forest policy, where recommendations are often based on the proportion of each mix component, at least in terms of the potential biodiversity value of additional canopy species. Further research is required to determine the proportion at which oak or Scots pine begin to influence the arthropod fauna.
AB - Tree species composition is a key driver of forest biodiversity, influencing structural components of the environment from soil and litter to vegetation layers and the canopy, and ecosystem processes, such as nutrient cycling. Single species stands, particularly intensively managed monoculture plantations, are typically more homogenous in habitat structure and the biotic communities supported, than mixed stands. Thus, international forest policy increasingly promotes the establishment of mixed stands as an alternative to enhance biodiversity in plantations. Forests represent around 10% of the land area of Ireland, with most being monocultures of non-native conifers. By contrast, natural forest cover, primarily comprised of deciduous species, is just 1%. In recent years there has been an increase in mixed plantations; however, optimum tree species combinations, which aim to promote biodiversity under sustainable forest management, have yet to be established. Arthropods (ground-dwelling spiders and Carabid beetles, and night-flying macrolepidoptera) were examined in twenty mixed and monoculture plantations in Ireland (Norway spruce–oak mix, Norway spruce–Scots pine mix, Norway spruce monoculture). Both oak and Scots pine were secondary mix components, comprising between 15% and 40% of stems. Spiders and Carabid beetles were sampled using pitfall traps during summer 2008 and moths using light traps during summer and autumn 2008 and spring 2009. There was no evidence for an influence of oak or Scots pine on the arthropod fauna when they were a secondary component in a mix. Overall, arthropod communities were similar in species richness, assemblage structure and habitat specialists among the forest types. Furthermore, the mixed stands exhibited similar environmental conditions to monocultures in terms of stand structure, vegetation and litter cover. This suggests that there is limited biodiversity value from an additional canopy species comprising 15–40% of the mix, at least for the taxa and tree species studied here. This has implications for forest policy, where recommendations are often based on the proportion of each mix component, at least in terms of the potential biodiversity value of additional canopy species. Further research is required to determine the proportion at which oak or Scots pine begin to influence the arthropod fauna.
KW - Biodiversity
KW - Carabid beetle
KW - Management
KW - Monoculture
KW - Mixed plantation
KW - Moth
KW - Spider
KW - Forest
U2 - 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.01.006
DO - 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.01.006
M3 - Article (journal)
SN - 0378-1127
VL - 270
SP - 11
EP - 18
JO - Forest Ecology and Management
JF - Forest Ecology and Management
ER -