| Literature DB >> 21490926 |
Jörgen Rudolphi1, Lena Gustafsson.
Abstract
The majority of managed forests in Fennoscandia are younger than 70 years old but yet little is known about their potential to host rare and threatened species. In this study, we examined red-listed bryophytes and lichens in 19 young stands originating from clear-cutting (30-70 years old) in the boreal region, finding 19 red-listed species (six bryophytes and 13 lichens). We used adjoining old stands, which most likely never had been clear-cut, as reference. The old stands contained significantly more species, but when taking the amount of biological legacies (i.e., remaining deciduous trees and dead wood) from the previous forest generation into account, bryophyte species number did not differ between old and young stands, and lichen number was even higher in young stands. No dispersal effect could be detected from the old to the young stands. The amount of wetlands in the surroundings was important for bryophytes, as was the area of old forest for both lichens and bryophytes. A cardinal position of young stands to the north of old stands was beneficial to red-listed bryophytes as well as lichens. We conclude that young forest plantations may function as habitat for red-listed species, but that this depends on presence of structures from the previous forest generation, and also on qualities in the surrounding landscape. Nevertheless, at repeated clear-cuttings, a successive decrease in species populations in young production stands is likely, due to increased fragmentation and reduced substrate amounts. Retention of dead wood and deciduous trees might be efficient conservation measures. Although priority needs to be given to preservation of remnant old-growth forests, we argue that young forests rich in biological legacies and located in landscapes with high amounts of old forests may have a conservation value.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21490926 PMCID: PMC3072405 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018639
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Schematic figure of the sampling design.
Species were surveyed in subplots (small grid cells) and dead wood and deciduous trees in transects (black bands) in old (dark grey) and young (light grey) forest stands. The plots in the young forests were all more than 150 m from nearest other old forest.
Species occurrence and stand characteristics.
| All stands; n = 19 | North-facing edges; n = 9 | South-facing edges; n = 10 | |||||||
| young | old | p-value | young | old | p-value | young | old | p-value | |
| No. of bryophyte species | 1 (0–3) | 2 (0–4) |
| 0 (0–1) | 1 (0–2) | 0.203 | 0 (0–1) | 1 (0–2) |
|
| No. of bryophyte observations | 1 (0–7) | 6 (0–38) |
| 0 (0–1) | 1 (0–4) | 0.125 | 0 (0–1) | 2 (0–8) |
|
| No. of lichen species | 2 (1–6) | 5 (2–7) |
| 1 (0–2) | 1 (0–2) | 0.809 | 1 (0–2) | 2 (1–3) |
|
| No. of lichen observations | 2 (0–10) | 4 (0–31) |
| 0 (0–2) | 1 (0–3) | 0.273 | 0 (0–1) | 1 (0–6) |
|
| No. of observations of | 11 (0–64) | 7 (0–47) |
| 0 (0–11) | 2 (0–9) | 0.844 | 2 (0–5) | 1 (0–8) | 0.361 |
| Surface area deciduous trees ha−1 | 0 (0–278) | 27 (0–1079) |
| 0 (0–278) | 27 (0–427) | 0.156 | 0 (0–48) | 48 (0–1079) | 0.555 |
| Surface area coniferous logs ha−1 | 41 (0–418) | 334 (44–968) |
| 49 (0–402) | 238 (44–968) |
| 0 (0–418) | 505 (206–891) |
|
| Surface area deciduous logs ha−1 | 0 (0–285.1) | 118.2 (0–664.7) |
| 4 (0–285) | 89 (0–354) |
| 0 (0–91) | 133 (0–665) | 0.062 |
| Prop. | 80 (51–91) | 80 (55–100) | 0.422 | 80 (51–91) | 80 (55–100) | 0.844 | 71 (53–80) | 75 (60–89) | 0.359 |
| Prop. | 10 (0–40) | 10 (0–30) | 0.888 | 10 (0–40) | 10 (0–30) | 0.812 | 10 (0–35) | 13 (0–30) | 0.789 |
| Prop. deciduous trees (%) | 10 (0–40) | 10 (0–40) | 0.531 | 9 (0–39) | 10 (0–30) | 0.625 | 16 (0–40) | 6 (0–40) | 0.357 |
| Site index:number of stands | G20:3; G21:4 G22:3; G23:3 G24:3; G26:3 | G20:3; G21:1 G22:4; G23:5 G24:2; G25:1 G26:2; T22:1 | 0.802 | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
| Ground moisture class:number of stands | Mesic:16; Moist: 3 | Mesic:16; Moist: 3 | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
| Ground structure class:number of stands | Even:16; Somewhat uneven:3 | Very even:1; Even:16; Somewhat uneven:2 | |||||||
Pair-wise tests for differences between young and old forest stands using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Values represent median and range (within parentheses).
Number of species or observations in the young stand 0-20m from the border to the old stand, and average number of species/observations per band in the old stand.
One observation = presence in a 10×10 m plot.
Excluding Bryoria nadvornikiana and Micarea globulosella. M. globulosella was too common to be recorded in detail.
Differences in site index was tested using Fischer's exact test (excluding T22).
Data from the forestry company data base.
Figure 2Sample-based rarefaction curves.
Species density of red-listed species between old and young production forests of a) epixylic liverworts per surface area coniferous logs, and b) epiphytic lichens per deciduous tree stem. Confidence limits calculated according to Colwell et al. [45] are drawn as dashed lines.
Score statistics from log-linear regression.
| No. of bryophyte species | No. of bryophyte observations | No. of lichen species | No. of lichen observations (excl. | No. of observations of | ||||||
| estimate | p-value | estimate | p-value | estimate | p-value | estimate | p-value | estimate | p-value | |
| Area old forests 100 m | 1.46 |
| 1.18 |
| ||||||
| Area old forests 200 m | 1.16 |
| ||||||||
| Area old forests 400 m | 1.04 | 0.188 | ||||||||
| Area wetlands 100 m | 2.80 |
| ||||||||
| Area wetlands 400 m | ||||||||||
| Number of species/observations in corresponding old stand | 0.94 |
| 1.09 |
| ||||||
| Altitude | 0.99 | 0.178 | ||||||||
| Latitude | 1.00 |
| 1.00 |
| 1.00 | 0.097 | 1.00 |
| 1.00 | 0.081 |
| Surface area coniferous logs m3ha−1 | 1.00 | 0.052 | not tested | not tested | not tested | |||||
Estimates and p-values are shown for the variables included in the final models. Also non-significant variables were sometimes included as a result of the model simplification using AICc.
Back-transformed from model values. The back-transformed values indicate the proportional change in the response variable per unit change in the predictor; i.e. an estimate of 1.5 responds to an increase in 50% in species number per unit increase in the predictor variable. A value on the estimate of 0.5 corresponds to a reduction in richness with half of the species present.
Species number in the adjoining old stand when analyzing species richness and number of observations when analyzing number of observations.
Figure 3Edge effects.
Number of subplots (10×10 m) where observations of red-listed bryophytes (A) and lichens (B) were recorded at different distances from the edge. Error bars indicate standard error.