| Literature DB >> 26140200 |
Nelson Thiffault1, Pierre Grondin2, Jean Noël2, Véronique Poirier2.
Abstract
Understory species play a significant role in forest ecosystem dynamics. As such, species of the Ericaceae family have a major effect on the regeneration of tree species in boreal ecosystems. It is thus imperative to understand the ecological gradients controlling their distribution and abundance, so that their impacts can be taken into account in sustainable forest management. Using innovative analytical techniques from landscape ecology, we aimed to position, along ecological gradients, four Ericaceae found in the boreal forest of Quebec (Canada) (Rhododendron groenlandicum, Kalmia angustifolia, Chamaedaphne calyculata, and Vaccinium spp), to regionalize these species into landscape units relevant to forest management, and to estimate the relative importance of several ecological drivers (climate, disturbances, stand attributes, and physical environment) that control the species distribution and abundance. We conducted our study in boreal Quebec, over a study area covering 535,355 km(2). We used data from 15,339 ecological survey plots and forest maps to characterize 1422 ecological districts covering the study region. We evaluated the relative proportion of each ericaceous species and explanatory variables at the district level. Vegetation and explanatory variables matrices were used to conduct redundancy, cluster, and variation partitioning analyses. We observed that ericaceous species are mainly distributed in the western part of the study area and each species has a distinct latitudinal and longitudinal gradient distribution. On the basis of these gradients, we delimited 10 homogeneous landscape units distinct in terms of ericaceous species abundance and environmental drivers. The distribution of the ericaceous species along ecological gradients is closely related to the overlaps between the four sets of explanatory variables considered. We conclude that the studied Ericaceae occupy specific positions along ecological gradients and possess a specific abundance and distribution controlled by the integration of multiple explanatory variables.Entities:
Keywords: Boreal forest; Chamaedaphne calyculata; Kalmia angustifolia; Rhododendron groenlandicum; Vaccinium angustifolium; Vaccinium myrtilloides; ecological drivers; landscape ecology; redundancy analysis
Year: 2015 PMID: 26140200 PMCID: PMC4485965 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1476
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Kalmia angustifolia L., one of the four ericaceous species studied, regenerating on a recently burned site of northern Quebec, Canada.
Figure 2Location of the study region divided into ecological districts and bioclimatic subdomains (Saucier et al. 2009).
Codes and description of the variables used in the study
| Theme | Code | Description |
|---|---|---|
| CAL | ||
| KAA | ||
| RHG | ||
| VAAM | ||
| Forest types | Ab | Relative area for |
| Ba | Relative area for | |
| Bp | Relative area for | |
| Bp-Ab | Relative area for | |
| Bp-Pm | Relative area for | |
| H | Relative area for heathland | |
| Pb | Relative area for | |
| Pm | Relative area for | |
| Pm-Ab | Relative area for | |
| Pt | Relative area for | |
| Pt-Ab | Relative area for | |
| Pt-Pm | Relative area for | |
| To | Relative area for | |
| Bog | Relative area for nonforested wetland | |
| Physical environment | Alti | Mean altitude (m) |
| D_1A | Relative area covered by thick till (more than 1 m) | |
| D_1AR | Relative area covered by thin till (less than 1 m) | |
| D_R | Relative area covered by rock | |
| D_2 | Relative area covered by juxtaglacial deposits | |
| D_4GA | Relative area covered by glacio-lacustrine fine-textured (clay) surficial deposit | |
| D_7 | Relative area covered by organic deposits | |
| D_8 | Relative area covered by thick alterites (more than 1 m) | |
| D_8AR | Relative area covered by thin alterites (less than 1 m) | |
| D_wa | Relative proportion of area covered by water | |
| Ele | Average elevation in meters over a distance of 1 km | |
| P_def | Relative area covered by slopes over 15% | |
| Climate | Ari | Aridity index (cm) |
| Dwfc | Number of consecutive days without freezing | |
| Eva | Evapotranspiration (cm) | |
| Gdd | Annual number of growing degree-days | |
| Mat | Mean annual temperature (°C) | |
| Prect | Total precipitation (rain and snow) during the year (mm) | |
| Precu | Useful precipitation (rain) (mm) | |
| Vpd | Vapor pressure deficit (total daily deficit (mbar) from months of June to August) | |
| Disturbances | Ag | Relative area covered by agriculture |
| Br | Relative area burned by recent fires (natural and human) | |
| Ft | Relative area covered by forest tent ( | |
| Hf | Relative area covered by human fires | |
| Hl | Relative area covered by hemlock looper ( | |
| Log | Relative area covered by recent logging | |
| Sbom | Relative area covered by mild spruce budworm ( | |
| Sbos | Relative area covered by severe spruce budworm ( | |
| Sbon | Number of years of infestation by spruce budworm during the period 1938–1998 | |
| O1700 | Plots originating from fires before 1870 | |
| O1880 | Plots originating from fires between 1870 and 1900 | |
| O1900 | Plots originating from fires between 1900 and 1920 | |
| O1920 | Plots originating from fires after 1920 |
See methods for data sources.
Figure 3Methodology flowchart to (A) identify the ecological gradients controlling the distribution of four ericaceous species in Quebec, Canada; (B) define homogeneous landscape units on the basis of ericaceous species distribution and their ecological drivers; and (C) partition the relative importance of the climate, disturbance, forest type, and physical environment variables controlling species distribution. The Venn diagram illustrates the variation partitioning among the four sets of explanatory variables. The rectangle represents the total variation of species distribution, with 15 fractions of explained variation.
Figure 4Relative distribution (%) of the sampling plots with >25% cover of each species, for a selection of explanatory variables. (A), (B) and (C) relate to the geographical location; (D), (E) and (F) relate to the forest stand; (G) and (H) relate to the soil environment. For (E), age class values are as follows: 10 (0–20 years); 30 (21–40 years); 50 (41–60 years); 70 (61–80 years); 90 (81–100 years); and 120 (>100 years). For (F), NA stands for “Natural”, which means that a specific origin was not available. Refer to Table1 for other variable description and codes.
Figure 5Distribution and relative abundance (%) by ecological district (n = 1422) of four ericaceous species in the study region, based on data from the ecological survey plots (n = 15,339). Refer to Figure2 for the general location of the study region, geographic landmarks, and scale. (A) K. angustifolia; (B) R. groenlandicum; (C) C. calyculata; (D) V. angustifolium and V. myrtilloides.
Figure 6Ordination diagram resulting from a redundancy analysis (RDA) performed on the dependent (Matrix Y, describing the mean percent cover of the four ericaceous species at the district level) and explanatory variables (Matrix X, describing four sets of explanatory variables: forest types, climate, disturbances, physical environment) of the study area. Maps of selected variables (forward selection) are included for interpretation purposes. Axis 1 expresses the latitudinal gradient and axis 2, the longitudinal gradient. Refer to Figure2 for the general location of the study region, geographic landmarks, and scale and to Table1 for variable description and codes.
Figure 7(A) Regionalization of the study region into 10 homogeneous landscape units (HLU). Colors are used to differentiate the units and do not reflect species abundance. Black lines separate the bioclimatic subdomains. Refer to supporting informations for a detailed description of the HLU and to Figure2 for the general location of the study region, geographic landmarks, and scale. (B) Ordination diagram from a redundancy analysis (RDA) showing the position of ecological districts (n = 1422) along the ecological gradients characterizing the study region. Colors are used to differentiate the 10 HLU and correspond to those used in panel (A). Ordination is the same as in Figure6.
Relative proportion of variation (%) in the abundance of the ericaceous species (combined) explained by four sets of explanatory variables (climate [C], disturbances (natural and human) [D], physical environment [PE], and forest types [FT]). Partial redundancy analysis using Y- (ericaceous species cover) and X-(explanatory variables) matrices were used to estimate the total explained and unexplained variations. The explained variation is decomposed into 15 fractions as illustrated in Figure3C. Subscript “u” refers to unique variation fractions; subscript “c” refers to common variation fractions
| Total variation | (%) |
|---|---|
| Explained | 37.9 |
| Unexplained | 62.1 |
| Relative proportion of explained variation (15 fractions) | |
| Unique variation | |
| Cu | 4.2 |
| Du | 2.1 |
| PEu | 5.5 |
| FTu | 6.8 |
| Common variation | |
| PE∩D | 3.4 |
| PE∩C | 12.1 |
| C∩D | 3.7 |
| C∩FT | 2.6 |
| FT∩D | 6.0 |
| PE∩FT | 5.0 |
| PE∩C∩D | 2.6 |
| FT∩D∩C | 10.8 |
| PE∩FT∩C | 7.1 |
| PE∩FT∩D | 7.1 |
| PE∩FT∩D∩C | 21.0 |
| Explained variation | 100.0 |
| Sums of relative proportion of explained variation | |
| Total (t) unique relative variation | 18.6 |
| Total (t) common relative variation | 81.4 |
| Total relative variation by set | |
| C | 64.0 |
| D | 56.7 |
| PE | 63.8 |
| FT | 66.4 |
| Common (c) relative variation by set | |
| Cc | 59.8 |
| Dc | 54.6 |
| PEc | 58.3 |
| FTc | 59.6 |
Figure 8Synthetic view of the relative proportion of variation (%) in the abundance of the ericaceous species (combined) explained by four sets of explanatory variables (climate [C], disturbances (natural and human) [D], physical environment [PE], and forest types [FT]), separately considering the (A) western part of the study region, which includes the western parts of the Picea mariana–mosses and Abies balsamea–Betula papyrifera bioclimatic domains, (B) eastern part of the study region, which includes the eastern parts of the Picea mariana–mosses and Abies balsamea–Betula papyrifera bioclimatic domains, (C) northern part of the study region, corresponding to the entire Picea mariana–mosses bioclimatic domain, and (D) southern parts of the study region, corresponding to the entire Abies balsamea–Betula papyrifera bioclimatic domain (refer to Fig.2 for bioclimatic domain localization). The variation is defined by the common and unique fractions as illustrated in Figure3C.