Landownership is an unexplored determinant of forest understory plant composition in Northern France

Abstract

Few studies have investigated the influence of landownership on biodiversity. Therefore we analysed how the presence of forest understory plant species varied according to landownership in a broad geographical context and assessed which plant traits discriminated between species associated with state, other public or private forests. We also quantified the degree to which differences in soil type, forest management and landscape structure among ownership categories could explain the differences in species composition. Landownership, climate, soil, forest stand and landscape variables were collected on 38,751 plots located in temperate forests (5.1 Mha) in northern half of France using the French National Forest Inventory and GIS analyses. First, logistic regressions were used to determine species response to landownership after controlling for month of the plant survey and spatial autocorrelation. Relationships between plant traits and species association with landownership were then tested. Second, climate, soil, forest stand and landscape differences among ownerships were investigated. Third, species and trait responses to landownership were re-examined after controlling for month of the plant survey, spatial autocorrelation and climate, soil, forest stand and landscape variations. Of the 276 species, 69 were associated with state forests, 38 with other public forests and 85 with private forests. Species associated with state and other public forests were more often urbanophobic, ancient-forest species, barochores and myrmecochores whereas private forest species were more often nutrient-, light-demanding, urbanophilic and endozoochorous species. Differences among landownerships were detected for all the soil, climate, forest management and landscape variables investigated. However, the ownership effect remained or became significant for 131 plants after controlling for environmental variability. Landownership is not simply an administrative classification of land without ecological signification but was evidenced as a driver shaping understory plant community composition and plant traits in Northern France. These differences were partly explained by soil, management, edge and patch size effects, but land use history may help to explain the residual landownership effect. Our results have major implications on biodiversity monitoring and large-scaled conservation strategies. There is a need for deeper investigation into the impacts of land policy on biodiversity.

Herb layer extinction debt in highly fragmented temperate forests – Completely paid after 160 years?

“…We choose a buffer distance of 1000 m, which is a commonly used distance for forest plant-specific studies (Kolb and Diekmann, 2004;Endels et al, 2007;Bergès et al, 2013), because most forest plants have a maximum dispersal distance that is <1000 m (Thomson et al, 2011). We did not use Hanski's incidence function model (Hanski, 1998) because Moilanen and Nieminen (2002) reported problems with using this measure for highly fragmented habitats.…”

Comparing forest structure and biodiversity on private and public land: secondary tropical dry forests in Costa Rica

“…Guanacaste province in Costa Rica is a pertinent example of this: 90 percent of the secondary forest that developed from 1986 to 2005 occurred on private lands (Calvo-Alvarado et al 2009). Land ownership and the tenure rights linked with different ownership categories may affect forest management, leading to differences in forest structure, aboveground biomass, diversity, and species composition (Lovett-Doust & Kuntz 2001, Hudiburg et al 2009, Mihorski et al 2010, Berg es et al 2013, Schaich & Plieninger 2013. Land under different ownership categories can also differ in environmental attributes (e.g., topography and soil fertility).…”

“…In Guanacaste, for example, private lands with complex topography were the first lands to be abandoned and regenerate after the collapse of the beef market, resulting in a sharp increase in the number of forest patches on private lands (Arroyo-Mora 2002, Arroyo-Mora et al 2005). Thus, both management and ecological attributes can differ between ownership types and differences ascribed to public and private categories are likely the result of these underlying factors (Mihorski et al 2010, Berg es et al 2013.…”

“…, Bergès et al . , Schaich & Plieninger ). Land under different ownership categories can also differ in environmental attributes ( e.g., topography and soil fertility).…”

Small forest parcels, management diversity and valuable coppice habitats: an 18th century political compromise in the Osnabrück region (NW Germany) and its long-lasting legacy

“…However, the relationship between forest ownership patterns and woodland biodiversity is an often underestimated factor in European forest studies (Lovett-Doust & Kuntz 2001, Schaich & Plieninger 2013, Bergès et al 2013. Especially from the late 18 th century onwards, staterun forest management and management by large land owners frequently led to highly effective, profit-oriented forest use (Fritzbøger 2004, Siiskonen 2007, Mölder et al 2014.…”