Modelling the probability of microhabitat formation on trees using cross‐sectional data

Courbaud, Benoı̂t; Pupin, Cyrille; Letort, Anthony; Cabanettes, Alain; Larrieu, Laurent

doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12773

Cited by 41 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(104 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous recent studies in various contexts showed that the number of microhabitats per tree, as well as the occurrence of some types increase with tree diameter [10,13,15] and showed higher levels on dead than living trees [11,12]. Our nationwide study based on a large tree database confirmed these relationships and extend them to a larger range of tree species in various biogeographical conditions than before.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Models allowing for different link functions – probably within a Bayesian framework – remain to be tested to see whether they perform better than the current ones used (see e.g. [10]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a consequence, conserving and promoting large trees in daily forest management is likely to enhance the structural heterogeneity at the stand scale [20,53], including a variety of tree-borne microhabitats, that could further help to better conserve specific forest biodiversity [5,54]. Despite the fact that the diameter effect seems consistent across different conditions, promoting a variety of large trees of various species may further increase the effect on biodiversity [19], since the succession dynamics of microhabitats as well as their formation speed may vary with tree species [10,12]. Successional patterns and long-term dynamics or microhabitats remains largely unknown [10], long term monitoring at the tree and stand scales are still needed to better understand their dynamics and the underlying processes at play [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their conservation in daily forest management has hence become an issue, just like large old trees and deadwood [8,9]. However, our understanding of their dynamics and driving factors, notably at the tree scale, remains incomplete [10]. Tree diameter and live status (alive vs. dead trees) have been shown as key factors for microhabitat presence and number at the tree scale [11-13]: larger trees are likely to bear more microhabitats than smaller trees, as they have experienced more damages and microhabitats-creating events (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relationships between microhabitats and tree characteristics have nevertheless been demonstrated on a limited number of tree species involving only a maximum of a few thousand observations at the tree level (e.g. [10-12]), and within a limited biogeographical range (see case studies in Mediterranean forests [15], the French Pyrénées [11] or in Germany [16,17]). As a consequence, the question still remains whether the observed relationships between tree characteristics and microhabitats are idiosyncratic or not.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Nothing else matters? Tree characteristics have more effects than biogeoclimatic context on microhabitat diversity and occurrence: a nationwide analysis

Paillet

Debaive²,

Archaux

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

16Managing forests to preserve biodiversity requires a good knowledge not only of the factors 17 driving its dynamics but also of the structural elements that actually support biodiversity. Tree-18 related microhabitats (cavities, cracks, conks of fungi) are tree-borne features that are reputed 19 to support specific biodiversity for at least a part of species' life cycles. While several studies 20 have analysed the drivers of microhabitats number and occurrence at the tree scale, they 21 remain limited to a few tree species located in relatively narrow biogeographical ranges. We 22Promoting large living and dead trees of several tree species may be an interesting, and nearly 36 universal, way to favour microhabitats and enhance the substrates needed to support specific 37 biodiversity. In addition, a better understanding of microhabitat drivers and dynamics at the 38 tree scale may help to better define their role as biodiversity indicators for large-scale 39 monitoring. 40 41 42 Small natural features are structural habitat elements that have a disproportionately important 43 role for biodiversity related to their actual size [1]. Taking these features into account in 44 biodiversity conservation strategies is a crucial step in science-based decision making [2]. 45Identifying such structural features in a tri-dimensional forest environment is quite challenging 46 since their number and variety is potentially infinite. Small natural features include, for example, 47 large old trees [3] as well as tree-borne structures. While large old trees are disappearing at 48 the global scale [4], their importance for biodiversity has not yet been fully elucidated, not to 49 mention the peculiar structures they may bear (eg. cracks, cavities, epiphytes), also known as 50 'tree-related microhabitats' (hereafter 'microhabitats' [5]). Microhabitats have recently aroused 51 the interest of scientists and forest managers alike since these structures can be a substrate 52for specific forest biodiversity [6], and can ultimately serve as forest biodiversity indicators [5, 53 7, 8]. Their conservation has hence become an issue in day-to-day forest management, as 54 have large old trees and deadwood [9, 10]. However, our understanding of the drivers and 55 dynamics influencing these microhabitats, notably at the tree scale, remains incomplete [11]. 56Tree diameter and living status (living vs. dead trees) are key factors for microhabitat diversity 57 at the tree scale [12][13][14]. Larger trees are likely to bear more microhabitats than smaller ones, 58as they have experienced more damage, injuries and microhabitat-creating events (e.g. 59 woodpecker excavation, storms, snowfalls). Similarly, gradually decomposing dead trees are 60 likely to bear more microhabitats than living trees and play a role as habitat and food sources 61 for many microhabitat-creating species [15]. Nevertheless, the relationships between 62 microhabitats and tree characteristics have only been demonstrated on a limited number of 63 tree species involving at...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Nothing else matters? Tree characteristics have more effects than biogeoclimatic context on microhabitat diversity and occurrence: a nationwide analysis

Paillet

Debaive²,

Archaux

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Enhancing structural complexity: An experiment conducted in the Black Forest National Park, Germany

Asbeck

Benneter

Huber

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report on a structural complexity enhancement (SCE) experiment that was designed to test ecological restoration measures in the Black Forest National Park, Germany. The main goal was to understand as to whether the creation of standing and downed deadwood within previously managed, single‐layered Norway spruce ( Picea abies L.) forests accelerates the development of forest structure, richness, and diversity of a range of taxonomic groups. Here we introduce the experimental design and describe the development of stand structure including abundance and richness of tree‐related microhabitats (TreMs) within 5 years after initiation of the experiment in October 2016. To enhance structural complexity in treatment plots, 10 trees per plot were toppled using a skidder winch, and another 10 trees were ring barked at a height of around 60 cm above ground level with a chainsaw. To monitor stand structure, we collected data on common forest attributes such as diameter at breast height (DBH), tree height, and TreMs of all trees in the six experimental and six control plots measuring 0.25 ha in size before the treatments were carried out in 2016 and again in 2020/21. We analyzed the abundance and richness of TreMs using generalized linear mixed models with DBH and treatment vs. control as predictors. The SCE treatment resulted in a significant increase in deadwood volumes (4.2 vs. 439.5 m 3 ) as well as in TreM abundance and richness (increase of 0.74 TreMs per tree). This indicates that the SCE treatment was effective to increase biodiversity‐relevant structures such as deadwood and TreMs, in previously managed Norway spruce‐dominated stands. The ongoing monitoring of a range of taxonomic groups (birds, bats, small mammals, coleoptera, fungi, mosses, and vascular plants) in this experiment will demonstrate to what extent the enhancement in structural complexity will lead to an enrichment in species richness and diversity.

show abstract

Tree-Related Microhabitats Follow Similar Patterns but are More Diverse in Primary Compared to Managed Temperate Mountain Forests

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of forest management on biodiversity is difficult to scrutinize along gradients of management. A step towards analyzing the impact of forest management on biodiversity is comparisons between managed and primary forests. The standardized typology of tree-related microhabitats (TreMs) is a multi-taxon indicator used to quantify forest biodiversity. We aim to analyze the influence of environmental factors on the occurrence of groups of TreMs by comparing primary and managed forests. We collected data for the managed forests in the Black Forest (Germany) and for the primary forests in the Western (Slovakia) and Southern Carpathians (Romania). To model the richness and the different groups of TreMs per tree, we used generalized linear mixed models with diameter at breast height (DBH), altitude, slope and aspect as predictors for European beech (Fagus sylvatica (L.)), Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.)) and silver fir (Abies alba (Mill.)) in primary and managed temperate mountain forests. We found congruent results for overall richness and the vast majority of TreM groups. Trees in primary forests hosted a greater richness of all and specific types of TreMs than individuals in managed forests. The main drivers of TreMs are DBH and altitude, while slope and aspect play a minor role. We recommend forest and nature conservation managers to focus: 1) on the conservation of remaining primary forests and 2) approaches of biodiversity-oriented forest management on the selection of high-quality habitat trees that already provide a high number of TreMs in managed forests based on the comparison with primary forests.

show abstract

Modelling the probability of microhabitat formation on trees using cross‐sectional data

Cited by 41 publications

References 38 publications

Nothing else matters? Tree characteristics have more effects than biogeoclimatic context on microhabitat diversity and occurrence: a nationwide analysis

Nothing else matters? Tree characteristics have more effects than biogeoclimatic context on microhabitat diversity and occurrence: a nationwide analysis

Enhancing structural complexity: An experiment conducted in the Black Forest National Park, Germany

Tree-Related Microhabitats Follow Similar Patterns but are More Diverse in Primary Compared to Managed Temperate Mountain Forests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About