What does literature tell us about the relationship between forest structural attributes and species richness in temperate forests? – A review

Zeller, Laura; Förster, Agnes; Keye, Constanze; Meyer, Peter; Roschak, Christian; Ammer, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110383

Cited by 18 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 127 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We further observed a weak negative relationship between canopy openness and herbivore diversity. This finding contrasts previous studies reporting positive effects of canopy gaps on the abundance and diversity of herbivorous arthropods (e.g., Achury et al, 2023; Ulyshen et al, 2005; see Zeller et al, 2023 for review). In our study, however, this was clearly linked to tree‐species identity effects, as non‐native Douglas fir stands have a conspicuously more open canopy than native beech stands (Matevski et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 97%

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Wildermuth,

Seifert,

Husemann

et al. 2023

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Averting climate change‐induced forest diebacks increasingly relies on tree species planted outside of their natural range and on the addition of non‐native tree species to mixed‐species forests. However, the consequences of such changes for associated biodiversity remain poorly understood, especially for the forest canopy as a largely understudied forest stratum. Here, we used flight interception traps and a metabarcoding approach to study the taxonomic and functional (trophic guilds) composition and taxon richness of canopy arthropods. We sampled 15 monospecific and mixed stands of native European beech, native Norway spruce—planted outside its natural range—and non‐native Douglas fir in North‐West Germany. We found that diversity of arthropods was lower in non‐native Douglas fir compared to native beech stands. Taxon richness of herbivores was reduced by both conifer species. Other functional guilds, however, were not affected by stand type. Arthropod composition differed strongly between native broadleaved beech and monospecific coniferous (native spruce or non‐native Douglas fir) stands, with less pronounced differences between the native and non‐native conifers. Beech‐conifer mixtures consistently hosted intermediate arthropod diversity and community composition compared to the respective monospecific stands. Moreover, arthropod diversity had a positive relationship with the number of canopy microhabitats. Our study shows that considering arthropod taxa of multiple functional groups reveals the multifaceted impact of non‐native tree species on forest canopy arthropod communities. Contrasting to previous studies that primarily focused on the forest floor, we found that native beech hosts a rich diversity of arthropods, compared to lower diversity and distinct communities in economically attractive, and especially in non‐native, conifers with few canopy microhabitats. Broadleaf‐conifer mixtures did not perform better than native beech stands, but mitigated negative effects of conifers—making such mixtures a compromise to foster both forest‐associated diversity and economic yield.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 97%

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Wildermuth,

Seifert,

Husemann

et al. 2023

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While evidence on the link between some indicators and the biodiversity they are supposed to indicate remains incomplete (Gao et al 2015;Penone et al 2019;Zeller et al 2023), our results highlighted several habitat-species relationships and habitat preferences of different groups.…”

Section: Performance Of Current Forest Biodiversity Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Boch et al 2021;Cavard et al 2011;Leidinger et al 2021). These conditions encompass direct biotic interactions, different chemical properties of the bark and wood, decomposition rates as well as differential light interception Zeller et al 2023). This in turn provides niche heterogeneity for several species and thus enhances biodiversity and confirms the role of diversity of tree species as a biodiversity indicator.…”

Section: Performance Of Current Forest Biodiversity Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…Surprisingly however, saproxylic beetles richness did not correlate significantly to deadwood volume despite a weak positive effect. It is likely that, for this group in particular, deadwood does not act as a universal indicator that could be transposed in all situations (see also Zeller et al 2023). For example, Lassauce et al (2011) showed that the correlation between richness of saproxylic beetles and deadwood volume was higher in boreal than in temperate forests, a result that was however not confirmed by Parajuli and Markwith (2023).…”

Section: Performance Of Current Forest Biodiversity Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Despite a large corpus of individual studies and few syntheses (Zeller et al 2023), no global and systematic assessment of the correlations between multi-taxonomic biodiversity and Forest Europe indicators has been attempted. This is particularly worrying since the European system of Criteria and Indicators is widely used as a reference across several regions, as well as for global initiatives (Linser and O'Hara 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

One to rule them all? Assessing the performance of sustainable forest management indicators against multitaxonomic data for biodiversity conservation

Paillet,

Zapponi,

Schall

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most broad-scale forest biodiversity indicators are based on data from national forest inventories and are used to assess the state of biodiversity through several regional initiatives and reporting. Although valuable, these indicators are essentially indirect and evaluate habitat quantity and quality rather than biodiversityper se. Besides, most of these indicators are applicable at regional or national scales, while their use at a more local level is difficult. Therefore, their link to biodiversity may be weak, which decreases their usefulness for decision-making.For several decades, Forest Europe indicators assessed the state of European forests, in particular its biodiversity. However, no extensive study has been conducted to date to assess the performance of these indicators against multitaxonomic data. We hypothesized that – as implied by the reporting process – no single biodiversity indicator from Forest Europe can represent overall forest biodiversity, but that several – eventually combined – indicators would reflect habitat quality for at least some taxa in a comprehensive way. We tested the set of indicators proposed by Forest Europe against the species richness of six taxonomic and functional groups (tracheophytes, epixylic and epiphytic bryophytes, birds, saproxylic beetles, saproxylic non-lichenized fungi and epixylic and epiphytic lichenized fungi) across several hundreds of plots over Europe. We showed that, while some indicators perform relatively well across groups (e.g. deadwood volume), no single indicator represented all biodiversity at once, and that a combination of several indicators performed better. Surprisingly, some indicators showed weak links with the biodiversity of the six taxonomic and functional groups.Forest Europe indicators were chosen for their availability and ease of understanding for most people. However, our analyses showed that there are still gaps in the monitoring framework, and that surveying certain taxa along with stand structure is necessary to support policymaking and tackle forest biodiversity loss at the large scale.Impact statementBiodiversity indicators used to assess the state of Europe’s forests perform unequally; a combination of indicators is more informative

show abstract

Impact of transforming karst mountainous forests into urban parks on plant diversity patterns

Wang,

Gao,

Cen

et al. 2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conversion of urban montane forest resources into urban parks requires careful assessment to understand its impacts on plant diversity over time. This study aims to enhance urban biodiversity conservation strategies by analyzing how habitat type and park age affect woody plant diversity. We surveyed woody plant species in 60 sample plots across two different habitats (remnant forest vs. artificial green space) within three mountain parks in Guiyang, China, established at different times. The alpha diversity of saplings/seedlings was significantly higher in remnant forests than in artificial green spaces. Artificial green spaces exhibited more homogenous woody plant composition compared with remnant forests. Newer parks showed greater variation in plant composition between the two habitats than older parks. Indicative species in remnant forests were predominantly native, whereas those in artificial green spaces were mainly ornamental species. The transformation of karst mountainous forests into urban parks leads to the homogenization of woody plant composition and impedes the regeneration of saplings/seedlings. Therefore, it is crucial to manage these conversions carefully and strive to preserve as many native species as possible to support urban plant diversity conservation.

show abstract

What does literature tell us about the relationship between forest structural attributes and species richness in temperate forests? – A review

Cited by 18 publications

References 127 publications

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

One to rule them all? Assessing the performance of sustainable forest management indicators against multitaxonomic data for biodiversity conservation

Impact of transforming karst mountainous forests into urban parks on plant diversity patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About