2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-017-1395-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wood-inhabiting bryophyte communities are influenced by different management intensities in the past

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…), and their stages of decay [7479]. In managed forests there is a shortage of appropriate substrates [13,74,75]. However, any amount of CWD, even if limited, is still valuable to the biodiversity of a forest [80].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…), and their stages of decay [7479]. In managed forests there is a shortage of appropriate substrates [13,74,75]. However, any amount of CWD, even if limited, is still valuable to the biodiversity of a forest [80].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other substrate attributes influencing epixylic species richness and community composition include the dead wood size (Heilmann-Clausen et al, 2014), position, or height above the ground (Botting and DeLong, 2009), accumulation of litter or humus on the log surface (Jansova and Soldan, 2006), as well as decay stage and CWD age, or time since tree death (Caruso and Rudolphi, 2009;Brumelis et al, 2017). Substrate-level factors were shown to be more important than ecosystem-level factors for epixylic species richness (Mills and Macdonald, 2004;Táborská et al, 2017) but not for community composition (Táborská et al, 2017;Kushnevskaya and Shorohova, 2018). The inconclusive results concerning the effects of different substrate attributes on the epixylic communities, e.g., the results on the effects of CWD size (Preikša, Brazaitis, Marozas, and Jaroszewicz, 2016;Kushnevskaya and Shorohova, 2018) and species (Heilmann-Clausen, Aude, and Christensen, 2005;Goia and Gafta, 2018) on epixylic species richness can be explained by the interrelationship between factors of different levels.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…In Europe, evidence about epixylic communities has been acquired mainly in intensively managed or semi-natural / natural forests situated as small islands within managed landscapes (Söderström, 1988a,b;Lõhmus, Lõhmus, and Vellak, 2007), and provides limited knowledge on substrate preferences of rare epixylic species and their role in wood-inhabiting communities. Epixylic communities in old-growth forests with the lack of special connectivity (Lõhmus, Lõhmus, and Vellak, 2007) and continuity, i.e., with past management, are impoverished in terms of both species richness and composition (Táborská et al, 2017). In boreal forests, several studies have revealed substrate specific and dynamic patterns of epixylic vegetation in North America in the unmanaged forests with high availability and continuity of CWD of different species and good landscape-level connectivity (Crites and Dale, 1998;Mills and Macdonald, 2004;Boudreault et al, 2018;Kumar, Chen, Thomas, and Shahi, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Continuity, land‐use history and naturalness of the forest stands considerably determine the local species pool of bryophyte assemblages (Ódor et al, 2006). Many recent studies have focused on comparisons of natural and managed forest stands, and have found that species richness and the quality of the community both increase with decreasing human influence, not only in the present but also in the past (Söderström, 1988; Ódor and Standovár, 2001; Brunet et al, 2010; Hofmeister et al, 2015b; Táborská et al, 2017). In particular, rare and endangered species are dependent on the continuous presence of sufficient amounts and quality of dead wood, which is very often completely missing in managed forests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%