The impact of even‐aged and uneven‐aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests-猫眼课题宝

DOI：

10.1111/1365-2664.12950

发表时间：

2018

期刊：

Journal of Applied Ecology

影响因子：

5.7

通讯作者：

中科院分区：

环境科学与生态学1区

文献类型：

作者：

P. Schall;M. Gossner;S. Heinrichs;M. Fischer;S. Boch;D. Prati;Kirsten Jung;Vanessa Baumgartner;S. Blaser;S. Böhm;F. Buscot;R. Daniel;K. Goldmann;K. Kaiser;Tiemo Kahl;M. Lange;Jörg C Müller;J. Overmann;S. Renner;E. Schulze;J. Sikorski;M. Tschapka;Manfred Türke;W. Weisser;B. Wemheuer;T. Wubet;C. Ammer

对于管理的温带森林，保护主义者和政策制定者更倾向于细粒度的均匀年龄（UEA）管理，而不是更传统的粗粒度均匀年龄（EA）管理，基于这样的假设，即站内栖息地异质性增强生物多样性。然而，几乎没有经验证据支持这一假设。我们第一次调查了不同粒度的森林管理系统如何影响多个地上和地下类群在空间尺度上的生物多样性。我们采样了15个类群的动物，植物，真菌和细菌内最大的连续山毛榉林景观的德国，并将它们分为功能组。选定的林分已管理了一个多世纪在不同的空间颗粒。EA（粗粒经营）和UEA（细粒）森林在空间布局、气候和土壤条件方面具有可比性。他们将这些森林与附近一个国家公园的森林进行了比较，这些森林已经被管理了至少20年。我们使用多样性累积曲线比较了不同管理系统的Hill数0 D（物种丰富度）、1D（Shannon多样性）和2D（Simpson多样性）的γ-多样性。β多样性被量化为多位点相异性。伽玛多样性高于在UEA森林中的至少一个三山数为6个类群（高达77%），而8个没有表现出任何差异。只有细菌表现出相反的模式。在EA森林中也发现了较高的γ-多样性的森林专家和sagyrylic甲虫。林分间β多样性在EA高于UEA森林的三分之一（所有物种）和一半（森林专家）的所有类群，由年龄级之间的环境异质性驱动，而α多样性没有显示出跨类群或森林专家的方向性反应。合成与应用。比较EA和不均匀年龄的森林管理在中欧山毛榉林，我们的研究结果表明，镶嵌的不同年龄的类是更重要的区域生物多样性比高的林分内异质性。我们建议重新考虑目前在温带森林中取代同龄管理的趋势。相反，阶段和林分结构的可变性应该增加，以促进生物多样性。

For managed temperate forests, conservationists and policymakers favour fine-grained uneven-aged (UEA) management over more traditional coarse-grained even-aged (EA) management, based on the assumption that within-stand habitat heterogeneity enhances biodiversity. There is, however, little empirical evidence to support this assumption. We investigated for the first time how differently grained forest management systems affect the biodiversity of multiple above- and below-ground taxa across spatial scales. We sampled 15 taxa of animals, plants, fungi and bacteria within the largest contiguous beech forest landscape of Germany and classified them into functional groups. Selected forest stands have been managed for more than a century at different spatial grains. The EA (coarse-grained management) and UEA (fine-grained) forests are comparable in spatial arrangement, climate and soil conditions. These were compared to forests of a nearby national park that have been unmanaged for at least 20 years. We used diversity accumulation curves to compare γ-diversity for Hill numbers 0D (species richness), 1D (Shannon diversity) and 2D (Simpson diversity) between the management systems. Beta diversity was quantified as multiple-site dissimilarity. Gamma diversity was higher in EA than in UEA forests for at least one of the three Hill numbers for six taxa (up to 77%), while eight showed no difference. Only bacteria showed the opposite pattern. Higher γ-diversity in EA forests was also found for forest specialists and saproxylic beetles. Between-stand β-diversity was higher in EA than in UEA forests for one-third (all species) and half (forest specialists) of all taxa, driven by environmental heterogeneity between age-classes, while α-diversity showed no directional response across taxa or for forest specialists. Synthesis and applications. Comparing EA and uneven-aged forest management in Central European beech forests, our results show that a mosaic of different age-classes is more important for regional biodiversity than high within-stand heterogeneity. We suggest reconsidering the current trend of replacing even-aged management in temperate forests. Instead, the variability of stages and stand structures should be increased to promote landscape-scale biodiversity.

The impact of even‐aged and uneven‐aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献