Resilience of understory vegetation after variable retention felling in boreal Norway spruce forests – A ten-year perspective
Resilience of understory vegetation after variable retention felling in boreal Norway spruce forests – A ten-year perspective
复制标题
挪威北部云杉林可变保留砍伐后林下植被的恢复力——十年展望
DOI：
10.1016/j.foreco.2017.02.040
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
J. Jalonen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
I. Vanha;E. Shorohova;Helena Kushnevskaya;Helena Kushnevskaya;J. Jalonen
我们研究了10年的林下植被和地衣在成熟的北方挪威云杉林砍伐处理在芬兰南部。林分水平处理代表了上层植被清除强度的范围：皆伐（CF），带整地和种植，保留伐（RF）（保留7%的林分体积），进行整地和种植，林隙砍伐，进行整地（GF）（保留50%）和不种植，间隙砍伐（GF）（50%保留）没有整地或种植，选择砍伐（SF）（67%保留）没有整地或种植。圆盘挖沟用于场地准备。植被取样前和1，2，3和10年后的治疗。所有处理后，物种覆盖度和数量立即显着下降。林下植被的抵抗力，定义为由处理引起的群落结构的变化量，增加的顺序为CF < RF < GFs < SF < GF。维管植物的动态变化取决于采伐强度。非维管树种的动态既取决于采伐强度，也取决于场地准备。CF和RF引起几乎相似的林下植被组成的影响。CF和RF尤其引起苔藓和地钱的局部脱落。然而，即使保留了67%，18个物种在研究期间丢失。损失的brathte物种后SF比GF处理后，表明聚集保留更好地保持brathte物种在砍伐区。林下植被恢复力的大小顺序为CF < RF < GFs < GF < SF。苔藓、地钱和矮灌木的丰度在处理后10年没有恢复。与其他物种组相比，草本物种是最有弹性的。我们的结论是，在集约经营的森林景观，GF和SF可以推荐作为CF的替代品，以更好地保持林分水平的林下植物多样性。然而，GF和SF处理的目的是进一步收获林分。随后清除残留林分可能会导致整个处理区林下植被发生重大变化。为了保护在梅西奇云杉林砍伐区的后期演替briterites，高水平的保留和尽量减少土壤扰动将是必要的。
We studied the ten-year response of understory vegetation and lichens in mature boreal Norway spruce forests to five felling treatments in southern Finland. The stand level treatments represent a range in intensity of overstory removal: clear felling (CF) with site preparation and planting, retention felling (RF) (7% of stand volume retained) with site preparation and planting, gap felling with site preparation (GFs) (50% retained) and without planting, gap felling (GF) (50% retained) without site preparation or planting, and selection felling (SF) (67% retained) without site preparation or planting. Disc trenching was used for site preparation. Vegetation was sampled before and 1, 2, 3 and 10 years after the treatments. Both species cover and number decreased significantly immediately after all treatments. The resistance of understory vegetation, defined as the amount of change in the community structure caused by the treatments, increased in the order CF < RF < GFs < SF < GF. The dynamics of vascular plants depended on the felling intensity. The dynamics of non-vascular species depended both on the felling intensity and site preparation. CF and RF caused almost similar effects on understory vegetation composition. Local extinctions of mosses and liverworts were caused especially by CF and RF. However, even with 67% retention, 18 bryophyte species were lost during the study period. Loss of bryophyte species was higher after SF than after GF treatments, suggesting that aggregated retention is better for maintaining bryophyte species in felling areas. The resilience of understory vegetation increased in the order CF < RF < GFs < GF < SF. The abundance of mosses, liverworts and dwarf shrubs had not recovered ten years after treatments. Herb species were the most resilient compared to other species groups. We conclude that in intensively managed forest landscapes, GF and SF can be recommended as alternatives to CF to better maintain understory diversity on the stand level. However, the aim with GF and SF treatments was to further harvest the stands. Subsequent removal of the residual stands may cause substantial changes in understory vegetation for the whole treatment area. To protect late-successional bryophytes in felling areas in mesic spruce forests, high levels of retention and minimizing soil disturbance would be required.