Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 188, Issue 2, pp 405–415 | Cite as

Effects of canopy structure and species diversity on primary production in upper Great Lakes forests

  • Cynthia M. Scheuermann
  • Lucas E. Nave
  • Robert T. Fahey
  • Knute J. Nadelhoffer
  • Christopher M. GoughEmail author
Physiological ecology - original research

Abstract

Canopy structure and tree species diversity, shaped by succession, disturbance, and community composition, are linked to numerous ecosystem functions, including net primary production (NPP). Understanding of how ecosystem structural metrics are interrelated and mechanistically link to NPP, however, is incomplete. We characterized leaf area index (LAI), Simpson’s index of Diversity (D′, a measure of species diversity), and canopy rugosity (Rc, a measure of canopy physical complexity) in 11 forest stands comprising two chronosequences varying in establishing disturbance, and in three late successional communities. We related LAI, D′, and Rc to wood NPP (NPPw), and examined whether absorption of photosynthetically active radiation and light use-efficiency (LUE) link NPPw with ecosystem structure. We found that recovery of LAI and D′ was delayed following more severe establishing disturbances, but that the development of Rc was strikingly conserved regardless of disturbance, converging on a common mean value in late-successional stands irrespective of differences in leaf area index and species diversity. LAI was significantly correlated with NPPw in each stage of ecosystem development, but NPPw was only correlated with Rc in early successional stages and with D′ in late successional stages. Across all stands, NPPw was coupled with LAI and Rc, (but not D′) through positive relationships with light absorption and LUE. We conclude by advocating for better integration of ecological disciplines investigating structure–function interactions, suggesting that improved understanding of such relationships will require ecologists to traverse disciplinary boundaries.

Keywords

Chronosequence Canopy structure Net primary production Canopy rugosity LiDAR Leaf area index Ecosystem structure Disturbance Succession Diversity Eastern temperate forest Light use efficiency 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank two anonymous reviewers and Dr. Jeremy Lichstein, Handling Editor, for their thoughtful assessments of our paper. This study was supported by the National Science Foundation Division of Environmental Biology LTREB Award 1353908, the Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences Award 1262634, and Emerging Frontiers Award 1550650. RTF was supported by United States Department of Agriculture McIntire-Stennis Award CONS00981. We acknowledge the University of Michigan Biological Station for facilities support.

Author contribution statement

CMS, LEN, KJN, and CMG conceived and designed the experiments. CMS, LEN, and CMG performed the experiments. CMS, RTF, and CMG analyzed the data. All authors wrote the manuscript and provided editorial advice.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4236_MOESM1_ESM.docx (38.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 39638 kb)

References

  1. Anten NPR (2016) Optimization and game theory in canopy models. Canopy Photosynth Basics Appl 42:355–377.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7291-4_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonarakis AS, Saatchi SS, Chazdon RL, Moorcroft PR (2011) Using Lidar and Radar measurements to constrain predictions of forest ecosystem structure and function. Ecol Appl 21:1120–1137.  https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0274.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond-Lamberty B, Wang CK, Gower ST (2004) Net primary production and net ecosystem production of a boreal black spruce wildfire chronosequence. Glob Change Biol 10:473–487.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2003.0742.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardinale BJ et al (2011) The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. Am J Bot 98:572–592.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000364 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Castro-Izaguirre N et al (2016) Tree diversity enhances stand carbon storage but not leaf area in a subtropical forest. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167771 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapin FS, Matson P, Mooney HA (2002) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. pp 436.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9504-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chopping M (2011) CANAPI: canopy analysis with panchromatic imagery. Remote Sens Lett 2:21–29.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2010.486805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danescu A, Albrecht AT, Bauhus J (2016) Structural diversity promotes productivity of mixed, uneven-aged forests in southwestern Germany. Oecologia 182:319–333.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3623-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Drake JE, Davis SC, Raetz LM, DeLucia EH (2011) Mechanisms of age-related changes in forest production: the influence of physiological and successional changes. Glob Change Biol 17:1522–1535.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02342.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dronova I, Bergen KM, Ellsworth DS (2011) Forest canopy properties and variation in aboveground net primary production over upper Great Lakes landscapes. Ecosystems 14:865–879.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9451-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahey TJ, Battles JJ, Wilson GF (1998) Responses of early successional northern hardwood forests to changes in nutrient availability. Ecol Monogr 68:183–212. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1998)068%5b0183:roesnh%5d2.0.co;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahey RT, Fotis AT, Woods KD (2015) Quantifying canopy complexity and effects on productivity and resilience in late-successional hemlock-hardwood forests. Ecol Appl 25:834–847.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1012.1.sm CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fahey RT et al (2016) Evaluating forest subcanopy response to moderate severity disturbance and contribution to ecosystem-level productivity and resilience. For Ecol Manag 376:135–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer R et al (2016) Lessons learned from applying a forest gap model to understand ecosystem and carbon dynamics of complex tropical forests. Ecol Model 326:124–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forrester DI (2014) A stand-level light interception model for horizontally and vertically heterogeneous canopies. Ecol Model 276:14–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.12.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forrester DI, Albrecht AT (2014) Light absorption and light-use efficiency in mixtures of Abies alba and Picea abies along a productivity gradient. For Ecol Manag 328:94–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frelich LE (1995) Old forest in the lake states today and before European settlement. Nat Areas J 15:157–167Google Scholar
  18. Gough CM, Vogel CS, Harrold KH, George K, Curtis PS (2007) The legacy of harvest and fire on ecosystem carbon storage in a north temperate forest. Glob Change Biol 13:1935–1949.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01406.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gough CM, Vogel CS, Hardiman B, Curtis PS (2010) Wood net primary production resilience in an unmanaged forest transitioning from early to middle succession. For Ecol Manag 260:36–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.03.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gough CM, Curtis PS, Hardiman BS, Scheuermann CM, Bond-Lamberty B (2016) Disturbance, complexity, and succession of net ecosystem production in North America’s temperate deciduous forests. Ecosphere.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hardiman BS, Bohrer G, Gough CM, Vogel CS, Curtis PS (2011) The role of canopy structural complexity in wood net primary production of a maturing northern deciduous forest. Ecology 92:1818–1827.  https://doi.org/10.1890/10-2192.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hardiman BS, Bohrer G, Gough CM, Curtis PS (2013a) Canopy structural changes following widespread mortality of canopy dominant trees. Forests 4:537–552.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f4030537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hardiman BS et al (2013b) Maintaining high rates of carbon storage in old forests: a mechanism linking canopy structure to forest function. For Ecol Manag 298:111–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.02.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hardy JP et al (2004) Solar radiation transmission through conifer canopies. Agric For Meteorol 126:257–270.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ishii HT, Tanabe S, Hiura T (2004) Exploring the relationships among canopy structure, stand productivity, and biodiversity of temperature forest ecosystems. For Sci 50:342–355Google Scholar
  26. Johnstone JF et al (2016) Changing disturbance regimes, ecological memory, and forest resilience. Front Ecol Environ 14:369–378.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kashian DM, Turner MG, Romme WH (2005) Variability in leaf area and stemwood increment along a 300-year lodgepole pine chronosequence. Ecosystems 8:48–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-004-0067-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Law BE, Sun OJ, Campbell J, Van Tuyl S, Thornton PE (2003) Changes in carbon storage and fluxes in a chronosequence of ponderosa pine. Glob Change Biol 9:510–524.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00624.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li DJ, Waller D (2016) Long-term shifts in the patterns and underlying processes of plant associations in Wisconsin forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:516–526.  https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liang JJ et al (2016) Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354:196.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Medvigy D, Wofsy SC, Munger JW, Hollinger DY, Moorcroft PR (2009) Mechanistic scaling of ecosystem function and dynamics in space and time: ecosystem demography model version 2. J Geophys Res Biogeosci.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jg000812 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mou P, Fahey TJ, Hughes JW (1993) Effects of soil disturbance on vegetation recovery and nutrient accumulation following whole-tree harvest of a northern hardwood ecosystem. J Appl Ecol 30:661–675.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2404245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Musavi T et al (2016) Potential and limitations of inferring ecosystem photosynthetic capacity from leaf functional traits. Ecol Evol 6:7352–7366.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2479 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Myneni RB, Williams DL (1994) On the relationship between FAPAR and NDVI. Remote Sens Environ 49:200–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(94)90016-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Myneni RB, Nemani RR, Running SW (1997) Estimation of global leaf area index and absorbed par using radiative transfer models. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 35:1380–1393.  https://doi.org/10.1109/36.649788 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nakashizuka T (2001) Species coexistence in temperate, mixed deciduous forests. Trends Ecol Evol 16:205–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02117-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Nave LE et al (2017) Physiographic factors underlie rates of biomass production during succession in Great Lakes forest landscapes. For Ecol Manag 397:157–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.04.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Niinemets U (2007) Photosynthesis and resource distribution through plant canopies. Plant Cell Environ 30:1052–1071.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01683.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Niinemets U (2016) Within-canopy variations in functional leaf traits: structural, chemical and ecological controls and diversity of responses. In: Hikosaka K, Niinemets U, Anten NPR (eds) Canopy photosynthesis: from basics to applications, vol 42. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 101–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Niinemets U, Anten NPR (2009) Packing the photosynthetic machinery: from leaf to canopy. Photosynth In Silico Underst Complex Mol Ecosyst 29:363–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Niinemets U, Keenan TF, Hallik L (2015) A worldwide analysis of within-canopy variations in leaf structural, chemical and physiological traits across plant functional types. New Phytol 205:973–993.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13096 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Parker GG, Russ ME (2004) The canopy surface and stand development: assessing forest canopy structure and complexity with near-surface altimetry. For Ecol Manag 189:307–315.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parker GG, Lefsky MA, Harding DJ (2001) Light transmittance in forest canopies determined using airborne laser altimetry and in-canopy quantum measurements. Remote Sens Environ 76:298–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00211-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pedro MS, Rammer W, Seidl R (2015) Tree species diversity mitigates disturbance impacts on the forest carbon cycle. Oecologia 177:619–630.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3150-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pedro MS, Rammer W, Seidl R (2017) Disentangling the effects of compositional and structural diversity on forest productivity. J Veg Sci 28:649–658.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pretzsch H, Forrester DL, Rotzer T (2015) Representation of species mixing in forest growth models. A review and perspective. Ecol Model 313:276–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.06.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reich PB (2012) Key canopy traits drive forest productivity. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 279:2128–2134.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Retkute R et al (2015) Exploiting heterogeneous environments: does photosynthetic acclimation optimize carbon gain in fluctuating light? J Exp Bot 66:2437–2447.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv055 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Rohrig M, Stutzel H, Alt C (1999) A three-dimensional approach to modeling light interception in heterogeneous canopies. Agron J 91:1024–1032.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1999.9161024x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spies TA (1998) Forest structure: a key to the ecosystem. Northwest Sci 72:34–39Google Scholar
  51. Stark SC et al (2012) Amazon forest carbon dynamics predicted by profiles of canopy leaf area and light environment. Ecol Lett 15:1406–1414.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01864.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Stoy PC et al (2008) Role of vegetation in determining carbon sequestration along ecological succession in the southeastern United States. Glob Change Biol 14:1409–1427.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01587.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stuart-Haentjens EJ, Curtis PS, Fahey RT, Vogel CS, Gough CM (2015) Net primary production of a temperate deciduous forest exhibits a threshold response to increasing disturbance severity. Ecology 96:2478–2487.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1810.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson ID et al (2011) Forest biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem goods and services: translating science into policy. Bioscience 61:972–981.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner DP et al (2003) A cross-biome comparison of daily light use efficiency for gross primary production. Glob Change Biol 9:383–395.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00573.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vanderwel MC, Zeng HC, Caspersen JP, Kunstler G, Lichstein JW (2016) Demographic controls of aboveground forest biomass across North America. Ecol Lett 19:414–423.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12574 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Walker LR, Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Clarkson BD (2010) The use of chronosequences in studies of ecological succession and soil development. J Ecol 98:725–736.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01664.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Williams LJ, Paquette A, Cavender-Bares J, Messier C, Reich PB (2017) Spatial complementarity in tree crowns explains overyielding in species mixtures. Nat Ecol Evol.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0063 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Zha T et al (2009) Carbon sequestration in boreal jack pine stands following harvesting. Glob Change Biol 15:1475–1487.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01817.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang J, Hao ZQ, Song B, Li BH, Wang XG, Ye J (2009) Fine-scale species co-occurrence patterns in an old-growth temperate forest. For Ecol Manag 257:2115–2120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Biological Station and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganPellstonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural Resources and the Environment and Center for Environmental Sciences and EngineeringUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations