How to Replicate the Functions and Biodiversity of a Threatened Tree Species? The Case of Fraxinus excelsior in Britain
- 532 Downloads
The suitability of alternative tree species to replace species that are either threatened by pests/disease or at risk from climate change is commonly assessed by their ability to grow in a predicted future climate, their resistance to disease and their production potential. The ecological implications of a change in tree species are seldom considered. Here, we develop and test 3 methods to assess the ecological suitability of alternative trees. We use as our case study the systematic search for an alternative tree species to Fraxinus excelsior (currently declining throughout Europe due to Hymenoscyphus fraxineus). Those trees assessed as most similar to F. excelsior in selected ecosystem functions (decomposition, leaf litter and soil chemistry) (Method A) were least similar when assessed by the number of ash-associated species that also use them (Method B) and vice versa. Method C simultaneously assessed ecosystem functions and species use, allowing trade-offs between supporting ecosystem function and species use to be identified. Using Method C to develop hypothetical scenarios of different tree species mixtures showed that prioritising ecosystem function and then increasing the mixture of tree species to support the greatest number of ash-associated species possible, results in a mixture of trees more ecologically similar to F. excelsior than by simply mixing tree species together to support the greatest number of ash-associated species. We conclude that establishing alternative tree species results in changes in both ecosystem function and species supported and have developed a general method to assess suitability that simultaneously integrates both ecosystem function and the ‘number of species supported’.
Keywordsadaptive forest management ash dieback Chalara climate change Fraxinus excelsior tree diseases
The initial work was funded by Defra, Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage, Natural Resources Wales, Northern Ireland Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission. The data were then further analysed and Method C developed as part of the Scottish Government’s Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS) Strategic Research Programme.
- Broome A, Mitchell RJ, Harmer R. 2014. Ash dieback and biodiversity loss: can management make broadleaved woodlands more resilient? Q J For 108:241–8.Google Scholar
- Defra. 2013. Chalara Management Plan. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
- Defra. 2014. Tree Health Management Plan. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
- Drossler L, Overgaard R, Eko PM, Gemmel P, Böhlenius H. 2015. Early development of pure and mixed tree species plantations in Snogeholm, southern Sweden. Scand J For Res 30:304–16.Google Scholar
- Ellison AM, Bank MS, Clinton BD, Colburn EA, Elliott K, Ford CR, Foster DR, Kloeppel BD, Knoepp JD, Lovett GM, Mohan J, Orwig DA, Rodenhouse NL, Sobczak WV, Stinson KA, Stone JK, Swan CM, Thompson J, Von Holle B, Webster JR. 2005. Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:479–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Evans J. 1984. Silviculture of Broadleaved Woodlands. Forestry Commission Bulletin 62. H.M.S.O., London.Google Scholar
- Husson F, Josse J, Le S, Mazet J. 2011. FactoMineR: Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Mining with R. R package version 1.16. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=FactoMineR.
- Husson F, Josse J. 2010. missMDA: Handling missing values with/in multivariate data analysis (principal component methods). R package version 1.2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=missMDA.
- Joyce PM. 1998. Growing broadleaves. Dublin: COFORD.Google Scholar
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
- Mitchell RJ, Beaton JK, Bellamy PE, Broome A, Chetcuti J, Eaton S, Ellis CJ, Gimona A, Harmer R, Hester AJ, Hewison RL, Hodgetts NG, Iason GR, Kerr G, Littlewood NA, Newey S, Potts JM, Pozsgai G, Ray D, Sim DA, Stockan JA, Taylor AFS, Woodward S. 2014a. Ash dieback in the UK: a review of the ecological and conservation implications and potential management options. Biol Conserv 175:95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mitchell RJ, Broome A, Harmer R, Beaton JK, Bellamy PE, Brooker RW, Duncan R, Ellis CJ, Hester AJ, Hodgetts NG, Iason GR, Littlewood NA, Mackinnon M, Pakeman R, Pozsgai G, Ramsey S, Riach D, Stockan JA, Taylor AFS, Woodward S. 2014b. Assessing and addressing the impacts of ash dieback on UK woodlands and trees of conservation importance (Phase 2). Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 151, Natural England, Peterborough.Google Scholar
- Natural England. 2014. NECR151 edition 1—a spreadsheet of ash-associated biodiversity. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5273931279761408.
- Nicholls PH. 1981. Spatial analysis of forest growth. Forestry Commission Occasional Paper, 12, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
- Perks MP, Harrison AJ, Bathgate SJ. 2007. Establishment Management Information System (EMIS): delivering good practice advice on tree establishment in the uplands of Britain. In: K.M. Reynolds and others, Eds. Sustainable forestry: from monitoring and modelling to knowledge management and policy science. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 412–24.Google Scholar
- Poland TM, McCullough DG. 2006. Emerald ash borer: invasion of the Urban forest and the threat to North America’s ash resource. J For 104:118–24.Google Scholar
- Preston CD, Pearman DA, Dine TD. 2002. New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Pretzsch H. 2013. Facilitation and competition in mixed species forests analyzed along an ecological gradient. Nova Acta Leopold 391:159–74.Google Scholar
- Pyatt DG, Ray D, Fletcher J. 2001. An ecological site classification for forestry in Great Britain: bulletin 124. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2010). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/.
- Ray D, Broome AC. 2007. An information retrieval system to support management of Habitats and Rare Priority and Protected Species(HaRPPS) in Britain. In: Reynolds K, Thomson A, Köhl M, Shannon M, Ray D, Rennolls K, Eds. Sustainable forestry: from monitoring and modelling to knowledge management and policy science. Wallingford: CAB International. Google Scholar
- Ray D, Morison J, Broadmeadow M. 2010. Climate change: impacts and adaptation in England’s woodlands. Forestry Commission Research Note 201.Google Scholar
- Rodwell J, Patterson G. 1994. Creating new native woodlands. Forestry Commission Bulletin 112. London: HMSO. p 74.Google Scholar
- Rodwell JS. 1991. British Plant Communities, Volume 1, Woodlands and Scrub. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Taylor CMA. 1991. Forest Fertilisation in Britain. Forestry Commission Bulletin, Volume 9. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
- VSN International. 2013. GenStat Reference Manual (Release 16), Part 1 Summary. Hemel Hempstead: VSN International.Google Scholar
- Wilson SM. 2014. Living with climate change: mediterranean trees and agroforestry in Britain? Q J For 108:90–101.Google Scholar