European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 131, Issue 3, pp 773–786

Impact of silviculture on dead wood and on the distribution and frequency of tree microhabitats in montane beech-fir forests of the Pyrenees

  • Laurent Larrieu
  • Alain Cabanettes
  • Antoine Delarue
Original Paper

Abstract

In forest ecosystems, the level of biodiversity is strongly linked to dead wood and tree microhabitats. To evaluate the influence of current forest management on the availability of dead wood and on the abundance and distribution of microhabitats, we studied the volume and diversity of dead wood objects and the distribution and frequency of cavities, dendrothelms, cracks, bark losses and sporophores of saproxylic fungi in montane beech-fir stands. We compared stands unmanaged for 50 or 100 years with continuously managed stands. A total of 1,204 live trees and 460 dead wood objects were observed. Total dead wood volume, snag volume and microhabitat diversity were lower in the managed stands, but the total number of microhabitats per ha was not significantly different between managed and unmanaged stands. Cavities were always the most frequent microhabitat and cracks the least frequent. Dendrothelm and bark loss were favored by management. Beech (Fagus sylvatica) carried many more microhabitats than silver fir (Abies alba), especially cavities, dendrothelms and bark losses. Fir very scarcely formed dendrothelms. Secondary tree species played an important role by providing cracks and bark losses. The proportion of microhabitat-bearing trees increased dramatically above circumference thresholds of 225 cm for beech and 215 cm for fir. Firs with a circumference of less than 135 cm did not carry microhabitats. In order to conserve microhabitat-providing trees and to increase the volume of dead wood in managed stands, we recommend conserving trees that finish their natural cycle over 10–20% of the surface area.

Keywords

Dead wood Cavity Crack Dendrothelm Bark loss Girth threshold 

Supplementary material

10342_2011_551_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (114 kb)
Complementary data on characteristics of studied stands, main relationships tree microhabitats and taxa, decay stage definitions, comparison of dead wood volume per decay stage and per dead wood object type and girth thresholds for microhabitat presence. (PDF 113 kb)

References

  1. Bardat J, Bioret F, Botineau M, Boullet V, Delpech R, Géhu JM, Haury J, Lacoste A, Rameau JC, Royer JM, Roux G, Touffet J (2004) Prodrome des végétations de France. (Patrimoines naturels, 61). MNHN, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrère P, Bouquet C, Debroas EJ, Pélissonnier H, Peybernès B, Soulé JC, Souquet P, Ternet Y (1982) Carte géologique de la France (1/50000), feuille Arreau (1072). BRGM, OrléansGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrère P, Bouquet C, Debroas EJ, Pélissonnier H, Peybernès B, Soulé JC, Souquet P, Ternet Y (1984) Notice explicative de la Carte géologique de la France (1/50000), feuille Arreau (1072). BRGM, OrléansGoogle Scholar
  4. Bässler C, Müller J (2010) Importance of natural disturbance for recovery of the rare polypore Antrodiella citrinella Niemelä & Ryvarden. Fungal Biol 114:129–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauhus J, Puettmann K, Messier C (2009) Silviculture for old-growth attributes. For Ecol Manage 258:525–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bitterlich W (1984) The relascope idea: relative measurements in forestry. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham RoyalGoogle Scholar
  7. Blondel J (2005) Bois mort et cavités: leur rôle pour l’avifaune cavicole. In: Vallauri D et al (eds) Bois mort et à cavités: une clé pour les forêts vivantes. Tec et Doc Lavoisier, Paris, pp 137–142Google Scholar
  8. Bobiec A, Gutowski JM, Zub K, Pawlaczyk P, Laudenlayer WF (eds) (2005) The afterlife of a tree. WWF Poland, Warszawa-HajnowkaGoogle Scholar
  9. Branquart E, Liégeois S (2005) Normes de gestion pour favoriser la biodiversité dans les bois soumis au régime forestier (complément à la circulaire no 2619). Ministère de la Région wallonne, Direction Générale des Ressources Naturelles et de l’EnvironnementGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey AB, Kershner J, Biswell B, Dominguez de Toledo LS (1999) Ecological scale and forest development: squirrels, dietary fungi, and vascular plants in managed and unmanaged forests. Wildl Monogr 142:1–71Google Scholar
  11. Christensen M, Hahn K, Mountford E, Odor P, Standovar T, Rozenbergar D, Diaci J, Wijdeven S, Meyer P, Winter S, Vrska T (2005) Dead wood in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. For Ecol Manage 210:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cline SP, Berg AB, Wight HM (1980) Snag characteristics and dynamics in Douglas-fir forests, western Oregon. J Wildl Manage 44:773–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cramp S (Chief ed) (1980) Handbook of the birds of Europe, the middle east and north Africa, vol 2 et 4. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Dajoz R (2007) Les insectes des forêts. Rôle et diversité des insectes dans le milieu forestier, 2ème édn. Tec et Doc Lavoisier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Darveau M, Desrochers A (2001) Le bois mort et la faune vertébrée; état des connaissances au Québec. Université de Laval, Centre de recherche en biologie forestière, Ministère des ressources naturellesGoogle Scholar
  16. Davasse B (1992) Anthracology and carbonized forested areas. Some examples from east Pyrenees. Bulletin de la société Botanique de France; Actualités botaniques. Colloque sur le charbon, les écosystèmes anciens et le rôle de l’Homme. Montpellier 139(2–4):597–608Google Scholar
  17. Deconchat M (1994) Les boisements des terres agricoles comme outils d’aménagement écologique du paysage. Tome 1: Synthèse et catalogue bibliographique des effets des bois sur la biodiversité. INRA-URSAD/SOLAGROGoogle Scholar
  18. DeGraaf RM, Shigo AL (1985) Managing cavity trees for wildlife in the northeast. USDA Forest Service, General technical report NE-101Google Scholar
  19. Drapeau P, Nappi A, St Germain M, Angers VA (2005) Les régimes naturels de perturbations, l’aménagement forestier et le bois mort dans la forêt boréale québécoise. In: Vallauri D et al (eds) Bois mort et à cavités: une clé pour les forêts vivantes. Tec et Doc Lavoisier, Paris, pp 46–54Google Scholar
  20. Du Bus de Warnaffe G, Lebrun P (2004) Effects of forest management on carabid beetles in Belgium: implications for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 118:219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dufour D (2003) Étude de l’influence du bois mort sur l’avifaune cavernicole en forêt feuillue. Mémoire de fin d’études. FUSAGx, GemblouxGoogle Scholar
  22. Dufrêne M, Branquart E, Henin J-M, Fayt P (2005) Vieux arbres et bois mort: des composantes essentielles de la biodiversité forestière. In: Résumé des interventions de la journée d’étude «Gestion forestière et biodiversité». Gembloux, Ministère de la Région wallonne, Direction Générale des Ressources Naturelles et de l’Environnement, pp 22–24Google Scholar
  23. Ellis MB, and Ellis JP (1998) Microfungi on miscellaneous substrates. An identification handbook. Richmond Publishing, Slough, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  24. Fan Z, Shifley S, Spetich MA, Thompson FR, Larsen D (2003) Distribution of cavity trees in Midwestern old-growth and second-growth forests. Can J For Res 33:1481–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Franklin JF, Berg DR, Thornburgh DA, Tappeiner JC (1997) Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber haversting: variable retention harvest systems. In: Kohm KA, Franklin JF (eds) Creating a forestry for the 21 st century. The science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, pp 111–139Google Scholar
  26. Fridman J, Walheim M (2000) Amount, structure and dynamics of dead wood on managed forestland in Sweden. For Ecol Manage 131:23–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fritz O, Heilmann-Clausen J (2010) Rot holes create key microhabitats for epiphytic lichens and bryophytes on beech (Fagus sylvatica). Biol Conserv 143:1008–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garrigue J, Magdalou JA (2000) Réserve naturelle de la Massane: suivi forestier et cartographie assisté par SIG. Laboratoire Arago, Observatoire océanologique de Banyuls/Mer. Travaux scientifiques 55:44Google Scholar
  29. Gilg O (2004) Old-Growth forests; characteristics, conservation and monitoring. GIP ATEN, habitat and species management. Technical report no 74Google Scholar
  30. Girompaire L, Ballon P (1992) Conséquences de l’écorçage du cerf élaphe dans le massif des Vosges alsaciennes. Revue Forestière Française XLIV(6):501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gonin P (1988) Contribution à l’étude de l’évolution des forêts non exploitées dans les Pyrénées. Association Forêts Pyrénéennes, St. Gaudens, p 45Google Scholar
  32. Gosselin M, Laroussinie O (coord.) (2004) Biodiversité et Gestion forestière: connaître pour préserver. Synthèse bibliographique. Cemagref, Nogent sur Vernisson FranceGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenberg CH, McLeod DE, Loftis DL (1997) An old-growth definition for Western and mixed mesophytic forest. USDA, Southern research station, Gen tech rep SRS-16. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, p 14Google Scholar
  34. Grove SJ (2002a) Saproxylic insect écology and the sustainable management of forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grove SJ (2002b) The influence of forest management history on the integrity of the saproxylic beetle fauna in an Australian lowland tropical rain forest. Biol Conserv 104:149–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, Anderson NH, Cline SP, Aumen NG, Sedell JR, Lienkaemper GW, Cromack K, Cummins KW (1986) Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in ecological research, vol 15. Academic Press, London, pp 133–302Google Scholar
  37. Healy WM, Brooks RT, DeGraaf RM (1989) Cavity trees in sawtimbersize oak stands in central Massachusetts. Nor J Appl For 6:61–65Google Scholar
  38. Heiss E, Pericart J (2007) Hemiptères Aradidae Piesmatidae et Dipsocoromorphes euro-méditerranéens. Faune de France (France et régions limitrophes) 91. Fédération Française des sociétés de sciences naturellesGoogle Scholar
  39. Hothorn T, Hornik K (2005) The coin package—conditional inference procedure in a permutation tes-framework, 0.4-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org
  40. Hothorn T, Lausen B (2003) On the exact distribution of maximally selected rank statistics. Comput Stat Data Anal 43(2):121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hothorn T, Zeileis A (2008) Generalized maximally selected statistics. Biometrics 64:1263–1269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hothorn T, Hornik K, Van de Wiel MA, Zeilis A (2006a) A Lego-system for conditional inference. Am Stat 60:257–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hothorn T, Hornik K, Zeileis A (2006b) Party: a laboratory for recursive part(y)itioning. http://CRAN.R-project.org/
  44. Kitching RL (1971) An ecological study of water-filled tree-holes and their position in the woodland ecosystem. J Animal Ecol 40(2):281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Larrieu L, Brustel H, Cabanettes A, Corriol G, Delarue A, Harel M, Loireau JN, Sarthou JP (2010) Impact de l’anthropisation ancienne sur la biodiversité d’un habitat de hêtraie-sapinière montagnarde. Revue Forestière Française 4–2009:351–368Google Scholar
  46. Lausen B, Schumacher M (1992) Maximally selected rank statistics. Biometrics 1(48):73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lisiewska M (1992) Macrofungi on special substrates. In: Winterhoff W (ed) Fungi in vegetation science. Kluwer, Netherlands, pp 151–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Loeb S (1999) Response of small mammals to coarse woody debris in a south-eastern pine forest. J Mammal 80(2):460–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lucan RK, Hanak V, Horacek I (2009) Long-term re-use of tree roosts by European forest bats. For Ecol Manage 258:1301–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mannan RW, Meslow EC, Wright HM (1980) Use of snags by birds in Douglas-fir forests, western Oregon. J Wildl Manage 44:787–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martikainen P, Kaila L, Haila Y (1998) Threatened beetles in white-backed woodpecker habitats. Cons Biol 12(2):293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Martikainen P, Siitonen J, Punttila P, Kaila L, Rauh J (2000) Species richness of coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forest in southern Finland. Biol Conserv 94:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maser C, Trappe JM, Cline SP, Cromack K, Blaschke H, Sedell JR, Swanson FJ (1984) The seen and unseen world of the fallen tree. Gen Tech Rep PNW 164. USDA Forest service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  54. McClelland BR, Frissell SS (1975) Identifying forest snags useful for hole-nesting birds. J For 73(7):414–417Google Scholar
  55. McMillan PC, Means J, Hawk GM, Crmack KJ, Fogel R (1977) Log decomposition in an old growth Douglas-fir forest. In: Northwest scientific association abstract of papers presented at the 50th annual meeting, Washington State University Press, Pullman, WAGoogle Scholar
  56. McMinn JW, Crossley DA (eds) (1996) Biodiversity and coarse woody debris in southern forests. Proceedings of the workshop on coarse woody debris in the southern forest: effect on biodiversity. USDA Forest Service, southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, p 146Google Scholar
  57. Meschede A, Heller KG (2003) Ecologie et protection des chauves-souris en milieu forestier. MHN de Genève. Le Rhinolophe 16:1–248Google Scholar
  58. Métailié JP (1984) La forêt paysanne dans les Pyrénées centrales. Revue Géographique des Pyrénées et du Sud-Ouest 55(2):231–238Google Scholar
  59. Métailié JP (2001) Un patrimoine historico-environnemental: les forêts pastorales dans les Pyrénées. In: Actes du 126ème congrès national des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Toulouse. Paysages, territoires et aménagement dans le sud de la France, pp 33–47Google Scholar
  60. Michel AK, Winter S (2009) Tree microhabitat structures as indicators of biodiversity in Douglas-fir forests of different stand ages and management histories in the Pacific Northwest, USA. For Ecol Manage 257:1453–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moning C, Müller J (2008) Environmental key factors and their thresholds for the avifauna of temperate montane forests. For Ecol Manage 256:1198–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moning C, Müller J (2009) Critical forest age thresholds for the diversity of lichens, molluscs and birds in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) dominated forests. Ecol Indic 9:922–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moning C, Werth S, Dziock F, Bässler C, Bradtka J, Hothorn T, Müller J (2009) Lichen diversity in temperate montane forests is influenced by forest structure more than climate. For Ecol Manage 258:745–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Müller J, Bütler R (2010) A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur J Forest Res 129:981–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Muller RN, Liu Y (1991) Coarse woody debris in an old-growth deciduous forest on the Cumberland Plateau, southeastern Kentucky. Can J For Res 21:1567–1572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nascimbene J, Marini L, Nimis PL (2009) Influence of tree species on epiphytic macrolichens in temperate mixed forests of northern Italy. Can J For Res 39(4):785–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nilsson SG, Niklasson M, Hedin J, Aronsson G, Gutowski JM, Linder P, Ljungberg H, Mikusinnski G, Ranius T (2002) Densities of large living and dead trees in old-growth temperate and boreal forests. For Ecol Manage 161:189–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Norden B, Ryberga M, Gotmark F, Olaussona B (2004) Relative importance of coarse and fine woody debris for the diversity of wood-inhabiting fungi in temperate broadleaf forests. Biol Conserv 117:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Norsted G, Bader P, Ericson L (2001) Polypores as indicators of conservation value in Corsican pine forests. Biol Conserv 99:347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Odor P, Heilmann-Clausen J, Christensen M, Aude E, van Dort KW, Piltaver A, Siller I, Veerkamp MT, Walleyng R, Standovar T, van Hees AFM, Kosec J, Matocec N, Kraigher H, Grebenc T (2006) Diversity of dead wood inhabiting fungi and bryophytes in semi-natural beech forests in Europe. Biol Conserv 131:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pardé J, Bouchon J (1988) Dendrométrie, 2ème édn. ENGREF Nancy, FranceGoogle Scholar
  72. Pénicaud P (2000) Chauves-souris arboricoles en Bretagne: typologie de 60 arbres-gîtes et éléments de l’écologie des espèces observées. Le Rhinolophe 14:37–68Google Scholar
  73. Ponthus C (1996) Inventaire des forêts subnaturelles des Pyrénées françaises. Mémoire de fin d’études. ENSA Toulouse (ONF)Google Scholar
  74. Radek K, Lucan R, Hanak V, Horacek I (2009) Long-term re-use of tree roosts by European forest bats. For Ecol Manage 258:1301–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rameau JC, Gauberville C, Drapier N (2000) Gestion forestière et diversité biologique; identification et gestion intégrée des habitats et espèces d’intérêt communautaire. IDF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  76. Ranius T (2002) Influence of stand size and quality of tree hollows on saproxylic beetles in Sweden. Biol Conserv 103:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ranius T, Henin J (2001) The dispersal rate of a beetle, Osmoderma eremita, living in tree hollows. Oecologia 126:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna Austria. http://www.R-project.org
  79. Richard F, Millot S, Gardes M, Selosse MA (2005) Diversity and specificity of ectomycorrhizal fungi retrieved from an old-growth Mediterranean forest dominated by Quercus ilex L. New Phytol 166:1011–1023PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ringvall A, Stahl G (1999) On the field performance of transect relascope sampling for assessing downed coarse woody debris. Scand J For Res 14:552–557Google Scholar
  81. Rondeux J (1993) La mesure des arbres et des peuplements forestiers. Les presses agronomiques de GemblouxGoogle Scholar
  82. Samuelsson J, Gustafsson L, Ingelög T (1994) Dying and dead trees: a review of their importance for biodiversity, Swedish threatened species unit, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  83. Schaeffer L (1949) Tarifs rapides et tarifs lents. Revue Forestière Française 1:7–13Google Scholar
  84. Schmidl J, Sulzer P, Kitching RL (2008) The insect assemblage in water filled tree-holes in a European temperate deciduous forest: community composition reflects structural, trophic and physicochemical factors. Hydrobiologia 598:285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schmit JP, Lodge DJ (2005) Classical methods and modern analysis for studying fungal diversity. In: Dighton J, White J, Oudemans P (eds) The fungal community; Its organization and role in the ecosystem, 3rd edn (Mycology Volume 3). CRC Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, pp 193–214Google Scholar
  86. Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:11–41Google Scholar
  87. Sippola AL (2001) Forest structure and biodiversity in northern boreal forests; effects of regeneration cutting on flying beetles and wood-decomposing fungi. Artic Centre Reports 35. Helsinki: Hakapaino OyGoogle Scholar
  88. Sippola AL, Renvall P (1999) Wood-decomposing fungi and seed-tree cutting: a 40 years perspective. For Ecol Manage 115:183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sippola AL, Siitonen J, Kallio R (1998) Amount and quality of coarse woody debris in natural and managed coniferous forests near the timberline in Finnish Lapland. Scand J For Res 13:204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1971) Méthodes statistiques. Traduction française Boelle H, Camhaji E. ACTA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  91. Speight MCD (1989) Saproxylic invertrebrates and their conservation. Council Eur Nat Environ Ser 42:1–79Google Scholar
  92. Sprent P (1992) Pratique des statistiques non paramétriques. Traduction française Ley JP. INRA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  93. Stanska M, Rozwaka R, Kowalczyk K (2010) Dipoena torva (Thorell, 1875) spider living on tree stems. Lesne Prace Badawcze 71(2):201–205Google Scholar
  94. Stokland JN, Tomter SM, Söderberg U (2004) Development of dead wood indicators for biodiversity monitoring: experiences from Scandinavia. In: Marchetti M (ed) Monitoring and indicators of forest biodiversity in Europe—from ideas to operationality, EFI workshop, November 12th–15th 2003, Firenze, Italy, vol 51Google Scholar
  95. Ternet Y, Barrère P, Debroas EJ (1995) Notice explicative de la Carte géologique de la France (1/50000), feuille Campan (1071). BRGM OrléansGoogle Scholar
  96. Ternet Y, Barrère P, Dallas S, Debon F, Debroas EJ, François JM, Pouget P (1996) Carte géologique de la France (1/50000), feuille Campan (1071). BRGM, OrléansGoogle Scholar
  97. Tillon L (2005) Biodiversité, dynamique et conservation des petits mammifères cavicoles en France. In: Vallauri D et al (eds) Bois mort et à cavités: une clé pour les forêts vivantes. Tec et Doc Lavoisier, Paris, pp 145–155Google Scholar
  98. Tillon L (2006) Etude des gîtes sylvestres en forêt domaniale de Rambouillet. Symbioses 15:11–14Google Scholar
  99. Vaillant F (1978) Les Systenus et leur habitat dendrotelme. Bull Société Ent Fr 83:73–85Google Scholar
  100. Vallauri D, André J, Blondel J (2002) Le bois mort, un attribut vital de la biodiversité de la forêt naturelle, une lacune de la forêt gérée. WWF-France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  101. Vane CH, DrageTC SnapeCE (2006) Bark decay by the white-rot fungus Lentinula edodes: Polysaccharide loss, lignin resistance and the unmasking of suberin. Inter Biodeter Biodegr 57:14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Westfall PH, Young SS (1993) On adjusting P-values for multplicity. Biometrics 49:941–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Winter S, Möller GC (2008) Microhabitats in lowland beech forests as monitoring tool for nature conservation. For Ecol Manage 255:1251–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wonoroff D (1984) Forges prédatrices, forges protectrices. Revue Géographique des Pyrénées et du Sud-Ouest, tome 55(2):213–218Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurent Larrieu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alain Cabanettes
    • 1
  • Antoine Delarue
    • 2
  1. 1.INRA-INPT/ENSAT/EIPURPAN, UMR1201 DYNAFORCastanet-TolosanFrance
  2. 2.Centre Régional de la Propriété Forestière de Midi-PyrénéesAuzeville TolosaneFrance

Personalised recommendations