Advertisement

European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 134, Issue 2, pp 335–347 | Cite as

Association of tree and plot characteristics with microhabitat formation in European beech and Douglas-fir forests

  • Susanne Winter
  • Josef Höfler
  • Alexa K. Michel
  • Andreas Böck
  • Donna P. Ankerst
Original Paper

Abstract

Process-orientated, unmanaged forest remnants are not sufficient for halting the loss of forest biodiversity. Thus, integrated biodiversity-promoting management for forest inhabitants is needed. Microhabitats, such as tree cavities or bark pockets, are essential for the preservation of saproxylic species and of critical importance for endangered ones. This study investigates (1) which factors trigger the formation of microhabitats at both the individual tree and aggregated plot level, and (2) whether the co-occurrence of microhabitats differs between managed (=logged) and unmanaged forests. Relationships between the occurrence of 17 microhabitat types and individual tree features (e.g. light availability, and tree vitality) and plot characteristics (e.g. stand density index and stand age) in 398 plots dominated by Fagus sylvatica or Pseudotsuga menziesii in Germany and the USA were studied using random-effects logistic and normal regression modelling. Separate analyses were performed for German beech forests, German Douglas-fir forests, and the US Douglas-fir forests. Our results show that (1) tree diameter in breast height (DBH), tree vitality and branchiness or epicormic branches are highly related with the occurrence of one or more microhabitats on individual trees in managed and unmanaged beech and US Douglas-fir forests. In managed German Douglas-fir forests, vitality is not a predictor for the occurrence of microhabitats on a tree, but tree density and the maximum age of trees in a stand in addition to DBH and branchiness have an effect. Time since last management is not a statistically significant predictor for the presence of microhabitats at the tree level, but it is for German beech at the plot level. In Douglas-fir-dominated forests both in Germany and in the USA, the stand density index was the only common predictor at the plot level. (2) Unmanaged German beech and Douglas-fir forests exhibit more statistically significant and positive correlations with microhabitat groups than managed stands, implying that the presence of one microhabitat group on a tree is associated with the presence of other microhabitat groups. We finally conclude that measures for supporting microhabitat inhabitants in managed forests are scale and species dependent (tree versus plot level; beech versus Douglas-fir-dominated forests). Trees that carry microhabitats seem to have similar features independently of forest management. At the plot level, density management may trigger the accumulation of microhabitats. Our results indicate that in forest management, it is possible to consider the factors influencing the formation of microhabitats and implement adequate forest practices to advance their formation.

Keywords

Endangered wood-inhabiting forest species Forest biodiversity Forest naturalness Sustainable forest management Forest integrity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

SW: Funding for presentations and travel in USA was provided by the DFG—Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. AKM was co-funded by the Federal State of Brandenburg and the German Federal Government within their higher education and science programme for promoting equal opportunities for women in research and teaching and by the Dr.-Ing. Leonhard-Lorenz-Stiftung at Technische Universität München, Germany. The origin of funding had no effect on the outcomes of this research.

Supplementary material

10342_2014_855_MOESM1_ESM.docx (40 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 39 kb)

References

  1. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
  2. Bauhus J, Puettmann K, Messier C (2009) Silviculture for old-growth attributes. For Ecol Manage 258:525–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bollmann K, Braunisch V (2013) To integrate or to segregate: balancing commodity production and biodiversity conservation in European forests. In: Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 18–31Google Scholar
  4. Boncina A (2011) Conceptual approaches to integrate nature conservation into forest management: a Central European perspective. Int For Rev 13:13–22Google Scholar
  5. Bouget C, Parmain G, Nusillard B, Paillet Y, Pernot C, Larrieu L, Gosselin F (2014) Does a set aside conservation strategy help restore old-growth attributes and conserve saproxylic beetles in temperate forests? Anim Conserv 19:342–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chape S, Spalding MD, Jenkins MD (eds) (2007) The world’s protected areas: status, values and prospects in the 21st century. University of California Press, Berkeley, p 359Google Scholar
  7. Daniel TW, Meyn RL, Moore RR (1979) Reineke’s stand density index in tabular form in English and metric units with its applications. Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report 37, Logan, UtahGoogle Scholar
  8. Dudley N (ed) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland, p 86Google Scholar
  9. IUCN/UNEP/WWF/FAO/UNESCO- International Union for Conservation of Nature, United Nation Environment Programme, World Wide Fund for Nature, Food and Agriculture Organisation, United Nations Economic and Social Commission (1980) World conservation strategy—living resource conservation for sustainable development. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, GlandGoogle Scholar
  10. Larrieu L, Cabanettes A (2012) Species, live status, and diameter are important tree features for diversity and abundance of tree microhabitats in subnatural montane beech-fir forests. Can J For Res 42(8):1433–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Larrieu L, Cabanettes A, Delarue A (2012) Impact of silviculture on dead wood and on the distribution and frequency of tree microhabitats in montane beech-fir forests of the Pyrenees. Eur J For Res 131:773–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Larrieu L, Cabanettes A, Brin A, Bouget C, Deconchat M (2014) Tree microhabitats at the stand scale in montane beech-fir forests: a practical information for taxa conservation in forestry. Eur J For Res 133:355–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lassauce A, Larrieu L, Paillet Y, Lieutier F, Bouget C (2013) The effects of forest age on saproxylic beetle biodiversity: implications of shortened and extended rotation lengths in a French oak high forest. Insect Conserv Divers 6(3):396–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MacFarlane DW, Luo A (2009) Quantifying tree and forest bark structure with a bark-fissure index. Can J For Res 39:1859–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Michel AK, Winter S, Linde A (2011) The effect of tree diameter on the diversity of bark microhabitat structures and bark usage in Douglas-fir. Can J For Res 41:300–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Poulin JF, Villard MA, Edman M, Goulet PJ, Eriksson AM (2008) Thresholds in nesting habitat requirements of an old forest specialist, the Brown Creeper (Certhia americana), as conservation targets. Biol Conserv 141:1129–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Regnery B, Paillet Y, Couvet D, Kerbiriou C (2013a) Which factors influence the occurrence and density of tree microhabitats in Mediterranean oak forests? For Ecol Manage 295:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Regnery B, Couvet D, Kubarek L, Julien JF, Kerbiriou C (2013b) Tree microhabitats as indicators of bird and bat communities in Mediterranean forests. Ecol Indic 34:221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reineke LH (1933) Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J Agric Res 46:627–638Google Scholar
  21. Sheridan CD, Puettmann KJ, Huso MP, Hagar JC, Falk KR (2013) Management, morphological, and environmental factors influencing Douglas-fir bark furrows in the Oregon coast range. West J Appl For 28:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sondenaa AC (1991) The wild mammals of McDonald and Paul M. Dunn forests. O.S.U. Research Forests and College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, p 39Google Scholar
  23. Takiya M, Koyama H, Umeki K, Yasaka M, Ohno Y, Watanabe I, Terazawa K (2010) The effects of early and intense pruning on light penetration, tree growth, and epicormic shoot dynamics in a young hybrid larch stand. J For Res 15:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. UNESCO—United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (1970) Man and Biosphere Programme. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/cairo/natural-sciences/ecology-and-earth-sciences/ecology/arabmab-network/man-and-biosphere-programme/
  25. van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K (2011) Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw 45:1–67Google Scholar
  26. Vonhof MJ, Gwilliam JC (2007) Intra- and interspecific patterns of day roost selection by three species of forest-dwelling bats in southern British Columbia. For Ecol Manage 252:65–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vuidot A, Paillet Y, Archaux F, Gosselin F (2011) Influence of tree characteristics and forest management on tree microhabitats. Biol Conserv 144:441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Winter S, Brambach F (2011) Determination of a common forest life-cycle assessment method for biodiversity evaluation. For Ecol Manage 262:2120–2132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Winter S, Möller G (2008) Microhabitats in lowland beech forests as monitoring tool for nature conservation. For Ecol Manage 255:1251–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Winter S, Flade M, Schumacher H, Kerstan E, Möller G (2005) The importance of near-natural stand structures for the biocoenosis of lowland beech forests. For Snow Landsc Res 79:127–144Google Scholar
  31. Winter S, Fischer HS, Fischer A (2010) Relative quantitative reference approach on naturalness assessments. For Ecol Manage 259:1624–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Winter S, Vrska T, Begehold H (2013) Forest Naturalness as a key to forest biodiversity preservation. In: Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 52–63Google Scholar
  33. Woodall CW, Fiedler CE, Milner KS (2003) Stand density index in uneven-aged ponderosa pine stands. Can J For Res 33:96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne Winter
    • 1
  • Josef Höfler
    • 2
  • Alexa K. Michel
    • 3
    • 4
  • Andreas Böck
    • 2
  • Donna P. Ankerst
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Forest and EnvironmentHochschule für nachhaltige Entwicklung Eberswalde, University of Applied Sciences EberswaldeEberswaldeGermany
  2. 2.Zentrum Mathematik, Lehrstuhl für Mathematische StatistikTechnische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany
  3. 3.Faculty of Forest and EnvironmentUniversity of Applied Sciences EberswaldeEberswaldeGermany
  4. 4.Thünen Institute of Forest EcosystemsEberswaldeGermany

Personalised recommendations