Advertisement

European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 138, Issue 3, pp 461–472 | Cite as

Natural woodlands hold more diverse, abundant, and unique biota than novel anthropogenic forests: a multi-group assessment

  • Luís P. da SilvaEmail author
  • Ruben H. Heleno
  • José M. Costa
  • Mariana Valente
  • Vanessa A. Mata
  • Susana C. Gonçalves
  • António Alves da Silva
  • Joana Alves
  • Jaime A. Ramos
Original Paper

Abstract

Biodiversity sustained by natural ecosystems, particularly forests, provides ecosystem services essential to human well-being. However, many forests have been severely transformed, notably via monospecific plantations and the spread of invasive species. Given the extension of these novel anthropogenic forests (plantations and invasive copses), it is critical to know how they can support forest biodiversity, particularly in highly humanized biodiversity hotspots as the southwest Mediterranean Europe. Because the effects likely vary across taxonomic groups, such assessments require an integrative multi-group approach. Here, we evaluated the abundance, richness, and composition of shrubs, herbs, macrofungi, ground and flying arthropods, birds, small mammals, carnivores, and bats across the four most common forest types in Central Portugal, namely: natural oak woodlands (dominated by Quercus faginea Lam.) and anthropogenic forests, invasive Acacia dealbata Link copses, Pinus pinaster Aiton plantations (native), and Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantations (exotic). Oak woodlands sustained higher abundance, diversity, and a unique species composition compared to the other forests, especially those dominated by exotic species. The greatest changes in biodiversity occurred in herbs and birds. Contrary to our expectations, species richness and composition of macrofungi and carnivores in acacia copses were similar to those of oak woodlands, revealing that groups respond differently to forest changes. The large-scale replacement of natural forests by novel anthropogenic forests has significant negative impacts in most, but not all groups, which should be actively considered for integrative conservation strategies.

Keywords

Biodiversity loss Monospecific forests Novel ecosystems Tree plantations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

LPS, RHH, JMC, VAM, SGC, AAS, and JA were supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), through grants SFRH/BD/77746/2011, IF/00441/2013, SFRH/BD/96292/2013, PD/BD/113462/2015, SFRH/BPD/101463/2014, SFRH/BD/75018/2010, and SFRH/BPD/123087/2016, respectively. LPS was also supported by the project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-030250, PTDC/ASP-SIL/30250/2017 – TOPDEVIL, co-financed by FCT and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) through Portugal 2020 Competitiveness and Internationalization Operational Programme (POCI).

Data availability

Data is available online as supplementary material.

Supplementary material

10342_2019_1183_MOESM1_ESM.docx (157 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 157 kb)
10342_2019_1183_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (33.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 34,605 kb)

References

  1. Aragão A, Jacobs S, Cliquet A (2016) What’s law got to do with it? Why environmental justice is essential to ecosystem service valuation. Ecosyst Serv 22:221–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubin I, Venier L, Pearce J, Moretti M (2013) Can a trait-based multi-taxa approach improve our assessment of forest management impact on biodiversity? Biodivers Conserv 22:2957–2975.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0565-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bara Temes S, Rodriguez AR, del Carmen Gil Sotres M, Vazquez PM, Santos MA (1985) Efectos ecologicos del Eucalyptus globulus en Galacia: estudio comparativo con Pinus pinaster y Quercus robur. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias, MadridGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow J, Gardner TA, Araujo IS et al (2007) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:18555–18560.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703333104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrocas HM, Gama MM, Sousa JP, Ferreira CS (1998) Impact of reafforestation with Eucalyptus globulus Labill. on the edaphic collembolan fauna of Serra de Monchique (Algarve, Portugal). Misc Zool 21:9–23Google Scholar
  6. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bender MJ, Castleberry SB, Miller DA, Bently Wigley T (2015) Site occupancy of foraging bats on landscapes of managed pine forest. For Ecol Manag 336:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bragança MAL, Zanuncio J, Picanço M, Laranjeiro AJ (1998) Effects of environmental heterogeneity on Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera populations in Eucalyptus plantations in Brazil. For Ecol Manag 103:287–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00226-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bremer LL, Farley KA (2010) Does plantation forestry restore biodiversity or create green deserts? A synthesis of the effects of land-use transitions on plant species richness. Biodivers Conserv 19:3893–3915.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9936-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buczacki S, Shields C, Ovenden D (2013) Collins fungi guide: The most complete field guide to the mushrooms and toadstools of Britain and Ireland. HarperCollins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Burgermeister W, Sousa E, Mota M et al (1999) First report of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus in Portugal and in Europe. Nematology 1:727–734.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156854199508757 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cabral MJ, Almeida J, Almeida PR et al (2005) Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  13. Calviño-Cancela M (2013) Effectiveness of eucalypt plantations as a surrogate habitat for birds. For Ecol Manag 310:692–699.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calviño-Cancela M, Rubido-Bará M (2013) Invasive potential of Eucalyptus globulus: seed dispersal, seedling recruitment and survival in habitats surrounding plantations. For Ecol Manag 305:129–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.05.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calviño-Cancela M, Rubido-Bará M, van Etten EJB (2012) Do eucalypt plantations provide habitat for native forest biodiversity? For Ecol Manag 270:153–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.01.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carle J, Holmgren P (2003) Definitions related to planted forests. In: UNFF intersessional experts meeting on the role of planted forests in sustainable forest management. Wellington, New Zealand, pp 329–343Google Scholar
  17. Carnus J, Parrotta J, Brockerhoff E et al (2006) Planted forests and biodiversity. J For 104:65–77.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/104.2.65 Google Scholar
  18. Colwell R (2013) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9. User’s guide and application published at: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates. Accessed 01 Aug 2018
  19. Colwell RK, Chao A, Gotelli NJ et al (2012) Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. J Plant Ecol 5:3–21.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtr044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Correia M, Castro S, Ferrero V et al (2014) Reproductive biology and success of invasive Australian acacias in Portugal. Bot J Linn Soc 174:574–588.  https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Costanza R, Arge R, De Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cruz J, Sarmento P, White PCL (2015) Influence of exotic forest plantations on occupancy and co-occurrence patterns in a mediterranean carnivore guild. J Mammal 96:854–865.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyv109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cruz J, Sarmento P, Rydevik G et al (2016) Bats like vintage: managing exotic eucalypt plantations for bat conservation in a Mediterranean landscape. Anim Conserv 19:53–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cuttelod A, García N, Malak DA et al (2008) The Mediterranean: a biodiversity hotspot under threat. In: Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (eds) The 2008 review of the IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN, Gland, pp 89–101Google Scholar
  25. da Silva LP, Alves J, da Silva AA et al (2012) Variation in the abundance and reproductive characteristics of great tits Parus major in forest and monoculture plantations. Acta Ornithol 47:147–155.  https://doi.org/10.3161/000164512X662250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. de Jong Y, Verbeek M, Michelsen V et al (2014) Fauna Europaea—all European animal species on the web. Biodivers Data J 2:e4034.  https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.2.e4034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. FAO (2016) Global forest resources assessment 2015—how are the world’s forests changing?. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  28. Foley JA (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Forest Europe (2015) State of Europe’s forests 2015. Forest Europe, MadridGoogle Scholar
  30. Gonçalves P, Alcobia S, Simões L, Santos-Reis M (2012) Effects of management options on mammal richness in a Mediterranean agro-silvo-pastoral system. Agrofor Syst 85:383–395.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9439-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2017) Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) V5.1 and guidance on the application of the revised structureGoogle Scholar
  32. Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J et al (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00212.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ICNF (2013) Áreas dos usos do solo e das espécies florestais de Portugal continental. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  35. Irwin S, Pedley SM, Coote L et al (2014) The value of plantation forests for plant, invertebrate and bird diversity and the potential for cross-taxon surrogacy. Biodivers Conserv 23:697–714.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0627-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaplan JO, Krumhardt KM, Zimmermann N (2009) The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe. Quat Sci Rev 28:3016–3034.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.09.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Fischer J (2006) General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 131:433–445.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lorenzo P, González L, Reigosa MJ (2010) The genus Acacia as invader: the characteristic case of Acacia dealbata Link in Europe. Ann For Sci 67:101.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest/2009082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lorenzo P, Pazos-Malvido E, Rubido-Bará M et al (2012) Invasion by the leguminous tree Acacia dealbata (Mimosaceae) reduces the native understorey plant species in different communities. Aust J Bot 60:669.  https://doi.org/10.1071/BT12036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27:19–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malcolm JR, Liu C, Neilson RP et al (2006) Global warming and extinctions of endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conserv Biol 20:538–548.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00364.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martins da Silva P, Aguiar CAS, Niemelä J et al (2008) Diversity patterns of ground-beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) along a gradient of land-use disturbance. Agric Ecosyst Environ 124:270–274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Merckx T, Slade EM (2014) Macro-moth families differ in their attraction to light: implications for light-trap monitoring programmes. Insect Conserv Divers 7:453–461.  https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nguyen NH, Williams L, Vincent JB et al (2016) Ectomycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungal diversity are linked to different tree community attributes in a field-based tree experiment. Mol Ecol 25:4032–4046.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13719 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M et al (2016) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.4. http://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan. Accessed 01 Aug 2018
  47. Paillet Y, Bergès L, Hjältén J et al (2010) Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol 24:101–112.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01399.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paquette A, Messier C (2010) The role of plantations in managing the world’s forests in the Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 8:27–34.  https://doi.org/10.1890/080116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pardini R, Faria D, Accacio GM et al (2009) The challenge of maintaining Atlantic forest biodiversity: a multi-taxa conservation assessment of specialist and generalist species in an agro-forestry mosaic in southern Bahia. Biol Conserv 142:1178–1190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Payn T, Carnus JM, Freer-Smith P et al (2015) Changes in planted forests and future global implications. For Ecol Manag 352:57–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pereira P, Alves da Silva A, Alves J et al (2012) Coexistence of carnivores in a heterogeneous landscape: habitat selection and ecological niches. Ecol Res 27:745–753.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-012-0949-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Portuguese Botanical Society (2014) Flora-on: Flora de Portugal Interactiva. www.flora-on.pt. Accessed 01 Aug 2018
  53. Proença VM, Pereira HM, Guilherme J, Vicente L (2010) Plant and bird diversity in natural forests and in native and exotic plantations in NW Portugal. Acta Oecol 36:219–226.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2010.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Quine CP, Humphrey JW (2010) Plantations of exotic tree species in Britain: irrelevant for biodiversity or novel habitat for native species? Biodivers Conserv 19:1503–1512.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9771-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 01 Aug 2018
  56. Rainho A, Alves P, Amorim F, Marques JT (2013) Atlas dos morcegos de Portugal continental. Instituto de Conservação da Natureza e Florestas, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  57. Royo A, Carson W (2006) On the formation of dense understory layers in forests worldwide: consequences and implications for forest dynamics, biodiversity, and succession. Can J For Res 36:1345–1362.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X06-025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sax DF (2002) Equal diversty in disparate species assemblages: a comparison of native and exotic woodlands in California. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:49–57.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2001.00262.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Teixeira D, Carrilho M, Mexia T et al (2017) Management of eucalyptus plantations influences small mammal density: evidence from Southern Europe. For Ecol Manag 385:25–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tellería JL, Galarza A (1990) Avifauna and landscape in northern Spain: effects of reafforestations with exotic trees. Ardeola 37:229–245Google Scholar
  61. Thompson ID, Okabe K, Tylianakis JM 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
  62. Twieg BD, Durall DM, Simard SW (2007) Ectomycorrhizal fungal succession in mixed temperate forests. New Phytol 176:437–447.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02173.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Valadas V, Laranjo M, Barbosa P et al (2012) The pine wood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, in Portugal: possible introductions and spread routes of a serious biological invasion revealed by molecular methods. Nematology 14:899–911.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156854112X632673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wood JR, Holdaway RJ, Orwin KH et al (2017) No single driver of biodiversity: divergent responses of multiple taxa across land use types. Ecosphere 8:e01997.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zahn A, Rainho A, Rodrigues L, Palmeirim JM (2009) Low macro-arthropod abundance in exotic Eucalyptus plantations in the Mediterranean. Appl Ecol Environ Res 7:297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zanuncio JC, Mezzomo JA, Guedes RNC, Oliveira AC (1998) Influence of strips of native vegetation on Lepidoptera associated with Eucalyptus cloeziana in Brazil. For Ecol Manag 108:85–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00215-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CFE – Centre for Functional Ecology - Science for People and the Planet, Department of Life SciencesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Life SciencesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.CIBIO-InBIO, Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic ResourcesUniversity of PortoVairãoPortugal

Personalised recommendations