Natural woodlands hold more diverse, abundant, and unique biota than novel anthropogenic forests: a multi-group assessment
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.
KeywordsBiodiversity loss Monospecific forests Novel ecosystems Tree plantations
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 is available online as supplementary material.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Cabral MJ, Almeida J, Almeida PR et al (2005) Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza, LisbonGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- FAO (2016) Global forest resources assessment 2015—how are the world’s forests changing?. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Forest Europe (2015) State of Europe’s forests 2015. Forest Europe, MadridGoogle Scholar
- 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
- ICNF (2013) Áreas dos usos do solo e das espécies florestais de Portugal continental. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas, LisbonGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Portuguese Botanical Society (2014) Flora-on: Flora de Portugal Interactiva. www.flora-on.pt. Accessed 01 Aug 2018
- 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
- Rainho A, Alves P, Amorim F, Marques JT (2013) Atlas dos morcegos de Portugal continental. Instituto de Conservação da Natureza e Florestas, LisbonGoogle Scholar
- Tellería JL, Galarza A (1990) Avifauna and landscape in northern Spain: effects of reafforestations with exotic trees. Ardeola 37:229–245Google Scholar
- 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