Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 991–1015 | Cite as

Identifying practical indicators of biodiversity for stand-level management of plantation forests

  • George F. Smith
  • Tom Gittings
  • Mark Wilson
  • Laura French
  • Anne Oxbrough
  • Saoirse O’Donoghue
  • John O’Halloran
  • Daniel L. Kelly
  • Fraser J. G. Mitchell
  • Tom Kelly
  • Susan Iremonger
  • Anne-Marie McKee
  • Paul Giller
Original Paper

Abstract

Identification of valid indicators of biodiversity is a critical need for sustainable forest management. We developed compositional, structural and functional indicators of biodiversity for five taxonomic groups—bryophytes, vascular plants, spiders, hoverflies and birds—using data from 44 Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and ash (Fraxinus excelsior) plantation forests in Ireland. The best structural biodiversity indicator was stand stage, defined using a multivariate classification of forest structure variables. However, biodiversity trends over the forest cycle and between tree species differ among the taxonomic groups studied. Canopy cover was the main structural indicator and affected other structural variables such as cover of lower vegetation layers. Other structural indicators included deadwood and distances to forest edge and to broadleaved woodland. Functional indicators included stand age, site environmental characteristics and management practices. Compositional indicators were limited to more easily identifiable plant and bird species. Our results suggest that the biodiversity of any one of the species groups we surveyed cannot act as a surrogate for all of the other species groups. However, certain subgroups, such as forest bryophytes and saproxylic hoverflies, may be able to act as surrogates for each other. The indicators we have identified should be used together to identify stands of potentially high biodiversity or to evaluate the biodiversity effects of silvicultural management practices. They are readily assessed by non-specialists, ecologically meaningful and applicable over a broad area with similar climate conditions and silvicultural systems. The approach we have used to develop biodiversity indicators, including stand structural types, is widely relevant and can enhance sustainable forest management of plantations.

Keywords

Biodiversity Forest management Indicator Plantation Species richness Stand structure Sustainable forest management 

Abbreviations

CWD

Coarse woody debris

Dbh

Diameter at breast height (1.3 m)

GPS

Geographical positioning system

IndVal

Indicator value

NMS

Non-metric multidimensional scaling

PCA

Principal components analysis

Se

Standard error

SR

Species richness

References

  1. Allen SE, Grimshaw HM, Rowland AP (1986) Chemical analysis. In: Moore PD, Chapman SB (eds) Methods in plant ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 285–344Google Scholar
  2. Anand M, Laurence S, Rayfield B (2005) Diversity relationships among taxonomic groups in recovering and restored forests. Conserv Biol 19:955–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson MD (1992) Biological flora of the British isles: Betula pendula Roth (B. verrucosa ehrh.) and B. pubescens Ehrh. J Ecol 80:837–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaman M (1994) Palearctic birds. Harrier, StonyhurstGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg Å, Ehnström B, Gustafsson L et al (1994) Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. Conserv Biol 8:718–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bibby C, Burgess ND, Hill DA (1992) Bird census techniques. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bibby CJ, Bain CG, Burges DJ (1989) Bird communities of highland birchwoods. Bird Study 36:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brockerhoff EG, Ecroyd CE, Leckie AC et al (2003) Diversity and succession of adventive and indigenous vascular understorey plants in Pinus radiata plantation forests in New Zealand. For Ecol Manage 185:307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coombes RH, Crowe O, Lysaght L et al (2002) Countryside bird survey report 1998–2000. Bird Watch Ireland, DublinGoogle Scholar
  10. Cross JR (1998) An outline and map of the potential natural vegetation of Ireland. Appl Veg Sci 1:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Currie FA, Balmford R (1982) The value to birdlife of retaining small conifer stands beyond normal felling age within forests. Q J For 76:153–160Google Scholar
  12. Curtis D (1980) Pitfalls in spider community studies. J Arach 8:271–280Google Scholar
  13. Day KR, Marshall S, Heaney C (1993) Associations between forest type and invertebrates: ground beetle community patterns in a natural oakwood and juxtaposed conifer plantations. Forestry 66:37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dennis P, Young M, Gordon I (1998) Distribution and abundance of small insects and arachnids in relation to structural heterogeneity of grazed, indigenous grasslands. Ecol Entomol 23:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Devlaeminck R, Bossuyt B, Hermy M (2005) Seed dispersal from a forest into adjacent cropland. Agric Ecosys Environ 107:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duffy BL, O’Halloran J, Kelly TCK et al (1997) The breeding bird communities of Balrath wood, Co. Meath, 1996: a preliminary investigation. Ir For 54:2–8Google Scholar
  17. Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetric approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  18. Ehrlén J, Eriksson O (2000) Dispersal limitation and patch occupancy in forest herbs. Ecology 81:1667–1674Google Scholar
  19. Engelmark O, Hytteborn H (1999) Coniferous forests. Acta Phytogeogr Suec 84:55–74Google Scholar
  20. Eycott AE, Watkinson AR, Dolman PM (2006) Ecological patterns of plant diversity in a plantation forest managed by clearfelling. J Appl Ecol 43:1160–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fahy O, Gormally M (1998) A comparison of plant and beetle communities in an Irish oak woodland with a nearby by conifer plantation and clearfelled site. For Ecol Manage 110:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferris R, Humphrey JW (1999) A review of potential biodiversity indicators for application in British forests. Forestry 72:313–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferris R, Peace AJ, Humphrey JW, et al (2000) Relationships between vegetation, site type and stand structure in coniferous plantations in Britain. For Ecol Manage 136:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forest Service (2000a) Afforestation grant and premium schemes. Forest Service, Johnstown CastleGoogle Scholar
  25. Forest Service (2000b) Code of best forest practice– Ireland. Forest Service, Johnstown Castle Google Scholar
  26. Forest Service (2000c) Forest biodiversity guidelines. Forest Service, Johnstown CastleGoogle Scholar
  27. Forest Service (2006) Forest environment protection (afforestation) scheme. Forest Service, Johnstown CastleGoogle Scholar
  28. Forestry Commission (2004) The UK forestry standard. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  29. French LJ, Smith GF, Kelly DL et al (in press) Ground flora communities in temperate oceanic plantation forests and the influence of silvicultural, geographic and edaphic factors. For Ecol ManageGoogle Scholar
  30. Gaston KJ (1996) Species richness: measure and measurement. In: Gaston KJ (ed) Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 396Google Scholar
  31. Greenstone M (1984) Determinants of web spider species diversity: vegetation structural diversity vs. prey availability. Oecologia 62:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  33. Halpern CB, Spies TA (1995) Plant species diversity in natural and managed forests of the Pacific northwest. Ecol Appl 5:913–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hayden T, Harrington R (2001) Exploring Irish mammals. Town House, DublinGoogle Scholar
  35. Hill MO (1979) The development of flora in even-aged plantations. In: Ford ED, Malcolm DC, Atterson J (eds) The ecology of even aged plantations. Institute for Terrestrial Ecology, Cambridge, pp 175–192Google Scholar
  36. Hill MO, Jones EW (1978) Vegetation changes resulting from afforestation of rough grazing in Caeo Forest, South Wales. J Ecol 66:433–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hodge SJ, Peterken GF (1998) Deadwood in British forests: Priorities and a strategy. Forestry 71:99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Howard PC, Viskanic P, Davenport TRB et al (1998) Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature 394:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Humphrey JW (2005) Benefits to biodiversity from developing old-growth conditions in British upland spruce plantations: a review and recommendations. Forestry 78:33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Humphrey JW, Davey S, Peace AJ et al (2002) Lichens and bryophyte communities of planted and semi-natural forests in Britain: the influence of site type, stand structure and deadwood. Biol Conserv 107:165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Humphrey JW, Hawes C, Peace AJ et al (1999) Relationships between insect diversity and habitat characteristics in plantation forests. For Ecol Manage 113:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Humphrey JW, Newton AC, Peace AJ et al (2000) The importance of conifer plantations in northern Britain as a habitat for native fungi. Biol Conserv 96:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Humphrey JW, Peace AJ (2003) Deadwood. In: Humphrey J, Ferris R, Quine C (eds) Biodiversity in Britain’s planted forests. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, pp 41–49Google Scholar
  44. Iremonger S, Gittings T, Smith GF et al (2006) Investigation of experimental methods to enhance biodiversity in plantation forests. Report for COFORD and EPA, DublinGoogle Scholar
  45. Iremonger S, O’Halloran J, Kelly DL et al (2007) Biodiversity in Irish plantation forests. Environmental Protection Agency, DublinGoogle Scholar
  46. Jones EW (1959) Biological flora of the British isles: Quercus L. J Ecol 47:169–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jonsson BG, Jonsell M (1999) Exploring potential biodiversity indicators in boreal forests. Biodivers Cons 8:1417–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kati V, Devillers P, Dufrêne M, et al (2004) Testing the value of six taxonomic groups as biodiversity indicators at a local scale. Conserv Biol 18:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kelly DL (1981) The native forest vegetation of Killarney, south-west Ireland: an ecological account. J Ecol 69:437–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kelly DL (2005) Woodland on the western fringe: Irish oakwood diversity and the challenges of conservation. Bot J Scot 57:21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Key RS (1995) Invertebrate conservation and new woodland in Britain. In: Ferris-Kaan R (ed) The ecology of woodland creation. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  52. Larsson T-B (2001) Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Ecological bulletins, vol 50. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Lawton JH, Bignell DE, Bolton B et al (1998) Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391:72–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Developments in environmental modelling, vol 20. 2nd English edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  55. Leppäniemi P, Hallikainen V, Mikkola K et al (1998) Forest structure classes in central Finnish Lapland. Scand J For Res 13:442–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lindenmayer DB (1999) Future directions for biodiversity conservation in managed forests: indicator species, impact studies and monitoring programs. For Ecol Manage 115:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Fischer J (2006) General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 131:433–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Botkin DB (2000) Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv Biol 14:941–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  60. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1997) PC-ORD for Windows, version 4.25. MjM Software, Glenedon Beach, OregonGoogle Scholar
  61. McElhinny C, Gibbons P, Brack C et al (2005) Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: its definition and measurement. For Ecol Manage 218:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McNett B, Rypstra A (2000) Habitat selection in a large orb-weaving spider: vegetational complexity determines site selection and distribution. Ecol Entomol 25:423–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H (1974) Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Negi HR, Gadgil M (2002) Cross-taxon surrogacy of biodiversity in the Indian Garhwal Himalaya. Biol Conserv 105:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Niemela J, Haila Y, Punttila P (1996) The importance of small-scale heterogeneity in boreal forest-floor invertebrates across the succession gradient. Ecography 19:352–368Google Scholar
  66. Niemi GJ, McDonald ME (2004) Application of ecological indicators. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Noss RF (1999) Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. For Ecol Manage 115:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. O’Halloran J, Gittings T, Smith GF et al (2004) Biodiversity of plantation forests in Ireland: Bioforest project. In: MacLennan L (ed) Opportunities for Biodiversity Enhancement in Plantation Forests. COFORD, Dublin, Cork, pp 29–38Google Scholar
  70. O’Halloran J, Walsh PM, Giller PS et al (1999) An assessment of avian biodiversity and opportunities for enhancement in Ireland’s forests: preliminary results. Ir For 55:2–14Google Scholar
  71. Oertli S, Müller A, Steiner D et al (2005) Cross-taxon congruence of species diversity and community similarity among three insect taxa in a mosaic landscape. Biol Conserv 126:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Oxbrough AG, Gittings T, O’Halloran J et al (2005) Structural indicators of spider communities across the forest plantation cycle. For Ecol Manage 212:171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pausas JG, Austin MP (2001) Patterns of plant species richness in relation to different environments: an appraisal. J Vegetat Sci 12:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pharo EJ, Beattie AJ, Binns D (1999) Vascular plant diversity as a surrogate for bryophyte and lichen diversity. Conserv Biol 13:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pithon J, O’Halloran J, Moles R (2005) The influence of coniferous afforestation on lowland farmland bird communities in Ireland: different seasons and landscape contexts. Landscape Urban Plann 71:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pitkänen S (1997) Correlation between stand structure and ground vegetation: an analytical approach. Plant Ecol 131:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Prendergast JR, Quinn RM, Lawton JH et al (1993) Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365:335–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sætersdal M, Gjerde I, Blom HH et al (2003) Vascular plants as a surrogate species group in complementary site selection for bryophytes, macrolichens, spiders, carabids, staphylinids, snails, and wood living polypore fungi in a northern forest. Biol Conserv 115:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Similä M, Kouki J, Mönkkönen M et al (2006) Co-variation and indicators of species diversity: can richness of forest-dwelling species be predicted in northern boreal forests? Ecol Indicators 6:686–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Smith AJE (2004) The moss flora of Britain and Ireland. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  81. Smith G, Gittings T, Wilson M et al (2005) Assessment of biodiversity at different stages of the forest cycle. Report for COFORD and EPA, Dublin http://www.coford.ie/iopen24/pub/pub/Project_files/312Report.pdf Google Scholar
  82. Sneath PHA, Sokal RR (1973) Numerical taxonomy. W.H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  83. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman and Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  84. Sommagio D (1999) Syrphidae: can they be used as environmental bioindicators? Agric Ecosys Environ 74:343–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Southwood TRE (2000) Ecological methods with particular reference to the study of insect populations. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  86. Speight MCD, Castella E (2001) An approach to interpretation of lists of insects using digitised biological information about the species. J Insect Conserv 5:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Spies TA (1998) Forest structure: a key to the ecosystem. Northwest Sci 72:34–39Google Scholar
  88. Spies TA, Franklin JF, Thomas TB (1988) Coarse woody debris in Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon and Washington. Ecology 69:1689–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. SPSS (2001) SPSS for Windows, version 11.0.1. SPSS, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  90. Stace C (1997) New flora of the British Isles. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  91. Verheyen K, Guntenspergen GR, Biesbrouck B et al (2003) An integrated analysis of the effects of past land use on forest herb colonization at the landscape scale. J Ecol 91:731–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Vessby K, Söderström B, Glimskär A et al (2002) Species-richness correlations of six different taxa in Swedish seminatural grasslands. Conserv Biol 16:430–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Williams P, Faith D, Manne L et al (2006) Complementarity analysis: Mapping the performance of surrogates for biodiversity. Biol Conserv 128:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wilson MW, Pithon J, Gittings T et al (2006) Effects of growth stage and tree species composition on breeding bird assemblages of plantation forests. Bird Study 53:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • George F. Smith
    • 1
    • 3
  • Tom Gittings
    • 2
  • Mark Wilson
    • 2
  • Laura French
    • 1
  • Anne Oxbrough
    • 2
  • Saoirse O’Donoghue
    • 1
  • John O’Halloran
    • 2
  • Daniel L. Kelly
    • 1
  • Fraser J. G. Mitchell
    • 1
  • Tom Kelly
    • 2
  • Susan Iremonger
    • 1
  • Anne-Marie McKee
    • 1
  • Paul Giller
    • 2
  1. 1.BIOFOREST Project, Department of BotanyTrinity College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.BIOFOREST Project, Department of ZoologyEcology and Plant Science, University College CorkCorkIreland
  3. 3.AtkinsCo. DublinIreland

Personalised recommendations