Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 697–714 | Cite as

The value of plantation forests for plant, invertebrate and bird diversity and the potential for cross-taxon surrogacy

  • Sandra Irwin
  • Scott M. Pedley
  • Linda Coote
  • Anke C. Dietzsch
  • Mark W. Wilson
  • Anne Oxbrough
  • Oisín Sweeney
  • Karen M. Moore
  • Rebecca Martin
  • Daniel L. Kelly
  • Fraser J. G. Mitchell
  • Thomas C. Kelly
  • John O’Halloran
Original Paper

Abstract

As the area of plantation forest expands worldwide and natural, unmanaged forests decline there is much interest in the potential for planted forests to provide habitat for biodiversity. In regions where little semi-natural woodland remains, the biodiversity supported by forest plantations, typically non-native conifers, may be particularly important. Few studies provide detailed comparisons between the species diversity of native woodlands which are being depleted and non-native plantation forests, which are now expanding, based on data collected from multiple taxa in the same study sites. Here we compare the species diversity and community composition of plants, invertebrates and birds in Sitka spruce- (Picea sitchensis-) dominated and Norway spruce- (Picea abies-) dominated plantations, which have expanded significantly in recent decades in the study area in Ireland, with that of oak- and ash-dominated semi-natural woodlands in the same area. The results show that species richness in spruce plantations can be as high as semi-natural woodlands, but that the two forest types support different assemblages of species. In areas where non-native conifer plantations are the principle forest type, their role in the provision of habitat for biodiversity conservation should not be overlooked. Appropriate management should target the introduction of semi-natural woodland characteristics, and on the extension of existing semi-natural woodlands to maintain and enhance forest species diversity. Our data show that although some relatively easily surveyed groups, such as vascular plants and birds, were congruent with many of the other taxa when looking across all study sites, the similarities in response were not strong enough to warrant use of these taxa as surrogates of the others. In order to capture a wide range of biotic variation, assessments of forest biodiversity should either encompass several taxonomic groups, or rely on the use of indicators of diversity that are not species based.

Keywords

Beetles Birds Biodiversity Forest Management Spiders Vegetation 

References

  1. Andelman SJ, Fagan WF (2000) Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97(11):5954–5959PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubin I, Messier C, Bouchard A (2008) Can plantations develop understory biological and physical attributes of naturally regenerated forests? Biol Cons 141(10):2461–2476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berndt L, Brockerhoff E, Jactel H (2008) Relevance of exotic pine plantations as a surrogate habitat for ground beetles (Carabidae) where native forest is rare. Biodivers Conserv 17(5):1171–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA (2000) Bird census techniques. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bremer L, Farley K (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(14):3893–3915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brockerhoff E, Jactel H, Parrotta J, Quine C, Sayer J (2008) Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity? Biodivers Conserv 17(5):925–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brukas V, Felton A, Lindbladh M, Sallnäs O (2013) Linking forest management, policy and biodiversity indicators—a comparison of Lithuania and Southern Sweden. For Ecol Man 291:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Carle J, Holmgren P (2008) Wood from planted forests. Forest Prod J 58:7Google Scholar
  10. Carmel Y, Stoller-Cavari L (2006) Comparing environmental and biological surrogates for biodiversity at a local scale. Israel J Ecol Evol 52:11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1994) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  12. Coote L, French LJ, Moore KM, Mitchell FJG, Kelly D (2012) Can plantation forests support plant species and communities of semi-natural woodland? For Ecol Man 283:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Curtis DJ (1980) Pitfalls in spider community studies (Arachnida, Araneae). J Arachnol 8:271–280Google Scholar
  14. Erwin TL (1991) How many species are there?: revisited. Conserv Biol 5:330–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2011) Forestry in the EU and the world—a statistical portrait. (Ed Union., P. O. o. t. E.), p 107Google Scholar
  16. Fabbio G, Merlo M, Tosi V (2003) Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe—the mediterranean region. J Environ Manage 67(1):67–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. FAO (2010) Global forest resources assessment 2010. FAO forestry paper 163. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (2012) State of the world’s forests 2012. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  19. Forest Service (2007) National forest inventory, Republic of IrelandGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuller RJ, Gaston KJ, Quine CP (2007) Living on the edge: British and Irish woodland birds in a European context. Ibis 149:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner T (2010) Monitoring forest biodiversity: improving conservation through ecologically responsible management. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Gioria M, Schaffers A, Bacaro G, Feehan J (2010) The conservation value of farmland ponds: predicting water beetle assemblages using vascular plants as a surrogate group. Biol Cons 143:1125–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gower JC (1971) Statistical methods of comparing different multivariate analyses of the same data. In: Hodson FR, Kendall DG, Tautu P (eds) Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 138–149Google Scholar
  24. Halaj J, Ross DW, Moldenke AR (1998) Habitat structure and prey availability as predictors of the abundance and community organization of spiders in western Oregon forest canopies. J Arachnol 26:203–220Google Scholar
  25. Halaj J, Ross DW, Moldenke AR (2000) Importance of habitat structure to the arthropod food-web in Douglas-fir canopies. Oikos 90:139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hardtle W, von Oheimb G, Westphal C (2003) The effects of light and soil conditions on the species richness of the ground vegetation of deciduous forests in northern Germany (Schleswig-Holstein). For Ecol Man 182:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hartmann H, Daoust G, Bigué B, Messier C (2010) Negative or positive effects of plantation and intensive forestry on biodiversity: a matter of scale and perspective. For Chron 86:354–364Google Scholar
  28. Heino J (2010) Are indicator groups and cross-taxon congruence useful for predicting biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems? Ecol Ind 10:112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Hunter MJ (1999) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jackson DA (1995) PROTEST: a PROcrustean randomization TEST of community environment concordance. Ecoscience 2:297–303Google Scholar
  32. Kelly TC (2008) The origin of the avifauna of Ireland. Irish Nat J Spec Suppl 2008:97–107Google Scholar
  33. Kent M (2012) Vegetation description and data analysis: a practical approach, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  34. Klenner W, Arsenault A, Brockerhoff EG, Vyse A (2009) Biodiversity in forest ecosystems and landscapes: a conference to discuss future directions in biodiversity management for sustainable forestry. For Ecol Man 258:S1–S4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuuluvainen T (2009) Forest management and biodiversity conservation based on natural ecosystem dynamics in northern Europe: the complexity challenge. AMBIO 38(6):309–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewandowski AS, Noss RF, Parsons DR (2010) The effectiveness of surrogate taxa for the representation of biodiversity. Conserv Biol 24(5):1367–1377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindenmayer DB, Hobbs RJ (2004) Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests—a review. Biol Cons 119:151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Botkin DB (2000) Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv Biol 14(4):941–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Luff M (2007) RES handbook volume 4 part 2: the carabidae (ground beetles) of Britain and Ireland. Field Studies Council, ShropshireGoogle Scholar
  40. MCPFE (2011) State of forests 2011: Europe’s status & trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. MCPFE, FAO, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  41. MCPFE, UNECE, FAO (2007) State of Europe’s forests 2007: the MCPFE report on sustainable forest management in Europe. MCPFE, UNECE, FAO, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  42. MEA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment (2005) ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. Messier C, Parent S, Bergeron Y (1998) Effects of overstory and understory vegetation on the understory light environment in mixed boreal forests. J Veg Sci 9:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mitchell FJG (2006) Where did Ireland’s trees come from? Biology and Environment 106:251–259Google Scholar
  45. Moran MD (2003) Arguments for rejecting the sequential bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100:403–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Hanlon R, Harrrington TJ (2012) Macrofungal diversity and ecology in four Irish forest types. Fungal Ecol 5:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Henry M, Stevens H, Wagner H (2010) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.17–2. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=vegan
  48. Oxbrough A, Irwin S, Kelly TC, O’Halloran J (2010) Ground dwelling invertebrates in reforested conifer plantations. For Ecol Man 259:2111–2121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oxbrough A, Irwin S, Wilson M, O’Halloran J (2013) Mechanisms and predictors of ecological change in managed forests: a selection of papers from the second international conference on biodiversity in forest ecosystems and landscapes. For Ecol Man. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.09.038 Google Scholar
  50. Paillet Y, Bergès L, Hjältén J, Ódor P, Avon C, Bernhardt-Römermann M, Bijlsma R-J, De Bruyn LUC, Fuhr M, Grandin ULF, Kanka R, Lundin L, Luque S, Magura T, Matesanz S, Mészáros I, Sebastià MT, Schmidt W, Standovár T, Tóthmérész B, Uotila A, Valladares F, Vellak KAI, Virtanen R (2010) Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol 24(1):101–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paritsis J, Aizen MA (2008) Effects of exotic conifer plantations on the biodiversity of understory plants, epigeal beetles and birds in Nothofagus dombeyi forests. For Ecol Man 255(5–6):1575–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Paton JA (1999) The liverwort flora of the British Isles. Harley Books, ColchesterGoogle Scholar
  54. Pawson S, Brockerhoff E, Meenken E, Didham R (2008) Non-native plantation forests as alternative habitat for native forest beetles in a heavily modified landscape. Biodivers Conserv 17(5):1127–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peres-Neto PR, Jackson DA (2001) How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a procrustean superimposition approach over the mantel test. Oecologia 129:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Purchart L, Tuf IH, Hula V, Suchomel J (2013) Arthropod assemblages in Norway spruce monocultures during a forest cycle—a multi-taxa approach. For Ecol Man 306:42–51. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Riegel GM, Miller RF, Krueger WC (1995) The effects of aboveground and belowground competition on understory species composition in a pinus ponderosa forest. For Sci 41(4):864–889Google Scholar
  58. Roberts M (1993) The spiders of great Britain and Ireland (compact edition). Part One. Harley Books, ColchesterGoogle Scholar
  59. Rodrigues ASL, Brooks TM (2007) Shortcuts for biodiversity conservation planning: the effectiveness of surrogates. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 38:713–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sauberer N, Zulka KP, Abensperg-Traun M, Berg H-M, Bieringer G, Milasowszky N, Moser D, Plutzar C, Pollheimer M, Storch C, Tröstl R, Zechmeister H, Grabherr G (2004) Surrogate taxa for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes of eastern Austria. Biol Cons 117(2):181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stace C (2010) New flora of the British Isles, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  62. Stephens SS, Wagner MR (2007) Forest plantations and biodiversity: a fresh perspective. J For 105(6):307–313Google Scholar
  63. Stork N, Hammond P (1997) Sampling arthropods from tree crowns by fogging with knockdown insecticides: lessons from studies of oak tree beetle assemblages in Richmond Park (UK). In: Stork N, Adis J, Didham R (eds) Canopy arthropods. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 3–26Google Scholar
  64. Straw NA, Fielding NJ, Waters A (1996) Phytotoxicity of insecticides used to control aphids on Sitka spruce, Picea sitchensis Carr. Crop Protection 15:451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sweeney OFM, Wilson MW, Irwin S, Kelly TC, O’Halloran J (2010) Are bird density, species richness and community structure similar between native woodlands and non-native plantations in an area with a generalist bird fauna? Biodivers Conserv 19:2329–2342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. The Woodland Trust (2007) Back on the map: an inventory of ancient and long established woodland for Northern Ireland—preliminary report. The Woodland Trust, BangorGoogle Scholar
  67. Veinotte C, Freedman B, Maass W, Kirstein F (2003) Comparison of the ground vegetation in spruce plantations and natural forest in the Greater Fundy Ecosystem, New Brunswick. Can Field Nat 117:531–540Google Scholar
  68. Wiezik M, Svitok M, Dovčiak M (2007) Conifer introductions decrease richness and alter composition of litter-dwelling beetles (Coleoptera) in Carpathian oak forests. For Ecol Man 247(1–3):61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wolters V, Bengtsson J, Zaitsev AS (2006) Relationship among the species richness of different taxa. Ecol 87(8):1886–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Irwin
    • 1
  • Scott M. Pedley
    • 1
  • Linda Coote
    • 2
  • Anke C. Dietzsch
    • 2
  • Mark W. Wilson
    • 1
  • Anne Oxbrough
    • 3
  • Oisín Sweeney
    • 1
  • Karen M. Moore
    • 2
  • Rebecca Martin
    • 1
  • Daniel L. Kelly
    • 2
  • Fraser J. G. Mitchell
    • 2
  • Thomas C. Kelly
    • 1
  • John O’Halloran
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological, Earth & Environmental SciencesUniversity College CorkCorkIreland
  2. 2.Department of Botany, School of Natural SciencesTrinity College DublinDublinIreland
  3. 3.Department of BiologyEdge Hill UniversityOrmskirkUK

Personalised recommendations