Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 923–941 | Cite as

Effects of fragmentation and landscape variation on tree diversity in post-logging regrowth forests of the Southern Philippines

  • Jack Baynes
  • John Herbohn
  • Robin L. Chazdon
  • Huong Nguyen
  • Jennifer Firn
  • Nestor Gregorio
  • David Lamb
Original Paper

Abstract

The conservation value of forest fragments remains controversial. An extensive inventory of rainforest trees in post-logging regrowth forest in the southern Philippines provided a rare opportunity to compare stem density, species richness, diversity and biotic similarity between two types of post-logging forests: broken-canopy forest fragments and adjacent tracts of closed-canopy ‘contiguous’ forest. Tree density was much lower in the fragments, but rarefied species richness was higher. ‘Hill’ numbers, computed as the exponential of Shannon’s diversity index and the inverse of Simpson’s diversity index, indicated that fragments have higher numbers of typical and dominant species compared to contiguous forest. Beta diversity (based on species incidence) and the exponential of Shannon’s diversity index was higher in fragmented forest, indicating higher spatial species turnover than in contiguous forest samples. Lower mean values of the Chao-Jaccard index in fragmented forest compared to contiguous forest also indicated a lower probability of shared species across fragments. The high species richness of contiguous forest showed that an earlier single logging event had not caused biodiversity to be degraded leaving mostly generalist species. Fragmentation and further low-level utilisation by local farmers has also not caused acute degradation. Post-logging regrowth forest fragments present a window of opportunity for conservation that may disappear in a few years as edge effects become more apparent. For the conservation of trees in forests in south-east Asia generally, our findings also suggest that while conservation of remaining primary forest may be preferable, the conservation value of post-logging regrowth forests can also be high.

Keywords

Biodiversity Forest conservation Species richness Biotic similarity Forest restoration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge our use of EstimateS software provided as a free internet download by Rober K. Colwell of the University of Connecticut. The assistance of Mr. Nelson Quilario in identifying tree species is also gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Appiah M (2013) Tree population inventory, diversity and degradation analysis of a tropical dry deciduous forest in Afram plains, Ghana. For Ecol Manag 295:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Melo FPL, Martínez-Ramos M, Bongers F, Chazdon RL, Meave JA, Norden N, Santos B, Leal IR, Tabarelli M (2015) Multiple successional pathways in human-modified tropical landscapes: new insights from forest succession, forest fragmentation and landscape ecology research. Biol Rev. doi: 10.1111/brv.12231 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arroyo-Rodŕiguez V, Rös M, Escobar F, Melo FPL, Santos BA, Tabarelli M, Chazdon R (2013) Plant β-diversity in fragmented rain forests: testing floristic homogenisation and differentiation hypotheses. J Ecol. doi: 10.1111/1365.2475.12153 Google Scholar
  4. Ashton MS, Gunatilleke CVS, Singakumara BMP, Gunatilleke IAUN (2001) Restoration pathways for rain forest in southwest Sri Lanka: a review of concepts and models. For Ecol Manag 154:409–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bierregaard RO, Lovejoy TE, Kapos V, dos Santos AA, Hutchings RW (1992) The biological dynamics of tropical rainforest fragments. Bioscience 42(11):859–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botzag A, Fischer L, Farwig N (2015) Regeneration potential in South African forest fragments: extinction debt paid off or hampered by contemporary matrix modification? Plant Ecol 216:535–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruna EM, Vascondelos HL, Heredia S (2005) The effect of habitat fragmentation on communities of mutualists: Amazonian ants and their host plants. Biol Conserv 124:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunyan M, Shibu J, Fletcher R (2012) Edge effects in small forest fragments: why more is better. Am J Plant Sci 3(7):869–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cannon CH, Peart DR, Leighton M (1998) Tree species diversity in commercially logged Bornean rainforest. Science 281:1366–1388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cayuela L, Golicher DJ, Benayas JMR, González-Espinosa M, Ramírez-Marcial N (2006) Fragmentation, disturbance and tree diversity conservation in tropical montane forests. J Appl Ecol 43(6):1172–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chao A, Chazdon RL, Colwell RK, Shen TJ (2005) A new statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecol Lett 8:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chao A, Chiu CH, Jost L (2010) Phylogenetic diversity metrics based on Hill numbers. Philos Trans R Soc 365:3599–3609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiu C-H, Chao A (2014) Distance-based functional diversity measures and their decomposition: a framework based on hill numbers. PLoS One 9(7):e100014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Colwell RK (2013) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9. Users guide and application. http://purl.oclc.org/estimates. Accessed 28 March 2015
  15. Colwell RK, Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Lin S, Mao CX, Chazdon RL, Longino JT (2012) Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. J Plant Ecol 5(1):3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DENR (2010) Mass propagation and nursery management of dipterocarps. DENR recommends: volume 6 http://erdb.denr.gov.ph/publications/denr/denr_v6.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2013
  17. Echeverría C, Newton AC, Lara A, Benayas JMR, Coomes DA (2007) Impacts of forest fragmentation on species composition and forest structure in the temperate landscape of southern Chile. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00311.x1 Google Scholar
  18. Edwards DP, Larsen TH, Docherty TDS, Ansell FA, Hsu WW, Derhé MA, Hamer KC, Wilcove DS (2010) Degraded lands worth protecting: the biological importance of Southeast Asia’s repeatedly logged forests. Proc R Soc B 2011:278. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1062 Google Scholar
  19. FAO (2011) Assisted natural regeneration of forests. http://www.fao.org/forestry/anr/en/. Accessed 21 Jan 2013
  20. Fernando E, Suh M, Lee J, Lee D (2008) Forest formations of the Philippines. ASEAN-Korea Environmental Cooperation Unit (AKECU), Seoul, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner TA, Barlow J, Chazdon R, Ewers RM, Harvey CA, Peres CA, Sodhi NS (2009) Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecol Lett 12:561–582. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01294 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J, Peres CA, Bradshaw CJA, Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Sodhi NS (2011) Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining forest biodiversity. Nature 478:378–381. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtr044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gotelli NJ, Chao A (2013) Measuring and estimating species richness. Species diversity and biotic similarity from sampling data. In: Levin SA (ed) Encyclopedia of biodiversity, vol 5, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Waltham, pp 195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hill MO (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resource) (2012). http://www.iucnredlist.org/. Accessed 15 June 2012
  26. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113(2):363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jost L (2007) Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 88(10):2427–2439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jost L, DeVries P, Walla T, Greeney H, Chao A, Ricotta C (2010) Partitioning diversity for conservation analyses. Divers Distrib 16:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jost L, Chao A, Chazdon RL (2011) Chapter 6, compositional similarity and β (beta) diversity. In: Magurran AE, McGill BJ (eds) Biological diversity: frontiers in measurement and assessment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 66–84Google Scholar
  30. Kräuchi NA, Brang P, Schönenberger W (2000) Forests of mountainous regions: gaps in knowledge and research needs. For Ecol Manag 132:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kupfer JA, Franklin SB (2009) Linking spatial pattern and ecological responses in human-modified landscapes: the effects of deforestation and forest fragmentation on biodiversity. Geogr Compass 3(4):1331–1355. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-198.2009.00245.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laurance WF, Laurance SG, Ferreira LV, Rankin de Merona JM, Gascon C, Lovejoy TE (1997) Biomass collapse in Amazonian forest fragments. Science 278:1117–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Vascolcelos HL, Bruna EM, Didham RK, Stouffer PC, Gascon C, Bierregard RO, Laurance SG, Sampaio E (2002) Ecosystem decay of forest fragments: a 22 year investigation. Conserv Biol 16(3):605–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leemans R (2005) The millennium ecosystem assessment: securing interactions between ecosystems, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Chapter 3, facing global environmental change: environmental, human, energy, food, health and water security concepts. Springer, Berlin, pp 53–61Google Scholar
  35. Lele N, Joshi PK, Agrawal SP (2008) Assessing forest fragmentation in northeastern region (NER) of India using landscape matrices. Ecol Ind 8:657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lôbo D, Leão T, Melo FPL, Santos AMM, Tabarelli M (2011) Forest fragmentation drives Atlantic forest of northeastern Brazil to homogenisation. Divers Distrib 17:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lopez VA, Girão LC, Santos BA, Peres CA, Rabarelli M (2009) Long-term erosion of tree reproductive trait diversity in edge-dominated Atlantic forest fragments. Biol Conserv 142:1154–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacArthur RH (1965) patterns of species diversity. Biol Rev 40:510–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1965.rb00815.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Magurran AE, McGill BJ (2011) Biological diversity: frontiers in measurement and assessment. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 345Google Scholar
  40. Marcon E, Scotti I, Hérault B, Rossi V, Lang G (2014) Generalisation of the partitioning of Shannon diversity. PLoS One 9(3):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maurer BA, McGill BJ (2011) Measurement of species diversity. Chapter 5, compositional similarity and β (beta) diversity. In: Magurran AE, McGill BJ (eds) Biological diversity: frontiers in measurement and assessment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–66Google Scholar
  42. McNamara S, Erskine PD, Lamb D, Chantalangsy L, Boyle S (2012) Primary tree species diversity in secondary fallow forests of Laos. For Ecol Manag 281:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pimm SL (1998) Ecology: the forest fragment classic. Nature 393:23–24. doi: 10.1038/29892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schleuning M, Farwig N, Peters MK, Bergsdorf T, Bleher B, Brandl R, Dalitz H, Fischer G, Freund W, Gikungu MW, Hagen M, Garcia FH, Kagezi GH, Kaib M, Kraemer M, Lung T, Naumann CM, Schaab G, Templin T, Uster D, Wägele W, Böhning-Gaese K (2011) Forest fragmentation and selective logging have inconsistent effects on multiple animal-mediated ecosystem processes in a tropical forest. PLoS One 6(11):e27785CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Streubig MJ, Kingston T, Zubaid A, Mohd-Adnan A (2008) Conservation value of forest fragments to Palaeotropical bats. Biol Conserv 141:2112–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swaine MD, Whitmore TC (1988) On the definition of ecological species groups in tropical rain forests. Vegetation 75:81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Turner IM (1996) Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forest: a review of evidence. J Appl Ecol 33:200–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Villard MA, Metzger JP (2014) Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. J Appl Ecol 51:309–318. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Warburton T (2009) The Philippine owl conservation programme: why is it needed? Ardea 97(4):429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack Baynes
    • 1
  • John Herbohn
    • 1
  • Robin L. Chazdon
    • 1
  • Huong Nguyen
    • 1
  • Jennifer Firn
    • 2
  • Nestor Gregorio
    • 1
  • David Lamb
    • 3
  1. 1.University of the Sunshine CoastSippy DownsAustralia
  2. 2.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations