Landscape Ecology

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 861–871 | Cite as

Association of vegetation and soil mite assemblages with isolated Scots pine trees on a Scottish wet heath

  • Rob W. Brooker
  • Graham H. R. Osler
  • Jörn Gollisch
Research Article


Isolated trees may significantly enhance biodiversity at the landscape level. However, our understanding of their impacts is still poor, particularly in environments with high soil moisture where research on this topic has been comparatively limited. We examined understorey vegetation and soil oribatid mite assemblages under live and dead Scots pine trees and in open treeless areas, all within the same Scottish upland wet heath system, to determine whether isolated live trees affected the understorey and mite components of the ecosystem, and whether these effects occurred in parallel. We also explored whether these responses might result from tree-driven reductions in soil moisture content. Live trees reduced soil moisture (relative to wet heath and beneath dead trees) and appeared to change vegetation from wet heath to dry heath type communities. These effects were strongly related to tree trunk diameter (tree size). No major effects of dead trees on understorey vegetation or soil moisture were apparent. Higher mite species abundance and richness were found under live trees than in treeless open heath. Although mite abundances were lower under dead trees than live trees, richness remained similar, thus different factors seem to be regulating mite abundance and community composition. These findings indicate that landscape-level biodiversity responses to environmental change such as habitat fragmentation cannot be predicted from vegetation patterns alone, and that even in heavily fragmented landscapes comparatively small patches such as isolated individual trees can enhance biodiversity.


Habitat fragmentation Biodiversity Isolated trees Soil moisture Mites Scotland Heaths Plant community 



We thank Scottish National Heritage for access to the study site. Ruth Mitchell kindly assisted with the multivariate analysis. The work was funded in part by the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department and the UK Natural Environment Research Council.


  1. Balogh J, Balogh P (1992) Oribatid mites genera of the world. Hungarian National Museum Press, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayfield NB, Brooker RW, Turner L (2003) The Cairngorms ECN site handbook. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Callaway RG (1998) Competition and facilitation on elevation gradients in subalpine forests of the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Oikos 82:561–573. doi: 10.2307/3546376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coulson SJ, Hodkinson ID, Webb NR (2003) Microscale distribution patterns in high Arctic soil microarthropod communities: the influence of plant species within the vegetation mosaic. Ecography 26:801–809. doi: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2003.03646.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies KF, Margules CR, Lawrence JF (2000) Which traits of species predict population declines in experimental forest fragments? Ecology 81:1450–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delta-T Devices Ltd (1999) ThetaProbe soil moisture sensor type ML2X user manual. Delta-T Devices Ltd, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Elmqvist T, Wall M, Berggren AL et al (2002) Tropical forest reorganization after cyclone and fire disturbance in Samoa: remnant trees as biological legacies. Conserv Ecol 5(2):10 [online]. URL:
  8. Faeth SH, Simberloff D (1981) Experimental isolation of oak host plants—effects on mortality, survivorship, and abundances of leaf-mining insects. Ecology 62:625–635. doi: 10.2307/1937730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frampton GK, van den Brink PJ, Gould PJL (2000) Effects of spring drought and irrigation on farmland arthropods in southern Britain. J Appl Ecol 37:865–883. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00541.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franklin JF, Berg DR, Thornburgh DA et al (1997) Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems. In: Kohm KA, Franklin KF (eds) Creating a forestry for the 21st century. The science of forest management. Island Press, Washington, pp 111–139Google Scholar
  11. Fraser Darling F, Morton Boyd J (1964) The Highlands and islands. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Gollisch J (2004) Single Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) trees as ecosystem engineers in a Scottish wet heath. MSc. Thesis, University of Wales, BangorGoogle Scholar
  13. Hester AJ, Miles J, Gimingham CH (1991) Succession from heather moorland to birch woodland. I. Experimental alteration of specific environmental conditions in the field. J Ecol 79:303–315. doi: 10.2307/2260714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horwood JA, Butt KR (2000) Changes within oribatid mite communities associated with Scots pine regeneration. Web Ecol 1:76–81Google Scholar
  15. Huhta V, Neimi R (2003) Communities of soil mites (Acarina) in planted birch stands compared with natural forests in central Finland. Can J For Res 33:171–180. doi: 10.1139/x02-151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koide RT, Wu T (2003) Ectomycorrhizas and retarded decomposition in a Pinus resinosa plantation. New Phytol 158:401–407. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00732.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindberg N, Engstsson JB, Persson T (2002) Effects of experimental irrigation and drought on composition and diversity of soil fauna in a coniferous forest stand. J Appl Ecol 39:924–936. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00769.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Macfadyen A (1952) The small arthropods of a Molinia fen at Cothill. J Anim Ecol 21:87–117. doi: 10.2307/1911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
  20. Manning DA, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Scattered trees are keystone structures—implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 132:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McVean DN, Ratcliffe DA (1962) Plant communities of the Scottish Highlands. Monographs of the nature conservancy No.1. HMSO, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller JD, Bell JS, Nolan AJ, Lily A (2001) The soils of Cairngorms, Allt á Mharcaidh Inverness-shire, Scotland. Report on soil sampling 1999. Macaulay Land Use Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  23. Maraun M, Scheu S (2000) The structure of oribatid mite communities (Acari, Oribatida): patterns, mechanisms and implications for future research. Ecography 23:374–383. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2000.d01-1647.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nolan AJ, Lilly A (1985) The soils of the Allt a’ Mharcaidh Catchment. Macaulay Land Use Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Lear HA, Blair JM (1999) Responses of soil microarthropods to changes in soil water availability in tall grass prairie. Biol Fertil Soils 29:207–217. doi: 10.1007/s003740050546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oliver I, Pearce S, Greenslade PJM et al (2006) Contribution of paddock trees to the conservation of terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity within grazed native pastures. Austral Ecol 31:1–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2006.01537.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Osler GHR, Beattie AJ (2001) Contribution of oribatid and mesostigmatid soil mites in ecologically based estimates of global species richness. Austral Ecol 26:70–79. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-9993.2001.01088.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ozanne CMP, Speight MR, Hambler C et al (2000) Isolated trees and forest patches: patterns in canopy arthropod abundance and diversity in Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine). For Ecol Manage 137:53–63. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00317-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paterson E (2003) Importance of rhizodeposition in the coupling of plant and microbial productivity. Eur J Soil Sci 54:741–750. doi: 10.1046/j.1351-0754.2003.0557.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Price D (1999) Evaporative losses from pine colonisation. In: Cernusca A, Tappeiner U, Bayfield N (eds) Land-use change in European mountain ecosystems. Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. Rodwell JS (1991) British plant communities volume 2. Mires and heaths. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Silvan N, Laiho R, Vasander H (2000) Changes in mesofauna abundance in peat soils drained for forestry. For Ecol Manage 133:127–133. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00303-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith S, Read D (2008) Mycorrhizal symbiosis, 3rd edn. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Soulsby C, Helliwell RC, Ferrier RC, Jenkins A, Harriman R (1997) Seasonal snowpack influence on the hydrology of a sub-arctic catchment in Scotland. J Hydrol (Amst) 192:17–32. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03123-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stace C (1997) New flora of the British Isles, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide: software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  37. Vetaas OR (1992) Micro-site effects of trees and shrubs in dry savannas. J Veg Sci 3:337–344. doi: 10.2307/3235758 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob W. Brooker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Graham H. R. Osler
    • 1
  • Jörn Gollisch
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.The Macaulay InstituteAberdeen,UK
  2. 2.NERC Centre for Ecology and HydrologyAberdeenshireUK
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of WalesBangor, GwyneddUK
  4. 4.Institute of SilvicultureUniversity of GöttingenGottingenGermany

Personalised recommendations