Biological Invasions

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 699–706 | Cite as

The impact of beech thickets on biodiversity

  • Jonathan A. Cale
  • Stacy A. McNulty
  • Stephen A. Teale
  • John D. Castello
Original Paper


Beech bark disease has dramatically altered hardwood forest structure and composition across northeastern North America. Extensive overstory mortality has resulted in prolific root-sprouting in some stands leading to the development of understory thickets of clonal small-stemmed beech. Beech thickets may impact local forest biodiversity, but this has not been adequately evaluated. We hypothesized significant differences in diversity of groundcover flora, craneflies, amphibians, and small mammals between plots with and without beech thickets. Paired plots were established in uneven-aged northern hardwood forest stands with no recent management history at two sites in the Adirondack Mountains of New York State. Groundcover plants, terrestrial craneflies, amphibians and small mammals were sampled on twenty paired plots. Discriminant analysis showed a significant difference between thicket and non-thicket (control) areas; significant variables in plot type separation were beech sapling abundance, leaf litter depth, and coarse woody debris volume. Groundcover plant cover, richness, and diversity were significantly lower in thicket compared to non-thicket plots, while beech sapling density explained 17–38 % in groundcover plant species diversity. There were no significant differences between the diversity of cranefly, amphibian and small mammal communities of each plot type. Beech thickets are important determinants of local biodiversity.


Beech bark disease Neonectria Cryptococcus fagisuga Forest structure 

Supplementary material

10530_2012_319_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (8 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 8 kb)
10530_2012_319_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (6 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 6 kb)


  1. Brooks RT, Kyker-Snowman TD (2008) Forest floor temperature and relative humidity following timber harvesting in southern New England, USA. For Ecol Manag 254:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buongiorno J (2001) Quantifying the implications of transformation from even to uneven-aged forest stands. For Ecol Manag 151:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chazdon RL, Pearcy RW (1991) The importance of sunflecks for forest understory plants. Bioscience 41:760–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crampton GC, Curran CH, Alexander CP (1942) Guide to the insects of connecticut: part VI. The diptera or true flies of connecticut, first fascicle, external morphology; key to families; Tanyderidae, Ptychopteridae, Trichoceridae, Anisopodidae, Tipulidae: Bulletin number 64. Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  5. Cummins KW, Klug MJ (1979) Feeding ecology of stream invertebrates. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 10:147–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dajoz R (2000) Insects and forests: the role and diversity of insects in the forest environment. Lavoisier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Dale MP, Causton DR (1992) The ecophysiology of Veronica chamaedrys, V. montana and V. officinalis. III. Effects of shading on the phenology of biomass allocations—a field experiment. J Ecol 80:505–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrlich J (1934) The beech bark disease, a Nectria disease of Fagus, following Cryptococcus fagi. (Baer.). Can J Res 10:593–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellison AM, Bank MS, Clinton BD, Colburn EA, Elliott K, Ford CR, Foster DR, Kloeppel BD, Knoepp JD, Lovett GM, Mohan J, Orwig D, Rodenhouse NL, Sobczak WV, Stinson KA, Stone JK, Swan CM, Thompson J, Von Holle B, Webster JR (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eyre FH (ed) (1980) Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Garnas JR, Ayres MP, Liebhold AM, Evans C (2011) Subcontinental impacts of an invasive tree disease on forest structure and dynamics. J Ecol 99:532–541Google Scholar
  12. Gibbs JP (1998) Distribution of woodland amphibians along a forest fragmentation gradient. Landsc Ecol 13:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hane EN (2003) Indirect effects of beech bark disease on sugar maple seedling survival. Can J For Res 33:807–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hane EN, Hamburg SP, Barber AL, Plaut JA (2003) Phytotoxicity of American beech leaf leachate to sugar maple seedlings in a greenhouse experiment. Can J For Res 33:814–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Healy WM, Brooks RT (1988) Small mammal abundance in northern hardwood stands in West Virginia. J Wildl Manag 52:491–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hewitt CG (1914) Note on the occurrence of the felted beech coccus Cryptococcus fagi (Baerens) Dougl. in Nova Scotia. Can Entomol 46:15–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Houston DR (1975) Beech bark disease: the aftermath forests are structured for a new outbreak. J For 73:660–663Google Scholar
  18. Houston DR (1994a) Major new tree disease epidemics: beech bark disease. Annu Rev Phytopathol 32:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houston DR (1994b) Temporal and spatial shift within the Nectria pathogen complex associated with beech bark disease of Fagus grandifolia. Can J For Res 24:960–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iason GR, Hester AJ (1993) The response of heather (Calluna vulgaris) to shade and nutrients—predictions of the carbon—nutrient balance hypothesis. J Ecol 81:71–80Google Scholar
  21. Jakubas WJ, McLaughlin CR, Jensen PG, McNulty SA (2005) Alternate year beechnut production and its influence on bear and marten populations. In: Evans C, Lucas J (eds) Beech bark disease. Proceedings of the beech bark disease symposium. USDA-Forest Service, Gen Tech Rep NE-331, pp 79–87Google Scholar
  22. Jones RH, Raynal DJ (1988) Root sprouting in American beech (Fagus grandifolia): effects of root injury, root exposure, and season. For Ecol Manag 25:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirkland GL (1990) Patterns of initial small mammal community change after clearcutting of temperate North American forests. Oikos 59:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loo JD (2009) Ecological impacts of non-indigenous invasive fungi as forest pathogens. Biol Invasions 11:81–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lovett GM, Canham CD, Arthur MA, Weathers KC, Fitzhugh RD (2006) Forest ecosystem responses to exotic pests and pathogens in eastern North America. Bioscience 56:395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  27. McGee GG (2000) The contribution of beech bark disease-induced mortality to coarse woody debris loads in northern hardwood stands of Adirondack Park, New York, USA. Can J For Res 30:1453–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McKenny HC, Keeton WS, Donovan TM (2006) Effects of structural complexity enhancement on eastern red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus) populations in northern hardwood forests. For Ecol Manag 230:186–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morin RS, Liebhold AM, Tobin PC, Gottschalk KW, Luzader E (2007) Spread of beech bark disease in the eastern United States and its relationship to regional forest composition. Can J For Res 37:726–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muzika RM, Grushecky ST, Liebhold AM, Smith RL (2004) Using thinning as a management tool for gypsy moth: the influence on small mammal abundance. For Ecol Manag 192:349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nyland RD, Bashant AL, Bohn KK, Verostek JM (2006) Interference to hardwood regeneration in northeastern North America: ecological characteristics of American beech, striped maple, and hobblebush. North J Appl For 23:53–61Google Scholar
  33. Pearcy RW, Pfitsch WA (1991) Influence of sunflecks on the δ13C of Adenocaulon bicolor plants occurring in contrasting forest understory microsites. Oecologia 86:457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pritchard G (1983) Biology of Tipulidae. Annu Rev Entomol 28:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rothstein DE, Zak DR (2001) Photosynthetic adaptation and acclimation to exploit seasonal periods of direct irradiance in three temperate, deciduous-forest herbs. Funct Ecol 15:722–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SAS Institute (2008) SAS/STAT 9.2 User’s Guide. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Saunders DA (1988) Adirondack mammals. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, SyracuseGoogle Scholar
  38. Semlitsch RD (2002) Critical elements for biologically based recovery plans of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Conserv Biol 16:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shigo AL (1972) The beech bark disease today in the northeastern U.S. J For 70:286–289Google Scholar
  40. Somers RC (1986) Soil classification, genesis, morphology, and variability of soils found within the central Adirondack region of New York. State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, p 746Google Scholar
  41. Storer AJ, Rosemier JN, Beachy BL, Flaspohler DJ (2005) Potential effects of beech bark disease and decline in beech abundance on birds and small mammals. In: Evans C, Lucas J (eds) Beech bark disease: proceedings of the beech bark disease symposium, Saranac Lake, NY. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, p 149Google Scholar
  42. Sydes C, Grime JP (1981) Effects of tree leaf litter on herbaceous vegetation in deciduous woodland: II. An experimental investigation. J Ecol 69:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tilman D (1999) The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology 80:1455–1474Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan A. Cale
    • 1
  • Stacy A. McNulty
    • 2
  • Stephen A. Teale
    • 1
  • John D. Castello
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental and Forest BiologyState University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Adirondack Ecological CenterState University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestryNewcombUSA

Personalised recommendations