Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 241–265 | Cite as

Understory plant diversity and biomass in hybrid poplar riparian buffer strips in pastures

  • Julien Fortier
  • Daniel Gagnon
  • Benoit Truax
  • France Lambert
Article

Abstract

Understory plant biomass, species richness and canopy openness were measured in six-year old hybrid poplar riparian buffer strips, in the understory of two unrelated clones (MxB-915311 and DxN-3570), planted along headwater streams at three pasture sites of southern Quebec. Canopy openness was an important factor affecting understory biomass in hybrid poplar buffers, with lower understory biomass observed on sites and under the clone with lower canopy openness. Although tree size was an important factor affecting canopy openness, relationships between total stem volume and canopy openness, for each clone, also support the hypothesis of a clonal effect on canopy openness. Understory biomass and canopy openness as low as 3.6 g m−2 and 7.6% in 1 m2 microplots were measured under clone MxB-915311 at the most productive site. This reduction of understory plant growth could compromise important buffer functions for water quality protection (runoff control, sediment trapping and surface soil stabilisation), particularly were concentrated runoff flow paths enter the buffer. On the other hand, tree buffers that maintain relatively low canopy openness could be interesting to promote native and wetland plant diversity. Significant positive relationships between canopy openness and introduced species richness (R 2 = 0.46, p < 0.001) and cover (R 2 = 0.51, p < 0.001) were obtained, while no significant relationship was observed between canopy openness and native (wetland) species richness and cover. These results suggest that planting riparian buffer strips of fast-growing trees can rapidly lead to the exclusion of shade-intolerant introduced species, typical colonisers of disturbed habitats such as riparian areas of pastures, while having no significant effect on native (wetland) diversity. Forest canopy created by the poplars was probably an important physical barrier controlling introduced plant richness and abundance in agricultural riparian corridors. A strong linear relationship (R 2 = 0.73) between mean total species richness and mean introduced species richness was also observed, supporting the hypothesis that the richest communities are the most invaded by introduced species, possibly because of higher canopy openness, as seen at the least productive site (low poplar growth). Finally, results of this study highlight the need for a better understanding of relationships between tree growth, canopy openness, understory biomass and plant diversity in narrow strips of planted trees. This would be useful in designing multifunctional riparian buffer systems in agricultural landscapes.

Keywords

Plant species richness Canopy openness Light Native species Wetland species Introduced (exotic) species Agroforestry Afforestation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge funding and planting stock received from the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec, and funding from the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the Conférence régionale des élus de l’Estrie. We are very grateful to the landowners (M. Beauregard, A. Doyon, J. Lamontagne) who allowed the planting of the buffers on their farms. We would also like to thank C. Bélisle, M. Bélisle, P.-O. Émond, G. Fleury, E. Flores, M.-C. Giroux and L. Godbout who assisted with field work. Thanks are also due to C. Vasseur of the Biodôme de Montréal for facilitating soil analyses, as well as to S. Hay of the Marie-Victorin Herbarium (Université de Montréal) for verifying our plant specimen identifications, and identifying many sedges and grasses. We also acknowledge two anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments helped improve this paper. J. Fortier wishes to thank the Fiducie de recherche sur la forêt des Cantons-de-l’Est for the scholarship awarded.

References

  1. Altieri MA, Nicholls CI, Fritz MA (2005) Manage insects on your farm: a guide to ecological strategies. Sustainable Agriculture Network, BeltsvilleGoogle Scholar
  2. Archaux F, Chevalier R, Berthelot A (2010) Towards practices favourable to plant diversity in hybrid poplar plantations. For Ecol Manag 259:2410–2417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubin I, Messier C, Bouchard A (2008) Can plantations develop understory biological and physical attributes of naturally regenerated forests? Biol Conserv 141:2461–2476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton DR, Taylor WD, Biette RM (1985) Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. N Am J Fish Manag 5:364–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Saunders WC (2005) Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshw Biol 50:201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bendix J, Hupp CR (2000) Hydrological and geomorphological impacts on riparian plant communities. Hydrol Proc 14:2977–2990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berthelot A, Augustin S, Godin J, Decocq G (2005) La biodiversité dans des peupleraies picardes, en France. Unasylva 56:18–19Google Scholar
  8. Beschta RL (1997) Riparian shade and stream temperature: an alternative perspective. Rangelands 19:25–28Google Scholar
  9. Boutin C, Jobin B, Bélanger L (2003) Importance of riparian habitats to flora conservation in farming landscapes of southern Québec, Canada. Agric Ecosyst Environ 94:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown JH, McDonald W (1995) Livestock grazing and conservation on Southwestern Rangelands. Conserv Biol 9:1644–1647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buhler DD, Netzer DA, Riemenschneider DE, Hartzler RG (1998) Weed management in short rotation poplar and herbaceous perennial crops grown for biofuel production. Biomass Bioenergy 14:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cannell MGR (1999) Environmental impacts of forest monocultures: water use, acidification, wildlife conservation, and carbon storage. New For 17:239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clavijo MdP, Nordenstahl M, Gundel PE, Jobbagy EG (2005) Poplar afforestation effects on grassland structure and composition in the flooding pampas. Rangel Ecol Manag 58:474–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Décamps H, Pinay G, Naiman RJ, Petts GE, McClain ME, Hillbricht-Ilkowska A, Hanley TA, Holmes RM, Quinn J, Gilbert J, Tabacchi A-MP, Schiemer F, Tabacchi E, Zalewski M (2004) Riparian zone: where biogeochemistry meets biodiversity in management practice. Pol J Ecol 52:3–18Google Scholar
  15. Delong M, Brusven M (1994) Allochthonous input of organic matter from different riparian habitats of an agriculturally impacted stream. Environ Manag 18:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dosskey MG, Vidon P, Gurwick NP, Allan CJ, Duval TP, Lowrance R (2010) The role of riparian vegetation in protecting and improving chemical water quality in streams. JAWRA 46:261–277Google Scholar
  17. Duchemin M, Hogue R (2009) Reduction in agricultural non-point source pollution in the first year following establishment of an integrated grass/tree filter strip system in southern Quebec (Canada). Agric Ecosyst Environ 131:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eckenwalder JE (2001) Descriptions of clonal characteristics. In: Dickmann DI, Isenbrands JG, Eckenwalder JE, Richardson J (eds) Poplar culture in North America Part B, Chapter 13. NRC Research Press, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, pp 331–382Google Scholar
  19. Fenner M (1978) A comparison of the abilities of colonizers and closed-turf species to establish from seed in artificial swards. J Ecol 66:953–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flinn KM, Marks PL (2007) Agricultural legacies in forest environments: tree communities, soil properties, and light availability. Ecol Appl 17:452–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forman RTT, Baudry J (1984) Hedgerows and hedgerow networks in landscape ecology. Environ Manag 8:495–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fortier J, Gagnon D, Truax B, Lambert F (2010a) Biomass and volume yield after 6 years in multiclonal hybrid poplar riparian buffer strips. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1028–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fortier J, Gagnon D, Truax B, Lambert F (2010b) Nutrient accumulation and carbon sequestration in 6 year-old hybrid poplars in multiclonal agricultural riparian buffer strips. Agric Ecosyst Environ 137:276–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gauthier, B (1997) Politique de protection des rives, du littoral et des plaines inondables: notes explicatives sur la ligne naturelle des hautes eaux. Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune, Direction de la conservation et du patrimoine écologique, Québec (Qc)Google Scholar
  25. Gouvernement du Québec (1981) Règlement sur les mauvaises herbes (c. A-2, r. 1), Loi sur les abus préjudiciables à l’agriculture (L.R.Q., c. A-2, a. 7) Québec (Qc)Google Scholar
  26. Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW (1991) An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41:540–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grime JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hale SE (2003) The effect of thinning intensity on the below-canopy light environment in a Sitka spruce plantation. For Ecol Manag 179:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hale SE, Edwards C, Mason WL, Price M, Peace A (2009) Relationships between canopy transmittance and stand parameters in Sitka spruce and Scots pine stands in Britain. Forestry 82:503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harrington CA (1999) Forests planted for ecosystem restoration or conservation. New For 17:175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haycock NE, Pinay G (1993) Groundwater nitrate dynamics in grass and poplar vegetated riparian buffer strips during the winter. J Environ Qual 22:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Honnay O, Verheyen K, Hermy M (2002) Permeability of ancient forest edges for weedy plant species invasion. For Ecol Manag 161:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hood WG, Naiman RJ (2000) Vulnerability of riparian zones to invasion by exotic vascular plants. Plant Ecol 148:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Humbert L, Gagnon D, Kneeshaw D, Messier C (2007) A shade tolerance index for common understory species of northeastern North America. Ecol Indic 7:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jackson ST, Hobbs RJ (2009) Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history. Science 325:567–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jobin B, Bélanger L, Boutin C, Maisonneuve C (2004) Conservation value of agricultural riparian strips in the Boyer River watershed, Québec (Canada). Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kane TA, Justin DB, George GG (2009) Rehabilitation of stream ecosystem functions through the reintroduction of coarse particulate organic matter. Rest Ecol 17:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kauffman JB, Krueger WC (1984) Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management Implications. A review. J Range Manag 37:430–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kay J (1991) A nonequilibrium thermodynamic framework for discussing ecosystem integrity. Environ Manag 15:483–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kelly J, Kovar J, Sokolowsky R, Moorman T (2007) Phosphorus uptake during four years by different vegetative cover types in a riparian buffer. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 78:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knight KW, Schultz RC, Mabry CM, Isenhart TM (2010) Ability of remnant riparian forests, with and without grass filters, to buffer concentrated surface runoff. JAWRA 46:311–322Google Scholar
  42. Laquerbe M (1999) Communautés de sous-bois des peupleraies artificielles: relation entre phytomasse, richesse spécifique et perturbations. Ann For Sci 56:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laquerbe M (2000) Richesse spécifique et phytomasse des sous-bois de peupleraies cultivées en bordure de Garonne (Sud-Ouest de la France). Ann For Sci 57:767–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Licht LA, Isebrands JG (2005) Linking phytoremediated pollutant removal to biomass economic opportunities. Biomass Bioenergy 28:203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lowrance R, Todd R, Fail J Jr, Hendrickson O Jr, Leonard R, Asmussen L (1984) Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34:374–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lowrance R, Altier LS, Newbold JD, Schnabel RR, Groffman PM, Denver JM, Correll DL, Gilliam JW, Robinson JL, Brinsfield RB, Staver KW, Lucas W, Todd AH (1997) Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environ Manag 21:687–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lust N, Kongs T, Nachtergale L, De Keersmaeker L (2001) Spontaneous ingrowth of tree species in poplar plantations in Flanders. Ann For Sci 58:861–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lyons J, Thimble SW, Paine LK (2000) Grass versus trees: managing riparian areas to benefit streams of central North America. JAWRA 36:919–930Google Scholar
  49. Ma M, Tarmi S, Helenius J (2002) Revisiting the species-area relationship in a semi-natural habitat: floral richness in agricultural buffer zones in Finland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mankin KR, Ngandu DM, Barden CJ, Hutchinson SL, Geyer WA (2007) Grass-shrub riparian buffer removal of sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen from simulated runoff. JAWRA 43:1108–1116Google Scholar
  51. Marie-Victorin F, Rouleau E, Brouillet L, Hay SG, Goulet I (2002) Flore laurentienne, 3rd edn. Gaëtan Morin éditeur ltée, MontréalGoogle Scholar
  52. Marquez C, Cambardella C, Isenhart T, Schultz R (1999) Assessing soil quality in a riparian buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 44:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martin PH, Canham CD, Marks PL (2009) Why forests appear resistant to exotic plant invasions: intentional introductions, stand dynamics, and the role of shade tolerance. Frontiers Ecol Environ 7:142–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McClain CD, Holl KD, Wood DM (In press) Successional models as guides for restoration of riparian forest understory. Rest Ecol doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00616.x
  55. Mitchell JE, Popovich SJ (1997) Effectiveness of basal area for estimating canopy cover of ponderosa pine. For Ecol Manag 95:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Loughlin C (1995) The sustainability paradox—an examination of the plantation effect—a review of the environmental effects of plantation forestry in New Zealand. NZ For 39:3–12Google Scholar
  57. Osborne LL, Kovacic DA (1993) Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshw Biol 29:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Paine LK, Ribic CA (2002) Comparison of riparian plant communities under four land management systems in southwestern Wisconsin. Agric Ecosyst Environ 92:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paquette A, Messier C (2010) The role of plantations in managing the world’s forests in the Anthropocene. Frontiers Ecol Environ 8:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Paquette A, Messier C, Périnet P, Cogliastro A (2008) Simulating light availability under different hybrid poplar clones in a mixed intensive plantation system. For Sci 54:481–489Google Scholar
  61. Parendes LA, Jones JA (2000) Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conserv Biol 14:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Parrotta JA, Turnbull JW, Jones N (1997) Catalyzing native forest regeneration on degraded tropical lands. For Ecol Manag 99:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Périnet P, Gagnon H, Morin S (2001) Liste des clones recommandés de peuplier hybride par sous-région écologique au Québec (révision février 2001). Direction de la recherche forestière, MRN, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  64. Petersen RG (1985) Design and analysis of experiments. Marcel-Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Pimentel D, McNair S, Janecka J, Wightman J, Simmonds C, O’Connell C, Wong E, Russel L, Zern J, Aquino T, Tsomondo T (2001) Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 84:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Planty-Tabacchi A-M, Tabacchi E, Naiman RJ, Deferrari C, Décamps H (1996) Invasibility of species-rich communities in riparian zones. Conserv Biol 10:598–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pollock MM, Naiman RJ, Hanley TA (1998) Plant species richness in riparian wetland: a test of biodiversity theory. Ecol 79:94–105Google Scholar
  68. Potton C (1994) Public perception of plantation forestry. NZ For 39:2–3Google Scholar
  69. Pysek P, Prach K (1993) Plant invasions and the role of riparian habitats: a comparison of four species alien to central Europe. J Biogeography 20:413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Quinn JM, Cooper AB, Stroud MJ, Burrell GP (1997) Shade effects on stream periphyton and invertebrates: an experiment in streamside channels. NZ J Marine Freshw Res 31:665–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Richardson DM, Holmes PM, Esler KJ, Galatowitsch SM, Stromberg JC, Kirkman SP, Pyek P, Hobbs RJ (2007) Riparian vegetation: degradation, alien plant invasions, and restoration prospects. Divers Distrib 13:126–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rockwood DL, Naidu CV, Carter DR, Rahmani M, Spriggs TA, Lin C, Alker GR, Isebrands JG, Segrest SA (2004) Short-rotation woody crops and phytoremediation: opportunities for agroforestry? Agrofor Syst 61–62:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rosoman G (1994) The plantation effect—an ecoforestry review of the environmental effects of exotic monoculture tree plantations in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Greenpeace New Zealand, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  74. Schimel JP, Cates RG, Ruess R (1998) The role of balsam poplar secondary chemicals in controlling soil nutrient dynamics through succession in the Alaskan Taiga. Biogeochemistry 42:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schlosser IJ, Karr JR (1981) Water quality in agricultural watersheds: impact of riparian vegetation during base flow. Water Res Bull 17:233–240Google Scholar
  76. Schoonover J, Williard K, Zaczek J, Mangun J, Carver A (2006) Agricultural sediment reduction by giant cane and forest riparian buffers. Water Air Soil Poll 169:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schultz RC, Isenhart TM, Simpkins WW, Colletti JP (2004) Riparian forest buffers in agroecosystems–lessons learned from the Bear Creek Watershed, central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 61–62:35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schweitzer J, Madritch M, Bailey J, LeRoy C, Fischer D, Rehill B, Lindroth R, Hagerman A, Wooley S, Hart S, Whitham T (2008) From genes to ecosystems: the genetic basis of condensed tannins and their role in nutrient regulation in a Populus model system. Ecosystems 11:1005–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stanturf JA, van Oosten C, Coleman MD, Portwood CJ (2001) Ecology and silviculture of poplar plantations. In: Dickmann DI, Isebrands JG, Eckenwalder JE, Richardson J (eds) Poplar culture in North America. NRC Research Press, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, pp 153–206Google Scholar
  81. Stephens SS, Wagner MR (2007) Forest plantations and biodiversity: a fresh perspective. J For 105:307–313Google Scholar
  82. Stohlgren T, Bull K, Otsuki Y, Villa C, Lee M (1998) Riparian zones as havens for exotic plant species in the central grasslands. Plant Ecol 138:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tufekcioglu A, Raich J, Isenhart T, Schultz R (1999) Fine root dynamics, coarse root biomass, root distribution, and soil respiration in a multispecies riparian buffer in Central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 44:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tufekcioglu A, Raich JW, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (2003) Biomass, carbon and nitrogen dynamics of multi-species riparian buffers within an agricultural watershed in Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 57:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vellend M, Verheyen K, Flinn KM, Jacquemyn H, Kolb A, Calster HV, Peterken G, Graae BJ, Bellemare J, Honnay O, Brunet J, Wulf M, Gerhardt F, Hermy M (2007) Homogenization of forest plant communities and weakening of species-environment relationships via agricultural land use. J Ecol 95:565–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vidon P, Allan C, Burns D, Duval TP, Gurwick N, Inamdar S, Lowrance R, Okay J, Scott D, Sebestyen S (2010) Hot spots and hot moments in riparian zones: potential for improved water quality management. JAWRA 46:278–298Google Scholar
  87. Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Meyer JL, Webster JR (1997) Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science 277:102–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Warren J, Topping C, James P (2009) A unifying evolutionary theory for the biomass–diversity–fertility relationship. Theor Ecol 2:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weih M, Karacic A, Munkert H, Verwijst T, Diekmann M (2003) Influence of young poplar stands on floristic diversity in agricultural landscapes (Sweden). Bas Appl Ecol 4:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wesley DE, Perkins CJ, Sullivan AD (1981) Wildlife in cottonwood plantations. South J Appl Ecol 5:37–42Google Scholar
  91. Yirdaw E (2001) Diversity of naturally-regenerated native woody species in forest plantations in the Ethiopian highlands. New For 22:159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yoccoz NG (1991) Use, overuse, and misuse of significance tests in evolutionary biology and ecology. Bull Ecol Soc Am 72:106–111Google Scholar
  93. Zaimes GN, Schultz RC, Isenhart TM (2004) Stream bank erosion adjacent to riparian forest buffers, row-crop fields, and continuously-grazed pastures along Bear Creek in central Iowa. J Soil Water Conserv 59:19–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Fortier
    • 1
  • Daniel Gagnon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Benoit Truax
    • 2
  • France Lambert
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre d’étude de la forêt (CEF), département des sciences biologiquesUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Fiducie de recherche sur la forêt des Cantons-de-l’EstSt-Benoît-du-LacCanada

Personalised recommendations