Folia Geobotanica

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 83–99 | Cite as

Dynamics of herbaceous vegetation during four years of experimental coppice introduction

  • Radim Hédl
  • Jan Šipoš
  • Markéta Chudomelová
  • Dušan Utinek
Article

Abstract

Understanding the effects of coppicing on forest ecosystems is important for progress towards sustainable forest management. A newly established coppicing experiment in a secondary temperate deciduous forest in the SE Czech Republic provides a rather unique insight into succession driven by canopy thinning in a forest still lacking species typical for forests established a long time ago. Herbaceous layer vegetation was monitored for four subsequent years in 2012–2015. We focused on the influence of canopy thinning intensity in two different forest types defined by dominant tree species (oak and lime). Our results showed that the opening of the canopy had immediate effects on herbaceous vegetation. Coverage, species richness and compositional patterns followed the coppicing intensity gradient. The dominant tree species had contrasting effects. Under oak, the reaction to coppicing was weak. Under lime, strong reaction both related to coppicing intensity and temporal development was observed. Herbs with short life cycle had the greatest contribution, but perennial grasses also began to increase their coverage after coppicing. Several invasive species, mostly short-lived herbs, emerged but are supposed to retreat as the succession will proceed. We conclude that coppice introduction into a secondary forest led to contrasting patterns related to dominant tree species. The marked difference was probably due to the slow succession towards a future forest community saturated by species. This process may now be further diversified by coppicing management.

Keywords

biodiversity canopy thinning coppice-with-standards ecological restoration herbaceous layer vegetation secondary forest temperate forest 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The results published in this paper were obtained with financial support from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, grant CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0267 ‘Coppice forests as the production and biological alternative for the future’. Additional support to the authors came from the European Research Council (FP7/2007-2013) grant 278065 ‘Long-term woodland dynamics in Central Europe: from estimations to a realistic model’ and as a long-term research development project RVO 67985939 from the Czech Academy of Sciences. M.C. was supported from the project MUNI/A /1048/2015.

References

  1. Ash JE, Barkham JP (1976) Changes and variability in the field layer of a coppiced woodland in Norfolk, England. J Ecol 64:697–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baeten L, Bauwens B, De Schrijver A, De Keersmaeker L, Van Calster H, Vandekerkhove K, Roelandt B, Beeckman H, Verheyen K (2009) Herb layer changes (1954–2000) related to the conversion of coppice-with-standards forest and soil acidification. Appl Veg Sci 12:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Battles JJ, Shlisky AJ, Barrett RH, Heald RC, Allen-Diaz BH (2001) The effects of forest management on plant species diversity in a Sierran conifer forest. Forest Ecol Managem 146:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beneš J, Čížek O, Dovala J, Konvička M (2006) Intensive game keeping, coppicing and butterflies: the story of Milovicky Wood, Czech Republic. Forest Ecol Managem 237:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernhardt-Römermann M, Ewald J (2006) Einst zu wenig, heute zu viel: Stickstoff in Waldlebensgemeinschaften. Gefahrstoffe Reinhaltung der Luft 66:261–266Google Scholar
  6. Bobbink R, Hornung M, Roelofs JGM (1998) The effects of air-borne nitrogen pollutants on species diversity in natural and semi-natural European vegetation. J Ecol 86:717–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buckley GP (1992) (ed) Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess M (2014) Restoring abandoned coppice for birds: few effects of conservation management on occupancy, fecundity and productivity of hole nesting birds. Forest Ecol Managem 330:205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burton JI, Zenner EK, Frelich LE, Cornett MW (2009) Patterns of plant community structure within and among primary and second-growth northern hardwood forest stands. Forest Ecol Managem 258:2556–2568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calçada EA, Lenoir J, Plue J, Broeckx LS, Closset-Kopp D, Hermy M, Decocq G (2015) Spatial patterns of water-deposited seeds control plant species richness and composition in riparian forest landscapes. Landsc Ecol 30:2133–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chytrý M, Tichý L, Holt J, Botta-Dukát Z (2002) Determination of diagnostic species with statistical fidelity measures. J Veg Sci 13:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Coyle JR, Halliday FW, Lopez BE, Palmquist KA, Wilfahrt PA, Hurlert AH (2014) Using trait and phylogenetic diversity to evaluate the generality of the stress-dominance hypothesis in eastern North American tree communities. Ecography 37:814–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Decocq G, Aubert M, Dupont F, Alard D, Saguez R, Wattez-Franger A, De Foucault B, Delelis-Dusollier A, Bardat J (2004a) Plant diversity in a managed temperate deciduous forest: understorey response to two silvicultural systems. J Appl Ecol 41:1065–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Decocq G, Valentin B, Toussaint B, Hendoux F, Saguez R, Bardat J (2004b) Soil seed bank composition and diversity in a managed temperate deciduous forest. Biodivers & Conservation 13:2485–2509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dirnböck T, Grandin U, Bernhardt-Römermann M, Beudert B, Canullo R, Forsius M, Grabner M-T, Holmberg M, Kleemola S, Lundin L, Mirtl M, Neumann M, Pompei E, Salemaa M, Starlinger F, Staszewski T, Uziębło AK (2014) Forest floor vegetation response to nitrogen deposition in Europe. Global Change Biol 20:429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dodson EK, Peterson DW, Harrod RJ (2008) Understory vegetation response to thinning and burning restoration treatments in dry conifer forests of the eastern Cascades, USA. Forest Ecol Managem 255:3130–3140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elemans M (2004) Light, nutrients and the growth of herbaceous forest species. Acta Oecol 26:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuller RJ, Warren MS (1993) Coppiced woodlands: their management for wildlife. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilliam F (2014) Introduction: the herbaceous layer – the forest between the trees. In Gilliam F (ed) The herbaceous layer in forests of eastern North America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffis KL, Crawford JA, Wagner MR, Moir WH (2001) Understory response to management treatments in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecol Managem 146:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grime JP (2006) Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Grulich V (2012) Red List of vascular plants of the Czech Republic. Preslia 84:631–645Google Scholar
  24. Hédl R, Kopecký M, Komárek J (2010) Half a century of succession in a temperate oakwood: from species-rich community to mesic forest. Diversity & Distrib 16:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hermy M, Verheyen K (2007) Legacies of the past in the present-day forest biodiversity: a review of past land-use effects on forest plant species composition and diversity. In Nakashizuka T (ed) Sustainability and diversity of forest ecosystems. Springer Japan, pp 361–371Google Scholar
  26. Hermy M, Honnay O, Firbank L, Grashof-Bokdam C, Lawesson JE (1999) An ecological comparison between ancient and other forest plant species of Europe, and the implications for forest conservation. Biol Conservation 91:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hobbie SE (2015) Plant species effects on nutrient cycling: revisiting litter feedbacks. Trends Ecol Evol 30:357–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hölscher D, Schade E, Leuschner C (2001) Effects of coppicing in temperate deciduous forests on ecosystem nutrient pools and soil fertility. Basic Appl Ecol 2:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Honnay O, Degroote B, Hermy M (1998) Ancient-forest plant species in Western Belgium: a species list and possible ecological mechanisms. Belg J Bot 130:139–154Google Scholar
  30. Kirby KJ (1990) Changes in the ground flora of a broadleaved wood within a clear fell, group fells and a coppiced block. Forestry 63:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirby KJ, Watkins C (eds) (2015) Europe's changing woods and forests: from wildwood to managed landscapes. CABI, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Kopecký M, Hédl R, Szabó P (2013) Non-random extinctions dominate plant community changes in abandoned coppices. J Appl Ecol 50:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kubát K, Hrouda L, Chrtek J jun, Kaplan Z, Kirschner J, Štěpánek J (eds) (2002) Klíč ke květeně České republiky [Key to the flora of the Czech Republic]. Academia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindh BC (2008) Flowering of understory herbs following thinning in the western Cascades, Oregon. Forest Ecol Managem 256:929–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matthews JD (1991) Silvicultural systems. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Matthews TJ, Borregaard MK, Ugland KI, Borges PAV, Rigal F, Cardoso P, Whittaker RJ (2014) The gambin model provides a superior fit to species abundance distributions with a single free parameter: evidence, implementation and interpretation. Ecography 37:1002–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Metzger F, Schultz J (1984) Understory response to 50 years of management of a northern hardwood forest in Upper Michigan. Amer Midl Naturalist 112:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muys B (1995) The influence of tree species on humus quality and nutrient availability on a regional scale (Flanders, Belgium). In Nilsson LO, Hüttl RF, Johansson UT (eds) Nutrient uptake and cycling in forest ecosystems. Springer Netherlands, pp 649–660Google Scholar
  39. Neirynck J, Mirtcheva S, Sioen G, Lust N (2000) Impact of Tilia platyphyllos Scop., Fraxinus excelsior L., Acer pseudoplatanus L., Quercus robur L. and Fagus sylvatica L. on earthworm biomass and physico-chemical properties of a loamy topsoil. Forest Ecol Managem 133:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Newton AC (2007) Forest ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pelíšek J (1957) Stanovištní poměry pařezin v oblasti ČSR [Stand conditions in the coppices of the Czech Socialistic Republic]. Lesnictví 3:85–108Google Scholar
  42. R Development Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Available at http://www.R-project.org
  43. Rackham O (2003) Ancient woodland, its history, vegetation and uses in England. Castlepoint Press, ColvendGoogle Scholar
  44. Rackham O (2006) Woodlands. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Radtke A, Ambraß S, Zerbe S, Tonon G, Fontana V, Ammer C (2013) Traditional coppice forest management drives the invasion of Ailanthus altissima and Robinia pseudoacacia into deciduous forests. Forest Ecol Managem 291:308–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roscher C, Schumacher J, Gubsch M, Lipowsky A, Weigelt A, Buchmann A, Schmid B, Schulze E (2012) Using Plant Functional Traits to Explain Diversity-Productivity Relationships. PLoS ONE 7:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Savill P, Perrins C, Kirby K, Fisher N (eds) (2010) Wytham Woods: Oxford's ecological laboratory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Shugart HH (1984) A theory of forest dynamics: the ecological implications of forest succession models. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spitzer L, Konvička M, Beneš J, Tropek R, Tuf IH, Tufová J (2008) Does closure of traditionally managed open woodlands threaten epigeic invertebrates? Effects of coppicing and high deer densities. Biol Conservation 141:827–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Szabó P, Müllerová J, Suchánková S, Kotačka M (2015) Intensive woodland management in the Middle Ages: spatial modelling based on archival data. J Hist Geogr 48:1–10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2012) Canoco reference manual and user's guide: software for ordination, version 5.0 Microcomputer Power, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  52. Thompson K, Bakker JP, Bekker RM, Hodgson JG (1998) Ecological correlates of seed persistence in soil in the north-west European flora. J Ecol 86:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thysell DR, Carey AB (2001) Manipulation of density of Pseudotsuga menziesii canopies: preliminary effects on understory vegetation. Canad J Forest Res 31:1513–1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tichý L (2002) JUICE, software for vegetation classification. J Veg Sci 13:451–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Calster H, Baeten L, De Schrijver A, De Keersmaeker L, Rogister JE, Verheyen K, Hermy M (2007) Management driven changes (1967–2005) in soil acidity and the understorey plant community following conversion of a coppice-with-standards forest. Forest Ecol Managem 241:258–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Calster H, Baeten L, Verheyen K, De Keersmaeker L, Dekeyser S, Rogister JE, Hermy M (2008a) Diverging effects of overstorey conversion scenarios on the understorey vegetation in a former coppice-with-standards forest. Forest Ecol Managem 256:519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Calster H, Chevalier R, Wyngene B, Archaux F, Verheyen K, Hermy M (2008b) Long-term seed bank dynamics in a temperate forest under conversion from coppice-with-standards to high forest management. Appl Veg Sci 11:251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vesterdal L, Schmidt IK, Callesen I, Nilsson LO, Gundersen P (2008) Carbon and nitrogen in forest floor and mineral soil under six common European tree species. Forest Ecol Managem 255:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vild O, Roleček J, Hédl R, Kopecký M, Utinek D (2013) Experimental restoration of coppice-with-standards: response of understorey vegetation from the conservation perspective. Forest Ecol Managem 310:234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Warren MS, Thomas JA (1992) Butterfly responses to coppicing. In Buckley GP (ed) Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 249–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. West DC, Shugart HH, Botkin DF (eds) (2012). Forest succession: concepts and application. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radim Hédl
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan Šipoš
    • 1
    • 3
  • Markéta Chudomelová
    • 1
    • 4
  • Dušan Utinek
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Vegetation EcologyInstitute of Botany, The Czech Academy of SciencesBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of BotanyFaculty of Science Palacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Biology and EcologyFaculty of Science University of OstravaOstravaCzech Republic
  4. 4.Institute of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of ScienceMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  5. 5.Ministry of the Environment of the Czech RepublicPrahaCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations