Plant Ecology

, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp 53–65 | Cite as

Vegetation in Danish beech forests: the importance of soil, microclimate and management factors, evaluated by variation partitioning

  • Erik Aude
  • Jonas E. Lawesson
Article

Abstract

The importance of management regime on floristic variation (mosses and vascular plants) in four Danish beech forests was investigated. Sixty-four blocks were sampled, representing beech stands of different age and management types. Nineteen potential explanatory variables were recorded and tested with Monte-Carlo tests and Canonical Correspondence Analysis. In addition results were evaluated by use of Detrended Correspondence Analysis. Explanatory variables were divided into three groups; soil, microclimatic and management parameters. The amount of variation explained by each group of variables was calculated by use of variation partitioning. The group consisting of management variables explained most variation, on local as well as regional scale. Management related variables explained more variation in vegetation than any other variables together. This indicates the importance of management as determining species composition in Danish beech forests. Management related variables explained most variation on local scale. On a regional scale, soil parameters explained the major part of the variation. The results suggest that thirty years without management are sufficient to change species composition significantly, as compared to managed forests.

DCA (Detrended Correspondence Analysis) Fagus sylvatica Monte-Carlo test Multivariate analysis Untouched forest 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barkham, J. P. & Norris, J. M. 1970. Multivariate Procedures in an Investigation of Vegetation and Soil Relations of Two Beech Woodlands, Cotswold Hills, England. Ecology 51(4): 630–639.Google Scholar
  2. Borcard, D., Legendre, P., & Drapeau, P. 1992. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73(3): 1045–1055.Google Scholar
  3. Bornebusch, C. H. 1920. Om Bedømmelse af Skovjordes Godhed ved Hjælp af Bundfloraen. Dansk Skovforenings Tidsskrift 5: 37–50.Google Scholar
  4. Bornebusch, C. H. 1923. Skovbundsstudier (Disquisitions on Flora and Soil of Danish woodlands). Det Forstlige Forsøgsvæsen i Danmark 8: 1–148.Google Scholar
  5. Bornebusch, C. H. 1925. Skovbundsstudier (Disquisitions on Flora and Soil of Danish woodlands. Det Forstlige Forsøgsvæsen i Danmark 8: 181–288.Google Scholar
  6. Bornebusch, C. H. 1929. Danmarks skovtyper. Acta Forestalia Fennica 34(11): 5–11.Google Scholar
  7. Brady, N. C. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils (10th. ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Cajander, A. K. 1926. Theory of Forest Types. Acta Forestalia Fennica 29: 1–107.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, B. S., Dunne, K. P. & Pickett, S. T. A. 1985. Responses of Forest Herbs to Canopy Gaps. Pp. 217–233. In: S. T. A. Pickett & P. S. White (eds), The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, B. S. & Pickett, S. T. A. 1987. Influence of Canopy Opening on the Environment and Herb Layer in a Northern Hardwoods Forest. Vegetatio 70: 3–10.Google Scholar
  11. Corley, M. F. V., Crundwell, A. C. Düll, R., Hill, M. O. and Smith, A. J. E. 1981. Mosses of Europe and the Azores; an Annotated List of Species, with Synonyms from the recent Literature. J. Bryol. 11(4): 609–689.Google Scholar
  12. Diekmann, M. 1994. Decidous Forest Vegetation in Boreo-nemoral Scandinavia. Acta Phytogeographica Suecica 80: 1–107.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, M. E. 1986. Disturbance Histories of Four Snowdonian Woodlands and Their Relation to Atlantic Bryophyte Distributions. Biol. Cons. 37: 301–320.Google Scholar
  14. Ellenberg, H. 1963. Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, M. N. & Barkham, J. P. 1992. Coppicing and Natural Disturbance in TemperateWoodlands – a Review. Pp. 79–98. In: G. P. Buckley (ed.), Ecology and Management of Coppice Woodlands. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  16. Falinski, J. B. 1986. Vegetation Dynamics in Temperate Lowland Primeval Forest. Ecological Studies in Bialowieza Forest. In Werger, M. J. A. (series editor), Geobotany 8.Google Scholar
  17. Gauch, H. G. Jr. 1982. Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Geiger, R. 1966. Problems in Forest Meteorology. Pp. 298–369. In: R. Geiger (ed.), The Climate near the Ground. Harvard University Press, Harvard.Google Scholar
  19. GEUS (Geologiske Undersøgelser), 1996. Jordartskort. 1: 25.000.Google Scholar
  20. Grime, J. P., Hodgson, J. G. & Hunt, R. 1988. Comparative Plant Ecology, A Funtional Approach to Common British Species. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
  21. Gustafsson, L. & Hallingbäck, Y. 1988. Bryophytes Flora and Vegetation of Managed and Virgin Coniferous Forest in South-West Sweden. Biol. Cons. 44: 283–300.Google Scholar
  22. Hansen, K. (ed.) 1981. Dansk feltflora. Gyldendal, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  23. Harper, J. H. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Henriksen, H. A. 1988. Skoven og dens dyrkning. Nyt Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  25. Hermy, M. & Stieperaere, H. 1981. An Indirect Gradient Analysis of the Ecological Relationships between Ancient and Recent Riverine Woodlands to the South of Bruges (Flanders, Belgium). Vegetatio 44: 43–49.Google Scholar
  26. Hill, M. O. & Gauch, Jr. H. G. 1980. Detrended Correspondence Analysis: an Improved Ordination Technique. Vegetatio 42: 47–58.Google Scholar
  27. Hutchison, B. A. & Matt, D. R. 1977. The Distribution of Solar Microclimatic within a Deciduous Forest. Ecol. Monographs 47: 185–207.Google Scholar
  28. Jahn, G. 1991. Temperate Deciduous Forests of Europe. Pp. 377–502. In: Röhrig B. & Ulrich, E. (eds), Temperate Deciduous Forests. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Jongman, R. H. G., ter Braak, C. J. F., & Van Tongeren, O. F. R. 1987. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Pudoc Wageningen, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  30. Jonsson, B. G. & Esseen, P. A. 1990. Treefall Disturbance Maintains High Bryophyte Diversity in a Boreal Spruce Forest. J. Ecol. 78: 924–936.Google Scholar
  31. Kirby, K. J. 1988. Changes in the Ground Flora under Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites. Forestry 61(4): 317–338.Google Scholar
  32. Køie, M. 1979. Planternes Levevilkår. Pp. 151–246. In: Nørrevang, A. & Lundø, J. (eds) Danmarks Natur. Vol 2. Politikens forlag, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  33. Køie, M. 1989. Forest and scrub. Opera Bot. 96: 63–67.Google Scholar
  34. Leps, J. & Hadincova, V. 1992. How Reliable are our Vegetation Analyses? J. Veg. Sci. 3(1): 119–124.Google Scholar
  35. Lesica, P., McCune, B., Cooper, S.V., Hong, W. S. 1991. Differences in lichen and bryophyte communities between old-growth and managed second-growth forests in the Swan Valley, Montana. Can. J. Bot. 69: 1745–1755.Google Scholar
  36. Lewinsky, J. 1974. The family Plagiotheciaceae in Denmark. Lindbergia 2: 185–217.Google Scholar
  37. Matlack, G. R. 1994. Vegetation dynamics of the forest edge – trends in space and successional time. J. Ecol. 82: 113–123.Google Scholar
  38. Mattews, J. D. 1991. Silvicultural Systems Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mayer, H. 1984. Wälder Europas. Gustav Fisher Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  40. McNeely, J. A., Gadgil, M., Leveque, C., Padoch, C. & Redford, K. 1995. Human Influence on Biodiversity. In: Heywood, V. H. (ed.), Global Biodiversity Assessment. U.N. Environmental Program.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, K., Allegretti, M. H., Johnson, N. & Jonsson, B. 1995. Measures for Biodiversity and Sustainable Use of its Components. In: Heywood, V. H. (ed.), Global Biodiversity Assessment. U.N. Environmental Program.Google Scholar
  42. Mucina, L. & van der Maarel, E. 1989. Twenty Years of Numerical Syntaxonomy. Vegetatio 81: 1–15.Google Scholar
  43. Møller, P. F. 1988. Naturskove i statsskovene. (Intern rapport. No. 4). Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelser.Google Scholar
  44. Palmer, M. W. & Dixon, P. M. 1990. Small-scale Environmental Heterogeneity and the Analysis of Species Distributions along Gradients. J. Veg. Sci. 1: 57–65.Google Scholar
  45. Palmer, M. W. 1990. Spatial Scale and Pattern of Species-Environment Relationship in Hardwood Forest of the North Carolina Piedmont. Coenoses 5(2): 79–87.Google Scholar
  46. Palmer, M. W. 1993. Putting Things in Even Better Order: the Advantages of Canonical Correspondence Analysis. Ecology 74(8): 2215–2230.Google Scholar
  47. Peterken, G. F. 1974. A Method for Assessing Woodland Flora for Conservation using Indicator Species. Biol. Cons. 6(4): 239–245.Google Scholar
  48. Peterken, G. F. 1981. Woodland Conservation and Management. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Peterken, G. F. 1996. Natural Woodland, Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 522 pp.Google Scholar
  50. Peterken, G. F. & Game, M. 1984. Historical Factors Affecting the Number and Distribution of Vascular Plant Species in the Woodlands of Central Lincolnshire. J. Ecol. 72: 155–182.Google Scholar
  51. Petersen, P. M. 1994. Flora, Vegetation and Soil in Broad-leaved Ancient and PlantedWoodland and Scrub on Røsnæs, Denmark. Nord. J. Bot. 14(6): 693–709.Google Scholar
  52. Rackham, O. 1980. Ancient Woodland, its History, Vegetation and uses in England. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
  53. Reader, R. J. & Bricker, B. D. 1992. Response of Five Deciduous Forest Herbs to Partial Canopy Removal and Patch Size. Am. Midland Nat. 127: 149–157.Google Scholar
  54. Reed, R. A. Peet, R. K., Palmer, M. W. & White, P. S. 1993. Scale Dependence of Vegetation-Environment Correlations: A Case Study of a North Carolina Piedmont Woodland. J. Veg. Sci. 4: 329–340.Google Scholar
  55. Runkle, J. R. 1985. Disturbance Regimes in Temperate Forests. Pp. 17–33. In: S. T. A. Pickett & P. S. White (eds.), The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics Academic Press, Inc, New York.Google Scholar
  56. Röhrig, E. 1991. Vegetation Structure and Forest Succession. Pp. 35–49. In: E. Röhrig & B. Ulrich (eds.), Temperate Deciduous Forests Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  57. Simmons, E. A. & Buckley G. P. 1992. Ground vegetation under planted mixtures of trees. Pp. 211–231. In: Cannell M. G. R. et al. (eds), The Ecology of Mixed-species Stands of Trees. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  58. Shmida, A. & Wilson, M. V. 1985. Biological determinants of species diversity. J. Biog. 12: 1–20.Google Scholar
  59. Smilauer, P. 1992. CANODRAW User's guide, version 3.0. Ithaca, Microcomputer Power, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. 1995. Biometry (third ed.). W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.Google Scholar
  61. Sydes, C. & Grime, J. P. 1981a. Effect of Tree Leaf Litter on Herbaceous Vegetation in Decidous Woodland I. J. Ecol. 69: 237–248.Google Scholar
  62. Sydes, C. & Grime, J. P. 1981b. Effect of Tree Leaf Litter on Herbaceous Vegetation in Deciduous Woodland II. J. Ecol. 69: 249–262.Google Scholar
  63. Söderström, L. 1988. The Occurence of Epixylic Bryophyte and Lichen Species in an Old Natural and a Managed Forest Stand in Northeast Sweden. Biol. Cons. 45: 169–178.Google Scholar
  64. ter Braak, C. J. F. 1988. CANOCO – a FORTRAN Program for Canonical Community Ordination by (partial) (detrended) (canonical) Correspondence Analysis, Principal Component Analysis and Redundancy Analysis. Version 2.1. Agricultural Mathematics Group, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  65. ter Braak, C. J. F. 1990. Update notes: CANOCO version 3.10.Google Scholar
  66. ter Braak, C. J. F. 1991. CANOCO – a FORTRAN Program for Canonical Community Ordination by Partial Detrended Canonical Correspondence Analysis, Principal Component Analysis and Redundancy Analysis. Version 3.12. Agricultural Mathematics Group, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  67. Volpers, T. 1989. Changes inMicroclimate andVegetaion after Thinning in a Montane Virgin Forest. Phytocoenologia 17(1): 71–104.Google Scholar
  68. Warming, E. 1919. Skovene. Botanisk Tidsskrift 35(3): 1–653.Google Scholar
  69. Wittig, R., & Neite, H. 1985. Acid Indicators around the Trunk Base of Fagus sylvatica in Limestone and Loess Beechwoods: Distribution Pattern and Phytosociological Problems. Vegetatio 64: 113–119.Google Scholar
  70. Whitney, N. N. & Foster, D. R. 1988. Overstorey Composition and Age as Determinants of the Understorey Flora of Woods of Central New England. J. Ecol. 76: 867–876.Google Scholar
  71. Økland, R. H. 1990. Vegetation Ecology: Theory, Methods and Applications with Reference to Fennoscandia. Sommerfeltia Supplement 1: 1–233.Google Scholar
  72. Økland, R. H., & Eilertsen, O. 1994. Canonical Correspondence Analysis with Variation Partitioning: some Comments and an Application. J. Veg. Sci. 5: 117–126.Google Scholar
  73. Økland, T. 1988. An Ecological Approach to the Investigation of a Beech Forest in Vestfold, SE Norway. Nord. J. Bot. 8(4): 375–407.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Aude
    • 1
  • Jonas E. Lawesson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Landscape EcologyNational Environmental Research Institute (NERI)RøndeDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Landscape EcologyNational Environmental Research Institute (NERI)RøndeDenmark

Personalised recommendations