Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biological legacies soften pine plantation effects for bryophytes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biological legacies are organic structures and patterns remaining after a disturbance that may contribute to the complexity of the recovering vegetation. Legacies may, in turn, reduce the impacts of human disturbances such as logging and habitat transformation on elements of biodiversity. To examine the effects of biological legacies on biotic responses after disturbance, we surveyed 32 sites for bryophytes in an area subject to large-scale conversion of native eucalypt forest to exotic Pinus radiata D. Don plantations in eastern Australia. We sampled bryophyte and substrate diversity (log, bare ground, upturned tree/log, and trees) in eight sites in each of four landscape context classes: pine plantation stands, elliptical-shaped remnants, strip-shaped remnants, and controls in a large area of contiguous, unmanaged eucalypt forest. We found a muted response by individual species of bryophyte to landscape context. We attribute this, in part, to the presence of logs in the intensively managed pine plantation sites. The boost in bryophyte diversity from species on logs meant that some pine sites supported similar species composition to the continuous eucalypt forest controls. Our findings also underline the importance of local controls and structural variation, including leaving logs and native trees in plantations, for enhancing bryophyte species richness in managed landscapes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armstrong AJ, van Hensbergen HJ, Scott DF et al (1996) Are pine plantations “inhospitable seas” around remnant native habitat within south-western Cape forestry areas? S Afr For J 176:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Beever J, Allison KW, Child J (1992) The mosses of New Zealand, 2nd edn. University of Otago Press, Dunedin

    Google Scholar 

  • Broncano MJ, Retana J, Rodrigo A (2005) Predicting the recovery of Pinus halepensis and Quercus ilex forests after a large wildfire in north-eastern Spain. Plant Ecol 180:47–56. doi:10.1007/s11258-005-0974-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER 6.1. PRIMER-E Ltd, Plymouth

  • Collett DA (1991) Modeling binary data. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLong SC, Kessler WB (2000) Ecological characteristics of mature forest remnants left by wildfire. For Ecol Manag 131:93–106. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00203-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmqvist T, Wall M, Berggren AL et al (2001) Tropical forest reorganization after cyclone and fire disturbance in Samoa: remnant trees as biological legacies. Conserv Ecol 5:10 (online)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson TS, Berglund H, Ostlund L (2005) History and forest biodiversity of woodland key habitats in south boreal Sweden. Biol Conserv 122:289–303. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estades CF, Temple SA (1999) Deciduous-forest bird communities in a fragmented landscape dominated by exotic pine plantations. Ecol Appl 9:573–585. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0573:DFBCIA]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton NJ, Frego KA (2005) Bryophyte (moss and liverwort) conservation under remnant canopy in managed forests. Biol Conserv 122:417–430. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2002a) The conservation value of paddock trees for birds in a variegated landscape in southern New South Wales. 1. Species composition and site occupancy patterns. Biodivers Conserv 11:807–832. doi:10.1023/A:1015371511169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2002b) The conservation value of paddock trees for birds in a variegated landscape in southern New South Wales. 2. Paddock trees as stepping stones. Biodivers Conserv 11:833–849. doi:10.1023/A:1015318328007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster DR, Knight DH, Franklin JF (1998) Landscape patterns and legacies resulting from large, infrequent forest disturbances. Ecosystems (NY, Print) 1:497–510. doi:10.1007/s100219900046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF, MacMahon JA (2000) Messages from a mountain. Science 288:1183–1185. doi:10.1126/science.288.5469.1183

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF, Lindenmayer DB, MacMahon JA et al (2000) Threads of continuity. Conserv Pract 1:8–17. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4629.2000.tb00155.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glime JM (2001) The role of bryophytes in temperate forest ecosystems. Hikobia 13:267–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ et al (1986) Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv Ecol Res 15:33–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Heegaard E, Hangelbroek HH (1999) The distribution of Ulota crispa at a local scale in relation to both dispersal- and habitat-related factors. Lindbergia 24:65–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Huggett R, Cheesman J (2002) Topography and the environment. Prentice Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh RP, Turner RJ (1994) Birds in eucalypt plantations: the likely role of retained habitat trees. Aust Birds 28:32–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, Pope ML (1999a) A large-scale “experiment” to examine the effects of landscape context and habitat fragmentation on mammals. Biol Conserv 88:387–403. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00111-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, Pope ML et al (1999b) The response of arboreal marsupials to landscape context: a large-scale fragmentation study. Ecol Appl 9:594–611. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0594:TROAMT]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer D, Cunningham R, Donnelly C (2002a) Effects of forest fragmentation on bird assemblages in a novel landscape context. Ecol Monogr 72:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Claridge AW, Gilmore AM et al (2002b) The ecological role of logs in Australian forest and the potential impacts of harvesting intensification on log-using biota. Pac Conserv Biol 8:121–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Foster DR, Franklin JF et al (2004) Salvage harvesting policies after natural disturbance. Science 303:1303. doi:10.1126/science.1093438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, Peakall R (2005) On the recovery of populations of small mammals in forest fragments following major population reduction. J Appl Ecol 42:649–658. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01054.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobel S, Dengler J, Hobohm C (2006a) Species richness of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens in dry grasslands: the effects of environment, landscape structure and competition. Folia Geobot 41:377–393. doi:10.1007/BF02806555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobel S, Snall T, Rydin H (2006b) Metapopulation processes in epiphytes inferred from patterns of regional distribution and local abundance in fragmented forest landscapes. J Ecol 94:856–868. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01114.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Garza C, Howe HF (2003) Restoring tropical diversity: beating the time tax on species loss. J Appl Ecol 40:423–429. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00819.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meagher D, Fuhrer BA (2003) A field guide to the mosses and allied plants of southern Australia. Australian Biological Resources Study, Commonwealth of Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison ML, Marcot BG, Mannan RW (2006) Wildlife-habitat relationships: concepts and applications. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmaster SG, Belland RJ, Arsenault A et al (2005) The ones we left behind: comparing plot sampling and floristic habitat sampling for estimating bryophyte diversity. Divers Distrib 11:57–72. doi:10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00123.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver I, Pearce S, Greenslade PJM et al (2006) Contribution of paddock trees to the conservation of terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity within grazed native pastures. Aust Ecol 31:1–12. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2006.01537.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paltto H, Norden B, Gotmark F et al (2006) At which spatial and temporal scales does landscape context affect local density of red data book and indicator species? Biol Conserv 133:442–454. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry DA (1994) Forest ecosystems. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Pharo EJ, Beattie AJ (2002) The association between substrate variability and bryophyte and lichen diversity in Eastern Australian forests. The Bryologist 105:11–26. doi:10.1639/0007-2745(2002)105[0011:TABSVA]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pharo EJ, Zartman CE (2007) Bryophytes in a changing landscape: the hierarchical effects of habitat fragmentation on ecological and evolutionary processes. Biol Conserv 135:315–325. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pharo EJ, Lindenmayer DB, Taws N (2004) The effects of large-scale fragmentation on bryophytes in temperate forests. J Appl Ecol 41:910–921. doi:10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00947.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pywell RF, Bullock JM, Tallowin JB et al (2007) Enhancing diversity of species-poor grasslands: an experimental assessment of multiple constraints. J Appl Ecol 44:81–94. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01260.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scott GAM (1985) Southern Australian liverworts. Bureau of flora and fauna. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott GAM, Stone IG (1976) The mosses of southern Australia. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedia EG, Ehrenfeld JG (2003) Lichens and mosses promote alternate stable plant communities in the New Jersey pinelands. Oikos 100:447–458. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12058.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snäll T, Ribeiro PJ, Rydin H (2003) Spatial occurrence and colonisations in patch-tracking metapopulations: local conditions versus dispersal. Oikos 103:566–578. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12551.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V et al (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner IM (1996) Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forest: a review of the evidence. J Appl Ecol 33:200–209. doi:10.2307/2404743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner PAM, Pharo EJ (2005) Influence of substrate and forest age on bryophyte species composition in Tasmanian mixed forest. The Bryologist 108:67–85. doi:10.1639/0007-2745(2005)108[67:IOSTAF]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Baker WL, Peterson CJ et al (1998) Factors influencing succession: lessons from large, infrequent natural disturbances. Ecosystems 1:511–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Romme WH, Tinker DB (2003) Surprises and lessons from the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Front Ecol Environ 1:351–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan RJ, Rodgerson L, Dickman CR (2002) Critical life cycles of plants and animals: developing a process-based understanding of population changes in fire-prone landscapes. In: Bradstock RA et al (eds) Flammable Australia: the fire regimes, biodiversity of a continent. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp 94–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisdom MJ, Vavra M, Boyd JM et al (2006) Understanding ungulate herbivory-episodic disturbance effects on vegetation dynamics: knowledge gaps and management needs. Wildl Soc Bull 34:283–292. doi:10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[283:UUHDEO]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright JP, Flecker AS, Jones CG (2003) Local vs landscape controls on plant species richness in beaver meadows. Ecology 84:3162–3173. doi:10.1890/02-0598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zartman CE (2003) Habitat fragmentation impacts on epiphyllous bryophyte communities in central Amazonia. Ecology 84:948–954. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0948:HFIOEB]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zartman CE, Nascimento HEM (2006) Are habitat-tracking metacommunities dispersal limited? Inferences from abundance-occupancy patterns of epiphylls in Amazonian forest fragments. Biol Conserv 127:46–54. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.07.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zartman CE, Shaw AJ (2006) Metapopulation extinction thresholds in rain forest remnants. Am Nat 167:177–189. doi:10.1086/499376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zechmeister HG, Tribsch A, Moser D et al (2003) Biodiversity ‘hot spots’ for bryophytes in landscapes dominated by agriculture in Austria. Agric Ecosyst Environ 94:159–167. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00028-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to N. Taws for field data collection. Access to field sites was facilitated through assistance from C. Macgregor, P. Smith, M. Crane and D. Rawlins. This study was funded by a University of Tasmania Internal Research Grant Scheme award. The ongoing work at Tumut is funded through grants from Land and Water Australia, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Australian Research Council, the Pratt Foundation, the Winnifred Violet Scott Trust, NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, State Forests of New South Wales, and New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 78, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

    Emma J. Pharo

  2. The Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    David B. Lindenmayer

Authors
  1. Emma J. Pharo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David B. Lindenmayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emma J. Pharo.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 1

Table 1 Substrate preference as determined by information in (Scott and Stone 1976; Scott 1985; Beever et al. 1992; Meagher and Fuhrer 2003), and the presence and frequency of each of the 58 bryophyte species in total (P = 32) and in each of the four landscape context classes (P = 8)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pharo, E.J., Lindenmayer, D.B. Biological legacies soften pine plantation effects for bryophytes. Biodivers Conserv 18, 1751–1764 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9556-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9556-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation