Sensitivity of ground layer vegetation diversity descriptors in indicating forest naturalness

Community Ecology

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 199-209

  Standovar T ^a   Odor P ^a   Aszalos R ^b   Galhidy L ^a  

^a EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

^b INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Hungary)

Author keywords

diversity; Bryophytes; Fagus sylvatica; Forest management; Herbaceous plants; Pattern diversity; Spatial scale; Species richness; Tree stand structure

Indexed keywords

BRYOPHYTE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; HABITAT TYPE; NATURALNESS; SPATIAL VARIATION; SPECIES DIVERSITY; SPECIES EVENNESS; SPECIES RICHNESS; STAND STRUCTURE; VASCULAR PLANT; VEGETATION DYNAMICS;

BRYOPHYTA; BRYOPHYTES; FAGUS; FAGUS SYLVATICA;

EID: 34347233489     PISSN: 15858553     EISSN: 15882756     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1556/ComEc.7.2006.2.7     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Andersson, L.I. and H. Hytteborn. 1991. Bryophytes and decaying wood - a comparison between managed and natural forest. Holarctic Ecol. 14: 121-130.
2. Bachmann, P., K. Kuusela and J. Uuttera (eds.). 1996. Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Management. European Forest Institute, Joensuu.
3. Bachmann, P., M. Köhl and R. Päivinen (eds.). 1998. Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
4. Bobiec, A. 1998. The mosaic diversity of field layer vegetation in the natural and exploited forests of Bialowiezia. Plant Ecol. 136: 175-187.
5. Boyle, T.J.B. and B. Boontawee (eds.). 1995. Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity in Tropical and Temperate Forests. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor.
6. Campatella, G., R. Canullo and S. Bartha. 2004. Coenostate descriptors and spatial dependence in vegetation - derived variables in monitoring forest dynamics and assembly rules. Community Ecol. 5: 105-114.
7. Christensen, M., K. Hahn, E.P. Mountford, P. Ódor, T. Standovár, D. Rozenbergar, J. Diaci, S. Wijdeven, P. Meyer, S. Winter and T. Vrska. 2005. Dead wood in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. Forest Ecol. Manage. 210: 267-282.
8. Collins, B.S., K.P. Dunne and S.T.A. Pickett. 1985. Responses of forest herbs to canopy gaps. In: Pickett, S.T.A. (ed.), The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press Inc., London. pp. 218-234.
9. Collins, B.S. and S.T.A. Pickett. 1987. Influence of canopy opening on the environment and herb layer in a northern hardwoods forest. Vegetatio 70: 3-10.
10. Diekmann, M. 1994. Decidous forest vegetation in boreo-nemoral Scandinavia. Acta Phytogeographica Suecica 80: 1-107.
11. During, H.J. 1979. Life strategies of bryophytes: a preliminary review. Lindbergia 5: 2-18.
12. During, H.J. 1992. Ecological classifications of bryophytes and lichens. In: Bates, J. W. (ed.), Bryophytes and Lichens in a Changing Environment. Clarendon Press, Oxford. pp. 1-31.
13. Erzberger, P. and B. Papp. 2004. Annotated checklist of Hungarian bryophytes. Studia Bot. Hung. 35: 91-149.
14. Fekete, G. 1974. Tölgyesek relatív megvilágítása és a gyepszint fajainak eloszlása. Studia Bot. Hung. 9: 87-96.
15. Ferris, R. and J.W. Humphrey. 1999. A review of potential biodivesity indicators for application in British forests. Forestry 72: 313-328.
16. Gálhidy, L. 1999. Természetközeli és gazdasági erdõk szerkezetének összehasonlító vizsgálata. Master Thesis, Loránd Eötvös University, Budapest, Hungary.
17. Gálhidy, L., B. Mihók, A. Hagyo, K. Rajkai and T. Standovár. 2006. Effects of gap size and associated changes in light and soil moisture on the understorey vegetation of a Hungarian beech forest. Plant Ecol. 183: 133-145.
18. Graae, B.J. and V.S. Heskjaer. 1997. A comparison of understorey vegetation between untouched and managed deciduous forest in denmark. Forest Ecol. Manage. 96: 111-123.
19. Grime, J.P., J.G. Hodgson and R. Hunt. 1988. Comparative Plant Ecology. A Functional Approach to Common British Species. Unwin Hyman Ltd, London.
20. Gustafsson, L. and T. Hallingbäck. 1988. Bryophyte flora and vegetation of managed and virgin conifrous forest in South-West Sweden. Biol. Conserv. 44: 283-300.
21. Hermy, M., O. Honnay, L. Firbank, C. Grashof-Bokdam and J.E. Lawesson. 1999. An ecological comparison between ancient and other forest plant species of Europe, and the implications for forest conservation. Biol. Conserv. 9: 9-22.
22. Hunter, M. L. 1999. Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
23. Jackson, S.W., C.A. Harper, D.S. Buckley and B.F. Miller. 2006. Short-term effects of silvicultural treatments on microsite heterogeneity and plant diversity in mature Tennessee oak-hickory forests. Northern J. Appl. Forestry 23: 197-203.
24. Kaennel, M. 1998. Biodiversity: a diversity in definitions. Assessment of biodiversity for improved forest planning. In: Bachmann, P., M. Köhl and R. Päivinen (eds.), Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. pp. 71-81.
25. Kenderes, K. and T. Standovar. 2003. The impact of forest management on forest floor vegetation evaluated by species traits. Community Ecol. 4: 51-62.
26. Kolb, A. and M. Diekmann. 2005. Effects of life-history traits on responses of plant species to forest fragmentation. Conserv. Biol. 19: 929-938.
27. Koop, H. 1989. Forest Dynamics. SILVI-STAR: A Comprehensive Monitoring System. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
28. Korpel, S. 1995. Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Jena, New York.
29. Kovács, M. 1968. Die Acerion pseudoplatani Wälder ( Mercuriali- Tilietum und Phyllitidi-Aceretum) des Mátra-Gebirges. Acta Botanica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 14: 331-350.
30. Kruys, N. and B. G. Jonsson. 1999. Fine woody debris is important for species richness on logs in managed boreal spruce forests in northern Sweden. Can. J. Forest Res. 29: 1295-1299.
31. Larsson, T.B., P. Angelstam, G. Balent, A. Barbati, R.J. Bijlsma, A. Boncina, R. Bradshaw, W. Bücking, O. Ciancio, P. Corona, J. Diaci, S. Dias, H. Ellenberg, F.M. Fernandes, F. Fernández- Gonzalez, R. Ferris, G. Frank, P. Friis-Müller, P. S. Giller, L. Gustafsson, K. Halbritter, S. Hall, L. Hansson, J. Innes, H. Jactel, M. Keannel-Dobbertin, M. Klein, M. Marchetti, G.M.J. Mohren, J. Niemelä, J. O'Halloran, E. Rametsteiner, F. Rego, C. Scheideger, R. Scotti, K. Sjöberg, I. Spanos, K. Spanos, T. Standovár, L. Svensson, B.A. Tommerås, D. Trakolis, J. Uuttera, D. van den Meersschaut, K. Vandekerkhove, P.M. Walsh and A. Watt. 2001. Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Ecological Bulletins 50: 1-237.
32. Lesica, P., B. McCune, S.V. Cooper and W.S. Hong. 1991. Differences in lichen and bryophyte communities between old-growth and managed second-growth forests in the Swan Valley, Montana. C. J. Bot. 69: 1745-1755.
33. Magurran, A.E. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell, Oxford.
34. Matthews, J. D. 1991. Silvicultural Systems. Calderon Press, Oxford.
35. Mihók, B., L. Gálhidy, K. Kelemen and T. Standovár. 2005. Study of gap-phase regeneration in a managed beech forest: relations between tree regeneration and light, substrate features and cover of ground vegetation. Acta Silvatica et Lignaria Hungarica 1: 25-38.
36. Nagaike, T., T. Kamitani and T. Nakashizuka. 2005. Effects of different forest management systems on plant species diversity in a Fagus crenata forested landscape of central Japan. Can. J. Forest Res. 35: 2832-2840.
37. Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol. 4: 355-364.
38. Noss, R.F. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecol. Manage. 115: 135-146.
39. Ódor, P. 2000. A Kékes Észak Erdorezervátum mohaflórája és mohavegetációjának jellemzése. Kitaibelia 5: 115-123.
40. Ódor, P., J. Heilmann-Clausen, M. Christensen, E. Aude, K.W. van Dort, A. Piltaver, I. Siller, M.T. Veerkamp, R. Walleyn, T. Standovár, A.F.M. van Hees, J. Kosec, N. Matocec, H. Kraigher and T. Grebenc. 2006. Diversity of dead wood inhabiting fungi and bryophytes in semi-natural beech forests in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 131: 58-71.
41. Ódor, P. and T. Standovár. 2001. Richness of bryophyte vegetation in a near-natural and managed beech stands: the effects of management-induced differences in dead wood. Ecological Bulletins 49: 219-229.
42. Ódor, P. and T. Standovár. 2002. Substrate specificity and community structure of bryophyte vegetation in a near-natural montane beech forest. Community Ecol. 3: 39-49.
43. Ódor, P. and A.F.M. van Hees. 2004. Preferences of dead wood inhabiting bryophytes for decay stage, log size and habitat types in Hungarian beech forests. J. Bryol. 26: 79-95.
44. Peterken, G.F. 1996. Natural Woodland. Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
45. Peterken, G.F. and M. Game. 1984. Historical factors affecting the number and distribution of vascular plant species in the woodlands of central Lincolnshire. J. Ecol. 72: 155-182.
46. Pielou, E.C. 1995. Biodiversity versus old-style diversity: measuring biodiversity for conservation. In: Boyle, T. J. B. and B. Boontawee (eds.), Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity in Tropical and Temperate Forests. CIFOR, Bogor. pp. 5-17.
47. Podani, J. 2000. Introduction to the Exploration of Multivariate Biological Data. Backhuys, Leiden.
48. Podani, J., T. Czárán and S. Bartha. 1993. Pattern, area and diversity: the importance of spatial scale in species assemblages. Abstracta Botanica 17: 37-51.
49. Rambo, T.R. and P.S. Muir. 1998. Bryophyte species association with coarse woody debris and stand ages in Oregon. The Bryologist 101: 366-376.
50. Sadler, K.D. and G.E. Bradfield. 2000. Microscale distribution patterns of terrestrial bryophytes in a subalpine forest: the use of logistic regression as an interpretive tool. Community Ecol. 1: 57-64.
51. Schaetzl, R.J., S.F. Burns, D.L. Johnson and T.W. Small. 1989. Tree uprooting: review on impacts on forest ecology. Vegetatio 79: 165-176.
52. Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single species management passé in the landscape era? Biol. Conserv. 83: 247-257.
53. Simon, T. 2000. A magyarországi edényes flóra határozója. Harasztok-virágos növények. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest.
54. Smith, A. J. E. 1982. Bryophyte Ecology. Chapman and Hall, London.
55. Söderström, L. 1988. The occurrence of epxylic bryophyte and lichen species in an old natural and a managed forest stand in Northeast Sweden. Biol. Conserv. 45: 169-178.
56. Standovár, T. 1998. Diversity of ground-layer vegetation in beech forest. Comparison of semi-natural and managed beech stands in northern Hungary. In: Bachmann, P., M. Kohl and R. Paivinen (eds.), Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. pp. 381-388.
57. Standovár, T. and K. Kenderes. 2003. A review on natural stand dynamics in beechwoods of East Central Europe. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 1: 19-46.
58. Uemura, S. 1993. Patterns of leaf phenology in forest understory. Can. J. Bot. 72: 409-414.
59. Verheyen, K., O. Honnay, G. Motzkin, M. Hermy and D.R. Foster. 2003. Response of forest plant species to land-use change: a life-history trait-based approach. J. Ecol. 91: 563-577.
60. Voller, J. and S. Harrison (eds.) 1998. Conservation Biology Principles for Forested Landscapes. UBS Press, Vancouver.
61. Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
62. Zenner, E.K., J.M. Kabrick, R.G. Jensen, J.E. Peck and J.K. Grabner. 2006. Responses of ground flora to a gradient of harvest intensity in the Missouri Ozarks. Forest Ecology and Management 222: 326-334.