Impact of drainage and hydrological restoration on vegetation structure in boreal spruce swamp forests

Forest Ecology and Management

Volumn 330, Issue , 2014, Pages 115-125

  Maanavilja, Liisa ^a   Aapala, Kaisu ^b   Haapalehto, Tuomas ^c,d   Kotiaho, Janne S ^d   Tuittila, Eeva Stiina ^a,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c Natural Heritage Services   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^e UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Ecosystem recovery; Peatlands; Plant functional types; Rewetting; Species diversity; Sphagnum

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; RESTORATION; SURVEYS; TIMBER; VEGETATION; WETLANDS;

ECOSYSTEM RECOVERIES; PEAT LAND; PLANT FUNCTIONAL TYPE; RE-WETTING; SPHAGNUM;

DRAINAGE;

BIODIVERSITY; BOREAL FOREST; COMMUNITY COMPOSITION; DEGRADATION; DRAINAGE; FORESTRY PRODUCTION; HYDROLOGICAL REGIME; MOSS; ORDINATION; PLANT COMMUNITY; REWETTING; SPECIES DIVERSITY; SWAMP FOREST; UNDERSTORY; VEGETATION; VEGETATION STRUCTURE; WATER TABLE;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; DRAINAGE; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; FORESTS; PLANTS; RESTORATION; REWETTING; SPECIES IDENTIFICATION; SPHAGNUM; SURVEYS; WETLANDS;

FINLAND; NORTHERN EUROPE;

EID: 84905198855     PISSN: 03781127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Aapala, K., Rehell, S., Kokko, A., Sallantaus, T., Lindholm, T., 2013. Voidaanko uhanalaisten suoluontotyyppien tilaa parantaa ennallistamalla? [Can restoration be used to improve the state of endangered mire biotopes?]. In: Aapala, K., Similä, M. & Penttinen, J. (eds.) Handbook for the restoration of drained peatlands. Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus. Series B 188. (In Finnish with English abstract), pp. 108-112. Metsähallitus, Vantaa.
2. Asada T., Warner B.G., Banner A. Sphagnum invasion after clear-cutting and excavator mounding in a hypermaritime forest of British Columbia. Can. J. Forest Res.-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 2004, 34:1730-1746.
3. Bullock J.M., Aronson J., Newton A.C., Pywell R.F., Rey Benayas J.M. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, 26:541-549.
4. Chapin F.S., Bret-Harte M.S., Hobbie S.E., Zhong H.L. Plant functional types as predictors of transient responses of arctic vegetation to global change. J. Veg. Sci. 1996, 7:347-358.
5. Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010. Strategic plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. COP 10 Decision X/2. Nagoya, Japan.
6. Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C., LaRoe, E.T., 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., version 4 Dec 1998. Accessed in: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online, Jamestown, ND. (accessed 20.03.14). http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm.
7. Dobson A.P., Bradshaw A.D., Baker A.J.M. Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 1997, 277:515-522.
8. Foster D., Swanson F., Aber J., Burke I., Brokaw N., Tilman D., Knapp A. The importance of land-use legacies to ecology and conservation. Bioscience 2003, 53:77-88.
9. Frolking S., Roulet N.T., Tuittila E., Bubier J., Quillet A., Talbot J., Richard P.J.H. A new model of Holocene peatland net primary production, decomposition, water balance, and peat accumulation. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2010, 1:1-21.
10. González E., Henstra S.W., Rochefort L., Bradfield G.E., Poulin M. Is rewetting enough to recover Sphagnum and associated peat-accumulating species in traditionally exploited bogs?. Wetland Ecol. Manage. 2014, 22:49-62.
11. Haapalehto T.O., Vasander H., Jauhiainen S., Tahvanainen T., Kotiaho J.S. The effects of peatland restoration on water-table depth, elemental concentrations, and vegetation: 10 years of changes. Restor. Ecol. 2011, 19:587-598.
12. Hämet-Ahti L., Suominen J., Ulvinen T., Uotila P. Retkeilykasvio [Field Flora of Finland] 1998, Finnish Museum of Natural History, Botanical Museum, Helsinki. fourth ed.
13. Hedberg P., Kotowski W., Saetre P., Mälson K., Rydin H., Sundberg S. Vegetation recovery after multiple-site experimental fen restorations. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 147:60-67.
14. Hill M.O. An annotated checklist of the mosses of Europe and Macaronesia. J. Bryology 2006, 28:198-267.
15. Hill M.O. Diversity and evenness - unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 1973, 54:427-432.
16. Hörnberg G., Zackrisson O., Segerström U., Svensson B.W., Ohlson M., Bradshaw R.H.W. Boreal swamp forests. Bioscience 1998, 48:795-802.
17. Joosten H., Clarke D. Wise Use of Mires and Peatlands - Background and Principles Including a Framework for Decision-Making 2002, International Mire Conservation Group/International Peat Society, Jyväskylä, Finland.
18. Josefsson T., Gunnarson B., Liedgren L., Bergman I., Ostlund L. Historical human influence on forest composition and structure in boreal Fennoscandia. Can. J. Forest Res.-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 2010, 40:872-884.
19. Kaakinen, E., Kokko, A., Aapala, K., Kalpio, S., Eurola, S., Haapalehto, T., Heikkilä, R., Hotanen, J.-P., Kondelin, H., Nousiainen, H., Ruuhijärvi, R., Salminen, P., Tuominen, S., Vasander, H., Virtanen, K. 2008. Suot [Mires]. In: Raunio, A., Schulman, A., Kontula, T. (Eds.) Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus [Assessment of threatened habitat types in Finland], pp. 75-109. Finnish Environment Instute, Helsinki. Suomen ympäristö 8.
20. Kangas L., Maanavilja L., Hájek T., Juurola E., Chimner R.A., Mehtätalo L., Tuittila E. Photosynthetic traits of Sphagnum and feather moss species in undrained, drained and rewetted boreal spruce swamp forests. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 4:381-396.
21. Kenkel N.C. On selecting an appropriate multivariate analysis. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2006, 86:663-676.
22. Korpela, L., 2004. The importance of forested mire margin plant communities for the diversity of managed boreal forests in Finland. Academic dissertation. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research papers 935.
23. Kuuluvainen T., Aakala T. Natural forest dynamics in boreal Fennoscandia: a review and classification. Silva Fennica 2011, 45:823-841.
24. Laine J., Vasander H., Laiho R. Long-term effects of water level drawdown on the vegetation of drained pine mires in southern Finland. J. Appl. Ecol. 1995, 32:785-802.
25. 2exchange. Botany 2012, 90:63-74.
26. Laine J., Vasander H., Hotanen J.-P., Nousiainen H., Saarinen M., Penttilä T. Suotyypit ja turvekankaat - opas kasvupaikkojen tunnistamiseen 2012, Metsäkustannus, Hämeenlinna.
27. Mälson K., Backeus I., Rydin H. Long-term effects of drainage and initial effects of hydrological restoration on rich fen vegetation. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2008, 11:99-106.
28. Matthews J.W., Peralta A.L., Flanagan D.N., Baldwin P.M., Soni A., Kent A.D., Endress A.G. Relative influence of landscape vs. local factors on plant community assembly in restored wetlands. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19:2108-2123.
29. McCarter C.P.R., Price J.S. The hydrology of the Bois-des-Bel bog peatland restoration: 10 years post-restoration. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 55:73-81.
30. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human well-Being: Synthesis 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
31. Montoya D., Rogers L., Memmott J. Emerging perspectives in the restoration of biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012, 27:666-672.
32. Mulligan R.C., Gignac L.D. Bryophyte community structure in a boreal poor fen II: Interspecific competition among five mosses. Can. J. Bot.-Revue Canadienne De Botanique 2002, 80:330-339.
33. Noble M., Lawrence D., Streveler G. Sphagnum invasion beneath an evergreen forest canopy in southeastern Alaska. Bryologist 1984, 87:119-127.
34. Ohlson M., Söderström L., Hörnberg G., Zackrisson O., Hermansson J. Habitat qualities versus long-term continuity as determinants of biodiversity in boreal old-growth swamp forests. Biol. Conserv. 1997, 81:221-231.
35. Poulin M., Andersen R., Rochefort L. A new approach for tracking vegetation change after restoration: a case study with peatlands. Restor. Ecol. 2013, 21:363-371.
36. Päivänen J., Hånell B. Peatland Ecology and Forestry - A Sound Approach 2012, University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Sciences, Helsinki.
37. Rey Benayas J.M., Newton A.C., Diaz A., Bullock J.M. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 2009, 325:1121-1124.
38. Rochefort L. New frontiers in bryology and lichenology - Sphagnum - a keystone genus in habitat restoration. Bryologist 2000, 103:503-508.
39. Roxburgh S.H., Shea K., Wilson J. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis: Patch dynamics and mechanisms of species coexistence. Ecology 2004, 85:359-371.
40. SERI (Society for Ecological Restoration International) Science & Policy Working Group 2004. SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration, version 2. http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/ser-international-primer-on-ecological-restoration, last accessed 20.3.2014.
41. Soro A., Sundberg S., Rydin H. Species diversity, niche metrics and species associations in harvested and undisturbed bogs. J. Veg. Sci. 1999, 10:549-560.
42. Strack M., Price J.S. Moisture controls on carbon dioxide dynamics of peat-Sphagnum monoliths. Ecohydrology 2009, 2:34-41.
43. Suding K.N. Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011, 42:465-487.
44. Syrjänen K., Anttila S., Ulvinen T., Laaka-Lindberg S., Huttunen S., Laitinen T., Ahonen I., Fagerstén R., He X., Juslén A., et al. Bryophytes. The 2010 Red List of Finnish Species 2010, 336-343. Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki. P. Rassi, E. Hyvärinen, A. Juslén, I. Mannerkoski (Eds.).
45. ter Braak, C.J.F., Šmilauer, P., 2012. Canoco reference manual and user's guide: software for ordination (version 5.0). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, USA, http://www.canoco.com.
46. Tuomisto H. An updated consumer's guide to evenness and related indices. Oikos 2012, 121:1203-1218.
47. Tuomisto H. A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Yes, it does exist. Oecologia 2010, 164:853-860.
48. Turetsky M.R., Euskirchen E., Bond-Lamberty B., Talbot J., Frolking S., McGuire A.D., Tuittila E.-S. The resiliency and functional role of moss in boreal and arctic ecosystems. New Phytol. 2012, 196:49-67.
49. Ulvinen T., Syrjänen K. Suomen sammalten levinneisyys eliömaakunnissa [Ecoregional occurrence of the bryophytes of Finland]. Suomen uhanalaiset sammalet [Endangered bryophytes of Finland] 2009, 309-342. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki. S. Laaka-Lindberg, S. Anttila, K. Syrjänen (Eds.).
50. Uotila A., Kouki J. Understorey vegetation in spruce-dominated forests in eastern Finland and Russian Karelia: successional patterns after anthropogenic and natural disturbances. For. Ecol. Manage. 2005, 215:113-137.
51. Vesterinen, P., Similä, M., Rehell, S., Haapalehto, S., Perkiö, R. 2013. Ennallistaminen [Restoration]. In: Aapala, K., Similä, M., Penttinen, J. (Eds.) Handbook for the restoration of drained peatlands. Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus. Series B 188. (In Finnish with English abstract), pp. 138-151. Metsähallitus, Vantaa.
52. Ward S.E., Ostle N.J., Oakley S., Quirk H., Henrys P.A., Bardgett R.D. Warming effects on greenhouse gas fluxes in peatlands are modulated by vegetation composition. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16:1285-1293.
53. Wu Y., Blodau C. PEATBOG: a biogeochemical model for analyzing coupled carbon and nitrogen dynamics in northern peatlands. Geosci. Model Dev. 2013, 6:1173-1207.