Advertisement

AMBIO

, Volume 40, Issue 8, pp 867–877 | Cite as

Understorey Vegetation Stability and Dynamics in Unmanaged Boreal Forests Along a Deposition Gradient in Sweden

  • Ulf Grandin
Article

Abstract

The aims of this study were to investigate spatial patterns and temporal changes in understorey vegetation at four forest catchments forming a depositional gradient. Inventories of the bottom and field layers were carried out in the 1990s and repeated after 5–14 years, depending on catchment. It was hypothesized that changes and patterns in ground vegetation would be related to changes and patterns in N and S deposition. The data were analyzed using Ellenberg indices and multivariate methods. All catchments showed temporal changes in species composition. Analyses of the bottom layer were confounded by a change of field staff, but after accounting for this observer effect, differences in species composition between the catchments remained. Within catchments, the changes in species composition were unrelated to N or S deposition. Relationships between environmental factors, expressed as Ellenberg indices, and compositional patterns differed between catchments although Ellenberg indices showed small temporal changes.

Keywords

Long-term Bryophytes Vascular plants Observer effect Ellenberg 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Tommy Pettersson is thanked for his zealous and careful field work. Richard K. Johnson and anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments on the manuscript. The monitoring program and this study were financed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.

References

  1. Ahrends, A., C. Rahbek, M.T. Bulling, N.D. Burgess, P.J. Platts, J.C. Lovett, V.W. Kindemba, N. Owen, et al. 2011. Conservation and the botanist effect. Biological Conservation 144: 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bache, B.W., I.T. Rosenqvist, P. Goldsmith, D. Fowler, J.G. Ogden, and K.A. Brown. 1984. Soil–water interactions [and discussion]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences 305: 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, R.G. 2009. Ecosystem geography: From ecoregions to sites. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbier, S., F. Gosselin, and P. Balandier. 2008. Influence of tree species on understory vegetation diversity and mechanisms involved—a critical review for temperate and boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management 254: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benedictow, A., H. Fagerli, M. Gauss, J.E. Jonson, Á. Nyíri, D. Simpson, S. Tsyro, A. Valdebenito, et al. 2009. Transboundary acidification, eutrophication and ground level ozone in Europe in 2007. EMEP Status Report 2009. Norwegian Meteorological Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Bobbink, R., M. Ashmore, S. Braun, and W. Flückiger. 2003. Empirical nitrogen critical loads for natural and semi-natural ecosystems: 2002 update. Background document for expert workshop on empirical critical loads for nitrogen on (semi-) natural ecosystems. In Empirical critical loads for nitrogen, ed. B. Achermann and R. Bobbink, 43–170. Berne: Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape.Google Scholar
  7. Bobbink, R., K. Hicks, J. Galloway, T. Spranger, R. Alkemade, M. Ashmore, M. Bustamante, S. Cinderby, et al. 2010. Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant diversity: A synthesis. Ecological Applications 20: 30–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, D.H., and J.W. Bates. 1990. Bryophytes and nutrient cycling. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 104: 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornwell, W.K., and P.J. Grubb. 2003. Regional and local patterns in plant species richness with respect to resource availability. Oikos 100: 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diekmann, M. 2003. Species indicator values as an important tool in applied plant ecology—a review. Basic and Applied Ecology 4: 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellenberg, H., H.E. Weber, R. Düll, V. Wirth, W. Werner, and D. Paulissen. 1991. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobotanica 18: 1–248 (in German).Google Scholar
  12. Erisman, J.W., and W. de Vries. 2000. Nitrogen deposition and effects on European forests. Environmental Reviews 8: 65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geburek, T., K. Robitschek, and N. Milasowszky. 2008. A tree of many faces: Why are there different crown types in Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.)? Flora—Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 203: 126–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilliam, F.S. 2006. Response of the herbaceous layer of forest ecosystems to excess nitrogen deposition. Journal of Ecology 94: 1176–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grandin, U. 2004. Dynamics of understory vegetation in boreal forests: Experiences from Swedish integrated monitoring site. Forest Ecology and Management 195: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grandin, U. 2011. Epiphytic algae and lichens as a proxy for N and S deposition—a long-term study along a deposition gradient in Sweden. Ambio. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0206-9.
  17. Greenwood, J., and D. Durand. 1955. The distribution of length and components of the sum of n random unit vectors. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 26: 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hytteborn, H., and T. Verwijst. 2011. The importance of gaps and dwarf trees in the regeneration of Swedish spruce forests: The origin and content of Sernander’s (1936) gap dynamics theory. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 26: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jalkanen, R., and B. Konocpka. 1998. Snow-packing as a potential harmful factor on Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris and Betula pubescens at high altitude in northern Finland. European Journal of Forest Pathology 28: 373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. JMP, 2010. Version 9. SAS Institute Inc., Cary.Google Scholar
  21. Köchy, M., and S. Bråkenhielm. 2008. Separation of effects of moderate N deposition from natural change in ground vegetation of forests and bogs. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 1654–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, J.A. 1998. Unintentional experiments with terrestrial ecosystems: Ecological effects of sulphur and nitrogen pollutants. Journal of Ecology 86: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liska, J., and T. Herben. 2008. Long-term changes of epiphytic lichen species composition over landscape gradients: An 18 year time series. The Lichenologist 40: 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Magurran, A.E. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Magurran, A.E., S.R. Baillie, S.T. Buckland, J.M. Dick, D.A. Elston, E.M. Scott, R.I. Smith, P.J. Somerfield, et al. 2010. Long-term datasets in biodiversity research and monitoring: Assessing change in ecological communities through time. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25: 574–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Messier, C., J. Posada, I. Aubin, and M. Beaudet. 2009. Functional relationships between old-growth forest canopies, understorey light and vegetation dynamics. In Old-growth forests, eds. C. Wirth, G. Gleixner, and M. Heimann, 115–139. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Milberg, P., J. Bergstedt, J. Fridman, G. Odell, and L. Westerberg. 2008. Observer bias and random variation in vegetation monitoring data. Journal of Vegetation Science 19: 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nilsson, I.N., and S.G. Nilsson. 1985. Experimental estimates of census efficiency and pseudoturnover on islands: Error trend and between-observer variation when recording vascular plants. Journal of Ecology 73: 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nordin, A., J. Strengbom, J. Witzell, T. Näsholm, L. Ericson, et al. 2005. Nitrogen deposition and the biodiversity of boreal forests: Implications for the nitrogen critical load. Ambio 34: 20–24.Google Scholar
  30. Økland, R.H., and O. Eilertsen. 1996. Dynamics of understory vegetation in an old-growth boreal coniferous forest, 1988–1993. Journal of Vegetation Science 7: 747–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oksanen, J. 2006. Vegan: R functions for vegetation ecologists. http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/softhelp/vegan.html. Accessed 28 Oct 2011.
  32. Paillet, Y., L. Bergès, J. Hjältén, P. Ódor, C. Avon, M. Bernhardt-Römermann, R.-J. Bijlsma, L. de Bruyn, et al. 2010. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: Meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conservation Biology 24: 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Development Core Team. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 28 Oct 2011.
  34. Reis, S., R. Pinder, M. Zhang, G. Lijie, and M. Sutton. 2009. Reactive nitrogen in atmospheric emission inventories. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 9: 7657–7677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salemaa, M., J. Derome, and P. Nöjd. 2008. Response of boreal forest vegetation to the fertility status of the organic layer along a climatic gradient. Boreal Environment Research 13: 48–66.Google Scholar
  36. Sang, W., and F. Bai. 2009. Vascular diversity patterns of forest ecosystem before and after a 43-year interval under changing climate conditions in the Changbaishan Nature Reserve, northeastern China. Plant Ecology 201: 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sjöberg, K., A. Svensson, G. Pihl Karlsson, and H. Blomgren. 2006. Nationell miljöövervakning inom EMEP och luft- och nederbördskemiska nätet 2004 & 2005. Stockholm: IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet (In Swedish).Google Scholar
  38. Sjörs, H. 1956. Nordisk växtgeografi. Stockholm: Alb. Bonniers boktryckeri. (In Swedish).Google Scholar
  39. Strengbom, J., A. Nordin, T. Näsholm, and L. Ericson. 2001. Slow recovery of boreal forest ecosystem following decreased nitrogen input. Functional Ecology 15: 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Dobben, H., and W. de Vries. 2010. Relation between forest vegetation, atmospheric deposition and site conditions at regional and European scales. Environmental Pollution 158: 921–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vittoz, P., and A. Guisan. 2007. How reliable is the monitoring of permanent vegetation plots? A test with multiple observers. Journal of Vegetation Science 18: 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Zechmeister, H.G., T. Dirnböck, K. Hülber, and M. Mirtl. 2007. Assessing airborne pollution effects on bryophytes—lessons learned through long-term integrated monitoring in Austria. Environmental Pollution 147: 696–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aquatic Sciences and AssessmentSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations