Advertisement

The early effects of afforestation on biodiversity of grasslands in Ireland

  • Erika BuscardoEmail author
  • George F. Smith
  • Daniel L. Kelly
  • Helena Freitas
  • Susan Iremonger
  • Fraser J. G. Mitchell
  • Saoirse O’Donoghue
  • Anne-Marie McKee
Chapter
Part of the Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation book series (TOBC, volume 9)

Abstract

The target rate of afforestation in Ireland over the next 30 years is 20,000 ha per year, which would result in an increase of the forest cover from the current 10% to 17%. In order to promote sustainable forest management practices, it is essential to know the composition and conservation value of habitats where afforestation is planned and the effects of subsequent planting upon biodiversity. The objectives of this study were to investigate changes in vegetation composition and diversity of grasslands 5 years after afforestation with Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and determine the primary ecological and management factors responsible for these changes. Species cover, environmental and management data were collected from 16 afforested and unplanted improved and wet grassland site pairs in Ireland. Our results indicate that 5 years after tree planting, there were significant changes in richness, composition, and abundance of species. Competitive and vigorous grasses were more abundant in planted than in unplanted sites, as were generalist species found in both open and wooded habitats, while small-stature shade-sensitive species were less abundant. Vascular plant species richness and Shannon’s diversity index were higher in unplanted wet grassland, than in the planted sites. Bryophyte species richness was higher in planted improved grassland than in unplanted sites. The differences were primarily the result of the exclusion of grazing, ground preparation, changes in nutrient management and drainage for afforestation. Drainage ditches provided a temporary habitat for less competitive species, but the overall effect of drainage was to reduce the diversity of species dependent on wet conditions. Variance partitioning showed differences in the relative influences of environmental and management variables on biodiversity in the two habitats, probably due to the greater pre-afforestation grazing pressure and fertilisation levels in improved grasslands. The differences in biodiversity between planted and unplanted grasslands indicate that afforestation represents a threat to semi-natural habitats where distinctive and highly localised plant communities could potentially occur.

Keywords

Afforestation Biodiversity Grassland Ordination Plantation Variation partitioning 

Abbreviations

CCA

Canonical correspondence analysis

Dbh

Diameter at breast height (1.3 m)

TVE

Total variation explained

IG

Improved grassland

WG

Wet grassland

TI

Total inertia

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alard D, Bance JF, Frileux PN (1994) Grassland vegetation as an indicator of the main agro-ecological factors in a rural landscape: consequences for biodiversity and wildlife conservation in central Normandy (France). J Environ Manage 42:91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfredsson H, Condron LM, Clarholm M, Davis MR (1998) Changes in soil acidity and organic matter following the establishment of conifers on former grassland in New Zealand. For Ecol Manage 112:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball ME (1974) Floristic changes on grasslands and heaths on the isle of Rhum after a reduction or exclusion of grazing. J Environ Manage 2:299–318Google Scholar
  4. Berthelot MPE (1859) Violet d’aniline. Repert Chim Appl 1:284Google Scholar
  5. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapéau P (1992) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73:1045–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrne C, Kelly DL, Jeffrey DW (1997) An experimental study of floristic composition in semi-natural grassland in eastern Ireland. In: Proceedings of the international occasional symposium of the European Grassland Federation, Warszawa, Łomża, Poland, 19–23 May 1997Google Scholar
  7. Curtis TGF, McGough HN (1988) The Irish red data book. 1. Vascular plants. Stationery Office, DublinGoogle Scholar
  8. Department of Agriculture Food, Forestry (1996) Growing for the future: a strategic plan for the development of the forestry sector in Ireland. Stationery Office, DublinGoogle Scholar
  9. Elemans M (2004) Light, nutrients and the growth of the herbaceous forest species. Acta Oecol 26:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission (1999) Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats. EUR 15/2. DG EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahy O, Gormally M (1998) A comparison of plant and carabid beetle communities in an Irish oak woodland with a nearby conifer plantation and clearfelled site. For Ecol Manage 110:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farley KA, Kelly EF (2004) Effects of afforestation of a páramo grassland on soil nutrient status. For Ecol Manage 195:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferris R, Peace AJ, Humphrey JW, Broome AC (2000) Relationships between vegetation, site type and stand structure in coniferous plantations in Britain. For Ecol Manage 136:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forest Service (2000) Forest biodiversity guidelines. Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, DublinGoogle Scholar
  15. Forest Service (2004) Forestry statistics. Department of Agriculture and Food, Dublin. http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/forestry/files/standard.xls
  16. Fossitt JA (2000) A guide to habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council, DublinGoogle Scholar
  17. French L (2005) Ground flora communities in Ireland’s plantation forests: their diversity, structure and composition. PhD thesis, University of Dublin, Trinity College, DublinGoogle Scholar
  18. Gardiner MJ, Radford T (1980) Soil associations of Ireland and their land use potential. An Foras Taluntais, DublinGoogle Scholar
  19. Gholz HL, Fisher RF, Pritchett WL (1985) Nutrient dynamics in slash pine plantation ecosystems. Ecology 66:647–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heritage Council (1999) Forestry and the National Heritage. Policy paper. Kilkenny, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill MO, Jones EW (1978) Vegetation changes resulting from afforestation of rough grazing in Caeo forest, south Wales. J Ecol 66:433–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill MO (1979) The development of a flora in even-aged plantations. In: Ford ED, Malcolm DC, Atterson J (eds) The ecology of even-aged forest plantations. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Cambridge, pp 175–192Google Scholar
  23. Hochberg Y (1988) A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75:800–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holyoak D (2003) The distribution of bryophytes in Ireland. Broadleaf Books, Dinas PowysGoogle Scholar
  25. Hornung M (1985) Acidification of soils by trees and forests. Soil Use Manage 1:24–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeffrey DW (1970) A note on the use of ignition loss as a means for the approximate estimation of soil bulk density. J Ecol 58:297–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB (2003) Pattern and mechanisms of soil acidification in the conversion of grasslands to forests. Biogeochemistry 64:205–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB (2004) The uplift of soil nutrients by plants: biogeochemical consequences across scales. Ecology 85:2380–2389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Elsevier Science BV, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. MCPFE (2003) State of Europe’s forests 2003. MCPFE Liason Unit, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  31. Murphy J, Riley JP (1962) A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal Chim Acta 27:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Økland RH, Eilertsen O (1994) Canonical correspondence analysis with variation partitioning: some comments and an application. J Veg Sci 5:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Page G (1968) Some effects of conifer crops on soil properties. Commonw For Rev 47:52–62Google Scholar
  34. Parfitt RL, Percival HJ, Dahlgren RA, Hill LF (1997) Soil and solution chemistry under pasture and radiata pine in New Zealand. Plant Soil 191:279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paton JA (1999) The liverwort flora of the British Isles. Harley Books, ColchesterGoogle Scholar
  36. Pielou EC (1975) Ecological diversity. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Polglase PJ, Paul KI, Khanna PK, Nyakuengama JG, O’Connell AM, Grove TS, Battaglia M (2000) Change in soil carbon following afforestation or reforestation. National carbon accounting system. Technical Report No. 20. Australian Greenhouse Office, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  38. Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Modrzynski J, Mrozinski P, Hobbie SE, Eissenstat DM, Chorover J, Chadwick OA, Hale CM, Tjoelker MG (2005) Linking litter calcium, earthworms and soil properties: a common garden test with 14 tree species. Ecol Lett 8:811–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith AJE (2004) The moss flora of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith B, Wilson JB (1996) A consumer’s guide to evenness indices. Oikos 76:70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. WH Freeman and Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. SPSS (2003) SPSS 12.0 for Windows. SPSS, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  43. Stace C (1997) New flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Stránská M (2004) Successional dynamics of Cynosurus pasture after abandonment in Podkrkonoší. Plant Soil Env 50:364–370Google Scholar
  45. Sykes JM, Lowe VPW, Briggs DR (1989) Some effects of afforestation on the flora and fauna of an upland sheepwalk during 12 years after planting. J Appl Ecol 26:299–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide: software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  47. ter Braak CJF (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67:1167–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turner J, Lambert M (2000) Change in organic carbon in forest plantation soils in eastern Australia. For Ecol Manage 133:231–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wallace HL, Good JEG (1995) Effects of afforestation on upland plant communities and implications for vegetation management. For Ecol Manage 79:29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wallace HL, Good JEG, Williams TG (1992) The effects of afforestation on upland plant communities: an application of the British National Vegetation Classification. J Appl Ecol 29:180–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Welch D, Rawes M (1964) The early effects of excluding sheep from high-level grasslands in the north Pennines. J Appl Ecol 1:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wulf M (2004) Plant species richness of afforestations with different former use and habitat continuity. For Ecol Manage 195:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erika Buscardo
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • George F. Smith
    • 1
  • Daniel L. Kelly
    • 1
  • Helena Freitas
    • 2
  • Susan Iremonger
    • 1
  • Fraser J. G. Mitchell
    • 1
  • Saoirse O’Donoghue
    • 1
  • Anne-Marie McKee
    • 1
  1. 1.BIOFOREST Project, Department of Botany, School of Natural ScienceTrinity College DublinDublin 2Ireland
  2. 2.Centre for Functional Ecology, Department of BotanyUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations