Non-native Douglas fir promotes epigeal spider density, but has a mixed effect on functional diversity
-
Published:2023-02-10
Issue:4
Volume:32
Page:1233-1250
-
ISSN:0960-3115
-
Container-title:Biodiversity and Conservation
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Biodivers Conserv
Author:
Matevski Dragan,Schuldt Andreas
Abstract
AbstractWith climate change altering ecosystems worldwide, forest management in Europe is increasingly relying on more adaptable non-native tree species, such as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). However, the ecological consequences of the increased utilization of Douglas fir on arthropod diversity and ecosystem functioning are not fully known. Here we assessed how non-native Douglas fir as well as large- and small-scale differences in the environmental context, affect epigeal spider abundance, biomass, taxonomic and functional diversity, and community structure in Central European forests. Our study sites were divided into two regions with large differences in environmental conditions, with seven replicates of five stand types, including monocultures of native European beech (Fagus sylvatica), non-native Douglas fir and native Norway spruce (Picea abies), as well as two-species mixtures of European beech and each of the conifers. Contrary to our expectations, Douglas fir promoted small-scale spider diversity, and abundance and biomass (activity density). On the other hand, it decreased spider functional divergence and altered spider community structure. Microhabitat characteristics had opposing effects on spider diversity and activity density, with more open stands harboring a more diverse but less abundant spider community. Overall, our findings suggest that increasing Douglas fir utilization at the expense of Norway spruce does not necessarily decrease the diversity of epigeal arthropods and may even promote local spider diversity and activity density. However, care needs to be taken in terms of biodiversity conservation because typical forest spider species and their functional divergence were more strongly associated with native beech than with coniferous stands.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Nature and Landscape Conservation,Ecology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference74 articles.
1. Albert C, Fürst C, Ring I, Sandström C (2020) Research note: Spatial planning in Europe and Central Asia – Enhancing the consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 196103741-S0169204619302944 103741 10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103741 2. Ammer C, Fichtner A, Fischer A, Gossner MM, Meyer P, Seidl R, Thomas FM, Annighöfer P, Kreyling J, Ohse B, Berger U, Feldmann E, Häberle K-H, Heer K, Heinrichs S, Huth F, Krämer-Klement K, Mölder A, Müller J, Mund M, Opgenoorth L, Schall P, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Seidel D, Vogt J, Wagner S (2018) Key ecological research questions for Central European forests. Basic and Applied Ecology 323-25 S1439179118300902 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2018.07.006 3. Ampoorter E, Barbaro L, Jactel H, Baeten L, Boberg J, Carnol M, Castagneyrol B, Charbonnier Y, Dawud SM, Deconchat M, De, Smedt P, De Wandeler H, Guyot V, Hättenschwiler S, Joly F-X, Koricheva J, Milligan H, Muys B, Nguyen D, Ratcliffe S, Raulund‐Rasmussen K, Scherer‐Lorenzen M, van der Plas F, Van Keer J, Verheyen K, Vesterdal L, Allan E (2019) Tree diversity is key for promoting the diversity and abundance of forest‐associated taxa in Europe. Oikos 129(2) 133-146 https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.06290 4. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46 5. Blick T, Finch O-Det, Harms KH et al (2016) Rote Liste und Gesamtartenliste der Spinnen (Arachnida: Araneae) deutschlands. 3. Fassung, stand: April 2008, einzelne ¨Anderungen und Nachtr¨age bis August 2015. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 70(4):383–510
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|