| 1. |
- Ampoorter, Evy, et al.
(författare)
-
Tree diversity is key for promoting the diversity and abundance of forest-associated taxa in Europe
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Oikos. - : Wiley. - 0030-1299 .- 1600-0706. ; 129:2, s. 133-146
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Plant diversity is an important driver of diversity at other trophic levels, suggesting that cascading extinctions could reduce overall biodiversity. Most evidence for positive effects of plant diversity comes from grasslands. Despite the fact that forests are hotspots of biodiversity, the importance of tree diversity, in particular its relative importance compared to other management related factors, in affecting forest-associated taxa is not well known. To address this, we used data from 183 plots, located in different forest types, from Mediterranean to Boreal, and established along a climatic gradient across six European countries (FunDivEUROPE project). We tested the influence of tree diversity, tree functional composition (i.e. functional trait values), forest structure, climate and soil on the diversity and abundance/activity of nine taxa (bats, birds, spiders, microorganisms, earthworms, ungulates, foliar fungal pathogens, defoliating insects and understorey plants) and on their overall diversity and abundance/activity (multidiversity, multiabundance/activity). Tree diversity was a key driver of taxon-level and overall forest-associated biodiversity, along with tree functional composition, forest structure, climate and soil. Both tree species richness and functional diversity (variation in functional trait values) were important. The effects of tree diversity on the abundance/activity of forest-associated taxa were less consistent. Nonetheless, spiders, ungulates and foliar fungal pathogens were all more abundant/active in diverse forests. Tree functional composition and structure were also important drivers of abundance/activity: conifer stands had lower overall multidiversity (although the effect was driven by defoliating insects), while stands with potentially tall trees had lower overall multiabundance/activity. We found more synergies than tradeoffs between diversity and abundance/activity of different taxa, suggesting that forest management can promote high diversity across taxa. Our results clearly show the high value of mixed forest stands for multiple forest-associated taxa and indicate that multiple dimensions of tree diversity (taxonomic and functional) are important.
|
|
| 2. |
- Baeten, Lander, et al.
(författare)
-
Identifying the tree species compositions that maximize ecosystem functioning in European forests
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Applied Ecology. - : Wiley. - 0021-8901 .- 1365-2664. ; 56:3, s. 733-744
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 1. Forest ecosystem functioning generally benefits from higher tree species richness, but variation within richness levels is typically large. This is mostly due to the contrasting performances of communities with different compositions. Evidence-based understanding of composition effects on forest productivity, as well as on multiple other functions will enable forest managers to focus on the selection of species that maximize functioning, rather than on diversity per se.2. We used a dataset of 30 ecosystem functions measured in stands with different species richness and composition in six European forest types. First, we quantified whether the compositions that maximize annual above-ground wood production (productivity) generally also fulfil the multiple other ecosystem functions (multifunctionality). Then, we quantified the species identity effects and strength of interspecific interactions to identify the "best" and "worst" species composition for multifunctionality. Finally, we evaluated the real-world frequency of occurrence of best and worst mixtures, using harmonized data from multiple national forest inventories.3. The most productive tree species combinations also tended to express relatively high multifunctionality, although we found a relatively wide range of compositions with high- or low-average multifunctionality for the same level of productivity. Monocultures were distributed among the highest as well as the lowest performing compositions. The variation in functioning between compositions was generally driven by differences in the performance of the component species and, to a lesser extent, by particular interspecific interactions. Finally, we found that the most frequent species compositions in inventory data were monospecific stands and that the most common compositions showed below-average multifunctionality and productivity.4. Synthesis and applications. Species identity and composition effects are essential to the development of high-performing production systems, for instance in forestry and agriculture. They therefore deserve great attention in the analysis and design of functional biodiversity studies if the aim is to inform ecosystem management. A management focus on tree productivity does not necessarily trade-off against other ecosystem functions; high productivity and multifunctionality can be combined with an informed selection of tree species and species combinations.
|
|
| 3. |
- Hagen, Dagmar, et al.
(författare)
-
Ecological and social dimensions of ecosystem restoration in the nordic countries
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Ecology and Society. - 1708-3087. ; 18:4, s. 34-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- An international overview of the extent and type of ecological restoration can offer new perspectives for understanding, planning, and implementation. The Nordic countries, with a great range of natural conditions but historically similar social and political structures, provide an opportunity to compare restoration approaches and efforts across borders. The aim of this study was to explore variation in ecological restoration using the Nordic countries as an example. We used recent national assessments and expert evaluations of ecological restoration. Restoration efforts differed among countries: forest and peatland restoration was most common in Finland, freshwater restoration was most common in Sweden, restoration of natural heathlands and grasslands was most common in Iceland, restoration of natural and semi-cultural heathlands was most common in Norway, and restoration of cultural ecosystems, mainly abandoned agricultural land, was most common in Denmark. Ecological restoration currently does not occur on the Faroe Islands. Economic incentives influence ecological restoration and depend on laws and policies in each country. Our analyses suggest that habitat types determine the methods of ecological restoration, whereas socio-economic drivers are more important for the decisions concerning the timing and location of restoration. To improve the understanding, planning, and implementation of ecological restoration, we advocate increased cooperation and knowledge sharing across disciplines and among countries, both in the Nordic countries and internationally. An obvious advantage of such cooperation is that a wider range of experiences from different habitats and different socio-economic conditions becomes available and thus provides a more solid basis for developing practical solutions for restoration methods and policies.
|
|
| 4. |
- Nilsson, Christer, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluating the process of ecological restoration
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Ecology and Society. - 1708-3087. ; 21:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We developed a conceptual framework for evaluating the process of ecological restoration and applied it to 10 examples of restoration projects in the northern hemisphere. We identified three major phases, planning, implementation, and monitoring, in the restoration process. We found that evaluation occurred both within and between the three phases, that it included both formal and informal components, and that it often had an impact on the performance of the projects. Most evaluations were short-term and only some parts of them were properly documented. Poor or short-term evaluation of the restoration process creates a risk that inefficient methods will continue to be used, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of restoration. To improve the restoration process and to transfer the knowledge to future projects, we argue for more formal, sustained evaluation procedures, involving all relevant stakeholders, and increased and improved documentation and dissemination of the results.
|
|
