4.7 Article

Lichen species diversity and substrate amounts in young planted boreal forests: A comparison between slash and stumps of Picea abies

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 141, 期 1, 页码 47-55

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.08.021

关键词

logging residues; dead wood; biofuel; NMS; rarefaction; Norway spruce

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing demand for biofuel may decrease the dead wood supply in managed forests, and hence the amount of substrate available for dead wood dependent species. Slash is already being harvested for biofuel purposes, and stumps are an even bigger potential source of wood fuel. Both substrates constitute a major component of dead wood in man aged forests, but have been poorly studied in terms of lichen diversity. We compared lichen species diversity between the lateral surface of slash and the cut surface of stumps of Norway spruce in planted boreonemoral Swedish forests of four age classes; 4 - 5, 8 - 9, 12 - 13, and 16 - 18 years. We also estimated the amounts of the two substrates, and discriminated between slash with bark and decorticated slash. There were no differences in species num ber per surface area, but slash had more species when equal volumes were compared. We found compositional differences between slash and stumps throughout the decay process. The majority of species found on both substrates were more frequent on stumps, which also had a higher number of unique species and species in the literature indicated as nationally rare or uncommon. The volume per hectare of stumps was ten times greater than that of slash but conversely, the lateral surface area of slash was five times greater than the cut surface area of stumps. Few dead wood specialist lichen species were, however, strictly associated with slash, whereas stumps offer a more heterogeneous environment and may provide important habitats for rare lichens in the managed forest landscape. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据