Diversity, functional structure and functional redundancy of woodland plant communities: How do mixed tree species plantations compare with monocultures?

Barsoum, N., et al., 2016. Forest Ecology and Management

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

Managing forest plantation stands in a way that retains productivity targets, but that also fosters biodiversity and stand resilience are key sustainable forest management goals. Current forestry policy advocates a diversification of forest stands to achieve these goals, favouring mixed age structures and polycultures over single-aged monocultures. Evidence is lacking, however, to support this management recommendation for biodiversity gains and related ecosystem service delivery. We used indices of taxonomic diversity and functional structure to compare ground vegetation communities in mixed and pure stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) in each of three study regions. We categorised the 91 vascular plant species identified into functional effect and response groups. We tested the hypotheses that ground vegetation communities (i) differ significantly in structure and composition between Scots pine and oak monocultures and (ii) show enhanced levels of taxonomic and functional diversity and functional redundancy in mixed stands of Scots pine and oak compared with monocultures. We explored the implications of any differences in the functional structure of ground vegetation communities in the different stand types on two ecosystem services: nutrient availability and levels of resource provisioning for herbivores. Nine functional response groups (RG) and seven functional effect groups (EG) were identified with considerable overlap in the RG and EG species grouping. Three RGs had traits characteristic of forests (spring flowering herbs, tree saplings and shrubs/climbers), one RG had traits characteristic of open habitats (annual ruderals) and the remaining RGs had more generalist traits (anemochorous perennials, graminoids and short perennials). No significant differences were found among stand types in terms of taxonomic diversity or richness of the different functional trait groups. Ground vegetation communities in the three study regions also had similar levels of functional redundancy across stand types. However, Scots pine and oak monocultures harboured significantly different abundances of species with distinct functional traits. In all three study regions, anemochorous perennials were significantly more abundant in Scots pine monocultures than oak monocultures, while two core forest groups (shrubs/climbers, spring flowering herbs) were significantly more abundant in oak monocultures. Mixed stands had intermediate abundances of these functional groups. These differences have implications for the comparative availability of food resources and shelter for wildlife, but also the mobilisation and temporal availability of nutrients in the two monocultures. Thus, mixtures of Scots pine and pedunculate oak can temper significant tree species identity influences on ground vegetation functional diversity.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-066-3
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    intimate mixtures of Scots pine and pedunculate oak.

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  No effect Functional redundancy for RG - calculated as the number of species in each RG (Response trait group) in each stand; Functional redundancy for EG - calculated as the number of species in each EG (effect trait group) in each stand Functional redundancy is a proxy for the functional resilience of communities to environmental change (including drought, pests, diseases etc)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Thetford Forest, East Anglia in south-east England (52 270 N, 0 510 E, 10–40 m a.s.l.)

  • Country: United Kingdom
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness compared to non-adaptive management (monoculture plantations) results are positive for natural ecosystem effects because although for most measures there was no effect, there were measures where positive outcomes were reported: "no significant differences in ground vegetation species richness, diversity or evenness when comparing species pre- sent in mixtures and monocultures of oak and Scots pine in three different geographical regions of study" "Mixed stands can, however, increase the abundance of species with favoured traits (e.g. species of conservation interest such as spring- flowering herbs) compared with Scots pine monoculture stands and reduce the relative abundance of those functional groups which tend to dominate ground vegetation communities under monocultures" species composition in each functional trait group: no significant difference was found when mixed stands were compared with one or both monocultures
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
  • Ecosystem measures: functional redundancy effect trait group richness response trait group richness ground vegetation species richness, diversity, evenness species composition in each functional trait group
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-066-2
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    intimate mixtures of Scots pine and pedunculate oak.

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  No effect Functional redundancy for RG - calculated as the number of species in each RG (Response trait group) in each stand; Functional redundancy for EG - calculated as the number of species in each EG (effect trait group) in each stand Functional redundancy is a proxy for the functional resilience of communities to environmental change (including drought, pests, diseases etc)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    New Forest, Hampshire, in southern England (50 470 N, 1 380 W, 20–90 m a.s.l.)

  • Country: United Kingdom
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness compared to non-adaptive management (monoculture plantations) results are positive for natural ecosystem effects because although for most measures there was no effect, there were measures where positive outcomes were reported: "no significant differences in ground vegetation species richness, diversity or evenness when comparing species pre- sent in mixtures and monocultures of oak and Scots pine in three different geographical regions of study" "Mixed stands can, however, increase the abundance of species with favoured traits (e.g. species of conservation interest such as spring- flowering herbs) compared with Scots pine monoculture stands and reduce the relative abundance of those functional groups which tend to dominate ground vegetation communities under monocultures" species composition in each functional trait group: no significant difference was found when mixed stands were compared with one or both monocultures
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
  • Ecosystem measures: functional redundancy effect trait group richness response trait group richness ground vegetation species richness, diversity, evenness species composition in each functional trait group
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-066-1
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    intimate mixtures of Scots pine and pedunculate oak.

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  No effect Functional redundancy for RG - calculated as the number of species in each RG (Response trait group) in each stand; Functional redundancy for EG - calculated as the number of species in each EG (effect trait group) in each stand Functional redundancy is a proxy for the functional resilience of communities to environmental change (including drought, pests, diseases etc)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Thetford Forest, East Anglia in south-east England (52 270 N, 0 510 E, 10–40 m a.s.l.)

  • Country: United Kingdom
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness compared to non-adaptive management (monoculture plantations) results are positive for natural ecosystem effects because although for most measures there was no effect, there were measures where positive outcomes were reported: "no significant differences in ground vegetation species richness, diversity or evenness when comparing species pre- sent in mixtures and monocultures of oak and Scots pine in three different geographical regions of study" "Mixed stands can, however, increase the abundance of species with favoured traits (e.g. species of conservation interest such as spring- flowering herbs) compared with Scots pine monoculture stands and reduce the relative abundance of those functional groups which tend to dominate ground vegetation communities under monocultures" species composition in each functional trait group: no significant difference was found when mixed stands were compared with one or both monocultures
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
  • Ecosystem measures: functional redundancy effect trait group richness response trait group richness ground vegetation species richness, diversity, evenness species composition in each functional trait group
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic: