Difference in structural complexity and biodiversity in managed vs primary mixed beech-dominated forests in Central Europe

Forest ecosystems play a vital role in society by providing important ecosystem services and maintaining most of the terrestrial biodiversity (Liu et al., 2018; Sodhi and Ehrlich, 2010). Biodiversity is considered to be a key factor determining ecosystem functioning (Scherer-Lorenzen et al., 2005). It is linked to forest resilience and the ability to provide ecosystem services (Paquette and Messier, 2011; Parrish et al., 2003). However, deforestation and intense forest management procedures continue to exert pressure on forest biodiversity in many parts of the globe. Thus, for developing conservation and forest management strategies focused on biodiversity enhancement, it is crucial to understand the impact of human alteration on natural processes and their impact on biodiversity.

Disturbances as a Force of Ecosystem Dynamics

Natural disturbances are the primary drivers of ecosystem dynamics in unmanaged forests. These disturbances alter the forest structure at different levels, increasing the heterogeneity of forest ecosystems (Maiser et al., 2013) and promoting tree-related microhabitat richness, diversity, and subsequent species diversity (Saas et al., 2018). Insect outbreaks and windthrows of varying intensities are the primary drivers of ecosystem dynamics in mountain temperate forests in Central Europe, resulting in complex and diverse forest structures with multiple pathways of post-disturbance development (Meigs et al., 2018). Disturbances in managed forests are commonly associated with management interventions aimed at timber production, leading to a uniform environment with limited habitat diversity (Kuuluvainen et al., 1996; Commarmot et al., 2005). Such an environment lacks opportunities for species specialized in particular structures, such as deadwood, old trees, and canopy light, resulting in biodiversity decline (Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2007; Bengtsson et al., 2000). While previous studies have examined the effects of forest management on biodiversity (Otel and Lapin, 2021; Schulze, 2018; Helme et al., 2010), many aspects remain unclear, and comparative studies between primary and managed forests are rare. Biodiversity responds differently across different biota levels and in different timelines due to species' specific ecological requirements and preferences and constantly changing environmental conditions since the disturbance event or management intervention (Mikoláš et al., 2021; Sabatini et al., 2018; Johansson, 2008). Finally, it is essential to use primary forests as a baseline for biodiversity evaluation since the effects of forest management can persist for a long time (Briggs et al., 2000).

Data for this study will be collected in three regions of Slovakia: Poľana, Klenovský Vepor and Veľká Fatra — Skalná Alpa. Each locality belongs to the Carpathian Mountains range and has a long history of forest management surrounding the preserved areas of the remaining primary forest.

This study aims to address these research questions:

1. How does the phase in management cycle and time since the last disturbance event in mixed beech-dominated mountain forests affect contemporary patterns of biodiversity indicators such as tree-related microhabitats density and diversity, deadwood volume and decay stage diversity, and tree and tree and stand age and canopy openness?
2. What is the difference between all and red-listed lichen species richness, composition, and alfa and beta diversity in primary vs managed forests?
3. Is the multi-taxa species richness systematically higher in primary than in managed forests, or does the effect of forest management vary widely with a taxonomic and ecological group?

List of references

Bengtsson, J., S. G. Nilsson, A. Franc, and P. Menozzi, (2000). Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. Forest Ecology and Management 132:39–50.
Briggs, R. D., Hornbeck, J. W., Smith, C. T., Lemin Jr, R. C., & McCormack Jr, M. L. (2000). Long term effects of forest management on nutrient cycling in spruce-fir forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 138(1–3), 285–299.
Commarmot, B., H. Bachofen, Y. Bundziak, A. B¨urgi, B. Ramp, Y. Shparyk, D. Sukhariuk, R. Viter, and A. Zingg. (2005). Structure of virgin and managed beech forests in Uholka (Ukraine) and Sihlwald (Switzerland): a comparative study. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 79:45–56.
Fischer, J., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2007). Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global ecology and biogeography, 16: 265–280.
Halme, P., Toivanen, T., Honkanen, M., Kotiaho, J. S., MOeNKKOeNEN, M. I. K. K. O., & Timonen, J. (2010). Flawed meta-analysis of biodiversity effects of forest management. Conservation Biology, 24(4), 1154–1156.
Johansson, P. (2008). Consequences of disturbance on epiphytic lichens in boreal and near boreal forests. Biological conservation, 141: 1933–1944.
Kuuluvainen, T., A. Penttinen, K. Leinonen, and M. Nygren. (1996). Statistical opportunities for comparing stand structural heterogeneity in managed and primeval forests: an example from boreal spruce forest in southern Finland. Silva Fennica 30:315–328
Liu, C. L. C., Kuchma, O., & Krutovsky, K. V. (2018). Mixed-species versus monocultures in plantation forestry: Development, benefits, ecosystem services and perspectives for the future. Global Ecology and Conservation, 15, e00419
Meigs, G. W., & Keeton, W. S. (2018). Intermediate‐severity wind disturbance in mature temperate forests: legacy structure, carbon storage, and stand dynamics. Ecological Applications, 28(3), 798–815.
Messier, C., Puettmann, K. J., & Coates, K. D. (Eds.). (2013). Managing forests as complex adaptive systems: building resilience to the challenge of global change. Routledge.
Mikoláš, M., Svitok, M., Bače, R., Meigs, G. W., Keeton, W. S., Keith, H., … & Svoboda, M. (2021). Natural disturbance impacts on trade-offs and co-benefits of forest biodiversity and carbon. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288: 20211631.
Oettel, J., & Lapin, K. (2021). Linking forest management and biodiversity indicators to strengthen sustainable forest management in Europe. Ecological Indicators, 122, 107275.
Paquette, A., & Messier, C. (2011). The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 20(1), 170–180.
Parrish, J. D., Braun, D. P., & Unnasch, R. S. (2003). Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. BioScience, 53: 851–860.
Sabatini, F. M., Burrascano, S., Keeton, W. S., Levers, C., Lindner, M., Pötzschner, F., … & Kuemmerle, T. (2018). Where are Europe’s last primary forests? Diversity and Distributions, 24: 1426–1439.
Scherer-Lorenzen, M., C. K¨orner, and E. D. Schulze, (2005). Forest diversity and function: temperate and boreal systems. Springer- Verlag, Berlin., 176.iver
Sass, E. M., D’Amato, A. W., Foster, D. R., Barker Plotkin, A., Fraver, S., Schoonmaker, P. K., & Orwig, D. A. (2018). Long-term influence of disturbance-generated microsites on forest structural and compositional development. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 48: 958–965.
Schulze, E. D. (2018). Effects of forest management on biodiversity in temperate deciduous forests: An overview based on Central European beech forests. Journal for Nature Conservation, 43, 213- 226.
Sodhi, N.S. & Ehrlich, P.R. (2010). Conservation biology for all. Oxford university press, New York. 339 pp.