| [Jump to the main content of this page] |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options Study |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
DEMO Home > Research > Vegetation > Postharvest > Understory Response ResearchVegetationPostharvest: Initial Responses of Forest Understories to Varying Levels and Patterns of Green-Tree Retention
IntroductionConsiderable attention has been devoted to understanding the effects of traditional silvicultural practices on forest understory communities in many temperate and boreal ecosystems. In coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest, many understory species are tolerant of the physical disturbances and microclimatic changes associated with clearcut logging and site preparation. However, some speciesparticularly those associated with late-seral forestsare sensitive to both ground disturbance and canopy removal, and timber harvest may result in local extirpation. Variable-retention harvest, in which a proportion of the live or green trees are retained, may ameliorate these impacts. In this study we explore the initial responses of the understory to two basic elements of overstory retention: level of retention (proportion of original basal area) and spatial pattern of retention (trees in 1-ha patches vs. dispersed). Response VariablesWe focus on 12 understory response variables. Five of these represent the abundance (cover, density) or height of major growth forms:
Species in the herb layer were also analyzed by seral status to distinguish among taxa with differing successional roles and sensitivities to disturbance. Species were classified as:
For each of these groups we calculated a plot-level summed frequency (the sum of the frequencies of all species in a plot) and richness (number of species per plot), which yielded six additional response variables (i.e., the frequency and richness of each group). The final response variable, compositional change, was computed as the percent dissimilarity (PD) between the pre- and postharvest composition of the herb layer within each plot. The PD derives from the quantitative form of Sørensens community coefficient. Experimental Design and HypothesesThe full experimental design consists of six, 13-ha green-tree retention treatments, including a control (see Experimental Design), replicated at each of the six blocks (locations; see Study Areas). In this study we use five of the treatments: the control (100-percent retention) for reference, and four that can be analyzed as a fully balanced, two-factor design that contrasts retention (a) at two levels: 15-percent (the minimum required by the Northwest Forest Plan) and 40-percent, and (b) two spatial patterns: as 1-ha aggregates (or patches) or as uniformly dispersed trees. We hypothesized the following responses: Hypothesis 1Treatment-level responses. Mean changes in understory abundance, richness, and composition (a) will be greater at 15-percent than at 40-percent retention, and (b) will be greater in dispersed than in aggregated treatments (changes within retained patches of forest will be small). (c) Late-seral herbs will be particularly sensitive to level and pattern of retention. Hypothesis 2Forest aggregates vs. adjacent harvest areas. In aggregated retention treatments, changes in understory abundance, richness, and composition will be smaller in the forest aggregates than in adjacent areas of harvest. Hypothesis 3Responses in the harvested portions of treatment units. Within the harvested portions of treatments, mean changes in understory abundance, richness, and composition (a) will be greater at 15-percent than at 40-percent retention, and (b) will be greater in aggregated than in dispersed treatments (reflecting more complete removal of trees from the former). Sampling DesignWithin each treatment unit, a grid system (40-m spacing) was installed prior to harvest. At a subset of grid points, permanent vegetation plots were established, differing in number (32 to 27) and spatial distribution by treatment (fig. 1). At each sampled grid point, understory variables were sampled with a series of transects and nested subplots. For aggregated retention treatments, postharvest means are weighted averages that account for unequal areas and sampling intensities of the two postharvest environments (aggregates and adjacent harvest areas).
AnalysesDetrended correspondence analysis (DCA) ordination was used to portray the overall compositional response of the herb layer. Separate ordinations were run for each block by using a sample-by-species matrix with 10 samples representing the average composition of each of the four treatments (plus the control), before and after harvest. Average frequency was used as the measure of species abundance. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for effects of level and pattern of retention (and their interaction) on our 12 primary response variables. For each of the 42 species classified as late seral, we compared patterns of local extirpation by tabulating all cases in which a species was completely lost from all sample plots within a treatment unit. Losses were recorded separately for the two postharvest environments in aggregated retention treatments. ResultsCompositional change
Mean treatment-level responses
Forest aggregates vs. adjacent harvest areas
Responses in the harvested portions of treatment units
Local extirpation of late-seral species
DiscussionIn this study, we tested a simple conceptual model in which forest understory responses to green-tree retention are influenced both by the proportion of live trees retained through harvest and the spatial pattern in which they are retained. To our knowledge, ours is the first experimental study to explicitly consider the relative contributions of level and pattern of retention to understory response. Direction of compositional change was similar among treatments within each block, but the magnitude of change was consistently larger at 15- than at 40-percent retention. Likewise, for many understory groups, declines in abundance (cover, density) or species richness were significantly greater at 15- than at 40-percent retention. In contrast, pattern of retention had surprisingly little effect on treatment-level responses: although changes within forest aggregates were small, declines in adjacent areas of harvest were generally greater than those in the dispersed treatments. Late-seral herbs were particularly sensitive to these effects, with more frequent extirpations from plots within the harvested portions of aggregated treatments than from dispersed treatments. Thus the short-term benefits of aggregated retention are predictably localized. Perhaps the clearest illustration of these tradeoffs emerged from our analysis of species extirpations: in aggregated treatments, species were lost more than twice as often from harvested areas as from forest aggregates. As a result, extirpations were no more common in dispersed than in aggregated treatments, contrary to our initial expectation. We suspect that these initial responses are mediated, in large part, by associated patterns of disturbance and slash accumulation that differ significantly with level and pattern of retention (see Halpern and McKenzie 2001). Do our results suggest a clear difference in the response of the forest understory to different levels or spatial patterns of retention? Clearly, the magnitude of change in understory composition and structure was notably reduced from 15- to 40-percent retention, but for most elements of the understory, aggregated retention appeared to offer few short-term benefits over dispersed retention. The latter result was particularly surprising with respect to loss of late-seral species, the group for which aggregated retention of the overstory was presumed to be most relevant. Yet, we must temper these conclusions by acknowledging the short-term nature of our results. As the immediate effects of disturbance diminish with time, the effects of overstory structure are likely to become increasingly important. Longer-term observations will be necessary to distinguish between the initial effects of disturbance and the more persistent influences of residual overstory trees. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| top | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
US Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Research Station, Demonstration
of Ecosystem Management Options |
||||||||||||||||||||||