Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, 751 General Services Building, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H1, Canada.
Ecol Appl. 2018 Oct;28(7):1830-1840. doi: 10.1002/eap.1774. Epub 2018 Jul 31.
Retention harvesting (also called tree retention or structural retention), in which live mature trees are selectively retained within harvested stands at different retention levels and in different patterns (aggregated to dispersed), is increasingly being used to mitigate the negative impacts of forest harvesting on biodiversity. However, the effectiveness of combining different patterns of retention harvesting for conservation and recovery of understory vascular plants in the long term is largely unknown. To address this gap, we compared understory vascular plant diversity, abundance, and composition between aggregated retention and five levels of surrounding dispersed retention (0% [clearcut], 10%, 20%, 50%, 75%) 15 yr postharvest. We also investigated the influence of dispersed retention on the ability of embedded retention patches to support plant communities characteristic of unharvested forests, and whether it varies by patch size of aggregated retention (0.20 ha or 0.46 ha) and position within patches (edge or interior). Species richness, diversity, and cover were higher in the dispersed retention than in the patch retention as the harvested areas favored early-seral plant species. Graminoid cover was greater at the edges than in the interior of large patches. Retention patches as small as 0.2 ha more effectively supported shade-tolerant (forest interior) plant communities when they were surrounded by higher levels of dispersed retention (as compared to patches retained within clearcuts). Overall, the combined use of both aggregated and dispersed retention within a given cutblock benefits both late- and early-seral plant species and thus could effectively conserve understory plant assemblages in harvested landscapes. Sustainable forest management should therefore consider using a range of retention patch sizes combined with varying levels of surrounding dispersed retention in harvest designs to achieve objectives for plant conservation.
择伐(也称为树木保留或结构性保留),即在不同保留水平和不同模式(聚集到分散)下选择性地保留采伐林中的活成熟树木,越来越多地被用于减轻森林采伐对生物多样性的负面影响。然而,将不同模式的择伐结合起来,以长期保护和恢复林下维管束植物的效果在很大程度上是未知的。为了解决这一差距,我们比较了聚集保留和 5 种不同分散保留水平(0%[皆伐]、10%、20%、50%、75%)下林下维管束植物多样性、丰度和组成在采伐后 15 年的差异。我们还调查了分散保留对嵌入式保留斑块支持未采伐森林特征植物群落的能力的影响,以及这种影响是否因聚集保留斑块的大小(0.20 公顷或 0.46 公顷)和位置(边缘或内部)而异。与斑块保留相比,在分散保留中,物种丰富度、多样性和盖度更高,因为采伐区有利于早期演替植物物种。在大型斑块的边缘,禾本科植物的盖度大于内部。当保留在 0.2 公顷左右的保留斑块周围存在更高水平的分散保留时,它们更有效地支持耐荫(森林内部)植物群落(与保留在皆伐中的斑块相比)。总的来说,在给定的采伐区块内,同时使用聚集和分散保留有利于晚期和早期演替植物物种,因此可以有效地保护采伐景观中的林下植物组合。可持续森林管理因此应该考虑在采伐设计中使用一系列保留斑块大小,并结合周围不同水平的分散保留,以实现植物保护目标。