Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T16:51:38.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Opportunities and constraints of using understory plants to set forest restoration and conservation priorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Olivier Honnay
Affiliation:
University of Leuven, Belgium
Bruno Hérault
Affiliation:
Centre d'Ecologie Végétale et d'Hydrologie, France
Beatrijs Bossuyt
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Belgium
Marc-André Villard
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton, Canada
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Affiliation:
Mid-Sweden University, Sweden
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Ecological restoration of natural forests on former agricultural land or on sites formerly planted with non-indigenous tree species has become a central component of sustainable forest management in many parts of the world (Angelstam et al. 2004; Hérault et al. 2005). To become operational at the stand or the landscape level, the principles of sustainable forest management need to be broken down into objectives and in indicators to monitor.

To define the ecological objectives of restoration efforts, a reference or target system is essential. This information generally consists of contemporary ecological data from a reference site (Bakker et al. 2000). In the case of forest restoration, the reference may consist of ancient forests (Honnay et al. 2002). Ancient forest sites are commonly defined as sites that have been continuously wooded since a reference date in the past, and it is generally accepted that this continuity has not been broken by forest management practices such as coppicing but only by an alternative land use such as cultivation or pasture (Peterken 1996). The reference date varies between regions and countries and, very pragmatically, reflects the availability of the first detailed land-use maps (e.g. 1600, Peterken (1974); 1700, Rackham (1980); 1789, Lawesson et al. (1998); 1850, Grashof-Bokdam (1997)).

After setting the objectives, indicators can be measured repeatedly to examine whether they directionally change towards the objectives and to evaluate to what extent the objectives have been reached.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angelstam, P., Donz-Breuss, M. and Roberge, J.-M. (eds.) 2004. Targets and tools for the maintenance of forest biodiversity. Ecological Bulletins 51.Google Scholar
Aubert, M., Alard, D. and Bureau, F.. 2003. Diversity of plant assemblages in managed temperate forests: a case study in Normandy (France). Forest Ecology and Management 175:321–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, J. P., Grootjans, A. P., Hermy, M. and Poschlod, P.. 2000. How to define targets for ecological restoration?Applied Vegetation Science 3:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, C. C. and Baskin, J. M.. 2001. Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and Evolution of Dormancy and Germination. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bierzychudek, P. 1982. Life histories and demography of shade-tolerant temperate forest herbs: a review. New Phytologist 90:757–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossuyt, B. and Hermy, M.. 2000. Restoration of the understorey layer of recent forest bordering ancient forest. Applied Vegetation Science 3:43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossuyt, B., Hermy, M. and Deckers, J.. 1999. Migration of herbaceous plant species across ancient-recent forest ecotones in central Belgium. Journal of Ecology 87:628–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunet, J. and Oheimb, G.. 1998. Migration of vascular plants to secondary woodlands in southern Sweden. Journal of Ecology 86:429–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duckworth, J. C., Kent, M. and Ramsay, P. M.. 2000. Plant functional types: an alternative to taxonomic plant community description in biogeography?Progress in Physical Geography 24:515–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufrêne, M. and Legendre, P.. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67:345–66.Google Scholar
Dumortier, M., Butaye, J., Jacquemyn, H.et al. 2002. Predicting vascular plant species richness of fragmented forests in agricultural landscapes in central Belgium. Forest Ecology and Management 158:85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzwonko, Z. 2001. Migration of vascular plant species to a recent wood adjoining ancient woodland. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 70:71–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzwonko, Z. and Loster, S.. 1992. Species richness and seed dispersal to secondary woods in southern Poland. Journal of Biogeography 19:195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gitay, H. and Noble, I. R.. 1997. What are functional types and how should we seek them? Pp. 3–19 in Smith, T. M., Shugart, H. H. and Woodward, F. I. (eds.) Plant Functional Types: Their Relevance to Ecosystem Properties and Global Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gondard, H. and Deconchat, M.. 2003. Effects of soil surface disturbances after logging on plant functional types. Annals of Forest Science 60:725–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gondard, H., Sandrine, J., Aronson, J. and Lavorel, S.. 2003. Plant functional types: a promising tool for management and restoration of degraded lands. Applied Vegetation Science 6:223–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, N. J. and Colwell, R. K.. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4:379–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, J. C. 1971. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27:857–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graae, B. J. and Heskjaer, V. S.. 1997. A comparison of understorey vegetation between untouched and managed deciduous forest in Denmark. Forest Ecology and Management 96:111–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graae, B. J., Sunde, P. B. and Fritzbøger, B.. 2003. Vegetation and soil differences in ancient opposed to new forests. Forest Ecology and Management 177:179–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grashof-Bokdam, C. J. 1997. Forest plants in an agricultural landscape in the Netherlands: effects of habitat fragmentation. Journal of Vegetation Science 8: 21–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P., Hodgson, J. G. and Hunt, R.. 1988. Comparative Plant Ecology: A Functional Approach to Common British Species. London: Allen & Unwin.CrossRef
Hérault, B. and Honnay, O.. 2005. The relative importance of local, regional and historical factors determining the distribution of plants in fragmented riverine forests – an emergent group approach. Journal of Biogeography 32:2069–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hérault, B., Honnay, O. and Thoen, D.. 2005. Evaluation of the ecological restoration potential of plant communities in Norway spruce plantations using a life-trait based approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:536–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermy, M., Honnay, O., Firbank, L., Grashof-Bokdam, C. and Lawesson, J. E.. 1999. An ecological comparison between ancient and other forest plant species of Europe, and the implications for forest conservation. Biological Conservation 91:9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, M. O. and Gauch, H. G.. 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, J. G., Grime, J. P., Hunt, R. and Thompson, K.. 1995. The Electronic Comparative Plant Ecology. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honnay, O., Degroote, B. and Hermy, M.. 1998. Ancient-forest plant species in Western Belgium: a species list and possible ecological mechanisms. Belgian Journal of Botany 130:139–54.Google Scholar
Honnay, O., Hermy, M. and Coppin, P.. 1999. Effects of area, habitat diversity and age of forest patches on plant species richness in Belgium, and consequences for conservation and reforestation. Biological Conservation 87:73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honnay, O., Bossuyt, B., Verheyen, K.et al. 2002. Ecological perspectives for the restoration of plant communities in temperate forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:213–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, D. U. and Vitousek, P. M.. 1998. Effects of plant composition and diversity on nutrient cycling. Ecological Monographs 68:121–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J.et al. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75:3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huston, M. A. 1994. Biological Diversity: The Coexistence of Species on Changing Landscapes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacquemyn, H., Butaye, B. and Hermy, M.. 2001. Forest plant species richness in small, fragmented mixed deciduous forest patches: the role of area, time and dispersal limitation. Journal of Biogeography 28:801–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, H. B., Polley, H. W. and Mayeux, H. S.. 1993. Increasing CO2 and plant-plant interactions – effects on natural vegetation. Vegetatio 104:157–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julve, P. 1998. Baseflor. Index Botanique, Écologique et Chorologique de la Flore de France. Lille, France: Institut Catholique de Lille.Google Scholar
Keddy, P. A. and Drummond, C. G.. 1996. Ecological properties for the evaluation, management, and restoration of temperate deciduous forest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 6:748–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, J. E. and Fotheringham, C. J.. 2005. Plot shape effects on species diversity measures. Journal of Vegetation Science 16:249–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, D. A. and Bradstock, R. A.. 1994. Fire and competition in Australian heath – a conceptual-model and field investigations. Journal of Vegetation Science 5:347–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleyer, M. 1995. Biological Traits of Vascular Plants. Stuttgart: Arbeitsberichte Institut für Landschaftsplanung und Ökologie.
Knevel, I. C., Bekker, R. M., Bakker, J. P and Kleyer, M.. 2003. Life-history traits of the Northwest European flora: the LEDA database. Journal of Vegetation Science 14:611–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, A. and Diekmann, M.. 2005. Effects of life-history traits on responses of plant species to forest fragmentation. Conservation Biology 19:929–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landres, P. B., Verner, J. and Thomas, J. W.. 1988. Ecological use of vertebrate indicator species: a critique. Conservation Biology 2:316–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapointe, L. 2001. How phenology influences physiology in deciduous forest spring ephemerals?Physiologia Plantarum 113:151–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavorel, S. and Garnier, E.. 2002. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Functional Ecology 16:545–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavorel, S., McIntyre, S., Landsberg, J. and Forbes, T. D. A.. 1997. Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:474–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawesson, J. E., Blust, G., Grashof, C.et al. 1998. Species diversity and area-relationships in Danish beech forests (Fagion sylvaticae). Forest Ecology and Management 106:35–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, P. and Legendre, L.. 1998. Numerical Ecology, 2nd edn. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Leishman, M. R., Westoby, M. and Jurado, E.. 1995. Correlates of seed size variation: a comparison among five temperate floras. Journal of Ecology 83:517–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matlack, G. R. 1994. Plant species migration in a mixed-history forest landscape in eastern North America. Ecology 75:1491–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCook, L. J. 1994. Understanding ecological community succession: causal models and theories: a review. Vegetatio 110:115–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, S., Lavorel, S. and Tremont, R. M.. 1995. Plant life-history attributes – their relationship to disturbance responses in herbaceous vegetation. Journal of Ecology 83:31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Médail, F., Roche, P. and Tatoni, T.. 1998. Functional groups in phytoecology: an application to the study of isolated plant communities in Mediterranean France. Acta Oecologica 19:263–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, J. P. 2000. Tree functional group richness and landscape structure in a Brazilian tropical fragmented landscape. Ecological Applications 10:1147–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakashizuka, T. 2001. Species coexistence in temperate mixed deciduous forests. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:205–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norden, B. and Appelqvist, T.. 2001. Conceptual problems of ecological continuity and its bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:779–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onaindia, M., Dominguez, I., Albizu, I., Garbisu, C. and Amezaga, I.. 2004. Vegetation diversity and vertical structure as indicators of forest disturbance. Forest Ecology and Management 195:341–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterken, G. F. 1974. A method of assessing woodland flora for conservation using indicator species. Biological Conservation 6:239–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterken, G. F. 1996. Natural Woodland. Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peterken, G. F. and Game, M.. 1981. Historical factors affecting the distribution of Mercurialis perennis in Central Lincolnshire. Journal of Ecology 69:781–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimm, S. L., Russell, G. J., Gittleman, J. L. and Brooks, T. M.. 1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 269:347–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitkänen, S. 1998. The use of diversity indices to assess the diversity of vegetation in managed boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management 112:121–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, O. 1980. Ancient Woodland. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The Life Forms of Plants and Statistical Plant Geography. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rolstad, J., Gjerde, I., Gunderse, V. S. and Saetersdal, M.. 2002. Use of indicator species to assess forest continuity: a critique. Conservation Biology 16:253–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandberg, B., Kristiansen, S. M. and Tybirk, K.. 2005. Dynamic oak-scrub to forest succession: effects of management on understorey vegetation, humus forms and soils. Forest Ecology and Management 211:318–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Braak, C. J. F. and Šmilauer, P.. 2002. CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User's Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Ithaca, NY: Microcomputer Power.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Bakker, J. and Bekker, R.. 1997. The Soil Seed Banks of North West Europe: Methodology, Density and Longevity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Bakker, J. P., Bekker, R. M. and Hodgson, J. G.. 1998. Ecological correlates of seed persistence in soil in the north-west European flora. Journal of Ecology 86: 163–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uotila, A. and Kouki, J.. 2005. Understorey vegetation in spruce-dominated forests in eastern Finland and Russian Karelia: successional patterns after anthropogenic and natural disturbances. Forest Ecology and Management 215:113–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verheyen, K., Honnay, O., Motzkin, G., Hermy, M. and Foster, D. R.. 2003. Response of forest plant species to land-use change: a life-history trait-based approach. Journal of Ecology 91:563–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humboldt, A. 1806. Ideen zu einer Physiognomik der Gewächse. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Washington, H. G. 1984. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices. Water Research 18:653–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiher, E., Werf, A., Thompson, K.et al. 1999. Challenging Theophrastus: a common core list of plant traits for functional ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science 10:609–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. B. 1999. Guilds, functional types and ecological groups. Oikos 86:507–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulf, M. 1997. Plant species as ancient woodland indicators in north-western Germany. Journal of Vegetation Science 8:635–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×