Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ALEXANDRE LENIÈRE
RELATIONS ENTRE LA DIVERSITÉ ET LA PRODUCTIVITÉ VÉGÉTALE VIS-À-VIS DES CARACTÉRISTIQUES STRUCTURALES ET
FONCTIONNELLES DES ÉRABLIÈRES DU CENTRE DU QUÉBEC
Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures de l’Université Laval
dans le cadre du programme de doctorat en Biologie pour l’obtention du grade de Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.)
DÉPARTEMENT DE BIOLOGIE FACULTÉ DES SCIENCES ET GÉNIE
UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL QUÉBEC
2007 © Alexandre Lenière, 2007
Résumé La flore du sous-bois représente près des deux tiers de la richesse spécifique des végétaux
supérieurs dans les forêts tempérées décidues. Ce pool d’espèces, composé presque
essentiellement de plantes pérennes, agit sur la régénération, la structure et la composition
du couvert forestier, et sur les fonctions de l’écosystème (par exemple : productivité et
cycles biogéochimiques). La présente thèse montre les effets de plusieurs facteurs qui
modulent la richesse et la productivité des espèces de sous-bois en forêt décidue. Les deux
premiers objectifs de la thèse portent sur l’influence de l’hétérogénéité structurale et de
l’hétérogénéité de la répartition spatiale des nutriments sur les espèces de sous-bois. Le
dernier objectif porte sur la complémentarité entre les groupes fonctionnels, une propriété
essentielle pour le maintien de tout écosystème forestier.
À mesure que l’hétérogénéité structurale de la forêt augmente, la complexité
environnementale et la diversité végétale augmentent également. Toutefois, une
perturbation (e.g. aménagement acéricole) peut réduire la richesse et la variabilité de la
taille des arbres (simplification de la stratification), altérer les multiples interactions entre
les facteurs environnementaux et entraîner une diminution de la richesse en sous-bois. Nos
résultats indiquent que l’hétérogénéité structurale, qui tient compte de la richesse et de
l’abondance relative des espèces ligneuses, agit positivement sur la diversité de la flore
herbacée du sous-bois. En présumant que l’hétérogénéité structurale est inversement reliée
à l’intensité de l’aménagement, l’aménagement acéricole semble avoir des effets délétères
sur la diversité des plantes herbacées. Pour ce qui est des facteurs environnementaux, le pH
et l’humidité du sol contribuent au maintien de la diversité des espèces herbacées de sous-
bois. Par contre, l’absence de relation entre la lumière et la diversité des espèces herbacées
nous porte à croire que la plupart de ces espèces sont bien adaptées ou tolérantes à de
faibles niveaux d’irradiance.
La richesse spécifique et la richesse fonctionnelle contribuent à maintenir et à pérenniser
les fonctions écosystèmiques dans un environnement variable. Pour simplifier cette
complexité écologique, la flore du sous-bois peut être subdivisée en groupes fonctionnels
(e.g. espèces printanières éphémères, espèces printanières persistantes, espèces estivales,
fougères, et plantules et juvéniles des espèces ligneuses). Nous proposons que la perte d’un
i
ii
groupe peut avoir des conséquences variées sur le maintien des interactions entre les
groupes fonctionnels pour une fonction donnée. Nos résultats révèlent que la contribution
directe de chacun des cinq groupes fonctionnels à la richesse spécifique, au couvert et à
l’équitabilité est positive. Les plantules et juvéniles des espèces ligneuses et les espèces
printanières persistantes ont un effet positif sur les autres groupes fonctionnels, alors que
les espèces estivales semblent avoir un effet négatif sur les autres groupes. Ces interactions
correspondent à des boucles de rétroactions négatives qui pourraient contribuer au maintien
et la pérennité de la communauté. Ainsi, ces différents groupes ne sont pas strictement
indépendants les uns des autres, mais sont plutôt interconnectés. De plus, les espèces de
sous-bois semblent peu sensibles à l’hétérogénéité spatiale des nutriments. Une croissance
lente ou une faible plasticité peut expliquer l’absence de réponse de la richesse et du
couvert des plantes de sous-bois à l’hétérogénéité spatiale des nutriments. Par contre, la
variété des espèces estivales en ce qui a trait au système racinaire permet de maximiser leur
couvert à une très fine échelle spatiale d’hétérogénéité des nutriments. Ces différences dans
les stratégies racinaires représentent une spécialisation de niche, favorisant la coexistence
des espèces vis-à-vis de l’hétérogénéité spatiale. Toutefois, ces résultats montrent que, de
façon générale, ce pool d’espèces est peu sensible à la disponibilité et à l’hétérogénéité
spatiale des nutriments.
iii
Avant-Propos Cette thèse comporte cinq chapitres. Les chapitres 1 et 5 correspondent respectivement à
l’introduction générale et à la conclusion générale. Les chapitres 2, 3 et 4 (corps de la thèse)
font état de mes travaux de recherche dans les érablières du Centre du Québec et ont été
rédigés en anglais, sous forme d’articles scientifiques.
J’ai conçu et réalisé toutes les expériences et observations de terrain et de laboratoire,
effectué la totalité des analyses statistiques, puis rédigé les différents chapitres avec l’aide
de mon directeur de thèse, Gilles Houle.
Les résultats du chapitre 2 ont été présentés lors d’un congrès (Lenière, A. & Houle, G.
2005. Response of understorey plant diversity to reduced forest structural diversity.
Ecological Society of America, 90th Annual Meeting, Montréal, Canada). De plus, ce
chapitre est publié : Lenière, A. and Houle, G. 2006. Response of herbaceous plant
diversity to reduced structural diversity in maple-dominated (Acer saccharum Marsh.)
forests managed for sap extraction. Forest Ecology and Management 231: 94-104.
Les résultats du chapitre 3 seront bientôt soumis pour publication, alors que les résultats du
chapitre 4 ont été soumis à la revue Oikos, en 2007.
Remerciements La réalisation de ces quatre années et demie de recherche (2002-2007) a été rendue possible
grâce au dévouement et à la disponibilité de plusieurs personnes.
Je tiens à remercier fortement et chaleureusement mon directeur de thèse, Gilles Houle,
pour son encadrement et la confiance qu’il m’a témoignée tout au long de mes recherches.
Sa disponibilité exemplaire, son support moral et financier et ses nombreux conseils
scientifiques pendant la rédaction de ma thèse ont été particulièrement appréciés. C’est une
personne très humaine et ce fut très plaisant de travailler à ses côtés. Cette recherche a été
financée par le Conseil de recherche en sciences naturelles et en génie du Canada
(CRSNG).
J’exprime ma gratitude et ma reconnaissance envers mon jury de thèse, à savoir Stéphane
Boudreau et Line Lapointe de l’Université Laval, et Daniel Gagnon, mon examinateur
externe de l’Université du Québec à Montréal. Un merci particulier aussi à Ladd E.
Johnson, mon président de jury.
Un grand merci à mes précieuses assistantes de recherche pour l’ensemble des heures
passées sur le terrain et au laboratoire : Geneviève Descôteaux, Anabelle Goupil, Virginie
Bolduc. Merci à mes collègues du laboratoire de G. Houle avec qui j’ai partagé des
moments de plaisir et de joie, aussi bien sur le terrain qu’en laboratoire : Ines Ben Moktar,
Patricia Désilets, Pascal Marchand, Guillaume de Lafontaine et Fatima Sahim.
Un gros merci au personnel du Département de biologie : Michelle Carignan, Raymonde
Gosselin, France Lépine, Nicole Tanguay, Silvia Cleary, Carole Martel, Martine Boucher,
Jacinthe Goulet, Louise Lapointe, Gaétan Rochette, Josée Pelletier, Léo Gaudreau.
J’adresse un merci particulier aux professeurs que j’ai eu la chance de rencontrer en cours
(Serge Payette, Ladd E. Johnson, Nicole Benhamou) ou dans les couloirs (Warwick
Vincent, Julian J. Dodson, Line Lapointe, Cyrille Barrette et Helga Guderley).
Je remercie tous les amis rencontrés (1) au département : Sylvain Gutjahr, Sylvain Lerat,
Christophe Gouraud, Anthony Gandin, Amélie Collard, Mireille Bellemare, Julie Naud,
Julie Bussières, Jin Zhou, Patrick Gagnon, Ian Boucher, Alexis Deshaies, Guillaume
iv
v
Théroux-Rancourt, ainsi que tous les étudiants du baccalauréat de biologie de 2002 à 2006
(2) à l’Université Laval : Ha et tous les vietnamiens, Hamid, et (3) à l’extérieur de
l’Université : Stéfanie, Frédéric, Élisa, Antoine, Patrick, Billy, Yann, Denis, …
Je dédie cette thèse de doctorat à toute ma famille, à savoir, mes parents, mon grand-père,
Bernard. Toutes ces personnes ont toujours été derrière moi pour m’encourager, me
propulser sur le devant de la réussite. Leur sensibilité et leur support à plusieurs niveaux
m’ont fortement permis de réaliser ce projet de doctorat avec enthousiasme et ténacité. Un
grand merci à la famille de ma compagne : Patricia, Pierre, Louise et Pierre Bernard
Lafond. Un merci particulier au grand-père de Marie-Françoise, André Lafond, ex-doyen
de la Faculté de foresterie de l’Université Laval, qui est une personne unique et généreuse,
avec qui discuter s’apparente à un véritable voyage de passion et de découverte …
Enfin, un Énorme merci à Marie-Françoise, ma meilleure amie, ma confidente, ma
conjointe de vie depuis le début de cette aventure. C’est une personne sociable, motivante
et attentionnée. Elle a toujours été derrière moi, elle m’a soutenu dans toutes mes épreuves.
Pour tout cela et bien d’autres choses, je tiens à la remercier pour sa simplicité, son sourire,
sa bonne humeur. Notre amour ne fait que commencer et cela va en rendre jaloux plus d’un
…
Merci à toutes et à tous!
À mon père ……
Table des matières Résumé.....................................................................................................................................i Avant-Propos ........................................................................................................................ iii Remerciements.......................................................................................................................iv Table des matières .................................................................................................................vi Liste des tableaux...................................................................................................................ix Liste des figures .....................................................................................................................xi CHAPITRE 1 – Introduction Générale...................................................................................1
1.1. Perturbations naturelles...........................................................................................4 1.1.1 Les tempêtes de verglas ..................................................................................4 1.1.2 Les épidémies d’insectes et autres agents pathogènes....................................5 1.1.3 Les grands herbivores .....................................................................................6
1.2 Perturbations anthropiques .....................................................................................7 1.3 Problématiques, buts et objectifs de la thèse ..........................................................9
1.4 Références citées...................................................................................................13 CHAPITRE 2 – Response of herbaceous plant diversity to reduced structural diversity in maple-dominated (Acer saccharum Marsh.) forests managed for sap extraction ................23
2.1 Avant-propos ........................................................................................................23 2.2 Résumé..................................................................................................................23 2.3 Abstract.................................................................................................................24 2.4 Introduction...........................................................................................................25 2.5 Material and Methods ...........................................................................................26
2.5.1 Study site description....................................................................................26 2.5.2 Sampling protocol and variables measured ..................................................29 2.5.3 Biological variables ......................................................................................29 2.5.4 Environmental variables ...............................................................................29 2.5.5 Structural variables .......................................................................................31 2.5.6 Statistical analyses ........................................................................................32
2.6 Results...................................................................................................................33 2.6.1 Species richness ............................................................................................33 2.6.2 Forest structure .............................................................................................33 2.6.3 Environmental factors...................................................................................34 2.6.4 Path analyses.................................................................................................34
2.7 Discussion.............................................................................................................39 2.7.1 Plant diversity and soil pH............................................................................40 2.7.2 Plant diversity and the other environmental variables..................................41 2.7.3 Local diversity and the regional species pool...............................................43
2.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................43 2.9 Acknowledgements...............................................................................................43
2.10 References cited....................................................................................................44
vi
vii
CHAPITRE 3 – Short-Term understory plant community response to nutrient spatial heterogeneity in the cold-temperate deciduous forest of south-eastern Canada...................50
3.1 Avant-Propos ........................................................................................................50 3.2 Résumé..................................................................................................................50 3.3 Abstract.................................................................................................................51 3.4 Introduction...........................................................................................................52 3.5 Material and Methods ...........................................................................................54
3.5.1 Study site description....................................................................................54 3.5.2 Sampling protocol and variables measured ..................................................55 3.5.3 Biological variables ......................................................................................58 3.5.4 Environmental variables ...............................................................................60 3.5.5 Data analysis .................................................................................................60
3.6 Results...................................................................................................................61 3.6.1 Pre-experimental data (2003)........................................................................61 3.6.2 Nutrient addition experiment (2005) ............................................................62 3.6.3 Environmental factors...................................................................................65 3.6.4 Inter-site differences .....................................................................................66
3.7 Discussion.............................................................................................................66 3.7.1 Cover.............................................................................................................67 3.7.2 Richness ........................................................................................................68 3.7.3 Evenness .......................................................................................................69 3.7.4 Environmental variables ...............................................................................70 3.7.5 Caveats..........................................................................................................70
3.8 Acknowledgements...............................................................................................71 3.9 References cited....................................................................................................72 CHAPITRE 4 – Plant community response to species losses in the understory of cold-temperate deciduous forests in south-eastern Canada. .........................................................79
4.1 Avant-Propos ........................................................................................................79 4.2 Résumé..................................................................................................................79 4.3 Abstract.................................................................................................................80 4.4 Introduction...........................................................................................................81 4.5 Material and Methods ...........................................................................................83
4.5.1 Study site description....................................................................................83 4.5.2 Sampling protocol and variables measured ..................................................84 4.5.3 Biological variables ......................................................................................85 4.5.4 Environmental variables ...............................................................................86 4.5.5 Data analysis .................................................................................................87
4.6. Results...................................................................................................................88 4.6.1. Pre-experimental data (2003)........................................................................88 4.6.2. Experimental data (2005)..............................................................................88
4.6.2.1. Richness, cover, and evenness..............................................................88 4.6.2.2. Abiotic variables ...................................................................................96
viii 4.6.2.3. Inter-site differences .............................................................................96
4.7. Discussion..................................................................................................................97 4.7.1. Richness ........................................................................................................97 4.7.2 Cover.............................................................................................................98 4.7.3 Evenness .......................................................................................................99 4.7.4 Environmental variables .............................................................................101
4.8 Acknowledgements.............................................................................................101 4.9 References cited..................................................................................................102 CHAPITRE 5 – Conclusion générale .................................................................................107
5.1 Réponses des plantes herbacées à la réduction de la diversité structurale..........109 5.2 Réponses de la flore du sous-bois à l’hétérogénéité spatiale des nutriments .....110 5.3 Réponse des plantes de sous-bois à la perte d’un groupe fonctionnel................111 5.4 Synthèse ..............................................................................................................113 5.5 Perspectives de recherche ...................................................................................113
5.6 Références citées dans la conclusion ..................................................................115
Liste des tableaux Table 2.1 General characteristics, number of species (in parentheses, herbaceous plant
species), proportion of herbaceous species (vs. total species number), and parameter and statistics of the species-area curve for the 30 study sites (Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada). ..........................................................................................................28
Table 2.2 Structural characteristics of the 30 study sites (Bois-Francs region, Québec,
Canada). . ......................................................................................................................30 Table 2.3 Mean value (± SD) and coefficient of variation (CV, in %) of the environmental
variables at the 30 study sites (Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada). ........................35 Table 2.4 Pearson coefficient of correlation between the variables studied (*: P < 0.05; **:
P < 0.01; ***: P < 0.001), n = 30 (Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada)...................38 Table 3.1 Functional groups, symbols, and examples of species in the different groups.....56 Table 3.2 Experimental protocol for the different nutrient addition treatments. .................57 Table 3.3 F-values (P-values in parentheses) from the ANOVAs for the effects of site (df =
2), treatment (df = 4), and their interaction (df = 8) on total cover (Ctot), total richness (Rtot), spatial autocorrelation of total richness (SA), total evenness (Htot), functional group evenness (HSE, HSP, HSM, HFE, and HTS), and three environmental factors (soil pH, soil organic matter (SOM), and irradiance).. .................................................62
Table 3.4 Species richness for the three sites combined and for each site according to
functional group . ..........................................................................................................63 Table 3.5 Total cover (Ctot), functional group cover (CSE, CSP, CSM, CFE, and CTS),
total richness (Rtot), functional group richness (RSE, RSP, RSM, RFE, and RTS), total evenness (Htot), and functional group evenness (HSE, HSP, HSM, HFE, and HTS) for each treatment. .............................................................................................64
Table 3.6 Mean (± SD; n = 9) of three environmental variables (soil pH, soil organic matter
(SOM), and irradiance) as a function of year and treatment. .......................................66 Table 4.1 Functional groups, symbols, and examples of species in the different groups.....84 Table 4.2 Species richness for the three sites combined and for each site (data from 2005)
according to functional group .......................................................................................89 Table 4.3 F-values (in parentheses, P-values) from the ANOVAs for the effects of site (df =
2) and treatment (df = 5 for Rtot, SA, Ctot, Htot, soil ph, soil organic matter content, and irradiance; df = 4 for the other variables) and for their interaction (df = 10 for
ix
x
Rtot, SA, Ctot, Htot, pH, SOM, and irradiance; df = 8 for the other variables) on the variables studied. ..........................................................................................................90
Table 4.4 Observed and expected total richness (Rtot), total cover (Ctot), and total evenness
(Htot) as a function of treatment (LSE: removal of spring-flowering ephemeral species; LSP: removal of spring-flowering persistent species; LSM: removal of summer-flowering species; LFE: removal of ferns; LTS: removal of seedlings and juveniles of woody species). .........................................................................................91
Table 4.5 Mean (± SD) of the environmental variables as a function of treatment (n = 9)..96
Liste des figures Figure 1.1 Répartition des régions forestières du Canada pour la province de Québec (Tirée
de Ressources Naturelles Canada – Service canadien des forêts). .................................3 Figure 1.2 Répartition des différents domaines bioclimatiques de l’érablière dans la
province du Québec ........................................................................................................4 Figure 2.1 Localization of the forest fragments studied in the Bois-Francs region, Québec,
Canada. .........................................................................................................................27 Figure 2.2 Path diagram for the relationships between the mean of the environmental
variables, the structural diversity index (H), and herbaceous plant diversity (zherb) at the 30 study sites (Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada). ...........................................36
Figure 2.3 Path diagram for the relationships between the CV of the environmental
variables, the structural diversity index (H), and herbaceous plant diversity (zherb) at the 30 study sites (Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada). ...........................................37
Figure 2.4 Positive relationship between soil pH and herbaceous plant diversity (zherb) over
the 30 study sites, Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada. .............................................41 Figure 3.1 Experimental design: (a) control, i.e., no nutrient application (N0); (b)
homogeneous nutrient application (N1); (c, d, and e) three increasing heterogeneity levels of nutrient application (N4, N16, and N64). ......................................................57
Figure 3.2 Experimental set up to record plant cover and richness in each 4 m2 plot..........59 Figure 4.1 Experimental set up to record plant cover and diversity in each 4 m2 plot. ........86 Figure 4.2 Total richness (Rtot) and functional group richness (RSE: spring-flowering
ephemeral species; RSP: spring-flowering persistent species; RSM: summer-flowering species; RFE: fern species; and RTS: seedlings and juveniles of woody species) for each treatment. ..............................................................................................................92
Figure 4.3 Total cover (Ctot) and functional group cover (CSE: spring-flowering ephemeral
species; CSP: spring-flowering persistent species; CSM: summer-flowering species; CFE: fern species; and CTS: seedlings and juveniles of woody species) for each treatment. ......................................................................................................................94
Figure 4.4 Total species evenness (Htot) and functional group species evenness (HSE:
spring-flowering ephemeral species; HSP: spring-flowering persistent species; HSM: summer-flowering species; HFE: fern species; and HTS: seedlings and juveniles of woody species) for each treatment................................................................................95
xi
xii
Figure 4.5 Positive (continuous lines) and negative (dotted lines) interactions between the different functional groups for species richness. ..........................................................97
Figure 4.6 Positive (continuous lines) and negative (dotted lines) interactions between the
different functional groups for species cover. ..............................................................99
CHAPITRE 1 – Introduction générale
La diversité végétale est responsable de la structure et des fonctions de l’écosystème, ce qui
lui confère le rôle de répondre aux phénomènes de perturbations (Johnson et al. 1996;
Loreau et Behera 1999). Par sa capacité à maintenir une fonction écosystèmique, une
communauté résiste aux changements (résistance) ou retrouve des niveaux fonctionnels
normaux après une perturbation (résilience) (Upadhyay et al. 2000). Ces deux propriétés
sont responsables de la persistance des écosystèmes dans un environnement variable et sont
fortement influencées par les traits physiologiques, morphologiques et phénologiques des
espèces. En somme, les espèces végétales, de par leurs interactions spécifiques, sont
responsables de l’hétérogénéité spatiale verticale et horizontale (Johnson et al. 1996). Cette
hétérogénéité crée une variabilité dans les facteurs environnementaux et dans la
disponibilité des ressources. Cette variation entraîne une différenciation de niches et une
coexistence entre les différentes espèces (Dupré et al. 2002; Tews et al. 2004). Toutefois,
bien que certains écosystèmes puissent se maintenir pendant plusieurs centaines d’années
(pessières à lichens dans le nord du Québec, Morneau et Payette 1989), la végétation est
rarement stable localement et les principaux phénomènes de la variabilité de
l’environnement sont les perturbations et la succession écologique (Bengtsson et al. 2000).
Le phénomène de succession représente des changements temporels (à court-terme ou à
long-terme) et directionnels dans la composition et la structure des communautés (Connell
et Slatyer 1977; Sousa 1979). Autrement dit, c’est une série d’événements qui résulte
d’interactions entre les individus des espèces présentes et les variables environnementales.
Selon leur sévérité et leur intensité, les perturbations peuvent modifier en partie ou en
totalité une communauté, ce qui peu aboutir à des pertes d’espèces ou de groupes
d’espèces. Dans ce sens, plusieurs travaux ont montré que sous des conditions stables, un
faible nombre d’espèces permet un bon fonctionnement de l’écosystème. Toutefois, les
écosystèmes naturels sont constamment soumis aux perturbations, ce qui sous-entend
qu’une large diversité d’espèces est nécessaire pour maintenir et pérenniser les fonctions de
l’écosystème (Naeem et al. 1999; Loreau et al. 2001). Pour simplifier la complexité d’un
1
2
écosystème naturel, la diversité peut être divisée en groupes fonctionnels, c’est-à-dire des
jeux d’espèces qui montrent des effets similaires sur les processus de l’écosystème (Hooper
et al. 2002). Dès lors, la perte d’un de ces groupes fonctionnels peut entraîner des
diminutions, voire des effondrements dans les principaux processus écosystèmiques
(productivité primaire, cycles des nutriments et flux d’énergie).
En milieu forestier, les perturbations agissent sur la structure verticale et horizontale du
couvert forestier et du sous-bois, et sur les facteurs environnementaux (lumière et
ressources du sol; Bengtsson et al. 2000). Ces phénomènes homogénéisent la structure
verticale et environnementale et agissent directement sur la diversité végétale et sur le rôle
fonctionnel (Gilliam et Turrill 1993; Small et McCarthy 2002; de Ruiter et al. 2002; Tilman
et al. 2002; Roberts 2004). Dans ce sens, plusieurs travaux ont montré les effets des
perturbations sur la strate arborée (Leak et Smith 1996; Hubbell et al. 1999; Frelich 2002;
Haeussler et al. 2002; Williams-Linera 2002), mais peu d’études se sont intéressées aux
conséquences de ces perturbations sur la strate du sous-bois (≤ 1 m de hauteur), dominée
par les plantes herbacées et les plantules et les juvéniles des espèces ligneuses (Meier et al.
1995; Ellison et al. 2005).
Pour tenter d’évaluer l’importance du rôle des espèces herbacées dans le fonctionnement
d’un écosystème forestier, nous nous sommes intéressés aux forêts tempérées de l’est du
Canada, dans la région forestière des Grands Lacs et du Saint-Laurent (Figure 1.1), et, plus
particulièrement, aux érablières du centre-sud du Québec (Figure 1.2). Cette région est
soumise à plusieurs perturbations naturelles et anthropiques qui engendrent des
modifications dans la structure verticale, la composition et l’abondance végétale, ainsi que
dans le fonctionnement des écosystèmes.
3
Figure 1.1 Répartition des régions forestières du Canada pour la province de Québec (Tirée de Ressources Naturelles Canada – Service canadien des forêts). http://192.75.17.6/OG/OldGrowthPosters/OldGrowthPoster-f.htm
4
Figure 1.2 Répartition des différents domaines bioclimatiques de l’érablière dans la province du Québec (Extrait de Auger et al. (2004)).
1.1. Perturbations naturelles Les perturbations écologiques résultant de processus naturels altèrent les paysages et
affectent fortement la composition des communautés, la structure verticale et les fonctions
des écosystèmes à différentes échelles spatiales et temporelles. Les perturbations les plus
fréquemment rencontrées dans les forêts tempérées décidues sont les tempêtes de verglas
associées ou non au vent, les épidémies d’insectes et d’agents pathogènes, et l’activité des
grands herbivores.
1.1.1 Les tempêtes de verglas Les tempêtes de verglas sont parmi les perturbations les plus fréquentes dans le Nord-Est
de l’Amérique du Nord. Elles influencent l’histoire et la dynamique des écosystèmes
forestiers, ainsi que les phases de la succession écologique (Hooper et al. 2001; Proulx et
Greene 2001). Les conséquences directes se situent surtout au niveau de la strate arborée :
5
changement de la stratification, augmentation de débris au sol (arbres morts, branches,
brindilles) et réduction du couvert forestier (Bruederle et Stearns 1985; Rebertus et al.
1997). La topographie et l’altitude seraient responsables de l’intensité des tempêtes
verglaçantes (Proulx et Greene 2001). Ces perturbations façonnent la structure et la
composition des forêts en créant des ouvertures dans la voûte forestière. Les trouées
accroissent la fréquence et l’intensité de l’action du vent et entraînent des modifications de
la stratification du couvert forestier, une redistribution des ressources du sol, une
augmentation de la lumière en sous-bois, et un accroissement de la diversité végétale
composée à la fois d’espèces des milieux avoisinants et des espèces des milieux forestiers
(Schumann et al. 2003). Toutefois, les trouées entraînent une hétérogénéité spatiale de la
structure verticale maintenant la diversité forestière (Lautenschlager et al. 2005). La
tempête de verglas de 1998 a été la plus dévastatrice parmi celles enregistrées dans l’est
canadien. Elle a touché l’est de l’Ontario, le sud-ouest du Québec, et le sud du Nouveau-
Brunswick et de la Nouvelle-Ecosse entre les 4 et 10 janvier 1998. La quantité de débris
ligneux retrouvés au sol a été estimée à 33,6 m3 ha-1, soit 10 à 20 fois la production
annuelle moyenne de litière habituellement retrouvée sur le Mont Saint-Hilaire, au sud-est
du Québec (Hooper et al. 2001). Parmi les essences forestières dominantes, le hêtre à
grandes feuilles (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.) a subi le plus de dommages, alors que l’érable à
sucre (Acer saccharum Marsh.) aurait le mieux résisté à cette perturbation (Rhoads et al.
2002).
1.1.2 Les épidémies d’insectes et autres agents pathogènes La vigueur des espèces ligneuses est fonction de plusieurs facteurs : l’état du peuplement,
les stress naturels et anthropiques, et la qualité du site. Dans les érablières, l’érable à sucre a
la capacité de développer de nouvelles feuilles au cours d’une même saison suite à une
défoliation, bien que celle-ci provoque une chute de croissance (Boutin 1995). Si la
défoliation se situe vers la fin de l’été, les nouveaux bourgeons développés n’ont pas le
temps d'atteindre la maturité pour résister à l’hiver. Ainsi, une défoliation résulte en une
perte significative de croissance, de production de sève élaborée ainsi que de son contenu
en sucre, entraînant parfois la mort de l’individu. Dépendamment de leur action, les
6
insectes phytophages n’entraînent pas systématiquement la mort des individus infectés. Les
insectes primaires (thrips du poirier, Taeniothrips inconsequens; arpenteuse d’automne,
Alsophila pometaria) attaquent les arbres peu importe leur vigueur, ce qui incite l’arbre à
puiser dans ses réserves énergétiques pour les combattre. Lorsque la défoliation est sévère
(50 à 60%), l’arbre est affaibli et se retrouve confronté aux insectes secondaires (Arbour
1991; Teulon et al. 1998).
La présence de certains pathogènes peut parfois nuire à la régénération de l’érable à sucre.
Par exemple, Forrester et Runkle (2000), Hane (2003), et Lovett et Mitchell (2004) ont
montré que la maladie corticale du hêtre à grandes feuilles avait un effet négatif indirect sur
la survie des jeunes érables à sucre. Cette maladie, provoquée par une cochenille,
Cryptococcus fagisuga, en combinaison avec un champignon pathogène, Nectria coccinea
var. faginata, entraînerait un accroissement du nombre de drageons de hêtre ce qui
diminuerait la quantité de ressources disponibles pour le développement des plantules
d’érable à sucre.
1.1.3 Les grands herbivores À fortes densités, les grands herbivores (par exemple, le cerf de Virginie, Odocoileus
virginianus) altèrent fortement la reproduction, la croissance et la survie des espèces
végétales de toutes les strates et modifient, de façon indirecte, les patrons d’abondance
relative et la dynamique végétale (Leland Russell et al. 2001; McGraw et Furedi 2005). Par
exemple, des études ont montré que, par leur broutement, les cerfs réduisent le nombre de
fleurs et de fruits, la hauteur et la surface foliaire, ainsi que la survie de certaines plantes
printanières (Erythronium americanum et Trillium spp.) de la strate herbacée (Anderson
1994; Balgooyen et Waller 1995). D’autres études ont montré que les ongulés avaient des
effets plus prononcés sur les plantes herbacées sensibles au broutement (fortement
attaquées, jusqu’à parfois éradication totale), ce qui favorise les espèces délaissées par les
cerfs telles que les fougères, les graminées, les joncs et les carex (Rooney et Waller 2003).
Ce changement dans la composition de la végétation a des impacts indirects sur la diversité
des insectes herbivores monophages et les pollinisateurs spécifiques de certaines espèces
broutées. De plus, cette nouvelle composition de sous-bois nuit à la régénération de la forêt,
7
en affectant la structure et la composition du futur couvert forestier (Rooney et Waller
2003). Les facteurs environnementaux sont également modifiés par les cerfs lorsque les
densités sont élevées. De plus, la perte d’espèces végétales causée par les grands herbivores
engendre des modifications dans les cycles des nutriments et du carbone, ainsi que dans les
phases de la succession écologique.
1.2 Perturbations anthropiques La plupart des érablières ont une structure inéquienne, et sont naturellement riches et
diversifiés en espèces ligneuses et herbacées. Cette diversité permet à l’érablière de se
maintenir et d’être moins vulnérable aux perturbations (Auger et al. 2004). Les érablières
du sud du Québec (Figure 1.2) sont soumises à deux types d’activités humaines :
l’aménagement forestier et l’aménagement acéricole (Allen et al. 1992; Coons 1992).
Comparativement aux phénomènes naturels, les perturbations anthropiques altèrent
davantage la structure et la composition des espèces ligneuses et de la strate du sous-bois
(Leak et Smith 1996; Bengtsson et al. 2000; Battles et al. 2001; Crow et al. 2002). Sachant
que les arbres offrent une mosaïque d’habitats pour les communautés animales et la flore
du sous-bois (Bobiec 1998), ils créent une différenciation de niches et une variabilité dans
les facteurs environnementaux. Toutefois, toute modification dans la structure verticale
implique des ouvertures dans le couvert forestier. De telles pratiques forestières intensives
associées à une courte révolution interdisent ou retardent le développement des forêts
matures, ce qui aboutit à long terme à une perte de diversité. L’aménagement de parcelles
ayant de longues révolutions (150-300 ans) maintiendrait la diversité en sous-bois (Halpern
et Spies 1995).
L’aménagement acéricole a pour objectif de conserver les érables à sucre les plus gros et
les plus vigoureux, et d’éliminer les arbres malades ou morts, ce qui transforme
progressivement la structure inéquienne en structure équienne (Lautenschlager et al. 2005).
Par ailleurs, plusieurs espèces ligneuses considérées comme accompagnatrices de l’érable à
sucre sont présentes : l’érable rouge (Acer rubrum L.), le bouleau jaune, le tilleul
d’Amérique (Tilia americana L.), le chêne rouge (Quercus rubra L.), le hêtre à grandes
feuilles, l’ostryer de Virginie (Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K. Koch), et parfois le sapin
8
baumier (Abies balsaema (L.) Mill.). Leur retrait provoque des ouvertures dans le couvert
forestier, ainsi que des changements environnementaux (Duffy et Meier 1992). De plus, ces
trouées entraînent l’introduction d’espèces pionnières intolérantes à l’ombre et non désirées
(érable à épis, Acer spicatum Lam.; bouleau à papier, Betula papyrifera Marsh.) qui entrent
en compétition avec les jeunes érables à sucre pour les ressources (Vetaas 1997; Wirth et al.
2001; Haeussler et al. 2002). La diversité augmente alors avec l’ajout des espèces
intolérantes à l’ombre, mais la fermeture du couvert forestier entraîne leur disparition au
profit des espèces présentes avant l’ouverture du couvert forestier (Brunet et al. 1996). Les
trouées créent ainsi une hétérogénéité spatiale en termes de ressources et de composition et
de richesse végétales du sous-bois (Scheller et Mladenoff 2002).
De même, les arbres influencent les propriétés du sol (e.g. pH du sol), la disponibilité de
l’eau, l’acidité du sol et les éléments nutritifs (van Breemen et al. 1997). Les précipitations
ruissellent à la fois sur le feuillage et le long du tronc des arbres et sur les strates
inférieures. L’eau de ruissellement irrigue le sol et peut modifier le pH et la disponibilité
des nutriments du sol (Finzi et al. 1998; Muller 2003). Le passage d’une forêt naturelle à
une monoculture entraîne de graves conséquences pour l’érablière : augmentation de
l’activité des insectes défoliateurs; baisse de la disponibilité de certains nutriments et
diminution de la richesse végétale (Rosenzweig 1995). Par ailleurs, l’aménagement
acéricole inflige des blessures aux troncs et aux racines par la machinerie légère servant au
débroussaillage et au débardage, facilitant l’introduction d’agents pathogènes. La
machinerie affecte le sol et contribue au compactage du sol, ce qui nuit à la santé des
arbres, et à la production de sève et de racines. Le compactage élimine les espaces d’air
(macropores), réduisant fortement la perméabilité du sol et les échanges gazeux (Brosofske
et al. 2001). La création d’ornières perturbe le drainage naturel et réduit la vigueur des
arbres à proximité des érables retenus pour la récolte de la sève. Ainsi, plus la proportion de
racines blessées est grande, plus la croissance de l’arbre, et la qualité et la quantité de sève
sont affectées négativement. Les tubulures ont progressivement remplacé les chaudières,
mais leur installation à la fin du printemps (mi-mars à mi-avril) occasionne des blessures au
système racinaire du fait que le sol est humide (Houston et al. 1990).
9
Les pratiques forestières réduisent la diversité des espèces ligneuses, mais également celle
des plantes du sous-bois (plantes herbacées, et plantules et juvéniles des espèces ligneuses).
À part les activités anthropiques, d’autres facteurs affectent la distribution et l’abondance
des herbacées : topographie, qualité du sol (Bratton 1976), composition du couvert
forestier, attributs structuraux comme la surface terrière, herbivorie (Rooney et Waller
2003) et taille des trouées (Collins et Pickett 1982). Cette perte d’espèces est préjudiciable
au niveau de la complexité fonctionnelle et structurale, de par l’importance des espèces
végétales dans les processus des écosystèmes : productivité primaire, cycle des éléments
nutritifs et du carbone (Hooper et Vitousek 1997; Tilman 1997; Loreau et al. 2001;
Symstad et Tilman 2001; Crow et al. 2002).
1.3 Problématiques, buts et objectifs de la thèse La plupart des études présentes dans la littérature se sont focalisées sur l’impact des
perturbations naturelles et anthropiques sur la composition et la richesse spécifique des
espèces ligneuses matures (Tews et al. 2004), mais peu sur les espèces du sous-bois, en
l’occurrence les plantes herbacées et les plantules et les juvéniles des espèces ligneuses
(Reader 1987; Gilliam et Roberts 1995; Scheller et Mladenoff 2002). La proportion de la
strate du sous-bois est relativement faible en termes de la biomasse totale d’un écosystème
forestier. Toutefois, elle joue un rôle majeur dans les fonctions de l’écosystème :
productivité végétale et cycle des nutriments (Gilliam et al. 1995). Ce rôle semble être
directement relié avec le patron de distribution des plantes, qui est lui-même influencé par
la disponibilité des nutriments et par l’hétérogénéité de l’habitat (Miller et al. 2002;
Whigham 2004; Small et McCarthy 2005). Les espèces herbacées jouent un rôle de filtre
dans la régénération des forêts en agissant sur la structure et la distribution spatiale des
plantules des espèces ligneuses (George et Bazzaz 1999). Les plantes printanières
éphémères (Erythronium americanum, Claytonia caroliniana) et les plantes printanières
persistantes (Trillium spp.) jouent un rôle fondamental dans la rétention des nutriments tôt
au printemps: «vernal herbs» (Muller 1978; Eickmeier et Schussler 1993; Meier et al. 1995;
Anderson et Eickmeier 1998). Selon cette hypothèse, les nutriments sont capturés et
stockés temporairement dans des réserves souterraines (Tessier et Raynal 2003). De plus,
10
les espèces printanières éphémères et quelques espèces alpines stockent même des quantités
supplémentaires de nutriments sans pour autant les transformer rapidement en biomasse. Ce
trait physiologique (luxury consumption) permettrait d’utiliser, à retardement, les
nutriments stockés lorsque ceux-ci deviennent limitants dans le milieu (Blank et al. 1980;
Chapin 1980; Eickmeier et Schussler 1993; Körner 1999; Heer et Körner 2002). Le
métabolisme des espèces vernales est très actif pendant ca. 6 semaines, soit de la fonte de la
neige jusqu’à la fermeture du couvert forestier (Muller et Bormann 1976; Anderson et
Eickmeier 1998; Tessier et Raynal 2003). En somme, ces plantes sont des réservoirs
temporaires retardant la perte de nutriments, ce qui favorise la rétention des nutriments.
Cependant, elles sont en concurrence avec les microorganismes qui sont considérés comme
plus efficaces dans la rétention de l’azote (Rothstein 2000; Tessier et Raynal 2003). Par
ailleurs, plus le couvert forestier se referme, moins les nutriments et la lumière deviennent
accessibles aux plantes herbacées (estivales).
Dans une perspective régionale, le Chapitre 2 a pour objectif de déterminer les effets de
l’aménagement acéricole sur la richesse spécifique des espèces herbacées et sur les facteurs
environnementaux. Il a été montré qu’à l’échelle du peuplement, un traitement d’éclaircie
permet de conserver un couvert forestier tout en éliminant des espèces ligneuses gênant le
développement et la croissance des érables à sucre. Les ouvertures dans le couvert forestier
favorisent cette espèce et les espèces semi-tolérantes à l’ombre (Huot 1995). Ainsi, il n’est
pas rare de rencontrer, entre autres, le bouleau jaune, le tilleul d’Amérique et le frêne blanc
(Fraxinus americana L.) qui sont des espèces adaptées aux conditions d’une forêt de
structure inéquienne. Leur retrait entraîne une structure plus homogène et transforme
l’érablière en une monoculture d’érable à sucre et, donc, plus sensible aux attaques des
agents pathogènes (Paquet 1980; Gerlach et al. 1997; Majcen 2003). Au regard des
érablières du centre-sud du Québec, la diversité structurale est très variable, allant de
structure inéquienne à structure équienne. Notre étude repose sur la prémisse que plus
l’intensité de l’aménagement acéricole s’accroît, plus la structure de la forêt devient
homogène et simplifiée, et plus l’hétérogénéité environnementale diminue ce qui aurait un
effet négatif sur la diversité des plantes de sous-bois. Dans ce sens, ce second chapitre
11
porte sur les conséquences de l’aménagement acéricole sur la diversité des plantes
herbacées en sous-bois.
De plus, les perturbations agissent à des échelles plus locales (i.e. au niveau des
communautés végétales) et sur la répartition spatiale des ressources. Cette dernière est
directement reliée aux patrons de distribution des espèces végétales, ce qui conditionne les
interactions de compétition et de coexistence responsables de l’hétérogénéité spatiale des
nutriments (Collins et Wein 1998; Bliss et al. 2002; Chipman et Johnson 2002; Anderson et
al. 2004). Les arbres agissent directement sur l’eau de ruissellement (issue des
précipitations) qui représente une entrée minérale majeure dans la zone située
immédiatement près du tronc et les zones associées avec les racines des arbres
(Døckersmith et al. 1999). Cette eau ruisselle le long du tronc et modifie entre autres le pH
du sol; la disponibilité des nutriments du sol diminue à mesure de l’éloignement du tronc
(Burghouts et al. 1998; Finzi et al. 1998). Une telle hétérogénéité spatiale des nutriments
favoriserait la coexistence locale des différentes espèces, en leur permettant d’occuper des
niches distinctes correspondant à des microsites de qualité différente (Roberts et Zhu 2002).
Les effets sur les propriétés chimiques du sol et l’accès aux nutriments par les végétaux
sont significatifs (Zinke 1962; Gersper et Holowaychuk 1971). C’est dans cette optique que
le Chapitre 3 traite de l’effet de la répartition spatiale des ressources du sol sur les espèces
du sous-bois. Le choix des ressources du sol vient du fait de leur facilité à les manipuler, à
l’inverse de la lumière (création de trouées) et de l’eau (Grace 1999; Fridley 2002;
Vanderschaaf et al. 2002). Les objectifs de ce troisième chapitre sont donc de déterminer si
l’échelle spatiale des nutriments, à une échelle fine, influence la richesse spécifique et
fonctionnelle des plantes de sous-bois et leur productivité.
Partant de l’idée que l’hétérogénéité spatiale de l’environnement favorise la stabilité des
écosystèmes et la coexistence des espèces végétales, cela peut mener à une
complémentarité spatiale entre les espèces végétales pour l’utilisation des ressources dans
les habitats (Burghouts et al. 1998; Bengtsson et al. 2000). Dans ces conditions, la
productivité se retrouve répartie entre toutes les espèces végétales (Cardinale et al. 2000).
De même, la diversité influence la productivité, la pérennité et la stabilité des écosystèmes
12
(Tilman et al. 1996). Si un écosystème possède plusieurs espèces ayant le même rôle
fonctionnel (Naeem et al. 1999; Symstad et al. 2003), la disparition d’une espèce sera
compensée par les autres espèces, démontrant leur rôle répétitif ou redondant (Wilsey et
Potvin 2000; Lepš 2004). Les perturbations réduisent fortement l’abondance des espèces
tout en limitant parfois la dominance de certaines (Stevens et Carson 2001) et peuvent
entraîner la perte de plusieurs espèces d’un même groupe et, par conséquent, la perte de
fonctions écosystémiques à certains niveaux. Les substitutions de fonctions altèrent la
stabilité et les propriétés des écosystèmes telles que la productivité, les taux de
décomposition, les cycles des nutriments, la résistance et la résilience (Tilman et al. 1996;
Wardle et al. 1999; Loreau et al. 2001). Lorsqu’un groupe fonctionnel est éliminé dans sa
totalité, les conséquences peuvent être soit néfastes, bienfaitrices ou neutres pour les autres
groupes à cause de leurs multiples inter-connections. Cette problématique a été longuement
traitée dans des écosystèmes assemblés ou en milieu prairial (Symstad et al. 1998; Hector et
al. 1999; Tilman et al. 2002; Petchey et al. 2004), mais peu en milieu naturel et forestier
(Díaz et Cabido 2001). Étant donné son rôle important, la strate du sous-bois (plantes
herbacées et plantules et juvéniles des espèces ligneuses) représente un pool d’espèces
limité à partir duquel des groupes fonctionnels peuvent être définis. C’est dans cette
optique que le dernier chapitre (Chapitre 4) porte sur l’effet de la perte d’un groupe
d’espèces sur la diversité et la productivité des autres groupes fonctionnels du sous-bois à
une échelle locale.
13
1.4 Références citées Allen, D. C., Barnett, C. J., Milliers, I. et Lachance, D. 1992. Temporal change (1988-
1990) in sugar maple health and factors associated with crown condition. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 22: 1776-1784.
Anderson, R. C. 1994. Height of white-flowered trillium (Trillium grandiflorum) as an
index of deer browsing intensity. Ecological Applications 4: 104-109. Anderson, T. M., McNaughton, S. J. et Ritchie, M. E. 2004. Scale-dependent relationships
between the spatial distribution of a limiting resource and plant species diversity in an African grassland ecosystem. Oecologia 139: 277-287.
Anderson, W. B. et Eickmeier, W. G. 1998. Physiological and morphological responses to
shade and nutrient additions of Claytonia virginica (Portulacaceae): implications for the «vernal dam» hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Botany 76: 1340-1349.
Arbour, S. 1991. Évaluation de l'état de santé des érablières, ministère du Loisir, de la
Chasse et de la Pêche, Direction du plein air et des parcs, Québec. Auger, D., Blanchet, D., Bastien, L., Dumont, M., Gendron, N. et Theroux, R. 2004.
Exploitation acéricole des érablières du domaine de l'état: guide de bonnes pratiques environnementales. Charlesbourg, Québec, ministère des Ressources naturelles, de la Faune et des Parcs: 27 pp.
Balgooyen, C. P. et Waller, D. M. 1995. The use of Clintonia borealis and other indicators
to gauge impacts of white-tailed deer on plant communities in Northern Wisconsin, USA. Natural Areas Journal 15: 308-318.
Battles, J. J., Shlisky, A. J., Barrett, R. H., Heald, R. C. et Allen-Diaz, B. H. 2001. The
effects of forest management on plant species diversity in a Sierran conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 146: 211-222.
Bengtsson, J., Nilsson, S. G., Franc, A. et Menozzi, P. 2000. Biodiversity, disturbances,
ecosystem function and management of European forests. Forest Ecology and Management 132: 39-50.
Blank, J. L., Olson, R. K. and Vitousek, P. M. 1980. Nutrient uptake by a diverse spring
ephemeral community. Oecologia 47: 96-98. Bliss, K. M., Jones, R. H., Mitchell, R. J. et Mou, P. P. 2002. Are competitive interactions
influenced by spatial nutrient heterogeneity and root foraging behavior? New Phytologist 154: 409-417.
14
Bobiec, A. 1998. The mosaic diversity of field layer vegetation in the natural and exploited forests of Bialowieza. Plant Ecology 136: 175-187.
Boutin, R. 1995. Chapitre 8: Facteurs perturbant le fonctionnement des écosystèmes des
érablières. L'érable à sucre: caractéristiques, écologie et aménagement, Gouvernement du Québec, ministère des Ressources naturelles, ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation, pp. 211-244.
Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource division in an understory herb community: Responses to
temporal and microtopographic gradients. American Naturalist 110: 679-693. Brosofske, K. D., Chen, J. et Crow, T. R. 2001. Understory vegetation and site factors:
implications for a managed Wisconsin landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 146: 75-87.
Bruederle, L. P. et Stearns, F. W. 1985. Ice storm damage to a southern Wisconsin mesic
forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 112: 167-175. Brunet, J., Falkengren-Grerup, U. et Tyler, G. 1996. Herb layer vegetation of south
Swedish beech and oak forests-effects of management and soil acidity during one decade. Forest Ecology and Management 88: 259-272.
Burghouts, T. B. A., van Straalen, N. M. et Bruijnzeel, L. A. 1998. Spatial heterogeneity of
element and litter turnover in a Bornean rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14: 477-506.
Cardinale, B. J., Nelson, K. et Palmer, M. A. 2000. Linking species diversity to the
functioning of ecosystems: on the importance of environmental context. Oikos 91: 175-183.
Chapin, F. S. III. 1980. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 11: 233-260. Chipman, S. J. et Johnson, E. A. 2002. Understory vascular plant species diversity in the
mixedwood boreal forest of western Canada. Ecological Applications 12: 588-601. Collins, B. S. et Pickett, S. T. A. 1982. Vegetation composition and relation to environment
in an Allegheny hardwoods forest. American Midland Naturalist 108: 117-123. Collins, B. S. et Wein, G. 1998. Soil resource heterogeneity effects on early succession.
Oikos 82: 238-245. Connell, J. H. et Slatyer, R. O. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and
their role in community stability and organization. American Naturalist 111: 1119-1144.
15
Coons, C. F. 1992. Sugar bush management for maple syrup producers. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Printer.
Crow, T. R., Buckley, D. S., Nauertz, E. A. et Zasada, J. C. 2002. Effects of management
on the composition and structure of northern hardwood forests in Upper Michigan. Forest Science 48: 129-145.
de Ruiter, P. C., Criffiths, B. et Moore, J. C. 2002. Chapter 9: Biodiversity and stability in
soil ecosystems: patterns, processes and the effects of disturbance. In: Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P. (Eds.), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 102-113.
Díaz, S. et Cabido, M. 2001. Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to
ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 646-655. Døckersmith, I. C., Giardina, C. P. et Sanford, J. R. L. 1999. Persistence of tree related
patterns in soil nutrients following slash-and-burn disturbance in the tropics. Plant and Soil 209: 137-156.
Duffy, D. C. et Meier, A. J. 1992. Do Appalachian herbaceous understories ever recover
from clearcutting? Conservation Biology 6: 196-201. Dupré, C., Wessberg, C. and Diekmann, M. 2002. Species richness in deciduous forest:
Effects of species pools and environmental variables. Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 505-516.
Eickmeier, W. G. et Schussler, E. E. 1993. Responses of the spring ephemeral Claytonia
virginica L. to light and nutrients manipulations and implications for the «vernal-dam» hypothesis. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 120: 157-168.
Ellison, A. M., Bank, M. S., Clinton, B. D., Colburn, E. A., Elliott, K. J., Ford, C. R.,
Foster, D. R., Kloeppel, B. D., Knoepp, J. D., Lovett, G. M., Mohan, J., Orwig, D. A., Rodenhouse, N. L., Sobczak, W. V., Stinson, K. A., Stone, J. K., Swan, C. M., Thompson, J., Von Holle, B. et Webster, J. R. 2005. Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 479-486.
Finzi, A. C., Canham, C. D. et van Breemen, N. 1998. Canopy tree-soil interactions within
temperate forests: species effects on pH and cations. Ecological Applications 8: 447-454.
Forrester, J. A. et Runkle, J. R. 2000. Mortality and replacement patterns of an old-growth
Acer-Fagus woods in the Holden Arboretum, Northeastern Ohio. American Midland Naturalist 144: 227-242.
16
Frelich, L. E. 2002. Forest dynamics and disturbance regimes: studies from temperate evergreen-deciduous forests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fridley, J. D. 2002. Resource availability dominates and alters the relationship between
species diversity and ecosystem productivity in experimental plant communities. Oecologia 132: 271-277.
George, L. O. et Bazzaz, F. A. 1999. The fern understory as an ecological filter: Growth
and survival of canopy-tree seedlings. Ecology 80: 846-856. Gerlach, J. P., Reich, P. B., Puettmann, K. J. et Baker, T. 1997. Species, diversity, and
density affect tree seedling mortality from Armillaria root rot. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27: 1509-1512.
Gersper, P. L. et Holowaychuk, N. 1971. Some effects of stem flow from forest canopy
trees on chemical properties of soils. Ecology 52: 691-702. Gilliam, F. S. et Roberts, M. R. 1995. Plant diversity in managed forests. Ecological
Applications 5: 911-912. Gilliam, F. S. et Turrill, N. L. 1993. Herbaceous layer cover and biomass in a young versus
a mature stand of a central Appalachian hardwood forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 120: 445-450.
Gilliam, F. S., Turrill, N. L. et Adams, M. B. 1995. Herbaceous-layer and overstory species
in clear-cut and mature central Appalachian hardwood forests. Ecological Applications 5: 947-955.
Grace, J. B. 1999. The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities:
an assessment. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics: 2/1: 1-28 Haeussler, S., Bedford, L., Leduc, A., Bergeron, Y. et Kranabetter, J. M. 2002. Silvicultural
disturbance severity and plant communities of the southern Canadian boreal forest. Silva Fennica 36: 307-327.
Halpern, C. B. et Spies, T. A. 1995. Plant species diversity in natural and managed forests
of the Pacific northwest. Ecological Applications 5: 913-934. Hane, E. N. 2003. Indirect effects of beech bark disease on sugar maple seedling survival.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 807-813. Hector, A., Schmid, B., Beierkuhnlein, C., Caldeira, M. C., Diemer, M., Dimitrakopoulos,
P. G., Finn, J. A., Freitas, H., Giller, P. S., Good, J., Harris, R., Högberg, P., Huss-Danell, K., Joshi, J., Jumpponen, A., Körner, C., Leadley, P. W., Loreau, M., Minns, A., Mulder, C. P. H., O'Donnovan, G., Otway, S. J., Pereira, J. S., Prinz, A., Read, D. J., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schulze, E.-D., Siamantziouras, A.-S. D., Spehn,
17
E. M., Terry, A. C., Troumbis, A. Y., Woodward, F. I., Tachi, S. et Lawton, J. H. 1999. Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European Grasslands. Science 286: 1123-1127.
Heer, C. et Körner, C. 2002. High elevation pioneer plants are sensitive to mineral nutrient
addition. Basic and Applied Ecology 3: 39-47. Hooper, D. U., Solan, M., Symstad, A. J., Díaz, S., Gessner, M. O., Buchmann, N.,
Degrange, V., Grime, P., Hulot, F., Mermillod-Blondin, F., Roy, J., Spehn, E. M. et van Peer, L. 2002. Chapter 17: Species diversity, functional diversity, and ecosystem functioning. In: Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P. (Eds.), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 195-208.
Hooper, D. U. et Vitousek, P. M. 1997. The effects of plant composition and diversity on
ecosystem processes. Science 277: 1302-1305. Hooper, M. C., Aril, K. et Lechowicz, M. J. 2001. Impact of a major ice storm on an old-
growth hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of Botany 79: 70-75. Houston, D. R., Allen, D. C. et Lachance, D. 1990. Aménagement de l'érablière: Guide de
protection de la santé des arbres. Forêts Canada, Région de Québec, Centre de Foresterie des Laurentides, Sainte-Foy, Québec. Rapport d'information LAU-X-92F.
Hubbell, S. P., Foster, R. B., O'Brien, S. T., Harms, K. E., Condit, R., Wechsler, B.,
Wright, S. J. et Loo de Lao, S. 1999. Light-gap disturbances, recruitment limitation, and tree diversity in a neotropical forest. Science 283: 554-557.
Huot, M. 1995. Sylviculture. L'érable à sucre: caractéristiques, écologie et aménagement,
Gouvernement du Québec, ministère des Ressources naturelles, ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation, pp. 299-328.
Johnson, K. H., Vogt, K. A., Clark, H. J., Schmitz, O. J. et Vogt, D. J. 1996. Biodiversity
and the productivity and stability of ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 372-377.
Körner, C. 1999. Alpine Plant Life: functional plant ecology of high mountain ecosystems.
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. Lautenschlager, R. A., Pedlar, J. H. et Nielsen, C. M. 2005. Ice storm damage: Effects of
competition and fertilization on near-ground vegetation. Forestry Chronicle 79: 54-62.
Leak, W. B. et Smith, M.-L. 1996. Sixty years of management and natural disturbance in a
New England forested landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 81: 63-73.
18
Leland Russell, F., Zippin, D. B. and Fowler, N. L. 2001. Effects of white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) on plants, plant populations and communities: a review. American Midland Naturalist 146: 1-26.
Lepš, J. 2004. What do the biodiversity experiments tell us about consequences of plant
species loss in the real world? Basic and Applied Ecology 5: 529-534. Loreau, M. et Behera, N. 1999. Phenotypic diversity and stability of ecosystem processes.
Theoretical Population Biology 56: 29-47. Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J. P., Hector, A., Hooper, D. U.,
Huston, M. A., Raffaelli, D. G., Schmid, B., Tilman, D. et Wardle, D. A. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294: 804-808.
Lovett, G. M. et Mitchell, M. J. 2004. Sugar maple and nitrogen cycling in the forests of
eastern North America. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 81-88. McGraw, J. B. and Furedi, M. A. 2005. Deer browsing and population viability of a forest
understory plant. Science 307: 920-923. Majcen, Z. 2003. Raréfaction des espèces compagnes de l'érablière. Les enjeux de la
biodiversité relatifs à la composition forestière. In : P. Grondin et Cimon, A., coordonnateurs, ministère des Ressources Naturelles, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction de la recherche forestière et Direction de l'environnement forestier, pp. 93-102.
Meier, A. J., Bratton, S. P. et Duffy, D. C. 1995. Possible ecological mechanisms for loss of
vernal-herb diversity in logged eastern deciduous forests. Ecological Applications 5: 935-946.
Miller, T. F., Mladenoff, D. J. et Clayton, M. K. 2002. Old-growth northern hardwood
forests: spatial autocorrelation and patterns of understory vegetation. Ecological Monographs 72: 487-503.
Morneau, C. et Payette, S. 1989. Postfire lichen--spruce woodland recovery at the limit of
the boreal forest in northern Quebec. Canadian Journal of Botany 67: 2770-2782. Muller, R. N. 1978. The phenology, growth and ecosystem dynamics of Erythronium
americanum in the northern hardwood forest. Ecological Monographs 48: 1-20. Muller, R. N. 2003. Nutrient relations of the herbaceous layer in deciduous forest
ecosystems. In: Gilliam, F.S. & Roberts, M.R (eds.), The herbaceous layer in forests of eastern North America, New York, Oxford University Press, Inc, pp.15-37.
19
Muller, R. N. et Bormann, F. H. 1976. Role of Erythronium americanum Ker. in energy flow and nutrient dynamics of a Northern hardwood forest ecosystem. Science 193: 1126-1128.
Naeem, S., Chapin, F. S. III., Costanza, R., Ehrlich, P. R., Golley, F. B., Hooper, D. U.,
Lawton, J. H., O'Neill, R. V., Mooney, H. A., Sala, O. E., Symstad, A. J. et Tilman, D. 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: maintaining natural life support processes. Ecology 4: 1-12.
Paquet, L. 1980. Quelques aspects de l'aménagement des érablières pour fins d'acériculture
et application générale dans une érablière de Ste-Justine, comté de Dorchester. Mémoire de fin d’étude, Faculté de foresterie et géodésie. Université Laval, Québec.
Petchey, O. L., Downing, A. L., Mittelbach, G. G., Persson, L., Steiner, C. F., Warren, P.
H. et Woodward, G. 2004. Species loss and the structure and functioning of multitrophic aquatic systems. Oikos 104: 467-478.
Proulx, O. J. et Greene, D. F. 2001. The relationship between ice thickness and northern
hardwood tree damage during ice storms. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 1758-1767.
Reader, R. J. 1987. Loss of species from deciduous forest understorey immediately
following selective tree harvesting. Biological Conservation 42: 231-244. Rebertus, A. J., Shifley, S. R., Richards, R. H. et Roovers, L. M. 1997. Ice storm damage to
an old-growth oak-hickory forest in Misouri. American Midland Naturalist 137: 48-61.
Rhoads, A. G., Hamburg, S. P., Fahey, T. J., Siccama, T. G., Hane, E. N., Battles, J. J.,
Cogbill, C., Randall, J. et Wilson, G. 2002. Effects of an intense ice storm on the structure of a northern hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 1763-1775.
Roberts, M. R. 2004. Response of the herbaceous layer to natural disturbance in North
American forests. Canadian Journal of Botany 82: 1273-1283. Roberts, M. R. et Zhu, L. 2002. Early response of the herbaceous layer to harvesting in a
mixed coniferous-deciduous forest in New Brunswick, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 155: 17-31.
Rooney, T. P. et Waller, D. M. 2003. Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in
forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 181: 165-176. Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time, Cambridge; Cambridge
University Press.
20
Rothstein, D. E. 2000. Spring ephemeral herbs and nitrogen cycling in a northern hardwood forest: an experimental test of the vernal dam hypothesis. Oecologia 124: 446-453.
Scheller, R. M. et Mladenoff, D. J. 2002. Understory species patterns and diversity in old-
growth and managed northern hardwood forests. Ecological Applications 12: 1329-1343.
Schumann, M. E., White, A. S. et Witham, J. W. 2003. The effects of harvest-created gaps
on plant species diversity, composition, and abundance in a Maine oak-pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 176: 543-561.
Small, C. J. et McCarthy, B. C. 2002. Spatial and temporal variation in the response of
understory vegetation to disturbance in a central Appalachian oak forest. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 129: 136-153.
Small, C. J. et McCarthy, B. C. 2005. Relationship of understory diversity to soil nitrogen,
topographic variation, and stand age in an eastern oak forest, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 217: 229-243.
Sousa, W. P. 1979. Experimental investigations of disturbance and ecological succession in
a rocky intertidal algal community. Ecological Monographs 49: 227-254. Stevens, M. H. H. et Carson, W. P. 2001. Phenological complementarity, species diversity,
and ecosystem function. Oikos 92: 291-296. Symstad, A. J., Chapin, F. S. III., Wall, D. H., Gross, K. L., Huenneke, L. F., Mittelbach,
G. G., Peters, D. P. C. et Tilman, D. 2003. Long-term and large-scale perspectives on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Bioscience 53: 89-98.
Symstad, A. J. et Tilman, D. 2001. Diversity loss, recruitment limitation, and ecosystem
functioning: lessons learned from a removal experiment. Oikos 92: 424-435. Symstad, A. J., Tilman, D., Willson, J. et Knops, J. M. H. 1998. Species loss and ecosystem
functioning: effects of species identity and community composition. Oikos 81: 389-397.
Tessier, J. T. et Raynal, D. J. 2003. Vernal nitrogen and phosphorus retention by forest
understory vegetation and soil microbes. Plant and Soil 256: 443-453. Teulon, D. A. J., Leskey, T. C. et Cameron, E. A. 1998. Pear thrips Taeniothrips
inconsequens (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) life history and population dynamics in sugar maple in Pennsylvania. Bulletin of Entomological Research 88: 83-92.
21
Tews, J., Brose, U., Grimm, V., Tielbörger, K., Wichmann, M. C., Schwager, M. et Jeltsch, F. 2004. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity / diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography 31: 79-92.
Tilman, D. 1997. Chapter 6: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning. In: G. C. Daily (ed.)
Nature's services, societal dependence on natural ecosystems, Island Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: pp. 93-112.
Tilman, D., Knops, J. M. H., Wedin, D. et Reich, P. B. 2002. Chapter 3: Plant diversity and
composition: effects on productivity and nutrient dynamics of experimental grasslands. In: Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P. (Eds.), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 21-35.
Tilman, D., Wedin, D. et Knops, J. M. H. 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced
by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379: 718-720. Upadhyay, R. K., Rai, V. et Iyengar, S. R. K. 2000. How do ecosystems respond to external
perturbations? Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 11: 1963-1982. van Breemen, N., Finzi, A. C. et Canham, C. D. 1997. Canopy tree-soil interactions within
temperate forests: effects of soil elemental composition and texture on species distributions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27: 1110-1116.
Vanderschaaf, C. L., Moore, J. A. et Kingery, J. L. 2002. The effects of multinutrient
fertilization on understory vegetation annual production. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 17: 147-153.
Vetaas, O. R. 1997. The effect of canopy disturbance on species richness in a central
Himalayan oak forest. Plant Ecology 132: 29-38. Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I., Barker, G. M., Yeates, G. W., Nicholson, K. S., Bardgett, R.
D., Watson, R. N. et Ghani, A. 1999. Plant removals in perennial grassland: Vegetation dynamics, decomposers, soil biodiversity, and ecosystem properties. Ecological Monographs 69: 535-568.
Whigham, D. F. 2004. Ecology of woodland herbs in temperate deciduous forests. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35: 583-621. Williams-Linera, G. 2002. Tree species richness complementarity, disturbance and
fragmentation in a Mexican tropical montane cloud forest. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 1825-1843.
Wilsey, B. J. et Potvin, C. 2000. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: importance of
species evenness in an old field. Ecology 81: 887-892.
22
Wirth, R., Weber, B. et Ryel, R. J. 2001. Spatial and temporal variability of canopy structure in a tropical moist forest. Acta Oecologica 22: 235-244.
Zinke, P. J. 1962. The pattern of influence of individual forest trees on soil properties.
Ecology 43: 130-133.
CHAPITRE 2 – Response of herbaceous plant diversity to reduced structural diversity in maple-dominated (Acer saccharum Marsh.) forests managed for sap extraction
2.1 Avant-propos Le texte de ce chapitre a été publié dans la revue Forest Ecology and Management (Lenière,
A. and Houle, G. 2006. Response of herbaceous plant diversity to reduced structural
diversity in maple-dominated (Acer saccharum Marsh.) forests managed for sap extraction.
Forest Ecology and Management 231: 94-104). De plus, ce chapitre a fait l’objet d’une
affiche au 90e Colloque Annuel de l’Ecological Society of America qui s’est déroulé au
Palais des Congrès de Montréal du 8 au 12 août 2005 (Canada). Enfin, les résultats de ce
chapitre ont été présentés au 75e congrès de l’Association Francophone pour le Savoir, qui
s’est tenu du 7 au 11 mai 2007, à l’Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (Canada).
2.2 Résumé En milieu forestier, une haute diversité structurale engendre une grande complexité
environnementale et est souvent associée à une diversité végétale en sous-bois élevée.
Cependant, l’aménagement forestier peut diminuer la diversité structurale. En réduisant la
richesse et la variabilité de la taille des arbres, l’aménagement acéricole (Acer saccharum
Marsh.) pour l’extraction de la sève peut diminuer la complexité environnementale et la
diversité de la flore herbacée du sous-bois. Nous avons testé cette hypothèse dans 30
érablières du sud du Québec (Canada), qui représentaient différents niveaux
d’aménagement. La moyenne et la variabilité spatiale de plusieurs paramètres
environnementaux (irradiance et ressources du sol) ont été mesurées, ainsi que la diversité
structurale et la richesse du sous-bois (plantes herbacées). Par des analyses de pistes, nous
avons déterminé qui de la moyenne (modèle 1) ou de la variabilité spatiale (modèle 2) des
paramètres environnementaux expliquait le mieux la richesse du sous-bois. Le modèle 1 a
expliqué 58% la variance de la richesse végétale contre 23% pour le modèle 2. Les
structures des covariances observées (basées sur les données) concordaient parfaitement
23
24
(chi-carré = 5.152, df = 4, P = 0.272, GFI = 0.946 pour le modèle 1; chi-carré = 5.784, df =
4, P = 0.216, GFI = 0.940 pour le modèle 2) avec la structure des covariances prédites
(basées sur le modèle). La diversité structurale n’avait pas d’effet significatif sur les
paramètres environnementaux mais avait une influence significative et positive sur la
richesse du sous-bois. Le pH du sol avait un effet significatif et positif sur la richesse
spécifique dans le modèle 1; cependant, aucun autre paramètre n’affectait significativement
cette richesse. Dans le modèle 2, aucun paramètre environnemental n’avait d’effet
significatif sur la richesse du sous-bois. Une augmentation du pool d’espèces avec une
augmentation du pH du sol démontrerait un effet positif du pH du sol sur la richesse
spécifique. En présumant que la diversité structurale est inversement reliée à l’intensité de
l’aménagement, nos résultats suggèrent que l’aménagement acéricole traditionnel pour
l’extraction de la sève aurait des effets délétères sur la diversité spécifique du sous-bois.
2.3 Abstract High forest structural diversity is thought to be associated with high understory plant
diversity, through a positive effect on environmental complexity. However, forest
management may decrease structural diversity. For instance, by reducing tree species
richness and variability in tree size, management of maple-dominated (Acer saccharum
Marsh.) forests for sap extraction may decrease environmental complexity and, therefore,
understory plant diversity. We tested this hypothesis by studying 30 maple-dominated
forest fragments representing various levels of management, in southern Québec (Canada).
The mean and spatial variability of several environmental variables (light and soil
resources) were assessed, along with forest structural diversity and plant diversity. Using
path analyses, we determined whether the mean of environmental variables (model 1) or the
spatial variability of environmental variables (model 2) was most important for understory
plant diversity. Model 1 explained 58% and model 2 explained 23% of the variance in plant
diversity. The observed covariance structure (based on the data) fitted the predicted
covariance structure (based on the model) perfectly (minimum fit function chi-square =
5.152, df = 4, P = 0.272, GFI = 0.946 for model 1; minimum fit function chi-square =
5.784, df = 4, P = 0.216, GFI = 0.940 for model 2). Forest structural diversity had no
25
significant effect on the environmental variables (irradiance and soil resources), although it
had a significant and positive influence on understory plant diversity. Soil pH also had a
significant and positive effect on plant diversity in model 1; however, no other variable
significantly affected species diversity in this model. In model 2, none of the environmental
variables had a significant effect on understory plant diversity. An increase of the species
pool with an increase of soil pH most likely accounts for the positive effect of soil pH on
understory plant diversity. Assuming forest structural diversity is inversely related to
management intensity, our results suggest that the traditional management of maple-
dominated forests for sap extraction may have deleterious effects on understory plant
diversity.
2.4 Introduction Natural disturbances can alter the landscape and affect ecosystem structure and functions at
different spatial and temporal scales (Sousa 1979; Tang et al. 1997; Roberts 2004). While
natural fires and insect outbreaks are frequent in the boreal forests of North America, wind,
ice storms, and epidemics caused by pathogens are relatively more important for the
dynamics of deciduous forests (Houston et al. 1990; Hooper et al. 2001; Frelich 2002).
However, natural disturbances are not the only factors that can alter the structure and
functions of forests. Indeed, management practices have inevitable effects on ecosystem
properties, including plant diversity (Bengtsson et al. 2000). Although the effects of tree
harvesting practices on canopy tree species have been well studied, comparatively little
work has considered understory plant species (Reader 1987; Gilliam et al. 1995; Decocq et
al. 2004). Yet, understory species contribute significantly to plant diversity and are
important for a wide range of functions, including forest productivity and nutrient cycling
(Muller and Bormann 1976; Reader 1987; Small and McCarthy 2005). Moreover,
understanding understory response to disturbances is critical to promoting species
conservation (Roberts 2004).
Maple-dominated forests are among the most managed of deciduous forests in northeastern
North America. They are typically composed of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.), in
association with red maple (Acer rubrum L.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.),
26
and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton). However, during the course of past
management practices, the proportion of the associate species has been reduced in favor of
sugar maple (Coons 1992). Selective-cutting practices applied in maple-dominated forest
fragments have consisted of felling older, sick, infected, and less productive maples, and all
trees other than maples (Majcen 2003). The objectives of such practices have been to
increase the diameter of maple trees, encourage the expansion of maple crowns, and
eliminate most of the understory trees and shrubs. After a few decades of intensive
management, several maple-dominated forest fragments have been reduced to uniform,
even-aged stands (Paquet 1980). Such practices have simplified the age and vertical
structure of the forests and reduced tree species diversity, sometimes to the point of a
monoculture of sugar maple.
The objective of the present study is to determine the effects of maple-dominated forest
management practices on understory plant species diversity and environmental factors. We
propose to determine what variables most strongly influence plant species diversity in
conditions altered by management in maple-dominated forest fragments, using multivariate
analyses. The research hypothesis is as follows: an increase in the intensity of management
results in a more homogeneous forest structure and, therefore, in reduced environmental
complexity. In turn, a reduction in environmental complexity causes a decrease in
understory plant diversity (Bérard and Côté 1996; Whitney and Upmeyer 2004). We use
the Shannon diversity index, applied to tree pseudo-species (basal area per species and
diameter class), as an indirect measure of management intensity (Magurran 1988;
Staudhammer and LeMay 2001; Tews et al. 2004).
2.5 Material and Methods
2.5.1 Study site description This research was conducted in 30 forest fragments of the Bois-Francs region, in central
Québec, between 46°04’- 46°32’ N and 71°56’- 72°43’ W (Table 2.1, Figure 2.1). The
study area is part of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence forest region of Rowe (1972), sub-
sections Mid (L-2) and High (L-3) St-Lawrence. The dominant tree species are sugar
27
maple, American beech, American linden (Tilia americana L.), and yellow birch. The
regional climate is wet and continental, with an annual precipitation of ca. 1,100 mm (24%
falls as snow) and an annual daily mean temperature of 4.9°C (at the nearby Trois-Rivières
weather station; URL: www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca). The parent soil is generally
poorly drained, and clayey and sandy deposits are dominant. Humo-ferric podzols and
dystric brunisols are major soil types in the region (Choinière and Laplante, 1948).
Figure 2.1 Localization of the forest fragments studied in the Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada. The number of sites at each locality is given in parentheses.
Among the 30 study sites, 27 were on private land and had been selected from a list
provided by the Fédération des Producteurs Acéricoles du Québec (December 2001). The
Léon Provancher Ecological Reserve site LP1 (Table 2.1) has been protected by the Québec
government since 1995 and has not been managed for sap since at least 1975. Two other
forest fragments (LP2 and LP3) are located near LP1, one in which maple sap is still
currently extracted (LP3). The sites were selected with respect to the following
characteristics: sugar maple was the dominant tree species or one of the dominant tree
species; each site had easy road access; plant species diversity was representative of the
region; topography was relatively flat; and the sites represented an array of structural
diversity. None of the sites had been fertilized or limed.
1: Réserve Léon Provancher (3) 2: Ste-Angèle de Laval (1)3: St-Grégoire (3) 4: St-Célestin (1) 5: La Visitation (1) 6: Baie-du-Febvre (3) 7: St-Zéphirin (1) 8: St-Léonard d’Aston (4) 9: St-Wenceslas (2)
10: St-Sylvère (2) 11: Ste-Gertrude (2) 12: Ste-Sophie-de-Lévrard (2) 13: Ste-Françoise (2) 14: Parisville (3)
1: Réserve Léon Provancher (3) 2: Ste-Angèle de Laval (1)3: St-Grégoire (3) 4: St-Célestin (1) 5: La Visitation (1) 6: Baie-du-Febvre (3) 7: St-Zéphirin (1) 8: St-Léonard d’Aston (4) 9: St-Wenceslas (2)
10: St-Sylvère (2) 11: Ste-Gertrude (2) 12: Ste-Sophie-de-Lévrard (2) 13: Ste-Françoise (2) 14: Parisville (3)
28
Table 2.1 General characteristics, number of species (in parentheses, herbaceous plant species), proportion of herbaceous species (vs. total species number), and parameter and statistics of the species-area curve for the 30 study sites (Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada).
a zherb represents the slope of the species-area relationship calculated for herbaceous species in a serial nested system.
Study sites Symbols Latitude (N)
Longitude (W)
Number of species
Proportion of herbaceous species zherb
a r2 P
Baie-du-Febvre 1 BF1 46°18.005' 72°32.011' 59 (41) 69.5 0.599 0.995 0.0001
Baie-du-Febvre 2 BF2 46°08.668' 72°35.230' 56 (44) 78.6 0.662 0.963 0.0091
Baie-du-Febvre 3 BF3 46°06.468' 72°43.990' 42 (29) 69.0 0.591 0.965 0.0029
La Visitation LaVi 46°06.615' 72°36.626' 68 (53) 77.9 0.707 0.947 0.0063
Léon Provancher Reserve 1 LP1 46°17.820' 72°30.740' 62 (44) 71.0 0.655 0.957 0.0038
Léon Provancher Reserve 2 LP2 46°17.896' 72°30.911' 50 (33) 66.0 0.553 0.997 0.0001
Léon Provancher Reserve 3 LP3 46°17.525' 72°31.076' 45 (30) 66.7 0.543 0.971 0.0021
Parisville 1 P1 46°06.616' 72°36.630' 43 (24) 55.8 0.553 0.973 0.0019
Parisville 2 P2 46°32.161' 72°02.520' 43 (27) 62.8 0.544 0.982 0.0011
Parisville 3 P3 46°31.460' 72°01.460' 55 (35) 63.6 0.562 0.983 0.0009
Saint-Célestin StCe 46°08.385' 72°24.670' 36 (22) 61.1 0.538 0.974 0.0018
Saint-Grégoire 1 StGr1 46°16.760' 72°26.586' 76 (56) 73.7 0.691 0.970 0.0022
Saint-Grégoire 2 StGr2 46°16.455' 72°27.351' 66 (45) 68.2 0.673 0.952 0.0046
Saint-Grégoire 3 StGr3 46°16.426' 72°32.398' 48 (27) 56.3 0.544 0.990 0.0004
Saint-Léonard d'Aston 1 StL1 46°08.798' 72°22.105' 43 (29) 67.4 0.563 0.986 0.0007
Saint-Léonard d'Aston 2 StL2 46°05.090' 72°22.161' 42 (25) 59.5 0.479 0.982 0.0010
Saint-Léonard d'Aston 3 StL3 46°04.600' 72°22.340' 46 (29) 63.0 0.591 0.963 0.0031
Saint-Léonard d'Aston 4 StL4 46°05.893' 72°18.181' 58 (37) 63.8 0.635 0.960 0.0034
Saint-Sylvère 1 StSy1 46°16.036' 72°11.370' 51 (34) 66.7 0.593 0.978 0.0014
Saint-Sylvère 2 StSy2 46°12.123' 72°17.076' 34 (19) 55.9 0.529 0.954 0.0042
Saint-Wenceslas 1 StW1 46°09.270' 72°16.971' 28 (16) 57.1 0.495 0.967 0.0026
Saint-Wenceslas 2 StW2 46°10.206' 72°17.450' 33 (22) 66.7 0.495 0.994 0.0002
Saint-Zéphirin StZe 46°05.888' 72°37.001' 75 (59) 78.7 0.689 0.966 0.0027
Sainte-Angèle-de-Laval StAn 46°18.135' 72°32.063' 57 (36) 63.2 0.629 0.964 0.0029
Sainte-Gertrude 1 StGe1 46°16.050' 72°19.078' 20 (12) 60.0 0.401 0.995 0.0002
Sainte-Gertrude 2 StGe2 46°16.053' 72°18.905' 42 (28) 66.7 0.519 0.988 0.0006
Sainte-Sophie-de-Lévrard 1 StS1 46°27.198' 72°04.805' 47 (30) 63.8 0.562 0.990 0.0004
Sainte-Sophie-de-Lévrard 2 StS2 46°27.125' 72°04.691' 39 (20) 51.3 0.498 0.987 0.0006
Sainte-Françoise 1 StF1 46°29.341' 71°56.156' 61 (43) 70.5 0.670 0.959 0.0036
Sainte-Françoise 2 StF2 46°29.658' 71°56.343' 39 (22) 56.4 0.501 0.991 0.0004
29
2.5.2 Sampling protocol and variables measured At each site, a plot of 40 m x 20 m (800 m2) was delimited, with a serial nested-quadrat
system of one 20 m x 10 m (200 m2), one 10 m x 5 m (50 m2), and one 5 m x 2.5 m (12.5
m2). Biological, environmental, and structural variables were measured in 2002 or in 2003.
2.5.3 Biological variables All vascular plant species (trees, shrubs, and herbs) present within each quadrat (from 12.5
m2 to 800 m2) at each site were identified and recorded. Floristic surveys were made in
mid-April, in July, and at the end of August (Ristau et al. 2001). Nomenclature was based
on Marie-Victorin (2002). Because the relationship between plant diversity and many
environmental variables often varies with spatial scale (Heikkinen 1996; Heikkinen and
Neuvonen 1997), a scale-independent estimate of diversity was desirable. Thus, we
calculated the slope of the species-area curve for each site (for herbaceous plants only, all
three sampling periods combined) from the following equation: log S = log C + z log A;
where S is herbaceous species richness, A is the sampling area, C is a constant, and z is the
slope of the species-area-curve (Arrhenius 1921). Z represents the accumulation rate of
species with respect to sampling area (Whittaker 1972) and can be used as an index of plant
diversity (Harner and Harper 1976; Dzwonko and Loster 1989; Murakami et al. 2004;
Désilets and Houle 2005). The slope (z) and the coefficient of determination (r2) were
determined for each site (Table 2.1), using linear regression techniques. Regressions were
forced through the origin so that log C = 0.
2.5.4 Environmental variables Several environmental variables associated with the availability of resources important to
plants (irradiance, soil moisture, soil organic matter content, and soil pH) were measured at
1 m intervals along a 45-m long transect oriented diagonally on each 800 m2 plot (46
measurements). This design provided an easy, yet intensive sampling scheme to estimate
both the mean and coefficient of variation (CV) of each variable.
30
Table 2.2 Structural characteristics of the 30 study sites (Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada). Symbols as in Table 2.1.
Sites
Living stem
number (ha-1)
Dead stem
number (ha-1)
Basal area (m2
ha-1)
Major tree
speciesa
Canopy cover (%)
Stump number (ha-1)
Mean stump
diameter (cm)
Coefficient of variation
of basal areab
H
BF1 2,375 325 31.0 Ar-As 88.3 87.5 16.9 313.1 2.92 BF2 662.5 25 36.7 Ar-As 90.0 25.0 29.7 99.3 2.44 BF3 1,962.5 112.5 17.1 As 91.8 175.0 26.1 217.6 2.39 LaVi 1,387.5 187.5 35.0 Ar-As 92.0 337.5 26.4 192.3 2.72 LP1 3,200 412.5 32.0 As 96.8 275.0 22.9 301.4 2.69 LP2 1,875 100 54.4 As-Ov 99.8 37.5 32.8 492.2 1.86 LP3 1,212.5 100 38.3 As-Ta 89.0 87.5 20.9 228.4 1.89 P1 862.5 125 23.6 Ab-As 94.5 112.5 30.4 225.9 2.19 P2 1,325 12.5 31.8 As 93.0 12.5 15.2 214.8 2.50 P3 1,837.5 87.5 35.8 Ar-As 97.3 75.0 20.5 176.7 2.25
StCe 1,312.5 0 46.3 Ar-As 85.0 187.5 10.8 174.6 2.36 StGr1 1,962.5 275 32.3 As 95.0 37.5 44.3 191.9 2.67 StGr2 1,325 62.5 36.1 As 89.3 37.5 21.6 261.9 1.80 StGr3 1,612.5 475 28.5 As 92.0 75.0 33.3 181.3 3.31 StL1 1,350 125 34.1 Ar 85.8 37.5 33.3 199.0 2.25 StL2 2,000 62.5 30.7 Ar-As 93.8 75.0 60.8 388.3 2.00 StL3 1,187.5 50 22.1 Ar-As 92.8 75.0 38.4 179.8 2.86 StL4 1,562.5 175 31.1 As 94.8 200.0 25.7 234.3 2.49 StSy1 1,975 137.5 28.7 Ar 95.0 150.0 37.8 249.4 2.36 StSy2 1,700 87.5 25.0 As 95.5 162.5 25.9 244.3 2.64 StW1 712.5 0 28.2 As 97.5 125.0 24.6 149.7 1.89 StW2 1,225 475 31.6 Ar 95.3 25.0 40.1 212.6 1.75 StZe 475 37.5 21.6 As 96.5 87.5 32.8 149.9 1.69 StAn 612.5 25 60.2 As-Fg 95.3 87.5 26.9 101.8 2.83 StGe1 800 12.5 31.2 As 96.5 125.0 42.8 233.2 1.49 StGe2 1,275 75 23.7 As 95.8 37.5 75.1 213.1 2.07 StS1 1,650 200 22.3 Ar-As 96.3 375.0 24.8 153.4 2.21 StS2 2,100 162.5 28.6 Ar-As 94.5 500.0 18.8 147.5 1.70 StF1 737.5 25 29.6 As 86.0 137.5 29.1 113.5 2.26 StF2 1,200 62.5 38.0 Ar-As 92.5 25.0 37.8 181.7 2.55
a: Ab: Abies balsamea; Ar: Acer rubrum; As: Acer saccharum; Fg: Fagus grandifolia; Ov: Ostrya virginiana; Ta: Tilia americana. Species listed alphabetically, for each site, when more than one dominant species. b: in %; for an 800 m2 plot.
Irradiance (photosynthetic photon flux density; µmol m-2 s-1) was measured between 10h
and 14h, on sunny, cloudless days using a portable radiometer (Licor Inc., Lincoln,
Nebraska, USA). Measurements were made at ~ 1 m from the ground. Two measurements
31
were also made in a nearby opening or outside the forest, before and after each series of
readings for standardization.
Soil samples were collected (528 cm3 to a depth of 10-15 cm) after a period of at least 2-3
days without rain. In the laboratory, samples were passed through a 2-mm-mesh sieve to
remove roots, twigs, and stones; they were weighed, dried at 80°C for 24 hours, and
weighed again to determine percent soil moisture (SM). Soil organic matter content (SOM)
was estimated as percent mass loss on ignition (at 450°C for 5 hours). Soil pH was
measured in a 1:1 soil:water solution.
Four photographs were taken at a height of 1.5 m from the ground in each 800 m2 plot to
determine canopy cover (50 mm lens, Minolta, Tokyo, Japan). These photographs covered
65-115 m2 of canopy (depending on tree height). A grid comprised of 100 evenly spaced
points was superposed over each photograph to calculate percent cover (Cov).
2.5.5 Structural variables The intensity of forest management was estimated using the Shannon diversity index
applied to ‘pseudo-species’ (basal area per species and diameter class). Ten diameter
classes were used (tree diameter measured at breast height): ≤ 5 cm; 5-10 cm; 10-15 cm;
15-20 cm; 20-25 cm; 25-30 cm; 30-35 cm; 35-40 cm; 40-45 cm; > 45 cm. The index was
calculated using the formula H = -Σ pi ln pi, with pi representing the proportion of basal
area per pseudo-species. Thus, H is a structural diversity index (Magurran 1988;
Staudhammer and LeMay 2001; Tews et al. 2004) and we expect it to decrease with
increased management intensity (an increase in management intensity should result in a
more homogeneous and uniform forest structure, in terms of both tree species composition
and size distribution; Paquet 1980; Coons 1992; Majcen 2003). Dead stump and dead tree
diameters were also measured, but they were not included in the calculation of the
structural diversity index.
32
2.5.6 Statistical analyses Path analyses (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) were used to analyze the dependence of the slope of
the species-area curve (z) with the measured variables. Path analysis, an extension of
multiple regression techniques, is a statistical tool used to explore and understand “causal
relationships” among multiple variables (Grace and Pugesek 1998). The relationships
among the variables are shown in a path diagram containing boxes and arrows. Each
variable is assigned to a box and is linked to other variables with arrows. The thickness of
the arrows depicts the strength of the relationship between variables, which is determined
by the partial coefficient of determination (the path coefficient). In this study, two a priori
defined models (confirmatory approach to path analysis) were tested to determine which
environmental and structural variables had an effect on understory species diversity, zherb.
The first path model examined structural diversity (H) and the means of the measured
variables: soil moisture*, soil organic matter content*, soil pH, and irradiance* (*: these
variables were not normally distributed according to a Shapiro-Wilk test and, thus, were
log-transformed). The second path model examined structural diversity (H) and the
coefficients of variation (in fact, the residuals of the regression between the CV and their
means, to remove any covariance effect) of soil moisture, soil organic matter content, soil
pH, and irradiance. By doing so, we wanted to determine which of resource availability
(model 1) or resource heterogeneity (model 2) contributed most to explain plant diversity.
Path analyses were carried out with Lisrel 8.71 (SSI Inc., Lincolnwood, Illinois, USA).
Three indices were used to verify how well the covariance structure generated by the data
fitted the covariance structure associated with each model (a P > 0.05 means that the data
are consistent with the causal processes suggested by the model): the minimum fit function
chi-square, which tests for an “exact” or “perfect” fit between the model and the data (the
“best” fit); the root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA, which tests for a “close”
fit between the model and the data (the “second best” fit); and the goodness of fit index,
GFI, which tests for an “acceptable” fit between the model and the data (the “third best”
fit).
33
Pearson coefficients of correlation were calculated to estimate the intensity of the
association between the variables (e.g., to determine how our structural diversity index
relates to tree species diversity, basal area, and CV of basal area).
2.6 Results
2.6.1 Species richness Total species richness amounted to 201 and included 29 tree, 18 shrub, and 154 herb
species. The mean (± SD) number of species per site was 48.8 ± 13.3 (min.-max.: 20-76;
Table 2.1) and the average proportion of herbaceous species was 65.0 ± 7.0%. Understory
species diversity (zherb) averaged 0.575 ± 0.074 and varied between 0.401 and 0.707 (for all
regressions, r2 > 0.947; Table 2.1).
2.6.2 Forest structure The mean abundance of trees and shrubs (diameter at breast height ≥ 2 cm; Table 2.2) was
1,449.2 ± 597.1 stems ha-1 (min.-max.: 475-3,200 stems ha-1). Tree diameter (DBH) was
measured to calculate the basal area for each species and the total basal area (BA) for each
site. Mean BA was 32.2 ± 9.1 m2 ha-1 (min.-max.: 17.1-60.2 m2 ha-1; Table 2.2). Basal area
was dominated by Acer saccharum on 20 sites, by Acer rubrum on nine sites, and by
Ostrya virginiana on one site (due to one extremely large individual). The coefficient of
variation of BA (within site) averaged 214.1 ± 81.0% (min.-max.: 99.3-494.2%; Table 2.2).
Another element of forest structure is the presence of stumps. The number (min.-max.:
12.5-500 ha-1) and mean diameter (min.-max.: 10.8-75.1 cm) of stumps varied greatly
among sites and were dependent upon the intensity of management and upon other natural
or anthropogenic disturbances (Table 2.2). However, these variables were not used as an
index of management intensity as tree death might have resulted from causes unrelated to
management practices.
Overstory cover (mean ± SD: 93.2 ± 3.7%) varied between 85.0 and 99.8%, which
indicated that the canopy was dense and was comprised of several layers (Table 2.2).
34
Structural diversity (mean ± SD: 2.30 ± 0.43) ranged from 1.49 to 3.31 and presented a
variability of 18.7% (CV) among sites.
2.6.3 Environmental factors For all sites taken together, soil organic matter content averaged 15.28 ± 9.12% (min.-max.:
5.27-36.38%), soil pH 4.29 ± 0.38 (min.-max.: 3.55-5.02), and soil moisture 27.18 ± 9.34%
(min.-max.: 15.54-46.36%; Table 2.3).
Mean irradiance for all sites combined (± SD) was 66.97 ± 71.94 µmol m-2 s-1 (min.-max.:
14.74-334.26 µmol m-2 s-1; Table 2.3). Standard deviations were often high, indicating high
variability within sites.
2.6.4 Path analyses In this study, environmental and structural variables were defined as predictor variables
(Tables 2.2 and 2.3) and herbaceous plant diversity (zherb, the slope of the species-area
curve; Table 2.1) as criterion variable. Two path models were constructed: model 1 (Figure
2.2) was based on the means of the environmental variables, while model 2 (Figure 2.3)
was based on the coefficients of variation of the same variables. H, our index of forest
management intensity, was significantly correlated with tree species richness (r = 0.382; P
< 0.05), but not with the CV of basal area (r = -0.144; P > 0.05; Table 2.4).
Model 1 (Figure 2.2), based on the mean values, explained 58.1% (P < 0.001) of the
variance of zherb (χ2 = 5.152; P = 0.272; RMSEA = 0.0947; P (RMSEA<0.05) = 0.322; GFI =
0.946). There was a significant and positive association between soil pH and zherb (ρ =
0.543, Figure 2.2). This result was confirmed by the Pearson correlation matrix (r = 0.496,
P < 0.01; Table 2.4): as soil pH increased, herbaceous species diversity increased (Figure
2.4). Likewise, there was a significant and positive association between the structural
diversity index H and zherb (ρ = 0.388; Figure 2.2). This result was also confirmed by the
Pearson correlation matrix (r = 0.373, P < 0.05; Table 2.4): as H increased so did zherb.
Tabl
e 2.
3 M
ean
valu
e (±
SD
) and
coe
ffic
ient
of v
aria
tion
(CV
, in
%) o
f the
env
ironm
enta
l var
iabl
es a
t the
30
stud
y si
tes
(Boi
s-Fr
ancs
re
gion
, Qué
bec,
Can
ada)
. Sym
bols
as i
n Ta
ble
2.1.
Mea
sure
s (n
= 46
) wer
e ta
ken
on th
e di
agon
al o
f an
800
m2 p
lot a
t eac
h si
te.
So
il or
gani
c m
atte
r (%
)
Soil
pH
So
il m
oist
ure
(%)
Ir
radi
ance
(µm
ol m
-2 s-1
) Si
tes
Mea
n C
V
Mea
n C
V
Mea
n C
V
Mea
n C
V
BF1
11
.96
± 12
.83
107.
25
4.34
± 0
.24
5.56
23
.27
± 10
.70
45.9
7 26
.45
± 16
.48
62.3
2 B
F2
11.0
4 ±
5.97
54
.06
4.63
± 0
.20
4.40
31
.97
± 17
.92
56.0
5 27
3.14
± 2
07.2
3 75
.87
BF3
12
.10
± 17
.40
143.
75
4.13
± 0
.14
3.27
25
.52
± 17
.44
68.3
4 17
.32
± 17
.67
102.
03
LaV
i 9.
96 ±
8.0
2 80
.59
4.19
± 0
.37
8.78
23
.21
± 7.
67
33.0
4 32
.43
± 17
.51
53.9
9 LP
1 12
.77
± 2.
51
19.6
4 4.
79 ±
0.6
0 12
.45
19.8
9 ±
3.09
15
.51
68.4
4 ±
147.
07
214.
88
LP2
10.4
3 ±
2.11
20
.18
4.59
± 0
.24
5.16
26
.59
± 3.
04
11.4
1 31
.59
± 62
.59
198.
13
LP3
8.76
± 2
.27
25.8
7 4.
54 ±
0.2
8 6.
18
30.9
1 ±
3.74
12
.10
52.7
2 ±
90.4
6 17
1.59
P1
11
.18
± 6.
77
60.5
5 4.
03 ±
0.2
4 6.
02
27.8
5 ±
9.71
34
.88
34.6
1 ±
34.7
7 10
0.45
P2
30
.50
± 21
.96
72.0
0 3.
62 ±
0.2
2 6.
14
44.1
9 ±
17.3
6 39
.30
86.2
8 ±
149.
33
173.
06
P3
25.1
0 ±
24.4
2 97
.28
3.97
± 0
.30
7.64
26
.57
± 12
.51
47.0
8 33
4.26
± 3
86.5
2 11
5.63
St
Ce
7.19
± 4
.59
63.8
2 3.
98 ±
0.2
6 6.
60
19.7
2 ±
7.18
36
.43
68.7
9 ±
91.7
4 13
3.36
St
Gr1
9.
84 ±
6.9
3 70
.45
5.02
± 0
.48
9.61
24
.01
± 6.
65
27.6
9 48
.53
± 64
.33
132.
54
StG
r2
36.3
8 ±
20.0
5 55
.11
4.83
± 0
.70
14.4
8 46
.36
± 10
.10
21.8
0 15
.47
± 21
.68
140.
15
StG
r3
16.3
2 ±
7.88
48
.31
4.33
± 0
.24
5.57
26
.38
± 7.
75
29.3
9 50
.30
± 86
.87
172.
72
StL1
33
.01
± 26
.73
80.9
9 3.
55 ±
0.2
4 6.
77
39.9
6 ±
16.1
0 40
.28
138.
31 ±
275
.50
199.
19
StL2
14
.32
± 7.
25
50.6
0 3.
77 ±
0.1
7 4.
39
15.8
8 ±
5.22
32
.86
42.2
9 ±
83.9
6 19
8.52
St
L3
18.0
6 ±
14.7
2 81
.49
4.86
± 0
.63
12.9
8 20
.42
± 10
.80
52.9
0 11
6.54
± 2
03.7
7 17
4.85
St
L4
34.8
4 ±
14.5
2 41
.68
4.62
± 0
.27
5.91
43
.46
± 15
.28
35.1
7 96
.71
± 17
4.69
18
0.63
St
Sy1
28.9
9 ±
26.7
2 92
.19
3.89
± 0
.25
6.33
45
.26
± 18
.33
40.5
0 43
.79
± 48
.27
110.
24
StSy
2 6.
05 ±
2.7
5 45
.53
4.18
± 0
.20
4.79
19
.64
± 4.
49
22.8
6 33
.57
± 38
.04
113.
31
StW
1 5.
32 ±
1.7
8 33
.49
4.23
± 0
.26
6.11
18
.88
± 4.
11
21.7
7 75
.34
± 12
0.62
16
0.10
St
W2
17.0
2 ±
12.5
1 73
.49
3.87
± 0
.27
6.96
20
.58
± 11
.61
56.3
9 18
.85
± 17
.62
93.4
3 St
Ze
16.1
2 ±
5.84
36
.26
4.67
± 0
.20
4.20
36
.57
± 6.
27
17.1
4 42
.54
± 74
.96
176.
19
StA
n 13
.60
± 5.
26
38.7
1 4.
01 ±
0.1
7 4.
31
17.3
9 ±
6.00
34
.48
26.0
5 ±
7.08
27
.20
StG
e1
5.27
± 1
.22
23.1
2 4.
49 ±
0.2
7 6.
01
15.5
4 ±
2.90
18
.63
14.7
4 ±
15.7
6 10
6.91
St
Ge2
7.
47 ±
13.
48
180.
48
4.19
± 0
.30
7.24
17
.25
± 10
.05
58.2
5 16
.33
± 21
.15
129.
51
StS1
17
.82
± 10
.89
61.1
0 4.
35 ±
0.4
1 9.
33
36.9
7 ±
9.53
25
.78
72.8
2 ±
111.
25
152.
78
StS2
11
.85
± 8.
99
75.8
9 4.
23 ±
0.2
7 6.
40
26.5
2 ±
11.5
7 43
.64
22.1
4 ±
17.6
6 79
.78
StF1
7.
86 ±
2.1
8 27
.72
4.70
± 0
.30
6.34
25
.54
± 3.
85
15.0
9 83
.20
± 65
.25
78.4
3 St
F2
7.29
± 3
.64
49.9
9
3.95
± 0
.30
7.47
19.0
6 ±
4.24
22
.26
25
.49
± 36
.92
144.
85
35
Soil organic matter content (SOM) and soil moisture (SM) also had positive effects on
zherb; however, these were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
Figure 2.2 Path diagram for the relationships between the mean of the environmental variables, the structural diversity index (H), and herbaceous plant diversity (zherb) at the 30 study sites (Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada). R2 represents the total explained variance and ρ the direct causal covariance (path coefficient). Irrad: irradiance; SOM: soil organic matter; SM: soil moisture.
H
IRRAD R2 = 0.068 P > 0.05
zherb
R2 = 0.581 P < 0.001
Soil pH R2 = 0.024 P > 0.05
SOM R2 = 0.011 P > 0.05
SM R2 = 0.560 P < 0.001
ρ = 0.260 ρ = -0.007
ρ = 0.388
ρ = 0.543
ρ = 0.212
ρ = 0.260
ρ = 0.749
ρ = -0.155
ρ = 0.035
ρ = 0.106
ρ = -0.145
P > 0.05
P < 0.05
P < 0.01
P < 0.001
36
Figure 2.3 Path diagram for the relationships between the CV of the environmental variables, the structural diversity index (H), and herbaceous plant diversity (zherb) at the 30 study sites (Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada). R2 represents the total explained variance and ρ the direct causal covariance (path coefficient). Irrad: irradiance; SOM: soil organic matter; SM: soil moisture.
H
IRRAD R2 = 0.012 P > 0.05
zherb
R2 = 0.233 P > 0.05
Soil pH R2 = 0.016 P > 0.05
SOM R2 = 0.017 P > 0.05
SM R2 = 0.628 P < 0.001
ρ = -0.111 ρ = -0.202
ρ = 0.388
ρ = 0.102
ρ = -0.080
ρ = -0.124
ρ = 0.778
ρ = 0.090
ρ = 0.080
ρ = 0.132
ρ = 0.079
P > 0.05
P < 0.05
P < 0.01
P < 0.001
37
Tabl
e 2.
4 Pe
arso
n co
effic
ient
of c
orre
latio
n be
twee
n th
e va
riabl
es s
tudi
eda (*
: P <
0.0
5; *
*: P
< 0
.01;
***
: P <
0.0
01),
n =
30 (B
ois-
Fran
cs re
gion
, Qué
bec,
Can
ada)
.
z h
erb
H
SM
CV
SM
SOM
C
VSO
M
pH
CV
pH
Irra
d C
VIr
rad
Cov
C
VC
ov
BA
C
VB
A
z her
b -
H
0.37
3*
-
SM
0.37
5*
-0.0
89
-
CV
SM
-0.0
56
0.18
5 -0
.029
-
SOM
0.
247
0.03
3 0.
809*
**
0.17
4 -
CV
SOM
-0
.028
0.
136
-0.0
11
0.80
6***
0.
107
-
pH
0.49
6**
0.01
8 0.
006
-0.3
52
-0.1
67
-0.3
15
-
CV
pH
0.28
7 0.
090
0.11
9 -0
.134
0.
281
-0.0
07
0.42
7*
-
Irra
d 0.
169
0.12
6 0.
187
0.25
6 0.
267
0.02
5 -0
.018
0.
024
-
CV
Irra
d -0
.143
-0
.106
0.
230
-0.3
52
0.29
0 -0
.265
0.
099
0.23
2 0.
046
-
Cov
-0
.210
-0
.220
-0
.171
-0
.130
-0
.101
-0
.101
0.
090
-0.0
35
-0.0
77
0.14
9 -
CV
Cov
0.
053
-0.0
73
0.13
6 -0
.014
0.
117
0.15
0 -0
.080
0.
087
-0.1
36
-0.1
13
-0.6
53**
* -
BA
0.
059
0.05
1 -0
.116
-0
.271
-0
.032
-0
.379
* -0
.081
-0
.077
0.
066
-0.1
29
-0.0
71
-0.1
28
-
CV
BA
-0.1
98
-0.1
44
-0.0
33
-0.2
18
0.06
3 -0
.079
0.
002
0.01
4 -0
.297
0.
431*
0.
248
-0.1
00
0.15
7 -
38
A significant and positive relationship was detected between soil organic matter content
and soil moisture (r = 0.809, Table 2.4; ρ = 0.749, Figure 2.2). The path analysis based on
the coefficients of variation of the environmental variables and the structural diversity
index, H, explained only 23.3% (P > 0.05) of herbaceous plant species diversity (χ2 =
5.784; P = 0.216; RMSEA = 0.118; P (RMSEA < 0.05) = 0.268; GFI = 0.940) and none of the
environmental variables (irradiance, soil pH, soil organic matter, or soil moisture) had a
significant effect on zherb (Figure 2.3). However, there was a significant and positive
relationship between CVSOM and CVSM (r = 0.806, Table 2.4; ρ = 0.778, Figure 2.3).
Again, the structural diversity index H had a significant and positive effect on zherb (ρ =
0.388; Figure 2.3).
In summary, between the two models considered here, only model 1, which examined the
mean values of the environmental variables, explained a significant proportion of the
criterion variable.
2.7 Discussion Our structural diversity index H, calculated from the basal area of the different diameter
classes and the different species, was significantly correlated with tree species richness (r =
0.382, P < 0.05), but not with the CV of basal area (Table 2.4). These results suggest that H
was more sensitive to tree alpha diversity than to variability in tree size (we had postulated
that management practices for sap extraction tended to decrease tree species richness and
variability in tree size). Our analyses detected a significant and positive association
between H and understory plant diversity, but not between H and light availability or any of
the soil variables (Figures 2.2 and 2.3). Assuming H adequately represents the management
intensity of maple-dominated forests (a low value of H represents high management
intensity), our results suggest that traditional management practices for sap extraction in
maple-dominated forests may have detrimental effects on understory plant diversity (see
also Reader 1987; Bengtsson et al. 2000), although such practices do not appear to affect
environmental complexity (represented by the CV of the different variables).
Both of our path models were significant. The analysis using the means of the
environmental variables and the structural diversity index (H) explained 58% of the
39
40
variance in herbaceous plant diversity, while that based on the CV of the environmental
variables explained only 23% of the variance of diversity (Figures 2.2 and 2.3). These
values are in the range of those reported by Grace (1999), who estimated that an average of
57% (23-89%) of the variance in plant species diversity could be explained by structural
and environmental variables (Grace and Pugesek 1997: 45%; Chipman and Johnson 2002:
52%; Le Brocque and Buckney 2003: 62%; Lundholm and Larson 2003: 74%; Weiher
2003: 27%; Désilets and Houle 2005: 73%; Schuster and Diekmann 2005: 51-60%).
2.7.1 Plant diversity and soil pH In our first model (Figure 2.2), soil pH was the variable that explained most of the variance
of z (see also: Palmer 1991; Vetaas 1997; Stevens and Carson 2002; Schuster and
Diekmann 2003; Graae et al. 2004). This positive relationship between soil pH and species
diversity supports the conclusions reached by Weiher et al. (2004), who underlined the
importance of soil factors for species richness, and by Chytrý et al. (2003), who
demonstrated that soil pH could explain a significant portion of the variance in local
species diversity in deciduous forests of eastern Europe. Soil pH (associated with soil
fertility) is thus a good index of species diversity, as attested to by numerous studies of
temperate and boreal forests in the Netherlands (Roem and Berendse 2000), the Vosges and
the Carpathians (Gégout and Krizova 2003), Germany (Härdtle et al. 2003, 2004), northern
Europe (Brunet et al. 1996; Dupré et al. 2002; Pärtel et al. 2004), and North America (Peet
et al. 2003). Indeed, the relationship between soil pH and species diversity is typically
unimodal for pH values between 2 and 8, where the greatest richness falls between pH of 4
to 6 (Pausas 1994; Dupré et al. 2002; Schuster and Diekmann 2003, 2005): at low values
(from 3 to 5), the relationship is linear and positive (Figure 2.4) and at higher pH values,
the relationship tends to become negative (Pärtel 2002). Furthermore, the relationship
between soil pH and species richness is typically positive in floristic regions where the
evolutionary centre is situated on soils with high pH (e.g. at mid-high latitudes). On the
other hand, the relation tends to be negative where the evolutionary centre is situated on
soils of low pH, such as near the equator (Pärtel 2002; Pärtel et al. 2004).
41
Figure 2.4 Positive relationship between soil pH and herbaceous plant diversity (zherb) over
the 30 study sites, Bois-Francs region, Québec, Canada.
2.7.2 Plant diversity and the other environmental variables Other than for the significant, positive relationship between soil pH and understory plant
diversity, the path analyses did not indicate any other significant relationships between the
environmental variables and plant diversity (Figures 2.2 and 2.3). Approximately 42% of
the variance in diversity remained unexplained in the model based on the means of the
environmental variables and 77% in the model based on the CV; this indicates that plant
diversity was mostly influenced by variables other than those considered in the present
study. These other important variables might be historical; they might be associated with
temporal, instead of spatial, environmental variability; they might result from the effects of
micro-organisms or herbivores, from productivity, from variations in the local plant
community, such as density, or from habitat configuration related to forest fragment size
5.25.04.84.64.44.24.03.83.63.4
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
Soil pH
z he
rb
r = 0.496 P < 0.01
42
and isolation, etc. (Oksanen 1996; Grace 1999; Grace 2001; Le Brocque and Buckney
2003; Schuster and Diekmann 2003, 2005).
However, a marginally significant relation was present between plant diversity and one of
the other environmental variables: soil moisture. Indeed, this variable presented a positive
association with zherb (ρ = 0.260; P < 0.20; Figure 2.2). Interestingly, Brosofske et al.
(2001) found that soil characteristics, such as moisture, positively influenced species
richness (vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens) in managed Wisconsin forests.
Similarly, Härdtle et al. (2003) showed that herbaceous plant species richness was
positively correlated with soil moisture and organic matter content. Fu et al. (2004) found
that soil organic matter content was a good index of soil fertility and nutrient availability,
two factors that often positively influence plant diversity (Grime 1979; Decocq et al. 2004;
Small and McCarthy 2005; but see: Tilman 1982). The results of the present study show
that soil organic matter content and soil moisture were indeed positively associated in terms
of both mean values and heterogeneity indices (Table 2.4; Figures 2.2 and 2.3).
Average light conditions or spatial variations in light conditions had no significant effects
on plant species diversity (Table 2.4; Figures 2.2 and 2.3), most likely because the majority
of the species in our 30 forest fragments are adapted or tolerant to low light intensities and
because the pool of species tolerant to low light levels is fairly limited. Our findings
support those of Bauhus et al. (2001) and of Härdtle et al. (2003), who reported that
understory light level was not an important factor influencing plant species richness, and
those of Stevens and Carson (2002) who could not find any correlation between
heterogeneity in light and diversity (mostly herbaceous species diversity). However, in
intensively managed forests, it is possible that species diversity increases with light
availability mostly because of the sudden appearance of open-condition species (Brosofske
et al. 2001; Nash Suding 2001; Decocq et al. 2004); however, the objectives of forest
management for sap extraction are to conserve the tree canopy, thus restricting the species
pool to shade tolerant species.
43
2.7.3 Local diversity and the regional species pool In a nested-quadrat design such as ours, species richness in the smaller quadrat (x) and
species richness in the larger quadrat (y) are not independent. We calculated, for each site,
the difference (y’) between the species richness of each quadrat pair (i.e., the number of
new species as we went from a smaller to a larger quadrat) and correlated x and y’ over the
30 study sites. The threshold of significance of such correlations has been used in other
studies to evaluate the effect of the regional species pool on local diversity (Dupré et al.
2002): indeed, significant positive correlations indicate a significant species pool effect.
Our nested-quadrat system included four different sizes, which allowed the calculation of
six possible correlations: four of these were positive and significant. Our results thus
support recent evidence, which shows that species richness on a local scale is often
determined by the number of species on a regional scale (Butaye et al. 2001; Pärtel 2002).
2.8 Conclusion Our study suggested that intense management of maple-dominated forests (the reduced
forest structural diversity that results from it) can significantly affect herbaceous plant
diversity. Although both of our analyses showed an “exact” fit between the model and the
data, the analysis based on the means of the environmental variables explained more of the
variance of plant diversity than that based on the spatial heterogeneity of the environmental
variables (see also Désilets and Houle 2005). Among the environmental variables
measured, only soil pH had a significant (positive) effect on diversity, most likely through
its influence on the species pool. However, forest structural diversity (i.e., management
intensity) was not associated with any of the environmental variables or their spatial
variability.
2.9 Acknowledgements The authors thank V. Bolduc-Tremblay, G. de Lafontaine, P. Désilets, G. Descôteaux, P.
Marchand, and F. Sahim for field assistance, and L. Lapointe, M.F. McKenna, and S.
Payette for comments on an early version of the manuscript. This study was financed by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada through a grant to G. Houle.
2.10 References cited Arrhenius, O. 1921. Species and area. Journal of Ecology. 9: 95-99. Bauhus, J., Aubin, I., Messier, C. and Connell, M. 2001. Composition, structure, light
attenuation and nutrient content of the understory vegetation in a Eucalyptus sieberi regrowth stand 6 years after thinning and fertilisation. Forest Ecology and Management 144: 275-286.
Bengtsson, J., Nilsson, S. G., Franc, A. and Menozzi, P. 2000. Biodiversity, disturbances,
ecosystem function and management of European forests. Forest Ecology and Management 132 : 39-50.
Bérard, J. and Côté, M. 1996. Manuel de Foresterie. Les Presses de l'Université Laval,
Sainte-Foy, Québec. Brosofske, K. D., Chen, J. and Crow, T. R. 2001.Understory vegetation and site factors:
implications for a managed Wisconsin landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 146: 75-87.
Brunet, J., Falkengren-Grerup, U. and Tyler, G. 1996. Herb layer vegetation of south
Swedish beech and oak forests-effects of management and soil acidity during one decade. Forest Ecology and Management 88: 259-272.
Butaye, J., Jacquemyn, H., Honnay, O. and Hermy, M. 2001. The species pool concept
applied to forests in a fragmented landscape: dispersal limitation versus habitat limitation. Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 27-34.
Chipman, S.J. and Johnson, E.A. 2002. Understory vascular plant species diversity in the
mixedwood boreal forest of western Canada. Ecological Applications 12 : 588-601. Choinière, L. and Laplante, L. 1948. Étude des sols du Comté de Nicolet. Division des sols,
Ministère provincial de l'Agriculture, Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, comté de Kamouraska, Ministère de l'Agriculture et Ministère de l'industrie et du Commerce, Québec.
Chytrý, M., Tichý, L. and Rolecek, J. 2003. Local and regional patterns of species richness
in central European vegetation types along the pH/calcium gradient. Folia Geobotanica 38: 429-442.
Coons, C.F. 1992. Sugar bush management for maple syrup producers. Ontario Ministry of
natural Resources, Queen's Printer. Decocq, G., Aubert, M., Dupont, F., Alard, D., Saguez, R., Wattez-Franger, A., De
Foucault, B., Delelis-Dusollier, A. and Bardat, J. 2004. Plant diversity in a managed
44
45
temperate deciduous forest: understorey response to two silvicultural systems. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 1065-1079.
Désilets, P. and Houle, G. 2005. Effects of resource availability and heterogeneity on the
slope of the species-area curve along a floodplain-upland gradient. Journal of Vegetation Science 16: 487-496.
Dupré, C., Wessberg, C. and Diekmann, M. 2002. Species richness in deciduous forest:
Effects of species pools and environmental variables. Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 505-516.
Dzwonko, Z. and Loster, S. 1989. Distribution of vascular plant species in small woodlands
on the Western Carpathian foothills. Oikos 56: 77-86. Frelich, L.E. 2002. Forest dynamics and disturbance regimes: studies from temperate
evergreen-deciduous forests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fu, B.J., Liu, S.L., Ma, K.M. and Zhu, Y.G. 2004. Relationships between soil
characteristics, topography and plant diversity in a heterogeneous deciduous broad-leaved forest near Beijing, China. Plant and Soil 261: 47-54.
Gégout, J.-C. and Krizova, E. 2003. Comparison of indicator values of forest understory
plant species in Western Carpathians (Slovakia) and Vosges Mountains (France). Forest Ecology and Management 182: 1-11.
Gilliam, F.S., Turrill, N.L. and Adams, M.B. 1995. Herbaceous-layer and overstory species
in clear-cut and mature central Appalachian hardwood forests. Ecological Applications 5: 947-955.
Graae, B.J., Okland, R.H., Petersen, P.M., Jensen, K. and Fritzboger, B. 2004. Influence of
historical, geographical and environmental variables on understorey composition and richness in Danish forests. Journal of Vegetation Science 15: 465-474.
Grace, J.B. 1999. The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities:
an assessment. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 2/1: 1-28. Grace, J.B. 2001. The roles of community biomass and species pools in the regulation of
plant diversity. Oikos 92: 193-207. Grace, J.B. and Pugesek, B.H. 1997. A structural equation model of plant species richness
and its application to a coastal wetland. American Naturalist 149: 436-460. Grace, J.B. and Pugesek, B.H. 1998. One the use of path analysis and related procedures
for the investigation of ecological problems. American Naturalist 152: 151-159. Grime, J.P. 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, Chichester.
46
Härdtle, W., Von Oheimb, G. and Westphal, C. 2003. The effects of light and soil
conditions on the species richness of the ground vegetation of deciduous forests in northern Germany (Schleswig-Holstein). Forest Ecology and Management 182: 327-338.
Härdtle, W., Von Oheimb, G., Friedel, A., Meyer, H. and Westphal, C. 2004. Relationship
between pH-values and nutrient availability in forest soils - the consequences for the use of ecograms in forest ecology. Flora 199: 134-142.
Harner, R.F. and Harper, K.T. 1976. The role of area, heterogeneity, and favorability in
plant species diversity of Pinyon-Juniper ecosystems. Ecology 57: 1254-1263. Heikkinen, R.K. 1996. Predicting patterns of vascular plant species richness with composite
variables: a meso-scale study in Finnish Lapland. Vegetatio 126: 151-165. Heikkinen, R.K. and Neuvonen, S. 1997. Species richness of vascular plants in the
subarctic landscape of northern Finland: modeling relationships to the environment. Biodiversity Conservation 6: 1181-1201.
Hooper, M.C., Aril, K. and Lechowicz, M.J. 2001. Impact of a major ice storm on an old-
growth hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of Botany 79: 70-75. Houston, D.R., Allen, D.C. and Lachance, D. 1990. Aménagement de l'érablière: Guide de
protection de la santé des arbres. Forêts Canada, Région du Québec, Centre de Foresterie des Laurentides. Région du Québec, Sainte-Foy, Québec. Rapport d'information LAU-X-92F.
Le Brocque, A.F. and Buckney, R.T. 2003. Species richness-environment relationships
within coastal sclerophyll and mesophyll vegetation in Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, New South Wales, Australia. Austral Ecology 28: 404-412.
Lundholm, J.T. and Larson, D.W. 2003. Relationships between spatial environmental
heterogeneity and plant species diversity on a limestone pavement. Ecography 26: 715-722.
Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N.J. Majcen, Z. 2003. Raréfaction des espèces compagnes de l'érablière. In Les enjeux de la
biodiversité relatifs à la composition forestière. In : P. Grondin et Cimon, A., coordonnateurs, Ministère des Ressources Naturelles, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction de la recherche forestière et Direction de l'environnement forestier, pp. 93-102.
47
Marie-Victorin 2002. Flore laurentienne. Third Edition, Gaetan Morin Editeur, Boucherville, Québec.
Murakami, K., Maenaka, H. and Morimoto, Y. 2004. Factors influencing species diversity
of ferns and fern allies in fragmented forest patches in the Kyoto city area. Landscape and Urban Planning 70: 221-229.
Muller, R.N. and Bormann, F.H. 1976. Role of Erythronium americanum Ker in energy-
flow and nutrient dynamics of a northern hardwood forest ecosystem. Science 193: 1126-1128.
Nash Suding, K. 2001. The effects of gap creation on competitive interactions: separating
changes in overall intensity from relative rankings. Oikos 94: 219-227. Oksanen, J. 1996. Is the humped relationship between species richness and biomass an
artefact due to plot size? Journal of Ecology 84: 293-295. Palmer, M.W. 1991. Patterns of species richness among North Carolina hardwood forests:
tests of tow hypotheses. Journal of Vegetation Science 2: 361-366. Paquet, L. 1980. Quelques aspects de l'aménagement des érablières pour fins d'acériculture
et application générale dans une érablière de Ste-Justine, comté de Dorchester. Bac. thesis, Faculté de Foresterie et Géodésie, Université Laval, Québec.
Pärtel, M. 2002. Local plant diversity patterns and evolutionary history at the regional
scale. Ecology 83: 2361-2366. Pärtel, M., Helm, A., Ingerpuu, N., Reier, Ü. and Tuvi, E.-L. 2004. Conservation of
Northern European plant diversity: the correspondence with soil pH. Biological Conservation 120: 525-531.
Pausas, J.G. 1994. Species richness patterns in the understory of Pyrenean Pinus sylvestris
forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 5: 517-524. Peet, R.K., Fridley, J.D. and Grambling, J.M. 2003. Variation in species richness and
species pool size across a pH gradient in forests of the southern Blue Ridge Mountains. Folia Geobotanica 38: 391-401.
Reader, R.J. 1987. Loss of species from deciduous forest understory immediately following
selective tree harvesting. Biological Conservation 42: 231-244. Ristau, T.E., Horsley, S.B. and McCormick, L.H. 2001. Sampling to assess species
diversity of herbaceous layer vegetation in Alleghany hardwood forests. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 128: 150-164.
48
Roberts, M.R. 2004. Response of the herbaceous layer to natural disturbance in North American forests. Canadian Journal of Botany 82: 1273-1283.
Roem, W.J. and Berendse, F. 2000. Soil acidity and nutrient supply ratio as possible factors
determining changes in plant species diversity in grassland and heathland communities. Biological Conservation 92 : 151-161.
Rowe, J.S. 1972. Les régions forestières du Canada. Ministère de l'Environnement, Service
canadien des forêts, Ottawa. Publication N° 1300F. Schuster, B. and Diekmann, M. 2003. Changes in species density along the soil pH gradient
- Evidence from German plant communities. Folia Geobotanica 38: 367-379. Schuster, B. and Diekmann, M. 2005. Species richness and environmental correlates in
deciduous forests of northwest Germany. Forest Ecology and Management 206: 197-205.
Small, C.J. and McCarthy, B.C. 2005. Relationship of understorey diversity to soil
nitrogen, topographic variation, and stand age in an eastern oak forest, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 217: 229-243.
Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometry. Third Edition, W. H. Freeman and Company,
New York. Sousa, W.P. 1979. Experimental investigations of disturbance and ecological succession in
a rocky intertidal algal community. Ecological Monographs 49: 227-254. Staudhammer, C.L. and LeMay, V.M. 2001. Introduction and evaluation of possible indices
of stand structural diversity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 1105-1115. Stevens, M.H.H. and Carson, W.P. 2002. Resource quantity, not resource heterogeneity,
maintains plant diversity. Ecology Letters 5: 420-426. Tang, S.M., Franklin, J.F. and Montgomery, D.R. 1997. Forest harvest patterns and
landscape disturbances processes. Landscape Ecology 12: 349-363. Tews, J., Brose, U., Grimm, V., Tielbörger, K., Wichmann, M.C., Schwager, M. and
Jeltsch, F. 2004. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity / diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography 31: 79-92.
Tilman, D. 1982. Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ. Vetaas, O.R. 1997. The effect of canopy disturbance on species richness in a central
Himalayan oak forest. Plant Ecology 132: 29-38.
49
Weiher, E. 2003. Species richness along multiple gradients: testing a general multivariate model in oak savannas. Oikos 101: 311-316.
Weiher, E., Forbes, S., Schauwecker, T. and Grace, J.B. 2004. Multivariate control of plant
species richness and community biomass in blackland prairie. Oikos 106: 151-157. Whitney, G.G. and Upmeyer, M.M. 2004. Sweet trees, sour circumstances: the long search
for sustainability in the North American maple products industry. Forest Ecology and Management 200: 313-333.
Whittaker, R.H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21: 213-251.
CHAPITRE 3 – Short-term understory plant community response to nutrient spatial heterogeneity in the cold-temperate deciduous forest of south-eastern Canada
3.1 Avant-Propos Le texte de ce chapitre sera bientôt soumis pour publication.
3.2 Résumé Dans les communautés végétales, la distribution spatiale des plantes est souvent reliée à la
distribution des ressources (e.g. nutriments du sol). Du fait que la plupart des espèces de
sous-bois ont de petits systèmes racinaires, la production de sous-bois, la richesse et
l’équitabilité devraient augmenter à mesure que les nutriments deviennent de plus en plus
finement hétérogènes. Nous avons testé cette hypothèse en manipulant l’échelle
d’hétérogénéité des nutriments dans trois fragments forestiers de la région des Bois-Francs,
dans le centre du Québec (Est du Canada). Les traitements comprenaient quatre échelles
spatiales avec ajout de nutriments (homogène à hétérogène) et un témoin (aucun ajout).
Cinq groupes fonctionnels ont été définis : plantes printanières éphémères, plantes
printanières persistantes, plantes estivales, fougères, et plantules et juvéniles des espèces
ligneuses. Le couvert, la richesse, l’autocorrélation spatiale (SA) de la richesse,
l’équitabilité et certaines variables environnementales (irradiance, pH et teneur en matière
organique du sol) ont été suivies pendant deux ans. Nos analyses n’ont révélé aucune
différence significative entre les traitements pour la plupart des variables étudiées : couvert,
richesse, SA de la richesse, et variables environnementales. Cependant, une équitabilité
plus élevée a été détectée chez les espèces estivales pour la plus fine échelle
d’hétérogénéité spatiale. De par la capacité de croissance limitée de leur système racinaire,
certaines espèces estivales ne peuvent exploiter les nutriments que dans un petit volume de
sol. Cependant, d’autres espèces estivales capturent des nutriments dans des parcelles plus
éloignées grâce à des systèmes racinaires plus étendus. Ainsi, des différences dans les
stratégies racinaires représentent une spécialisation de niche, favorisant la coexistence des
50
51
espèces vis-à-vis de l’hétérogénéité spatiale. Malgré tout, la flore du sous-bois est
typiquement plus sensible à de fines variations spatiales que les espèces de bordures, qui
présentent une croissance rapide de l’élongation de leurs rhizomes. Néanmoins, nos
résultats suggèrent que la disponibilité en nutriments ne semble pas limitante pour les
espèces de sous-bois, caractérisées par une croissance lente et par une forte tolérance à
l’ombre. Les filtres environnementaux sont hautement sélectifs dans la végétation du sous-
bois (tolérance à l’ombre), si bien que la richesse apparaît saturée et que les espèces
semblent peu sensibles à l’hétérogénéité spatiale des nutriments.
3.3 Abstract Within plant communities, species spatial distribution is often related to the distribution of
resources (e.g. soil nutrients). Because most understory plants have small root systems,
understory production, richness, and evenness should increase as nutrients become spatially
more heterogeneous. We tested this hypothesis by manipulating the scale of heterogeneity
of nutrient availability in three forest fragments of the Bois-Francs region, in central
Québec (eastern Canada). The treatments included four spatial scales of nutrient addition
(from homogeneous to finely heterogeneous) and a control (no nutrient addition).
Understory species were classified into five functional groups: spring-flowering ephemeral
species; spring-flowering persistent species; summer-flowering species; ferns; and
seedlings and juveniles of woody species. Species cover, richness, spatial autocorrelation
(SA) of species richness, evenness, and some environmental variables (irradiance, soil pH,
and soil organic matter content) were followed over two years. Our analyses revealed no
significant differences among treatments for most of the variables studied: cover, richness,
SA of richness, and environmental variables. However, a higher evenness (more uniform
production) among summer-flowering species was detected at the finest scale of
heterogeneity. Because of their limited root growth ability, some summer-flowering species
can exploit nutrients only within a small volume of soil. However, other summer-flowering
species can take advantage of more distant nutrient-rich patches with their extensive root
system. Such differences in rooting strategy represent niche specialization and may favour
species coexistence. Nevertheless, understory species are typically more sensitive to small-
52
scale variations in habitat conditions than forest edge species, which can grow through
rapid rhizome elongation. Our results suggest that nutrient availability may not be limiting
in the forest understory, characterized by slow-growing, shade-tolerant species. Because
environmental filters are highly selective in the forest understory (shade tolerance), richness
appears to be saturated and species to be irresponsive to nutrient heterogeneity.
3.4 Introduction In forest ecosystems, the soil represents a three-dimensional mosaic, within which nutrients
are non-randomly distributed at different spatial scales (Bliss et al. 2002; Day et al. 2003;
Lundholm and Larson 2003. This contributes to increase environmental heterogeneity and
influence plant production and diversity (Collins and Wein 1998; Day et al. 2003). At the
level of the community, soil resources are influenced by several factors, including micro-
topography and local disturbances. On the other hand, at the level of the plant
neighbourhood, the distribution of soil micro-organisms and the presence of competitors
are largely responsible for the spatial heterogeneity of soil nutrients (Bliss et al. 2002;
Anderson et al. 2004). Consequently, the distribution of nutrients in the soil is directly
related to the dispersion patterns of plants, influencing competitive interactions,
coexistence, and the structure of plant communities (Huston 1980; Stevens and Carson
2002). Under homogeneous fertile conditions, interspecific competition for nutrients is
often intense and, as a result, dominant species may represent a larger proportion of the
production (Roem and Berendse 2000). In moist tropical forests and, to some degree, in
temperate forests, soil resources are distributed heterogeneously (Hammer et al. 1987),
often at a relatively fine spatial scale, generally < 1 m (Sollins 1998; Farley and Fitter
1999b; Lister et al. 2000; Scheller et Mladenoff 2002). If different species are able to share
nutrients because of their specific root system (rooting depth, lateral extension), then
production increases, specific and functional richness increase, and competitive exclusion is
reduced (Gough et al. 2000a).
There is a direct relationship between the spatial heterogeneity of soil resources and plant
richness in several natural ecosystems, such as in wetlands (Fitter 1982), in arid and semi-
arid deserts (Collins and Wein 1998; Titus et al. 2002), and in forests (Small and McCarthy
53
2005). For instance, Lundholm and Larson (2003) showed a strong positive association
between plant species richness and spatial heterogeneity in microsite quality in limestone
alvars. In addition, several non-experimental studies have reported a positive correlation
between the degree of environmental heterogeneity and species richness in grasslands
(Reynolds et al. 1997). Fine-scale spatial heterogeneity in nutrient availability should thus
facilitate local coexistence, by allowing species to occupy distinct microsites (Roberts and
Zhu 2002). On the other hand, at a more regional scale, species coexistence should be
related more to habitat heterogeneity and environmental gradients (Gough et al. 2000b;
Anderson et al. 2004; Tews et al. 2004).
Most of the studies reported in the literature have focussed on how plants affect the
distribution of nutrients in the soil, and few have examined the way in which the
distribution of resources influences species distribution in natural communities (Casper and
Cahill 1998). An experimental study by Wijesinghe et al. (2005) has shown that spatial
heterogeneity in soil resources can influence the structural properties of communities, such
as aboveground biomass and species composition. In forests, nutrients are often more
concentrated and soil pH can be more acid near the base of the trees because of stem flow
(Huston 1980; Kleb and Wilson 1997; Burghouts et al. 1998; Gómez et al. 2004).
Highly associated with the spatial dynamics of nutrients, the understory represents
approximately two-thirds of the plant species richness in forest ecosystems. Furthermore,
understory species can have significant effects on the patterns of tree recruitment (Small
and McCarthy 2005); it is thus important that the understory be considered even though it
contributes only modestly to the total biomass of forests. In addition, because understory
plants are highly sensitive to abiotic conditions, as demonstrated by Gilliam and Turrill
(1993) in deciduous Appalachian forests, they can serve as indicators of soil fertility.
This paper reports the results of an experimental study on the effects of spatial
heterogeneity in nutrient availability on the production and richness of the understory in
three forest patches in southern Québec (eastern Canada). The main objective of this study
was to determine the effects of the spatial scale of nutrient availability on production, i.e.,
plant cover, and on understory plant richness in the absence of major disturbances. Our
54
main hypothesis is that, because the root system of most understory plants is spatially
confined, production, richness, and evenness should be higher when nutrients are more
finely heterogeneous (Hutchings et al. 2003; Wijesinghe et al. 2005). In addition, we could
expect the spatial scale of richness (i.e. richness patch size) to respond to the spatial scale of
nutrient heterogeneity.
3.5 Material and Methods
3.5.1 Study site description This experiment was conducted in three distinct forest patches (at least 1 km apart) in the
Bois-Francs region, more precisely, at Saint-Léonard d’Aston (StL1: 46°08.798' N,
72°22.105' W; StL2: 46°05.090' N, 72°22.161' W; StL3: 46°04.600' N, 72°22.340' W), on
the south shore of the St. Lawrence River, near Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada. The three
forest fragments (between 5 and 10 ha) are on private land and have been lightly managed
for sap over several years. The dominant overstory species is sugar maple (Acer
saccharum), with red maple (Acer rubrum), American linden (Tilia americana), and yellow
birch (Betula alleghaniensis) as associate species. The area is part of the Great Lakes–St.
Lawrence forest region of Rowe (1972), subsection Mid St. Lawrence (L-2). The annual
precipitation totals ~ 1160 mm, of which 23.5% falls as snow. The annual daily mean
temperature is 5.0 °C at the nearby Arthabaska weather station (URL:
www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca). The soils of the region are mostly brunisols except in
low areas, which are characterised by gleysols (Choinière and Laplante 1948).
Site selection was based on the following criteria: relatively uniform topographical
features, easy road access, plant species richness representative of the region, and
permission from the owners to carry out the experiment. StL1 is characterised by an
abundance of Canada yew (Taxus canadensis) and a topographic relief composed of small
mounds and pits. The topography of StL2 and StL3 is uniform and mostly level.
55
3.5.2 Sampling protocol and variables measured In the summer of 2003, we established randomly 30 2 m x 2 m plots at each of the three
study sites (similar species composition and absence of woody plants > 1 m in height).
Each species present on the sites was assigned to one of five functional groups (Table 3.1),
based principally on its flowering period: spring-flowering ephemeral species (SE); spring-
flowering persistent species (SP); summer-flowering species (SM); ferns (FE); and
seedlings and juveniles of woody species (TS). We considered SE separately from SP
because of the important role they play in the nutrient dynamics of deciduous forests.
Indeed, SE are believed to store in their tissues the nutrients flushed into the system during
snowmelt and to release them slowly as they senesce (vernal dam hypothesis; Eickmeier
and Schussler 1993; Rothstein 2000). The interest in considering FE and TS comes from
the significant role that they play in ecosystem productivity and in competition with other
understory species.
For the experiment, we chose 15 plots per site, the most similar in terms of species
composition and topography, among the 30 initially marked. Within site, plots were
grouped in three blocks on the basis of their spatial proximity, and treatments were
randomly assigned to the plots within each block. The treatments were as follows: control
(N0, no nutrient application); homogeneous nutrient application (N1); and three scales of
nutrient application, i.e., from finer to coarser grain: N64, N16, and N4. A checkerboard
design was used to create the three heterogeneous patterns (Fig. 3.1). Plots were subdivided
into 64 (25 cm x 25 cm, N64), 16 (50 cm x 50 cm, N16), or 4 (1 m x 1 m, N4) cells (Table
3.2).
56
Table 3.1 List of all vascular plant species recorded (all treatments and all sites combined). Nomenclature follows Marie-Victorin (1995). SE: spring-flowering ephemeral species; SP: spring-flowering persistent species, SM: summer-flowering species; FE: ferns; and TS: seedlings and juveniles of woody species.
SP Aralia nudicaulis SM Aster sp. TS Abies balsamea Aralia racemosa Carex bromoides Acer pensylvanicum Clintonia borealis Carex gracillima Acer rubrum Maianthemum racemosum Carex grisea Acer saccharum Maianthenum canadensis Carex intumescens Acer spicatum Medeola virginiana Carex pedunculata Amelanchier sp. Polygonatum pubescens Carex sp. Betula alleghaniensis Ribes sp. Carex tribuloides Betula papyrifera Streptopus roseus Carex trisperma Carya condiformis Tiarella cordifolia Circaea lutetiana Fagus grandifolia Trientalis borealis Coptis groenlandica Fraxinus sp. Trillium erectum Galium sp. Ostrya virginiana Trillium undulatum Huperzia lucidula Prunus sp. Uvularia sessilifolia Lycopodium obscurum Prunus virginiana Mitchella repens Quercus rubra
FE Athyrium filix-femina Oxalis acetosella Sambucus racemosa Dennstaedtia punctilobula Oxalis stricta Taxus canadensis Dryopteris spinulosa Polygonum convolvulus Tilia americana Matteuccia struthiopteris Prenanthes sp. Ulmus americana Rubus idaeus Viburnum cassinoides
SE Claytonia caroliniana Rubus pubescens Viburnum lantanoides Erythronium americanum Rubus sp. Viburnum sp. Solidago sp. Viburnum trilobum Viola sp.
57
Figure 3.1 Experimental design: (a) control, i.e., no nutrient application (N0); (b) homogeneous nutrient application (N1); (c, d, and e) three increasing scales of nutrient application (N64, N16, and N4).
Table 3.2 Experimental protocol for the different nutrient addition treatments. No fertiliser was added to the control plots (N0).
Symbols Number of cells per plot
Cell surface (m2)
Number of fertilised cells
per plot
Quantity of fertiliser per
fertilised cell (g)
N0 1 4 0 0 N1 1 4 1 200 N64 64 0.0625 32 6.25 N16 16 0.25 8 25 N4 4 1 2 100
2 m
2 m
0.5 m(a) (b)
(d)
2 m
2 m
0.5 m(a) (b)
1 m
1 m
(e)
1 m
1 m
(d)
0.25 m
0.25 m
(c)
0.25 m
0.25 m
2 m
2 m
0.5 m(a) (b)
(d)
2 m
2 m
0.5 m(a) (b)
1 m
1 m
(e)
1 m
1 m
1 m
1 m
(e)
1 m
1 m
(d)
0.25 m
0.25 m
(c)
0.25 m
0.25 m
0.25 m
0.25 m
(c)
0.25 m
0.25 m
58
The fertilizer we used (18:6:8 N:P:K, plus micronutrients; Nutricote total, Fertiliser Co.
LTD, Chisso-Assati, Tokyo, Japan) was in the form of time-release pellets, insensitive to
soil moisture and pH. These pellets are coated with a polyolefin type resin to provide the
slow release of all nutrients (80% of N is released over a period of ~ 100 days, at a
temperature of 25° C). For each fertilizer addition treatment, in October 2003, and again in
October 2004 before leaf fall, the fertilizer was applied manually at a rate of 50 g m-2 (9 g
N, 3 g P, and 4 g K m-2 year-1; Table 3.2). Our choice of a 50 g m-2 application follows what
is commonly reported in the literature (Elemans 2004).
3.5.3 Biological variables Surveys of vascular plants ≤ 1 m in height were carried out three times in 2003 and 2005
(nomenclature follows Marie-Victorin 1995): in early May, in mid-July, and at the end of
August. In 2003, before the nutrient-addition experiment began, the entire 4 m2 surface of
each plot was surveyed (30 plots per site). When the nutrient-addition experiment began (in
the fall of 2003), a buffer zone was established at the periphery of each selected plot to
avoid trampling artefacts (Fig. 3.2). Although this buffer zone received the appropriate
treatment in the fall of 2003 and in the fall of 2004, no data were collected from that section
in 2005. When the plots were surveyed in 2005, the central section of each plot (1.60 x 1.60
m; 2.56 m2) was divided into 256 cells of 100 cm2 each (Fig. 3.2) on which all species
present were recorded. The recorded species are cited in Table 3.1.
59
Figure 3.2 Experimental set up to record plant cover and richness in each 4 m2 plot.
Species-specific cover values for each plot were estimated as the frequency of 100 cm2
cells (over 256) in which a given species was present. Percent cover (C) per functional
group (CSE, CSP, CSM, CFE, and CTS) and total percent cover (Ctot) were calculated as
the sum of species-specific-cover values for each plot to estimate production. As three
surveys were done in 2005, the maximum species-specific-cover value was used for each
species to estimate maximum annual production.
Consequently, cover values often exceeded 100% for a plot (in addition, two or more
species were often present in a given 100 cm2 cell). An evenness index (H) was calculated
for each functional group (HSE, HSP, HSM, HFE, and HTS), and for all species (Htot)
from the cover data using the formula H = - Σ pi ln pi, where pi represents the cover
proportion of species i in relation to total cover. Species richness (R) per functional group
(RSE, RSP, RSM, RFE, and RTS) and total species richness (Rtot) were also determined
for each plot.
60
3.5.4 Environmental variables A single soil sample (90.75 cm3, to a depth of 10 cm) was collected at the centre of each 4
m2 plot in May 2003. In July 2005, a soil sample was collected at each corner of each plot.
All samples were collected after a period of 2–3 days without rain. In the laboratory, each
sample was passed through a 2-mm-mesh sieve to remove roots, twigs, and stones, and then
dried for 24 hours at 75 °C. Soil pH was measured in a 1:1 soil:water solution using a pH
meter (Barrow and Jenkinson 1962; Kieft 1994). Soil organic matter (SOM) was estimated
as percent mass loss on ignition (at 450 °C for 5 hours; Garnier et al. 2003).
Irradiance (µmol m-2 s-1) was measured at 0.5-1 m above ground level (20 sec. scan)
between 10h and 14h, on sunny, cloudless days using a portable radiometer (LI-189, Licor,
Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska, USA). Readings were taken at the end of June 2003 (one per plot)
and at the end of July 2005 (four per plot, one at each corner).
3.5.5 Data analysis Total cover, cover of each functional group, total richness, and richness of each functional
group (for each plot) were analyzed with randomized complete blocks design ANOVAs . A
MANOVA was used to determine the overall statistical significance of richness, cover, and
evenness of the different functional groups (Wilk’s λ). For the three environmental
variables, i.e. irradiance, soil organic matter content, and soil pH, a mean value was
calculated from the four measurements taken on each plot in 2005. These abiotic variables
were also analyzed using randomized complete blocks design ANOVAs.
Spatial autocorrelation for total species richness was calculated for each plot using Moran’s
I. The centroid of each 100 cm2 cell served as spatial coordinates. Twenty-one distance
classes of 10 cm each were used in the analyses. A correlogram, which is a graphical
representation of the autocorrelation index as a function of distance classes, was globally
significant when at least one value of I was significant at P ≤ 0.002, i.e., 0.05/k, where k
represents the number of distance classes (k = 21; Bonferroni adjustement, Legendre and
Fortin 1989). The value of maximum distance of positive autocorrelation was used to
represent the patch size; these values were then used in an ANOVA to evaluate the effect of
61
the treatments on the patch size of total species richness, i.e., the spatial scale at which
species richness is contagiously dispersed. The statistical program R Version 4.0 (Casgrain
et al. 2004) was used for the spatial autocorrelation analyses.
Thus, the experimental design was made up of five treatments per block, three blocks, i.e.,
repetitions, per site, and three sites. The sources of variation were sites (random), blocks
within site (random), treatments (fixed), and the interaction between treatments and sites
(fixed), as well as an experimental error term. Differences between treatments for species
richness, cover, evenness, and the environmental variables were identified using protected
LSD (least significant differences) when significant differences among treatments were
detected in the ANOVA at α < 0.05. The statistical software package SAS version 6.12
(SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA) was used for the analyses. The following
variables were transformed to satisfy the assumption of normality: total richness and spatial
autocorrelation of total richness (log10 variable); richness of each functional group (log10
variable + 1). Means are presented with their standard deviation (SD).
3.6 Results
3.6.1 Pre-experimental data (2003) The analyses performed on the 2003 data, those prior to nutrient addition, indicated that
there were no significant differences among treatments in total richness (P = 0.410) or in
the richness of the different functional groups (MANOVA: F = 0.90, P = 0.571). Likewise,
the environmental factors, i.e., soil pH, soil organic matter content, and irradiance did not
differ significantly among treatments at the beginning of the experiment (P = 0.951, P =
0.560, and P = 0.979, respectively; Table 3.3).
62
Table 3.3 F-values (P-values in parentheses) from the ANOVAs for the effects of site (df = 2), treatment (df = 4), and their interaction (df = 8) on total cover (Ctot), total richness (Rtot), spatial autocorrelation of total richness (SA), total evenness (Htot), functional group evenness (HSE, HSP, HSM, HFE, and HTS), and three environmental factors (soil pH, soil organic matter (SOM), and irradiance). SE: spring-flowering ephemeral species; SP: spring-flowering persistent species, SM: summer-flowering species; FE: ferns; and TS: seedlings and juveniles of woody species. Significant values are in boldface characters.
2003 (pre-experimental)
2005 (2 years of experimentation)
Variables Site Treatment Site x treatment Site Treatment Site x
treatment Ctot - - - 28.26 (0.001) 1.32 (0.292) 0.79 (0.612) Rtot 4.83 (0.056) 1.04 (0.410) 0.57 (0.793) 7.20 (0.025) 2.06 (0.118) 1.52 (0.204) SA - - - 0.52 (0.617) 0.25 (0.909) 1.02 (0.451)
Htot - - - 2.59 (0.154) 1.60 (0.206) 0.98 (0.473) HSE - - - 3.85 (0.084) 1.46 (0.244) 2.08 (0.080) HSP - - - 0.11 (0.901) 0.15 (0.962) 0.44 (0.886) HSM - - - 3.83 (0.085) 4.18 (0.010) 1.08 (0.411) HFE - - - 10.17 (0.012) 0.71 (0.591) 1.13 (0.379) HTS - - - 232.42 (<0.001) 2.54 (0.066) 1.89 (0.110) pH 9.92 (0.013) 0.17 (0.951) 0.31 (0.956) 14.11 (0.005) 0.33 (0.853) 0.39 (0.918)
SOM 7.14 (0.026) 0.76 (0.560) 0.79 (0.615) 12.07 (0.008) 1.05 (0.402) 1.21 (0.334) Irradiance 6.96 (0.027) 0.11 (0.979) 0.16 (0.995) 10.49 (0.011) 1.12 (0.372) 0.08 (0.999)
- : These variables were not recorded in 2003.
3.6.2 Nutrient addition experiment (2005) The species richness of all the sites combined comprised 67 vascular plant species, 16 of
which were trees, seven of which were shrubs, and 44 of which were herbaceous plants
(Table 3.4). Thus, herbaceous plant species made up approximately two-thirds (65.7%) of
the overall species richness. There were 41.3 ± 7.0 (mean ± SD) understory species per site.
Close to 55% of the understory flora were summer-flowering species (SM), i.e. 24 species,
whereas there were only two spring-flowering ephemeral (SE) species.
63
Table 3.4 Species richness for the three sites combined and for each site according to functional group (SE: spring-flowering ephemeral species; SP: spring-flowering persistent species; SM: summer-flowering species; FE: ferns; TS: seedlings and juveniles of woody species).
Functional
groups All 3 sites StL1 StL2 StL3
SE 2 2 1 1 SP 14 12 8 10 SM 24 15 5 13 FE 4 3 2 3 TS 23 16 18 15
Total 67 48 34 42
Our results showed that there were no significant differences among treatments in total
cover (P = 0.292) or in the cover of the different functional groups (MANOVA: F = 1.26, P
= 0.234; Table 3.3). Total cover varied from 264.0 ± 154.8% to 340.2 ± 117.7% (mean ±
SD), according to treatment, with seedling and juveniles of woody species making the
largest contribution among the five functional groups (Table 3.5).
Total species richness did not differ significantly among treatments (P = 0.118) and neither
did the species richness of the different functional groups (MANOVA: F = 0.79, P = 0.719;
Table 3.3).
64
Table 3.5 Total cover (Ctot), functional group cover (CSE, CSP, CSM, CFE, and CTS), total richness (Rtot), functional group richness (RSE, RSP, RSM, RFE, and RTS), total evenness (Htot), and functional group evenness (HSE, HSP, HSM, HFE, and HTS) for each treatment. SE: spring-flowering ephemeral species; SP: spring-flowering persistent species; SM: summer-flowering species; FE: ferns; and TS: seedlings and juveniles of woody species. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments for each variable (protected LSD with P ≤ 0.05). Mean ± SD (n = 9). See Fig. 3.1 and Table 3.2 for details on the nutrient application treatments.
COVER (%)
Treatments
Variables N0 N1 N64 N16 N4
Ctot 292.40 ± 138.60 300.99 ± 118.32 363.29 ± 116.22 271.66 ± 136.57 264.44 ± 120.87
CSE 48.22 ± 39.02 44.76 ± 37.67 39.80 ± 32.13 45.13 ± 36.38 34.33 ± 33.18
CSP 64.89 ± 51.11 38.84 ± 39.20 124.52 ± 119.43 19.77 ± 27.39 44.93 ± 61.05
CSM 38.58 ± 38.38 43.52 ± 54.59 27.42 ± 27.80 43.79 ± 72.56 27.70 ± 45.08
CFE 14.37 ± 20.03 41.79 ± 51.59 67.01 ± 76.98 39.28 ± 69.83 25.62 ± 40.95
CTS 126.36 ± 89.32 132.08 ± 71.06 104.51 ± 21.78 123.69 ± 88.17 131.91 ± 117.85
RICHNESS Treatments
Variables N0 N1 N64 N16 N4
Rtot 10.11 ± 2.26 7.77 ± 3.03 8.56 ± 2.92 8.78 ± 4.35 8.56 ± 2.92
RSE 0.67 ± 0.50 0.78 ± 0.44 0.67 ± 0.50 0.67 ± 0.50 0.78 ± 0.67
RSP 2.89 ± 2.03 2.11 ± 2.09 2.89 ± 2.26 2.00 ± 1.94 2.44 ± 1.33
RSM 1.89 ± 1.69 1.22 ± 1.48 1.11 ± 1.27 1.67 ± 2.40 1.00 ± 1.00
RFE 0.89 ± 0.60 0.78 ± 0.83 0.89 ± 0.60 1.00 ± 1.00 0.89 ± 0.60
RTS 3.78 ± 1.09 2.88 ± 0.60 3.00 ± 0.71 3.44 ± 0.88 3.44 ± 1.59
EVENNESS Treatments
Variables N0 N1 N64 N16 N4
Htot 1.42 ± 0.15 1.37 ± 0.36 1.57 ± 0.35 1.29 ± 0.38 1.40 ± 0.31
HSE 0.09 ± 0.12 0.21 ± 0.22 0.23 ± 0.18 0.16 ± 0.19 0.17 ± 0.14
HSP 0.55 ± 0.14 0.54 ± 0.10 0.50 ± 0.08 0.54 ± 0.13 0.56 ± 0.30
HSM 0.30 ± 0.18ab 0.20 ± 0.16b 0.43 ± 0.34a 0.17 ± 0.15b 0.28 ± 0.29b
HFE 0.25 ± 0.20 0.18 ± 0.19 0.19 ± 0.14 0.23 ± 0.29 0.17 ± 0.21
HTS 0.22 ± 0.17 0.25 ± 0.14 0.22 ± 0.17 0.19 ± 0.15 0.23 ± 0.18
65
Total richness, averaged over all treatments, was 8.70 ± 3.10 species per 2.56 m2 plot
(mean ± SD), with the richness of seedlings and juveniles of woody species making the
largest contribution among the five functional groups (Table 3.5). Likewise, the ANOVA
did not detect significant differences among treatments in the patch size of species richness,
SA: 36.7 ± 15.8 cm for N0; 42.2 ± 15.6 cm for N1; 38.9 ± 17.6 cm for N64; 41.1 ± 17.6 cm
for N16; 36.7 ± 15.8 cm for N4; P = 0.909, Table 3.3).
There were no significant differences among treatments for total species evenness (P =
0.206), although it was slightly higher in the N64 treatment than in the others (Table 3.5).
Evenness for the different functional groups differed significantly among treatments as
shown by the MANOVA (F = 1.74; P = 0.048). However, among the five functional groups
considered, the differences in evenness were significant only for summer-flowering species
(HSM; P = 0.010, Table 3.3). Indeed, HSM was the highest in the N64 treatment, but the
lowest in the N1, N16, and N4 treatments (Table 3.5).
3.6.3 Environmental factors The ANOVAs performed on the three environmental variables showed that there were no
significant differences among treatments, even after two years of experimentation (Tables
3.3 and 3.6). While the variability associated with the mean was low for soil pH, it was
quite high for irradiance. These results are not surprising considering the canopy gap
dynamics characteristic of the type of forests studied.
66
Table 3.6 Mean (± SD; n = 9) of three environmental variables (soil pH, soil organic matter (SOM), and irradiance) as a function of year and treatment. There are no significant differences among treatments for each variable. See Fig. 3.1 and Table 3.2 for details on the nutrient application treatments.
2003 (pre-experimental) Treatments
Variables N0 N1 N64 N16 N4 pH 3.88 ± 0.33 3.98 ± 0.36 3.95 ± 0.37 3.87 ± 0.26 3.96 ± 0.44
SOM (%) 11.95 ± 7.45 15.44 ± 10.82 25.47 ± 33.59 22.28 ± 21.90 22.02 ± 24.54 Irradiance
(µmol m-2 s-1) 173.20 ± 158.14 147.81 ± 358.73 195.15 ± 271.50 206.01 ± 321.89 148.81 ± 236.22
2005 (after 2 years of experimentation)
Treatments Variables N0 N1 N64 N16 N4
pH 3.65 ± 0.09 3.74 ± 0.20 3.68 ± 0.23 3.68 ± 0.19 3.66 ± 0.18 SOM (%) 14.51 ± 8.87 18.14 ± 7.79 23.69 ± 23.67 19.82 ± 17.40 23.98 ± 23.67 Irradiance
(µmol m-2 s-1) 54.40 ± 117.09 138.42 ± 138.19 59.91 ± 123.93 92.48 ± 130.24 56.65 ± 75.11
3.6.4 Inter-site differences There were significant differences among sites for most of the variables studied: Ctot and
Rtot; C, R, and H of most of the functional groups (MANOVAs: F = 17.28, F = 34.20, and
F = 39.17, respectively, for the effect of site; all Ps < 0.05); soil pH, soil organic matter
content, and irradiance (Table 3.3). On the other hand, the similarity of the sites with
respect to the spatial autocorrelation of total species richness (SA) and to total evenness
(Htot) was remarkable.
3.7 Discussion Among the variables studied, only summer-flowering species evenness responded to our
treatments.
67
3.7.1 Cover No significant differences were found among treatments for total cover or for the cover of
the different functional groups. These results can be explained by the fact that most of the
understory plants that we recorded on our field sites are slow-growing, shade-tolerant
perennials (Whigham 2004). Indeed, understory perennials seem to have a low ability to
adjust to rapid changes in resource availability (Collins and Pickett 1987; Farley and Fitter
1999a). Yet, understory annuals such as the shade tolerant Impatiens parviflora can
respond quickly when additional nutrients are provided: plants of this species, grown in a
greenhouse for 37 days with ample nutrients, reach a biomass two-fold that of control
plants, even under low light conditions (the response is, however, more important under
increased light availability; Peace and Grubb 1982). Some perennials typical of forest
edges, such as Aegopodium podagraria, can also respond to nutrient addition, but only
under relatively high light conditions (Elemans 2004). These latter results suggest that light
often modulates the effect of nutrient addition on plant growth (Peace and Grubb 1982).
We cannot exclude that the absence of response to our nutrient addition treatments may be
related to the low irradiances typical of the deciduous forest understory (as low as 2-4% of
open-field conditions; Meekins and McCarthy 2000).
The lack of response to our treatments may be explained by still other mechanisms. For
instance, the species studied might have absorbed and stored in their tissues the extra
nutrients, but without producing more biomass. This physiological trait, luxury
consumption, occurs in some alpine and arctic plants, as well as in certain spring-flowering
ephemeral species (Chapin 1980; Körner 1999; Heer and Körner 2002); this characteristic
allows the plants to draw upon stored nutrients when they become more restricted in the
environment. However, nutrient addition often increases the activity of soil micro-
organisms. It has been shown that micro-organisms can absorb as much nutrients as (or
even more than) plants, and thus, contribute to immobilize nutrients significantly (Vitousek
and Matson 1985; Zak et al. 1992; Jonasson et al. 1996; Ostertag and Verville 2002). Such
nutrient immobilization may have been a factor constraining the response of plants to our
nutrient additions.
68
3.7.2 Richness At fine spatial scales of nutrient heterogeneity, species with fast growth rates tend to
monopolize resources, eliminating slower-growing species, thereby reducing local species
richness (Poorter 1999, in tropical forests; Hutchings et al. 2003, in grassland ecosystems).
In our study, there were no significant differences among treatments for total richness or for
the richness of the different functional groups: this result is consistent with that reported in
the previous section for cover.
Understory species tend to respond more slowly to habitat modification than open habitat
and forest edge species (Elemans 2004). These differing responses can be explained by
different clonal growth habits and contrasting seed dispersal mechanisms. Indeed, nutrient
foraging by the underground structures of the species that have a rapid growth rate (open
habitat and forest edge species) is characterised by a high morphological plasticity (Slade
and Hutchings 1987c; Wijesinghe and Hutchings 1997). Understory perennials typically
show much lower levels of plasticity. In addition, plants of open habitats and those of forest
edges produce numerous seeds and can efficiently colonize new habitats because of their
efficient modes of dispersal (Ostertag and Verville 2002). Many understory plants have one
major mechanism of seed dispersal, myrmecochory (Bierzychudek 1982), which does not
contribute to move seeds on long distances in contrast to wind (Thompson 1980; Duffy and
Meier 1992; Meier et al. 1995). Such limited dispersal ability might be an important factor
influencing the spatial distribution and recruitment of plants in the understory of temperate
forests (Ehrlen and Eriksson 2000; see also Hubbell et al. 1999, recruitment limitation in
tropical forests). Nevertheless, canopy gaps generally allow more light to reach the forest
floor (Lautenschlager et al. 2005). Several herbaceous pioneer species, which maintain a
persistent seed bank in the soil, rapidly colonise these “open” microhabitats (particularly
when they are associated with soil disturbances) and compete with understory perennials
for light and soil resources (Ehrenfeld 1980; Collins and Pickett 1987) with potential
effects on understory species richness. However, on our plots, light availability did not vary
significantly with the nutrient treatments and soil disturbances were absent: as a
consequence, there was no pioneer species in the understory.
69
In the present study, the spatial autocorrelation of total richness was significant and
indicated a mean patch size of ~ 40 cm, regardless of the nutrient addition treatment. Such
contagion can be explained by the low seed dispersal ability and the phalanx-type clonal
growth habit of the species, two factors that shape the composition of the understory
community of deciduous forests (Lovett Doust 1981; Loreau 2000; Jacquemyn et al. 2001).
3.7.3 Evenness At fine spatial scales of nutrient heterogeneity, species with fast growth rates tend to
monopolize resources, eliminating slower-growing species, thereby reducing local species
richness (Hutchings et al. 2003). Under such conditions, the community is more uniform
(i.e. characterized by a higher dominance) than one in a habitat divided into larger patches,
where low-nutrient patches represent refuges for slower-growing species. Yet, our results
contradict this prediction. Although there were no significant responses to our treatments,
in terms of species cover or richness, a higher evenness (i.e. lower dominance) was
detected for summer-flowering species at the finest scale of nutrient heterogeneity. This
result can be explained by a concordance between the spatial scale of the nutrient-rich
patches and the spatial scale of the root system of the species (Poorter 1999; Hutchings et
al. 2003), as well as by the species-specific root and rhizome morphology (Antos 1988;
Farley and Fitter 1999a; Wijesinghe and Whigham 2001).
Root system architecture, as well as the physiological and morphological plasticity of the
plants, varies with the quantity of nutrients in the environment (Hodge 2004). In fertile
patches, root systems search for nutrients locally; rhizomes are short and ramified to
capture the maximum amount of nutrients (Slade and Hutchings 1987b; Dong et al. 1997).
The influx of nutrients, through both the experimental nutrient additions and the senescence
of spring-flowering ephemeral species (Muller 1978; Lapointe 2001), might have caused a
spatial reorganization in the summer-flowering species. Indeed, while the root system of
some summer-flowering species is spatially restricted (e.g. Oxalis sp.) and can respond
only to fine-scale nutrient enrichment, that of species such as Rubus sp. and Stachys sp. is
more spread out, allowing for a more opportunistic response to spatially heterogeneous
nutrient availability (Farley and Fitter 1999a). Such an opportunistic root system enables
70
the plants to forage continuously for nutrient-rich patches to maintain growth (Antos 1988).
In the forest understory, complementary root growth strategies can explain the more even
distribution of production among species in a habitat in which nutrients are spatially
heterogeneous at a fine spatial scale (Slade and Hutchings 1987a; de Kroon and Hutchings
1995; Fransen et al. 1999; Tessier et al. 2001; Hodge 2006). Such a diversity in root growth
habit among summer-flowering species suggests finer niche differentiation and greater
ability of coexistence. However, in nature, nutrient-rich patches are short lived, lasting only
2 to 4 weeks, forcing plants to adjust rapidly through ramet, root, and rhizome proliferation
(Farley and Fitter 1999a).
3.7.4 Environmental variables Fertilizer treatments had no significant effects on soil pH or on soil organic matter content
in our experiment. This lack of response with respect to soil pH might be explained by the
type of fertilizer used, i.e. a slow-release fertilizer, and/or by the short duration of the study.
However, in southern Finland, Saarsalmi et al. (2001) reported an increase from 0.6 to 1.0
unit in soil pH, after 16 years of fertilization with wood ash. The lack of response with
respect to organic matter content might be explained by the high activity of soil micro-
organisms during the summer, when the soil samples were taken (Zak et al. 1992).
3.7.5 Caveats The lack of response in species richness, spatial autocorrelation of species richness, and
cover to our treatments might be explained by the relatively short period over which the
treatments were applied and/or by inadequate nutrient applications. However, Peace and
Grubb (1982) and Elemans (2004) recorded significant responses to short-term (only a few
months) fertilization treatments on herbaceous understory and forest edge species. On the
other hand, some studies have shown that species richness did not change significantly
following mid-term (4 years: Misson et al. 2001; 6 years Bauhus et al. 2001) or longer-term
(27 years: He and Barclay 2000) nutrient addition experiments in forest ecosystems.
Elemans (2004) found that the growth of perennial edge species responded significantly to
levels of fertilization (30 and 300 kg N ha-1 year-1) similar to those used in our experiment
71
(90 kg N ha-1 year-1). However, Bauhus et al. (2001) observed no response in the
understory species richness of a forest in the New South Wales, Australia, following
nutrient enrichment of 100 kg N ha-1. Our results are thus consistent with those reported
elsewhere and suggest that nutrient availability is not limiting for the understory flora of the
forests studied. The slow-growing understory species typical of the deciduous forests of
northeastern North America may have a very restricted ability to respond to fine-scale
heterogeneity in nutrient availability.
3.8 Acknowledgements The authors thank V. Bolduc-Tremblay, G. de Lafontaine, P. Désilets, G. Descôteaux, P.
Marchand, and F. Sahim for field assistance, and S. Boudreau, D. Gagnon, L. Lapointe, and
M.F. McKenna, for comments on an early version of the manuscript. This study was
financed by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through a
grant to G. Houle.
72
3.9 References cited Anderson, T. M., McNaughton, S. J. and Ritchie, M. E. 2004. Scale-dependent
relationships between the spatial distribution of a limiting resource and plant species diversity in an African grassland ecosystem. Oecologia 139: 277-287.
Antos, J. A. 1988. Underground morphology and habitat relationships of three pairs of
forest herbs. American Journal of Botany 75: 106-113. Barrow, N. J. and Jenkinson, D. S. 1962. The effect of water-logging on fixation of
nitrogen by soil incubated with straw. Plant and Soil 16: 258-262. Bauhus, J., Aubin, I., Messier, C. and Connell, M. 2001. Composition, structure, light
attenuation and nutrient content of the understorey vegetation in a Eucalyptus sieberi regrowth stand 6 years after thinning and fertilisation. Forest Ecology and Management 144: 275-286.
Beckage, B. and Clark, J. S. 2003. Seedling survival and growth of three forest tree species:
the role of spatial heterogeneity. Ecology 84: 1849-1861. Bierzychudek, P. 1982. Life histories and demography of shade-tolerant temperate forest
herbs: a review. New Phytologist 90: 757-776. Bliss, K. M., Jones, R. H., Mitchell, R. J. and Mou, P. P. 2002. Are competitive interactions
influenced by spatial nutrient heterogeneity and root foraging behavior? New Phytologist 154: 409-417.
Burghouts, T. B. A., van Straalen, N. M. and Bruijnzeel, L. A. 1998. Spatial heterogeneity
of element and litter turnover in a Bornean rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14: 477-506.
Casgrain, P., Legendre, P. and Vaudor, A. 2004. The R package for multidimensional and
spatial analysis. Version 4.0. Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec. Casper, B. B. and Cahill, J. J. F. 1998. Population-level responses to nutrient heterogeneity
and density by Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae): an experimental neighborhood approach. American Journal of Botany 85: 1680-1687.
Chapin, F. S. III. 1980. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 11: 233-260. Choinière, L. et Laplante, L. 1948. Étude des sols du Comté de Nicolet. Division des sols,
Ministère provincial de l'Agriculture, Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, comté de Kamouraska, Ministère de l'Agriculture et Ministère de l'industrie et du Commerce, Québec.
73
Collins, B. S. and Pickett, S. T. A. 1987. Influence of canopy opening on the environment
and herb layer in a northern hardwoods forest. Vegetatio 70: 3-10. Collins, B. S. and Wein, G. 1998. Soil resource heterogeneity effects on early succession.
Oikos 82: 238-245. Day, K. J., Hutchings, M. J. and John, E. 2003. The effects of spatial pattern of nutrient
supply on the early stages of growth in plant populations. Journal of Ecology 91: 305-315.
de Kroon, H. and Hutchings, M. J. 1995. Morphological plasticity in clonal plants: the
foraging concept reconsidered. Journal of Ecology 83: 143-152. Denslow, J. S., Schultz, J. C. and Vitousek, P. M. 1990. Growth responses of tropical
shrubs to treefall gap environments. Ecology 71: 165-179. Dong, M., During, H. J. and Werger, M. J. A. 1997. Clonal plasticity in response to nutrient
availability in the pseudoannual herb, Trientalis europaea L. Plant Ecology 131: 233-239.
Duffy, D. C. and Meier, A. J. 1992. Do Appalachian herbaceous understories ever recover
from clearcutting? Conservation Biology 6: 196-201. Ehrenfeld, J. G. 1980. Understory response to canopy gaps of varying size in a mature oak
forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 107: 29-41. Ehrlen, J. and Eriksson, O. 2000. Dispersal limitation and patch occupancy in forest herbs.
Ecology 81: 1667-1674. Eickmeier, W. G. and Schussler, E. E. 1993. Responses of the spring ephemeral Claytonia
virginica L. to light and nutrients manipulations and implications for the «vernal-dam» hypothesis. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 120: 157-168.
Elemans, M. 2004. Light, nutrients and the growth of herbaceous forest species. Acta
Oecologica 26: 197-202. Farley, R. A. and Fitter, A. H. 1999a. The responses of seven co-occurring woodland
herbaceous perennials to localized nutrient-rich patches. Journal of Ecology 87: 849-859.
Farley, R. A. and Fitter, A. H. 1999b. Temporal and spatial variation in soil resources in a
deciduous woodland. Journal of Ecology 87: 688-696. Fitter, A. H. 1982. Influence of soil heterogeneity on the coexistence of grassland species.
Journal of Ecology 70: 139-148.
74
Fransen, B., Blijjenberg, J. and de Kroon, H. 1999. Root morphological and physiological
plasticity of perennial grass species and the exploitation of spatial and temporal heterogeneous nutrient patches. Plant and Soil 211: 179-189.
Garnier, P., Néel, C., Aita, C., Recous, S., Lafolie, F. et Mary, B. 2003. Modelling carbon
and nitrogen dynamics in a bare soil with and without straw incorporation. European Journal of Soil Science 54: 555-568.
Gilliam, F. S. and Turrill, N. L. 1993. Herbaceous layer cover and biomass in a young
versus a mature stand of a central Appalachian hardwood forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 120: 445-450.
Gómez, J. M., Valladares, F. and Puerta-Piñero, C. 2004. Differences between structural
and functional environmental heterogeneity caused by seed dispersal. Functional Ecology 18: 787-792.
Gough, L., Osenberg, C. W., Gross, K. L. and Collins, S. L. 2000a. Fertilization effects on
species density and primary productivity in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 89: 428-439.
Gough, L., Shaver, G. R., Carroll, J., Royer, D. L. and Laundre, J. A. 2000b. Vascular plant
species richness in Alaskan arctic tundra: the importance of soil pH. Journal of Ecology 88: 54-66.
Hammer, R. D., O'Brian, R. G. and Lewis, R. J. 1987. Temporal and spatial soil variability
on three forest land types on the mid-Cumberland Plateau. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51: 1320-1326.
He, F. and Barclay, H. 2000. Long-term response of understory plant species to thinning
and fertilization in a Douglas-fir plantation on southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 566-572.
Heer, C. and Körner, C. 2002. High elevation pioneer plants are sensitive to mineral
nutrient addition. Basic and Applied Ecology 3: 39-47. Hodge, A. 2004. The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients.
New Phytologist 162: 9-24. Hodge, A. 2006. Plastic plants and patchy soils. Journal of Experimental Botany 57: 401-
411. Hubbell, S. P., Foster, R. B., O'Brien, S. T., Harms, K. E., Condit, R., Wechsler, B.,
Wright, S. J., and Lao, S. Loo de. 1999. Light-gap disturbances, recruitment limitation, and tree diversity in a neotropical forest. Science 283: 554-558.
75
Huston, M. A. 1980. Soil nutrients and tree species richness in Costa Rican forests. Journal of Biogeography 7: 147-157.
Hutchings, M. J., John, E. A. and Wijesinghe, D. K. 2003. Toward understanding the
consequences of soil heterogeneity for plant populations and communities. Ecology 84: 2322-2334.
Jacquemyn, H., Butaye, J. 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: 801-812.
Jonasson, S., Michelsen, A., Schmidt, I. K., Nielsen, E. V. and Callaghan, T. V. 1996.
Microbial biomass C, N and P in two arctic soils and responses to addition of NPK fertilizer and sugar: implications for plant nutrient uptake. Oecologia 106: 507-515.
Kato, S. and Komiyama, A. 2002. Spatial and seasonal heterogeneity in understory light
conditions caused by differential leaf flushing of deciduous overstory trees. Ecological Research 17: 687-693.
Kieft, T. L. 1994. Grazing and plant-canopy effects on semiarid soil microbial biomass and
respiration. Biology and Fertility of Soils 18: 155-162. Kleb, H. R. and Wilson, S. D. 1997. Vegetation effects on soil resource heterogeneity in
prairie and forest. American Naturalist 150: 283-298. Körner, C. 1999. Alpine Plant Life: Functional Plant Ecology of High Mountain
Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. Lapointe, L. 2001. How phenology influences physiology in deciduous forest spring
ephemerals. Physiologia Plantarum 113: 151-157. Lautenschlager, R. A., Pedlar, J. H. and Nielsen, C. M. 2005. Ice storm damage: Effects of
competition and fertilization on near-ground vegetation. Forestry Chronicle 79: 54-62.
Legendre, P. and Fortin, M.-J. 1989. Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80:
107-138. Lister, A. J., Mou, P. P., Jones, R. H. and Mitchell, R. J. 2000. Spatial patterns of soil and
vegetation in a 40-year-old slash pine (Pinus elliottii) forest in the coastal plain of South Carolina, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 145-155.
Loreau, M. 2000. Are communities saturated? On the relationship between alpha, beta and
gamma diversity. Ecology Letters 3: 73-76.
76
Lovett Doust, L. 1981. Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal perennial (Ranunculus repens): II. The dynamics of leaves, and a reciprocal transplant-replant experiment. Journal of Ecology 69: 757-768.
Lundholm, J. T. and Larson, D. W. 2003. Relationships between spatial environmental
heterogeneity and plant species diversity on a limestone pavement. Ecography 26: 715-722.
Marie-Victorin, F. 1995. Flore laurentienne. 3rd edition. Les Presses de l’Université de
Montréal, Montréal, Québec. Meekins, J. F. and McCarthy, B. C. 2000. Responses of the biennial forest herb Alliaria
petiolata to variation in population density, nutrient addition and light availability. Journal of Ecology 88: 447-463.
Meier, A. J., Bratton, S. P. and Duffy, D. C. 1995. Possible ecological mechanisms for loss
of vernal-herb diversity in logged eastern deciduous forests. Ecological Applications 5: 935-946.
Misson, L., de Warnaffe, G. and Jonard, M. 2001. Effects of fertilization on the vascular
ground vegetation of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Lieb.) stands. Annals of Forest Science 58: 829-842.
Muller, R. N. 1978. The phenology, growth and ecosystem dynamics of Erythronium
americanum in the northern hardwood forest. Ecological Monographs 48: 1-20. Nilsson, C., Ekblad, A., Dynesius, M., Backe, S., Gardfjell, M., Carlberg, B., Hellqviist, S.
and Jansson, R. 1994. A comparison of species richness and traits of riparian plants between a main river channel and its tributaries. Journal of Ecology 82: 281-295.
Ostertag, R. and Verville, J. H. 2002. Fertilization with nitrogen and phosphorus increases
abundance of non-native species in Hawaiian montane forests. Plant Ecology 162: 77-90.
Peace, W. J. H. and Grubb, P. J. 1982. Interaction of light and mineral nutrient supply in
the growth of Impatiens parviflora. New Phytologist 90: 127-150. Poorter, L. 1999. Growth responses of 15 rain-forest tree species to a light gradient: the
relative importance of morphological and physiological traits. Functional Ecology 13: 396-410.
Reynolds, H. L., Hungate, B. A., Chapin, F. S. III and D'Antonio, C. M. 1997. Soil
heterogeneity and plant competition in an annual grassland. Ecology 78: 2076-2090. Ricklefs, R. E. 1977. Environmental heterogeneity and plant species diversity: a
hypothesis. American Naturalist: 376-381.
77
Roberts, M. R. and Zhu, L. 2002. Early response of the herbaceous layer to harvesting in a
mixed coniferous-deciduous forest in New Brunswick, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 155: 17-31.
Roem, W. J. and Berendse, F. 2000. Soil acidity and nutrient supply ratio as possible
factors determining changes in plant species diversity in grassland and heathland communities. Biological Conservation 92: 151-161.
Rothstein, D. E. 2000. Spring ephemeral herbs and nitrogen cycling in a northern hardwood
forest: an experimental test of the vernal dam hypothesis. Oecologia 124: 446-453. Rowe, J. S. 1972. Les régions forestières du Canada. Ministère de l'Environnement, Service
canadien des forêts. Publication N° 1300F, Ottawa, Ontario. Saarsalmi, A., Mälkönene, E. and Piirainen, S. 2001. Effects of wood ash fertilization on
forest soil chemical properties. Silva Fennica 35: 355-368. Scheller, R. M. and Mladenoff, D. J. 2002. Understory species patterns and diversity in old-
growth and managed northern hardwood forests. Ecological Applications 12: 1329-1343.
Slade, A. J. and Hutchings, M. J. 1987a. An analysis of the costs and benefits of
physiological integration between ramets in the clonal perennial herb Glechoma hederacea. Oecologia 73: 425-431.
Slade, A. J. and Hutchings, M. J. 1987b. Clonal integration and plasticity in foraging
behaviour in Glechoma hederacea. Journal of Ecology 75: 1023-1036. Slade, A. J. and Hutchings, M. J. 1987c. The effects of nutrient availability on foraging in
the clonal herb Glechoma hederacea. Journal of Ecology 75: 95-112. Small, C. J. and McCarthy, B. C. 2005. Relationship of understory diversity to soil
nitrogen, topographic variation, and stand age in an eastern oak forest, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 217: 229-243.
Sollins, P. 1998. Factors influencing species composition in tropical lowland rain forest:
does soil matter? Ecology 79: 23-30. Stevens, M. H. H. and Carson, W. P. 2002. Resource quantity, not resource heterogeneity,
maintains plant diversity. Ecology Letters 5: 420-426. Tessier, J. T., McNaughton, S. J. and Raynal, D. J. 2001. Influence of nutrient availability
and tree wildling density on nutrient uptake by Oxalis acetosella and Acer saccharum. Environmental and Experimental Botany 45: 11-20.
78
Tews, J., Brose, U., Grimm, V., Tielbörger, K., Wichmann, M. C., Schwager, M. and Jeltsch, F. 2004. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography 31: 79-92.
Thompson, J. N. 1980. Treefalls and colonization patterns of temperate forest herbs.
American Midland Naturalist 104: 176-184. Titus, J. H., Nowak, R. S. and Smith, S. D. 2002. Soil resource heterogeneity in the Mojave
Desert. Journal of Arid Environments 52: 269-292. Vitousek, P. M. and Matson, P. A. 1985. Disturbance, nitrogen availability, and nitrogen
losses in an intensively managed loblolly pine plantation. Ecology 66: 1360-1376. Whigham, D. F. 2004. Ecology of woodland herbs in temperate deciduous forests. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35: 583-621. Wijesinghe, D. K. and Hutchings, M. J. 1997. The effects of spatial scale of environmental
heterogeneity on the growth of a clonal plant: an experimental study with Glechoma hederacea. Journal of Ecology 85: 17-28.
Wijesinghe, D. K., John, E. and Hutchings, M. J. 2005. Does pattern of soil resource
heterogeneity determine plant community structure? An experimental investigation. Journal of Ecology 93: 99-112.
Wijesinghe, D. K. and Whigham, D. F. 2001. Nutrient foraging in woodland herbs: a
comparison of three species of Uvularia (Liliaceae) with contrasting belowground morphologies. American Journal of Botany 88: 1071-1079.
Zak, J. C., Fresquez, P. R. and Visser, S. 1992. Soil microbial processes and dynamics:
their importance to effective reclamation. In G. L. Wade and J. C. Chambers (eds.), Evaluating Reclamation Success: The Ecological Considerations. General Technical Report NE-164, USDA Forest Service, pp. 3-36.
CHAPITRE 4 – Plant community response to species losses in the understory of cold-temperate deciduous forests in south-eastern Canada.
4.1 Avant-Propos Le texte de ce chapitre a été soumis à la revue Oikos.
4.2 Résumé La richesse taxonomique et la richesse fonctionnelle contribuent à la stabilité et à la
pérennité des écosystèmes, particulièrement dans des environnements variables. La perte
d’un groupe fonctionnel peut modifier le rôle des autres groupes d’espèces dans une
fonction donnée, par exemple la productivité. Nous avons testé cette hypothèse en
éradiquant, à tour de rôle, différents groupes fonctionnels de la flore du sous-bois dans trois
fragments forestiers de la région des Bois-Francs, dans le centre du Québec (est du
Canada). Le protocole expérimental incluait un témoin (aucune éradication) et cinq
traitements d’éradication d’un groupe fonctionnel. Cinq groupes fonctionnels ont été
définis, principalement en fonction de leur phénologie : espèces printanières éphémères,
espèces printanières persistantes, espèces estivales, fougères, et plantules et juvéniles des
espèces ligneuses. La richesse, le couvert, l’équitabilité et certains facteurs
environnementaux (irradiance, pH et contenu en matière organique du sol) ont été suivis
durant deux ans. Comme il fallait s’y attendre, les résultats de notre expérience révèlent que
la contribution directe de chacun des cinq groupes fonctionnels à la richesse spécifique, au
couvert et à l’équitabilité est positive. Par contre, la richesse spécifique observée est
significativement plus faible que celle à laquelle on s’attendait suite à l’éradication des
espèces printanières persistantes ou des plantules et des juvéniles des espèces ligneuses,
suggérant non seulement un effet positif direct mais également un effet positif indirect de
l’un et l’autre de ces deux groupes sur la richesse totale (par leurs effets sur certains des
autres groupes fonctionnels). L’éradication des plantules et des juvéniles des espèces
ligneuses résulte en une diminution du couvert des espèces estivales, mettant en évidence le
79
80
rôle positif du premier groupe sur le second. L’éradication des espèces estivales mène à une
équitabilité plus élevée que celle à laquelle on se serait attendue, soulignant l’influence
négative indirecte de ce groupe sur l’équitabilité totale (par leurs effets sur certains des
autres groupes fonctionnels). De plus, l’éradication des espèces printanières éphémères ou
des espèces printanières persistantes contribue à réduire l’équitabilité des fougères, révélant
le rôle positif des deux groupes d’espèces printanières sur la répartition du couvert entre les
différentes espèces de fougères. Toutefois, durant la période estivale, les fougères ne
semblent pas être capables de compétitionner avec les espèces estivales pour l’acquisition
de ressources du sol. Ces résultats suggèrent que les différents groupes fonctionnels ne sont
pas strictement indépendants les uns des autres mais, plutôt, qu’ils sont interconnectés.
Bien que nous n’ayons pas étudié les mécanismes spécifiques responsables des réponses
décrites ici, nous suggérons que de multiples interactions interspécifiques peuvent conduire
à une plus grande différenciation des niches entre les différents groupes fonctionnels et que
ceci peut favoriser la coexistence des espèces.
4.3 Abstract Both taxonomic species richness and functional species richness contribute to the stability
and persistence of ecosystems, particularly in changing environments. The loss of a given
functional group may alter the role that other groups play in a specific function, e.g.
productivity. We tested this hypothesis by removing different functional groups from the
understory of three maple-dominated forest fragments in southern Québec (Canada). The
experimental design included a control (no removal) and five removal treatments. Five
functional groups were defined, mostly with respect to their phenology: spring-flowering
ephemeral species, spring-flowering persistent species, summer-flowering species, ferns,
and seedlings and juveniles of woody species. Species richness, cover, and evenness, and
major environmental variables (irradiance, soil pH, and soil organic matter content) were
followed over two years. The results of our experiment revealed that, as expected, the direct
contribution of each one of the five functional groups to species richness, cover, and
evenness was positive. However, observed species richness was significantly lower than we
expected when spring-flowering persistent species or seedlings and juveniles of woody
81
species were removed, suggesting not only direct, but also indirect positive effects of both
of these groups on total richness (through effects on some of the other functional groups).
Removal of the seedlings and juveniles of woody species lead to a decrease in the cover of
summer-flowering species, implying a significant positive effect of the former group on the
latter. Observed evenness was significantly higher than expected when summer-flowering
species were removed, a result that reveals indirect negative effects of this group on total
evenness (through effects on some of the other functional groups). In addition, when
spring-flowering ephemeral or spring-flowering persistent species were removed, evenness
among fern species decreased, revealing the positive effect of both groups of spring-
flowering species on fern evenness. However, in summer, a competition between ferns and
summer-flowering species seems to exist, and summer-flowering species seem to have an
advantage in the capture of nutrients. These results suggest that the different functional
groups are not strictly independent from one another but, rather, that they are strongly
interconnected. Although we have not investigated the specific mechanisms responsible for
the responses reported here, we suggest that complex interspecific interactions may lead to
increased niche differentiation among the different functional groups of the forest
understory, and this, in turn, may favour species coexistence.
4.4 Introduction Taxonomic plant richness (number of taxa) and functional plant richness (number of
functional groups) are two of the determinants of primary production in terrestrial
ecosystems, along with e.g. disturbance regime, climate, and soil fertility (Naeem et al.
1999; Díaz and Cabido 2001; Hooper et al. 2002; Symstad et al. 2003; Wardle and
Zackrisson 2005). These components of diversity allow ecosystems to resist change and/or
to re-establish essential functions following disturbances (Johnson et al. 1996; Tilman et al.
1996).
Species that have similar physiological, morphological and/or phenological characteristics
can be placed into groups (Naeem et al. 1999) and can be said to be functionally redundant
within these groups. Thus, the loss of one or a few species within a group can be
compensated for by the presence of other functionally similar species (Wardle et al. 1999;
82
Loreau et al. 2001). Although the loss of a given species can embrittle an ecosystem
function, ecosystem persistence can still be maintained because of such functional
redundancy.
Because of their distinct physiological, morphological, and/or phenological characteristics,
functional groups can partition resources among themselves (Fitter 1982; Hooper et al.
2002); such resource partitioning may contribute to reduce competitive exclusion
(Cardinale et al. 2000) and to increase overall ecosystem production (Tilman 1997).
However, the loss of a given functional group can have negative effects on an ecosystem
and may even lead to a slowing-down or a collapse in its functioning. While trying to
determine the consequences of the loss of groups of species on the functioning of
ecosystems, several studies have shown two opposing properties of functional groups,
namely their complementarity and their dominance (Naeem et al. 1999; Wardle et al. 1999;
Cardinale et al. 2000; Díaz and Cabido 2001). In fact, these two properties are believed to
be largely responsible for the specific form of the relationship between diversity and
productivity (Mittelbach et al. 2001; Tilman et al. 2002; Symstad et al. 2003).
Many studies have shown that a decrease of either taxonomic or functional richness can
alter ecosystem properties and/or functions (Naeem et al. 1995; Wardle et al. 1999; Loreau
et al. 2001; Symstad and Tilman 2001). However, several of these studies have been
performed under controlled conditions, with synthetic, simplified assemblages (Tilman et
al. 1997; Symstad et al. 1998; Hector et al. 1999; Naeem 2001; Hooper et al. 2002). In
these, richness was manipulated (independent variable) and ecosystem response was
measured through changes in primary production (Lepš 2004). From their review of the
literature on the subject, Loreau et al. (2001) concluded that the relationship between
richness and ecosystem functions could be shown under natural conditions using two
approaches: (1) an experimental approach, e.g., one in which species or groups of species
are removed, and (2) a comparative approach, e.g. one in which factors other than richness
(biogeochemical processes, niche complementarity for better nutrients use, or interspecific
interactions) are controlled (Huston 1997; Wardle et al. 1999; Troumbis and Memtsas
2000; Buonopane et al. 2005).
83
In the present study, we follow the recommendations of Loreau et al. (2001) and use an
experimental approach, based on the removal of functionally-similar species, to elucidate
the relationship between richness and ecosystem functions and properties. Our objective is
to determine how the loss of a group of species can affect the structural and functional
properties of the understory, in three forest patches in Québec (southern-eastern Canada).
Our study is based on the premise that functional groups are strictly independent and on the
null hypothesis that the loss of a functional group will not have significant deleterious
effects on the other groups and on ecosystem functions and properties.
4.5 Material and Methods
4.5.1 Study site description Our experiment was conducted in three forest fragments of the Bois-Francs region, two at
Saint-Grégoire (46°17.820' N, 72°30.740'; 46°17.525' N, 72°31.076' W) and one at Sainte-
Françoise (46°29.341' N, 71°56.156' W), on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River,
between Trois-Rivières and Québec, Québec, Canada. The dominant overstory species is
sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.), with American linden (Tilia americana L.), yellow
birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis L.), and balsam
fir (Abies balsamea L). The region is part of the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence forest region of
Rowe (1972), sub-section Mid (L-2) and High St. Lawrence (L-3).
At the nearby Trois-Rivières and Québec weather stations, average annual precipitation
totals 1099.8 mm (24% as snow) and 1230.3 mm (38% as snow), respectively, and annual
daily mean temperature is 4.9°C and 4.0°C, respectively (URL:
www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca). The soils of the region are mostly brunisols except in
low areas, which are characterized by gleysols (Choinière and Laplante 1948).
All three forest fragments have been lightly managed for sap over several years, although
one of the sites at Saint-Grégoire is protected by the Québec government and has not been
exploited since at least 1975. Site selection was based on the following criteria: relatively
uniform topographical features; easy road access; plant species richness representative of
84
the region; different functional groups present; permission (from the owners or the Québec
government) to carry out the experiment.
4.5.2 Sampling protocol and variables measured In the summer of 2003, we established 30 2 x 2-m plots at each of the three study sites
(similar species composition and absence of woody plants > 1 m in height). Each species
present on the sites was assigned to one of five functional groups (Table 4.1), based
principally on its flowering period: spring-flowering ephemeral species (SE); spring-
flowering persistent species (SP); summer-flowering species (SM); ferns (FE); and
seedlings and juveniles of woody species (TS). We considered SE separately from SP
because of the important role they play in the nutrient dynamics of deciduous forests.
Indeed, SE are believed to store in their tissues the nutrients flushed into the system during
snowmelt and to release them slowly as they senesce (vernal dam hypothesis; Eickmeier
and Schussler 1993; Lapointe 2001).
Table 4.1 Functional groups, symbols, and examples of species in the different groups.
Functional groups Symbols Examples of species
Spring-flowering ephemeral species SE Claytonia caroliniana, Erythronium americanum
Spring-flowering persistent species SP Aralia nudicaulis, Arisaema atrorubens, Trillium spp.
Summer-flowering species SM Carex spp., Circaea sp., Poa spp., Solidago spp.
Fern species FE Dryopteris spp., Onoclea sensibilis, Osmunda spp.
Seedlings/juveniles of woody species TS Acer spp., Fagus grandifolia, Tilia americana
85
The interest in considering FE and TS comes from the significant role that they play in
ecosystem productivity and in competition with herbaceous species.
For the experiment, we chose 18 plots per site, the most similar in terms of species
composition and topography, among the 30 initially marked. Within site, plots were
grouped in three blocks on the basis of their spatial proximity, and treatments were
randomly assigned to the plots within each block. The treatments were as follows: control
(L0, no removal, L to Loss); removal of spring-flowering ephemeral species (LSE);
removal of spring-flowering persistent species (LSP); removal of summer-flowering
species (LSM); removal of ferns (LFE); removal of seedlings and juveniles of woody
species (LTS). Only aboveground parts were removed to avoid soil disturbance. Removals
took place twice monthly, between May and August, in 2004 and in 2005.
We are aware that the persistence of underground structures (bulbs, rhizomes, or corms)
and an increase in the decomposition of roots following the removal of aboveground parts
may influence the responses to our removal treatments. However, the method we used is
common in the literature and offers the advantage of avoiding the confounding effects of
soil disturbances to species removal (Wardle et al. 1999; Buonopane et al. 2005; Wardle
and Zackrisson 2005).
4.5.3 Biological variables Floristic surveys (vascular plants ≤ 1 m in height) were done three times in 2005: in early
May, in mid-July, and at the end of August. Each plot (4 m2) was divided into two sections.
A buffer zone (20 cm; 1.44 m2) was established at the periphery of each plot (Fig. 4.1) to
avoid trampling effects and no data were collected from this zone. The central section of
each plot (1.60 x 1.60; 2.56 m2) was divided into 256 cells of 100 cm2 each (Fig. 4.1). In
each cell, all understory species present were recorded.
Species-specific cover values for each plot were estimated as the frequency of 100-cm2
cells (over 256) in which a given species was present. Percent cover (C) per functional
group (CSE, CSP, CSM, CFE, and CTS) and total percent cover (Ctot) were calculated as
86
the sum of the species-specific cover values for each plot to estimate production. As three
surveys were done in 2005, the maximum species-specific cover value was used for each
species to estimate maximum annual production. An evenness index, H, was calculated for
each functional group (HSE, HSP, HSM, HFE, and HTS) and for all species (Htot) from
the cover data using the formula H = - Σ pi ln pi, where pi represents the cover proportion of
species i in relation to total cover. Species richness (R) per functional group (RSE, RSP,
RSM, RFE, and RTS) and total species richness (Rtot) were also determined for each plot.
Figure 4.1 Experimental set up to record plant cover and diversity in each 4 m2 plot.
4.5.4 Environmental variables In each plot, four soil samples (each of 90.75 cm3, to a soil depth of 10 cm) were collected
in July 2005. All samples were collected after a period of 2-3 days without rain. In the
laboratory, each sample was passed through a 2-mm-mesh sieve to remove roots, twigs,
87
and stones, and then dried for 24 hours at 75°C. Soil pH was measured in a 1:1 soil:water
solution using a pH-meter. Soil organic matter (SOM) was estimated as percent mass loss
on ignition (10 ml of soil at 450 °C for 5 hours).
Four irradiance readings per plot were taken at 0.5-1 m from the ground between 10h and
14h, on sunny, cloudless days at the end of July 2005 using a portable radiometer (Licor,
Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska, USA).
4.5.5 Data analysis Total species richness, for the pre-experimental data set of 2003, was analysed with a
randomized complete block design ANOVA.
Total species richness, the species richness of each functional group, total cover, and the
cover of each functional group, for each 4 m2 plot, were analysed with randomized
complete block design ANOVAs. For the three environmental variables, i.e. light, soil
organic matter content, and soil pH, a mean value (which integrated the spatial variability
of each variable) was calculated from the four measurements taken on each plot. These
abiotic variables were also analyzed with randomized complete block design ANOVAs.
Total species richness and total cover in any given removal treatment (LSE, LSP, LSM,
LFE, LTS) may be expected to be lower than in the control (L0), simply because species
are removed. Thus, we calculated an expected value of total species richness and total
cover, for each removal treatment, by subtracting the richness or cover of a given species
group from the total species richness or total cover of each control plot. For example, for
the expected total species richness of an LSE quadrat: RtotLSE = RtotL0 – RSEL0. A paired t-
test (n = 9, since we had a total of 9 control plots) was used to determine the significance of
the differences between the observed and the expected values, i.e. to determine if a removal
treatment had a significant positive or negative effect on the variable of interest. We
similarly calculated expected values for total species evenness. However, the procedure for
evenness was a bit more complex: indeed, evenness represents at the same time a structural
component (richness) and a functional component (cover) of the understory.
88
The experimental design was made up of six treatments per block, three blocks per site, and
three sites. The sources of variation were sites (random), blocks within site (random),
treatments (fixed), and the interaction between treatments and sites (fixed), as well as an
experiment-wise error term. Differences between treatments for the environmental
variables, species richness, cover, and evenness were located using protected LSD (least
significant difference) when the ANOVAs indicated significant differences among
treatments at α < 0.05. The statistical package SAS version 6.12 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary,
NC, USA) was used for all ANOVAs.
4.6. Results
4.6.1. Pre-experimental data (2003) In 2003, before the experiment began, total species richness differed significantly among
sites (F = 257.71; P < 0.0001), but not among treatments (F = 0.95, P = 0.4635). This latter
result indicates that plots were initially similar within sites and validates our randomization
procedure within blocks.
4.6.2. Experimental data (2005)
4.6.2.1. Richness, cover, and evenness Species richness for all sites combined was dominated by herbaceous species (56 species,
representing > 75% of the total pool), whereas only 14 tree and 4 shrub species were
recorded (Table 4.2). The mean number of species per site was 47.0 ± 11.3 (mean ± SD).
The most important difference in species composition among sites was observed at Sainte-
Françoise, which had 26 summer-flowering (SM) species (in comparison to 13 and 16 for
Saint-Grégoire 1 and Saint-Grégoire 2, respectively; Table 4.2b).
The ANOVAs indicated that total species richness differed significantly among treatments
(P < 0.001; Table 4.3): the control (L0) had the highest, but the LTS treatment (removal of
seedlings/juveniles of woody) the lowest total species richness (Fig. 4.2). Observed total
89
species richness was significantly lower than expected total species richness for the LSP
and LTS treatments (P = 0.0304 and P = 0.0232, respectively; Table 4.4), but it was
marginally higher for the LSM treatment (P = 0.0907).
Table 4.2 Species richness for the three sites combined and for each site (data from 2005) according to functional group (SE: spring-flowering ephemeral species; SP: spring-flowering persistent species; SM: summer-flowering species; FE: ferns; TS: seedlings and juveniles of woody species; Total: all species combined).
Sites Functional groups All three sites
combined Sainte-
Françoise Saint-
Grégoire 1 Saint-
Grégoire 2 SE 3 3 3 3 SP 14 11 8 8 SM 30 26 13 16 FE 9 7 3 6 TS 18 13 13 8
Total 74 60 40 41
There was a notable effect of our treatments on SM richness (marginally significant at P =
0.058; Table 4.3): indeed, SM richness was low in the plots in which spring-flowering
persistent species (SP), ferns (FE), or seedlings and juveniles of woody species (TS) had
been removed (Fig. 4.2). There were no significant differences among treatments in the
richness of spring-flowering ephemeral species (SE), SP, FE, or TS (all P values > 0.05;
Table 4.3, Fig. 4.2).
Table 4.3 F-values (in parentheses, P-values) from the ANOVAs for the effects of site (df = 2) and treatment (df = 5 for Rtot, SA, Ctot, Htot, soil ph, soil organic matter content, and irradiance; df = 4 for the other variables) and for their interaction (df = 10 for Rtot, SA, Ctot, Htot, pH, SOM, and irradiance; df = 8 for the other variables) on the variables studied. Rtot: total richness; RSE, RSP, RSM, RFE, RTS: richness of spring-flowering ephemeral species, spring-flowering persistent species, summer-flowering species, ferns, and seedlings and juveniles of woody species, respectively; Ctot: total cover; CSE, CSP, CSM, CFE, and CTS: cover of spring-flowering ephemeral species, spring-flowering persistent species, summer-flowering species, ferns, and seedlings and juveniles of woody species, respectively; Htot: evenness of all species; HSE, HSP, HSM, HFE, and HTS: evenness of spring-flowering ephemeral species, spring-flowering persistent species, summer-flowering species, ferns, and seedlings and juveniles of woody species, respectively. Significant values are in boldface characters.
Effects Variables
Site Treatment Site x treatment Rtot 189.16 (<0.001) 5.92 (<0.001) 1.52 (0.181) RSE 4.27 (0.070) 0.28 (0.884) 1.35 (0.264) RSP 62.60 (<0.001) 0.77 (0.556) 3.20 (0.013) RSM 30.05 (<0.001) 2.64 (0.058) 2.26 (0.058) RFE 25.55 (0.001) 1.34 (0.286) 0.58 (0.779) RTS 10.55 (0.011) 0.53 (0.713) 0.99 (0.468) Ctot 50.08 (<0.001) 2.89 (0.030) 1.20 (0.327) CSE 6.15 (0.035) 0.31 (0.864) 0.53 (0.823) CSP 47.53 (<0.001) 0.48 (0.746) 0.40 (0.909) CSM 4.05 (0.071) 2.81 (0.048) 2.42 (0.045) CFE 24.33 (0.001) 1.37 (0.273) 2.02 (0.087) CTS 29.17 (<0.001) 0.82 (0.519) 0.74 (0.655) Htot 33.63 (<0.001) 2.33 (0.067) 1.43 (0.212) HSE 9.73 (0.013) 2.05 (0.118) 1.29 (0.291) HSP 34.74 (<0.001) 1.73 (0.177) 0.33 (0.942) HSM 6.53 (0.031) 0.57 (0.683) 0.79 (0.609) HFE 26.28 (0.001) 3.14 (0.033) 1.85 (0.115) HTS 13.23 (0.006) 0.70 (0.595) 0.37 (0.924)
Soil pH 5.92 (0.038) 1.53 (0.210) 1.00 (0.460) Soil organic
matter content
5.11 (0.051) 1.30 (0.289) 0.44 (0.910)
Irradiance 0.59 (0.581) 0.83 (0.534) 1.10 (0.393)
90
91
Table 4.4 Observed and expected1 total richness (Rtot), total cover (Ctot), and total evenness (Htot) as a function of treatment (LSE: removal of spring-flowering ephemeral species; LSP: removal of spring-flowering persistent species; LSM: removal of summer-flowering species; LFE: removal of ferns; LTS: removal of seedlings and juveniles of woody species). Mean ± SD (n = 9). Different letters indicate significant differences between the observed and expected values for each treatment (P < 0.05; paired t-test).
Treatments Rtot LSE LSP LSM LFE LTS Observed 12.9 ± 6.8 10.3 ± 4.1a 12.2 ± 5.2 11.8 ± 4.6 9.7 ± 4.6a Expected 13.6 ± 5.1 12.6 ± 4.1b 10.4 ± 3.0 13.2 ± 4.9 12.0 ± 4.7b
Treatments Ctot LSE LSP LSM LFE LTS Observed 329.2 ± 148.9 291.6 ± 143.2 292.9 ± 153.7 250.9 ± 102.5 267.8 ± 128.1 Expected 308.8 ± 147.2 340.3 ± 128.7 246.3 ± 127.3 262.5 ± 124.6 298.6 ± 125.0
Treatments Htot LSE LSP LSM LFE LTS Observed 1.4 ± 0.7 1.6 ± 0.4 1.7 ± 0.3b 1.4 ± 0.4 1.6 ± 0.3 Expected 1.6 ± 0.4 1.7 ± 0.4 1.6 ± 0.5a 1.6 ± 0.4 1.6 ± 0.4
1 The expected value for the richness of the LSE treatment was calculated as follows: expected Rtot(LSE) = Rtot(L0) - RSE(L0), with Rtot(L0) and RSE(L0) representing total richness and richness of spring ephemeral species (SE) on control quadrat (L0), respectively. Expected values of richness, cover, and evenness for the other treatments were similarly calculated from the data of SP (spring-flowering persistent species), SM (summer-flowering species), FE (fern), and TS (seedlings and juveniles of woody species).
Figure 4.2 Total richness (Rtot) and functional group richness (RSE: spring-flowering ephemeral species; RSP: spring-flowering persistent species; RSM: summer-flowering species; RFE: fern species; and RTS: seedlings and juveniles of woody species) for each treatment. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments for each variable (P < 0.05, protected LSD). Mean + SD.
TOT
0
5
10
15
20
25
SE
0
1
2
3
SP
0
2
4
6
8
a b
cdbc bcd
d
TOT
0
5
10
15
20
25
SE
0
1
2
3
SP
0
2
4
6
8
a b
cdbc bcd
d
SM
0
2
4
6
8
10
FE
0
1
2
3
4
5
TS
0
2
4
6
8
L0 LSE LSP LSM LFE LTS
SM
0
2
4
6
8
10
FE
0
1
2
3
4
5
TS
0
2
4
6
8
L0 LSE LSP LSM LFE LTS
Spec
ies r
ichn
ess
Treatments
92
There were significant differences among treatments for the variable ‘total cover’ (P =
0.030, Table 4.3): indeed, total cover was higher in the control (L0), but lower in the LSP,
LSM, LFE, and LTS treatments (Fig. 4.3). There were, however, no significant differences
between the expected and the observed values of total cover for any of the removal
treatments, although observed cover was much lower than expected in the LSP treatment
(marginally significant at P = 0.1015; Table 4.4). The cover of SM differed significantly
among treatments (P = 0.048; Table 4.3): there was a marked decrease of SM cover when
SP, but particularly when TS were removed (Fig. 4.3). However, the treatment x site
interaction indicated that the intensity of the treatment effect on SM cover varied with site
(P = 0.045; Table 4.3). No significant differences were detected among treatments in the
cover of the other functional groups (all P values > 0.05; Table 4.3, Fig. 4.3).
Total evenness (marginally significant at P = 0.067) varied among treatments (Table 4.3): it
was somewhat higher in the control (L0) than in the five removal treatments, particularly
than in the treatments in which SE or FE had been removed (Fig. 4.4). Observed total
evenness was significantly higher than expected total evenness in the LSM treatment (P =
0.0036, Table 4.4), indicating that production (i.e. cover) was more evenly distributed
among species when SM were removed. FE evenness (P = 0.033) differed among
treatments (Table 4.3): it was the highest in LSM, but the lowest in LSE and LSP (Fig. 4.4).
However, there was no significant difference among treatments for the evenness of the
other functional groups (Table 4.3, Fig. 4.3).
93
Figure 4.3 Total cover (Ctot) and functional group cover (CSE: spring-flowering ephemeral species; CSP: spring-flowering persistent species; CSM: summer-flowering species; CFE: fern species; and CTS: seedlings and juveniles of woody species) for each treatment. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments for each variable (P < 0.05, protected LSD). Mean + SD.
TOT
0
150
300
450
600 a ab
b bb
b
SE
0
25
50
75
100
SP
0
40
80
120
TOT
0
150
300
450
600 a ab
b bb
b
SE
0
25
50
75
100
SP
0
40
80
120
SM
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
FE
0
50
100
150
200
250
TS
0
50
100
150
L0 LSE LSP LSM LFE LTS
a
a
ab
ab
b
SM
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
FE
0
50
100
150
200
250
TS
0
50
100
150
L0 LSE LSP LSM LFE LTS
a
a
ab
ab
b
Treatments
Cov
er
94
Figure 4.4 Total species evenness (Htot) and functional group species evenness (HSE: spring-flowering ephemeral species; HSP: spring-flowering persistent species; HSM: summer-flowering species; HFE: fern species; and HTS: seedlings and juveniles of woody species) for each treatment. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments for each variable (P < 0.05, protected LSD). Mean + SD.
TOT
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
SE
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
SP
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
TOT
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
SE
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
SP
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
SM
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
FE
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
abab
a
b
b
TS
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
L0 LSE LSP LSM LFE LTS
SM
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
FE
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
abab
a
b
b
TS
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
L0 LSE LSP LSM LFE LTS
Spec
ies e
venn
ess
Treatments
95
4.6.2.2. Abiotic variables The ANOVAs for the soil variables (pH and organic matter content) and for irradiance did
not reveal any significant differences among treatments (Tables 4.3 and 4.5). Soil pH
values varied only from 4.48 ± 0.22 to 4.68 ± 0.22 (mean ± SD). Soil organic matter
content was relatively similar among treatments with means from 11.11 ± 1.14 % to 14.24
± 5.75 %. However, irradiance was much more variable among treatments, with means
from14.02 ± 14.87 to 123.10 ± 324.33 µmol m-2 s-1.
Table 4.5 Mean (± SD) of the environmental variables as a function of treatment (n = 9). There are no significant differences among treatments (L0: control; LSE: removal of spring-flowering ephemeral species; LSP: removal of spring-flowering persistent species; LSM: removal of summer-flowering species; LFE: removal of ferns; LTS: removal of seedlings and juveniles of woody species), for each variable.
Treatments Variables L0 LSE LSP LSM LFE LTS
Soil pH 4.68 ± 0.22
4.60 ± 0.27
4.48 ± 0.22
4.59 ± 0.27
4.67 ± 0.21
4.56 ± 0.16
Soil organic matter content
(%)
11.11 ± 1.14
12.20 ± 1.36
11.93 ± 1.53
14.24 ± 5.75
12.81 ± 2.48
12.64 ± 2.00
Irradiance (µmol m-2 s-1)
123.10 ± 324.33
23.56 ± 17.47
49.45 ± 64.75
23.58 ± 23.58
17.59 ± 18.01
14.02 ± 14.87
4.6.2.3. Inter-site differences There were significant differences among sites for most of the variables studied: Rtot, Ctot,
and Htot; the richness, cover, and evenness of almost all of the functional groups; and soil
pH and organic matter content (Table 4.3).
96
4.7. Discussion
4.7.1. Richness As one would expect, total species richness decreased significantly regardless of which
functional group was removed (Fig. 4.2, Fig. 4.5). Nevertheless, it decreased markedly
when seedlings and juveniles of woody species (TS) or spring-flowering persistent species
(SP) were eradicated (Fig. 4.2, Table 4.4). The richness of the summer-flowering species
group (SM) was particularly low in the LSP, LFE, and LTS treatments, suggesting that SP,
ferns (FE), and TS all had a positive effect on SM richness. In contrast, the richness of SP,
FE, and TS increased somewhat when SM were removed (Fig. 4.2). As a consequence, the
observed total species richness was somewhat higher than expected when SM were
eliminated (Table 4.4). These latter results suggest that although SM had a direct positive
effect on total species richness, their total effect (direct plus indirect, through SP, FE, and
TS richness) was negative.
Figure 4.5 Interactions between the different functional groups for species richness (based on Fig. 4.2 and Table 4.4).
Spring-flowering persistent species (SP), ferns (FE), and seedlings and juveniles of woody
species (TS) begin their aboveground growth early in the spring, before tree canopy
closure, but persist through the entire summer even under a dense overstory. They often
form a compact understory that protects the soil against erosion and that contributes to
97
Total richness
SM
FESPTS SE
Total richness
SM
FESPTS SE
Total richness
SM
FESPTS SE
Total richness
SM
FESPTS SE
98
reduce nutrient losses (Tessier and Raynal 2003). In some way, these species can be
considered to ameliorate the conditions for those that come later during the season, like
SM, and they are thus comparable to the pioneer species of successional environments,
which facilitate the growth and survival of later successional species (Connell et Slatyer
1977). Yet, summer-flowering species seem to restrict the growth of the species from the
other functional groups without, however, reducing overall species richness. Indeed, the
underground system of SM shows a greater developmental flexibility and is more efficient
in capturing soil resources than that of the species from the other functional groups (Farley
and Fitter 1999).
The positive and negative interactions outlined above thus correspond to feedback loops
and may increase the stability of the forest understory community (MacArthur 1955;
Tilman and Downing 1994; Johnson et al. 1996). These interactions may (1) lead to a
higher collective capacity of the species to resist minor disturbances and/or (2) allow the
system to re-establish essential functions following disturbances (Walker et al. 1999;
Upadhyay et al. 2000; Díaz and Cabido 2001). Each one of the five functional groups
contributes positively to total species richness (Tilman et al. 1997), most likely because of
the complementary morphological, physiological, and phenological traits of their respective
species (Loreau and Behera 1999; Reich et al. 2003).
Our initial null hypothesis stipulated that the different functional groups had little or no
interactions among one another, and that the loss of a group would not have serious
consequences on the functional and structural properties of the system. Our results on
richness do not support this hypothesis: functional groups interact with one another (Fig.
4.5) and, thus, are not strictly independent.
4.7.2 Cover Like total species richness, total cover decreased significantly regardless of which
functional group was removed (except for the removal of SE, Fig. 4.3 and Fig. 4.6).
Nevertheless, total cover decreased proportionately more when SP were eliminated (Table
4.4). In contrast, total cover was somewhat higher than expected (17% higher) when SM
99
were eradicated: this was mostly through an increase in the cover of SP and FE relative to
the control (Fig. 4.3).
Our results for total cover support those presented previously with respect to the effect of
the removal of a functional group on species richness: strong interactions exist among
functional groups (Fig. 4.6) and, thus, strict among-group independence is refuted.
Figure 4.6 Interactions between the different functional groups for species cover (based on Fig. 4.3 and Table 4.4).
The removal of TS led to a significant decrease in the cover of SM (Fig. 4.3). This result
refutes our initial hypothesis of no interactions among functional groups. Under the cover
of seedlings and juveniles of woody species, temperature, evapo-transpiration and water
stress are reduced and soil moisture is higher (Scholes and Archer 1997), conditions that
may favor the growth of summer-flowering species. In addition, TS cover may negatively
affect the activity of herbivores and/or pathogens on SM.
4.7.3 Evenness Like total species richness and total cover, total evenness was lower (marginally significant
at P = 0.067) in the removal treatments than in the control. In particular, evenness
decreased when SE or FE were removed. However, total evenness was higher than
expected when SM were eradicated. Of the five functional groups in this study, only FE
showed a significant response in terms of evenness to our removal treatments: indeed, the
Cover
TS
FE
SE
SM
SP
Cover
TS
FE
SE
SM
SP
100
presence of SE or of SP seemed to allow for a more even distribution of the cover among
FE.
Evenness integrates how production (a functional property) is ‘shared’ among different
species (a structural property) and, thus, it represents a measure of the structural
heterogeneity of a community (Staudhammer and Lemay 2001). We expected the response
of the variables ‘richness’ and ‘cover’ to our removal treatments to be integrated into the
variable ‘evenness’. This was mostly confirmed, demonstrating that the removal of a given
functional group resulted in a compensatory reorganization among the remaining groups
(Folke et al. 2004).
As the growing season progresses, the spatial distribution of resources becomes more
heterogeneous in the understory. Summer-flowering species show greater variability in
their strategies of resource capture than the other groups and this may allow them to be
better competitors (McCormick and Bowersox 1997; Farley and Fitter 1999); however, it
may also contribute to reduce evennes, particularly that of ferns. Yet, these negative effects
do not appear to be compensated for, if we consider the results on total richness and total
cover.
Nutrients stored in the old fronds of Dryopteris intermedia are not sufficient to maintain the
current growth and reproduction of the plant (Tessier 2001). Spring-flowering and spring-
persistent flowering species reduce nutrient leaching, thereby, increasing the growth of and
allowing for a more uniform distribution of cover among fern species (Eickmeier et
Schussler 1993; Rothstein 2000). Yet, SP and SE do not compete for light with ferns:
indeed, the mean height of SP and SE does not exceed 15-20 cm (Marie-Victorin 2002),
while that of ferns often exceeds 30 cm (Hill and Silander 2001; Cobb et al. 2005).
By reducing nutrient leaching from the system, SP and SE favor the growth of the species
of the other functional groups. However, FE do not appear to be able to compete with SM
for soil resources. In short, SM seem to be better at capturing and using soil nutrients than
FE.
101
4.7.4 Environmental variables Remarkably, our removal treatments had no significant effects on soil pH and organic
matter content. These results may suggest that understory species have only weak effects
on the characteristics of the forest floor compared to those of mature woody species (van
Oijen et al. 2005) or that the duration of the study was too limited to affect soil properties.
4.8 Acknowledgements The authors thank V. Bolduc-Tremblay, G. de Lafontaine, P. Désilets, G. Descôteaux, P.
Marchand, and F. Sahim for field assistance, and S. Boudreau, L. Lapointe, M.F. McKenna,
and S. Payette for comments on an early version of the manuscript. This study was financed
by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through a grant to G.
Houle.
102
4.9 References cited Buonopane, M., Huenneke, L. F. and Remmenga, M. 2005. Community response to
removals of plant functional groups and species from a Chihuahuan Desert shrubland. Oikos 110: 67-80.
Cardinale, B. J., Nelson, K. and Palmer, M. A. 2000. Linking species diversity to the
functioning of ecosystems: on the importance of environmental context. Oikos 91: 175-183.
de la Cretaz, A. L. and Kelty, M. J. 2002. Development of tree regeneration in fern-
dominated forest understories after reduction of deer browsing. Restoration Ecology 10: 416-426.
Choinière, L. and Laplante, L. 1948. Étude des sols du Comté de Nicolet. Division des sols,
Ministère provincial de l'Agriculture, Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, comté de Kamouraska, Ministère de l'Agriculture et Ministère de l'industrie et du Commerce, Québec.
Cobb, B., Farnsworth, E. and Lowe, C. 2005. A field guide to ferns and their related
families of northeastern and central North America. Peterson Field Guides, Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston, MA, 2nd Edition: 417 pp.
Connell, J. H. and Slatyer, R. O. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities
and their role in community stability and organization. American Naturalist 111: 1119-1144.
Díaz, S. and Cabido, M. 2001. Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to
ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 646-655. Eickmeier, W. G. and Schussler, E. E. 1993. Responses of the spring ephemeral Claytonia
virginica L. to light and nutrients manipulations and implications for the ”vernal-dam“ hypothesis. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 120: 157-168.
Farley, R. A. and Fitter, A. H. 1999. The responses of seven co-occuring woodland
herbaceous perennials to localized nutrient-rich patches. Journal of Ecology 87: 849-859.
Fitter, A. H. 1982. Influence of soil heterogeneity on the coexistence of grassland species.
Journal of Ecology 70: 139-148. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L. and Holling,
C. S. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35: 557-581.
103
Hector, A., Schmid, B., Beierkuhnlein, C., Caldeira, M. C., Diemer, M., Dimitrakopoulos, P. G., Finn, J. A., Freitas, H., Giller, P. S., Good, J., Harris, R., Högberg, P., Huss-Danell, K., Joshi, J., Jumpponen, A., Körner, C., Leadley, P. W., Loreau, M., Minns, A., Mulder, C. P. H., O'Donovan, G., Otway, S. J., Pereira, J. S., Prinz, A., Read, D. J., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schulze, E.-D., Siamantziouras, A.-S. D., Spehn, E. M., Terry, A. C., Troumbis, A. Y., Woodward, F. I., Tachi, S. and Lawton, J. H. 1999. Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286: 1123-1127.
Hill, J. D. and Silander, J. A. 2001. Distribution and dynamics of two ferns: Dennstaedtia
punctilobula (Dennstaedtiaceae) and Thelypteris noveboracensis (Thelypteridaceae) in a Northeast mixed hardwoods–hemlock forest. American Journal of Botany 88: 894-902.
Hooper, D. U., Solan, M., Symstad, A. J., Díaz, S., Gessner, M. O., Buchmann, N.,
Degrange, V., Grime, P., Hulot, F., Mermillod-Blondin, F., Roy, J., Spehn, E. M. and van Peer, L. 2002. Chapter 17: Species diversity, functional diversity, and ecosystem functioning. In: Loreau, M., Naeem, S. and Inchausti, P. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives, New York, USA, Oxford University Press.
Huston, M. A. 1997. Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the
ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110: 449-460. Johnson, K. H., Vogt, K. A., Clark, H. J., Schmitz, O. J. and Vogt, D. J. 1996. Biodiversity
and the productivity and stability of ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 372-377.
Lapointe, L. 2001. How phenology influences physiology in deciduous forest spring
ephemerals. Physiologia Plantarum 113: 151-157. Lepš, J. 2004. What do the biodiversity experiments tell us about consequences of plant
species loss in the real world? Basic and Applied Ecology 5: 529-534. Loreau, M. and Behera, N. 1999. Phenotypic diversity and stability of ecosystem processes.
Theoretical Population Biology 56: 29-47. Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J. P., Hector, A., Hooper, D. U.,
Huston, M. A., Raffaelli, D. G., Schmid, B., Tilman, D. and Wardle, D. A. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294: 804-808.
McCormick, L. H. and Bowersox, T. W. 1997. Grass or fern competition reduce growth
and survival of planted tree seedlings. In: Proceedings of 11th Central Hardwood Conference, Columbia, Missouri, 23–26 March 1997, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-188, pp 286–293.
104
MacArthur, R. 1955. Fluctuations of animal populations and a measure of community
stability. Ecology 36: 533-536. Marie-Victorin 2002. Flore laurentienne. Third Edition, Gaetan Morin Editeur,
Boucherville, Québec. Mittelbach, G. G., Steiner, C. F., Scheiner, S. M., Gross, K. L., Reynolds, H. L., Waide, R.
B., Willig, M. R., Dodson, S. I. and Gough, L. 2001. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82: 2381-2396.
Naeem, S. 2001. How changes in biodiversity may affect the provision of ecosystem
services. In: Chichilnisky, G., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P., Heal, G., Miller, J. (eds.), Managing Human-dominated Ecosystems. Missouri Botanical Garden, Saint Louis, pp. 3–33.
Naeem, S., Chapin III, F. S., Costanza, R., Ehrlich, P. R., Golley, F. B., Hooper, D. U.,
Lawton, J. H., O'Neill, R. V., Mooney, H. A., Sala, O. E., Symstad, A. J. and Tilman, D. 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: maintaining natural life support processes. Ecology 4: 1-12.
Naeem, S., Thompson, L. J., Lawler, S. P., Lawton, J. H. and Woodfin, R. M. 1995.
Empirical evidence that declining species diversity may alter the performance of terrestrial ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London - Biological Sciences 347: 249-262.
Reich, P. B., Buschena, C., Tjoelker, M. G., Wrage, K. J., Knops, J. M. H., Tilman, D. and
Machado, J.-L. 2003. Variation in growth rate and ecophysiology among 34 grassland and savanna species under contrasting N supply: a test of functional group differences. New Phytologist 157: 617-631.
Rogers, R. S. 1985. Local coexistence of deciduous-forest groundlayer species growing in
different seasons. Ecology 66: 701-707. Rothstein, D. E. 2000. Spring ephemeral herbs and nitrogen cycling in a northern hardwood
forest: an experimental test of the vernal dam hypothesis. Oecologia 124: 446-453. Rowe, J. S. 1972. Les régions forestières du Canada. Ministère de l'Environnement, Service
canadien des forêts, Ottawa. Publication N° 1300F. Scholes, R. J. and Archer, S. R. 1997. Tree-grass interactions in savannas. Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics 28: 517-544. Staudhammer, C. L. and LeMay, V. M. 2001. Introduction and evaluation of possible
indices of stand structural diversity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 1105-1115.
105
Symstad, A. J., Chapin III, F. S., Wall, D. H., Gross, K. L., Huenneke, L. F., Mittelbach, G.
G., Peters, D. P. C. and Tilman, D. 2003. Long-term and large-scale perspectives on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Bioscience 53: 89-98.
Symstad, A. J., Tilman, D., Willson, J. and Knops, J. M. H. 1998. Species loss and
ecosystem functioning: effects of species identity and community composition. Oikos 81: 389-397.
Tessier, J. T. 2001. Vernal photosynthesis and nutrient retranslocation in Dryopteris
intermedia. American Fern Journal 91: 187-196. Tessier, J. T. and Raynal, D. J. 2003. Vernal nitrogen and phosphorus retention by forest
understory vegetation and soil microbes. Plant and Soil 256: 443-453. Tilman, D. 1997. Chapter 6: Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In: G. C. Daily (eds.)
Nature's Services Washington, D.C. & Covelo, California, Island Press, pp. 93-112. Tilman, D. and Downing, J. A. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:
363-365. Tilman, D., Knops, J. M. H., Wedin, D. and Reich, P. B. 2002. Chapter 3: Plant diversity
and composition: effects on productivity and nutrient dynamics of experimental grasslands. In: Loreau, M., Naeem, S. and Inchausti, P. (eds.), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives, New York, USA, Oxford University Press, pp. 21-35.
Tilman, D., Knops, J. M. H., Wedin, D., Reich, P. B., Ritchie, M. and Siemann, E. 1997.
The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277: 1300-1302.
Tilman, D., Lehman, C. L. et Thomson, K. T. 1997. Plant diversity and ecosystem
productivity: theoretical considerations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94: 1857-1861.
Tilman, D., Wedin, D. and Knops, J. M. H. 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced
by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379: 718-720. Troumbis, A. Y. and Memtsas, D. 2000. Observational evidence that diversity may increase
productivity in Mediterranean shrublands. Oecologia 125: 101-108. Upadhyay, R. K., Rai, V. and Iyengar, S. R. K. 2000. How do ecosystems respond to
external perturbations? Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 11: 1963-1982.
106
van Oijen, D., Feijen, M., Hommel, P., den Ouden, J. and de Waal, R. 2005. Effects of tree species composition on within-forest distribution understorey species. Journal of Applied Vegetation Science 8: 155-166.
Walker, B., Kinzig, A. and Langridge, J. 1999. Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and
ecosystem function: the nature and significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems 2: 95-113.
Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I., Barker, G. M., Yeates, G. W., Nicholson, K. S., Bardgett, R.
D., Watson, R. N. and Ghani, A. 1999. Plant removals in perennial grassland: vegetation dynamics, decomposers, soil biodiversity, and ecosystem properties. Ecological Monographs 69: 535-568.
Wardle, D. A. and Zackrisson, O. 2005. Effects of species and functional group loss on
island ecosystem properties. Nature 435: 806-810.
CHAPITRE 5 – Conclusion générale
La richesse végétale influence le fonctionnement et la structure des écosystèmes (Díaz et
Cabido 2001; Hughes et Petchey 2001; Symstad et al. 2003). Elle affecte par conséquent
les réponses de l’écosystème aux perturbations via deux mécanismes principaux: la
résistance et la résilience (Folke et al. 2004). En maintenant une fonction écosystèmique,
une communauté résiste aux changements (résistance) ou retourne à des niveaux
fonctionnels et structuraux similaires à ceux qui étaient en place avant la perturbation
(résilience; Upadhyay et al. 2000; Folke et al. 2004; Walker et al. 2004). Malgré ses
capacités de résilience et de résistance, un écosystème n’est jamais strictement stable. Les
perturbations locales altèrent, voire bouleversent la diversité et la composition de la
communauté végétale, les conditions micro-environnementales, et la disponibilité et
l’hétérogénéité spatiale des ressources. Ces différents changements peuvent avoir des
conséquences sur la pérennité et la stabilité des écosystèmes forestiers. Plusieurs travaux se
sont intéressés aux conséquences des perturbations sur le fonctionnement et la structure de
la strate ligneuse, particulièrement les conséquences de l’aménagement forestier (Leak et
Smith 1996; Tang et al. 1997; Hubbell et al. 1999; Bengtsson et al. 2000).
Par contre, l’intérêt pour la strate de sous-bois (plantes vasculaires ≤ 1 m) est relativement
récent. Bien que sa proportion en termes de biomasse totale (dominée par la strate
supérieure) soit faible, cette strate ne représente pas moins des deux tiers de la richesse
spécifique des plantes vasculaires en milieu forestier. Ce pool d’espèces est composé
presque essentiellement de plantes pérennes à croissance lente et tolérantes à l’ombre
(Whigham 2004). Cette flore de sous-bois agit directement sur la régénération, la structure
et la composition du futur couvert forestier (Kolb et Robberecht 1996; Kleb et Wilson
1997). De plus, la répartition des nutriments semble fortement reliée aux patrons de
distribution des plantes, ce qui conditionne les interactions de compétition et de
coexistence, et la structure des communautés (Huston 1980; Stevens et Carson 2002).
Les objectifs de la présente thèse étaient de déterminer la réponse des plantes de sous-bois
vis-à-vis d’un aménagement acéricole, de leur réponse à l’hétérogénéité de la répartition
107
108
spatiale des nutriments ainsi que de leur complémentarité au sein d’un l’écosystème
forestier. Pour répondre à ces objectifs, nous avons défini deux échelles spatiales. Dans un
premier temps, une échelle d’ordre régional nous a permis de déterminer la réponse des
plantes herbacées à une réduction de la diversité structurale dans des forêts aménagées
(Chapitre 2). Dans un second temps, une échelle plus locale nous a permis de déterminer
les tendances fonctionnelles et structurales des plantes de sous-bois au sein des
communautés (Chapitres 3 et 4). Pour ces deux derniers chapitres, nous nous sommes
servis des recommandations de Loreau et al. (2001), c’est-à-dire l’utilisation de deux types
d’expériences complémentaires. Dans la première, la répartition spatiale des nutriments
(fonction) variait et les changements dans l’abondance des groupes fonctionnels ont été
mesurés (chapitre 3). Dans la seconde expérience, un groupe fonctionnel était retiré
(diminution de la diversité) et les conséquences de ce retrait ont été mesurées en termes
fonctionnels (chapitre 4). Les forêts du sud-est du Québec nous ont offert l’opportunité
d’apporter des réponses concernant les relations entre la diversité et la productivité
végétales et l’hétérogénéité structurale.
Dans le second chapitre de la présente thèse, l’intensité de l’aménagement acéricole a des
effets délétères sur la richesse des plantes herbacées. Par contre, les facteurs du sol (pH et
humidité du sol) expliquent en partie la variance du pool d’espèces. Dans le troisième
chapitre, une fine répartition hétérogène des nutriments dans le sol entraîne des réponses
variées selon les plantes, ce qui pourrait s’expliquer particulièrement par une diversité des
stratégies racinaires (e.g. architecture, longueur des rhizomes, étendue latérale). Ces
différents attributs morphologiques permettent aux plantes de coexister et de mieux occuper
l’espace (Hodge 2006). Le quatrième chapitre montre que tous les groupes fonctionnels
interagissent entre eux (e.g. compétition, facilitation) et qu’ils ne sont pas strictement
indépendants au niveau du couvert, de la richesse et de l’équitabilité.
109
5.1 Réponses des plantes herbacées à la réduction de la diversité structurale
L’indice d’hétérogénéité structurale (H) que nous avons utilisé représente l’intensité de
l’aménagement acéricole dans les érablières, considérant qu’une faible valeur coïncide avec
un aménagement de forte intensité. Tel que démontré dans la présente thèse,
l’aménagement acéricole provoque des effets délétères sur la flore du sous-bois mais ne
semble pas agir sur les variables abiotiques. Parmi les deux modèles d’analyses de pistes,
celui basé sur les moyennes des variables environnementales explique jusqu’à 58% de la
variance de la diversité de la flore de sous-bois. Le reste de la variance peut être expliqué
par les évènements historiques, la variabilité spatiale, temporelle et environnementale, les
effets des micro-organismes et des herbivores, la productivité, et la configuration de
l’habitat. Parmi les variables environnementales, une association positive et significative
entre le pH du sol et la diversité spécifique a été décelée. Elle supporte l’importance des
facteurs édaphiques pour la diversité végétale locale (Chytrý et al. 2003; Weiher et al.
2004). Dans ce sens, Pärtel (2002) et Pärtel et al. (2004) suggèrent que la relation est
typiquement positive dans les régions floristiques où le centre évolutif est situé sur des sols
à pH élevé; cette relation est négative si le centre évolutif se situe sur des sols à faible pH.
Selon l’auteur, un centre évolutif correspond à un milieu où les changements climatiques et
géologiques ont créé des zones appropriées au développement de plusieurs espèces. Ces
régions sont des réservoirs d’espèces pour les régions avoisinantes. En somme, la richesse
spécifique à une échelle locale semble être déterminée par le nombre d’espèces à une
échelle plus régionale dans le temps et l’espace (Butaye et al. 2001; Dupré et al. 2002;
Pärtel 2002). Par ailleurs, l’humidité du sol a un effet marginal positif sur la richesse
végétale, ce qui supporte les travaux de Brosofske et al. (2001) et de Härdtle et al. (2003).
Enfin, notre pool d’espèces est composé de plantes adaptées ou tolérantes à de faibles
intensités de lumière. En absence de perturbation majeure, la lumière ne semble pas être un
facteur influençant la richesse spécifique (Bauhus et al. 2001; Härdtle et al. 2003). Nos
résultats montrent qu’un aménagement acéricole intensif affecte significativement la
110
richesse spécifique de la flore de sous-bois, et que les facteurs édaphiques (pH et humidité
du sol) ont des effets positifs sur la diversité.
5.2 Réponses de la flore du sous-bois à l’hétérogénéité spatiale des nutriments
La plupart des plantes de sous-bois sont des espèces pérennes tolérantes à l’ombre et à
croissance lente, qui semblent peu ou ne pas réagir à l’ajout de nutriments, et ce,
indépendamment de la concentration de ces derniers (Bauhus et al. 2001; Stevens et Carson
2002; Härdtle et al. 2003). Cette absence de réponse peut provenir de la faible capacité de
ces espèces à répondre aux changements rapides de la disponibilité en ressources limitantes
(Collins et Pickett 1987; Farley et Fitter 1999a; Whigham 2004). Toutefois, certaines
espèces ont pu absorber et stocker dans leurs tissus les surplus de nutriments sans pour
autant les transformer en biomasse (luxury consumption). Cette stratégie se rencontre chez
les espèces arctiques-alpines et chez les espèces printanières éphémères (Chapin 1980;
Heer et Körner 2002). L’ajout de nutriments a pu aussi entraîner une compétition entre les
plantes du sous-bois et les micro-organismes (Zak et al. 1992) ou les arbres et arbustes
(Kleb et Wilson 1997).
Par ailleurs, l’absence de réponse significative de la richesse peut provenir d’un potentiel de
dissémination limité (principalement la myrmécochorie) des plantes pérennes de sous-bois.
L’absence de changement dans la composition de la diversité montre une absence de
compétition entre les espèces puisque quelque soit le traitement, aucun groupe fonctionnel
n’a pris le dessus sur les autres. Par ailleurs, la croissance clonale de type phalange des
plantes de sous-bois explique le patron de distribution contagieux. Celle-ci provoque des
impacts sur la composition des communautés de sous-bois des forêts décidues (Jacquemyn
et al. 2001).
Nos résultats montrent qu’une fine hétérogénéité spatiale des nutriments dans de petites
parcelles (échelle locale) favorise une répartition plus uniforme de la production entre les
espèces estivales. Ces résultats pourraient s’expliquer par une concordance entre l’échelle
111
spatiale du système racinaire des plantes et l’échelle spatiale des traitements (Hutchings et
al. 2003), et par la longueur et la densité des racines des espèces de sous-bois (Antos 1988;
Wijesinghe and Whigham 2001). Dans ce sens, les systèmes racinaires varient fortement
entre les espèces du sous-bois. Par exemple, quelques espèces estivales (Oxalis acetosella)
ont des systèmes racinaires restreints (e.g. étendue latérale limitée), concentrés à proximité
de la plante mère (Farley et Fitter 1999b). Par contre, la plupart des espèces estivales
(Rubus pubescens et Rubus idaeus) ont des systèmes racinaires extensibles et diffus (e.g.
étendue latérale extensible), capables de modifier rapidement la longueur des rhizomes
selon la richesse en nutriments, et ce, loin de la plante mère (Zobel et Antos 1987; Farley et
Fitter 1999b). Ces différentes stratégies racinaires représentent une spécialisation de niches
et favorisent la coexistence des espèces de sous-bois vis-à-vis de l’hétérogénéité spatiale.
De plus, cette variabilité de niches est reliée à la disponibilité des nutriments qui devient de
plus en plus limitante, à mesure que le couvert forestier se ferme. Outre leur tolérance à de
faibles niveaux d’irradiance, nos résultats suggèrent que les espèces de sous-bois semblent
peu sensibles à l’hétérogénéité spatiale des nutriments).
5.3 Réponse des plantes de sous-bois à la perte d’un groupe fonctionnel
Dans cette étude, nous avons défini des groupes fonctionnels en fonction principalement de
critères phénologiques. En somme, chaque groupe fonctionnel correspondait à un ensemble
d’espèces (e.g. différenciées par un ou plusieurs traits) utilisant une ressource à des niveaux
différents. Dès lors, notre hypothèse de départ pour ce quatrième chapitre stipulait une
absence d’interactions (c’est-à-dire une forte indépendance) entre des groupes fonctionnels,
et donc, une absence de conséquences sérieuses suite à la perte d’un groupe sur les
fonctions de l’écosystème. Nos résultats permettent de montrer que la richesse, le couvert et
l’équitabilité ne supportent pas, sans équivoque, cette hypothèse. Les groupes fonctionnels
ont des relations entre eux : ils ne sont pas strictement indépendants, mais plutôt
complémentaires.
112
Les espèces printanières et les plantules et juvéniles des espèces ligneuses agissent
favorablement aussi bien sur la richesse, le couvert et l’équitabilité totale, et également sur
la richesse et le couvert des espèces estivales. Ces deux groupes semblent réduire le
lessivage des nutriments (Rothstein 2000; Lapointe 2001) qui représentent une ressource
limitante au cours de la période de croissance. Ces espèces concentrent les nutriments à
proximité de leur base, ils pourraient représenter des réservoirs pour les autres espèces.
Leur présence faciliterait donc le développement, la survie et la croissance des espèces
estivales. De plus, le maintien et la disponibilité des nutriments peuvent aussi permettre aux
fougères de poursuivre leur développement et d’avoir une meilleure répartition du couvert
entre les espèces.
Par contre, en retour, les espèces estivales semblent agir négativement sur la richesse totale
et sur la répartition de la productivité totale entre les espèces. Ces espèces ont une
variabilité souterraine qui leur permet d’acquérir des nutriments de façon plus efficace que
la plupart des autres espèces. Dès lors, la compétition semble être la principale interaction
entre les différents groupes (McCormick et Bowersox 1997) pouvant nuire à une répartition
équitable de la production entre les fougères. Au cours de l’été, les SM réduisent les pertes
d’eau maintenant un taux d’humidité néfaste au développement de certaines espèces
(plantules de Quercus rubra).
Ces interactions positives et négatives correspondent à des boucles de rétroactions
négatives qui pourraient contribuer au maintien et la pérennité de la communauté
(MacArthur 1955; Tilman et Downing 1994). Finalement, les différents groupes
fonctionnels sont étroitements reliés les uns aux autres, ce qui contribuerait à leur
complémentarité. Ces résultats montrent aussi l’absence d’effet compensatoire suite au
retrait d’un groupe puisque ni la richesse et ni le couvert des différents groupes ne varient
selon les traitements.
113
5.4 Synthèse
La richesse spécifique du sous-bois est composée d’espèces essentiellement pérennes, à
croissance lente, adaptées ou tolérantes à de faibles niveaux d’irradiance et peu sensibles à
l’hétérogénéité spatiale des nutriments (NPK). Par contre, ces espèces sont sensibles à la
réduction de l’hétérogénéité structurale (i.e. effets délétères de l’aménagement acéricole).
De plus, les facteurs édaphiques (pH et humidité du sol) semblent maximiser la diversité
spécifique. Les différentes associations entre les espèces témoignent d’une complémentarité
fonctionnelle et d’une coexistence entre les différents groupes d’espèces. Ces différentes
réponses sont elles-mêmes interconnectées ce qui assure le maintien des fonctions de
l’écosystème.
5.5 Perspectives de recherche
À la vue des résultats de cette thèse de doctorat, la prise en considération de la strate de
sous-bois est donc nécessaire pour améliorer la compréhension du fonctionnement de
l’écosystème forestier. L’emploi de plusieurs échelles spatiales permet de mieux cerner la
complexité structurale et fonctionnelle de l’écosystème, dans son ensemble. Toutefois, de
nombreuses questions peuvent être posées pour améliorer notre compréhension sur le rôle
des espèces de sous-bois dans un écosystème forestier.
Cette étude a montré que les groupes fonctionnels étaient interconnectés entre eux et
complémentaires pour une fonction donnée. Ainsi, chaque groupe joue un rôle particulier
dans le fonctionnement de l’écosystème. Toutefois, chaque groupe fonctionnel est composé
d’espèces redondantes entre elles. Si la redondance fonctionnelle contribue à la régulation
de l’écosystème, la présence de ces espèces améliore également la résilience de
l’écosystème. Dépendamment de leurs caractéristiques physiologiques, morphologiques ou
phénologiques, les plantes réagissent différemment selon les changements de l’habitat.
L’objectif serait de (1) déterminer les espèces dominantes (e.g. en terme de couvert) au sein
114
d’un groupe, (2) retirer ces espèces dominantes et (3) déterminer les réponses des autres
espèces du groupe pour vérifier le rôle compensatoire (aspect de redondance).
Relativement homogène au début du printemps, la répartition des nutriments devient
hétérogène au cours de l’été. La flore du sous-bois semble, selon nos conclusions, peu
sensible à l’hétérogénéité de la répartition spatiale des nutriments. Mais qu’en est-il de leur
sensibilité à l’hétérogénéité de la répartition temporelle des nutriments ? La teneur en
nutriments dans un écosystème forestier varie au cours de la saison de croissance, et les
parcelles riches en nutriments sont éphémères dans le temps.
Étant donné que le pH du sol soit relié à la richesse spécifique, il serait judicieux de
déterminer dans plusieurs écosystèmes forestiers (décidues, tropicales, boréales) cette
relation.
5.6 Références citées dans la conclusion Antos, J. A. 1988. Underground morphology and habitat relationships of three pairs of
forest herbs. American Journal of Botany 75: 106-113. Bauhus, J., Aubin, I., Messier, C. and Connell, M. 2001. Composition, structure, light
attenuation and nutrient content of the understorey vegetation in a Eucalyptus sieberi regrowth stand 6 years after thinning and fertilisation. Forest Ecology and Manangement 144: 275-286.
Bengtsson, J., Nilsson, S. G., Franc, A. and Menozzi, P. 2000. Biodiversity, disturbances,
ecosystem function and management of European forests. Forest Ecology and Management 132: 39-50.
Brosofske, K. D., Chen, J. and Crow, T. R. 2001. Understory vegetation and site factors:
implications for a managed Wisconsin landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 146: 75-87.
Butaye, J., Jacquemyn, H., Honnay, O. and Hermy, M. 2001. The species pool concept
applied to forests in a fragmented landscape: dispersal limitation versus habitat limitation. Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 27-34.
Chapin, F. S. III. 1980. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 11: 233-260. Chytrý, M., Tichý, L. and Rolecek, J. 2003. Local and regional patterns of species richness
in central European vegetation types along the pH/calcium gradient. Folia Geobotanica 38: 429-442.
Collins, B. S. and Pickett, S. T. A. 1987. Influence of canopy opening on the environment
and herb layer in a northern hardwoods forest. Plant Ecology 70 3-10. Díaz, S. and Cabido, M. 2001. Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to
ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 646-655. Dupré, C., Wessberg, C. and Diekmann, M. 2002. Species richness in deciduous forest:
Effects of species pools and environmental variables. Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 505-516.
Farley, R. A. and Fitter, A. H. 1999a. The responses of seven co-occuring woodland
herbaceous perennials to localized nutrient-rich patches. Journal of Ecology 87: 849-859.
Farley, R. A. and Fitter, A. H. 1999b. Temporal and spatial variation in soil resources in a
deciduous woodland. Journal of Ecology 87: 688-696.
115
116
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L. and Holling, C. S. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35: 557-581.
Frelich, L. E. 2002. Forest dynamics and disturbance regimes: studies from temperate
evergreen-deciduous forests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Härdtle, W., von Oheimb, G. and Westphal, C. 2003. The effects of light and soil
conditions on the species richness of the ground vegetation of deciduous forests in northern Germany (Schleswig-Holstein). Forest Ecology and Management 182: 327-338.
Heer, C. and Körner, C. 2002. High elevation pioneer plants are sensitive to mineral
nutrient addition. Basic and Applied Ecology 3: 39-47. Hodge, A. 2006. Plastic plants and patchy soils. Journal of Experimental Botany 57: 401-
411. Hubbell, S. P., Foster, R. B., O'Brien, S. T., Harms, K. E., Condit, R., Wechsler, B.,
Wright, S. J. et Loo de Lao, S. 1999. Light-gap disturbances, recruitment limitation, and tree diversity in a neotropical forest. Science 283: 554-557.
Hughes, J. B. and Petchey, O. L. 2001. Merging perspectives on biodiversity and
ecosystem functioning. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 222-223. Huston, M. A. 1980. Soil nutrients and tree species richness in Costa Rican forests. Journal
of Biogeography 7: 147-157. Hutchings, M. J., John, E. A. and Wijesinghe, D. K. 2003. Toward understanding the
consequences of soil heterogeneity for plant populations and communities. Ecology 84: 2322-2334.
Jacquemyn, H., Butaye, J. 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: 801-812.
Kleb, H. R. and Wilson, S. D. 1997. Vegetation effects on soil resource heterogeneity in
prairie and forest. American Naturalist 150: 283-298. Kolb, P. F. and Robberecht, R. 1996. Pinus ponderosa seedling establishment and the
influence of competition with the bunchgrass Agropyron spicatum. International Journal of Plant Science 157: 509-515.
Lapointe, L. 2001. How phenology influences physiology in deciduous forest spring
ephemerals. Physiologia plantarum 113: 151-157.
117
Leak, W. B. and Smith, M.-L. 1996. Sixty years of management and natural disturbance in a New England forested landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 81: 63-73.
Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J. P., Hector, A., Hooper, D. U.,
Huston, M. A., Raffaelli, D. G., Schmid, B., Tilman, D. and Wardle, D. A. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294: 804-808.
MacArthur, R. 1955. Fluctuations of animal populations and a measure of community
stability. Ecology 36: 533-536. McCormick, L. H. and Bowersox, T. W. 1997. Grass or fern competition reduce growth
and survival of planted tree seedlings. In: Proceedings of 11th Central Hardwood Conference, Columbia, Missouri, 23–26 March 1997, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-188, pp 286–293.
Naeem, S., Chapin III, F. S., Costanza, R., Ehrlich, P. R., Golley, F. B., Hooper, D. U.,
Lawton, J. H., O'Neill, R. V., Mooney, H. A., Sala, O. E., Symstad, A. J. and Tilman, D. 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: maintaining natural life support processes. Ecology 4: 1-12.
Pärtel, M. 2002. Local plant diversity patterns and evolutionary history at the regional
scale. Ecology 83: 2361-2366. Pärtel, M., Helm, A., Ingerpuu, N., Reier, Ü. and Tuvi, E.-L. 2004. Conservation of
Northern European plant diversity: the correspondence with soil pH. Biological Conservation 120: 525-531.
Reich, P. B., Buschena, C., Tjoelker, M. G., Wrage, K. J., Knops, J. M. H., Tilman, D. and
Machado, J.-L. 2003. Variation in growth rate and ecophysiology among 34 grassland and savanna species under contrasting N supply: a test of functional group differences. New Phytologist 157: 617-631.
Rothstein, D. E. 2000. Spring ephemeral herbs and nitrogen cycling in a northern hardwood
forest: an experimental test of the vernal dam hypothesis. Oecologia 124: 446-453. Stevens, M. H. H. and Carson, W. P. 2002. Resource quantity, not resource heterogeneity,
maintains plant diversity. Ecology Letters 5: 420-426. Symstad, A. J., Chapin III, F. S., Wall, D. H., Gross, K. L., Huenneke, L. F., Mittelbach, G.
G., Peters, D. P. C. and Tilman, D. 2003. Long-term and large-scale perspectives on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Bioscience 53: 89-98.
Tilman, D. and Downing, J. A. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:
363-365.
118
Upadhyay, R. K., Rai, V. and Iyengar, S. R. K. 2000. How do ecosystems respond to
external perturbations? Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 11: 1963-1982. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. and Kinzig, A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability
and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9: 5. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/.
Weiher, E., Forbes, S., Schauwecker, T. and Grace, J. B. 2004. Multivariate control of plant
species richness and community biomass in blackland prairie. Oikos 106: 151-157. Whigham, D. F. 2004. Ecology of woodland herbs in temperate deciduous forests. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35: 583-621. Wijesinghe, D. K. and Whigham, D. F. 2001. Nutrient foraging in woodland herbs: a
comparison of three species of Uvularia (Liliaceae) with contrasting belowground morphologies. American Journal of Botany 88: 1071-1079.
Zak, J. C., Fresquez, P. R. and Visser, S. 1992. Soil microbial processes and dynamics:
their importance to effective reclamation. In: G. L. Wade and J. C. Chambers (eds.), Evaluating Reclamation Success: The Ecological Considerations. General Technical Report NE-164, USDA Forest Service, pp. 3-36.
Zobel, D. B. and Antos, J. A. 1987. Composition of rhizomes of forest herbaceous plants in
relation to morphology, ecology, and burial by Tephra. Botanical Gazette 4: 490-500.