Geometric indices and regeneration species diversity in natural and man-made canopy gaps

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Department of Forestry

Abstract

Background and objectives: Canopy gaps are the most important environments for many species regenerations. Studying regeneration in natural and Man-made canopy gaps provides practical information to enhance the quantity and quality of tree species regeneration. This study aimed to investigate the relation between geometrical characteristics of canopy gaps with diversity and density of tree species regeneration in natural and Man-made canopy gaps.
Materials and methods: Two 16 ha plots were selected with relatively similar site conditions in part of series one and two of Dr. Bahram-nia 's forestry plan, Shastkalateh, Gorgan. The position of 56 canopy gaps was recorded using a differential positioning system (DGPS). The main indices of the gap’s geometry including area (A), perimeter (P), and perimeter to area ratio (P/A) were measured and then the circular index (C) and the Gap shape complexity Index (GSCI) were calculated. Also, the frequency and diversity of tree species regeneration were recorded within 25 m2 plots centered on each gap. Gaps were classified into three small (20-150 m2), medium (150-300 m2), and large (more than 300 m2) area classes, and indices of species diversity were calculated for each gap using PAST software environment. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the significance of differences and relationships between geometric indices and diversity of regenerative species.
Results: The average area of natural and Man-made canopy gaps were 206 and 176 m2, respectively. The mean circular index of Man-made canopy gaps (C = 0.72) was higher than natural ones (C = 0.66); although, their difference was not significant. Increasing the area, the shape of the natural gaps shifted away from the circular, elongated, and the complexity of their shape increased. The shape complexity index of Man-made gaps did not show a significant difference with increasing the area. Perimeter to area ratio of large gaps was smaller than other classes in both types of gaps. Regeneration density of Velvet maple and Ironwood species were significantly higher in medium Man-made gaps than other species, other classes, and natural mediums gaps. As a result, richness, total individual regeneration, diversity, dominance, and evenness in the medium gaps (300-150 m2) showed the maximum value and significantly different from the large gaps (greater than 300 m2). In natural gaps, with increasing area regeneration density of Velvet maple and Date-plum species, species richness, total individual regeneration, and species diversity of regeneration decreased significantly. A positive correlation was observed between the gap’s P/A with the regeneration density of maple and hornbeam species in natural gaps (r = 0.480 and r = 0.356, respectively). The richness index had a negative correlation with the perimeter (r = -0.337) and with area of natural gaps (r = -0.103). In Man-made gaps, the evenness index showed an inverse correlation and the species richness showed a direct correlation with P / A (r = -0.553 and r = 0.578, respectively).
Conclusion: Man-made gaps were more regular and rounder than natural gaps. As the shape of the Man-made gaps shifts away from the circle form, it was elongated and increased in fractures and complexities, and also the density of maple’s regeneration increased. Medium-sized Man-made gaps (150-300 m2) showed the highest value of richness, diversity, and regeneration density compared to other categories of gap area. Therefore, this range of gap size could be considered as the optimum range.

Keywords

References

1.Anonymous. 2007. Forest management plan. Dr. Bahramnia forest, Watershed 85. Gorgan Univ. of Agricultural sciences and Natural Resources, 81p. (In Persian)
2.Bagaram, M.B., Giuliarelli, D., Chirici, G., Giannetti, F., and Barbati, A.2018. UAV remote sensing for biodiversity  monitoring: are forest canopy gaps good covariates? Remote Sensing. 10: 9. 1397, 28p.
3.Bihamta, M.R., and Zare-Chahouki, M.A. 2008. Principles of statistics for the natural resources science. Tehran University Press, 300p. (In Persian)
4.Bonnet, S., Gaulton, R., Lehaire, F., and Lejeune, P. 2015. Canopy gap mapping from airborne laser scanning: An assessment of the positional and geometrical accuracy. Remote Sensing.7: 9. 11267-11294.
5.Brokaw, N.V. 1985. Gap phase regeneration in a tropical forest. Ecology. 66: 3. 682-687.6.Brokaw, N.V., and Scheiner, S.M.
1989. Species composition in gaps and structure of a tropical forest. Ecology.70: 3. 538-541.
7.Brown, N. 1993. The implications of climate and gap microclimate for seedling growth conditions in a Bornean lowland rain forest. J. of Tropical Ecology.9: 2. 153-168.
8.Clark, D.B., and Clark, D.A. 1991. The impact of physical damage on canopy tree regeneration in tropical rain forest. J. of Ecology. 79: 2. 447-457.
9.Dehdashtifar, M., Jalili, S.Gh.A., Esmailzadeh, O., and Kahyani, S. 2014. Influence of canopy gaps size and dead trees on natural regeneration in the Experimental Forest Station of Tarbiat Modares University. Gorgan J. of Wood & Forest Science and Technology. 21: 2. 149-168. (In Persian)
10.De Lima, R.A.F. 2005. Gap size measurement: the proposal of a new field method. Forest Ecology and Management. 214: 1-3. 413-419.
11.De Lima, R.A.F., Prado, P.I., Martini, A.M.Z., Fonseca, L.J., Gandolfi, S., and Rodrigues, R.R. 2013. Improving methods in gap ecology: revisiting size and shape distributions using a model selection approach. Vegetation Science. 24: 3. 484-495.
12.Denslow, J.S. 1987. Tropical rainforest gaps and tree species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics.
18: 1. 431-451.
13.Devagiri, G.M., Khaple, A.K.,Mohan, S., Venkateshamurthy, P., Tomar, S., Arunkumar, A.N., and Joshi, G. 2016. Species diversity, regeneration and dominance as influenced by canopy gaps and their characteristics in tropical evergreen forests of Western Ghats, India. J. of Forestry Research. 27: 4. 799-810.
14.Diaci, J., Adamic, T., and Rozman, A. 2012. Gap recruitment and partitioning in an old-growth beech forest of the Dinaric Mountains: Influences of light regime, herb competition and browsing. Forest Ecology and Management.
285: 20-28.
15.Eysenrode, D.S.V., Bogaert, J.,Van Hecke, P., and Impens, I.1998. Influence of tree-fall orientation on canopy gap shape in an Ecuadorian rain forest. J. of Tropical Ecology.14: 6. 865-869.
16.Feldmann, E., Drößler, L., Hauck, M., Kucbel, S., Pichler, V., and Leuschner, C. 2018. Canopy gap dynamics and tree understory release in a virgin beech forest, Slovakian Carpathians. J. Forest Ecology and Management. 415: 38-46.
17.Gagnon, J.L., Jokela, E.J., Moser, W.K., and Huber, D.A. 2004. Characteristics of gaps and natural regeneration in mature longleaf pine flat woods ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management. 187: 2-3. 373-380.
18.Galhidy, L., Mihok, B., Hagy, A., Rajkai, K., and Standovar, T.2006. Effects of gap size and associated changes in light and soil moisture on the understory vegetation of a Hungarian beech forest. Plant Ecology. 183: 1. 133-145.
19.Gray, A.N., and Spies, T.A. 1997. Microsite controls on tree seedling establishment in conifer forest canopy gaps. Ecology. 78: 8. 2458-2473.
20.Green, P.T. 1996. Canopy gaps in rain forest on Christmas Island, Indian Ocean: size distribution and methods of measurement. J. of Tropical Ecology. 12: 3. 427-434.
21.Holeksa, J. 2003. Relationship between field-layer vegetation and canopy openings in a Carpathian subalpine spruce forest. Plant Ecology. 168: 1. 57-67.
22.Howe, H.F. 1990. Habitat implications of gap geometry in tropical forests. Oikos. pp. 141-144.23.Hu, L., Gong, Z., Li, J., and Zhu,J. 2009. Estimation of canopy gap size and gap shape using a hemispherical photograph. Trees. 23
24.Kern, C.C., Montgomery, R.A., Reich, P.B., and Strong, T.F. 2014. Harvest-created canopy gaps increase species and functional trait diversity of the forest ground-layer community. Forest Science. 60: 2. 335-344.
25.Khodaverdi, S., Amiri, M., Kartoolinejad, D., and Mohammadi, J. 2019. Canopy gaps characteristics of pure and mixed stands in the Hyrcanian forests of north Iran. Annals of Silvicultural Research. 43: 2. 62-70.
26.Koukoulas, S., and Blackburn, G.A. 2005. Spatial relationships between tree species and gap characteristics in broad‐leaved deciduous woodland. Journal of Vegetation Science. 16: 5. 587-596.
27.Kucbel, S., Jaloviar, P., Saniga, M., Vencurik, J., and Klimaš, V. 2010. Canopy gaps in an old-growth fir-beech forest remnant of Western Carpathians. European J. of Forest Research.129: 3. 249-259.
28.Lertzman, K.P., and Krebs, C.J. 1991. Gap-phase structure of a subalpine old-growth forest. Canadian J. of Forest Research. 21: 12. 1730-1741.
29.Lindenmayer, D.B., and Franklin, J.F. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island press.
30.Lingua, E., Garbarino, M., Mondino, E.B., and Motta, R. 2011. Natural disturbance dynamics in an old-growth forest: from tree to landscape. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 7: 365-370.
31.Marvie-Mohadjer, M.R. 2011. Silviculture. 3rd ed. Tehran University Press, 418p. (In Persian)
32.Mataji, A., Kafaki, S.B., Safaee, H., and Kiadaliri, H. 2008. Spatial pattern of regeneration gaps in managed and unmanaged stands in natural beech (Fagus orientalis) forests. Iranian J.of Forestry Research. 16: 149-157.(In Persian)
33.Mikac, S., Roženbergar, D., Anić, I., and Diaci, J. 2007. Regeneration in canopy gaps of the dinaric beech-fir virgin forests. Glasnik za Sumske Pokuse.42: 29-41.
34.Moayeri, M.H., Hajivand, A., Shataee Jouibary, Sh., and Rahbari Sisakht, S. 2017. Spatial pattern and characteristic of tree-fall gaps to approach ecological forestry in Northern Iran. Environmental Resources Research. 5: 1. 51-61.
35.Mohammadi, L., Mohadjer, M.R., Etemad, V., Sefidi, K., and Nasiri, N. 2020. Natural Regeneration within Natural and Man-Made Canopy Gaps in Caspian Natural Beech (Fagus Orientalis Lipsky) Forest, Northern Iran. J. of Sustainable Forestry. 39: 1. 61-75.
36.Muscolo, A., Bagnato, S., Sidari, M., and Mercurio, R. 2014. A review of the roles of forest canopy gaps. J. of Forestry Research. 25: 4. 725-736.
37.Orman, O., Dobrowolska, D., and Szwagrzyk, J. 2018. Gap regeneration patterns in Carpathian old-growth mixed beech forests–Interactive effects of spruce bark beetle canopy disturbance and deer herbivory. Forest Ecology and Management. 430: 451-459.
38.PAST: Paleontological Statistics Reference manual, Version 4.3. Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway. Accessed on 1999-2020 (online). Available: http://folk.uio.no/ ohammer/past/past4manual.pdf.
39.Petritan, A.M., Nuske, R.S., Petritan, I.C., and Tudose, N.C. 2013. Gap disturbance patterns in an old-growth sessile oak (Quercus petraea L.)–European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forest remnant in the Carpathian Mountains, Romania. Forest ecology and management. 308: 67-75.
40.Pourbabaei, H., Haddadi-Moghaddam, H.R., Begyom-Faghir, M., and Abedi, T. 2013. The influence of gap size on
plant species diversity and composition in beech (Fagus orientalis) forests, Ramsar, Mazandaran Province, North of Iran. Biodiversitas J. of Biological Diversity. 14: 2. 89-94.
41.Ritter, E., Dalsgaard, L., and Einhorn, K.S. 2005. Light, temperature and soil moisture regimes following gap formation in a semi-natural beech-dominated forest in Denmark. Forest Ecology and Management.206: 1-3. 15-33.
42.Saeb, K., Noori Shirazi, M., Kialashaki, A., and Jafari Hajati, R. 2012. Effect of light on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of hornbeam seedlings (Case study: Korkrood forest, Mazandaran). Iranian J. of Forest and Poplar Research. 19: 4. 478-490.(In Persian)
43.Sagheb-Talebi, K. 1996. Quantitative and qualitative characteristics of beech sapling (Fagus sylvatica L.) growing under various site conditions with emphasis on light. Beiheft zur Schweizerischen Zeitschrift fuer Forstwesen-Supplement au J. forestier suisse (Switzerland).
44.Schliemann, S.A., and Bockheim, J.G. 2011. Methods for studying tree fall gaps: a review. Forest ecology and management. 261: 7. 1143-1151.
45.Sefidi, K., Mohadjer, M.R.M., Mosandl, R., and Copenheaver, C.A. 2011. Canopy gaps and regeneration in old-growth Oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) stands, northern Iran.Forest Ecology and Management.262: 6. 1094-1099.
46.Seidel, D., Ammer, C., and Puettmann, K. 2015. Describing forest canopy gaps efficiently, accurately, and objectively: new prospects through the use of terrestrial laser scanning. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 213: 23-32.
47.Sheykholeslami, A., Mataji, M.A.,and Kialashaki, A. 2011. Comparison of regeneration in the natural gaps and single selection method gaps (case study: Jamand district-Noshahr). Natural Ecosystems of Iran. 2: 1. 21-30. (In Persian)
48.Tang, F., Quan, W., Li, C., Huang, X., Wu, X., Yang, Q., Pan, Y., Xu, T., Qian, C., and Gu, Y. 2019. Effects of small gaps on the relationship among soil properties, topography, and plant species in subtropical Rhododendron secondary forest, Southwest China. International J. of environmental research and public health. 16: 11. 1919.
49.Van Dam, O. PhD thesis. Forest filled with gaps. Effects of gap size on water and nutrient cycling in tropical rain forest. A study in Guyana. Utrecht the Netherlands: Utrecht Universit.pp. 100-117.
50.Vehmas, M., Packalén, P., Maltamo, M., and Eerikäinen, K. 2011. Using airborne laser scanning data for detecting canopy gaps and their understory type in mature boreal forest. Annals of Forest Science. 68: 4. 825-835.
51.Waez-Mousavi, S.M., Habashi, H., Sagheb Talebi, Kh., and Rahmani, R. 2016. Effect of Single-Tree Selection System on Regeneration in a Mixed Beech Forest (Case Study: Dr. Bahramnia Forestry Management Plan). Gorgan J. of Wood and Forest Science and Technology. 22: 4. 125-146.(In Persian)
52.Wu, C.D., Cheng, C.C., Chang, C.C., Lin, C., Chang, K.C., and Chuang, Y.C., 2016. Gap shape classification using landscape indices and multivariate statistics. Scientific reports. 6: 1. 1-10.
Journal of Wood and Forest Science and Technology
Volume 28, Issue 1
June 2021
Pages 1-20

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics