2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.048
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bryophyte community response to silvicultural opening size in a managed northern hardwood forest

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
15
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The weak effects of variable‐retention harvesting on bryophytes in deciduous‐dominated stands could be attributed to the fact that bryophytes in these stands are adapted to the more open and drier conditions that characterize these forests, and thus they were insensitive to microclimatic changes associated with retention harvesting. Indeed, the indicator species A. serpens and C. hispidulum , which were significantly associated with moderate levels of retention in deciduous‐dominated stands (Table ), are commonly found in drier and exposed microhabitats on tree bases, logs and mineral soil (Shields, Webster, & Glime, ). These results might also be explained by dense aspen suckering in these forest types, which might have been associated with less dramatic microenvironmental changes than in the mixed and conifer forests.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The weak effects of variable‐retention harvesting on bryophytes in deciduous‐dominated stands could be attributed to the fact that bryophytes in these stands are adapted to the more open and drier conditions that characterize these forests, and thus they were insensitive to microclimatic changes associated with retention harvesting. Indeed, the indicator species A. serpens and C. hispidulum , which were significantly associated with moderate levels of retention in deciduous‐dominated stands (Table ), are commonly found in drier and exposed microhabitats on tree bases, logs and mineral soil (Shields, Webster, & Glime, ). These results might also be explained by dense aspen suckering in these forest types, which might have been associated with less dramatic microenvironmental changes than in the mixed and conifer forests.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there still is no explanation for these differences, it is now widely accepted that peak diversity coincides with optimum environmental conditions [12]. However, various factors such as forest properties include stand structure [20], canopy opening [21], [22], forest management [23], and climate [24], [25] can cause variation in species richness, growth rate, and community structure of bryophytes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the species primarily limited by old-forest resources, structural retention during timber harvesting and using natural mixtures of tree species for regeneration can dramatically improve the quality of managed forests (Hansen et al 1991, Kouki et al 2001, while species sensitive to microclimatic fluctuations under closed canopy may only tolerate continuous-cover forestry (Hedenås and Ericson 2003, Humphrey 2005, Shields et al 2007). For dispersal-limited populations, sustaining landscape connectivity is crucial in the long run, but very rare and threatened species may additionally need to be artificially dispersed in the short term (Lidén et al 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%