Impacts of soil conditions and light availability on natural regeneration of Norway spruce Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. in low-elevation mountain forests

Abstract

& Key message Natural regeneration of P. abies (L.) H. Karst. may reach high densities in lower mountain elevations. The highest densities were found in sites with moderate light availability, with low pH, and not near the riverbank. However, age-height classes differed in the predicted magnitude of response, but were consistent in response directions. Mosses and understory species typical of coniferous forests were positively correlated with regeneration density. & Context Norway spruce Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. in Central Europe is at risk under climate change scenarios, particularly in mountain regions. Little is known about the impact of environmental factors on the natural regeneration of P. abies in lowelevation mountain forests. & Aims We aimed to assess impacts of distance from the riverbank, soil pH, and light availability on natural P. abies regeneration. We hypothesized that (1) natural P. abies regeneration would depend on light availability and soil pH and (2) there are understory plant species which may indicate the microsites suitable for natural regeneration of P. abies. & Methods The study was conducted in the Stołowe Mountains National Park (SW Poland, 600-800 m a.s.l.). We established 160 study plots (25 m 2) for natural regeneration, light availability, soil pH, and understory vegetation assessment.

Complexity of Regeneration Dynamic at the Ecocline between Mixedwood and Coniferous Domains of the Southernmost Boreal Zone in Eastern North America

“…Furthermore, the positive effect of drought appears to prevent seedlings from a water surplus occurring on clay soil. In addition, balsam fir seedlings occurred mostly on a particular substrate such as woody mounds and thin moss cover [37], known to have a high water capacity, which may explain the absence of the PP_MA effect and the positive effect of drought on seedling abundance [38,39].…”

Diversity of soil mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) in streamside mountain forests

“…Riparian forests are characterized by high productivity and biodiversity, play the role of refugia for plants and serve as ecological corridors for populations (Mazal et al, 2022; Pielech et al, 2017; Wierzcholska et al, 2018). Among various types of riparian forests, the narrow habitats formed near springs have received more attention recently due to the maintenance of biodiversity and catchment integrity (Dyderski et al, 2018; González et al, 2017; Naiman et al, 1993; Pielech et al, 2017, 2018; Wierzcholska et al, 2018). In Europe, these valuable habitats, with native broadleaved or mixed forests were transformed for forestry purposes by introducing monocultures of coniferous tree species, which made them very fragmented and modified ecosystems (Bałazy, 2020; Bałazy et al, 2019; Klisz et al, 2022).…”

“…However, our knowledge on transformation of such ecosystems and its consequences for soil fauna is still scarce. Studies conducted in the Sudety Mountains indicated that introduction of Norway spruce (Picea abies) in the place of natural streamside forests changed light conditions, litter type and thickness, and caused acidification (Dyderski et al, 2018;Pielech et al, 2018;Wierzcholska et al, 2018), thus affecting the main environmental factors for soil fauna (Kamczyc et al, 2018;Urbanowski et al, 2018Urbanowski et al, , 2021Woźniak et al, 2022). Information on how environmental parameters vary and impact soil diversity along a distance gradient from the stream into forest, especially on lower mountain elevations in narrow riparian forests, is still scarce.…”

One park, two owners—Inconsistencies in forest stewardship

“…Scientists have demonstrated that post bark beetle outbreaks, nonintervention management is optimal for ecosystem recovery in mountain spruce stands. Benefits include nutrient recycling, preventing mineralization of the soil and the providing of shade, humidity, and cooling favoring natural regrowth (e.g., Bače et al, 2012; Bernes et al, 2015; Dyderski et al, 2018). Logging diminishes biodiversity and limits natural regeneration (Bässler & Müller, 2010; Lehnert et al, 2013; Lindenmayer et al, 2004; Müller et al, 2007, 2008, 2010; Nováková & Edwards‐Jonášová, 2015; Thorn et al, 2016, 2017).…”