Impacts of invasive trees on alpha and beta diversity of temperate forest understories
Despite good recognition of distributions and spread mechanisms of the three most invasive trees in Europe ( Prunus serotina , Quercus rubra and Robinia pseudoacacia ), their impacts on forest biodiversity are unevenly recognized. Most studies cover only taxonomic alpha diversity, and only a single...
Saved in:
Published in | Biological invasions Vol. 23; no. 1; pp. 235 - 252 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Cham
Springer International Publishing
01.01.2021
Springer Nature B.V |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Despite good recognition of distributions and spread mechanisms of the three most invasive trees in Europe (
Prunus serotina
,
Quercus rubra
and
Robinia pseudoacacia
), their impacts on forest biodiversity are unevenly recognized. Most studies cover only taxonomic alpha diversity, and only a single study included functional and phylogenetic diversity. Using a set of 186 study plots in western Poland we assessed the impacts of these invasive tree species on the alpha and beta taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity of understory vascular plants. Alpha diversity was higher in
R. pseudoacacia
forests and lower in
Q. rubra
forests compared to mature native forests. Compared to non-invaded plantations and forests, alpha diversity was higher in
P. sylvestris
plantations invaded by
P. serotina
, but lower in invaded nutrient-poor
P. sylvestris
forests. Alien species richness was higher and beta diversity was lower in forests invaded by
P. serotina
or
R. pseudoacacia
than in non-invaded forests. In contrast, beta diversity was higher in
Q. rubra
forests than in native forests. We proved that invaded forests differed from non-invaded forests in species composition, but not always with decreased alpha and beta diversity. Impacts of particular invasive species also depended on the reference ecosystem properties (here mature native forests, which did not always have the highest biodiversity), which is a source of inconsistency in previous studies, usually referring to single native ecosystem types. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 1387-3547 1573-1464 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s10530-020-02367-6 |