Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Vegetation response to forest ditch reconstruction: Promoting a potential habitat for insect-pollinated plant species? Cover

Vegetation response to forest ditch reconstruction: Promoting a potential habitat for insect-pollinated plant species?

Open Access
|Apr 2024

Full Article

Introduction

During previous centuries, the human impact on nature has been steadily increasing. The result is a high degree of intervention in previously undisturbed ecosystems, bearing with it significant alterations of natural processes (Jackson & Jackson, 2000; Marsh, 2003; Goudie, 2018). It is often impossible to revert these ecosystems back to their near-natural state, and it is increasingly important to safeguard their remaining natural features and to ensure that they support the ecosystem processes in the best possible way (Jackson et al., 2009). For that, a profound understanding of the functioning of these novel ecosystems is of crucial importance.

In countries with a developed forest industry, linear forest infrastructure objects, such as forest roads and ditches constructed primarily to increase forest productivity and improve accessibility, are among the most widespread examples of human-altered ecosystems (Avon et al., 2013; Lõhmus et al., 2015), and drainage networks are common linear elements in forest landscapes all over Europe (Paavilainen & Päivänen, 1995; Rydin & Jeglum, 2006; Päivänen & Hånell, 2012). These anthropogenically created and maintained features may cause significant changes in forest ecosystem functions, for example, by disrupting population connectivity, acting as a barrier to dispersal, altering ecological community composition and decreasing community diversity at landscape level, and acting as pathways for the spread of invasive alien species (Smart et al., 2006; Flory & Clay, 2009).

At the same time, due to more varied micro-site conditions, ditches and ditch edges support higher species diversity, providing habitats for plants with different ecological requirements (Zielińska, 2007; Zielińska et al., 2017; Karim & Mallik, 2008). They are of a special importance for hygrophilous bryophytes and may help to preserve rare species in a managed forest landscape (Staniaszek-Kik et al., 2016). Zielińska et al. (2017) highlight the importance of forest ditch edges in increasing the habitat diversification for vascular plants and bryophytes at meso- and microscales. In landscapes heavily influenced by human activity ditch networks may enhance the functional connectivity of populations (Favre-Bac et al., 2016).

To address the decline of pollinator populations, measures resulting in the establishment of flowering plant communities with the primary aim of improving the nutrition basis for larvae and adult insects have been implemented in Europe and North America (Wratten et al., 2012). Ditch slopes and verges may positively contribute to this objective, as they provide habitats for a variety of flowering vascular plants (Rasran & Vogt, 2018), in this regard being more suitable for pollinator communities (especially bees, flies and butterflies) than closed forests and woodlands, moreover, linear forest structures are facilitating the dispersal of pollinators across the landscape (Hanula et al., 2016; Phillips et al., 2020). Thus, they may serve as ecological corridors and stepping-stones for pollinator communities: a significant aspect in the light of the increasing importance of pollination as essential ecosystem service with a declining tendency due to the intensification of agriculture practices, expansion of parasites, more frequent biological invasions, habitat loss and fragmentation (Liss et al., 2013; Porto et al., 2020). At the same time, linear infrastructure elements may promote the dispersal of invasive alien species, potentially acting as competitors for pollination services (Hanula et al., 2016). Knowledge about the specific effects that the creation and management of linear forest infrastructure elements have on vascular species’ composition and its role in providing habitats and as food base for pollinating insects is still scarce.

It is hypothesized that ditch reconstruction could increase the plant species diversity on forest ditch edges, in turn affecting the abundance of flowering plant species. The aim of our study was to monitor changes in plant species composition on drainage forest ditches and ditch edges, with emphasis on quantifying the amount of insect-pollinated plants, potentially beneficial to pollinator communities. This paper reflects the results of the analysis of flora along managed forest drainage ditches 3–5 years after reconstruction works, when the plant communities have re-established.

Materials and Methods

Study area

The study was conducted in the forested catchment of Zalve stream (Figure 1), located in the central part of Latvia (hemi-boreal vegetation zone) and actively managed by JSC (Latvia’s State Forests). The catchment is dominated by conifer stands, with an admixture of deciduous trees, mainly on mesotrophic mineral soils. The dominating tree species are Picea abies (L.) H. Karst., Pinus sylvestris L., Betula pendula Roth and Betula pubescens Ehrh. Part of the studied area has been drained for forestry in the second half of the 20th century. The stands are growing in lowland conditions (30–100 m a.s.l.). The mean annual temperature in the study area during the study period (2016–2020) was +8.3 °C (slightly higher than the mean value in Latvia) and the mean annual precipitation was 638 mm (slightly lower than the mean value in Latvia) (local meteorological station data, compared to the Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre (2023) data).

Figure 1.

The location of the research area.

Data collection

In 2016, vegetation monitoring plots were established along four forest ditch edges with a different management history. Plant species were inventoried along two recently reconstructed forest ditches (reconstruction year 2015) and two unmanaged forest ditches (left unattended for at least 20 years). At each site, a vegetation survey was performed along a 1-km-long section of the ditch, with ten 3 m × 10 m plots positioned with the long side perpendicular to the ditch on the left and right sides of the ditch, 100 m plots were located immediately adjacent to the ditch (Matisone et al., 2018). In total, 80 plots (4 transects × 20 plots) were established. In each plot, the cover of each vascular plant species and bryophyte species was recorded according to a 5-point scale (Braun-Blanquet, 1964). The tree and shrub species with a height of up to 1 m were also recorded and their cover estimated. The nomenclature of Gavrilova & Šulcs (1999) was followed for vascular plants and by Bambe et al. (2023) for bryophytes. The first vegetation survey was conducted from June to July 2016 and the repeated assessment during the same months in 2020. Insect-pollinated plants were identified combining all vascular plant species that are pollinated by different taxonomic groups of insects and/or those plant species with insects as one of pollen vectors. The values were extracted from the BiolFlor Database (2023).

Data analysis

Ellenberg indicator values (nitrogen, moisture, light, soil reaction) were used to describe the environmental conditions of each studied plot (Simmel et al., 2021; Tichý et al., 2023; Düll, 2001). Community-weighted means (by species cover) were calculated for Ellenberg values within a plot.

Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to assess the differences between survey years, the effects of the object type (managed or unmanaged) and of Ellenberg variables on species richness. The residuals were adjusted according to the Poisson distribution (log link function). The predictors were checked for co-linearity using the variance inflation factor; variables showing values >5 were discarded.

The plant species composition was analyzed using the detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) based on species cover data. The relationship between two canonical axes and species community characteristics (total species richness, richness of insect-pollinated flowers, species diversity index (H’)) and Ellenberg variables were calculated with Pearson’s correlation analysis. Canonical axes were rescaled and rare species were downweighed. Successional vectors were drawn to assess changes in plant species communities between the studied ditches according to the survey year. Data analysis was conducted in R v. 4.2.0 (R Core Team, 2020), using the libraries “lme4” (Bates et al., 2015). Ordination was conducted in PC-ORD 6 package (Peck, 2010).

Results and Discussion

In total, 254 plant taxa were recorded along the studied ditches: 34 bryophytes and 220 vascular plants – some individuals could be identified only down to genera. The species community represented the local pool of common species. The most common vascular plant species were Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth, Calamagrostis canescens (Weber) Roth, Cirsium oleraceum (L.) Scop., Dryopteris carthusiana (Vill.) H.P. Fuchs, Lysimachia vulgaris L., Rubus idaeus L. and Urtica dioica L. and the most common bryophytes were Brachythecium rutabulum (Hedw.) Schimp., Plagiomnium ellipticum (Brid.) T.J. Kop., Calliergonella cuspidata (Hedw.) Loeske (Appendix 1). For the second survey in 2020, 44 new taxa had emerged and 43 taxa had disappeared (Appendix 1). In the studied plots one protected orchid species Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich. (Cabinet Regulation No. 396, 2000) was found once in the studied time period, but this species is rather common along forest edges. The majority of the species were forbs and graminoids. More than half of all identified species were insect-pollinated flowering plant species (135 species) and made up around 60% of all recorded vascular plant species (Appendix 1).

The results showed that during the 4-year-period the richness of insect-pollinated plant species and the richness of total species had significantly increased, from 22 to 25 species and from 38 to 43 species per studied plot, respectively (Table 1). According to glmer models, the object type was the main predictor of the insect-pollinated plant species richness and total species richness as indicated by the highest χ2 values (Table 1). The highest insect-pollinated flower species richness was associated with managed ditches, and it was significantly higher than along unmanaged ditches (Table 1). The highest total species richness was identified along both reconstructed ditches, and the differences were significant for the strongest contrasts (compared to unmanaged ditch C) (Table 1). This confirms previously drawn conclusions that ditches as anthropogenic structures impact the plant species biodiversity in a managed forest landscape by increasing floristic richness (Zielińska et al., 2013; Zielińska et al., 2017). They do not, however, support endangered plant species. The explained factors for higher species richness were associated with higher Ellenberg light and nitrogen values (Table 1) that generally increase after the forest infrastructure reconstruction (Godefroid & Koedam, 2004). Our results showed that Ellenberg light values were significantly higher on the studied managed ditches (Appendix 2), indicating that management was improving the light conditions, while Ellenberg nitrogen values showed significantly strongest contrasts only between both managed ditches (Appendix 2).

Table 1.

Strength (χ2-value) and significance (p-value) of effects of year, object and Ellenberg light and nitrogen on species total richness and richness of insect-pollinated plant species. Similar letters indicate a lack of significant differences at α=0.05.

Richness of speciesInsect-pollinated plant species
EffectsVariableChi-Square (χ2)p-valueMeanGroupChi-Square (χ2)p-valueMeanGroup
Year201616.77<0.00138 ± 7.5a14.35<0.00122 ± 6.2a
202043 ± 8.2b25 ± 5.3b
ObjectReconstructed (A)31.77<0.00147 ± 7.7a41.07<0.00127 ± 5.1a
Reconstructed (B)43 ± 6.9ab27 ± 5.4a
Old (C)34 ± 6.8c19 ± 5b
Old (D)39 ± 6.2b22 ± 4.1b
Light3.810.050.170.68
Nitrogen4.80.031.090.3

According to our results, especially reconstructed diches provide important habitats for insect-pollinated plant species and thus could be favorable for groups of pollinators. Our results did not show the Ellenberg nutrient value as a significant factor for higher insect-pollinated species richness. According to the literature, it is possible that nitrogen enrichment benefits the growth of grasses more than that of forbs (Bråthen et al., 2021). While light availability could be a limiting factor for flowering plant species, our results did not show Ellenberg light values as a significant factor for higher insect-pollinator species richness as well. We hypothesize that pollinator species richness could be affected also by other factors, such as microtopography, features of soil and forest type and management in the studied area (Zielińska et al., 2017), which were not analyzed in this study.

The DCA ordination of the studied plots indicated an influence of management on the species composition. The higher number of insect-pollinated plants were more strongly associated with plots on reconstructed ditches (located on the left part of the DCA ordination) (Figure 2). Richness of insect-pollinated flowers were related to the first gradient (r=0.672), which accounted for 35% of the total variation (eigenvalue=0.348). According to the results, the species composition of managed forest ditches was associated with higher Ellenberg light values (the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between Ellenberg light and the first axis was 0.672 and second axis – 0.478, respectively) (Figure 2). Our results indicate that light could be related to higher richness of flowering plants.

The studied old ditches were characterized by lower light availability (Figure 2). The second gradient that accounted for 17% of the total variation (eigenvalue=0.165) and was explained by moisture, was most likely related to local specific conditions (Figure 2). The results confirm earlier findings that ditches could provide higher variability of microsite conditions resulting in high species richness (Bergès et al., 2013; Zielińska et al., 2013; Staniaszek-Kik et al., 2016). Several previous studies, e.g. Smith et al. (2007) and Baltzinger et al. (2011), mention especially roadsides with ditches as one of the most species-rich habitats in managed forests. The preliminary results obtained after the first survey in 2016 demonstrated that the species composition and species richness significantly differed between managed and unmanaged ditches, with Ellenberg nitrogen values as the main predictor of the differences (Matisone et al., 2018). Four years later, the differences were still significant, but the importance of nitrogen had decreased. After the second survey, light was the main environmental factor impacting the species composition.

Figure 2.

DCA ordination of studied plots in survey years 2016 and 2020. The first two canonical axes are shown. (A) shows plot ordination according to management intensity. The vectors show correlation between calculated Ellenberg indicator values (light, soil reaction, moisture, nitrogen) and between species communities metrics. Abbreviations: Spe_rich – species richness, Ins_pol_rich – insect-pollinated species richness. (B) shows species ordination with successional changes on studied plots. The successional changes in the species composition among the observations in 2016 and 2020 are indicated with black vectors.

The DCA ordination indicated also successional changes in species communities over a 4-year period (Figure 2). The changes in species composition were specific to the studied plot and most explicit according to the first gradient. According to the main gradient, successional changes on the unmanaged ditches were small as indicated by the relative length of successional vectors. The changes in species communities could be related to light conditions, showing that successional changes along reconstructed ditches were expressed as an increase in species richness, including insect-pollinated species richness and diversity. Successional changes on the unmanaged ditches were less pronounced, except for some individual plots where the increase in species richness was high (Figure 2). Such changes could be explained by management of forest stands along the studied old ditches promoting better light availability and resulting in higher species richness in the second assessment.

Conclusions

Our research confirms that intensive forest management (ditch reconstruction) promotes higher plant species richness along ditch edges in comparison with unmanaged forest ditches. Ditch reconstruction changes species composition, promoting more light and nitrogen demanding species, including flowering plants important for pollinators, thus providing nutrition sources for pollinator communities. Anthropogenically created or altered ecosystems should be evaluated in a complex way, considering both the ecosystem services and disservices they deliver.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the projects “Climate change mitigation potential of trees in shelter belts of drainage ditches in cropland and grassland” under the European Regional Development fund agreement No. 1.1.1.1/21/A/030 and “The impact of forest management on forest and related ecosystem services” No. 5-5.9.1_007n_101_21_76.

Appendices

Appendix 1.

The list of recorded vascular plant and bryophyte taxa along the studied ditches (in 2016 and 2020). The number of plots (n=40) where each species was recorded are shown. Insect-pollinated plant species are marked with*.

Managed ditchesUnmanaged ditches
Species2016202020162020
Acer platanoides L.*0100
Aegopodium podagraria L.*4301
Agrostis stolonifera L.1001
Agrostis tenuis Sibth.7601
Alisma plantago-aquatica L.*152048
Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.925919
Alnus incana (L.) Moench6001
Alopecurus aequalis Sobol.261100
Anemone nemorosa L.*1010
Angelica sylvestris L.*17262423
Anthriscus sylvestris (L.) Hoffm.*2001
Artemisia vulgaris L.71100
Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth29323634
Betula pendula Roth52605
Betula pubescens Ehrh.12073
Bidens tripartita L.*2202
Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P.Beauv.6000
Bromus arvensis L.1000
Calamagrostis arundinacea (L.) Roth3255
Calamagrostis canescens (Weber) Roth32382431
Calamagrostis epigeios (L.) Roth61623
Calla palustris L.*001113
Caltha palustris L.*311415
Campanula patula L*0100
Cardamine spp.*0604
Carex acuta L.0400
Carex appropinquata Schumach.3220
Carex cinerea Pollich1105
Carex digitata L.0200
Carex echinata Murray0001
Carex elongata L.232632
Carex flacca Schreb.0020
Carex flava L. s.str.1600
Carex hirta L.0200
Carex leporina L.1301
Carex nigra (L.) Reichard5201
Carex pseudocyperus L.419519
Carex remota L.0034
Carex rostrata Stokes16660
Carex spp.11805
Carex sylvatica Huds.0020
Carex vaginata Tausch0100
Carex vesicaria L.101104
Cerastium arvense L.*1000
Cerastium holosteoides Fr.*1300
Cerastium spp.*0700
Ceratophyllum demersum L.5502
Chamaenerion angustifolium (L.) Scop.*2400
Chenopodium album L.2000
Chrysosplenium alternifolium L.*12162122
Cicuta virosa L.*16211516
Circaea alpina L.*351219
Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.*212405
Cirsium heterophyllum (L.) Hill*0100
Cirsium oleraceum (L.) Scop.*28302230
Cirsium palustre (L.) Scop.*121833
Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten.*2301
Comarum palustre L.*1243
Convolvulus arvensis L.*2000
Crepis paludosa (L.) Moench*10129
Dactylis glomerata L.4000
Daphne mezereum L.*1000
Deschampsia caespitosa (L.) P.Beauv.3331115
Dryopteris carthusiana (Vill.) H.P.Fuchs19283435
Dryopteris filix-mas (L.) Schott4000
Elymus caninus (L.) L.01100
Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski0300
Epilobium spp.*2735511
Equisetum arvense L.131700
Equisetum fluviatile L.1686
Equisetum hyemale L.0010
Equisetum palustre L.0505
Equisetum pratense Ehrh.171160
Equisetum sylvaticum L.17171013
Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers.*1400
Erigeron canadensis L.*31202
Euonymus europaea L.*1200
Eupatorium cannabinum L.*1022
Fagopyrum esculentum Moench*0100
Festuca gigantea (L.) Vill.0200
Festuca rubra L. s.l.0300
Festuca spp.0300
Filipendula ulmaria (L.) Maxim.*32311310
Fragaria moschata Duchesne*6010
Fragaria vesca L.*5801
Frangula alnus Mill.*19271419
Galeobdolon luteum Huds.*5469
Galeopsis spp.*161705
Galium album Mill.*1301
Galium aparine L.*3222612
Galium elongatum C.Presl*136018
Galium palustre L.*15262231
Galium uliginosum L.*1001
Geranium robertianum L.*2602
Geum rivale L.*16161716
Glyceria fluitans (L.) R.Br.3234816
Gnaphalium uliginosum L.*2400
Gymnocarpium dryopteris (L.) Newman108149
Hepatica nobilis Mill.*0010
Hieracium spp.*0001
Hottonia palustris L.0001
Hypericum maculatum Crantz*101300
Impatiens noli-tangere L.*982221
Impatiens parviflora DC.*13703
Iris pseudacorus L.*201144
Juncus alpino-articulatus Chaix4000
Juncus articulatus L.61700
Juncus compressus Jacq.0100
Juncus filiformis L.3438313
Lathyrus pratensis L.*1100
Lathyrus vernus (L.) Bernh.*0010
Lemna minor L.21105
Chamomilla suaveolens (Pursh) Rydb.*1000
Leucanthemum vulgare Lam.*1000
Lolium multiflorum Lam.2000
Lolium perenne L.0100
Lupinus polyphyllus Lindl.*0100
Luzula multiflora (Ehrh.) Lej.0400
Luzula pilosa (L.) Willd.11121717
Coronaria flos-cuculi (L.) A.Braun*232734
Lycopus europaeus L.*18301834
Lysimachia nummularia L.*1200
Lysimachia vulgaris L.*33273032
Lythrum salicaria L.*0200
Maianthemum bifolium (L.) F.W.Schmidt*19202929
Mentha arvensis L.*152318
Mercurialis perennis L.2211
Milium effusum L.2967
Moehringia trinervia (L.) Clairv.*172042
Mycelis muralis (L.) Dumort.*121566
Myosostis arvensis (L.) Hill*1002
Myosotis palustris (L.) L.*25101222
Myosotis sylvatica Ehrh. ex Hoffm.*12100
Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench *22010
Naumburgia thyrsiflora (L.) Rchb.*35318
Oenothera biennis L.*0010
Orthilia secunda (L.) House*1014
Oxalis acetosella L.*18153333
Padus avium Mill.*1111
Paris quadrifolia L.*12101417
Polygonum hydropiper L.*0302
Peucedanum palustre (L.) Moench*882115
Phegopteris connectilis (Michx.) Watt1100
Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.111534
Picea abies (L.) H.Karst.16242027
Pimpinella saxifraga L.*1000
Pinus sylvestris L.2311
Plantago major L.*5100
Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich.*1000
Poa compressa L.1100
Poa nemoralis L.0300
Poa palustris L.17221222
Poa pratensis L.4501
Poa spp.0803
Polygonum hydropiper L.*1816215
Populus tremula L.7500
Potentilla erecta (L.) Raeusch.*1101
Prunella vulgaris L.*0100
Pyrola minor L.*1030
Quercus robur L.0001
Ranunculus acris L.*5230
Ranunculus flammula L.*11901
Ranunculus lingua L.*2700
Ranunculus polyanthemos L.*170112
Ranunculus repens L.*22331325
Ribes alpinum L.*1000
Ribes nigrum L.*0212
Rorippa sylvestris (L.) Besser*2000
Rubus idaeus L.*35372024
Rubus saxatilis L.*15141516
Rumex acetosa L.0100
Rumex acetosella L.4104
Rumex aquaticus L.0100
Rumex confertus Willd.4040
Rumex obtusifolius L.0305
Rumex sp.0002
Sagina procumbens L.*4000
Salix spp.*193234
Scirpus sylvaticus L.17281111
Scleranthus perennis L.*1000
Scrophularia nodosa L.*1300
Scutellaria galericulata L.*28222331
Senecio spp.*0101
Senecio sylvaticus L.*0001
Senecio vulgaris L.*5010
Solanum dulcamara L.*1962828
Solidago canadensis L. s.l. *4200
Solidago virgaurea L.*3763
Sonchus arvensis L.*2102
Sonchus oleraceus L.*91402
Sorbus aucuparia L.*5577
Spergularia rubra (L.) J. et C.Presl*1000
Stellaria graminea L.*0401
Stellaria holostea L.*4903
Stellaria longifolia Muhl. ex Willd.*1000
Stellaria media (L.) Vill.*1201
Stellaria nemorum L.*0202318
Stellaria palustris Retz.*4134
Stellaria spp.*0003
Stellaria uliginosa Murray*1000
Taraxacum officinale F.H.Wigg. s.l.*252503
Thelypteris palustris Schott1591620
Tilia cordata Mill.*3200
Trientalis europaea L.*241012
Trifolium repens L.*3000
Tussilago farfara L.*212900
Typha latifolia L.0404
Typha sp.0020
Urtica dioica L.*32333133
Vaccinium myrtillus L.*121411
Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.*0034
Valeriana officinalis L.*0441
Veronica beccabunga L.*0010
Veronica chamaedrys L.*162543
Veronica officinalis L.*1500
Veronica serpyllifolia L.*2000
Veronica spp.*0204
Viburnum opulus L.*2100
Vicia cracca L.*1000
Viola spp.*27252735
Atrichum undulatum (Hedw.) P.Beauv.8913
Aulacomnium palustre (Hedw.) Schwägr.0001
Brachythecium rutabulum (Hedw.) Schimp.8193422
Calliergon cordifolium (Hedw.) Kindb.173023
Calliergonella cuspidata (Hedw.) Loeske763220
Ceratodon purpureus (Hedw.) Brid.0500
Climacium dendroides (Hedw.) F.Weber & D.Mohr423121
Conocephalum conicum (L.) Dumort2040
Dicranum polysetum Sw. ex anon.6295
Dicranum scoparium Hedw.132111
Plagiochila asplenoides (L.) Dumort.0011
Plagiomnium affine (Blandow ex Funck) T.J.Kop.3152021
Plagiomnium cuspidatum (Hedw.) T.J.Kop.13101217
Plagiomnium ellipticum (Brid.) T.J.Kop.952819
Plagiomnium undulatum (Hedw.) T.J.Kop.1112
Plagiothecium spp.0080
Eurhynchium angustirete T.Koponen81133
Oxyrrhynchium hians (Hedw.) Loeske16370
Fissidens taxifolius Hedw.1021
Funaria hygrometrica Hedw.14200
Hylocomium splendens (Hedw.) Schimp.551716
Marchantia polymoropha L.42602
Pleurozium schreberi (Willd. ex Brid.) Mitt.942217
Pohlia nutans (Hedw.) Lindb.0100
Polytrichum commune Hedw.0203
Polytrichum juniperinum Hedw.02140
Ptilium crista-castrensis (Hedw.) De Not.1000
Sphagnum angustifolium (Russow) C.E.O.Jensen0031
Sphagnum girgensonii Russow0003
Sphagnum squarrosum Crome00117
Thuidium tamariscinum (Hedw.) Bruch, Schimp. & W.Guembel0020
Rhodobryum roseum (Hedw.) Limpr.2080
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus (Hedw.) Warnst.0122
Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus (Hedw.) Ochyra &541413
Appendix 2.

Mean values of Ellenberg light and nitrogen for the studied objects. Similar letters indicate a lack of significant differences at α=0.05.

LightNitrogen
ObjectsMeanlower.CLupper.CLGroupMeanlower.CLupper.CLGroup
Managed (A)5.735.515.94a4.113.964.25a
Managed (B)5.865.656.07a4.404.264.54b
Unmanaged (C)4.834.615.04b4.364.224.51ab
Unmanaged (D)5.164.955.37b4.364.224.51ab
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fsmu-2023-0017 | Journal eISSN: 1736-8723 | Journal ISSN: 1406-9954
Language: English, Estonian
Page range: 135 - 150
Published on: Apr 13, 2024
Published by: Estonian University of Life Sciences
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Related subjects:

© 2024 Linda Gerra-Inohosa, Zane Lībiete, Ilze Matisone, published by Estonian University of Life Sciences
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.