13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Nothing else matters? Tree diameter and living status have more effects than biogeoclimatic context on microhabitat number and occurrence: An analysis in French forest reserves

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Managing forests to preserve biodiversity requires a good knowledge not only of the factors driving its dynamics but also of the structural elements that actually support biodiversity. Tree-related microhabitats (e.g. cavities, cracks, conks of fungi) are tree-borne features that are reputed to support specific biodiversity for at least a part of species’ life cycles. While several studies have analysed the drivers of microhabitats number and occurrence at the tree scale, they remain limited to a few tree species located in relatively narrow biogeographical ranges. We used a nationwide database of forest reserves where microhabitats were inventoried on more than 22,000 trees. We analysed the effect of tree diameter and living status (alive or dead) on microhabitat number and occurrence per tree, taking into account biogeoclimatic variables and tree genus. We confirmed that larger trees and dead trees bore more microhabitats than their smaller or living counterparts did; we extended these results to a wider range of tree genera and ecological conditions than those studied before. Contrary to our expectations, the total number of microhabitat types per tree barely varied with tree genus–though we did find slightly higher accumulation levels for broadleaves than for conifers–nor did it vary with elevation or soil pH, whatever the living status. We observed the same results for the occurrence of individual microhabitat types. However, accumulation levels with diameter and occurrence on dead trees were higher for microhabitats linked with wood decay processes (e.g. dead branches or woodpecker feeding holes) than for other, epixylic, microhabitats such as epiphytes (ivy, mosses and lichens). Promoting large living and dead trees of several tree species may be a relevant, and nearly universal, way to favour microhabitats and enhance the substrates needed to support specific biodiversity. In the future, a better understanding of microhabitat drivers and dynamics at the tree scale may help to better define their role as biodiversity indicators for large-scale monitoring.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Microhabitats reduce animal's exposure to climate extremes.

          Extreme weather events, such as unusually hot or dry conditions, can cause death by exceeding physiological limits, and so cause loss of population. Survival will depend on whether or not susceptible organisms can find refuges that buffer extreme conditions. Microhabitats offer different microclimates to those found within the wider ecosystem, but do these microhabitats effectively buffer extreme climate events relative to the physiological requirements of the animals that frequent them? We collected temperature data from four common microhabitats (soil, tree holes, epiphytes, and vegetation) located from the ground to canopy in primary rainforests in the Philippines. Ambient temperatures were monitored from outside of each microhabitat and from the upper forest canopy, which represent our macrohabitat controls. We measured the critical thermal maxima (CTmax ) of frog and lizard species, which are thermally sensitive and inhabit our microhabitats. Microhabitats reduced mean temperature by 1-2 °C and reduced the duration of extreme temperature exposure by 14-31 times. Microhabitat temperatures were below the CTmax of inhabitant frogs and lizards, whereas macrohabitats consistently contained lethal temperatures. Microhabitat temperatures increased by 0.11-0.66 °C for every 1 °C increase in macrohabitat temperature, and this nonuniformity in temperature change influenced our forecasts of vulnerability for animal communities under climate change. Assuming uniform increases of 6 °C, microhabitats decreased the vulnerability of communities by up to 32-fold, whereas under nonuniform increases of 0.66 to 3.96 °C, microhabitats decreased the vulnerability of communities by up to 108-fold. Microhabitats have extraordinary potential to buffer climate and likely reduce mortality during extreme climate events. These results suggest that predicted changes in distribution due to mortality and habitat shifts that are derived from macroclimatic samples and that assume uniform changes in microclimates relative to macroclimates may be overly pessimistic. Nevertheless, even nonuniform temperature increases within buffered microhabitats would still threaten frogs and lizards.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Silviculture for old-growth attributes

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Where are Europe’s last primary forests?

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                9 May 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 5
                : e0216500
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Irstea, UR EFNO, Domaine des Barres, Nogent-sur-Vernisson, France
                [2 ] MECADEV, UMR 7179 MNHN/CNRS, Paris, France
                [3 ] Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Irstea, LESSEM, Grenoble, France
                [4 ] Réserves Naturelles de France, La Bourdonnerie, Dijon cedex, France
                Technical University in Zvolen, SLOVAKIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7232-7844
                Article
                PONE-D-19-02775
                10.1371/journal.pone.0216500
                6508731
                31071149
                8977ba0d-06a8-45de-ab50-bcb3569acb63
                © 2019 Paillet et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 29 January 2019
                : 22 April 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Pages: 18
                Funding
                The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Plants
                Trees
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Plants
                Trees
                Pines
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecosystems
                Forests
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecosystems
                Forests
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Terrestrial Environments
                Forests
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Plants
                Trees
                Beeches
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Plant Science
                Dendrology
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Vertebrates
                Amniotes
                Birds
                Woodpeckers
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Plants
                Trees
                Oaks
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Biodiversity
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Biodiversity
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article