Features of coarse woody debris volume formation in fresh sudibrova conditions in Zmiini islands tract of Kaniv Nature Reserve

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33730/2310-4678.1.2021.231886

Keywords:

dead wood, standing dead trees, lying dead wood, forest ecosystem, pine-oak forest, biodiversity conservation

Abstract

Dead wood (woody debris) is an important component of forest ecosystems. It performs a number of ecological and environmental functions. The article studies the peculiarities of the formation of coarse wood detritus volume and its qualitative structure in forests in the conditions of fresh sudibrova of the Zmiiini Islands tract of Kaniv Nature Reserve. The study of dead wood was carried out in 140-year-old pine-oak forests of natural origin on a permanent sample plot (0.24 ha) by identifying and measuring of standing and lying deadwood components. It was found that dead wood in the forest ecosystem was formed due to the dying of trees of five species: common oak (Quercus robur L.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.), small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata Mill.) and common hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.), and has a volume 56.3 m3·ha–1. Dead wood volume is dominated by standing dead trees — 82.1%, and the share of lying dead wood, respectively, is 17.9%. The main part of dead wood volume is formed by two tree species — common oak and Scots pine, the share of which together is 94.3%. Common oak and Scots pine is characterized by a predominance of standing dead wood, while for other tree species — lying dead wood. In general, dead wood is formed by detritus of I–IV classes of destruction, at the same time detritus of class II decomposition has a significant advantage (70.5%), recently dead wood has a much smaller share (I class, 24.8%), and other classes of destruction have insignificant shares, which together do not exceed 5.0%. No woody detritus of the last (V) class of destruction was detected. Volume of standing dead wood is 46.2 m3·ha–1, and is formed by whole and broken dead trees. In terms of species composition, common oak has a significant advantage (74.5%), Scots pine has a much smaller share (25.1%), and the share of Norway maple is insignificant (0.4%). The total standing dead wood volume is dominated by wood of class II destruction (33.0 m3·ha–1, 71.4%) compared with class I (13.2 m3·ha–1, 28.6%). Lying dead wood is represented by four classes of destruction (I–IV), however, no woody debris was found at the late (last) stage of decomposition (class V). In terms of volume, the second class of destruction has an absolute advantage (6.7 m3·ha–1, 66.3%), much less class III detritus (2.3 m3·ha–1, 22.8%). Lying dead wood of common oak is represented by all four classes of destruction, among which III (40.5%) and I (33.3%) classes predominate. Lying dead wood of other tree species is characterized by the predominance of II or III classes of destruction. The main factors in the formation of woody detritus in the pine-oak forest in the Zmiiini Islands tract could be the impact of adverse climatic conditions (long periods without precipitation in summer), which led to the weakening of individual trees and their death, gusts of wind that broke individual tree trunks, low-intensity snow breaks, and the influence of biotic factors (insects, pathogens).

Author Biography

O. Chornobrov, Institute of Agroecology and Nature Management of NAAS

Reseacher

References

Furdychko, O.I. (2014). Ahroekolohiya: monohrafiya [Agroecology: monograph]. Kyiv: Agrarian science [in Ukrainian].

Harmon, M.E. et al. (1986). Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in ecological Research, 15, 133–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(03)34002-4 [in English].

Humphrey, J.W. et al. (2004). Deadwood as an indicator of biodiversity in European forests: from theory to operational guidance. EFI-Proceedings, 51, 193–206 [in English].

Shvidenko, A.Z., Shhepashhenko, D.G., & Nil’sson, S. (2009). Ocenka zapasov drevesnogo detrita v lesah Rossii. [Assessment of woody detritus in forests of Russia]. Lesnaja taksacija i lesoustrojstvo — Forest mensuration and inventory, 1 (41), 133–147 [in Russian].

Stokland, J.N., Tomter, S.M., & Soderberg, U. (2004). Development of Dead Wood Indicators for Biodiversity Monitoring: Experiences from Scandinavia. EFI Proceedings, 51, 207–226 [in English].

Schuck, A. et al. (2004). Forest biodiversity indicator: dead wood — a proposed approach towards operationalising the MCPFE indicator. EFI-Proceedings, 51, 49–77 [in English].

Siitonen, J. (2001). Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletin, 49, 11–42 [in English].

Jonsell, M., Weslien, J., & Ehnstrom, B. (1998). Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7, 749–764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008888319031[in English].

Lakyda, P.I., Bilous, A.M., Vasylyshyn, R.D., Makarchuk, I.Ya. (2012). Bioproduktyvnist ta enerhetychnyi potentsial miakolystianykh derevostaniv Ukrainskoho Polissia [Bioproductivity and energy potential of softwood stands of Ukrainian Polissya]. Korsun-Shevchenkivskyi: FOP V.M. Havryshenko [in Ukrainian].

Pasternak, V.P. (2011). Bioproduktyvnist lisiv pivnichnoho skhodu Ukrainy v konteksti zmin klimatu [Bioproductivity of forests of northeastern Ukraine in the context of climate change]. Extended abstract of Doctor’s thesis. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Volodymyrenko, V.M., Kotliarevska, U.M., Surai, V.A., Klochko, V.M. (2016). Mortmasa lisovykh ekosystem u suchasnomu ekoresursnomu vymiri [Mortmass of forest ecosystems in the modern ecoresource dimension]. Naukovyi visnyk NLTU Ukrainy — Scientific Bulletin of UNFU, 26.5, 188–194 [in Ukrainian].

Hahn, K., Christensen, M. (2004). Dead wood in European forest reserves — a reference for forest management. EFI Proceedings, 51, 181–191 [in English].

Atici, E., Colak, A.H. and Rotherham, I.D. (2008). Coarse dead wood volume of managed oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) stands in Turkey. Investigaciуn Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales, 17, 3, 216–227 [in English].

Jonsson, B.G. et al. (2016). Dead wood availability in managed Swedish forests — policy outcomes and implications for biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management, 376, 174–182 [in English].

Pasternak, V.P., Yarotskyi, V.Yu. (2010). Zapasy ta dynamika vidmerloi derevyny u lisakh pivnichnoho skhodu Ukrainy [Stocks and dynamics of dead wood in the forests of northeastern Ukraine]. Naukovyi visnyk NUBiP Ukrainy — Scientific Bulletin of NULES of Ukraine, 152, 2, 93–100 [in Ukrainian].

Müller, J & Bütler, R. (2010). A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: A baseline for management recommendations in European forests. European Journal of Forest Research, 129, 981–992. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-010-0400-5 [in English].

Lassauce, A., Paillet, Y., Jactel, H. and Bouget, C. (2011). Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecological Indicators, 11, 1027–1039 [in English].

Heilmann-Clausen, J., Christensen, M. (2004). Does size matter? On the importance of various dead wood fractions for fungal diversity in Danish beech forests. Forest Ecology and management, 201, 105–117 [in English].

Bilous, A.M. (2014). Metodyka doslidzhennia mortmasy lisiv [Methodology of the research mortmass of forest]. Bioresursy i pryrodokorystuvannia — Biological Resources and Nature Management, 6, 3–4, 134–145 [in Ukrainian].

Onyshchenko, V.A. & Andrienko, T.L. (Eds.). (2012). Fitoriznomanittia zapovidnykiv i natsionalnykh pryrodnykh parkiv Ukrainy. Ch.1. Biosferni zapovidnyky. Pryrodni zapovidnyky [Phytodiversity of nature reserves and national nature parks of Ukraine. P. 1. Biosphere reserves. Nature reserves]. Kyiv: Fitosotsiotsentr [in Ukrainian].

Rudenko, L.G. (Ed.). (2008). Natsionalnyi atlas Ukrainy [National atlas of Ukraine]. Kyiv: DNVP «Kartografija» [in Ukrainian].

Ploshchі probnі lіsovporyadnі. Metod zakladannya. [Forest inventory sample plots. Establishing method].(2006). Corporate standard 02.02-37-476:2006]. 2007. Valid from May 1, 2007. Kyiv: Minahropolityky Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].

Kashpor, S.M. & Strochynskyi, A.A. (Eds.). (2013). Lisotaksatsiinyi dovidnyk [Forest taxation handbook]. Kyiv: Vyd. dim «Vinichenko» [in Ukrainian].

Zaharov, V.K. (1957). Forma drevesnyh stvolov i metody ee issledovanija [The shape of tree trunks and methods of its study]. Sb. nauch. tr. Belorus. lesotehn. in-ta — Collection of articles of Belarus forestry institution, 10, 77–91 [in Russian].

Christensen, M. et al. (2005). Dead wood in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. Forest Ecology and Management, 210, 267–282. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.032 [in English].

Rahman, M., Frank, G., Ruprecht, H. & Vacik, H. (2008). Structure of coarse woody debris in Lange-Leitn Natural Forest Reserve, Austria. Journal of forest science, 54 (4), 161–169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17221/3102-JFS [in English].

Chornobrov, O.Yu. et al. (2020). Ekolohichna otsinka zapasu mertvoi derevyny u pryrodnykh lystianykh lisakh dolyny r. Vity u natsionalnomu pryrodnomu parku «Holosiivskyi» [Ecological assessment of dead wood volume in natural deciduous forests in Vita river valley in Holosiivskyi National Nature Park]. Ahroekolohichnyi zhurnal — Agroecological journal, 2, 45–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33730/2077-4893.2.2020.207680 [In Ukrainian].

Svyrydenko, V.Ye. (Ed.), Babich, O.H., Kyrychok, L.S. (2005). Lisivnytstvo [Silviculture]. Kyiv: Aristei [in Ukrainian].

Published

2021-07-30

Issue

Section

ECOLOGY