Assessment and Inventory of Forest Ecosystems Biodiversity: Case Study for Karelian Isthmus of Leningrad Region, Russia
- 1 Department of Forest Inventory, Management and GIS, Sankt-Petersburg State Forest Technical University, Sankt-Petersburg, Russia
Abstract
Regular grid of permanent sample plots (PSP) of ICP-Forests monitoring system was used for forest ecosystems biodiversity assessments and inventory. The supplementary features were added to the PSP structure to conduct biological diversity census: eight sample plots 1 × 1 m for geo-botanical description; two sample plots of 5 × 5 m each for description of the PSP’s undergrowth; one 25 × 25 m plot for coarse woody debris estimations; four soil inventory pits. The total number of PSP amounted to 248. Total data used are as following: 1) 1984 geo-botanical descriptions of vegetation belonging to ground cover layers made on 1 × 1 m sample plots; 2) 496 descriptions of undergrowth on 5 × 5 m sample plots; 3) 178 descriptions of woody debris on 25 × 25 m sample plots; 4) 496 descriptions of soil inventory pits. General statistical indicators characterizing forest land cover diversity were calculated. Statistic indicators of α-diversity for the Karelian Isthmus forest vegetation cover have the following values: 1) m (mean number of species per PSP) = 26 species; 2) σ (standard deviation) = 9.5 species; 3) v (variation coefficient) = 36.5%; 4) Р (deviation amplitude) = 60 – 7 = 53 species. β – diversity of forest ecosystems as well as γ – diversity also was studied on the base of information collected on the same regular grid of sample plots. It appears that sample plots distribution by species diversity gradation is well described by the standard curve of normal distribution for the entire Karelian Isthmus forest (determination coefficient of the curve being 95.2%) as well as for each type of forest. Hence, the criterion (standard) of biodiversity for forest ecosystems can be defined as the mean value of alpha diversity for each forest type group – m; and the standard deviation – σ, as a tool for assessing deviations from the standard. PSP locations are fixed using GPS technology, this allows biodiversity assessments at the same place in the next years for biodiversity trends estimations and consist the frame for systematic biodiversity inventory.
- Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2014) Global Biodiversity Outlook 4, Montréal, 155 p. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo4/publication/gbo4-en.pdf
- Hansen, M., Potapov, P., Moore, R., et al. (2013) High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science, 342, 850-853. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693
- Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Jonsson, B.G. and Roberge, J.-M. (2011) Protecting Forest Areas for Biodiversity in Sweden 1991-2010: The Policy Implementation Process and Outcomes on the Ground. Silva Fennica, 45, 1111-1133. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.90
- Naeem, S., et al. (1994) Declining Biodiversity Can Alter the Performance of Ecosystems. Nature, 386, 734-737. https://doi.org/10.1038/368734a0
- Lawton, J.H. (1994) What Do Species Do in Ecosystems? Oikos, 71, 367-374.
- Grime, J.P. (1997) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. The Debate Deepens. Science, 277, 1260-1261. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5330.1260
- Jones, S.G., et al. (1997) Positive and Negative Effects of Organisms as Physical Ecosystem Engineers. Ecology, 78, 1946-1957. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078[1946:PANEOO]2.0.CO;2
- Wilcove, D.S. (1990) Protecting Biodiversity in Multiple-Use Lands: Lessons from US Forest Service. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 4, 385-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(89)90108-0
- Noss, R.F. (1990) Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach. Conservation Biology, 4, 355-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x
- McKenney, D.W., et al. (1994) Towards a Set of Biodiversity Indicators for Canadian Forests. Proceedings of a Forest Biodiversity Indicators Workshop, Canadian Forest Service, Sault St. Marie, November 29-December 1, 1993, 16-27.
- Loiskekoski, M., et al. (1994) Sound Forestry-Sustainable Development. List of Criteria and Most Suitable Indicators. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Helsinki.
- Angelstam, P. (1998) Towards a Logic for Assessing Biodiversity in Boreal Forests. In: Bachmann, P., Kohl, M. and Paivinen, R., Eds., Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning, Kluwer, 301-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9006-8_29
- McGeoch, B., et al. (1998) Scaling up the Value of Bioindicators. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,, 13, 46-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01279-2