Abstract
Key message
Tree species differ in their functioning at the scale of an individual tree which will result in differences in ecosystem service provision. Replacement trees for diseased trees should take account of functional differences.
Abstract
Globally tree species composition is changing due to species loss from pests and pathogens. The impact of this change on ecological functioning is rarely tested. Using six sites across the UK, with multiple tree species at each site, we test for functional differences between three species threatened by disease in the UK: Quercus petraea, Q. robur and Fraxinus excelsior and six other species: Acer pseudoplatanus, Castanea sativa, Fagus sylvatica, Quercus cerris, Quercus rubra, and Tilia x europaea, which have previously been suggested as ecological replacements. Differences between species were detected for all the variables measured: nitrogen mineralization, decomposition rate, total soil carbon and nitrogen, soil pH, soil temperature, and bark water holding capacity. Non-native Quercus species were only suitable replacements for native Quercus for some of the functions measured but replicating native Quercus functioning using a mixture of other species may be possible. The functioning of F. excelsior was different from most other tree species, suggesting that replicating its functioning with replacement tree species is difficult. The work highlighted that which species replaces diseased trees, even at the scale of single trees, will impact on the functions and ecosystem services provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
The data are available at NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. https://doi.org/10.5285/f539567f-a8cd-482e-89b8-64a951b52d93. Mitchell, R.J.; Hewison, R.L.; Beaton, J.; Haghi, R.K.; Robertson, A.H.J.; Main, A.M.; Owen, I.J.; Douglass, J. (2020). Functional and epiphytic biodiversity differences between nine tree species in the UK.
References
Albers D, Migge S, Schaefer M, Scheu S (2004) Decomposition of beech leaves (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce needles (Picea abies) in pure and mixed stands of beech and spruce. Soil Biol Biochem 36:155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2003.09.002
Allen SE (1989) Chemical analysis of ecological material, 2nd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford
Augusto L, Bonnaud P, Ranger J (1998) Impact of tree species on forest soil acidification. For Ecol Manage 105:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1127(97)00270-3
Averill C, Turner BL, Finzi AC (2014) Mycorrhiza-mediated competition between plants and decomposers drives soil carbon storage. Nature 505:543–545. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12901
Bastin J-F et al (2019) The global tree restoration potential. Science 365:76–79
Berger TW, Duboc O, Djukic I, Tatzber M, Gerzabek MH, Zehetner F (2015) Decomposition of beech (Fagus sylvatica) and pine (Pinus nigra) litter along an Alpine elevation gradient: Decay and nutrient release. Geoderma 251:92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.03.024
Bonifacio E, Petrillo M, Petrella F, Tambone F, Celi L (2015) Alien red oak affects soil organic matter cycling and nutrient availability in low-fertility well-developed soils. Plant Soil 395:215–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2555-9
Boyd IL, Freer-Smith PH, Gilligan CA, Godfray HCJ (2013) The consequence of tree pests and diseases for ecosystem services. Science 342:1235773. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235773
Cameron RWF, Blanusa T (2016) Green infrastructure and ecosystem services—is the devil in the detail? Ann Bot 118:377–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcw129
Cha J-Y, Cha Y, Oh N-H (2019) The effects of tree species on soil organic carbon content in South Korea. J Geophys Res-Biogeosci 124:708–716. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jg004808
Commission Forestry (2003) National inventory of woodland and trees. Great Britain. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh
Cools N, Vesterdal L, Vos B, Vanguelova E, Hansen K (2014) Tree species is the major factor explaining C: N ratios in European forest soils. For Ecol Manage 311:3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.047
Crockford RH, Richardson DP (2000) Partitioning of rainfall into throughfall, stemflow and interception: effect of forest type, ground cover and climate. Hydrol Processes 14:2903–2920. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1085(200011/12)14:16/17%3c2903::aid-hyp126%3e3.0.co;2-6
Denman S, Webber J (2009) Oak declines: new definitions and new episodes in Britain. Q J For 103:285–290
Denman S, Brown N, Kirk S, Jeger M, Webber J (2014) A description of the symptoms of Acute Oak Decline in Britain and a comparative review on causes of similar disorders on oak in Europe. Forestry 87:535–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpu010
Ellis CJ, Eaton S, Theodoropoulos M, Elliott K (2015) Epiphyte communities and indicator species. An ecological guide for Scotland’s woodlands. The Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
Ellison AM et al (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:479–486. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003%5b0479:lofscf%5d2.0.co;2
Ennos R, Cottrell J, Hall J, O’Brien D (2019) Is the introduction of novel exotic forest tree species a rational response to rapid environmental change? A British perspective. For Ecol Manage 432:718–728
Grime JP, Hodgson JG, Hunt R (1996) Comparative plant ecology. A functional approach to common British species. Chapman and Hall, London
Gross A, Holdenrieder O, Pautasso M, Queloz V, Sieber TN (2014) Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus, the causal agent of European ash dieback. Mol Plant Pathol 15:5–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12073
Hicke JA et al (2012) Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the United States and Canada. Glob Change Biol 18:7–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02543.x
Hill L, Hemery G, Hector A, Brown N (2019) Maintaining ecosystem properties after loss of ash in Great Britain. J Appl Ecol 56: 282–293
Jones EW (1959) Biological flora of the British-Isles Quercus L. J Ecol 47:169–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/2257253
Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff P, Christensen R (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82:1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Langenbruch C, Helfrich M, Flessa H (2012) Effects of beech (Fagus sylvatica), ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and lime (Tilia spec.) on soil chemical properties in a mixed deciduous forest. Plant Soil 352:389–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-1004-7
Lenth R (2019) emmeans: estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.3.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
Lonsdale D (2015) Review of oak mildew, with particular reference to mature and veteran trees in Britain. Arboricult J 37:61–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2015.1039839
Lorenz K, Preston CM, Krumrei S, Feger KH (2004) Decomposition of needle/leaf litter from Scots pine, black cherry, common oak and European beech at a conurbation forest site. Eur J Forest Res 123:177–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-004-0025-7
Lovett GM, Arthur MA, Weathers KC, Griffin JM (2010) Long-term changes in forest carbon and nitrogen cycling caused by an introduced pest/pathogen complex. Ecosystems 13:1188–1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-010-9381-y
Marcos E, Calvo L, Antonio Marcos J, Taboada A, Tarrega R (2010) Tree effects on the chemical topsoil features of oak, beech and pine forests. Eur J Forest Res 129:25–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-008-0248-0
McLean E (1982) Methods of soil analysis part 2—chemical and microbiological properties, 2nd edn. SSSA, Madison
Mitchell RJ et al (2019) Collapsing foundations: The ecology of the British oak, implications of its decline and mitigation options. Biol Conserv 233:316–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.040
Mitchell RJ et al (2014) Ash dieback in the UK: a review of the ecological and conservation implications and potential management options. Biol Conserv 175:95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.04.019
Mitchell RJ et al (2016) How to replicate the functions and biodiversity of a threatened tree species? The case of Fraxinus excelsior in Britain. Ecosystems 19:573–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9953-y
Mitchell R et al (2017) Challenges in assessing the ecological impacts of tree diseases and mitigation measures: the case of Hymenoscyphus fraxineus and Fraxinus excelsior. Baltic Forestry 23:116–140
Morakinyo TE, Lau KKL, Ren C, Ng E (2018) Performance of Hong Kong’s common trees species for outdoor temperature regulation, thermal comfort and energy saving. Build Environ 137:157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.012
National Forest Inventory (2017) Tree cover outside woodland in Great Britain. In: National Forest Inventory Report. National Forest Inventory, Forest Research, Edinburgh
Nea UK (2011) The UK national ecosystem assessment technical report. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
Oksanen J et al (2019) Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
Oulehle F, Ruzek M, Tahovska K, Barta J, Myska O (2016) Carbon and nitrogen pools and fluxes in adjacent mature Norway Spruce and European Beech Forests. Forests. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7110282
Packham JR, Thomas PA, Atkinson MD, Degen T (2012) Biological Flora of the British Isles: Fagus sylvatica. J Ecol 100:1557–1608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2012.02017.x
Pella E, Colombo B (1973) Study of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen determination by combustion gas chromatography Mikrochim Acta 1973:697–719
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2018) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-137. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme>
Reich PB et al (2005) Linking litter calcium, earthworms and soil properties: a common garden test with 14 tree species. Ecol Lett 8:811–818. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00779.x
Soto JR, Escobedo FJ, Khachatryan H, Adams DC (2018) Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling. Ecosyst Serv 29:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.009
R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2012) CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide: software for ordination (verion 5.0). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca
Thomas PA (2016) Biological Flora of the British Isles: Fraxinus excelsior. J Ecol 104:1158–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12566
Tomlinson I, Potter C, Bayliss H (2015) Managing tree pests and diseases in urban settings: the case of Oak Processionary Moth in London, 2006–2012. Urban For Urban Green 14:286–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.009
Ukonmaanaho L, Merila P, Nojd P, Nieminen TM (2008) Litterfall production and nutrient return to the forest floor in Scots pine and Norway spruce stands in Finland. Boreal Environ Res 13:67–91
Van Stan JT, Lewis ES, Hildebrandt A, Rebmann C, Friesen J (2016) Impact of interacting bark structure and rainfall conditions on stemflow variability in a temperate beech-oak forest, central Germany. Hydrol Sci J 61:2071–2083. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2015.1083104
Vesterdal L, Elberling B, Christiansen JR, Callesen I, Schmidt IK (2012) Soil respiration and rates of soil carbon turnover differ among six common European tree species. For Ecol Manage 264:185–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.10.009
Funding
The work was funded by Defra through the BBSRC grant Protecting Oak Ecosystems (PuRpOsE): BB/N022831/1 with additional funding from the Scottish Government’s Rural and Environment Research and Analysis Directorate 2016-2021 strategic research programme. We thank all the staff at the gardens for allowing us access and for their helpful advice in locating the trees. We thank Zurine Pallacan, Sheila Reid, and Douglas Iason for the many hours which they spent preparing the soil samples for analysis, Carrie Donald for the C and N analysis, Joan Beaton for doing the bark volume and water holding capacity, and Jackie Potts for her advice with the statistics. We thank Robin Pakeman for comments on an earlier draft.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed consent
All authors give their consent for publication
Code availability
Data analysis was carried out in standard software packages detailed in the methods. No new code developed
Additional information
Communicated by Han.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mitchell, R.J., Hewison, R.L., Haghi, R.K. et al. Functional and ecosystem service differences between tree species: implications for tree species replacement. Trees 35, 307–317 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-020-02035-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-020-02035-1