Journal Home > Volume 4 , Issue 3
Forest Ecosystems 2017, 4(3): 11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-017-0099-6
Research | Open Access | Issue | Published: 12 July 2017

Small mammal community response to early meadow–forest succession

Show Author's Information Linas Balčiauskas ( ),  Aušra Čepukienė,  Laima Balčiauskienė
Nature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, 08412 Vilnius, Lithuania
Keywords:
Biomass, Abundance, Afforestation, Voles, Mice, Diversity
Cite this article:
Balčiauskas L, Čepukienė A, Balčiauskienė L. Small mammal community response to early meadow–forest succession. Forest Ecosystems, 2017, 4(3): 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-017-0099-6
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

547

Views

12

Downloads

Citations

11

Crossref

N/A

WoS

11

Scopus

0

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article
Background

With farmland afforestation becoming common policy in many European Union countries, we studied how early forest succession (from meadow to young stand) influences small mammal species composition, diversity, abundance and biomass. Despite numerous investigations into forest succession, almost no attention has been given to the small mammal community change in the early-successional forest ecosystems, starting with the pre-forest habitat and ending with stand formation and the establishment of tree dominance. We compared small mammal communities in meadows at the initial stage of regrowth (with saplings less than 10 cm in height), in young forest (5-10 years old) and more advanced forest (15-20 years) in both cases of human-induced forest succession, where the trees had been planted, and natural forest succession, where natural regrowth of meadows had occurred.

Results

The greatest diversity of small mammal species was recorded in the meadow (H = 2.95), with a lower diversity found in the young forest (H = 2.61) and even lower in the advanced forest (H = 2.04), the last habitat being the most monodominantic. The order of species dominance from Microtus sp. (M. arvalis, M. agrestis), Myodes glareolus, Apodemus flavicollis, Sorex araneus, A. agrarius in the meadow changed to M. glareolus, S. araneus, M. arvalis, M. agrestis in the young forest and to M. glareolus, A. flavicollis, S. araneus in the advanced forest. The lowest relative abundance of small mammals was recorded in the meadow (18.19 ± 2.27 ind. Per 100 trap-days), with Microtus voles being the most abundant. Relative abundance was higher in the young forest (22.72 ± 2.25 ind. Per 100 trap-days), with Myodes glareolus being the most abundant (7.59 ± 0.96 ind. Per 100 trap-days) and at its highest in the advanced forest (23.91 ± 2.77 ind. Per 100 trap-days), again with M. glareolus being the most abundant (15.54 ± 2.35 ind. Per 100 trap-days).

Conclusions

Thus, our analysis suggests that that during early meadow-forest succession, the diversity of the small mammal community declines - the number of species decreases as typical meadow species are lost due to the transformation of the habitat and one or a few species became dominants. However, the relative abundance of the small mammals increases. Biological indices of small mammal communities differed between natural and human-induced meadow-forest succession.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Small mammal community response to early meadow–forest succession

Show Author's information Linas Balčiauskas ( ), Aušra Čepukienė, Laima Balčiauskienė
Nature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, 08412 Vilnius, Lithuania

Abstract

Background

With farmland afforestation becoming common policy in many European Union countries, we studied how early forest succession (from meadow to young stand) influences small mammal species composition, diversity, abundance and biomass. Despite numerous investigations into forest succession, almost no attention has been given to the small mammal community change in the early-successional forest ecosystems, starting with the pre-forest habitat and ending with stand formation and the establishment of tree dominance. We compared small mammal communities in meadows at the initial stage of regrowth (with saplings less than 10 cm in height), in young forest (5-10 years old) and more advanced forest (15-20 years) in both cases of human-induced forest succession, where the trees had been planted, and natural forest succession, where natural regrowth of meadows had occurred.

Results

The greatest diversity of small mammal species was recorded in the meadow (H = 2.95), with a lower diversity found in the young forest (H = 2.61) and even lower in the advanced forest (H = 2.04), the last habitat being the most monodominantic. The order of species dominance from Microtus sp. (M. arvalis, M. agrestis), Myodes glareolus, Apodemus flavicollis, Sorex araneus, A. agrarius in the meadow changed to M. glareolus, S. araneus, M. arvalis, M. agrestis in the young forest and to M. glareolus, A. flavicollis, S. araneus in the advanced forest. The lowest relative abundance of small mammals was recorded in the meadow (18.19 ± 2.27 ind. Per 100 trap-days), with Microtus voles being the most abundant. Relative abundance was higher in the young forest (22.72 ± 2.25 ind. Per 100 trap-days), with Myodes glareolus being the most abundant (7.59 ± 0.96 ind. Per 100 trap-days) and at its highest in the advanced forest (23.91 ± 2.77 ind. Per 100 trap-days), again with M. glareolus being the most abundant (15.54 ± 2.35 ind. Per 100 trap-days).

Conclusions

Thus, our analysis suggests that that during early meadow-forest succession, the diversity of the small mammal community declines - the number of species decreases as typical meadow species are lost due to the transformation of the habitat and one or a few species became dominants. However, the relative abundance of the small mammals increases. Biological indices of small mammal communities differed between natural and human-induced meadow-forest succession.

Keywords: Biomass, Abundance, Afforestation, Voles, Mice, Diversity

References(51)

Alejūnas P, Stirkė V (2010) Small mammals in northern Lithuania: species diversity and abundance. Ekologija 56:110-115. doi:10.2478/v10055-010-0016-6
DOI Google Scholar

Atkeson TD, Johnson AS (1979) Succession of small mammals on pine plantations in the Georgia Piedmont. Am Midl Nat 101:385-392. doi:10.2307/2424604
DOI Google Scholar

Aleknavičius A, Aleknavičius P (2010) Perspectives of Farming Lands Area Preservation in Lithuania. LŽŪU mokslo darbai 86:28-36 (in Lithuanian)
Google Scholar
Balčiauskas L (2004) Methods of Investigation of Terrestrial Ecosystems. Part I. Animal Surveys, VUL, Vilnius (in Lithuanian)

Balčiauskas L (2005) Results of the long-term monitoring of small mammal communities in the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant Region (Drūkšiai LTER site). Acta Zool Litu 15:79-84. doi:10.1080/13921657.2005.10512378
DOI Google Scholar

Balčiauskas L, Angelstam P (1993) Ecological diversity: to manage it or to restore? Acta Ornithologica Lituanica 7:3-15
Google Scholar

Balčiauskas L, Juškaitis R (1997) Diversity of small mammal communities in Lithuania (1. A review). Acta Zool Litu Biodiversity 7:29-45. doi:10.1080/13921657.1997.10541423
DOI Google Scholar

Balčiauskas L, Alejūnas P (2011) Small mammal species diversity and abundance in Žagarė Regional Park. Acta Zool Litu 21:163-172. doi:10.2478/v10043-011-0017-z
DOI Google Scholar

Borchert MI, Farr DP, Rimbenieks-Negrete MA, Pawlowski MN (2014) Responses of Small Mammals to Wildfire in a Mixed Conifer Forest in the San Bernardino Mountains, California. Bull South Calif Acad Sci 113:81-95. doi:10.3160/0038-3872-113.2.81
DOI Google Scholar

Briani DC, Palma ART, Vieira EM (2004) Post-fire succession of small mammals in the Cerrado of central Brazil. Biodivers Conserv 13:1023-1037
DOI Google Scholar

Brockerhoff EG, Jactel H, Parrotta JA, Quine CP, Sayer J (2008) Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity? Biodivers Conserv 17:925-951. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9380-x
DOI Google Scholar
Brower JE, Zar JH (1984) Field and laboratory methods for general ecology, second edn. wm. c. brown company publishers, Dubuque
Butkus A, Eigirdas M, Kuliešis A, Mikėnaitė E, Vižlenskas D (2013) Lithuanian Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2013, Lututė, Kaunas (in Lithuanian)

Carey AB, Harrington CA (2001) Small mammals in young forests: implications for management for sustainability. Forest Ecol Manag 154:289-309. doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(00)00638-1
DOI Google Scholar

Carnus JM, Parrotta J, Brockerhoff E, Arbez M, Jactel H, Kremer A, Lamb D, O'Hara K, Walters B (2006) Planted forests and biodiversity. J Forest 104:65-77
Google Scholar

Carranza ML, Acosta A, Ricotta C (2007) Analyzing landscape diversity in time: the use of Rényi's generalized entropy function. Ecol Indic 7:505-510. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.05.005
DOI Google Scholar

Čepukienė A, Jasiulionis M (2012) Small mammal community changes during forest succession (Pakruojis district, NE Lithuania). Zool Ecol 22:144-149. doi:10.1080/21658005.2012.739866
DOI Google Scholar

Decocq G, Aubert M, Dupont F, Bardat J, Wattez-Franger A, Saguez R, De Foucault B, Alard D, Delelis-Dusollier A (2005) Silviculture-driven vegetation change in a European temperate deciduous forest. Ann For Sci 62:313-323. doi:10.1051/forest:2005026
DOI Google Scholar

Ecke F, Löfgren O, Sörlin D (2002) Population dynamics of small mammals in relation to forest age and structural habitat factors in northern Sweden. J Appl Ecol 39:781-792. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00759.x
DOI Google Scholar

Fisher JT, Wilkinson L (2005) The response of mammals to forest fire and timber harvest in North American boreal forest. Mammal Rev 35:51-81. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2005.00053.x
DOI Google Scholar

Fox BJ (1995) Long-term Studies of Small Mammal Communities from Disturbed Habitats in Eastern Australia. Academic Press, Orlando
DOI

Fuchs R, Herold M, Verburg PH, Clevers JG, Eberle J (2015) Gross changes in reconstructions of historic land cover/use for Europe between 1900 and 2010. Glob Chang Biol 21:299-313. doi:10.1111/gcb.12714
DOI Google Scholar

Gashwiler JS (1970) Plant and mammal changes on a clearcut in West-Central Oregon. Ecology 51:1018-1026. doi:10.2307/1933628
DOI Google Scholar

Huntly N, Inouye RS (1987) Small mammal populations of an old - field chronosequence: successional patterns and associations with vegetation. J Mammal 68:429-435 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1381550
DOI Google Scholar

Jasiulionis M, Čepukienė A, Balčiauskas L (2011) Small mammal community changes during succession of the planted forest. Acta Zool Litu 22:293-300. doi:10.2478/v10043-011-0035-x
DOI Google Scholar

Johnson R, Ferguson JWH, Van Jaarsveld AS, Bronner GN, Chimimba CT (2002) Delayed responses of small-mammal assemblages subject to afforestation-induced grassland fragmentation. J Mammal 83:290-300 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/83.1.290
DOI Google Scholar

Kavaliauskienė B, Tarvydienė ME (2005) Changes of agricultural land and forest areas in Lithuania. LŽŪU mokslo darbai 67:64-68 (in Lithuanian)
Google Scholar

Kirkland GL (1990) Patterns of initial small mammal community change after clearcutting of temperate North American forests. Oikos 59:313-320. doi:10.2307/3545141
DOI Google Scholar
Kleemola S, Söderman G (1993) Manual for integrated monitoring, Programme phase 1993-1996. Environmental Report 5. Environmental Data Centre, Helsinki

Kotecký V (2015) Contribution of afforestation subsidies policy to climate change adaptation in the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy 47:112-120. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.03.014
DOI Google Scholar

Lasanta T, Nadal-Romero E, Arnáez J (2015) Managing abandoned farmland to control the impact of re-vegetation on the environment. The state of the art in Europe. Environ Sci Pol 52:99-109. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.012
DOI Google Scholar
Lithuanian Forest Cover Enlargement Programme (2002) Lietuvos miškingumo didinimo programa, patvirtinta Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministro ir Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministro 2002 m. gruodžio 2 d. įsakymu Nr. 616/471

Ludwig JA, Reynolds JF (1988) Statistical Ecology: A Primer on Methods and Computing. Wiley Press, New York

Mažeikytė R (2002) Small mammals in the mosaic landscape of eastern Lithuania: species composition, distribution and abundance. Acta Zool Litu 12:381-391. doi:10.1080/13921657.2002.10512528
DOI Google Scholar

Panzacchi M, Linnell JD, Melis C, Odden M, Odden J, Gorini L, Andersen R (2010) Effect of land-use on small mammal abundance and diversity in a forest-farmland mosaic landscape in south-eastern Norway. Forest Ecol Manag 259:1536-1545. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.030
DOI Google Scholar

Pearce J, Venier L (2005) Small mammals as bioindicators of sustainable boreal forest management. Forest Ecol Manag 208:153-175. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.11.024
DOI Google Scholar

Raoul F, Pleydell D, Quere JP, Vaniscotte A, Rieffel D, Takahashi K, Bernard N, Wang J, Dobigny T, Galbreath KE, Giraudoux P (2008) Small-mammal assemblage response to deforestation and afforestation in central China. Mammalia 72:320-332. doi:10.1515/mamm.2008.045
DOI Google Scholar

Saitoh T, Nakatsu A (1997) The impact of forestry on the small rodent community oh Hokkaido, Japan. Mammal Study 22:27-38 http://doi.org/10.3106/mammalstudy.22.27
DOI Google Scholar

Schoonmaker P, McKee A (1988) Species composition and diversity during secondary succession of coniferous forest in the western cascade mountains of Oregon. For Sci 34:960-979
Google Scholar
StatSoft Inc (2013) Electronic Statistics Textbook. StatSoft, Tulsa http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/. Accessed 9 Mar 2015

Sullivan TP, Lautenschlager RA, Wagner RG (1999) Clearcutting and burning of northern spruce-fir forests: implications for small mammal communities. J Appl Ecol 36:327-344. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00408.x
DOI Google Scholar

Sullivan TP, Sullivan DS, Lindgren PMF (2000) Small mammals and stand structure in young pine, seed-tree, and old-growth forest, southwest Canada. Ecol Appl 10:1367-1383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1367:SMASSI]2.0.CO; 2
DOI Google Scholar

Swanson ME, Franklin JF, Beschta RL, Crisafulli CM, DellaSala DA, Hutto RL, Lindenmayer DB, Swanson FJ (2010) The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Front Ecol Environ 9:117-125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/090157
DOI Google Scholar

Swihart RK, Slade NA (1990) Long-term dynamics of an early successional small mammal community. Am Midl Nat 123:373-382. doi:10.2307/2426565
DOI Google Scholar

Šinkūnas R, Balčiauskas L (2006) Small mammal communities in the fragmented landscape in Lithuania. Acta Zool Litu 16:130-136. doi:10.1080/13921657.2006.10512721
DOI Google Scholar

Torre I, Diaz M (2004) Small mammal abundance in Mediterranean post-fire habitats: a role for predators? Acta Oecol 25:137-142. doi:10.1016/j.actao.2003.10.007
DOI Google Scholar

Tóthmérész B (1993) DivOrd 1.50: a program for diversity ordering. Tiscia 27:33-44
Google Scholar

Tóthmérész B (1998) On the characterization of scale-dependent diversity. Abstr Bot 22:149-156
Google Scholar

Urban NA, Swihart RK (2011) Small mammal responses to forest management for oak regeneration in southern Indiana. Forest Ecol Manag 261:353-361. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.10.015
DOI Google Scholar
Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

Zwolak R (2009) A meta-analysis of the effects of wildfire, clearcutting, and partial harvest on the abundance of North American small mammals. Forest Ecol Manag 258:539-545. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.033
DOI Google Scholar
Publication history
Copyright
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 10 January 2017
Accepted: 05 July 2017
Published: 12 July 2017
Issue date: September 2017

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Return