4.7 Article

Coppice management of forests impacts spatial genetic structure but not genetic diversity in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.)

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 336, 期 -, 页码 65-71

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.10.015

关键词

Coppicing; European beech; Spatial genetic structure; Genetic diversity; Traditional management; Gene flow

类别

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council, ERA-Net BiodivERsA Project 'European Beech Forests for the Future' (BEFOFU) [NE/G002118/1]
  2. NERC [NE/G002118/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G002118/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coppice management of forests was historically common in Europe. Actively managed coppice persists through vegetative regeneration prolonging the lifespan of trees and reducing flowering, seed production, and establishment. As coppicing alters the primary regeneration pathway within a stand, it is expected to alter the level and structuring of genetic diversity within populations. The study species, European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), has historically experienced widespread coppicing throughout the range of the species. Genetic material was obtained from paired coppiced and high forest stands, in each of three study sites across Europe located in Germany, France, and Italy. Trees were genotyped at 11 microsatellite loci. Estimates of genetic diversity were found to be equally high as those found in natural forests. Significant spatial genetic structure of coppice stands extended 10-20 m further than their paired high forest indicating that local-scale patterns of geneflow have been significantly altered by generations of forest management in the coppice stands. Understanding the implications of such changes for the structure and level of diversity within traditionally managed populations can assist with management planning for conservation and resource use into the future. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据