4.6 Article

Impacts of alternative timber harvest practices on leaf-chewing herbivores of oak

期刊

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 429-440

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00346.x

关键词

larval Lepidoptera; Missouri; Quercus; selective logging; species richness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of the effects of logging on Lepidoptera rarely address landscape-level effects or effects on larval, leaf-feeding stages. We examined the impacts of uneven-aged and even-aged logging on the abundance, richness, and community structure of leaf-chewing insects of white (Quercus alba L.) and black (Q. velutina L.) oak trees remaining in unharvested areas by sampling 3 years before and 7 years after harvest. After harvest, white oaks in uneven-aged sites had 32% fewer species of leaf-chewing insects than control sites. This reduction in species richness may have resulted from changes in microclimate (reducing plant quality and/or changing leaf phenology) that affected a much larger total area of each site than did even-aged cuts. For black oak after harvest, species richness in uneven- and even-aged sites increased relative to levels before harvest. Harvesting did not alter total insect density or community structure in the unlogged habitat for either oak species with one exception: insect density on black oak increased in the oldest forest block. Community structure of herbivores of black and white oaks in clearcut gaps differed from that of oaks in intact areas of even-aged sites. Furthermore, both richness and total insect density of black oaks were reduced in clearcut gaps. We suggest that low-level harvests alter herbivore species richness at the landscape level. Treatment effects were subtle because we sampled untreated areas of logged landscapes, only one harvest had occurred, and large temporal and spatial variation in abundance and richness existed. Although the effects of logging were greater in uneven-aged sites, the effects of even-aged management are likely to increase as harvesting continues.

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

4.6
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