Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Side 167

Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Side 167
succession birch forest (Olsson et al. 2000). The heathlands in Sjodalen, Oppland county, is re- duced by 70% in the same peri- od, now covered by woodlands (Olsson et al. 2000). The ongoing rise in forest-limits around for- mer summer farms in Norway is in other words a natural re- sponse of reduced felling, grazing and mowing. However, one should also consider that climat- ic changes may speed up this process (Aas and Faarlund 1995). The large and visible landscape changes are not the only results of the abandonment of summer farms and the following re-growth. As shown in the Grimsdalen- study, this process also effects the biodiversity of the summer farm landscape. According to Kielland- Lund (1992), about 350 vascular plants have their main Norwegian distribution in seminatural vege- tation types. Several investiga- tions also show that summer farming has increased biological diversity in subalpine areas (Olsson et al. 1995, Austrheim 1998, Lunnan et al. 1999, Bryn 2000). Antropochores are found there either as a response of active cultivation or random dis- persal by domestic animals (hooves, fur or dung) or other transport mechanisms. Small alpine species seems to fit into the subalpine seminatural vegeta- tion due to lower competition and abundance of light. The clearing of the birch forest has probably cre- ated dispersal-corridors forthese species from higher altitude down to the summer farms at lower ele- vations. Also lowland species exist in the summer farm landscape, probably explained by higher radi- ation, more nutrition and less competition. The vascular plants in the sem- inatural vegetation are usually adapted to a certain disturbance regime, and many plants are tol- erant to trampling, grazing and/or mowing. Plants with a short life cycle (Figure 1) are probably more abundant in the seminatural vegetation as a re- sponse of the disturbance regime and favourable light conditions (Bryn 2000). Summer farm landscapes embodies both natural and man- induced gradients for environ- mental factors like light, wind, radiation, moisture, snow-cover, nutrients, birch forest succes- sions, vegetation cover, biodiver- sity, disturbance, etc. The man- induced gradients reflect the decrease in human induced dis- turbance and influence with increasing distance from the summer farm (Vandvik 1995, Bryn 2000). These man-induced gradi- ents, operating on different spa- tial and temporal scales, provide living conditions for several func- tional groups of organisms nor- mally not found in undisturbed subalpine birch forest. As the data from Grimsdalen shows, however, the results of bio- diversity studies depend on both temporal and spatial scale (Table 1). The a-diversity, i. e. the diversi- ty on a small spatial scale, is high- est within the young birch forest, but decreasing to the lowest level in old birch forest. The 7-diversity i.e. the diversity on a large spatial scale, is highest within the semi- natural vegetation, decreasing with proceeding succession towards old birch forest. The high a-diversity of the young birch forest is probably explained by spreading of „re- growth-species" and colonization of the small-plots (Huston 1994), while some seminatural species are still existing there. The (3- diversity is, however, higher in seminatural vegetation com- pared with subalpine birch suc- cession forest (Bryn 2000), indi- cating higher species turnover between the small-plots and thus more heterogeneity in semi- natural vegetation. Scaling up the spatial dimen- sion confirms the impression of higher diversity and heterogene- ity in seminatural vegetation. The 7-diversity in the seminatural vegetation includes 92% of the species existing in the two forest succession zones, in addition to 50 plant species exclusively found in seminatural vegetation (Bryn 2000). High y-diversity in the seminatural zone (Table 1) may also be explained by high heterogeneity. Seminatural vege- tation is a result of a complex combination of biotic and abiotic factors, management practice, management intensity and man- agement continuity, resulting in a numerous variation of the species composition (Hughes and Huntley 1988, Norderhaug et al. 2000). When for example the grazing pressure is light, the domestic animals will graze cer- tain areas harder than others and also leave some nearly untouch- ed (Nedkvitne et al. 1995). This may give plots with different species composition even within small areas of seminatural vege- tation. To give a correct picture of the variation and change in vascular plant richness after abandon- ment, it is therefore important to sample on different spatial scales. The Grimsdalen-study shows that light and space are of great importance for the species composition of seminatural veg- etation. The study, however, also shows that the importance of dif- ferent environmental factors for structuring the vegetation de- pends on the spatial scale. The importance of environmental fac- tors and effect of the re-growing process after abandonment on rare plants and seminatural vegetation types was best shown SKÓGRÆKTARRITIÐ 2001 l.tbl. 165
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126
Side 127
Side 128
Side 129
Side 130
Side 131
Side 132
Side 133
Side 134
Side 135
Side 136
Side 137
Side 138
Side 139
Side 140
Side 141
Side 142
Side 143
Side 144
Side 145
Side 146
Side 147
Side 148
Side 149
Side 150
Side 151
Side 152
Side 153
Side 154
Side 155
Side 156
Side 157
Side 158
Side 159
Side 160
Side 161
Side 162
Side 163
Side 164
Side 165
Side 166
Side 167
Side 168
Side 169
Side 170
Side 171
Side 172
Side 173
Side 174
Side 175
Side 176
Side 177
Side 178
Side 179
Side 180
Side 181
Side 182
Side 183
Side 184
Side 185
Side 186
Side 187
Side 188
Side 189
Side 190
Side 191
Side 192
Side 193
Side 194
Side 195
Side 196
Side 197
Side 198
Side 199
Side 200
Side 201
Side 202
Side 203
Side 204
Side 205
Side 206
Side 207
Side 208
Side 209
Side 210
Side 211
Side 212

x

Skógræktarritið

Direkte link

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Skógræktarritið
https://timarit.is/publication/1996

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.