Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Page 167

Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Page 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
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212

x

Skógræktarritið

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Skógræktarritið
https://timarit.is/publication/1996

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.