Journals / Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1

Community Structure of Soil Macrofauna Under Pure and Mixed Forest Stands

Toprak Makrofaunasının Saf ve Karışık Meşcerelerdeki Komünite Yapıları

Pages
226–235
Publication Date
2021-04-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In general, predators constitute the most dominant trophic group in pure and mixed stands.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Soil macrofauna includes arthropods and soft-bodied invertebrates with different trophic groups and sizes larger than 2mm.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Macrofauna density was found statistically higher in the oak-beech mixed stand (606 bry. m-2) compared to pure oak (478 bry. m-2) and pure beech stand (470 bry. m-2).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In general, predators constitute the most dominant trophic group in pure and mixed stands.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Macroinvertebrate · Community · Trophic group

Abstract

Soil macrofauna includes arthropods and soft-bodied invertebrates with different trophic groups and sizes larger than 2mm. Macrofauna affects important ecosystem functions such as decomposition, nutrient cycling, soil structure, and suppression of population density of pathogens. Besides, they play an important role in biogeochemical cycles that affect plant diversity, abundance, succession, and production. The study conducted on pure oak (Quercus petraea L.) and beech (Fagus orientalis L.) stands and oak-beech mixed stands, it was aimed to investigate the density, diversity, and community structures of macrofauna. Pitfall traps were used to collect the macrofauna in the research area in the Atatürk Arboretum located in the Belgrad Forest of Istanbul. Sampling was done monthly for one year. Macrofauna density was found statistically higher in the oak-beech mixed stand (606 bry. m-2) compared to pure oak (478 bry. m-2) and pure beech stand (470 bry. m-2). According to the Shannon diversity index, there was no significant difference in macrofauna diversity between oak (H'= 1.24), beech (H' = 1.29) and oak-beech (H'= 1.28) stands. In general, predators constitute the most dominant trophic group in pure and mixed stands.

Özet

Toprak makrofaunası, farklı trofik gruplar içeren ve boyutları 2mm’den büyük olan eklembacaklılar ile yumuşak vücutlu omurgasızları içermektedir. Makrofauna, ayrışma, besin döngüsü, toprak strüktürü ve hastalık yapan canlıların popülasyon yoğunluğunu dengede tutmak gibi önemli ekosistem fonksiyonlarını etkiler. Ayrıca bitkilerin çeşitliliğini, bolluğunu, süksesyonunu ve üretimini etkileyen biyojeokimyasal döngülerde çok önemli rolleri vardır. Saf meşe (Quercus petraea L.) ve kayın (Fagus orientalis L.) meşcereleri ile meşe-kayın karışık meşceresinde yürütülen çalışmada makrofaunanın miktar, çeşitlilik ve komünite yapılarının araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. İstanbul Belgrad Ormanı içerisinde yer alan Atatürk Arboretumu’unda yürütülen çalışmada makrofaunayı örneklemek için çukur tuzaklar kullanılmıştır. Örnekleme aylık olarak bir yıl boyunca yapılmıştır. Meşe-kayın karışık meşceresinde (606 bry. m-2) makrofauna miktarı saf meşe (478 bry. m-2) ve saf kayın meşceresine (470 bry. m-2) kıyasla istatistiksel olarak fazla bulunmuştur. Shannon çeşitlilik indeksine göre makrofauna çeşitliliği meşe (H'=1,24), kayın (H'=1,29) ve meşe-kayın (H'=1,28) meşcereleri arasında önemli bir fark çıkmamıştır. Genel olarak saf ve karışık meşcerelerdeki en baskın trofik grubu yırtıcılar oluşturmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇAKIR, M., MAKİNECİ, E. (2021). Community Structure of Soil Macrofauna Under Pure and Mixed Forest Stands. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1, 226–235. https://ajindex.com/articles/131219

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Akburak, S., Makineci, E. (2016). Thinning effects on soil and microbial respiration in a coppice-originated Carpinus betulus L. stand in Turkey. For Biogeosc For, 9; 783
  2. Aubert, M., Hedde, M., Decaëns, T., Bureau, F., Margerie, P., Alard, D. (2003). Effects of tree canopy composition on earthworms and other macro-invertebrates in beech forests of Upper Normandy (France): The 7th international symposium on earthworm ecology· Cardiff· Wales· 2002. Pedobiologia, 47; 904-912
  3. Barbier, S., Gosselin, F., Balandier, P. (2008). Influence of tree species on understory vegetation diversity and mechanisms involved—a critical review for temperate and boreal forests. Forest ecology and management, 254; 1-15
  4. Bardgett, R.D., van der Putten, W.H. (2014). Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature, 515; 505-511
  5. Barros, E., Curmi, P., Hallaire, V., Chauvel, A., Lavelle, P. (2001). The role of macrofauna in the transformation and reversibility of soil structure of an oxisol in the process of forest to pasture conversion. Geoderma, 100; 193-213
  6. Binkley, D., Menyailo, O. (2005). Tree species effects on soils: implications for global change. Springer: Netherlands
  7. Cakir, M., Makineci, E. (2013). Humus characteristics and seasonal changes of soil arthropod communities in a natural sessile oak (Quercus petraea L.) stand and adjacent Austrian pine (Pinus nigra Arnold) plantation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185; 8943-8955
  8. Cavard, X., Macdonald, S.E., Bergeron, Y., Chen, H.Y. (2011). Importance of mixedwoods for biodiversity conservation: Evidence for understory plants, songbirds, soil fauna, and ectomycorrhizae in northern forests. Environmental Reviews, 19; 142-161
  9. Coleman, D.C., Crossley, D.A., Hendrix, P.F. (2004). Fundamentals of soil ecology. Academic Press: USA
  10. Çakır, M., Makineci, E. (2020). Litter decomposition in pure and mixed Quercus and Fagus stands as influenced by arthropods. The Journal of Forestry Research, 31; 1123–1137. 11.Çepel, N., Günay, T. (1984). Atatürk Arboretumu Toprak Raporu. Orman Toprak Tahlil Laboratuvarı, Eskişehir. 12.Dindal, D.L. (1990). Soil biology guide. Wiley: New York
  11. Frouz, J., Elhottová, D., Kuráž, V., Šourková, M. (2006). Effects of soil macrofauna on other soil biota and soil formation in reclaimed and unreclaimed post mining sites: results of a field microcosm experiment. Applied Soil Ecology, 33; 308-320. 14.Hättenschwiler, S., Gasser, P. (2005). Soil animals alter