ArticleOecologia2021
Do different growth rates of trees cause distinct habitat qualities for saproxylic assemblages?
Article in Oecologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In production forests, a common silvicultural objective is enhancing tree growth rates. The growth rate influences both mechanical and biochemical properties of wood, which may have an impact on dead wood inhabiting (i.e. saproxylic) species. In this study, we tested for the first time whether tree growth rates affect dead-wood associated assemblages in general and the occurrence of red-listed species in particular. We sampled saproxylic beetles (eclector traps) and fungi (DNA metabarcoding of wood samples) in dead trunks of Norway spruce (Picea abies), which had different growth rates within the same hemiboreal forests in Sweden. A high proportion of fungi showed a positive association to increasing tree growth. This resulted in higher fungal richness in fast-grown trees both at the trunk scale and across multiple studied trunks. Such patterns were not observed for saproxylic beetles. However, a set of species (both beetles and fungi) preferred slow-grown wood. Moreover, the total number of red-listed species was highest in slow-grown trunks. We conclude that dead wood from slow-grown trees hosts relatively fewer saproxylic species, but a part of these may be vulnerable to production forestry. It implies that slow-grown trees should be a target in nature conservation. However, where slow-grown trees are absent, for instance in forests managed for a high biomass production, increasing the volumes of dead wood from fast-grown trees may support many species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.