Changes in vascular plant species composition, top-soil and seed-bank along coppice rotation in an Ostrya carpinifolia forest

References

• Altman J, Hedl R, Szabó P, Mazurek P, Riedl V, Müllerová J, Kopecky M, Dolezal J. 2013. Tree-tings mirror management legacy: dramatic response of standard oaks to past coppicing in Central Europe. PLoS ONE. 8:e55770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelini A, Mattioli W, Merlini P, Corona P, Portoghesi L. 2013. Empirical modelling of chestnut coppice yield for Cimini and Vicani mountains (Central Italy). Ann Silvicult Res. 37(1):7–12
   Google Scholar
• Bacchetta G, Fenu G, Mattana E, Piotto B, Virevaire M, editors. 2006. [Manual for the collection, study, conservation and ex situ management of germplasm.] Manuali e Linee Guida 37/2006. Roma, Italian: APAT.
   Google Scholar
• Baeten L, Bauwens B, De Schrijver A, De Keersmaeker L, Van Calster H, Vandekerkhove K, Roelandt B, Beeckman H, Verheyen K. 2009. Herb layer changes (1954–2000) related to the conversion of coppice-with-standards forest and soil acidification. Appl Veg Sci. 12(2):187–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baize D, Girard MC. 2008. [Pedological reference system]. Association française pour l’étude du sol (Afes). Versailles, France: Édition Quae (in French).
   Google Scholar
• Ballelli S, Biondi E, Pedrotti F. 1982. [The Scutellario-Ostryetum association of the Central Apennines]. Not. Fitosoc. 18:73–75. Italian
   Google Scholar
• Bartha S, Merolli A, Campetella G, Canullo R. 2008. Changes of vascular plant diversity along a chronosequence of beech coppice stands, central Apennines, Italy. Plant Biosyst. 142(3):572–583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benes J, Cizek O, Dovala J, Konvicka M. 2006. Intensive game keeping, coppicing and butterflies: the story of Milovicky Wood, CzechRepublic. Forest Ecol Manag. 237(1–3):353–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernetti G, La Marca O. 2012. [The coppice in the Italian reality]. Atti Accademia dei Georgofili – Firenze. (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Bianchi M, Bovio G, Camia A, Cantiani P, Corona P, Ferretti F, Francesetti A, Lamonaca A, Portoghesi L. 2006. “Progetto Bosco": a decision-supportsystemas educational tool at the University level. Forest@. 3(1):91–97.
   Google Scholar
• Biondi E, Taffetani F, Allegrezza M, Ballelli S, Grustini A. 1989. Carta della Comunità Montana "Catria Nerone" scala. Regione Marche – Ancona. 1:100.000.
   Google Scholar
• Broome A, Clarke S, Peace A, Parsons M. 2011. The effect of coppice management on moth assemblages in an English woodland. Biodivers Conserv. 20(4):729.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckley GP, editor. 1992. Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. London: Chapman and Hall. 336pp.
   Google Scholar
• Campetella G, Canullo R, Gimona A, Garadnai J, Chiarucci A, Giorgini D, Angelini E, Cervellini M, Chelli S, Bartha S. 2016. Scale-dependent effects of coppicing on the species pool of late successional beech forests in central Apennines, Italy. Appl Veg Sci. 19(3):474–485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campetella G, Botta-Dukát Z, Wellstein C, Canullo R, Gatto S, Chelli S, Mucina L, Bartha S. 2011. Patterns of plant trait-environment relationships along a forest succession chronosequence. Agricult Ecosyst Environ. 145(1):38–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervellini M, Fiorini S, Cavicchi A, Campetella G, Simonetti E, Chelli S, Canullo R, Gimona A. 2017. Relationships between understory specialist species and local management practices in coppiced forests. Evidence from the Italian Apennines. Forest Ecol Manag. 385:35–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciancio O, Corona P, Lamonaca A, Portoghesi L, Travaglini D. 2006. Conversion of clearcut beech coppices into high forests with continuous cover: a case study in central Italy. Forest Ecol Manag. 224(3):235–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciancio O, Nocentini S. 2004. [The coppice wood. Forestry, planning, management]. Accad Ital Sci For Firenze, p. 721. Italian
   Google Scholar
• Conti F, Abbate G, Alessandrini A, Blasi C. 2005. An annotated checklist of the Italian vascular flora. Palombi Editori; p. 420.
   Google Scholar
• Corti G, Cocco S, Brecciaroli G, Agnelli A, Seddaiu G. 2013. Soil management. In: Costantini EAC, Dazzi C, editors. The soils of Italy. Berlin, Germany: Springer, p. 247–94.
   Google Scholar
• De Cáceres M, Legendre P. 2009. Associations between species and groups of sites: Indices and statistical inference. Ecology. 90(12):3566–3574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Feudis M, Cardelli V, Massaccesi L, Bol R, Willbold S, Cocco S, Corti G, Agnelli A. 2016. Effect of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) rhizosphere on phosphorous availability in soils at different altitudes (Central Italy). Geoderma. 276:53–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Decocq G, Aubert M, Dupont F, Bardat J, Wattez-Franger A, Saguez R, de Foucault B, Alard D, Delelis-Dusollier A. 2005. Silvicolture-driven vegetation change in a European temperate deciduous forest. Ann For Sci. 62(4):313–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabbio G, Cutini A. 2017. Coppice today: which management beyond definitions? Forest@. 14:257–274.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2015. Global forest resources assessment 2015. Country Report – Italy. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, p. 105.
   Google Scholar
• Freese A, Benes J, Bolz R, Cizek O, Dolek M, Geyer A, Gros P, Konvicka M, Liegl A, Stettmer C. 2006. Habitat use of the endangered butterfly Euphydryas maturna and forestry in Central Europe. Anim Conserv. 9(4):388–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hättenschwiler S, Gasser P. 2005. Soil animals alter plant litter diversity effects on decomposition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 102(5):1519–1524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hédl R, Ewald J, Bernhardt-Römermann M, Kirby K. 2017. Coppicing systems as a way of understanding patterns in forest vegetation. Folia Geobot. 52(1):1–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holscher D, Schade E, Leuschner C. 2001. Effects of coppicing in temperate deciduous forests on ecosystem nutrient pools and soil fertility. Basic Appl Ecol. 2:155–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IUSS. 2015. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. The International Union of Soil Science Working Group WRB. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106. Rome: FAO.
   Google Scholar
• Jennings SB, Brown ND, Sheil D. 1999. Assessing forest canopies and understorey illumination: canopy closure, canopy cover and other measures. Forestry. 72(1):59–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirby KJ, Buckley GP, Mills J. 2017. Biodiversity implications of coppice decline, transformations to high forest and coppice restoration in British woodland. Folia Geobot. 52(1):5–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konvicka M, Novak J, Benes J, Fric Z, Bradley J, Keil P, Hrcek J, Chobot K, Marhoul P. 2008. The last population of the Woodland Brown butterfly (Lopingaachine) in the Czech Republic: habitat use, demography and site management. J Insect Conserv. 12(5):549–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopecky M, Radmin H, Szabò P. 2013. Non-random extincions dominated plant community changes in abandoned coppices. J Appl Ecol. 20:79–87.
   Google Scholar
• Kosulic O, Michalko R, Hula V. 2016. Impact of canopy openness on spider communities: implications for conservation management of formerly coppiced oak forests. PLoS One. 11(2):e0148585.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancioni A, Taffetani F. 2011. Integrated tools and methods for the analysis of agro-ecosystem’s functionality through vegetational investigations. Fitosociologia. 48(1):41–52.
   Google Scholar
• Maccol ADC, Du Feu CR, Waine SP. 2014. Significant effects of season and bird age on use of coppice woodland by songbirds. IBIS Int J Avian Sci. 156:561–575.
   Google Scholar
• Mason CF, Macdonald SM. 2002. Responses of ground flora to coppice management in an English woodland – a study using permanent quadrats. Biodivers Conserv. 11(10):1773–1789.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattioli W, Mancini LD, Portoghesi L, Corona P. 2015. Biodiversity conservation and forest management: the case of sweet chestnut coppice stands in central Italy. Plant Biosyst. 149:592–600.
   Google Scholar
• McGrath MJ, Luyssaert S, Meyfroidt P, Kaplan JO, Bürgi M, Chen Y, Erb K, Gimmi U, McInerney D, Naudts K, et al. 2015. Reconstructing European forest management from 1600 to 2010. Biogeosciences. 12(14):4291–4316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molder A, Streit M, Wolfgang S. 2014. When beech strikes back: how strict nature conservation reduces herb-layer diversity and productivity in Central European deciduous forests. Forest Ecol Manag. 319:51–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müllerová J, Hédl R, Szabó P. 2015. Coppice abandonment and its implications for species diversity in forest vegetation. Forest Ecol Manag. 343:88–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O'Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner L. 2015. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.2-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
   Google Scholar
• Peres-Neto PR, Jackson DA. 2001. How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia. 129(2):169–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesaresi S, Biondi E, Casavecchia S. 2017. Bioclimates of Italy. J Maps. 13(2):955–960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesaresi S, Galdenzi D, Biondi E, Casavecchia S. 2014. Bioclimate of Italy: application of the worldwide bioclimatic classification system. J Maps. 10(4):538–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pignatti S, Menegoni P, Pietrosanti S. 2006. [Bioindication through vascular plants. Indication values according to Ellenberg (Zeigerwerte) for the Flora of Italy]. Braun-Blanquetia. 39:1–97 (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Piussi P, Alberti G. 2015. [General Forestry. Woods, society and management techniques]. Collana Scienze Forestali e Ambientali. Arezzo: Compagnia delle Foreste S.r.l; p. 432 (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• QGIS Development Team. 2015. QGIS geographic information system. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Rey A, Pegoraro E, Tedeschi V, De Parri I, Jarvis PG, Valentini R. 2002. Annual variation in soil respiration and its components in a coppice oak forest in Central Italy. Global Change Biol. 8(9):851–866.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivas-Martínez S, Rivas-Saenz S, Penas A. 2011. Worldwide bioclimatic classification system. Global Geobot. 1:1–634.
   Google Scholar
• Roleček J, Vild O, Sladký J, Řepka R. 2017. Habitat requirements of endangered species in a former coppice of high conservation value. Folia Geobot . 52(1):59–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomón R, Rodríguez-Calcerrada J, González-Doncel I, Gil L, Valbuena-Carabaña M. 2017. On the general failure of coppice conversion into high forest in Quercus pyrenaica stands: a genetic and physiological approach. Folia Geobot. 52(1):101–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoeneberger PJ, Wysocki DA, Soil Survey Staff. 2012. Geomorphic description system, version 4.2. In: Schoeneberger PJ, Wysocki DA, Benham EC, editors. Field book for describing and sampling soils, version 3.0. Lincoln, NE: National Soil Survey Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
   Google Scholar
• Scolastri A, Cancellieri L, Iocchi M, Cutini M. 2017. Old coppice versus high forest: The impact of beech forest management on plant species diversity in central Apennines (Italy). J Plant Ecol. 10(2):271–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Šipoš J, Hédl R, Hula V, Chudomelová M, Košulič O, Niedobová J, Riedl V. 2017. Patterns of functional diversity of two trophic groups after canopy thinning in an abandoned coppice. Folia Geobot. 25:45–58.
   Google Scholar
• Spitzer L, Konvicka M, Benes J, Tropek R, Tuf IH, Tufova J. 2008. Does closure of traditionally managed open woodlands threaten epigeic invertebrates? Effects of coppicing and high deer densities. Biol Conserv. 141(3):827–837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SSS (Soil Survey Staff). 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy.12th ed. Washington, DC: USDA and Natural Resource Conservation Service, p. 332.
   Google Scholar
• Tabacchi G, Gasparini P. 2012. L' inventario nazionale delle foreste e dei serbatoi forestali di carbonio. INFC-2005. Secondo inventario forestale nazionale italiano. Metodi e risultati. Con CD-ROM. Bologna: Edagricole-New Business Media; p. 653.
   Google Scholar
• Taffetani F, Rismondo M. 2009. Bioindicators system for the evaluation of the environment quality of agro-ecosystems. Fitosociologia. 46(2):3–22.
   Google Scholar
• Tardella FM, Postiglione N, Vitanzi A, Catorci A. 2017. The effects of environmental features and overstory composition on the understory species assemblage in sub-Mediterranean coppiced woods: implications for a sustainable forest management. Polish J Ecol. 65(2):167–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westhoff V, Van Der Maarel E. 1978. The Braun-Blanquet approach. 2nd ed. In: Whittaker RH, editors. Classification of plant communities. The Hague: Junk; p. 287–399.
   Google Scholar
• Zeleny D, Schaffers AP. 2012. Too good to be true: pitfalls of using mean Ellenberg indicator values in vegetation analyses. J Veg Sci. 23:419–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao-Hua L, Ling M, Qing-Xi G. 2001. Concepts of keystone species and species importance in ecology. J Forest Res. 12(4):250–252.
   Google Scholar