Evaluation of the Potential of Hedgerow Networks for Forest Biodiversity Restoration in an Irish Rural Landscape
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Faculteit Bio-ingenieurswetenschappen Academiejaar 2011 – 2012 Evaluation of the potential of hedgerow networks for forest biodiversity restoration in an Irish rural landscape Litsa Bogaerts Promotor: Prof. dr. ir. Kris Verheyen Copromotor: Prof. dr. Geert Potters (Hogere Zeevaartschool / Universiteit Antwerpen) Masterproef voorgedragen tot het behalen van de graad van Master in de bio-ingenieurswetenschappen: Bos- en natuurbeheer Foreword The realization of this thesis would not have been possible without the cooperation, advice and support of many people. I would like to thank them for that. First supervisor Prof. dr. ir. Kris Verheyen and co-supervisor Prof. dr. Geert Potters for enabling this study and for their counsel and advice. They created the framework within which this thesis could be carried out and guided me during the investigation and processing of the data. The advice of Prof. Olivier Thas, Kristof De Beuf and Jan De Neve on the processing of the data are greatly valued. I also want to thank the people in Ireland, they have ensured that the fieldwork, which was associated with these thesis, could continue in a good mood. In particular, James Dungan, Frank Counihan, Peter Counihan, Eamonn Murphy and Bobby Jones gave permission to enter their premises. Also the help of Steven Dauwe, Pieter Ostermeyer and Jan Ostermeyer during the fieldwork is greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Erik Martens for the help and for lots of patience. Especially in wintertime, fieldwork was not always pleasant. Finally, I also like to thank my parents Krista Janssens and Walter Bogaerts. I would like to thank them for their patience and their support and encouragement. Also my brother Kieran Bogaerts I want to thank, especially when searching for a number of historical works in the library. A special thank is reserved for Denis O'Connor for providing the necessary accommodation and for reading my text and Iulia Klimina for the hard work and assistance during the fieldwork in Ireland. Without them, this was never successful. I Table of content FOREWORD I TABLE OF CONTENT II LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IV LIST OF FIGURES V LIST OF TABLES VII LIST OF PICTURES VIII ABSTRACT IX SAMENVATTING X 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2 2.1. Hedgerows: a definition 2 2.2. Functions of hedges 4 2.2.1. On a local scale 4 2.2.1.1. Effect of hedgerows on the adjacent fields 4 2.2.1.2. Biodiversity - ecological function for fauna and flora 5 2.2.2. On a landscape scale 6 2.3. Ecosystem services 15 3. METHODOLOGY 18 3.1. Study area 18 3.1.1. General description 18 3.1.2. Origin of the hedgerows 19 3.1.3. Evolution of the hedges 20 3.2. Data collection 21 3.2.1. In general 21 3.2.2. Plant species 21 3.2.3. Explanatory variables 21 3.2.3.1. Owner (OWN) 22 3.2.3.2. Field observations 22 3.2.3.3. Cartographic information 24 3.2.3.4. Soil types (SOI) 24 3.3. Data processing 25 3.3.1. Descriptive statistics 25 3.3.2. Linear modeling 26 3.3.3. T-testing 26 3.3.4. Ordination analysis 27 3.3.4.1. PCA 27 3.3.4.2. DCA 27 3.3.5. Cluster analysis 28 II 4. RESULTS 30 4.1. Descriptive statistics 30 4.2. Linear modeling 37 4.3. T-testing 38 4.4. Ordination analysis 39 4.4.1. PCA 39 4.4.2. DCA 40 4.5. Cluster analysis 41 4.6. Differences between owners 41 5. DISCUSSION 43 5.1. Plant strategies 43 5.2. Explanatory variables 44 5.3. Ordination analysis 46 5.4. Owners 46 5.5. Measures to take 47 5.5.1. For existing hedgerows 47 5.5.2. For new hedgerows 48 5.5.3. Remarks 49 6. CONCLUSIONS 46 6.1. Which forest plants can be found, surviving in the hedgerows? 51 6.2. What are the variables affecting plant species richness and composition in hedgerows within an Irish rural landscape? 51 6.3. Are there any measures the owners can take to promote the spread of forest plants on their properties? 51 7. REFERENCES 51 APPENDIX 1: ACT OF 1721 64 APPENDIX 2: AGE OF THE HEDGES 68 APPENDIX 3: LIST OF TARGET SPECIES 73 APPENDIX 4: TOTAL LIST OF FOUND SPECIES 76 APPENDIX 5: SUBSET OF 45 HEDGES 80 Parts of the collected dataset are also used for a proceeding of the IXth World Bamboo Congress, held in Antwerp, April 10-15, 2012. The proceeding can be found at the end of this document. III List of abbreviations AGE age of the hedgerow BAN presence of a bank DCA detrended correspondence analysis DED depth of the ditch DIT presence of a ditch ELE elevation above sea level GAP percentage of gaps LAN adjacent land use LED water level in the ditch LEN length of the hedgerow MEH mean height of the hedgerow ORI orientation of the hedgerow OUT outliers in height OWN owner PCA principal component analysis S presence of a shrub layer SOI soil type T presence of a tree layer VAH variation in height VAW variation in width WID width of the hedgerow IV List of figures Figure 2.1: Schematic representation of the whole colonization process as a funnel, illustrating that many diaspores are available initially, but few cam ultimately settle (adapted from Hermy and De Blust, 1997). 8 Figure 2.2: Difference between habitat loss and habitat fragmentation (Verheyen, 2011). 9 Figure 2.3: Configuration of the different sampling plots (Tewksbury et al., 2002). 14 Figure 3.1: Localization of Ballyboughal, encircled in red (adjusted from Google maps). 18 Figure 3.2: Map of the study area (encircled in blue) and the farm of Denis O’Connor (encircled in orange) (adjusted from the GeoPortal website (gis.epa.ie) of the environmental protection agency (EPA). 19 Figure 3.3: Field in the townland of Broomfield in 1843 (left) and in 1873 (right). 21 Figure 3.4: Visualization of the average linkage algorithm. The dissimilarity between the clusters C1 and C2 is equal to the average dissimilarity between all observations of C1 (points 1,2 and 3) and all observations of C2 (points 4 and 5). 28 Figure 4.1: Absolute frequency of the target species in the sampled hedges. 30 Figure 4.2: Distribution of the number of species (left) and the number of target species (right). 31 Figure 4.3: Different plant strategies of the target species (after Hodgson’s look-up table) (S = Stress- tolerant strategy, C = Competitive strategy and R = Ruderal strategy). 32 Figure 4.4: Different plant strategies of the 23 found species (after Hodgson’s look-up table) (S = Stress-tolerant strategy, C = Competitive strategy and R = Ruderal strategy). 32 Figure 4.5: Different plant strategies of the abundant species (after Hodgson’s look-up table) (S = Stress-tolerant strategy, C = Competitive strategy and R = Ruderal strategy). 33 Figure 4.6: Species-area relation for the number of species. 33 Figure 4.7: Species-area relation for the number of target species. 34 Figure 4.8: Histograms for the variables owner (OWN) and length of the hedgerow (LEN). 34 Figure 4.9: Histograms for the variables width of the hedgerow (WID) and the variation in width (VAW). 35 V Figure 4.10: Histograms for the variables percentages gaps (GAP) and mean height of the hedgerow (MEH). 35 Figure 4.11: Histograms for the variables outliers in height (OUT) and variation in height (VAH). 31 Figure 4.12: Histograms for the variables presence of tree layer (T) and presence of shrub layer (S). 35 Figure 4.13: Histograms for the variables presence of bank (BAN) and presence of ditch (DIT). 35 Figure 4.14: Histograms for the variables depth of the ditch (DED) and water level in the ditch (LED). 36 Figure 4.15: Histograms for the variables elevation above sea level (ELE) and age of the hedge (AGE). 36 Figure 4.16: Histograms for the variables orientation (ORI) and soil type (SOI). 37 Figure 4.17: Histogram for the variable adjacent land use (LAN). 37 Figure 4.18: Subset of 45 species in function of the first 2 principal components, the hedges of the bad group are encircled in blue. 39 Figure 4.19: Subset of 45 species in function of the first 2 components. 40 Figure 4.20: Dendrogram of the subset of 45 species using average linkage, the hedges of the good group are indicated in blue. 41 Figure 4.21: Boxplots for the number of species (left) and the number of target species (right) per owner. 41 Figure 4.22: Number of target species per owner. 42 VI List of tables Table 2.1: Different strategies of plants in situations with stress or disturbance (Grime, 1977). 8 Table 2.2: Different ecosystem services (adapted from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 and Wallace, 2007). 15 Table 3.1: Number of planted and removed hedges over several periods in time. In the summer of 2011 there were 204 hedgerows, with a total length of 27847m and an average of 138.5m. 20 Table 3.2: The different owners that gave permission and whose hedges are included in the study. 22 Table 3.3: Different variables recorded during field observations. 23 Table 3.4: Categories of land use present in the study area (‘grass’ includes fields with horses, cows or sheep, ‘crops’ includes turnip, maize, corn, potato, sprout or cabbage, ‘garden’ includes gardens and a golf-course, ‘street’ includes paved and unpaved roads, ‘fragment’ includes older as well as recent fragments and ‘mixed’ includes all land use not suitable for previous categories).