# WP1 Impacts on biodiversity - French site

Christophe Bouget, Laurent Larrieu, Laurent Burnel, Carlos Lopez-Vaamonde, Carl Moliard, Jerome Molina, Guillem Parmain, Grégory Sajdak, Lucas Sire, Jerome Willm

► To cite this version:

Christophe Bouget, Laurent Larrieu, Laurent Burnel, Carlos Lopez-Vaamonde, Carl Moliard, et al. WP1 Impacts on biodiversity - French site. 3. Meeting. Bavaria NP, Aug 2019, Spiegelau, Germany. 29 p. hal-02787977

HAL Id: hal-02787977

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02787977

Submitted on 5 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of climate-induced tree diebacks in highland forests

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

CLIMTREE

## WP1 Impacts on biodiversity - French site

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

irstea

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

CRPF
Midi-Pyrénées

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

BOUGET, Christophe

LARRIEU, Laurent

BURNEL, Laurent

LOPEZ-VAAMONDE, Carlos

MOLIARD, Carl

MOLINA, Jerome

**PARMAIN, Guillem**

SAJDAK, Grégory

SIRE, Lucas

WILLM, Jerome

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

©Deuffic

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
FORUM

Identification of 100 fundamental ecological questions

William J. Sutherland¹, Robert P. Freckleton², H. Charles J. Godfray³,
Steven R. Beissinger⁴, Tim Benton⁵, Duncan D. Cameron², Yohay Carmel⁶, David A.
Coomes⁷, Tim Coulson⁸, Mark C. Emmerson⁹, Rosemary S. Hails¹⁰, Graeme C. Hays¹¹,
Dave J. Hodgson¹², Michael J. Hutchings¹³, David Johnson¹⁴, Julia P. G. Jones¹⁵,
Matt J. Keeling¹⁶, Hanna Kokko¹⁷, William E. Kunin¹⁸, Xavier Lambin¹⁴, Owen T. Lewis³,
Yadvinder Malhi¹⁹, Nova Mieszkowska²⁰, E. J. Milner-Gulland²¹, Ken Norris²²,
Albert B. Phillimore²³, Drew W. Purves²⁴, Jane M. Reid¹⁴, Daniel C. Reuman²¹,²⁵,
Ken Thompson², Justin M. J. Travis¹⁴, Lindsay A. Turnbull²⁶, David A. Wardle²⁷ and
Thorsten Wiegand²⁸

54 How do resource pulses affect resource use and inter-
actions between organisms?

A meta-analysis of resource pulse–consumer interactions

LOUIE H. YANG,¹,²,³,⁶ KYLE F. EDWARDS,³ JARRETT E. BYRNES,²,³ JUSTIN L. BASTOW,³,⁴ AMBER N. WRIGHT,³
AND KENNETH O. SPENCE⁵

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM RESOURCE PULSES?

LOUIE H. YANG,¹,³ JUSTIN L. BASTOW,¹ KENNETH O. SPENCE,² AND AMBER N. WRIGHT¹
## Ecological issues in the ClimTree project

In declining silver fir forests, how did insect communities respond to:

**A** the local fir dieback intensity?

**B** the regional fir dieback level?

**C** Salvage logging in declining fir stands?
Sampling design
and methods

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
AURE

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="4">Stand scale</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Declining</th><th rowspan="2">Salvage logging</th></tr><tr><th>Healthy</th><th>Low dieback level</th><th>High dieback level</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Landscape scale (R=200m)</td><td>Low dieback level</td><td>10</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>High dieback level</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>6</td></tr></tbody></table>

A balanced sampling design

Stratifying factors

1. Local dieback intensity (-/+)

2. Dieback intensity at the landscape scale (-/+)

3. Salvage logging (0/1)

Design replicated in 2 regions

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="4">Stand scale</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Declining</th><th rowspan="2">Salvage logging</th></tr><tr><th>Healthy</th><th>Low dieback level</th><th>High dieback level</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Landscape scale (R=200m)</td><td>Low dieback level</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>High dieback level</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Objectives of the French sampling design

3 crossed gradients to tackle several questions

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="4"></th><th colspan="4">Stand scale</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="3">Healthy</th><th colspan="3">Declining</th></tr><tr><th>Low<br>dieback level</th><th colspan="2">High<br>dieback level</th></tr><tr><th>No<br>harvesting</th><th>No<br>harvesting</th><th>Salvage<br>logging</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Landscape<br>scale<br>(R=200m)</th><td>Low dieback<br>level<br>15</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>High dieback<br>level<br>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>12</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

## 2. Decline intensity at the landscape

## 3. Salvage logging
# Sampling methods

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

## Local stand structure

- Dead wood

- Tree-related microhabitats

- Canopy openness

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

## Fir dieback level

- Local scale

- Landscape scale

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

# Insect communities

Malaise traps : all flying insects

WFT=Window-flight traps : sx beetles

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>
# Selected preliminary results

- Only sx beetles from WFT
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

# Contrasting conditions between the two French study sites

## A DIFFÉRENTES ÉCHELLES SPATIALES

Local dieback level **AURE** > **SAULT**

Regional dieback level **SAULT** > **AURE**

Landscape fire proportion **SAULT** > **AURE**

Altitude **AURE** > **SAULT**

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
A strong region effect on insect assemblages !

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Sx beetles, WFT</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Colsx</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Indiv.</th><th>Sp.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>AURE</th><td>20390</td><td>315</td></tr><tr><th>SAULT</th><td>29677</td><td>328</td></tr></tbody></table>

NMDS distance Jaccard
More individuals of fir-associated species
in landscapes more dominated by fir trees

**

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

ns

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Colsx Abies</th></tr><tr><th>Indiv.</th><th>Sp.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>AURE</th><td>8420</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><th>SAULT</th><td>12882</td><td>36</td></tr></tbody></table>
Significant effects of local dieback level on fir stand structure

An overall
increase in
deadwood,
mainly fir
deadwood in
declining
stands,
depending on
the region

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

Dieback level at stand scale

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Dieback level at stand scale

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

Dieback level at stand scale

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

Dieback level at stand scale

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

proportion stressed trees

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

Dieback level at stand scale

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>
Significant effects of local dieback level on fir stand structure

A slight
increase in
tree-related
microhabitat
density

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>
# Significant effects of local dieback level on species composition of saproxylic beetle communities

Jaccard dissimilarity, singletons excluded
NPManova (site constrained)

low-medium ***
Low-high ns
High-medium ns

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>
No effect of local dieback level on mean saproxylic beetle species richness...

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

...but positive effect of regional dieback level !

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>Crypthalus</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /><figcaption>Nacerdes</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>Serropeplus</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /><figcaption>Rhagium</figcaption></figure>
Significant positive effect of regional dieback level on
secondary fir pest abundance (xylophagous beetles)

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>Pityokteines</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>
Conifer deadwood borers increase in abundance with local dieback intensity, in one of the two regions only

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>Cryphalus</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /><figcaption>Nacerdes</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>Seropalpus</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>Rhagium</figcaption></figure>
Conifer deadwood borers increase in richness with regional dieback intensity

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>Cryphalus</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>Seropalpus</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /><figcaption>Rhagium</figcaption></figure>
The response of conifer deadwood borers to local dieback intensity is mediated by stand variables

Positive effect of dieback level seems to be mediated by resource metrics such as the density of large ground-lying deadwood and canopy-bearing trees ...but other ambiguous relationships...

Model 1

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>

SEM conceptual model

piecewiseSEM (Shipley 2009, 2013; Lefcheck 2015)

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /><figcaption>Cryphalus</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>Seropalpus</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Rhagium</caption>
Tree-related microhabitat-associated beetle increase in
abundance and richness with dieback intensity at the
landscape but not at the stand scale

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>
Rare sx beetles increase in richness and abundance with the regional dieback level

54ha-scale

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

Dieback level at the landscape scale

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

Dieback level at the landscape scale
Some functional responses...

In the Sault region :

- **fewer** sx beetle **predator individuals** in the most declining stands

- but **more** sx beetle predator **species** in the most declining landscapes (315ha)

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>
## Some functional responses...

Despite potential increase in canopy heterogeneity and deadwood diversity with increasing dieback :

slight but significant decrease of functional dispersion of canopy and decay trait with increasing local dieback

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /></figure>
# Slight effects of salvage logging on stand structure

## Overall but slight decrease in deadwood...

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>

Mixed models
(« region » as a random
variable)

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /></figure>

CLIMTREE
Slight changes induced by salvage logging in community species composition

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /><figcaption>NMDS, Jaccard, singletons excluded, NP Manova</figcaption></figure>
No overall decrease of sx beetles in salvaged stands

species richness

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>

nb xylophagous fir sp

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>

abund xyloph fir sp

<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>

nb fir special

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /></figure>
# Perspectives

## PhD study in forest entomology at Irstea lab

* How do forest diebacks drive tree-associated insect communities?

* November 2019 – October 2022

* Jérémy COURS

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /></figure>

## Merging French and German WFT-caught sx beetle datasets for opportunistic co-analyses ?

France
2017
Silver fir

<table><thead><tr><th>Treatment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>declining stands (n=24 plots)</td></tr><tr><td>salvage (n=12 plots)</td></tr><tr><td>vital fir forest (n=20 plots)</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /></figure>

Sapin pectiné
Pyrénées

Germany
2016
Spruce

<table><thead><tr><th>Treatment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ips forest (n=10 plots)</td></tr><tr><td>salvage (n=10 plots)</td></tr><tr><td>vital spruce forest (n=10 plots)</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /></figure>
# Perspectives

## + French research projects focusing on ecological effects of oak diebacks

- BUCHE & CANOPEE (beetles & lowland oak dieback)

- Interesting first trends

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /></figure>
Many thanks to:

Sylvie Ladet, Véronique Cheret,
Benoit Nusillard, Wilfried Heintz,
Olivier Rose, Gianfranco Liberti, Fabien Soldati,
Thomas Barnouin, Thierry Noblecourt, Yves Gomy,
Olivier Courtin, Benedikt Feldmann, Pierre Zagatti

....for **field**, **lab** and **GIS** work

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /></figure>