diversity
Article
Plant Species Turnover on Forest Gaps after Natural
Disturbances in the Dinaric Fir Beech Forests
(Omphalodo-Fagetum sylvaticae)
Blanka Ravnjak 1, *, Jože Bavcon 1 and Andraž Čarni 2
1
2
*
Biotechnical Faculty, University Botanic Gardens Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; joze.bavcon@bf.uni-lj.si
Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Science and Arts, Jovan Hadži Institute of Biology,
1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; carni@zrc-sazu.si
Correspondence: blanka.ravnjak@bf.uni-lj.si; Tel.: +386-31336507
Abstract: We studied species turnover and changes of ecological conditions and plant strategies on
forest gaps created by natural disturbances (sleet, windthrow). We studied five forest gaps and a
control plot within in the Dinaric silver fir-beech forest in the southern part of Slovenia. Forest gaps
varied in age and size. The total number of recorded species in gaps was 184, with the highest number
(106) at the largest forest gap and with the 58 species at the control locality in a juvenile beech forest.
Forest gaps were predominantly colonised mostly by species of understory, forest margins, and forest
clearings. The species presented in all forest gaps are representatives of the understory of beech
forests. Species colonising forest gaps prefer habitats with more sunlight, medium wet to dry soil,
and are tolerant to high daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations. In gaps, the community of plant
species has a competitive strategy, which is also complemented with a stress-tolerator strategy. We
determined that a forest gap represents a significant habitat patch, especially for those plant species
which were not present there before.
Citation: Ravnjak, B.; Bavcon, J.;
Čarni, A. Plant Species Turnover on
Forest Gaps after Natural
Keywords: forest gaps; plant colonisation; community strategy; Dinaric fir-beech forests;
Ellenberg values
Disturbances in the Dinaric Fir Beech
Forests (Omphalodo-Fagetum
sylvaticae). Diversity 2022, 14, 209.
https://doi.org/10.3390/d14030209
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Lucian Dinca,
Forest gaps are areas in a forest stand that have been created by the death of individual
or multiple trees [1]. Forest gaps are part of forests and a typical stage of forest dynamics [2]. Every newly formatted gap results in changes to certain environmental factors,
also affecting the flora and fauna. The created forest gaps can vary in size and shape.
Depending on the size and gap shape, there are also changes in environmental factors [3].
When a forest gap forms, the light availability and precipitation regime change (increased
soil moisture) in the gap area [4,5]. Illumination of the forest gap largely depends on the
size of the gap and the size of the surrounding tree stand. Large trees shade the edges
of the forest gap and, if the gap is small, can shade it almost in full [3]. The amount of
light that reaches the floor of the forest gap also depends on the latitude at which the gap
is located, the slope of the terrain, and its position on the sunny or shady side. All three
items affect the angle of incidence of sunlight. The amount of incoming light also varies
depending on the season and daily rhythm [5–8]. The greater the gap, the more surface is
exposed to light. Air temperature largely depends on location exposure to sunlight and
wind. Kermavnar et al. [5] showed that the microclimate in Dinaric fir-beech forests also
depends on topographic factors (i.e., within-sinkhole position). Temperature fluctuations
in forest gaps are greater than those in a compact forest [9]. Higher daily and seasonal
fluctuations in air temperatures were also shown by Kermavnar et al. [5]. A forest gap has
higher soil humidity than the forest, as it is directly exposed to precipitation [3]. Humidity
Miglena Zhiyanski and Michael Wink
Received: 15 February 2022
Accepted: 8 March 2022
Published: 11 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Diversity 2022, 14, 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14030209
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/diversity
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
2 of 17
depends on the amount of litterfall remaining in the forest gap after its formation. Woody
debris (trunks, branches, leaves) retains moisture [3,8,10].
The forest dynamics in forest gaps are similar in all forest types and progress in the
direction of overgrowing with tree species [2], but can also differ among gaps according
to pre-disturbance biotic and abiotic conditions [11]. However, there is a difference in
the rate of overgrowing and the species composition of the plants. At the beginning of a
newly formatted forest gap, the trees growing on the edges of the forest gap start spreading
their canopies towards the gap, i.e., where they have sufficient space. This is noticeable
particularly in deciduous trees [12]. This is an edge effect that, in addition to the effect
on light, also has an effect on the expansion of plants from the edge to the forest gap [8].
In forest gaps, the tree species that stagnated in the understory before the formation of
the gap, where they did not have enough light to grow, begin growing more quickly.
Specimens of some plant species adapted to a dense forest stand (growing there before
gap formation) either die or adapt to new conditions [13], like Cyclamen purpurascens, in
which the synthesis of anthocyanins is increased at forest gaps compared to a compact
forest stand [14]. In deciduous forests of temperate climates, the first colonisers of forest
gaps are spring flowering plant species (like Omphalodes verna) of the herbaceous layer from
a nearby forest stand [15]. They begin their vegetation period when trees do not develop
leaves yet and, of course, they retain this trait at forest gaps. In forest gaps near roads with
high traffic, some invasive plant species can also occur [16].
For some seeds, a forest gap also represents a favourable environment for germination.
The soil seed banks at the gaps as a form of post-disturbance regeneration are especially
important for some herbaceous plant species. A forest gap represents a sink for seeds
from near and far surroundings, carried there by winds, animals, or man [12]. The more
successful colonisers of forest gaps include species that have long-lived seeds in a seed
bank and species whose seeds can disperse over long distances [17]. Generally, the species
whose seeds are spread by animals are more successful.
Shortly after the gap formation, the species richness is increasing and continues to rise
over time, until the last stages of succession when the gap is again overgrown. Constantly
changing abiotic and biotic factors, as well as interspecific relation over the years, cause
species turnover. Some species disappear or decrease, others appear or increase, but at
the beginning of the succession process on newly formed forest gaps, the species richness
increases [17]. Forest gaps, as a result of disturbance, affect changes in the community
structure which depend on the type [18] and intensity of the disturbance and interactions
of various disturbances in time and space [19–22].
In relation to the occurrence of limiting stress factors (altered water and light regime,
suboptimal temperature, change in the amount of nutrients) and the disturbance itself
(partial or complete destruction of plant biomass), the strategy of the whole community in
the forest gap changes, from the time of formation to overgrowing along the succession
line [23]. Understanding the changes resulting from the formation of the forest gap in
the forest ecosystem and its effects on local biodiversity can be very important for forest
management [24].
Based on findings of other studies [2,9,16,25] describing the change of abiotic and
biotic factors in forest gaps and general patterns of colonisation of plant species in forest
gaps, our study examined the occurrence of plant species in the initial stages (immediately
after disturbance) of newly formed forest gaps and of those older ones (after four years).
However, we selected only forest gaps that were formed as a result of disasters and were,
therefore, of different sizes. Disturbances, e.g., ice storms and windthrow, are increasingly
common in forests due to climate changes, resulting in greater likelihood of forest gap
formation [26]. In forest management, the question arises as to whether such newly formed
areas should be actively managed or left to natural processes. By studying colonisation
of such areas by plant species, we can obtain important data that will help in forest
management and thus preserve the great biodiversity of the forest as an ecosystem.
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
3 of 17
The goal of our study was to determine the plant species population dynamics at
forest gaps in Dinaric silver fir-beech forests (Omphalodo-Fagetum). We studied the plant
species turnover at forest gaps, which is a result of colonised and resident plant species.
Our study focused on species diversity, composition of plant community, and its ecological
strategy in relation to the size and age of the forest gaps. We predicted:
− that plant species diversity would vary between specific forest gaps, depending on their age;
− that mostly plant species from surrounding the forest will spread to the forest gaps;
− there would be no significant appearance of invasive plants;
− that beech would be the most common tree species in forest gaps.
With the research, we want to enlighten about the natural succession and forest
dynamics at naturally formed forest gaps. Our research could help forest management to
make decisions about whether newly formed gaps should be planted with tree species or
should be left to natural succession with higher plant diversity at the first stage of forest
gap formation.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sites
The study was conducted in Dinaric silver fir-beech forests (Omphalodo-Fagetum) in
the southern part of Slovenia (Kočevje-Ribnica area). The geological substrate of the area is
diverse soils changing in a small scale due to local topography and is formed predominantly
by Jurassic and Cretaceous limestone and, to a lesser extent, dolomite. The surface in higher
areas is drier because of shallow humus limestone soil (rendzina), which is formed on
parent material, while more or less shallow brown soil formed in the lowlands.
The average annual rainfall in the lowlands is between 1400 and 1500 mm and, at
higher altitudes, from 1600 mm to 2000 mm [27]. The two peak rainfall times usually occur
in June and from September to October (www.meteo.arso.gov.si/met/sl/climate/maps/
monthly-mean-precipitation-maps, accessed on 14 February 2022). The average annual
temperature of the Kočevje-Ribnica area ranges between 7 ◦ C and 9 ◦ C in the lowlands and
between 6 ◦ C and 7 ◦ C in the mountain range [27]. Weather phenomena include frequent
sleet and wet snow, which cause trees to break and fall. Windthrow can occur in summer
months due to a strong south-western wind [27,28]. Thunderstorm winds cause the most
severe damage, but blowdown patches are typically limited to stand-scales (e.g., 10 s of
ha). Ice storms and heavy snow typically cause intermediate severity damage and affect
much larger areas [29]. Because of these weather phenomena and their consequences, the
formation of forest gaps in this area is very common. Dinaric silver fir-beech forests of the
studied area are part of the Dinaric phytogeographic region [30]. The area is characterised
by Central European flora with a more or less strong influence of the Illyrian-Balkan flora
and Alpine floral element [30–32].
For the purposes of our study, we selected six survey localities (L) within the research
area (Figure 1), of which five were forest gaps that were formed at different times and of
different sizes (other features are listed in Table 1) and one was in the stand of juvenile beech
trees (with trunk diameter ≤ 10 cm) (Stone Wall). Namely in the rejuvenation phase of the
stand, beech predominates, and only later the fir saplings develop under the beech [33].
The localities were chosen according to their position in the same region, (Kočevje-Ribnica
area), similarities in gap formation, altitude, and exposition. We could not obtain exact data
on their formation, so we estimated the age of forest gaps on the basis of the state of bigger
organic decomposing material (trunks and branches) and the annual growth of spruce
saplings (faster growth on sunlight and habitus of a single plant) [34–36]. All forest gaps
formed as a result of natural disturbances (sleet or windthrow), which was determined on
the basis of uprooted and decaying trees, the condition of tree trunks, and the size of the
forest gap [37,38].
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
4 of 17
Figure 1. Locations of 6 sampling sites on map (1: Stone Wall, 2: Below Barnik, 3: Above Barnik, 4:
Goteniški Snežnik, 5: Goteniška gora, 6: Above Draga). (Source: http://gis.arso.gov.si/atlasokolja/
profile.aspx?id=Atlas_Okolja_AXL@Arso, accessed on 12 January 2022).
Table 1. Forest gaps and their features (coordinates, UTM quadrant, altitude, aspect, substrate, soil,
year of origin). The location marked * is control site with juvenile phase of beech forest.
Locality/Forest Gap
Coordinates
Altit.
Ex.
Surface
Substrate
Year
L1
(Stone wall) *
Y: 5479575
X: 5052223
1068 m
SE
175 m2
limestone
2000
L2
(Below Barnik)
Y: 5478774
X: 5051499
1132 m
SW
600 m2
dolomite
2007
L3
(Above Barnik)
Y: 5478904
X: 5051210
1161 m
SE
1400 m2
limestone,
dolomite
2007
L4
(Goteniški Snežnik)
Y: 5480085
X: 5049403
1205 m
E
1300 m2
limestone,
dolomite
2013
L5
(Goteniška gora)
X: 5055948
Y: 5476338
1100 m
SE
3200 m2
limestone,
dolomite
2011
L6
(Above Draga)
Y: 5473400
X: 5052341
954 m
E
1480 m2
dolomite
2014
2.2. Floristic Survey and Sampling
In 2016 and 2017, vegetation surveys were performed a total of nine times on all five
forest gaps and in the beech stand in order to (Table 2) get a total species pool at localities
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
5 of 17
(hereafter they will be named with the locality number and year of creation, e.g., L1-2000).
We conducted 9 surveys over three years because we wanted to obtain, during different
seasons, a record of plant species as comprehensive as possible at each forest gap [39].
Floristic surveys at total forest gap area were done for a control, including how many
and which species can we expect at a single gap. In addition, we estimated the spatial
distribution of plant species at a single forest gap.
Table 2. Floristic surveys and sampling scheme.
Locality
Floristic Survey Dates
Sampling Dates and No. of
Sampling Plots
L1
(Stone wall) *
24 August 2015
21 April, 7 June, 8 July, 3
August, 27 September 2016
29 March., 25 April, 24 May, 11
July 2017
11 July 2017/8 plots
L2
(Below Barnik)
24 August 2015
21 April, 7 June, 8 July, 3
August, 27 September 2016
29 March, 25 April, 24 May, 11
July 2017
11 July 2017/8 plots
L3
(Above Barnik)
24 August 2015
21 April, 7 June, 8 July, 3
August, 27 September 2016
29 March, 25 April, 24 May, 11
July 2017
11 July 2017/8 plots
L4
(Goteniški Snežnik)
24 August 2015
21 April, 7 June, 8 July, 3
August, 27 September 2016
29 March, 25 April, 24 May, 20
July 2017
20 July 2017/14 plots
L5
(Goteniška gora)
24 August 2015
21 April, 7 June, 8 July, 3
August, 27 September 2016
29 March, 25 April, 24 May,12
July 2017
12 July 2017/20 plots
L6
(Above Draga)
24 August 2015
21 April, 7 June, 8 July, 3
August, 27 September 2016
29 March, 25 April, 24 May, 21
July 2017
21 July 2017/20 plots
During the last vegetation survey in 2017 (in July), we divided the forest gaps into 3by-3-metre sample plots, which were evenly (systematically) distributed over the surface of
each locality. The number of sample plots per locality/forest gap varied between individual
gaps, as the forest gaps were of different sizes (Tables 1 and 2). We selected 8 sample plots
at L1-2000 (beech stand), L2-2007, and L3-2007 forest gaps, 14 at the L4-2013 gap, and 20 at
the L5-2011 and L6-2014 gaps. In each sample plot, we conducted a sampling using the
Braun-Blanquet method [40] to get more objective sampling for statistical analyses (Table 2).
We used the Braun-Blanquet cover score, which was then transformed in cover percentage
in JUICE 7.0 software [40]. Only herb [41] and shrub layer were included in the recording.
The sampling was done during the last floristic survey in July because, at that time, there is
a peak of vegetation season.
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
6 of 17
2.3. Data Analysis
For the data analyses, we used data collected in sample plots. Analyses of plant species
composition in sample plots at individual forest gaps (location) were conducted using the
JUICE 7.0 software [42]. The calculation of parameters was based on averages calculated
from all sample plots at a single locality (forest gap). Since we wanted to determine whether
the coverage of the species present in a single forest gap is changing during succession, we
calculated the minimum, maximum, and average cover of each species at each forest gap
and the frequency of their occurrence in forest gaps. For species that occurred in at least
five or six forest gaps (locations), and whose cover differed between locations, we used the
Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferoni correction for multiple comparisons in the Statistica 8.0
software [43] to calculate whether the difference in cover between individual forest gaps
was statistically significant for these species (p < 0.05). The calculation was also based on
data obtained in sample plots.
We attributed geoelements according to Pignatti et al. [44] to all species and calculated
the share of species belonging to a specific geoelement. For each forest gap, we identified
unique species, as well as diagnostic, constant, and dominant plant species [45]. For the
fidelity threshold of diagnostic species, we chose the occurrence of the species in at least
50% of the sample plots at each locality compared to other localities (at phi between −1 and
1). A species was constant if it occurred in at least 60% of sample plots, and dominant when
it had a cover of more than 30% on each sample plot. Incidental species were those that
were present at only one sample plot [42]. The Fischer test in the JUICE 7.0 software was
used to identify rare species [46]. To determine similarities in plant community (species
composition) between forest gaps, we used the Jaccard similarity coefficients [39,47] and
nearest neighbour amalgamation procedure, which were calculated using JUICE 7.0 (as
Cluster Analysis–PC-ORD) [48] and plotted a dendrogram.
Using the BIOLFLOR database [49] and the C-S-R Signature Calculator 1.2 software [50], we determined the life strategy of plant communities at individual locality
and produced a C-S-R diagram [23]. With the help of Ellenberg indicator values [51], we
analysed the environmental factors of individual locality and consequently determined the
ecological requirements of plant species that inhabit the studied forest gaps.
3. Results
3.1. Species Richness
A total of 184 different plant species were recorded in the herb layer together on all
localities (forest gaps and beech stand) and a total of 140 species on all sample plots (78
plots of size 3 × 3). Comparatively among forest gaps, the highest number of species was
found in the largest 5-year-old forest gap, L5-2011, namely, in the survey of entire locality,
106 and, in the surveys within single sample plot, 74 species. The fewest (84) were found
on the smallest 9-year-old forest gap, L2-2007 (Table 3).
Table 3. Number of plant species at single locality (L1–2000; L2–2007; L3–2007; L4–2013; L5–2011; L6–2014).
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
No. of all species per locality/forest gap
58
84
92
96
106
93
Only on individual locality
2
9
9
8
13
23
Only on sample plots
0
3
4
10
7
14
Only outside sample plots but at the locality
27
27
26
28
32
20
Of all the species, only one non-native invasive species (Erigeron annuus) was recorded.
It was present at two forest gaps, with one or two specimens. The highest number of species
present only at an individual forest gap was found at the youngest forest gap, L6-2014 (23),
and the largest forest gap, L5-2011 (13) (Table 3).
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
7 of 17
The locations/forest gaps differed from each other also in the diagnostic, constant,
and dominant species and in its number. The youngest forest gap, L6-2014, had the largest
number of diagnostic species (7). The highest number of constant species was recorded on
the forest gap L3-2007 (14) and the highest of dominant species on the L5–2011 forest gap.
The dominant species on all forest gaps was F. sylvatica. All other diagnostic, constant, and
dominant species at single locations are shown in Table 4.
According to the Jaccard and coefficients, the locations L3-2007 and L4-2013 were the
most similar, and the least similar were the locations L3-2007 and L6-2014 (Figure 2). The
spatial distribution of investigated forest gaps is similar, which indicates that the similarities
and differences between them (according to the plant community) are due to conditions at
the given location.
Table 4. Diagnostic, constant, and dominant plant species on the studied forest gaps (1: L6-2014, 2:
L4-2013, 3: L5-2011, 4: L2-2007, 5: L3-2007, 6: L1-2000 (control)). The presence of species in studied
forest gaps is marked with *.
Diagnostic
Species
1
Abies alba
Acer pseudoplatanus
Adenostyles glabra
Aegopodium podagraria
Agrimonia eupatoria
Ajuga reptans
Anemone nemorosa
Asarum europaeum
Athyrium filix-femina
Brachypodium sylvaticum
Calamagrostis epigejos
Calamintha grandiflora
Cardamine trifolia
Carex sylvatica
Circaea lutetiana
Cyclamen purpurascens
Digitalis ambigua
Epimedium alpinum
Euphorbia amygdaloides
Fagus sylvatica
Fragaria vesca
Galeobdolon flavidum
Galium odoratum
Hacquetia epipactis
Hedera helix
Helleborus niger
Heracleum sphondylium
Hypericum perforatum
Laserpitium krapfii
Maianthemum bifolium
Mercurialis perennis
Mycelis muralis
Omphalodes verna
Oxalis acetosella
Petasites albus
Picea abies
Polygonatum verticillatum
Polystichum aculeatum
Prunella vulgaris
Ranunculus platanifolius
Rosa pendulina
2
3
4
Constant
5
6
Dominant
1
2
3
4
5
6
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
8 of 17
Table 4. Cont.
Diagnostic
Species
1
Rubus idaeus
Salvia glutinosa
Sanicula europaea
Scrophularia nodosa
Senecio ovatus
Tussilago farfara
Urtica dioica
Veronica officinalis
Vicia oroboides
Viola canina
2
3
4
Constant
5
6
1
Dominant
2
3
4
5
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
6
1
2
*
4
5
6
*
*
*
*
3
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Figure 2. Dendrogram of similarities between individual locations based on Jaccard coefficient (1:
control L1-2000; 2: L3-2007 and L4-2013; 3: L5-2011; 4: L2-2007; 5: L6-2014).
3.2. Analysis of Species Composition
At individual forest gaps, the cover of most plant species was less than 50% in the
sample plots. In terms of forest gap age, at the youngest forest gap, L6-2014, and oldest,
L5-2011, less than a quarter of species in the sample plots had average cover below 2%
and at second youngest, L4-2013, even less. At L6-2014, Epimedium alpinum L. had the
highest average coverage (21%) and at L4-2013, species Fragaria vesca L. (26%), F. sylvatica
(25%), and S. glutinosa (22%). At the forest gap L5-2011, species Tussilago farfara L. (36%), B.
sylvaticum (27%), and F. vesca (24%) had the highest average cover. This is followed by the
oldest forest gaps, with species T. farfara (63%), F. sylvatica (38%), B. sylvaticum (22%), and
S. ovatus (21%) having the highest percentage of average cover in the sample plots at the
forest gap L2-2007. Comparing to other forest gaps, this forest gap had many more species
with a cover of less than 2%. At the forest gap L3-2007, as many as one third of the species
had an average cover of less than 2% in the sample plots, with species Petasites albus (L.)
Gaertn. (55%) having high average cover in addition to species F. sylvatica (32%) and B.
sylvaticum (44%). The highest average (at least 20% or more) and maximum cover (more
than 60%) of species in total at all forest gaps are shown in Table 5. In terms of frequency
of occurrence of species on sample plots, F. sylvatica (100%) and A. pseudoplatanus (above
60%) had the highest frequency at all localities, Galium odoratum (L.) Scop. (above 70%) and
Galeobdolon flavidum (F. Herm.) (above 50%) at five localities and B. sylvaticum (over 70%)
and Carex sylvatica Huds. and F. vesca at four localities with more than 50%.
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
9 of 17
Table 5. Plant species with highest average (at least 20% or more) and maximum (more than 60%)
cover at all sample plots of studied forest gaps.
Average Cover in %
Maximum Cover in %
Fagus sylvatica (29%)
Brachypodium sylvaticum (24%)
Tussilago farfara (20%)
Epimedium alpinum (21%)
Fagus sylvatica (88%)
Brachypodium sylvaticum (63%)
Tusilago farfara (63%)
Fragaria vesca (63%)
Petasites albus (63%)
Salvia glutinosa (63%)
Senecio ovatus (63%)
For 15 species that were present in the sample plots on most forest gaps, statistically
significant differences in cover were observed between individual forest gaps (Figure 3a,b).
Species B. sylvaticum had a statistically higher average cover on the forest gap L3-2007
compared to the forest gap L6-2014, where this species was not present at all, and from
the beech stand L1-2000 and the forest gap L2-2007. For species C. grandiflora, there were
statistically significant differences in the average cover between the site L3-2007 and the
sites L5-2011, L4-2013, beech stand L1-2000, and L6-2014, but at L3-2007, this species had
greater cover than at other sites. At L2-2007, species Cardamine trifolia L., G. odoratum,
Omphalodes verna Moench and S. ovatus had a statistically significant highest cover of all
in comparison to other five sites. At the site L6-2014, however, Mercurialis perennis L.,
Mycelis muralis (L.) Dumort. and Euphorbia amygdaloides L. had a statistically significant
higher average cover than at the other five sites. While species F. vesca had a statistically
significant higher average cover at the location L4-2013 compared to the locations L6-2014,
beech stand L1-2000 and L2-2007, species S. glutinosa had, in addition to the same statistical
differences as the previously mentioned species, significant differences in cover compared
to locations L3-2007 and L5-2011. Species Sanicula europaea L. had characteristically the
highest average cover at the site L5-2011 compared to the beech stand L1-2000, L3-2007,
L4-2013, and L2-2007. For species A. reptans, there were statistically significant differences
only between the sites L5-2011 and L4-2013, where its average cover was significantly lower
or was absent. Species C. sylvatica and G. flavidum also had a significantly different cover
on L5-2011. The first one had the highest cover and the second one, the lowest cover on
L5-2011. The first one had a significantly higher average cover there than at the location
L6-2014, and the latter, the lowest compared to the location L2-2007.
3.3. Analysis of Environmental Factors and Ecological Strategy of Community
Based on Ellenberg phytoindication estimates of environmental variables, we found
that the Ellenberg light index at all studied forest gaps was between 4 and 5, temperature
index between 4.8 and 5.2, and humidity index between 5 and 5.4. In the Ellenberg index
that describes the pH of the soil, there were differences between the forest gap L6-2014
and others. At the forest gap L6-2014, it was 7, while in the other four forest gaps, it was
between 6 and 7. In terms of the amount of nitrogen and other nutrients in the soil, the
average Ellenberg index was between 5.5 and 6 for four locations and between 6 and 6.5
for two locations. According to the Ellenberg continentality index, which was between 3
and 4 on forest gaps, forest gaps in the studied area are mainly inhabited by plant species
widespread in Central Europe.
By analysing the ecological strategy of plant communities, we found that plant communities have a stress tolerator–competitor/competitor–stress tolerator–ruderal (SC/CSR)
strategy in most of the studied forest gaps. Only the plant community at the forest gap
L2-2007 differs slightly, as it has a competitor/competitor–stress tolerator–ruderal (C/CSR)
strategy. In all communities of studied forest gaps, the largest component is represented by
strategy C (competitor), which has a share of over 45% in all of them (Figure 4).
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
10 of 17
Figure 3. (a) Cover percentage change diagram between single sampling sites for first set of 15
chosen plant species (Above Draga/L6-2014, Goteniški Snežnik/L4-2013, Goteniška gora/L5-2011,
Below Barnik/L2-2007, Above Barnik/L3-2007, control Stone Wall/L1-2000). (b) Cover percentage
change diagram between single sampling sites for second set of 15 chosen plant species (Above
Draga/L6-2014, Goteniški Snežnik/L4-2013, Goteniška gora/L5-2011, Below Barnik/L2-2007, Above
Barnik/L3-2007, control Stone Wall/L1- 2000).
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
11 of 17
Figure 4. C-S-R strategy of plant communities at single sampling sites (L4-2013 (Pod Goteniškim
Snežnikom), L2-2007 (Pod Barnikom), L6-2014 (Nad DRago), L3-2007 (Nad Barnikom), L1-2000
(Kamen zid), L5-2011 (Gotaniška gora)).
4. Discussion
In our study, we recorded a total of 186 species in forest gaps, which is much more
than in a similar study in Hungary, where the largest number of species was 61 [2,52]. We
can, therefore, conclude that the plant species diversity in forest gaps included in our study
is rich and contributes to the impact on the biodiversity of the entire area [53]. This can
already be explained by the high α-diversity (local diversity) of individual forest gaps,
which in turn leads to high β-diversity (ratio between regional and local diversity) [47].
Therefore, forest gaps L5-2011 and L2-2007 provide support for the fact that the size of
the forest gap affects its biodiversity [7,14,53]. At the first one, we recorded the largest
number of species, which is due to the fact that it is the largest of all gaps and its mosaic
structure, which is a result of a natural disturbance, provides many microhabitats for the
growth of plant species with different ecological niches [14]. Some shade species (e.g.,
O. verna, M. perennis, Maianthemum bifolium (L.) F. W. Schmidt) were still present at this
gap, representing the remnants of forest understory species [54], while species of sunny
habitats were predominant on shallow soils and locations exposed to the sun. Furthermore,
next to decaying organic material, we observed species that thrive on nutrient-rich soils
(e.g., Urtica dioica L., R. idaeus) [55] and representatives of species with high stalk plants,
characteristic of forest gaps (e.g., S. glutinosa, S. nodosa, S. ovatus) [54]. A higher degree of
mineralisation occurs in the initial stages of forest gaps, as the disturbance causes more
decomposing organic material on the ground [56]. The opposite was found out for the
smallest forest gap, L2-2007. Lower species number is the influence of the canopy of edge
trees. Specifically, in this forest gap, there appear no plants of sunny habitats because the
canopies of edge trees form shade over most of the forest gap [2,7,16].
The species present in our studied forest gaps were mostly species of forest understory,
forest edge, and clear-fells [14,53]. There were almost no meadow species, which is logical
since the studied forest gaps are located in the middle of forests, and there are no such
meadow surfaces nearby that could be a source of meadow plant species colonisation.
Some meadow species, e.g., Bellis perennis L., Plantago major L., Medicago lupulina L., Crepis
biennis L., and Taraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggers, probably spread to forest gaps through
forest roads and trails, which are used for wood harvesting and are connected to non-forest
surfaces [57]. These species were predominantly located along forest trails. Colonisation
of non-forest species along roads and trails to forest gaps also represents a potentially
dangerous possibility for transfer of invasive plant species, so biodiversity along paths
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
12 of 17
should be regularly monitored in forest management to promptly prevent the introduction
of invasive species. However, at each of the forest gaps, we recorded a few species that
appeared only there and nowhere else. We surveyed most of such species (23) at the forest
gap L6-2014. The reason for this could be that this forest gap is the farthest from all the
others. Therefore, the floristic composition of the surroundings (as a source of colonising
species) of the forest gap L6-2014 may be different from those surrounding areas of other
forest gaps [58]. The other reason is also that the gap was formed the most recently. This
forest gap also had a larger share of annuals and biennials, which are mainly pioneer
species–this is characteristic mainly of the initial phase of succession [12].
The species that were present at all forest gaps can be classified into two groups,
specifically those that are typical representatives of beech forest understory (e.g., O. verna,
C. trifolia, C. sylvatica, G. flavidum, E. amygdaloides, M. muralis, S. europaea) [59,60] and those
that are common representatives of forest edges and clearings (e.g., F. vesca, S. glutinosa,
Scrophularia nodosa, R. idaeus) [61]. Differences in their cover between individual forest gaps,
however, indicate that the age and size of the forest gaps have an impact on their occurrence
and spread. Namely, the greater cover of species M. perennis, H. epipactis, and E. alpinum at
the forest gap L6-2014 again indicates that this forest gap was still in formation phase at
the time of the study, as the forest understory species had the largest cover. These again
represent the remnants of species that grew under canopy before the felling of trees and
forest gap formation [16,53,62]. This is also confirmed by the statistically significant higher
cover of forest understory species M. muralis and E. amygdaloides (in addition to M. perennis)
at the site L6-2014. The same was found in the study by Kermavnar et al. [12]. At the forest
gap L2-2007, shade-loving species (forest understory species) had a statistically significant
higher cover because this forest gap is the smallest and longest and, consequently, shadier.
These species of forest understory in forest gaps are, in a way, remnants of the former beech
forest [12], which still thrive primarily on the shadier parts of forest gaps, and are, therefore,
characteristic of newly formed forest gaps. However, they reappear in the final stages of
succession overgrowing, when tree vegetation begins overgrowing the forest gap [16]. For
species of forest edges, the forest gaps represent a new favourable environment, to which
they colonise from already existing forest edges. These species thus tolerate more open
surfaces with more light, as well as partial shade. These are species that are present on
forest gaps of medium age [2,6,53,63].
However, the low cover of plant species (at least one third of the species on forest gaps
did not exceed cover of 2%) indicates that the plant species on forest gaps did not appear in
larger closed populations. Small cover of species allows the coexistence of a larger number
of species, increasing the biodiversity of the site [14,53]. Species, which appeared with
the highest cover on all forest gaps, except the youngest one, L6-2014, were F. sylvatica, T.
farfara, B. sylvaticum, F. vesca, S. glutinosa, P. albus, and S. ovatus. The gap L6-2014 was at
the beginning of succession and species did not yet develop bigger populations. The high
cover of F. sylvatica is expected, as it represents the predominant tree species in all locations.
Species B. sylvaticum is also a common species in forests. The greater cover of species T.
farfara and P. albus indicates their pioneer character and morphological adaptations, which
allow them to propagate rapidly (production of large quantity of seeds and propagation by
rhizomes) primarily on moist limestone soils with rock debris [63].
The frequency of occurrence on the sample plots and the constancy of specific species
confirmed their uniform even distribution on the entire surface of the forest gaps, as the
sample plots were evenly distributed on the forest gaps. The uniform representation of
a species on the surface can again be either the result of environmental factors (uniform
influence of the environmental factor on the entire surface) or the adaptability of a specific
species to various environmental factors. One third of the species were present in more
than 50% of the sample plots of an individual forest gap, i.e., they were more or less evenly
distributed on the forest gaps. Their share varied slightly between forest gaps. On the forest
gap L2-2007 thrive most such species, probably because of its small size, which resulted
in lower fluctuations of environmental factors. Species S. ovatus stood out with its 100%
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
13 of 17
frequency of occurrence at three forest gaps. We can conclude that this species has a wide
ecological niche. It appeared on all sample plots, both on the smallest and shadiest forest
gap, L2-2007, as well as on the largest forest gap with a very mosaic structure, L5-2011,
and on the nutrient-rich forest gap, L4-2013. Its broad ecological valence is also cited in
the literature. It is even said to be a typical species of forest gaps formed after fires, snow
damage, and blowdowns [54,64].
According to Ellenberg indices, we found that forest gaps are colonised primarily by
semi-shady plant species that grow in places with more than 10% light intensity, but rarely
thrive in full light and are characteristic of moderately warm and submontane areas [51].
These are also species that thrive on moderately moist to dry soils, as forest gaps are open
surfaces where fluctuations in humidity are greater. The surface of all forest gaps is also
structured into pit and mound, with humidity being higher in pit with accumulated organic
material than in raised, exposed parts [65–67]. The mosaic structure thus allows those
species that need slightly more moisture to thrive as well as those that grow in dry habitats.
According to Ellenberg indices, differences between forest gaps became apparent in the
amount of nutrients in the soil, which is the result of the gap formatting time and the
decaying plant material left there after the disturbance. On L5-2011 and L4-2013, there were
several species that grow in soils richer in nutrients, which is the result of a larger amount
of litterfall (branches, trunks, stumps) that is in the last stage of decomposition at both
forest gaps. As decomposition increases, the pH of the soil decreases [68,69], which we
determined by the Ellenberg index. Therefore, plant species growing on soils with medium
to weak acidity are present at all forest gaps except the youngest (L6-2014). At the youngest
forest gap, Ellenberg soil pH index determined the presence of plant species growing on
moderately acidic to weakly alkaline soils. The reason for this is that decomposition of
organic material after ice storms and salvage harvesting is only in its initial phase.
Every newly formed forest gap can represent a new area either for colonisation by
plant species or for increasing the population of species already present there. Competitively more successful plant species occupy the surface with sufficient resources faster
or their population there increases more rapidly [47]. Due to the larger amounts of decomposing plant material in the soil, there are enough nutrients and also enough light
for photosynthesis in the studied forest gaps. Therefore, when studying the ecological
strategy of communities at all forest gaps, we found the most pronounced competitor
component of the C-S-R diagram that characterises the community of plant species with
a competitor strategy [23]. At the same time, it is classified as a community that has a
stress-tolerator strategy [70]. The opposite was found by Eller et. al. [71], where the C-S-R
strategy shifted from stress-tolerators in pre-logging conditions to a more ruderal component in post-logging stands (when the forest gap was formed). One reason for differences
in research could be that, in our research, the gaps were in the middle of dense forest stands
and there were no donor populations of ruderal plant species around, and the second
reason is that our forest gaps, except one Above Draga, were not newly formed gaps and
were not at the beginning of succession. Additionally, in our research, we chose naturally
formed forest gaps, and in aforementioned research of Eller et al. [71], they were formed
by logging. The difference between gap forming is that, with logging, process machines
damage the understory vegetation and forest floor. The ‘opened’ floor patches are then
suitable environments for ruderal species. The same happens on forest gaps where high
digging activity of bigger forest mammals is present [15]. With natural gap formatting and
leaving the trunks and fallen wood on the floor, there are fewer ‘opened’ floor patches and
a less suitable environment for ruderal species.
The study confirmed the complexity of colonisation of forest gaps by plant species.
The characteristics of plant species colonisation in gaps is that, in the initial stage of a
gap (after formation of a gap), the most common species are sciophytic plants, which
represent the remaining forest understory and ruderal species. With time, an older gap
starts to be colonised by heliophytic plant species (representative of species with tall stems),
with greater populations of grasses and sedges. Tree species start growing on gap edges,
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
14 of 17
primarily beech in the Dinaric fir-beech forests. The species that grow in forest gaps prefer
habitats with more sunlight, medium wet to dry soil, and are tolerant to high daily and
seasonal temperature fluctuations, but at same time, forest gaps are a habitat patch for
some species that did not exist there before. Colonisation, as well as species turnover,
occurs very quickly with the change of environment in the process of overgrowing. Forest
gaps also represent important windows of increased biodiversity and the chance for forest
regeneration. Regrowth is fast enough, so there is no need for additional planting on
formed forest gaps.
5. Conclusions
In the forest ecosystem, forest gaps represent an important developmental stage of
the forest and a habitat for certain plant species. In our research, we found that the species
composition and distribution of plants at forest gaps are significantly influenced by the size of
forest gaps, their greater or lesser structure in microenvironment, amount of woody debris,
abiotic factors, plant species composition of nearby forest gaps, and colonisation pathways.
In our study, we found greater biodiversity of plant species at forest gaps compared
to the juvenile beech stand. The number of species was highest at the largest of the forest
gaps. We found that the investigated forest gaps inhabit mostly species of forest understory,
forest edges, and felling. The species present at all forest gaps are typical representatives
of the beech forest understory, as well as common representatives of forest edges. Forest
understory species are only remnants of former compacted forest before the forest gaps
formatting, which thrive mainly on the shadier parts of forest gaps.
Plant species typical of forest understory have a greater cover on newly emerging
forest gaps. In older forest gaps (4 years and older), there is a species turnover, where
species typical of more open areas have a greater coverage. Populations of forest understory
species are beginning to decrease, while populations of grasses, sedges, and other plant
species typical of open areas are beginning to increase.
The plant species composition of an individual forest gap largely depends on the
proximity of donor populations. Our studied forest gaps were inhabited by plant species
characteristic of temperate and submontane areas. Characteristics of species that colonise
forest gaps are preference for sites with more light, with moderately moist to dry soils, and
tolerance to large daytime, night, and seasonal temperature fluctuations. Those forest gaps,
on which more decaying plant material is present, are inhabited by species that need more
nutrients in the soil to grow. Due to this, forest gaps colonisation with plant species is also
significantly influenced by the amount of decaying plant material.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.R. and J.B.; methodology, B.R. and J.B.; formal analysis,
B.R. and A.Č.; investigation, B.R. and J.B.; writing—original draft preparation, B.R.; writing—review
and editing, J.B. and A.Č.; visualization, B.R. and A.Č. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Helms, J.A. The Dictionary of Forestry; Society of American Foresters and CABI Publishing: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1998; 210p.
Frelich, L.E. Forest Dynamics and Disturbance Regimes; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002; 90p.
Gálhidy, L.; Mihok, B.; Hagyo, A.; Rajkai, K.; Standovár, T. Effects of gap size and associated changes in light and soil moisture on
the understorey vegetation of a Hungarian beech forest. Plant Ecol. 2006, 183, 133–145. [CrossRef]
Vilhar, U.; Roženbergar, D.; Simončič, P.; Diaci, J. Variation in irradiance, soil features and regeneration patterns in experimental
forest canopy gaps. Ann. For. Sci. 2015, 72, 253–266. [CrossRef]
Kermavnar, J.; Ferlan, M.; Marinšek, A.; Eler, K.; Kobler, A.; Kutnar, L. Effects of various cutting treatments and topographic
factors on microclimatic conditions in Dinaric fir-beech forests. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2020, 295, 108–186. [CrossRef]
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
15 of 17
Latif, Z.A.; Blackburn, G.A. The effects of gap size on some microclimate variables during late summer and autumn in a temperate
broadleaved deciduous forest. Int. J. Biometeorolgy 2010, 54, 119–129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Seyednasrollah, B.; Kumar, M. Net radiation in a snow-covered discontinuous forest gap for a range of gap sizes and topographic
configurations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2014, 10, 323–342. [CrossRef]
O’Hara, K. Multiaged Silviculture: Managing for Complex Forest Stand Structures; Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: Oxford,
UK, 2014; 262p.
Duguid, M.C.; Frey, B.R.; Ellum, D.S.; Kelty, M.; Ashton, M.S. The influence of ground disturbance and gap position on understory
plant diversity in upland forests of southern New England. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 303, 148–159. [CrossRef]
Kollár, T. Light Conditions, Soil Moisture, and Vegetation Cover in Artificial Forest Gaps in Western Hungary. Acta Silv. Et.
Lignaria Hung. 2017, 13, 25–40. [CrossRef]
Kermavnar, J.; Eler, K.; Marinšek, A.; Kutnar, L. Post-harvest forest herb layer demography: General patterns are driven by
pre-disturbance conditions. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 491, 119–121. [CrossRef]
Feldmann, E.; Drößler, L.; Hauck, M.; Kucbel, S.; Pichler, V.; Leuschner, C. Canopy gap dynamics and tree understory release in a
virgin beech forest, Slovakian Carpathians. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 415–416, 38–46. [CrossRef]
Kermavnar, J.; Eler, K.; Marinšek, A.; Kutnar, L. Initial understorey vegetation responses following different forest management
intensities in Illyrian beech forest. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2019, 22, 48–60. [CrossRef]
Ravnjak, B.; Bavcon, J.; Osterc, G. Physiological response of local populations of species Cyclamen purpurascens Mill. To forest
gaps. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. Int. Sci. J. 2019, 17, 11489–11508. [CrossRef]
Fahey, R.T.; Puettmann, K.J. Ground-layer disturbance and initial conditions influence gap partitioning of understorey vegetation.
J. Ecol. 2007, 95, 1098–1109. [CrossRef]
Collins, B.S.; Dunne, K.P.; Pickett, S.T.A. Reponses of Forest Herbs to Canopy Gaps. In The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and patch
Dynamics; Picket, S.T.A., White, P.S., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1985; pp. 217–234.
Kelemen, K.; Mihók, B.; Gálhidy, L. Dynamic response of herbaceous vegetation to gap opening in a central European beech
stand. Silva Fenn. 2012, 46, 53–65. [CrossRef]
Vukelić, J.; Mikac, S.; Baričević, D.; Šapić, I.; Bakšić, D. Vegetation and structural features of Norway spruce stands (Picea abies
Karst.) in the virgin forest of Smrčeve doline in northern Velebit. Croat. J. For. Eng. J. Theory Appl. For. Eng. 2011, 32, 85–86.
Schoennagel, T.; Smithwick, E.A.H.; Turner, M.G. Landscape heterogeneity following large fires: Insights from Yellowstone
National Park, USA. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 742–753. [CrossRef]
Bottero, A.; Garbarino, M.; Dukic, V.; Goveda, Z.; Lingu, E.; Nagel, T.A.; Motta, R. Gap-phase dynamics in the old-growth forest
of Lom, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Silva Fenn. 2011, 45, 875–887. [CrossRef]
Muscolo, M.; Bagnato, S.; Sidari, M.; Mercurio, R. A review of the roles of forest canopy gaps. J. For. Res. 2014, 25, 725–736.
[CrossRef]
Hilmers, T.; Friess, N.; Bässler, C.; Heurich, M.; Brandl, R.; Pretzsch, H.; Seidl, R.; Müller, J. Biodiversity along temperate forest
succession. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 2756–2766. [CrossRef]
Grime, J.P. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory.
Am. Nat. 1997, 3, 1169–1194. [CrossRef]
Meterc, G.; Skudnik, M.; Jurc, M. Vpliv gospodarjenja na biotsko raznovrstnost saproksilnih hroščev [The impact of forest
management to the biodiversity of saproxylic beetles]. Gozdarski Vestn. 2015, 73, 3–18.
Honnay, O.; Hermy, M.; Coppin, P. Impact of habitat quality on forest plant species colonization. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 115,
157–170. [CrossRef]
Dale, V.H.; Joyce, L.A.; McNulty, S.; Neilson, R.P.; Ayres, M.P.; Flanningan, M.D.; Hanson, P.J.; Irland, L.C.; Lugo, A.E.; Peterson,
C.J.; et al. Climate Change and Forest Disturbance: Climate change can effect forests by altering the frequency, intensity, duration,
and timing of fire, drought, introduced species, insects and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms or landslides.
BioScience 2001, 51, 723–734. [CrossRef]
Slovenian Environment Agency—ARSO. Podnebne Razmere v Sloveniji (Obdobje 1985–2010) [Weather Conditions in Slovenia (Period
1985–2010)]; Slovenian Environment Agency: Ljubljana, Slovenija, 2010; 27p.
Kordiš, F. Dinarski Jelovo-Bukovi Gozdovi v Sloveniji [Dinaric Silver Fir-Beech Forests in Slovenia]; Biotechnical Faculty, Department of
Forestry: Ljubljana, Slovenija, 1993; 139p.
Nagel, T.A.; Mikac, S.; Dolinar, M.; Klopčič, M. The natural disturbance regime in forests of the Dinaric Mountains: A synthesis of
evidence. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 388, 29–42. [CrossRef]
Wraber, M. Pflanzengeographische Stellung und Gliederung Sloweniens. Vegetatio 1969, 17, 176–199. [CrossRef]
Wraber, M. Vegetacija slovenskega bukovega gozda v luči ekologije in palinologije. Biološki Vestn. 1964, 12, 77–95.
Praprotnik, N. Ilirski Florni Element v Sloveniji. Doktorska Disertacija; Univerza Edvarda Kardelja v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta,
VTOZD za biologijo: Ljubljana, Slovenija, 1987; 234p.
Marinček, L. Bukovi Gozdovi na Slovenskem [Beech Forests in Slovenia]; Delavska Enotnost: Ljubljana, Slovenija, 1987; 153p.
Fraver, S.; Wagner, R.G.; Day, M. Dynamics od coarse woody debris following gap harvesting in the Acadian forests of central
Maine, U.S.A. Can. J. For. Res. 2002, 32, 2094–2105. [CrossRef]
Müller-Using, S.; Bartsch, N. Decay dynamic of coarse and fine woody debris of a beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forest in Central
Germany. Eur. J. For. Res. 2009, 128, 287–296. [CrossRef]
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
16 of 17
Sefidi, K.; Marvie Mohadjer, M.R. 2010: Characteristics of coarse woody debris in successional stages of natural beech forests
(Fagus orientalis) of Northern Iran. J. For. Sci. 2010, 56, 7–17. [CrossRef]
Jakša, J. Natural disasters in Slovenian forest. Gozdraski Vestn. 2007, 65, 177–192.
Jakša, J. Natural disasters in Slovenian forest. Gozdraski Vestn. 2007, 65, 241–256.
Tarman, K. Osnove Ekologije in Ekologija Živali; Državna Založba Slovenije: Ljubljana, Slovenija, 1992; 547p.
Braun-Blanquet, J. Pflanzesoziologie. Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1964; 330p.
Gilliam, F.S. The Ecological Significance of the Herbaceus Layer in Temperate Forest Ecosystems. BioScience 2007, 57, 845–858.
[CrossRef]
Tichý, L. JUICE, software for vegetation classification. J. Veg. Sci. 2002, 13, 451–453. [CrossRef]
Zur, A.F.; Ieno, E.N.; Smith, G.M. Analysing Ecological Data; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; 672p.
Pignatti, S.; Menegoni, P.; Pietrosanti, S. Valori di bioindicazione delle piante vascolari della flora d’Italia [Bioindicator values of
vascular plants of the Flora of Italy]. Braun-Blanquetia 2005, 39, 1–97.
Jarolímek, I.; Šibik, J. Diagnostic, Constant and Dominant Species of the Higher Vegetation Units in Slovakia; VEDA: Bratislava, Slovakia,
2008; 329p.
Sokal, R.R.; Rohlf, F.J. Biometry, 3rd ed.; W.H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
Smith, R.L.; Smith, T.M. Ecology & Field Biology; Benjamin Cummings: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001; 771p.
Tichy, L.; Holt, J. JUICE Program for Management Analysis and Classification of Ecological Data; Vegetation Science Group, Masaryk
University Brno: Brno, Czech Republic, 2006; 98p.
Klotz, S.; Kühn, I.; Durka, W. BIOLFLOR—Eine Datenbank zu Biologisch-Ökologischen Merkmalen der Gefässpflanzen in Deutschland—
Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 2002.
Hunt, R.; Hodgson, J.G.; Thompson, K.; Bungener, P.; Dunnett, N.P.; Askew, A.P. A new practical tool for deriving a functional
signature for herbaceous vegetation. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2004, 7, 163–170. [CrossRef]
Ellenberg, H.; Weber, H.E.; Düll, R.; Wirth, V.; Werner, W.; Paulissen, D. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa; Erich Goltze:
Göttingen, Germany, 1992; 262p.
Večeřa, M.; Divíšek, J.; Lenoir, J.; Jiménez-Alfaro, B.; Biurrun, I.; Knollova, I.; Agrillo, E.; Campos, J.A.; Čarni, A.; Crespo, G.; et al.
Alpha diversity of vascular plants in European forests. J. Biogeogr. 2019, 46, 1919–1935. [CrossRef]
Degen, T.; Devillez, F.; Jacquemart, A.-L. Gaps promote plant diversity in beech forests (Luzulo-Fagetum), North Vosges, France.
Ann. For. Sci. 2005, 62, 429–440. [CrossRef]
Šilić, Č. Šumske Zeljaste Biljke; Zavod za Udžbenike i Nastavna Sredstva: Beograd, Serbia, 1988; 271p.
Taylor, K. Biological Flora of the British Isles: Urtica dioica L. J. Ecol. 2009, 97, 1436–1458. [CrossRef]
Mayer, M.; Matthews, B.; Rosinger, C.; Douglas, H.S.; Godbold, L.; Katzensteiner, K. Tree regeneration retards decomposition in a
temperate mountain soil after forest gap disturbance. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 115, 490–498. [CrossRef]
Čarni, A. Vegetation of trampled habitats in the Prekmurje region (NE Slovenia). Hacquetia 2005, 4, 151–159.
Burton, J.I.; Mladenoff, D.J.; Clayton, M.K.; Jodi, A.; Forrester, J.A. The roles of environmental filtering and colonization in the
fine-scale spatial patterning of ground-layer plant communities in north temperate deciduous forests. J. Ecol. 2011, 99, 764–776.
[CrossRef]
Willner, W.; Jimenez-Alfaro, B.; Agrillo, E.; Biurrun, I.; Campos, J.A.; Čarni, A.; Cassela, L.; Csiky, J.; Ćušterevska, R.; Didukh, Y.P.;
et al. Classification of European beech forests: A Gordian Knot? Appl. Veg. Sci. 2017, 20, 494–512. [CrossRef]
Zupančič, M.; Vreš, B. Phytogeographic analysis of Slovenia. Folia Biol. Geol. 2018, 59, 160–211.
Mucina, L.; Bueltmann, H.; Dierßen, K.; Theurillat, J.P.; Raus, T.; Čarni, A.; Šumberová, K.; Willner, W.; Dengler, J.; Gavilán, R.;
et al. Vegetation of Europe: Hierarchical floristic classification system of vascular plant, bryophyte, lichen, and algal communities.
Appl. Veg. Sci. 2016, 19, 3–264. [CrossRef]
Kermavnar, J. Vplivi Gospodarjenja na Funkcionalne Lastnosti Gozdne Vegetacije in Ekološke Razmere v Dinarskih JelovoBukovih Gozdovih [Impacts of Forest Management on Functional Properties of Vegetation and Ecological Conditions in the
Dinaric Fir-Beech Forests]. Ph.D. Thesis, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2021; 225p.
Myerscough, P.J.; Whitehead, F.H. Comparative biology of Tussilago farfara L.; Chamaenerion angustifolium (L.) Scop., Epilobium
montanum L. and Epilobium adenocaulon Hausskn. Gen. Biol. Germination 1965, 1, 192–210.
Rahmonov, O.; J˛edrzejko, K.; Majgier, L. The secondary succession in the area of abandoned cemeteries in northern Poland. In
Landscape Ecology—Methods, Applications and Interdisciplinary Approach; Barančoková, M., Krajčí, J., Kollár, J., Belčáková, J., Eds.;
Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovac Academy of Sciences: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2010; pp. 647–657.
Ulanova, N. The effects of windthrow on forest at different spatial scales: A review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 135, 155–167.
[CrossRef]
Mollaei Darabi, S.; Kooch, Y.; Hosseini, S. Dynamic of Plant Composition and Regeneration following Windthrow in a Temperate
Beech Forest. Int. Sch. Res. Not. 2014, 2014, 1–9. [CrossRef]
Marinšek, A.; Celarc, B.; Grah, A.; Kokalj, Ž.; Nagel, T.A.; Ogris, N.; Planinšek, Š.; Roženbergar, D.; Veljanovski, T.; Vochl, S.; et al.
Žledolom in njegove posledice na razvoj gozdov—Pregled dosedanjih znanj [Impacts of Ice Storms on Forest Development—A
Review]. Gozdarski Vestn. 2015, 73, 392–405.
Kraigher, H.; Jurc, D.; Kalan, P.; Kutnar, L.; Levanič, T.; Rupel, M.; Smolej, I. Beech coarse woody debris characteristic in two
virgin forests reserves in southern Slovenia. Zb. Gozdarstva Lesar. 2002, 69, 91–134.
Diversity 2022, 14, 209
69.
70.
71.
17 of 17
Spears, J.D.H.; Lajtha, K. The imprint of coarse woody debris on soil chemistry in the western Oregon Cascades. Biogeochemistry
2004, 71, 163–175. [CrossRef]
Bavcon, J. Belo Cvetoče Različice v Slovenski Flori [White-Flowered Varieties in Slovenian Flora]; University Botanic Gardens Ljubljana:
Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2014; 349p.
Eler, K.; Kermavnar, J.; Marinšek, A.; Kutnar, L. 2018: Short-term changes in plant functional traits and understory functional
diversity after logging of different intensities: A temperate fir-beech forest experiment. Ann. For. Res. 2018, 61, 223–242. [CrossRef]