Habitat in Dead branches?

[treeseer]

I understand the importance of standing dead trees, fallen dead trees, raptor perches, and hollows for wildlife, so I conserve these whenever possible. However, I cannot find a scientific source that demonstrates that dead branches in living trees is essential habitat.

 

Is it anywhere near as important as these other habitats?

 

What lives IN or feeds ON dead branches in live trees that cannot otherwise survive? Is it essential at all, and if so, for what?

[Fungus]

I understand the importance of standing dead trees, fallen dead trees, raptor perches, and hollows for wildlife, so I conserve these whenever possible. However, I cannot find a scientific source that demonstrates that dead branches in living trees is essential habitat. Is it anywhere near as important as these other habitats? What lives IN or feeds ON dead branches in live trees that cannot otherwise survive? Is it essential at all, and if so, for what?

 

For what it's worth, from a fungal point of view, I can provide you with a long list of species of macrofungi, which start their recycling and pioneer bark and wood decaying activities long before the branches fall off, i.e. there's a complete, partialy tree species specific ecosystem with its own successive order up there, which continues its work once the branches are on the forest floor, which often triggers them to fruit for the first time.

To give some examples of indigenous Dutch species :

- Oudemansiella mucida, Marasmiellus species, Hohenbuehelia species, Crepidotus species and other Agaricales,

- Vuilleminia comedens, Stereum species, Peniophora species, Steccherinum species, Hymenochaete species, Plicaturopsis crispa, Auriculariopsis ampla and lots of other Corticiaceae,

- Inonotus species, Phellinus species, Polyporus species and other Polyporaceae,

- Tremella species, Exidia species, Myxarium species, Hirneola auricula-judae, Femsjonia pezizaeformis and other Tremellales

- Nidulariales (Gasteromycetes),

- Chlorociboria species, Encoelia species, Lachnellula species, Ascotremella faginea, Hypocreopsis lichenoides, Nectria species, Diatrype species, Diatrypella species, Hypoxylon species, Rosellinia species, Peroneutypa heteracantha, Daldinia concentrica and other ascomycetes.

[Graham]

I understand the importance of standing dead trees, fallen dead trees, raptor perches, and hollows for wildlife, so I conserve these whenever possible. However, I cannot find a scientific source that demonstrates that dead branches in living trees is essential habitat.

 

Is it anywhere near as important as these other habitats?

 

What lives IN or feeds ON dead branches in live trees that cannot otherwise survive? Is it essential at all, and if so, for what?

 

I'd guess here in the UK it's pretty essential for G S and L S woodpeckers. Although they'll find other food sources their main invertabrate food source is from dead wood in the canopy.

[Fungus]

I'd guess here in the UK it's pretty essential for G S and L S woodpeckers. Although they'll find other food sources their main invertabrate food source is from dead wood in the canopy.

 

Which implicates, that there must be lots of insects and larvae present to forage, which in their turn are "attracted" to the branches (and the FB's of the fungi), because of the white and soft rotters decomposing the bark and wood, etc.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Treeseer, dead wood is such a negative term, and really is in no way a reflection of the immense amount of life that needs dead twigs/branches from all diameters from the petiole to the root hairs.

 

Do we really need to trawl the Scientific community for all the organisms on your behalf, or are you happy to take our word for it that deadbranches are as vital a part of the habitat as just about any other tree part?

 

If we put a list of JUST the fungi together in order of the diameter of wood they prefer, it would take years if not a lifetime...

 

and then you could start on the invertebrates by wood diameter preference...

 

and then all the higher organisms that rely if only in part on that wood/fungi/insect relationship and ratio.

 

basic food chain mathematics

[treeseer]

OK, Graham notes that woodpeckers will find other sources, including standing dead trees. I see a lot more woodpeckers on live trees, but am not familiar with GS and GL.

 

"... a long list of species of macrofungi, which start their recycling and pioneer bark and wood decaying activities long before the branches fall off, i.e. there's a complete, partialy tree species specific ecosystem with its own successive order up there, which continues its work once the branches are on the forest floor, which often triggers them to fruit for the first time."

 

I agree that their life cycle comes to fruition, literal or figurative, on the ground. How long, if at all, would these dead branches have to be on the tree to serve their role in this observed order? And are any species reliant on dead branches in living trees for their existence, or do they just use them because they are there?

 

"are you happy to take our word for it that deadbranches are as vital a part of the habitat as just about any other tree part?

 

With all due respect, it seems unscientific to take the word of anyone, no matter how much they are revered, for anything. Any statement that broad and speculative seems to call for some skepticism. Facts are preferable.

 

"If we put a list of JUST the fungi together in order of the diameter of wood they prefer, it would take years if not a lifetime...

 

Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees?

 

"and then you could start on the invertebrates by wood diameter preference...

 

Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees?

 

"and then all the higher organisms that rely if only in part on that wood/fungi/insect relationship and ratio.

 

Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees?

Just asking a basic question about basic food chain mathematics

[treeseer]

A friend related this, which addresses the question in an indirect but entirely valid way:

 

In our area of high and dry Ponderosa forests, one of the uses of dead limbs on these trees is the foundation for the development of reindeer moss.

 

Reindeer moss

 

This lichen is able to live and multiply in areas where ground development is limited by consumption. Taking years to develop into large masses, the now brittle dead wood will snap from wind or snow load. The nutrient rich lichen is then able to be utilized by many ground-based organisms which are "essential" to the forest.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

OK, Graham notes that woodpeckers will find other sources, including standing dead trees. I see a lot more woodpeckers on live trees, but am not familiar with GS and GL.

 

"... a long list of species of macrofungi, which start their recycling and pioneer bark and wood decaying activities long before the branches fall off, i.e. there's a complete, partialy tree species specific ecosystem with its own successive order up there, which continues its work once the branches are on the forest floor, which often triggers them to fruit for the first time."

 

I agree that their life cycle comes to fruition, literal or figurative, on the ground. How long, if at all, would these dead branches have to be on the tree to serve their role in this observed order? And are any species reliant on dead branches in living trees for their existence, or do they just use them because they are there?

 

"are you happy to take our word for it that deadbranches are as vital a part of the habitat as just about any other tree part?

 

With all due respect, it seems unscientific to take the word of anyone, no matter how much they are revered, for anything. Any statement that broad and speculative seems to call for some skepticism. Facts are preferable.

 

"If we put a list of JUST the fungi together in order of the diameter of wood they prefer, it would take years if not a lifetime...

 

Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees?

 

"and then you could start on the invertebrates by wood diameter preference...

 

Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees?

 

"and then all the higher organisms that rely if only in part on that wood/fungi/insect relationship and ratio.

 

Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees?

Just asking a basic question about basic food chain mathematics

 

I wouldnt use the word endangered for thinner branch ecology, for by its nature (use logic) it is nomadic and pioneering, and would need to be able to migrate very well.

 

Lets think about Oak then, as its diameter at death makes quite a difference to its structure. The sapwood layer of Oak (Q robur) is colonised very quickly and degraded quickly too.

 

There are so many variables.

 

As for the science of it all, I welcome anyone who wants to use and push this forum on that level and is willing to share their unique work here openly on forum.

 

What are you bringing to our table guy? I am open to all you have to offer:001_cool:

 

I apologise for not taking your question as seriously as you would have liked, but for me its not clear where you want to go with it? from an endangered species/protection point of view the question shows a lack of ecology logic.

 

if you want endangered species on branches look to the lichenised fungi, and trees with durable heartwoods and long standing deadwood substrate like Oak.

[sean freeman]

Tony I think Guy is just trying to establish what reliable information there is in relation to the ecological values of aerial deadwood, and by that I would like to include standing stems, monoliths, stags. Basically deadwood which has not fallen to the ground.

 

I think you make a very valid point about smaller twigs and it seems perfectly logical to me, organisms that might use such ephemeral structures are (if they are to have long term survival strategies) not likely to be obligate to those structures remaining in the tree canopy for very long.

 

Larger branches limbs and stems...my reading and interactions have led to the opinion that there are fungi and invertebrates which will not be able to obtain their habitat requirements (either for almost all their life cycle or at least critical portions of their life cycle) from fallen tree parts, or in the case of managed trees deadwood cut from the tree and placed in sections on the ground.

 

I have used the term 'essential' to describe this aerial habitat and I think I should think more carefully about that descriptor...thanks to Guy for helping me recognise a looseness in my logic and understanding of what is actually even more complex a set of relationships (more organisms more subtlety) than I had previously considered.

 

In a very real sense the sanitisation of deadwood from trees is a huge problem in Australia and I know it is recognised as a major threat to the ecological values of both the urban and peri-urban environment in Europe and the USA. Commercial forestry across the globe has committed resources to studying the impacts of different variations of woodlot management in respect to deadwood retention - but not looking specifically at comparing an ecological assessment of standing deadwood vs CWD on the ground.

 

There are some good studies into the ecology of many of your European red-listed saproxylic beetles, and certainly organisms like Violet Click beetle ~ Limoniscus violaceus ----

(Alexander, K 1988 'The Development of an Index of ecological continuity for deadwood associated beetles',

Alexander, K 1994 'The use of freshly downed timber by insects following the 1987 storm',

Alexander, K; Green, E; Key, R 1996 'The management of over mature tree populations for nature conservation - basic guidelines',

Fowles, A; Alexander, K; Key, R 1999 'The saproxylic quality index:evaluating wooded habitats for the conservation of deadwoodcleoptera'

Green, E 1996 'Deadwood for wildlife'

Lonsdale, D; Fry, R 1991 'Habitat conservation for insects - a neglected green issue'

Read, H 2000 'Veteran trees: a guide to good management

 

 

(and yes I have corresponded with almost all those authors over the past four years)

 

A great many of the Red List invertebrates need ancient standing hollow stems, but since for most of those it is actually the interface between deadwood and soil that is critical to their early life cycle...they are hardly helping the arguement for dead branch retention.

 

All that having been said (or rather written) there are also studies that point to the fact that some less well known saproxylic organisms (including those occuring here in Oz) are being found only in brown (or red) rot decay in very large diameter stems/limbs ----

 

Ulyshen, M; Hanula, J 2008 'Habitat associations of saproxylic beetles in the southeast United States: A comparison of forest types, tree species and wood postures'

Drapeau, P; Nappi, A; Imbeau, L; Saint-Germain, M 2009 'Standing deadwood for keystone bird species in the eastern boreal forest: Managing for snag dynamics'

Sobek, S; Steffan-Dewenter, I; Scherber, C; Tscharntke, T 2009 'Spatiotemporal changes of beetle communities across tree diversity gradient'

Sirami, C; Jay-Robert, P; Brustel, H; Valladares, L et al 2008 'Saproxylic beetle assemblages of old Holm-Oak trees in teh mediterranean region: role of keystone structure in a changing heterogeneous landscape

Bishop, D; Majka, C; Bondrup-Nielson, S; Peck, S 2009 Deadwood and saproxylic beetle diversity in naturally disturbed and managed spruce forests in Nova Scotia

CRC (Australia) for tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management 2001 Rainforest beetles in deadwood could loggin be their downfall?

Yee, M (Part of Thesis Uni Tasmania) 2009 'Biodiversity and ecology of log dependant beetles native to Tasmanian wet eucalypt forests: implications for their conservation in production forests

Ducasse, J; Brustel, H 2008 'Saproxylic beetles in the Gresigne forest management

Kirby, P 2001 'Wimpole Park saproxylic beetle survey'

Alexander, K 2008 'Tree biology and saproxylic coleoptera: issues of definitions and conservation language'

Jurc, M; Ogris, N; Pavlin, R; Borkovic, D 2008 'Forest as a habitat of saproxylic beetles on Natura 2000 sites in Slovenia'

Grove, S 2009 'A decade of deadwoodology at Warra'

Wardlaw, T; Grove, S et al 2009 'The uniqueness of habitats in old eucalypts; contrasting wood decay fungi and saproxylic beetles of young and old Eucalypts'

Grove, S et al 2008 'Long term experimental study of saproxylic beetle succession in Tasmanian E. obliqua logs: findings from teh first five years'

Yee, M et al 2006 'Brown rot in inner heartwood: why large logs support characteristic saproxylic beetle assemblages of conservation concern'

Johansson, T 2006 Thesis - The conservation of saproxylic beetles in boreal forest: importance of forest management and deadwood characteristics'

 

Since I want to watch the rugby at someone else's place tonight (I don't have a TV) I will curtail the list of research papers that I have found to contain data that supports the view that deadwood above ground is critical to the life cycles of certain saproxylic species.

 

I have communicated with all the Australian authors and their supervisors (in the case of the published thesis) but not with the overseas authors in this 2nd list.

 

I believe all these papers are still freely available but if not I will make sure they can be accessed from the VTGA document site (which is being updated it takes time to get permission from article authors!)

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Tony I think Guy is just trying to establish what reliable information there is in relation to the ecological values of aerial deadwood, and by that I would like to include standing stems, monoliths, stags. Basically deadwood which has not fallen to the ground.

 

I think you make a very valid point about smaller twigs and it seems perfectly logical to me, organisms that might use such ephemeral structures are (if they are to have long term survival strategies) not likely to be obligate to those structures remaining in the tree canopy for very long.

 

Larger branches limbs and stems...my reading and interactions have led to the opinion that there are fungi and invertebrates which will not be able to obtain their habitat requirements (either for almost all their life cycle or at least critical portions of their life cycle) from fallen tree parts, or in the case of managed trees deadwood cut from the tree and placed in sections on the ground.

 

I have used the term 'essential' to describe this aerial habitat and I think I should think more carefully about that descriptor...thanks to Guy for helping me recognise a looseness in my logic and understanding of what is actually even more complex a set of relationships (more organisms more subtlety) than I had previously considered.

 

In a very real sense the sanitisation of deadwood from trees is a huge problem in Australia and I know it is recognised as a major threat to the ecological values of both the urban and peri-urban environment in Europe and the USA. Commercial forestry across the globe has committed resources to studying the impacts of different variations of woodlot management in respect to deadwood retention - but not looking specifically at comparing an ecological assessment of standing deadwood vs CWD on the ground.

 

There are some good studies into the ecology of many of your European red-listed saproxylic beetles, and certainly organisms like Violet Click beetle ~ Limoniscus violaceus ----

(Alexander, K 1988 'The Development of an Index of ecological continuity for deadwood associated beetles',

Alexander, K 1994 'The use of freshly downed timber by insects following the 1987 storm',

Alexander, K; Green, E; Key, R 1996 'The management of over mature tree populations for nature conservation - basic guidelines',

Fowles, A; Alexander, K; Key, R 1999 'The saproxylic quality index:evaluating wooded habitats for the conservation of deadwoodcleoptera'

Green, E 1996 'Deadwood for wildlife'

Lonsdale, D; Fry, R 1991 'Habitat conservation for insects - a neglected green issue'

Read, H 2000 'Veteran trees: a guide to good management

 

 

(and yes I have corresponded with almost all those authors over the past four years)

 

A great many of the Red List invertebrates need ancient standing hollow stems, but since for most of those it is actually the interface between deadwood and soil that is critical to their early life cycle...they are hardly helping the arguement for dead branch retention.

 

All that having been said (or rather written) there are also studies that point to the fact that some less well known saproxylic organisms (including those occuring here in Oz) are being found only in brown (or red) rot decay in very large diameter stems/limbs ----

 

Ulyshen, M; Hanula, J 2008 'Habitat associations of saproxylic beetles in the southeast United States: A comparison of forest types, tree species and wood postures'

Drapeau, P; Nappi, A; Imbeau, L; Saint-Germain, M 2009 'Standing deadwood for keystone bird species in the eastern boreal forest: Managing for snag dynamics'

Sobek, S; Steffan-Dewenter, I; Scherber, C; Tscharntke, T 2009 'Spatiotemporal changes of beetle communities across tree diversity gradient'

Sirami, C; Jay-Robert, P; Brustel, H; Valladares, L et al 2008 'Saproxylic beetle assemblages of old Holm-Oak trees in teh mediterranean region: role of keystone structure in a changing heterogeneous landscape

Bishop, D; Majka, C; Bondrup-Nielson, S; Peck, S 2009 Deadwood and saproxylic beetle diversity in naturally disturbed and managed spruce forests in Nova Scotia

CRC (Australia) for tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management 2001 Rainforest beetles in deadwood could loggin be their downfall?

Yee, M (Part of Thesis Uni Tasmania) 2009 'Biodiversity and ecology of log dependant beetles native to Tasmanian wet eucalypt forests: implications for their conservation in production forests

Ducasse, J; Brustel, H 2008 'Saproxylic beetles in the Gresigne forest management

Kirby, P 2001 'Wimpole Park saproxylic beetle survey'

Alexander, K 2008 'Tree biology and saproxylic coleoptera: issues of definitions and conservation language'

Jurc, M; Ogris, N; Pavlin, R; Borkovic, D 2008 'Forest as a habitat of saproxylic beetles on Natura 2000 sites in Slovenia'

Grove, S 2009 'A decade of deadwoodology at Warra'

Wardlaw, T; Grove, S et al 2009 'The uniqueness of habitats in old eucalypts; contrasting wood decay fungi and saproxylic beetles of young and old Eucalypts'

Grove, S et al 2008 'Long term experimental study of saproxylic beetle succession in Tasmanian E. obliqua logs: findings from teh first five years'

Yee, M et al 2006 'Brown rot in inner heartwood: why large logs support characteristic saproxylic beetle assemblages of conservation concern'

Johansson, T 2006 Thesis - The conservation of saproxylic beetles in boreal forest: importance of forest management and deadwood characteristics'

 

Since I want to watch the rugby at someone else's place tonight (I don't have a TV) I will curtail the list of research papers that I have found to contain data that supports the view that deadwood above ground is critical to the life cycles of certain saproxylic species.

 

I have communicated with all the Australian authors and their supervisors (in the case of the published thesis) but not with the overseas authors in this 2nd list.

 

I believe all these papers are still freely available but if not I will make sure they can be accessed from the VTGA document site (which is being updated it takes time to get permission from article authors!)

 

Now thats a post and a half:thumbup1:

 

I find getting hold of such papers financialy difficult to say the least, how do you come across so many that are freely avaliable?

 

I would be keen to read them ALL, so if you do get time and oportunity i would be very great full Sean.

 

As for the retention of fine twigs and branches in 99% of the situations where we would be looking at excuses/good cause to retain it would not be justifiable for liability reasons, elsewhere it wouldnt be an issue.