Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Forest canopy gaps can influence understorey microclimate and ecosystem functions such as decomposition. Gaps can arise from silviculture or tree mortality, increasingly influenced by climate change. However, to what degree canopy gaps affect the buffered microclimate in the understorey under macroclimatic changes is unclear. We, therefore, investigated the effect of forest gaps differing in structure and size (25 gaps: single tree gaps up to 0.67 ha cuttings) on microclimate and soil biological activity compared to closed forest in a European mixed floodplain forest. During the investigation period in the drought year 2022 between May and October, mean soil moisture and temperature as well as soil and air temperature fluctuations increased with increasing openness. In summer, the highest difference of monthly means between cuttings and closed forest in the topsoil was 3.98 ± 9.43 % volumetric moisture and 2.05 ± 0.89 °C temperature, and in the air at 30 cm height 0.61 ± 0.35 °C temperature. For buffering, both the over- and understorey tree layers appeared as relevant with a particularly strong influence of understorey density on soil temperature. Three experiments, investigating soil biological activity by quantifying decomposition rates of tea and wooden spatulas as well as mesofauna feeding activity with bait-lamina stripes, revealed no significant differences between gaps and closed forest. However, we found a positive significant effect of mean soil temperature on feeding activity throughout the season. Although soil moisture decreased during this period, it showed no counteracting effect on feeding activity. Generally, very few significant relationships were observed between microclimate and soil biological activity in single experiments. Despite the dry growing season, decomposition rates remained high, suggesting temperature had a stronger influence than soil moisture. We conclude that the microclimatic differences within the gap gradient of our experiment were not strong enough to affect soil biological activity considerably.
Lenk et al. (2024) studied this question.