Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non-native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Abstract

Averting climate change-induced forest diebacks increasingly relies on tree species planted outside of their natural range and on the addition of non-native tree species to mixed-species forests. However, the consequences of such changes for associated biodiversity remain poorly understood, especially for the forest canopy as a largely understudied forest stratum. Here, we used flight interception traps and a metabarcoding approach to study the taxonomic and functional (trophic guilds) composition and taxon richness of canopy arthropods. We sampled 15 monospecific and mixed stands of native European beech, native Norway spruce—planted outside its natural range—and non-native Douglas fir in northwest Germany. We found that the diversity of arthropods was lower in non-native Douglas fir compared with native beech stands. Taxon richness of herbivores was reduced by both conifer species. Other functional guilds, however, were not affected by stand type. Arthropod composition differed strongly between native broadleaved beech and monospecific coniferous (native spruce or non-native Douglas fir) stands, with less pronounced differences between the native and non-native conifers. Beech–conifer mixtures consistently hosted intermediate arthropod diversity and community composition compared with the respective monospecific stands. Moreover, arthropod diversity had a positive relationship with the number of canopy microhabitats. Our study shows that considering arthropod taxa of multiple functional groups reveals the multifaceted impact of non-native tree species on forest canopy arthropod communities. Contrasting with previous studies that primarily focused on the forest floor, we found that native beech hosts a rich diversity of arthropods, compared with lower diversity and distinct communities in economically attractive, and especially in non-native, conifers with few canopy microhabitats. Broadleaf–conifer mixtures did not perform better than native beech stands, but mitigated the negative effects of conifers, making such mixtures a compromise to foster both forest-associated diversity and economic yield.