The impact of Quercus rubra on the plant diversity of native forests of Ukraine has been investigated. The plant communities of artificial plantations dominated by northern red oak have such general features as poor species composition, with projective coverage values of other species not exceeding 5%, and a simplified vertical structure of the tree layers. In natural forest plant communities with the participation of Q. rubra, there are no rare and typical nemoral dominant species, which results in disruption of consortial relations in ecosystems. Such changes are due to the biological and ecological peculiarities of this species, in particular, its dense crown, abundant biomass of leaves, which reduces lighting, and allelopathic properties; all those factors affect the physical and chemical characteristics of biotopes. Quercus rubra artificial plantations are more adaptive to changes of natural conditions and are able to withstand harsher winters and lack of precipitation. The ecological amplitude of this species is wide, and even with an increase in the average annual temperature by 3 °C most of the ecological indicators do not go beyond the optimum zone of the species, except for the soil moisture and thermal regime. The amplitudes of main indicators of ecological factors of temperate forests and Q. rubra artificial plantations overlap. The dominance of Q. rubra reduces the quality of ecosystem services of native forests. The high competitive advantages of Q. rubra are the reason for the impossibility of natural restoration of the typical broad-leaved or coniferous forests on those land plots where they were replaced by artificial plantations of northern red oak or its tree layers were formed as the results of the spontaneous distribution of this species. In the successions, the communities with the participation of northern red oak are potentially able to replace the native forest phytocoenoses.

Keywords: artificial plantations, climate change, ecosystem services, forests, invasiveness, phytodiversity, phytoindication, Quercus rubra

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 5.30M

1. Bachynska U.O., Baranchuk G.I., Khodin O.B. 2021. Dynamics of plantations of introduced European spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.) in Medobory Nature Reserve. Scientific Bulletin of UNFU, 31(5): 22–28. https://doi.org/10.36930/40310503
2. Bauer F. 1953. Die Roteiche. Frankfurt am Main: Sauerländer, 108 S.
3. Bazalová D., Botková K., Hegedüšová K., Májeková J., Medvecká J., Šibíková M., Škodová I., Zaliberová M., Jarolímek I. 2018. Twin plots — appropriate method to assess the impact of alien tree on understory? Hacquetia, 17(2): 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1515/hacq-2017-0012
4. Bieberich J., Lauerer M., Aas G. 2016. Acorns of introduced Quercus rubra are neglected by European Jay but spread by mice. Annals of Forest Research, 59(2): 249–258. https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2016.522
5. Blinkova O.I. 2013. Adaption peculiarities of introduction populations of Quercus rubra L. in Kyiv Polissia. Problems of bioindications and ecology, 18(2): 42–55.
6. Burda R.I., Pashkevych N.A., Blinkova O.I., Shupova T.V., Stukaluk S.V., Ivanenko O.M., Bilushenko A.A. 2018. Adaptive strategy of the populations of alien species. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 192 pp.
7. Buts Yu.V., Titenko A.V. 2013. Dynamics of specific variety of water-bog natural complexes as display of fire relaxation of geosystems. Bulletin of Odessa of State Environmental University, 15: 17–22.
8. Cecich R.A. 1994. The reproductive biology of Quercus, with an emphasis on Q. rubra. Journal of the International Oak Society, 7: 10–20.
9. Czerepko J., Gawryś R., Mańk K., Janek M., Tabor J., Skalski Ł. 2021. The influence of the forest management in the Białowieza forest on the species structure of the forest community. Forest Ecology and Management, 496: 119363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119363
10. Debrynyuk M.Yu., Prydka P.P. 2013. Red oak (Quercus rubra L.) in forest plantations of Stradch TPFC: distribution and silvicultural taxation specification. Scientific bulletin of the Ukrainian National Forestry University, 23(17): 9–14.
11. Didukh Ya.P. 2011. The ecological scales for the species of the Ukrainian flora and their use in synphytoindication. Kyiv: Phytosociocentre, 176 pp.
12. Didukh Ya.P. 2023. Vegetation of Ukraine in the aspect of climate changes. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 250 pp. https://doi.org/10.16407/978-966-00-1868-6
13. Didukh Ya.P., Budzhak V.V. 2020. Prohrama dlya avtomatyzatsii protsesu rozrakhunku balnykh pokaznykiv ekolohichnykh faktoriv: metodychni rekomendatsii. Chernivtsi: Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University, 40 pp.
14. Didukh Ya.P., Plyuta P.H. 1994. Fitoindykatsiya ekolohichnykh faktoriv. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 280 pp.
15. Dubovik D.V., Sauchuk S.S., Zavialova L.V. 2021. The current status of the plant invasions in Belarus. Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, 9(4): 14–22. https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2021-0021
16. Dubovik D.V., Dmitrieva S.A., Laman N.A., Lebedko V.N., Levkovich A.V., Maslovskiy O.M., Parfenov V.N., Prokhorov V.N., Pugachevskiy A.V., Sauchuk S.S., Skuratovich A.N., Sysoy I.P., Chumakov L.S., Yakovleva I.M., Garanovich I.M., Dzhus M.A., Romanyuk A.L. 2020. The Black Data Book of the Flora of Belarus: the alien harmful plants. Minsk: Belaruskaya navuka, 407 pp.
17. EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 – Bringing nature back into our lives. 2021. European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/677548 (Accessed 30 September 2023)
18. Genovesi P., Shine C. 2004. European strategy on invasive alien species. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/external/cop-09/bern-01-en.pdf (Accessed 30 September 2023)
19. Głowacki D., Sławska M., Sławski M. 2016. The dynamics of northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) in managed forests of central Poland. Leśne Prace Badawcze (Forest Research Papers), 77(1): 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1515/frp-2016-0004
20. Hayda Y., Mohytych V., Bidolakh D., Kuzovych V., Sułkowska M. 2022. The introduction of red oak (Quercus rubra L.) in the Ukrainian forests: advantages of productivity versus disadvantages of invasiveness. Folia Forestalia Polonica, Series A – Forestry, 64(4): 245–252. https://doi.org/10.2478/ffp-2022-0023
21. Holubčik M. 1968. Cudzokrajné dreviny v lesnom hospodárstve. Bratislava: SVPL, 378 s.
22. Hrynyuk Y., Miakush I., Bilyk Y. 2009. Experience of forest introduction in Rostochchya. Forestry and Forest Melioration, 115: 46–50.
23. Ivchenko A.I. 2002. History of the introduction of Quercus rubra L. Scientific Bulletin of Ukrainian National Forestry University, 12(4): 93–97.
24. Kaganyak Yu.Yo. 2002. The distribution of some taxation indexes of the northern red oak forest stands in Ukraine. Forestry, Forest, Paper and Woodworking industry, 27: 18–22.
25. Kiedrzyński M., Zielińska K., Grzelak P. 2011. Transformation of forest vegetation after 40 years of protection in the Tomczyce nature reserve (Central Poland). Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Biologica et Oecologica, 7: 207–227. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10107-009-0026-x
26. Kormann J. M., Liesebach M., Liepe K. J. 2023. Provenances from introduced stands of Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra L.) outperform those from the natural distribution. Forest Ecology and Management, 531: 120803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2023.120803
27. Krivoruchko A.P. 2016. Evaluation of some taxation indicators of mixed forest crops of red oak (Quercus rubra L.) and English oak (Quercus robur L.) in the Northern Steppe Subzone of Ukraine. Scientific Bulletin of Ukrainian National Forestry University, 26(7): 90–95. https://doi.org/10.15421/40260713
28. Kryvoruchko A.P., Bessonova V.P. 2018. Anatomical leaves characteristics of Quercus rubra L. and Quercus robur L. and stand density. Ukrainian Journal of Ecology, 8(1): 64–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.15421/2017_188
29. Lukisha V., Movchan M. 2023. Assessment of the spatial distribution of invasive tree species in the boreal forests of the Middle Dnieper region. Ecological Sciences, 4(49): 219–225. https://doi.org/10.32846/2306-9716/2023.eco.4-49.29
30. Májeková J., Medvecká J., Mikulová K., Slabejová D., Šibíková M., Zaliberová M.,·Škodová I. 2023. Structure of forest stands of alien tree Quercus rubra in Central Europe. Biologia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-023-01502-7
31. Majboroda V.A. 2010. Condition of oak forest stands in forest fund of Ukraine and prospect of their reproduction. Scientific Bulletin of Ukrainian National Forestry University, 20(12): 27–34.
32. Manos P.S., Hipp A. L. 2021. An updated infrageneric classification of the North American oaks (Quercus subgenus Quercus): Review of the contribution of phylogenomic data to biogeography and species diversity. Forests, 12(6): 786. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060786
33. Mazur I.V. 2009. Quercus borealis Michx. and its regeneration in the Precarpathian region. Forestry and Forest Melioration, 115: 161–166.
34. McNeely J.A., Mooney H.A., Neville L.E., Schei P., Waage J.K. (eds.). 2001. A Global Strategy on Invasive Alien Species. IUCN Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK, 50 pp.
35. Nicolescu V.-N., Vor T., Mason W.L., Bastien J.-Ch., Brus R., Henin J.-M., Kupka I., Lavnyy V., La Porta N., Mohren F., Petkova K., Rédei K., Štefančik I., Wąsik R., Perić S., Hernea C. 2018. Ecology and management of northern red oak (Quercus rubra L. syn. Q. borealis F. Michx.) in Europe: a review. Forestry, 93: 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpy032
36. Poznyakova S.I. 2019. Introduced tree species in forest stands of the state enterprise "Hadyach forest economy". Bulletin of Kharkiv National Agrarian University, 2: 142–148.
37. Protopopova V.V., Shevera M.V. 2019. Invasive species in the flora of Ukraine. I. The group of highly active species. GEO&BIO, 17: 116–135. https://doi.org/10.15407/gb.2019.17.116
38. Tichý L. 2002. JUICE, software for vegetation classification. Journal of Vegetation Science, 13: 451–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2002.tb02069.x
39. Wilson S. McG., Mason B., Savill P., Jiks R. 2018. Alternative Oaks (Quercus spp.). Quarterly Journal of Forestry, 112(2): 93–105.
40. Woziwoda B., Dyderski M. K., Jagodziński A.M. 2021. Forest land use discontinuity and northern red oak Quercus rubra introduction change biomass allocation and life strategy of lingonberry Vaccinium vitis-idaea. Forest Ecosystems, 8(9): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-021-00287-y
41. Woziwoda B., Kopeć D., Witkowsk J. 2014a. The negative impact of intentionally introduced Quercus rubra L. on a forest community. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, 83(1): 39–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2013.035
42. Woziwoda B., Potocki M., Sagan J., Zasada M., Tomasiak R., Wilczyński S. 2014b. Commercial forestry as a vector of alien tree species – the case of Quercus rubra L. introduction in Poland. Baltic Forestry, 20(1): 131–141.
43. Woziwoda B., Gręda A., Frelich L.E. 2023. High acorn diversity of the introduced Quercus rubra indicates its ability to spread efficiently in the new range. Ecological Indicators, 146: 109884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109884
44. Zavialova L.V. 2017. The most harmful invasive plant species for native phytodiversity of protected areas of Ukraine. Scientific Herald of Chernivtsi University. Biology (Biological systems), 9(1): 88–107. https://doi.org/10.31861/biosystems2017.01.087
45. Zavialova L.V., Protopopova V.V., Kucher O.O., Ryff L.E., Shevera M.V. 2021. Plant invasions in Ukraine. Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, 9(4): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2021-0020