Next Article in Journal
Effects of Fertilization and Reseeding on Above- and Belowground Biodiversity in Degraded Alpine Steppe
Previous Article in Journal
Illegal Wildlife Trade in Al-Madinah, Saudi Arabia: Species, Prices, and Conservation Risks
Previous Article in Special Issue
Contrasting Herbaceous Communities in South African Savannas: A Comparative Analysis of Density, Composition, and Diversity Across Three Bioregions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 9
10.3390/d17090616
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Stability Dynamics of Representative Forest Plant Communities in Northeast China

by
Zhiyuan Jia
1,*,
Shusen Ge
2,
Yutang Li
2 and
Dongwei Kang
3,*
1
School of Tourism, Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang 464000, China
2
Forest Inventory and Planning Institute of Jilin Province, Changchun 130022, China
3
School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(9), 616; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090616
Submission received: 19 August 2025 / Revised: 30 August 2025 / Accepted: 1 September 2025 / Published: 2 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Communities in Transition: Succession, Diversity, and Ecosystem Dynamics)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

To evaluate the stability dynamics of typical forest plant communities in Northeast China, 57 forest plots were surveyed in 2009 and surveyed again in 2014. By adapting temporary stability (TS) as the community stability indicator, all plots were divided into three groups of low, moderate, and high stability, and the community initial state and state changes in different groups were analyzed. Results showed that the first dominant species in 15.8% (3/19) of plots was replaced by the second dominant species from 2009 to 2014 in the low stability group, but no such changes occurred in the moderate and high stability groups. The TS change amplitude was obvious in the low stability group, while that was slight in the high stability group. The relative basal area of the top two species was close in the low stability group in both 2009 and 2014, while the first dominant species was prominent in the high stability group. Communities in the high stability group had lower tree diversity, and those in the low stability group had more trees in 2009. Furthermore, tree size increased significantly in the low and moderate stability groups, and tree number decreased significantly in the moderate stability group from 2009 to 2014. The TS indicator is feasible in describing the stability state and change processes of forest plant communities on a time scale.

1. Introduction

Stability is a classic ecological issue that has been continuously discussed for a long time [1,2,3]. The study of stability involves different scales, such as population, community, and ecosystem [4,5,6,7]. The connotation of stability includes several aspects, such as resistance, resilience, persistence, and variability [8,9,10]. Although numerous studies have been conducted, stability is still researched extensively.
Many indicators and methods have been used to assess the forest community stability in recent decades [11], such as the Godron’s method [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22], the subordinate function method [23,24,25,26,27], age structure [28,29], spatial structure index [30,31], theoretical models [32,33], and others [34,35,36,37]. They are critical in revealing the stability of different forest communities. However, few studies have revealed the forest stability changes at the community level and in aspect of persistence, limiting the knowledge of the attribute and dynamics of forest community. Considering the different forest types across various regions [38], studies should be conducted on the community stability state and change characteristics of forests in specific regions.
Among various stability indicators and methods, some are based on selected variables, some provide qualitative information, some have complex calculation processes, and some require in-depth professional knowledge, coupling with different forest types, environmental conditions, and influencing factors, most studies focused on individual cases and specific forest communities/areas. Therefore, it is necessary to develop effective, quantitative, simple, feasible, and widely applicable indicators and methods.
Temporary stability (TS) is an indicator in plant community stability of forest ecosystems, reflecting the possibility that the first dominant tree species remains unchanged in a forest community during a short term [39]. This indicator was proposed to describe stability during research on the relationship between tree richness and stability of forest plant communities in Northeast China [39]. It has been proven applicable for characterizing the stability of other forest types in different regions (such as Abies faxoniana in Sichuan Province) [40] as well as determining stability threshold value of specific forest types (such as Picea jezoensis in Jilin Province) [41]. This indicator quantifies the stability of forest plant community and is straightforward to calculate. It has the potential to be applied to a wider range of forest types. However, the effectiveness of this indicator has not been comprehensively tested, especially in terms of the time scale. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct relevant experiments to assess the reliability of this indicator.
To depict the stability dynamics of typical forest plant communities in Northeast China, and evaluate the effectiveness of the TS indicator, field surveys of forest plant communities in Jilin Province were carried out in 2009 and repeated surveyed in 2014. The objectives were to (1) describe the stability state and change characteristics of different plant communities, and (2) compare the initial states and track the state change in communities with different stability levels. By defining the community stability state using the TS as an indicator and comparing the species diversity and community structure characteristics among communities with different stability levels, the aim was to develop an available method for revealing the change process of forest community, and provide theoretical basis for understanding the plant community stability of forest ecosystems.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Collection

Jilin Province is located in the northeast region of China and is one of the provinces with abundant forest resources. By the year 2024, the forest coverage rate of Jilin province was 45.42% [42]. The forests in Jilin Province are mainly distributed in its southeast [38].
The study area is located in the southeast of Jilin Province and falls within a temperate continental monsoon climate zone. The study area spanned across Antu, Fusong, and Changbai counties, each of which had a forest coverage rate > 85% [43,44,45]. The mean annual temperature in these counties ranged from 2 °C to 4 °C, and the mean annual rainfall ranged from 595 mm to 800 mm [43,44,45]. The soil type mainly includes dark brown soil and volcanic ash soil. The study area is a continuous forest, primarily composed of coniferous forests, mixed coniferous-broadleaf forests, and broad-leaved forests. The main tree species in the study area include Abies nephrolepis (AN), Picea jezoensis (PJ), Acer ukurunduense (AU), Larix olgensis (LO), Betula costata (BC), Tilia amurensis (TA), Betula platyphylla (BP), Pinus koraiensis (PK), and Acer pictum (AP).
To investigate the community initial characteristics of typical forests in Northeast China, 57 forest plots (Figure 1, Table S1) were established in southeast Jilin Province in 2009. The plot size was 600 m2, and the distance between any two plots was ≥4 km. In each plot, the species name and size of all living trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) ≥ 5 cm were recorded and measured. The elevation of the plots ranged from 760 m to 1857 m, with a mean value of 1227 m, and the slope degree ranged from 0° to 30°, with a mean value of 4° (Table S1).
To track the community state change, the 57 forest plots surveyed in 2009 were measured again in 2014 using the same investigation methods. Furthermore, the 2014 survey also recorded and measured the species names and sizes of new individuals reaching a DBH of 5 cm and recorded dead individuals in each plot.

2.2. Calculations and Analysis

To characterize the stability states and changes in different communities, we calculated the TS of each plot in 2009 and 2014. TS was calculated as follows:
T S   =   1 − d 2 d 1
where TS is temporary stability, d1 and d2 are the basal area of species ranked first and second in a community, respectively [39]. Larger TS represents higher stability, that is the less likely the first dominant species will be replaced in a short term.
To describe the dominant species composition and dominance degree, we calculated the relative basal area (RBA) [46] of tree species and identified the first two dominant species of each plot in 2009 and 2014, respectively. The RBA was calculated by dividing the basal area of a tree species by the total basal area of all tree species. The dominant tree was defined as the species with an RBA > 0.10 [47].
To depict the stability characteristics of different communities, we ranked all plots according to their TS values in 2009. To facilitate study, we divided all plots into three groups with the same sample size according to the TS value such as low (TS < 0.33), moderate (0.33 ≤ TS < 0.66), and high (TS ≥ 0.66) stability groups.
To reveal the stability change regularly for all plots in each group, we first checked that if the first dominant tree species had changed from 2009 to 2014. For plots in which the first dominant tree species remained unchanged, to compare the stability change characteristics and amplitudes of different groups, we conducted data analysis from three aspects. First, we calculated the change rate of the TS of each plot from 2009 to 2014 and determined the TS change rate range of each group. Second, we performed absolute value processing on the TS change rate of all plots and compared its difference among different groups using the Kruskal–Wallis test [48]. If a result showed a significant difference, we then used the Games–Howell test for multiple comparisons between any two groups [49]. Third, we calculated and compared the coefficient of variation (CV) value of the absolute value of the TS change rate for each group.
The TS change rate value was calculated as follows:
T S   c h a n g e   r a t e = T S 2014 − T S 2009 T S 2009 × 100 %
The CV value was calculated as follows [50]:
C V   =   S t a n d a r d   d e v i a t i o n M e a n   v a l u e
To further describe the plots in which the first dominant tree species remained unchanged, we analyzed and compared the dominance state of the first two dominant species in different groups, especially the difference in RBA of the first two dominant species in 2009 and 2014.
To study the community characteristics in detail, we used five variables to represent species diversity and community structure: tree richness (number of tree species), Shannon–Wiener index, Simpson index [51], tree number (total number of tree individuals), and tree size (mean DBH).
To compare the community initial state of different groups, we first calculated the five variables in each plot in 2009. Then, we used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) or the Kruskal–Wallis test [48] to detect significant differences among the groups. For variables with significant differences, we further used the least significant difference (LSD) test or the Games–Howell test [49] to identify groups with differences.
To distinguish the community state change in different groups, we first calculated the five variables in each plot in 2009 and 2014. Then, we used a paired sample t test or the Wilcoxon test [48] to detect significant differences between the two surveys in the low, moderate, and high stability groups, respectively. The significance level was p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Community Stability Change Characteristics

Based on the TS values of the 57 plots in 2009, all plots were divided into three groups: low stability group (TS < 0.33) (n = 19) (Table 1), moderate stability group (0.33 ≤ TS < 0.66) (n = 19) (Table 2), and high stability group (TS ≥ 0.66) (n = 19) (Table 3).
In the low stability group, the first dominant species in three plots (2, 10, and 14) was replaced by the second dominant species from 2009 to 2014. The change rate of the TS for the remaining 16 plots ranged from −40.3% to 391.5%, with a mean absolute change rate of 79.2%. The RBA of the first dominant species was <0.40 in 87.5% (14/16) of the remaining plots in 2009 and 2014, and that of the second dominant species was >0.25 in 81.3% (13/16) of the remaining plots in 2009 and 2014 (Table 1).
In the moderate stability group, the first dominant species remained unchanged in all 19 plots from 2009 to 2014. The change rate of the TS of the 19 plots ranged from −80.4% to 66.7%, with a mean absolute change rate of 14.1%. The RBA of the first dominant species was >0.40 in 73.7% (14/19) of the plots in 2009 and 2014, and that of the second dominant species was >0.25 in 42.1% (8/19) of the plots in 2009 or 2014 (Table 2).
In the high stability group, the first dominant species remained unchanged in all 19 plots from 2009 to 2014. The change rate of the TS of the 19 plots ranged from −11.2% to 16.8%, with a mean absolute change rate of 3.9%. The RBA of the first dominant species was >0.50 in 84.2% (16/19) of the plots in 2009 and 2014, and that of the second dominant species in no plots was >0.25 in 2009 and 2014 (Table 3).
For the change in amplitude, the absolute change rate in TS differed significantly among low, moderate, and high stability groups (Kruskal–Wallis test, χ2 = 22.743, p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between any two groups (Games–Howell test, p > 0.05). The CV values of absolute TS change rate of low, moderate, and high stability groups were 1.709, 1.560, and 1.134, respectively.

3.2. Tree Diversity and Community Structure Characteristics in 2009

Tree richness, the Shannon–Wiener index, and the tree number differed significantly among the low, moderate, and high stability groups in 2009 (p < 0.05), whereas the Simpson index and tree size were not significantly different (Table 4).
Multiple comparisons analysis showed that tree richness and the Shannon–Wiener index were significantly different between the high stability group and the low and moderate stability groups (p < 0.05). The tree number was significantly different between the low stability group and the moderate and high stability groups (p < 0.05, Table 5).
Communities in the high stability group had lower tree richness and a Shannon–Wiener index than those in the low and moderate stability groups. Communities in the low stability group had a larger tree number than those in the moderate and high stability groups (Table 4 and Table 5).

3.3. Tree Diversity and Community Structure Changes from 2009 to 2014

The tree size in the low stability group differed significantly between the two surveys in 2009 and 2014 (p < 0.05). The tree size and tree number in the moderate stability group differed significantly between the two surveys (p < 0.05). No variables in the high stability group exhibited significant differences between the two surveys (p > 0.05, Table 6).
Communities in the low stability group had a larger tree size, and communities in the moderate stability group had a larger tree size and fewer trees in 2014 than in 2009. No significant differences in the variables between 2009 and 2014 were observed in the high stability group (Table 6).

4. Discussion

4.1. Community Stability Changes

Community stability is a complex ecological issue [52]. Due to various definitions and diverse understandings, no consensus on community stability has been achieved [5]. TS is an indicator reflecting the persistent aspect of stability [40]. Based on this indicator, this study observed that the first dominant species in three plots in the low stability group was changed from 2009 to 2014. However, no such changes were observed in the moderate and high stability groups. Furthermore, although the initial TS was very low in the low stability group, the TS of some plots increased after five years (i.e., plots 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11), whereas that of some other plots decreased (i.e., plots 6, 7, 8, and 12). These differences may be related to the changing direction of the community.
Theoretical studies of community states and dynamics are conducted in community ecology [53,54]. The results for the low stability group indicated that many types of changes occurred in different communities. For example, in the first type, the first dominant species had a tendency to be replaced but was not replaced, and the TS decreased over time. In the second type, the first dominant species was replaced, and the replace process was observed. In the third type, the first dominant species had a tendency to expand its dominance, and the TS increased over time. Therefore, a community with low TS may have different connotations, i.e., it may be close to a critical threshold but has not crossed it, or it has just crossed the critical threshold.
Except for the three plots in the low stability group where the first dominant species was replaced from 2009 to 2014, the TS change amplitude was high in the remaining plots. For example, 87.5% (14/16) of the remaining plots had an absolute change rate of >10%. The TS change amplitude was low in the high stability group. For example, 73.7% (14/19) of the plots had an absolute change rate of <5%. The moderate TS group showed change rates in between those of the low and high stability groups. Furthermore, both mean value and the CV value of absolute TS change rate exhibited a characteristic of low stability group > moderate stability group > high stability group. Therefore, the change amplitude of TS is more obvious in the low stability group, and slight in the high stability group.
Furthermore, except for the three plots in the low stability group where the first dominant species was replaced from 2009 to 2014, the RBA of the first dominant species in most remaining plots was <0.40 in 2009 and 2014, close to that of the second dominant species, any small fluctuations are likely to change their dominance positions. The RBA of the first dominant species in the high stability group was >0.50 in most plots in both surveys, suggesting its dominance was prominent, especially in four plots with single dominant species, it would be less likely to be replaced in the short term. The dominance state in the moderate TS group was between those of the low and high stability groups.
According to the community change type, the connotation and change amplitude of TS, and the dominance state in the low stability group, we concluded that the closer the dominance between the first two dominant species, the more uncertain it is that the most dominant species will continue to dominate the community, which is an important assumption of the TS concept [39]. Therefore, the concept of TS is reliable, and TS can be used as an indicator to describe the community stability state and change. However, this study had a short survey interval and not large sample size. Future studies should investigate multiple sites for longer periods to obtain more reliable and meaningful data.

4.2. Community Initial States and State Changes

Diversity and structure are important components of community characteristics [55]. The communities in the high stability group had low tree diversity in 2009, the communities in the low stability group had more trees, whereas those in the moderate stability group did not show unique characteristics. These results suggest significant differences in diversity and structure between the three types of communities in the 2009 survey. Therefore, there are varying degrees of differences in the initial state of communities with different stability levels.
Relationship of diversity and stability is an important but complex issue in ecology [9,56,57]. Although this issue has attracted substantial attention, it remains contentious. By examining the initial states of communities across three stability groups, this study found that communities in the high stability group exhibited lower tree diversity compared to those in the low and moderate stability groups. Consequently, this study considered that high stability corresponds to low diversity. Tracking the diversity change in communities with different stability levels contributes to the understanding of this issue. This study found that different community groups showed both similarities and differences from 2009 to 2014. For example, no significant differences in tree richness, the Shannon–Wiener, and the Simpson were detected in the three groups, indicating no significant changes occurred in tree diversity over time. This may be related to the short survey interval, during which species diversity changes within the community are not obvious and cannot be fully observed.
Regarding the community structure, a significant increase occurred in tree sizes of communities with low and moderate stability levels, and a significant decrease occurred in the number of trees in communities with moderate stability levels. No significant changes were observed in communities with high stability levels. These results were partially constant with previous studies [58,59], reflecting different structural changes in communities with different stability levels. For example, the structural changes in the low stability communities were mainly reflected in tree growth, the structural changes in the moderate stability communities were mainly reflected in tree growth and living status, while the structural changes in the high stability communities were not obvious.
Describing the community dynamic and determining the change reasons are critical but complex tasks in ecology [47]. Based on this study, communities with different stability levels had different initial states. We speculated that the differences in initial states may be an important factor causing the different change pathways of different communities. However, forest community change is affected by various factors, such as forest type, species relationships, tree regeneration and growth, seedling production, dead individuals, environmental conditions, and disturbances [51,55,60]. Although this study recorded basic information, such as dead individuals, new individuals, the sizes of the two surveys, and assessed changes over time in different communities, it was difficult to provide specific reasons. Therefore, additional studies are needed to reveal the changes in the reasons and mechanisms.

4.3. Limitations and Future Research Needs

Viewed from the vertical structure of community, tree layer is usually the dominant layer in forest communities [51]. This study discussed the community stability changes from the aspect of tree layer, without considering the shrub and regeneration layers, but they may have potential impacts on stability. For example, some young trees may change the dominant relationship of different tree species after entering the tree layer. Therefore, future studies should pay attention to the reserve and growth status of seedlings and young trees in the understory layer.
This study examined stability dynamics using the TS as an indicator. Additionally, since size distribution characteristics and their changes serve as important indicators of forest state and dynamics, it would be valuable to consider size distribution dynamics in further research.
Community status has a close relationship with its surrounding environment [55]. From the perspective of influencing factors, besides internal factors within the community, many external environmental conditions also affect community stability, such as soil [26], terrain [41], and disturbance [24]. Therefore, multiple factors, including but not limited to the community itself, need to be strengthened.
Threshold theory is an important issue in ecology [61]. This study mentioned the threshold of community stability and preliminarily described the changes in communities before and after crossing the threshold. This study included various types of communities to facilitate clearer revealing thresholds and changes; however, more theoretical studies based on a single forest community type maybe more meaningful [41].
The sample quality affects the reliability of study. This study validated the effectiveness of TS in a forest area of Jilin Province using a sufficient but not large sample size. Future studies should extend the research scope and increase the sample size. Additionally, the survey period was relatively short. As long-term research, particularly studies employing repeated surveys, provides more details and robust evidence of community dynamics [36,59], it is necessary to conduct sustained long-term monitoring for analyzing the stability of forest plant communities.

5. Conclusions

The community stability dynamics of typical forests in Northeast China were studied by using TS as a stability indicator. This study confirmed that the first dominant species in some plots of the low stability group was replaced, the dominance difference in the top two species was small, and there was a certain degree of uncertainty for the most dominant species to maintain its first position. The initial state of communities with different stability levels had varying degrees of differences in diversity and structure, they did not exhibit obvious changes in tree diversity over five years, but they exhibited different change characteristics in community structure. For example, the tree increased significantly in size in the low stability communities, the tree increased significantly in size but decreased significantly in number in the moderate stability communities, while no significant structural changes occurred in the high stability communities. The TS indicator is feasible in describing the stability state and changing processes of forest plant communities on a time scale. To obtain more comprehensive conclusions, additional multiple influencing factors, long-term observations, theoretical, and mechanism studies should be considered.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d17090616/s1, Table S1: Location of plots in this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.J. and D.K.; methodology, D.K.; formal analysis, Z.J. and D.K.; investigation, S.G. and Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.J. and D.K.; writing—review and editing, D.K.; funding acquisition, Z.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Xinyang Normal University.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. McCann, K.S. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 2000, 405, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ives, A.R.; Carpenter, S.R. Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science 2007, 317, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhang, J.H.; Huang, Y.M. Biodiversity and stability mechanisms: Understanding and future research. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2016, 36, 3859–3870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, G.H. Further thoughts on diversity and stability in ecosystems. Biodivers. Sci. 2002, 10, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ives, A.R. Diversity and stability in ecological communities. In Theoretical Ecology: Principles and Applications, 3rd ed.; May, R., Mclean, A., Eds.; Tao, Y.; Wang, B., Translators; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2010; pp. 116–129. [Google Scholar]
  6. Li, Z.Y.; Ye, X.Z.; Wang, S.P. Ecosystem stability and its relationship with biodiversity. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 2021, 45, 1127–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, P.; Xin, Z.B.; Zhou, J.X.; Zhang, Z.Q. The concept, assessment methods, and influencing factors of ecosystem stability. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2025, 45, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pimm, S.L. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 1984, 307, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gao, D.; He, X.H. Research advances on biodiversity and ecosystem stability. Chin. J. Ecol. 2010, 29, 2507–2513. [Google Scholar]
  10. Donohue, I.; Hillebrand, H.; Montoya, J.M.; Petchey, O.L.; Pimm, S.L.; Fowler, M.S.; Healy, K.; Jackson, A.L.; Lurgi, M.; McClean, D.; et al. Navigating the complexity of ecological stability. Ecol. Lett. 2016, 19, 1172–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Song, W.; Zhang, H. Research status and hot spot analysis of forest ecosystem stability based on CNKI. For. Sci. Technol. 2022, 3, 48–52. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zheng, Y.R. Comparison of methods for studying stability of forest community. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2000, 36, 28–32. [Google Scholar]
  13. Wu, Z.; Zhou, C.; Zhou, X.; Hu, X.; Gan, J. Variability after 15 years of vegetation recovery in natural secondary forest with timber harvesting at different intensities in southeastern China: Community diversity and stability. Forests 2018, 9, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ding, M.; Wang, Y.K.; He, Y.R.; Xu, X.Y.; Zhou, S.B.; Wang, Z. Changes of species diversity, interspecific associations and community stability for the deciduous broad-leaved forest in Yaoluoping national nature reserve, Anhui Province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2023, 43, 2818–2830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, X.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y.; Jin, J.; Guo, Q.; Pei, S. Interspecies association and community stability of plants in the core distribution area of Thuja sutchuenensis. Forests 2023, 14, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lei, D.F.; Wang, Z.J. Interspecific associations niches and community stability of main species in Pinus massoniana community in karst mountainous cities the central Guizhou Province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2024, 44, 4353–4367. [Google Scholar]
  17. Li, B.; Zhao, Y.; Cao, J.H.; Qi, R.; Gao, B.; Yu, W.; Liu, T.; Wang, F.; Feng, Y. Interspecific association, niche and community stability of the main tree species in Picea purpurea community in upstream of Taohe river. J. Central South Univ. For. Technol. 2024, 44, 70–77. [Google Scholar]
  18. Luan, Y.; Li, N.; Qiao, L.; Ju, C.; Cai, T.; Sun, P. Niches, interspecific associations and community stability of dominant tree species of Picea koraiensis-Abies nephrolepis-Pinus koraiensis forest. Bull. Bot. Res. 2024, 44, 753–762. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fu, Z.G.; Xiao, Y.H.; Xu, H.; Zou, J.P.; Ben, C.L.; Shi, X.; Cao, G.S. Interspecific relationships ecological niches of main woody species and community stability in Pinus massoniana forest in Guangdong Ruyuan Grand Canyon. Chin. J. Ecol. 2025, 44, 32–40. [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, K.J.; Cai, C.; Ruan, G.M.; Ling, S.W.; Pan, B.Z.; Zhou, J.G.; Liu, J.F.; Zheng, S.Q. Interspecific association of main tree species in Ormosia microphylla community and its community stability. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2025, 36, 427–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, W.; Ma, J.; Zhao, R.; Zhou, W.; Zhao, X.; Pan, Y. Plant diversity and community stability in forest ecosystems of Ningxia, China. J. Desert Res. 2025, 45, 210–221. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhao, Y.; Li, Z.; Wu, S.; Xing, S. Species associations and community stability of a Tilia mongolica forest. J. For. Environ. 2025, 45, 375–385. [Google Scholar]
  23. Guo, Q.; Zhang, W.; Cao, X. Establishment of an evaluation model of the forest community stability based on fuzzy synthetic evaluation: A case study of main forest communities in Huanglong mountains. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2009, 45, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  24. Li, R.; Zhang, W.H.; He, J.F.; Zhou, J.Y. Effects of thinning intensity on community stability of Quercus liaotungensis of forest on Loess plateau. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 22, 14–20. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ma, H.J.; Li, R.X.; Yuan, F.Y.; Shi, L.Y.; Guan, Q.W. Stability of Platycladus orientalis mixed forest communities at different successional stages. Chin. J. Ecol. 2013, 32, 558–562. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang, M.T.; Zhang, Q.; Kang, X.G.; Yang, Y.J.; Xu, G.; Zhang, L.X. Community stability for spruce-fir forest at different succession stages in Changbai mountains, northeast China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 26, 1609–1616. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kang, X.R.; Li, X.G.; Zhang, H.D.; Liu, X.Q.; Chen, G.C. Community stability characteristics of Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations with different mixing measures. Chin. J. Ecol. 2020, 39, 2912–2920. [Google Scholar]
  28. Peng, S.L. The measurement of the stability and the developments of forest communities: Analysis on age structure. Guiliaia 1987, 7, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
  29. Xie, L.H.; Cao, H.J.; Huang, Q.Y.; Yang, F.; Wang, J.F.; Wang, J.B.; Ni, H.W. On the diversity and stability of forest communities in Wudalianchi Volcanoes. J. Zhejiang Agr. For. Univ. 2021, 38, 235–245. [Google Scholar]
  30. Zhou, M.L.; Zhang, Q.; Kang, X.G.; Guo, W.W.; Ji, L.; Li, C.F. Study on the stability of forest communities based on the spatial structure index. Plant Sci. J. 2016, 34, 724–733. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhou, C.; Wang, B.; Wang, W.; Zhao, P.; Li, W. Stability evaluation of different forest communities in Huanglongshan mountain based on the spatial structure index. J. Central South Univ. For. Technol. 2018, 38, 76–82. [Google Scholar]
  32. Yang, H.X.; Pan, Y.D.; Wu, Y.G. Markov chain model of succession of the mixed broadleaf Koreanpine forest at Changbaishan biosphere reserves in China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 1988, 8, 211–219. [Google Scholar]
  33. Yu, S.X.; Wang, Y.F. Analysis of community stability at various successional stages in Heishiding nature reserve, Guangdong Province. Acta Sci. Natur. Univ. Sunyatseni 2004, 43, 23–26. [Google Scholar]
  34. Zhang, M.X.; Wang, D.X.; Peng, S.L.; Huang, Y.K.; Zhang, G.G. Community stability analysis for the oak-pine mixed forest in Qinling Mountains. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 2564–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yu, Q.; Rao, X.; Chu, C.; Liu, S.; Lin, Y.; Sun, D.; Tan, X.; Hanif, A.; Shen, W. Species dominance rather than species asynchrony determines the temporal stability of productivity in four subtropical forests along 30 years of restoration. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 457, 117687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jia, B.; Wang, X.J. Diversity-stability relationships in forest communities across different temporal scales. J. Northwest For. Univ. 2025, 40, 144–151. [Google Scholar]
  37. Shang, N.; He, S.; Qi, D.; Yang, X.; Li, D.; Liu, R.; Du, C.; Su, X.; Qi, T. Structure and stability in the community with the endangered plant Heritiera parvifolia Merr. (Malvaceae) in lowland rainforest in Diaoluo mountain of Hainan Island, China. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1578361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. National Forestry and Grassland Administration. China Forestry Resources Report (2014–2018); China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2019; pp. 228–241. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jia, Z.; Ge, S.; Li, Y.; Kang, D.; Li, J. Relationship between tree richness and temporary stability of plant communities: A case study of a forest in northeast China. Forests 2021, 12, 1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kang, D.; Li, J. Temporary stability characteristics and influencing factors of Abies faxoniana-dominated communities in the Wanglang nature reserve. Forests 2022, 13, 1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Duan, J.; Jia, Z.; Ge, S.; Li, Y.; Kang, D.; Li, J. Dominant species composition, environmental characteristics and dynamics of forests with Picea jezoensis trees in Northeast China. Diversity 2024, 16, 731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Forestry and Grassland Bureau of Jilin Province. 2024. Available online: http://jllc.jl.gov.cn/zwgk/jllq/slzy/202207/t20220727_2885606.html (accessed on 17 July 2025).
  43. Autu County Government. 2025. Available online: http://www.antu.gov.cn/ (accessed on 17 July 2025).
  44. Fusong County Government. 2025. Available online: http://www.fusong.gov.cn/ (accessed on 17 July 2025).
  45. Changbai County Government. 2025. Available online: http://www.changbai.gov.cn/ (accessed on 17 July 2025).
  46. Fang, J.; Wang, X.; Shen, Z.; Tang, Z.; He, J.; Yu, D.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zheng, C.; Zhu, J.; et al. Methods and protocols for plant community inventory. Biodivers. Sci. 2009, 17, 533–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kang, D.; Lv, J.; Li, S.; Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Li, J. Community change characteristics of Abies faxoniana: A case study in the Wanglang nature reserve. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 107, 105594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yan, H.; Xu, Y.; Zhao, N.; Yang, S.; Wang, T. Medical Statistics, 3rd ed.; People’s Medical Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2015; pp. 109–138, 159–177. [Google Scholar]
  49. Xie, L.H.; Shang, T. SPSS Statistical Analysis and Data Mining; Publishing House of Electronics Industry: Beijing, China, 2012; pp. 163–191. [Google Scholar]
  50. Du, R. Biostatistics, 2nd ed.; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2003; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  51. Li, J.; Niu, S.; Liu, Y. Forest Ecology, 3rd ed.; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2017; pp. 208–254, 352–375. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhou, T.; Zhang, J.; Qin, Y.; Zhou, G.; Wang, C.; Xu, Y.; Fei, Y.; Qiao, X.; Jiang, M. Species asynchrony and large trees jointly drive community stability in a montane subtropical forest. Ecosystems 2022, 26, 740–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. May, R.; Mclean, A. (Eds.) Theoretical Ecology: Principles and Applications, 3rd ed.; Tao, Y.; Wang, B., Translators; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  54. Vallend, M. (Ed.) The Theory of Ecological Communities; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Song, H.; Gao, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhang, R., Translators; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2020; pp. 31–76. [Google Scholar]
  55. Niu, C.; Lou, A.; Sun, R.; Li, Q. Foundations in Ecology, 4th ed.; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2023; pp. 160–201. [Google Scholar]
  56. Li, Y.; Li, X.; Hua, J. Ecological system stability and diversity based on complex networks. Chin. J. Ecol. 2014, 33, 1700–1706. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wisnoski, N.I.; Andrade, R.; Castorani, M.C.N.; Catano, C.P.; Compagnoni, A.; Lamy, T.; Lany, N.K.; Marazzi, L.; Record, S.; Smith, A.C.; et al. Diversity-stability relationships across organism groups and ecosystem types become decoupled across spatial scales. Ecology 2023, 104, e4136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, J.; Li, X.Y.; Cao, J.; Tan, L.Z.; Zhao, X.H. Community structure and dynamics of secondary coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forest in Changbai Mountains. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 1195–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Deng, Z.Y.; Liu, Q.J. The growth and population dynamics of broadleaved forest in Changbai Mountain. J. Anhui Agric. Univ. 2025, 52, 195–204. [Google Scholar]
  60. Shang, Y. General Ecology, 3rd ed.; Peking University Press: Beijing, China, 2010; pp. 336–362. [Google Scholar]
  61. Peng, S.; Zhou, T.; Liao, H.; Zhang, H.; Chen, B. Restoration Ecology; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2020; pp. 12–37. [Google Scholar]
Diversity 17 00616 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of plots in this study.
Figure 1. Distribution of plots in this study.
Diversity 17 00616 g001
Table 1. Temporary stability (TS) and first two dominant species of 19 plots with low stability (FDS: first dominant species; SDS: second dominant species; RBA: relative basal area).
Table 1. Temporary stability (TS) and first two dominant species of 19 plots with low stability (FDS: first dominant species; SDS: second dominant species; RBA: relative basal area).
Plot NumberSurvey in 2009Survey in 2014
TSFDS and RBASDS and RBATSFDS and RBASDS and RBA
10.010AN (0.347)PJ (0.344)0.046AN (0.341)PJ (0.326)
20.024PJ (0.480)AN (0.468)0.049AN (0.479)PJ (0.456)
30.025AN (0.332)PJ (0.324)0.093AN (0.344)PJ (0.312)
40.033LO (0.452)BP (0.437)0.163LO (0.483)BP (0.404)
50.059BC (0.387)PJ (0.365)0.067BC (0.389)PJ (0.363)
60.061PS (0.297)LO (0.279)0.041PS (0.294)LO (0.281)
70.095LO (0.367)AN (0.332)0.090LO (0.367)AN (0.334)
80.100LO (0.284)PK (0.256)0.082LO (0.283)PK (0.260)
90.109PU (0.309)TA (0.275)0.122PU (0.322)TA (0.282)
100.110BP (0.181)PU (0.161)0.146PU (0.191)BP (0.163)
110.146LO (0.299)BP (0.255)0.164LO (0.305)BP (0.255)
120.148BC (0.217)UL (0.185)0.088BC (0.210)UL (0.191)
130.152BC (0.328)PJ (0.278)0.139BC (0.325)PJ (0.280)
140.172AU (0.234)BC (0.193)0.031BC (0.206)AU (0.200)
150.202PK (0.243)QM (0.194)0.166PK (0.237)QM (0.197)
160.253PU (0.398)TA (0.298)0.226PU (0.382)TA (0.296)
170.286PJ (0.514)BC (0.367)0.343PJ (0.523)BC (0.343)
180.287TA (0.377)PK (0.269)0.224TA (0.362)PK (0.281)
190.308PK (0.291)TA (0.201)0.266PK (0.304)TA (0.223)
AN: Abies nephrolepis; AU: Acer ukurunduense; BC: Betula costata; BP: Betula platyphylla; LO: Larix olgensis; PJ: Picea jezoensis; PK: Pinus koraiensis; PS: Pinus sylvestris var. sylvestriformis; PU: Populus ussuriensis; QM: Quercus mongolica; TA: Tilia amurensis; UL: Ulmus laciniata.
Table 2. Temporary stability (TS) and first two dominant species of 19 plots with moderate stability (FDS: first dominant species; SDS: second dominant species; RBA: relative basal area).
Table 2. Temporary stability (TS) and first two dominant species of 19 plots with moderate stability (FDS: first dominant species; SDS: second dominant species; RBA: relative basal area).
Plot NumberSurvey in 2009Survey in 2014
TSFDS and RBASDS and RBATSFDS and RBASDS and RBA
10.336PJ (0.421)AN (0.280)0.239PJ (0.405)AN (0.308)
20.364TA (0.364)PU (0.232)0.071TA (0.294)PU (0.273)
30.367BC (0.358)PJ (0.227)0.388BC (0.371)PJ (0.227)
40.371BC (0.455)AN (0.286)0.337BC (0.435)AN (0.288)
50.383QM (0.396)AN (0.244)0.436QM (0.422)AN (0.238)
60.427AN (0.469)TA (0.269)0.460AN (0.471)TA (0.254)
70.445PJ (0.524)AN (0.291)0.743PJ (0.624)PU (0.161)
80.449PJ (0.512)BC (0.282)0.484PJ (0.579)BC (0.299)
90.470PK (0.420)PJ (0.222)0.476PK (0.430)PJ (0.225)
100.487PJ (0.407)PK (0.208)0.516PJ (0.464)PK (0.224)
110.493QM (0.503)FM (0.255)0.503QM (0.500)FM (0.249)
120.540TA (0.519)AP (0.239)0.542TA (0.515)AP (0.236)
130.578TA (0.357)PJ (0.151)0.580TA (0.351)AN (0.148)
140.578PJ (0.629)AN (0.265)0.607PJ (0.690)AN 0.271)
150.604LO (0.559)BP (0.222)0.663LO (0.576)BP (0.194)
160.605PK (0.377)TA (0.149)0.553PK (0.347)TA (0.155)
170.614QM (0.570)AN (0.220)0.686QM (0.625)AN (0.196)
180.635LO (0.440)TA (0.161)0.632LO (0.439)TA (0.162)
190.655PK (0.447)PJ (0.154)0.673PK (0.437)PJ (0.143)
AN: Abies nephrolepis; AP: Acer pictum; BC: Betula costata; BP: Betula platyphylla; FM: Fraxinus mandshurica; LO: Larix olgensis; PJ: Picea jezoensis; PK: Pinus koraiensis; PU: Populus ussuriensis; QM: Quercus mongolica; TA: Tilia amurensis.
Table 3. Temporary stability (TS) and first two dominant species of 19 plots with high stability (FDS: first dominant species; SDS: second dominant species; RBA: relative basal area).
Table 3. Temporary stability (TS) and first two dominant species of 19 plots with high stability (FDS: first dominant species; SDS: second dominant species; RBA: relative basal area).
Plot NumberSurvey in 2009Survey in 2014
TSFDS and RBASDS and RBATSFDS and RBASDS and RBA
10.666BC (0.498)UL (0.167)0.642BC (0.487)UL (0.174)
20.679TA (0.534)AN (0.171)0.653TA (0.532)AN (0.185)
30.698PJ (0.652)AN (0.197)0.619PJ (0.598)AN (0.228)
40.698PU (0.664)SR (0.200)0.815PU (0.739)SR (0.137)
50.703PU (0.488)PK (0.145)0.711PU (0.514)PK (0.149)
60.711PJ (0.706)BC (0.204)0.721PJ (0.708)BC (0.197)
70.726PK (0.554)PJ (0.152)0.745PK (0.551)PJ (0.141)
80.729PJ (0.560)AN (0.152)0.711PJ (0.568)FM (0.164)
90.732TA (0.457)PU (0.122)0.688TA (0.433)PU (0.135)
100.787LO (0.609)AN (0.130)0.774LO (0.607)AN (0.137)
110.796LO (0.731)BP (0.149)0.848LO (0.758)BP (0.115)
120.830LO (0.855)BP (0.145)0.843LO (0.864)BP (0.136)
130.863LO (0.846)PJ (0.116)0.855LO (0.838)PJ (0.121)
140.864LO (0.880)AN (0.120)0.890LO (0.901)\
150.906BC (0.907)\0.812BC (0.772)PJ (0.145)
160.926PJ (0.859)\0.938PJ (0.847)\
170.975PJ (0.935)\0.982PJ (0.967)\
181.000BE (1.000)\1.000BE (1.000)\
191.000BC (1.000)\1.000BC (1.000)\
AN: Abies nephrolepis; BC: Betula costata; BE: Betula ermanii; BP: Betula platyphylla; FM: Fraxinus mandshurica; LO: Larix olgensis; PJ: Picea jezoensis; PK: Pinus koraiensis; PU: Populus ussuriensis; SR: Salix raddeana; TA: Tilia amurensis; UL: Ulmus laciniata.
Table 4. Comparisons of diversity and structure in groups with different stability levels in 2009 (a: ANOVA; b: Kruskal–Wallis test).
Table 4. Comparisons of diversity and structure in groups with different stability levels in 2009 (a: ANOVA; b: Kruskal–Wallis test).
VariablesMean (SD)F or χ2 Valuep Value
Low Stability Group (n = 19)Moderate Stability Group (n = 19)High Stability Group (n = 19)
Tree richness a8 (3)8 (3)5 (3)7.2630.002
Shannon–Wiener b1.617 (0.393)1.558 (0.298)1.147 (0.590)6.9770.031
Simpson b0.725 (0.113)0.716 (0.080)0.571 (0.248)5.5910.061
Tree size a16.9 (4.1)19.7 (4.5)19.7 (5.6)2.1460.127
Tree number a70 (23)53 (17)47 (21)6.1710.004
Table 5. Multiple comparisons of tree richness, Shannon–Wiener, and tree number between groups with different stability levels in 2009 (a: LSD method; b: Games–Howell method).
Table 5. Multiple comparisons of tree richness, Shannon–Wiener, and tree number between groups with different stability levels in 2009 (a: LSD method; b: Games–Howell method).
VariablesMean Difference (p Value)
Low–Moderate Stability GroupLow–High Stability GroupModerate–High Stability Group
Tree richness a1 (0.452)3 (0.001)3 (0.006)
Shannon–Wiener b0.059 (0.863)0.470 (0.019)0.411 (0.031)
Tree number a16 (0.016)23 (0.001)6 (0.366)
Table 6. Comparisons of diversity and structure in groups with different stability levels in 2009 and 2014 (w: Wilcoxon test; t: paired sample t test).
Table 6. Comparisons of diversity and structure in groups with different stability levels in 2009 and 2014 (w: Wilcoxon test; t: paired sample t test).
GroupVariablesMean (SD)t or Z Valuep Value
Survey in 2009Survey in 2014
Low stability group
(n = 19)		Tree richness w8 (3)8 (3)−1.7320.083
Shannon–Wiener w1.617 (0.393)1.627 (0.379)−0.2370.813
Simpson w0.725 (0.113)0.733 (0.110)−1.1880.235
Tree size w16.9 (4.1)17.5 (4.0)−2.2780.023
Tree number t70 (23)67 (23)1.6820.110
Moderate stability group
(n = 19)		Tree richness w8 (3)8 (3)−0.3330.739
Shannon–Wiener t1.558 (0.298)1.566 (0.334)−0.4310.672
Simpson t0.716 (0.080)0.713 (0.085)0.4590.652
Tree size w19.7 (4.5)20.7 (4.7)−2.9810.003
Tree number w53 (17)49 (19)−2.5500.011
High stability group
(n = 19)		Tree richness w5 (3)5 (3)−1.4140.157
Shannon–Wiener w1.147 (0.592)1.151 (0.606)−0.3550.723
Simpson t0.571 (0.248)0.562 (0.254)1.0640.301
Tree size w19.7 (5.6)19.9 (6.1)−0.9860.324
Tree number t47 (21)47 (18)0.2540.803
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jia, Z.; Ge, S.; Li, Y.; Kang, D. Stability Dynamics of Representative Forest Plant Communities in Northeast China. Diversity 2025, 17, 616. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090616

AMA Style

Jia Z, Ge S, Li Y, Kang D. Stability Dynamics of Representative Forest Plant Communities in Northeast China. Diversity. 2025; 17(9):616. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090616

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jia, Zhiyuan, Shusen Ge, Yutang Li, and Dongwei Kang. 2025. "Stability Dynamics of Representative Forest Plant Communities in Northeast China" Diversity 17, no. 9: 616. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090616

APA Style

Jia, Z., Ge, S., Li, Y., & Kang, D. (2025). Stability Dynamics of Representative Forest Plant Communities in Northeast China. Diversity, 17(9), 616. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090616

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop