Next Article in Journal
Correction: Sirimalle et al. Impact of Long-Term Agroforestry Systems on Carbon Pools and Sequestration in Top and Deep Soil Layers of Semi-Arid Region of Western India. Forests 2025, 16, 946
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Microplastics on Soil Microbial Activity, Biomass, and Microbial Community Structure in Three Types of Temperate Forest
Previous Article in Special Issue
Divergent Understory Vegetation and Indicator Species in Four Close-to-Nature Transformed Plantations of South China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/f17060687
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Impact of Forest Plant Communities and Stand Age on Small Mammal Diversity

by
Linda Bjedov
,
Marko Vucelja
*,
Josip Margaletić
,
Krešimir Krapinec
,
Kristijan Tomljanović
and
Martina Temunović
Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2026, 17(6), 687; https://doi.org/10.3390/f17060687 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 26 March 2026 / Revised: 26 May 2026 / Accepted: 4 June 2026 / Published: 9 June 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Forest Structure Management on Species Richness and Diversity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Forests are among the most biodiverse terrestrial ecosystems, in which small mammals play an important ecological role. Their presence is influenced by various habitat parameters, including vegetation structure, microclimate, food resources, and human-driven forest management practices. The aim of our study was to assess rodent diversity across different forests, with a particular focus on forest stand age and forest plant communities. For this purpose, we analyzed 17 years of forest rodent monitoring data across five forest plant communities. This study represents the first long-term monitoring results of small mammals in managed forests of continental Croatia. Trapping was conducted as part of routine rodent monitoring in state-owned forests, incorporating data collected from various research projects. The results showed that lowland forests, particularly floodplain oak forests, exhibited higher biodiversity compared to other forest plant communities. In addition, younger stands exhibited higher species richness than older stands. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) indicated that Microtus species were associated with lowland forests and younger stands. Overall, the findings demonstrate that both forest plant communities and stand age play important roles in shaping rodent diversity in continental Croatian forests. The obtained data provide a basis for optimizing forest management practices in continental forests.

1. Introduction

Forests in temperate zones are among the most biodiverse and structurally varied terrestrial ecosystems [1,2] in which small mammals play important functional roles in seed dispersal, soil modification, trophic interactions (as both prey and predator), and disease ecology [3,4,5]. Their diversity, abundance, and community composition are influenced by vegetation structure (plant community composition, understory and overstory layers, shrub cover, and coarse woody debris), microclimate, food resources (e.g., seed crops and invertebrates), and human-driven forest management practices (e.g., logging, thinning, plantation forestry, and disturbance regimes) [3,6,7,8]. Understanding how forest plant communities and management interact to shape small-mammal diversity is critical for biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest management [3,8,9].
Small terrestrial forest mammals are widely recognized as effective ecological indicators, particularly in assessing changes in forest structure and ecosystem function [10,11]. Their ecological roles are multifaceted: they serve as prey for a variety of predators, contribute to seed and seedling predation and dispersal, consume a wide range of plant materials and invertebrates, and play a crucial role in the dispersal of fungal spores, including those of mycorrhizal fungi [12,13]. Due to their sensitivity to habitat alterations, small mammals are frequently employed as model organisms in evaluating the ecological outcomes of forest management practices. Their population dynamics, community composition, and behavioral responses offer valuable insights into the effectiveness of sustainable forestry strategies and biodiversity conservation across forested landscapes [14,15].
The structure of the plant community—layers of canopy, shrub, and herb strata; density of understory; amount of coarse woody debris and leaf litter—strongly affects habitat suitability for small mammals. A recent study in northern Belgium showed that forest structural complexity (including dead wood and herb-layer richness) increased both small mammal abundance and improved body condition in bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) and wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) [16]. Seed and mast availability are directly linked to small mammal population dynamics [17,18,19,20,21] and can lead to increased population abundance and larger body size in mice populations [17]. Forest management practices that reduce structural complexity (e.g., uniform plantations, removal of understory or deadwood, and high-intensity thinning) tend to reduce microhabitat heterogeneity [22,23]. In contrast, management strategies aiming to preserve complexity (deadwood and layered vegetation) appear to be beneficial in improving small mammal abundances and individual body condition [16].
Croatia has a sustainable, multi-purpose approach to forest management, with oak forest regeneration methods being either natural or close to nature regeneration under the shelter of mature trees [24]. In lowland oak forests, rodents cause severe root damage to young trees in autumn and winter months [25,26]. Conversely, the uneven-aged management approach is employed for Dinaric mixed silver fir–European beech montane forests, which may accumulate large trees and deadwood and, thus, support forest specialists such as bank voles and yellow-necked mice (A. flavicollis) [27,28].
The aim of this study is to determine how forest management factors, specifically stand age and plant community type, influence small-mammal diversity and to evaluate their implications for biodiversity conservation and forest regeneration. In Croatia, there is a general lack of small mammal monitoring which makes this the first long-term monitoring of small mammals in managed forests of continental Croatia. The findings of our study provide valuable insight into the effects of different forest structures, with emphasis on plant communities and stand age on small-mammal diversity. The obtained results are expected to contribute to the development of more effective forest protection strategies for small mammals.

2. Materials and Methods

Croatia is situated at the crossroads of Central and Southeastern Europe, with a long Adriatic coastline that connects it to the Mediterranean region (Figure 1). Its climate is highly diverse, ranging from a Mediterranean climate along the coast to a continental and mountainous climate in the inland and higher-altitude regions. Forests and other forest lands cover nearly half (49%) of terrestrial Croatia, with beech and common oak forests being the most significant and widespread forest types. Small-mammal trapping was conducted in different forests in continental and alpine biogeographical regions of Croatia, including a total of 67 different sampling locations (Figure 1).
Trapping was conducted as part of routine rodent monitoring in state-owned forests managed by Croatian Forests Ltd., and different research projects at the University of Zagreb’s Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology from the years 2005 to 2021. Trapping was carried out in late spring (May or June) and/or in early autumn (September or October) using snap traps, for which theGuidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists were followed [29]. Our dataset exhibits temporal bias, as the sampling intensity varied across the years. In addition, the number of trap-nights was not consistent among the sampling occasions. While trap types (snap traps; typ: T-Rex mouse trap, Bell Laboratories, Inc., Windsor, Wisconsin, USA) and bait (peanut butter) were kept constant throughout the study, the data were compiled from multiple sources, including long-term forestry monitoring programs and several independent research projects. Due to this heterogeneity in sampling design and effort, we focused our analyses on species assemblage composition rather than abundance to ensure comparability across datasets.
All permits and approvals are stated in the Institutional Review Board Statement section. Snap traps were set on the ground and baited only with peanut butter, targeting terrestrial rodents. Due to the baiting surface being small (ca. 1 cm), only peanut butter was used due to its strong odors’ attractiveness. As part of routine monitoring in forestry, only external characteristics (fur coloration and tail length) were used to identify rodents. All mice without a yellow neck band (excluding the striped field mouse (Apodemus agrarius)), as well as all voles (excluding the bank vole) and shrews, were identified genetically. The genetic identification of shrews and rodents was achieved by amplifying the barcoding regions of the cytochrome b (CytB) and the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) genes [30,31].
The different forests in which the trapping took place were assigned to the following five categories according to their forest plant communities: 1. mixed beech–fir forest (N = 17), 2. beech forests (N = 31), 3. sessile oak, hornbeam, and beech forests (N = 12), 4. lowland oak forests (no flood) (N = 31), and 5. floodplain oak forests (N = 33). Numbers in brackets indicate the numbers of trapping surveys per site. Some locations were repeated. Data on forest stand age and forest plant communities were provided from forestry offices and professional park services according to their forest management plans. Forest stand age data were available for 60 sampling locations and included the following four categories: young stands (1: 1–30 years; N = 17), middle-aged stands (2: 31–80 years; N = 20), mature (3: 81<; N = 57), and uneven-aged stands (4; N = 30).
We calculated the Shannon’s (H) and Simpson’s diversity (1-D) and evenness (E) for each forest plant community and the forest stand age using PAST 5.3 (Paleontological Statistics) software. Differences in diversity indices (species richness, Shannon, Simpson, and evenness) among forest plant communities and stand age were tested using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test in R (R core Team 2023), and the results were visualized using box plots with the ggplot2 package (Version 4.0.2). In addition, we performed rarefaction analysis to account for possible unequal sampling efforts in different forest plant communities using the R package vegan ver. 2.6–4 [32].
The response of small mammals to forest plant community and stand age was analyzed using canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) using Canoco 5.04 software, including the number of captured individuals of each species at each site as the response variable, while forest plant community and stand age were used as predictors in separate analyses. For the CCA, which included both forest plant communities and forest stand age as environmental variables, 1467 individuals from 60 sampling locations were included. The data used for the CCA were structured by year and month, corresponding to each trapping session (N = 124). Shrew and dormice bycatch was not included in the CCA, as well as Liechtenstein’s pine vole (Microtus lichtensteini) with N = 1. The significance of ordination axes was tested using the Monte Carlo permutation test, with 999 permutations per test. A CCA was performed separately for forest plant community and stand age because forest management practices differ in mixed beech–fir forests. Mixed beech–fir forests are uneven-aged and, therefore, do not have defined stand-age categories as do other forest plant communities. This results in the same data set under both the forest-plant-community category (mixed beech–fir forests) and the forest-stand-age category (uneven-aged stand). Therefore, we decided not to include interaction of forest plant community and forest stand age in our CCAs due to some missing combinations of forest community × stand age.

3. Results

Over the 17 years of the study, a total of 1580 individuals belonging to 14 different small-mammal species were trapped at 67 sampling sites. The rodents were dominant, accounting for 98.8% of the total (Table 1). The remaining 1.2% was attributable to shrew bycatch. The most abundant species was A. flavicollis, with 824 individuals (52.2%), followed by C. glareolus, with 380 individuals (24.1%) and A. agrarius with 281 (17.8%). Microtus voles followed with 46 individuals of Microtus lavernedii (2.9%) and 26 individuals of Microtus arvalis (1.6%). Only two individuals of A. sylvaticus and one individual of M. lichtensteini were captured, all three in floodplain oak forests. Five shrew and two dormice species were all bycatch and were present at less than 1% (Table 1). Microtus species and A. agrarius were mostly present only in floodplain oak forests and lowland oak forests (no flood) (Table 1), whereas A. flavicollis and C. glareolus were dominantly present (over 97%) in the following three forest plant communities: mixed beech–fir, beech and sessile oak, hornbeam and beech. In lowland oak forests (no flood), they constituted 70.8% of all captured individuals, being lowest in floodplain oak forest (44.1%). A. agrarius was the most abundant species only in floodplain oak forest with 43.9%.
In young forests aged 1–30 years, A. flavicollis and A. agrarius were dominant species with 78 (39.8%) and 62 (31.6%) individuals, respectively. A. flavicollis was the most abundant species in all stand-age categories (N = 766; 51.5%), with the highest numbers (N = 104; 72.7%) in forests of 31–80 years of age (Table 2). C. glareolus was the second-most abundant species in all age categories, except in forests of 1–30 years of age (N = 17; 8.7%). The highest abundance of C. glareolus was in uneven-aged forests (N = 172; 42.5). A. sylvaticus was captured only in middle-aged forests (31–80 years). Microtus species had the highest abundance in young forests (1–30 years), with M. lavernedii being the most dominant (N = 17; 8.7%), followed by Microtus arvalis (N = 12; 6.1%), and occurring in low numbers in other age categories.
One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in all examined diversity metrics among forest plant communities. The Shannon diversity differed significantly among forest plant communities (F(4, 119) = 5.71, p < 0.001). Similarly, the species richness showed a strong effect on forest plant community (F(4, 119) = 7.14, p < 0.001), indicating substantial variation in the number of species among habitat types. Evenness also varied significantly (F(4, 119) = 3.95, p = 0.005), as well as Simpson diversity index (F(4, 119) = 4.41, p = 0.002), further supporting that community structure differs across forest plant communities (Figure 2A–D).
The stand age results were also significant for all tested indices. Species richness showed the strongest response (F(3, 120) = 7.58, p < 0.001), with similar results obtained for Shannon diversity (F(3, 120) = 4.97, p < 0.001), indicating variation in overall diversity across forest development stages. Evenness showed a weaker but still significant effect (F(3, 120) = 3.89, p = 0.011), and the Simpson diversity index varied significantly with stand age (F(3, 120) = 3.12, p = 0.028), although the effect was comparatively weaker than for richness and Shannon diversity (Figure 2E–H).
Individual-based rarefaction analysis showed the highest expected species richness in floodplain oak forests, followed by lowland oak forests without flooding and beech forests. In contrast, sessile oak, hornbeam and beech forests, as well as mixed beech–fir forests, exhibited substantially lower than expected species richness across the sampled number of individuals (Figure 3).
Forest plant community had a significant effect (test on all axes, pseudo-F = 9.2, p = 0.001) on the structure of rodent species, explaining 23.5% (20.9% adjusted) of the variation in species composition (Figure 4A). Floodplain oak forests explained most of the variation in rodent community structure (16.1% of the species composition, pseudo-F = 23.6) (Table 3) with Microtus species, A. agrarius and A. sylvaticus being most associated with this forest plant community (Figure 4A). Beech forests explained 8.3% and mixed beech–fir forests 4.3% of the rodent species composition (Table 3), both being associated with A. flavicollis and C. glareolus (Figure 4A).
Forest stand age had a significant effect (test on all axes, pseudo-F = 8.0, p = 0.001) on the structure of rodent species, explaining 16.6% (14.5% adjusted) of the variation in species composition (Figure 4B). Uneven-aged forests explained most variation in species composition (10.5%) (Table 3), being mostly associated with A. flavicollis and C. glareolus (Figure 4B). Forests with older stands (81<) explained 5.8% and younger stands (1–30 years of age) 4.7% of the rodent species composition (Table 3), first being associated with A. agrarius and A. sylvaticus and second with Microtus species (Figure 4B).

4. Discussion

Small mammals are key contributors to forest ecosystems, supporting a variety of different processes and fulfilling multiple ecological roles essential for forest productivity [3,5,12,13,33,34]. Forest ecosystems generally exhibit higher biodiversity than more simplified habitats because they offer higher habitat heterogeneity and a variety of microclimatic conditions that allow for the coexistence of species with different ecological requirements, thereby increasing overall species richness [35,36]. There is a higher small-mammal diversity in floodplain forests, which is mainly driven by high habitat heterogeneity, pronounced environmental gradients, and the presence of multiple habitat types [7,37,38].
Floodplain forests in Croatia, along the Sava, Drava, and Danube rivers, cover approximately 170,000 hectares and are dominated by species such as pedunculate oak, narrow-leaved ash, black alder, willow, and poplar, which are adapted to long-lasting flooding conditions [39]. Croatian lowland oak forests often face rodent damage to seeds, stems, and roots of young trees [25,26,40]. Damage to stems and roots is most commonly attributed to voles in both agriculture and forestry [41,42,43,44]. Although Croatia practices sustainable multi-purpose forest management, using methods of oak regeneration that are natural or close to natural regeneration under the shelter of mature trees [24], once the seedlings or saplings reach successful growth, the mature trees are cut down, leaving an open habitat. Such regenerated stands do not resemble natural forest habitats, and the environmental conditions in the clearings are more suitable for a wide range of small mammals, including both forest and open-habitat species [7,44]. Our study showed that lowland forests had grater small-mammal diversity, which corresponds to the literature [7,37,38]. In contrast, beech forests, as well as mixed beech–fir forests, were strongly associated with rodent species, such as yellow-necked mice (A. flavicollis) and bank vole (C. glareoulus). These two species are typical inhabitants of European forest ecosystems and dominant rodent species in beech forests [29,45,46,47]. Both of these rodent species act as reservoirs for the Dobrava and Puumala hantaviruses, respectively, and occur in high numbers in the year following a heavy mast, significantly increasing the risk of hantavirus infections in humans [20,48,49].
In lowland (floodplain) oak forests in Croatia, rodent biodiversity is higher compared to other analyzed forest plant communities, regardless of the largest sample size. in this forest plant community (Table 1, Figure 3). However, there is also a higher presence of Microtus (voles) rodents in younger, early-successional stands, which have the potential to cause damage [43]. Other studies have also shown that small-mammal diversity is highest in young forests due to their resemblance to meadows rather than advanced forests [7,50,51,52]. These findings suggest that young forests and recent clear-cuts provide a suitable habitat for vole species, including the field vole (M. agrestis), common vole (M. arvalis), and bank vole (C. glareolus), which are frequently observed on Central European clearings near open habitats [44,50,51].
It has been documented that intensive management interventions in clearings produce unfavorable environments for majority of the small-mammal species but not in old-growth forests [7], whereas some studies showed that various forest management activities do not affect small mammals in young forests [34,52]. Although it is well documented that management type and forest stand age significantly influence biodiversity and community structure in commercial and noncommercial forests, the combined effect of management intensity and stand age has rarely been tested on small mammals [53,54,55,56,57].
Young stands of floodplain oak forests in Croatia face most problems caused by rodent damage, particularly from the Microtus species, which damage the root system, causing plant death [25]. Although Croatia practices oak-forest regeneration methods, being either natural or close to natural regeneration under the shelter of mature trees, mature trees are eventually cut down when the new generation of oak is already sufficiently stable to grow independently [24], resulting in open habitats that are more favorable for voles. Clearcutting is a common forest-harvesting practice that has faced criticism for its negative environmental impacts [58,59,60]. Alternative approaches have, therefore, been implemented over the past two decades [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68]. These methods focus on the long-term retention of structural elements and organisms, including live and dead trees, supporting biodiversity and ecological functions [64,69].

5. Conclusions

Retaining healthy, mature trees in young oak stands during the first 50 years, until the canopy closes and stabilizes forest conditions, may positively affect small mammals by reducing the abundance of voles through unfavorable habitat conditions and simultaneously increasing biodiversity. This study, which covers 17 years of monitoring, represents the first presentation of data on small mammals with an emphasis on rodents across different forest stands. These data refer to forests throughout continental Croatia and, as such, are of high value for better understanding forest ecosystems, as well as forest management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.B.; methodology, L.B., M.V., K.K., and M.T.; formal analysis, L.B., M.T., and K.T.; investigation, L.B., M.V., K.T., and J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.B., M.T., and M.V.; writing—review and editing, L.B., M.V., J.M., M.T., K.K., and K.T.; supervision, L.B. and M.T.; funding acquisition, J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Rodent data were collected as part of the projects supported by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports (068-1430115-2119), Croatian Science Foundation (IP-11-2013-4250), and National Park Plitvice lakes.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Rodent trapping was conducted predominantly in lowland forests as part of routine rodent monitoring in state forests in agreement and under the oversight of the Croatian Forests Ltd. Permits for rodent trapping in National Park Plitvice lakes and Nature Park Medvednica were issued by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Green Transition (no. 517-05-1-1-19-3 and 517-07-2-1-1-14-2). Rodent research was also approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, University of Zagreb (approval no. EP05-22/23, EP02-22/23, and EP06-22/23).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. LaRue, E.A.; Knott, J.A.; Domke, G.M.; Chen, H.Y.; Guo, Q.; Hisano, M.; Oswalt, C.; Oswalt, S.; Kong, N.; Potter, K.M.; et al. Structural diversity as a reliable and novel predictor for ecosystem productivity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2023, 21, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. McCarragher, S.; Rigg, L.S. Temperate forest ecosystems. In International Encyclopedia of Geography; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Čepelka, L.; Dokulilová, M. Ecological Roles and Forest Management Implications of Small Terrestrial Mammals in Temperate and Boreal Forests—A Review. Forests 2025, 16, 994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cano-Martínez, R.; Carricondo-Sanchez, D.; Devineau, O.; Odden, M. Small rodent cycles influence interactions among predators in a boreal forest ecosystem. Mammal. Res. 2021, 66, 583–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moore, N.B.; Stephens, R.B.; Rowe, R.J. Nutritional and environmental factors influence small mammal seed selection in a northern temperate forest. Ecosphere 2022, 13, e4036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Greiser, C.; Hederová, L.; Vico, G.; Wild, J.; Macek, M.; Kopecký, M. Higher soil moisture increases microclimate temperature buffering in temperate broadleaf forests. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2024, 345, 109828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Suchomel, J.; Šipoš, J.; Košulič, O. Management intensity and forest successional stages as significant determinants of small mammal communities in a lowland floodplain forest. Forests 2020, 11, 1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sullivan, T.P.; Sullivan, D.S. Influence of variable retention harvests on forest ecosystems. II. Diversity and population dynamics of small mammals. J. Appl. Ecol. 2001, 38, 1234–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schmid-Holmes, S.; Drickamer, L.C. Impact of forest patch characteristics on small mammal communities: A multivariate approach. Biol. Conserv. 2001, 99, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Cunningham, R.B.; Pope, M.L. A large-scale “experiment” to examine the effects of landscape context and habitat fragmentation on mammals. Biol. Conserv. 1999, 88, 387–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pearson, D.E.; Ruggiero, L.F. Transect versus grid trapping arrangements for sampling small-mammal communities. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2003, 31, 454–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Maser, C.; Trappe, J.M.; Nussbaum, R.A. Fungal-small mammal interrelationships with emphasis on Oregon coniferous forests. Ecology 1978, 59, 799–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Carey, A.B.; Johnson, M.L. Small mammals in managed, naturally young, and old-growth forests. Ecol. Appl. 1995, 5, 336–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Beese, W.J.; Deal, J.; Dunsworth, B.G.; Mitchell, S.J.; Philpott, T.J. Two decades of variable retention in British Columbia: A review of its implementation and effectiveness for biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Process. 2019, 8, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zwolak, R. A meta-analysis of the effects of wildfire, clearcutting, and partial harvesting on the abundance of North American small mammals. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 539–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vanroy, T.; Baeten, L.; Martel, A.; Catfolis, B.; Fonville, M.; Lens, L.; Pasmans, F.; Sprong, H.; Strubbe, D.; Verbrugghe, E.; et al. Influence of forest structural complexity on small mammal body condition and its impact on tick burden and pathogen prevalence. Parasites Vectors 2025, 18, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dri, G.F.; Bogdziewicz, M.; Hunter, M.; Witham, J.; Mortelliti, A. Coupled effects of forest growth and climate change on small mammal abundance and body weight: Results of a 39-year field study. J. Anim. Ecol. 2025, 94, 2118–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Llanos-Guerrero, C.; Freixas-Mora, L.; Vilella, M.; Bartrina, C.; Torre, I. Seed Availability and Small Mammal Populations: Insights from Mediterranean Forests. Forests 2024, 15, 1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bogdziewicz, M.; Zwolak, R.; Crone, E.E. How do vertebrates respond to mast seeding? Oikos 2016, 125, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bjedov, L.; Svoboda, P.; Tadin, A.; Habuš, J.; Štritof, Z.; Labaš, N.; Vucelja, M.; Markotić, A.; Turk, N.; Margaletić, J. Influence of beech mast on small rodent populations and hantavirus prevalence in Nacional Park „Plitvice lakes“ and Nature Park „Medvednica“. Šumarski List 2016, 140, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lebl, K.; Kürbisch, K.; Bieber, C.; Ruf, T. Energy or information? The role of seed availability for reproductive decisions in edible dormice. J. Comp. Physiol. B 2010, 180, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bähner, K.W.; Tabarelli, M.; Büdel, B.; Wirth, R. Habitat fragmentation and forest management alter woody plant communities in a Central European beech forest landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 2729–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yoshida, T.; Naito, S.; Nagumo, M.; Hyodo, N.; Inoue, T.; Umegane, H.; Yamazaki, H.; Miya, H.; Nakamura, F. Structural complexity and ecosystem functions in a natural mixed forest under a single-tree selection silviculture. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Anić, I. History of Pedunculate Oak Forest Regeneration in Croatia. Šumarski List 2025, 149, 279–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vucelja, M.; Margaletić, J.; Bjedov, L.; Šango, M.; Moro, M. Small rodent damage on stem and root of pendunculate oak (Quercus robur L.). Šumarski List 2014, 138, 283–290. [Google Scholar]
  26. Margaletić, J. Rodents and their harmful effects on Turopoljski lug (Turopolje Grove) and on Croatian forests. Glas. Šumske Pokuse Ann. Exp. Silvarum Cult. Provehendis 1998, 35, 143–189. [Google Scholar]
  27. Čavlović, J.; Andabaka, M.; Božić, M.; Teslak, K.; Beljan, K. Current Status and Recent Stand Structure Dynamics in Mixed Silver Fir—European Beech Forests in Croatian Dinarides: Are There Differences between Managed and Unmanaged Forests? Sustainability 2021, 13, 9179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zárybnická, M.; Riegert, J.; Bejček, V.; Sedláček, F.; Šťastný, K.; Šindelář, J.; Heroldová, M.; Vilímová, J.; Zima, J. Long-term changes of small mammal communities in heterogenous landscapes of Central Europe. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2017, 63, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sikes, R.S. 2016 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. J. Mammal. 2016, 97, 663–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Irwin, D.M.; Kocher, T.D.; Wilson, A.C. Evolution of the Cytochrome b Gene of Mammals. J. Mol. Evol. 1991, 32, 128–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Folmer, O.; Black, M.; Hoeh, W.; Lutz, R.; Vrijenhoek, R. DNA Primers for Amplification of Mitochondrial Cytochrome c Oxidase Subunit I from Diverse Metazoan Invertebrates. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 1994, 3, 294–299. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  32. Oksanen, J.; Simpson, G.; Blanchet, F.G.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; Minchin, P.R.; O’Hara, R.B.; Solymos, P.; Stevens, M.H.H.; Szoecs, E.; et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package, Version 2.6-4; The Comprehensive R Archive Network: Vienna, Austria, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pearce, J.; Venier, L. Small mammals as bioindicators of sustainable boreal forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 208, 153–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Carey, A.B.; Harrington, C.A. Small mammals in young forests: Implications for management for sustainability. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 154, 289–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gaston, K.J.; Spicer, J.I. Biodiversity: An Introduction, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004; ISBN 1405118571. [Google Scholar]
  36. Morin, P.J. Community Ecology: Pattern and Process, 2nd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-1-444-34194-2. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ellison, L.E.; van Riper, C., III. A comparison of small-mammal communities in a desert riparian floodplain. J. Mammal. 1998, 79, 972–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Romanowski, J.; Dudek-Godeau, D.; Lesiński, G. The Diversity of Small Mammals along a Large River Valley Revealed from Pellets of Tawny Owl Strix aluco. Biology 2023, 12, 1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vukelić, J. (Ed.) Poplavne Šume u Hrvatskoj (Floodplain Forests in Croatia); Akademija Šumarskih Znanosti: Zagreb, Croatia; Hrvatske Šume d.o.o.: Zagreb, Croatia; Gradski ured za Poljoprivredu i Šumarstvo: Zagreb, Croatia, 2005; ISBN 953-98571-2-0. [Google Scholar]
  40. Margaletić, J.; Glavaš, M.; Bäumler, W. The development of mice and voles in an oak forest with a surplus of acorns. Anz. Schädlingskunde 2002, 75, 95–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Santini, L. European Field Voles of the Genus Pitymys McMurtrie and their Damage in Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry. EPPO Bull. 1977, 7, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sullivan, T.P.; Sullivan, D.S. Woody debris, voles, and trees: Influence of habitat structures (piles and windrows) on long-tailed vole populations and feeding damage. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 263, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sullivan, T.P.; Sullivan, D.S. Voles, trees, and woody debris structures as habitat: Balancing forest crop protection and biodiversity. Crop Prot. 2014, 60, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Krojerová-Prokešová, J.; Homolka, M.; Heroldová, M.; Barančeková, M.; Baňař, P.; Kamler, J.; Modlinger, R.; Purchart, L.; Zejda, J.; Suchomel, J. Patterns of vole gnawing on saplings in managed clearings in Central European forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 408, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jensen, T.S. Seed-seed predator interactions of European beech, Fagus silvatica and forest rodents, Clethrionomys glareolus and Apodemus flavicollis. Oikos 1985, 44, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pucek, Z.; Jędrzejewski, W.; Jędrzejewska, B.; Pucek, M. Rodent population dynamics in a primeval deciduous forest (Białowieża National Park) in relation to weather, seed crop, and predation. Acta Theriol. 1993, 38, 199–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Suchomel, J.; Purchart, L.; Čepelka, L.; Heroldová, M. Structure and diversity of small mammal communities of mountain forests in Western Carpathians. Eur. J. For. Res. 2014, 133, 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vapalahti, O.; Mustonen, J.; Lundkvist, A.; Henttonen, H.; Plyusnin, A.; Vaheri, A. Hantavirus infections in Europe. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2003, 3, 653–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Reil, D.; Imholt, C.; Drewes, S.; Ulrich, R.G.; Eccard, J.A.; Jacob, J. Environmental conditions in favour of a hantavirus outbreak in 2015 in Germany? Zoonoses Public Health 2016, 63, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Balčiauskas, L.; Čepukienė, A.; Balčiauskienė, L. Small mammal community response to early meadow–forest succession. For. Ecosyst. 2017, 4, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jasiulionis, M.; Čepukienė, A.; Balčiauskas, L. Small mammal community changes during succession of the planted forest. Acta Zool. Litu. 2011, 21, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Borowski, Z.; Bartoń, K.; Staniszewski, J. Is mowing effective in reducing rodent damage to forest plantations? Pest Manag. Sci. 2024, 80, 5519–5526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Gallé, R.; Maák, I.; Szpisjak, N. The effects of habitat parameters and forest age on the ground dwelling spiders of lowland poplar forests (Hungary). J. Insect Conserv. 2014, 18, 791–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Schall, P.; Gossner, M.M.; Heinrichs, S.; Fischer, M.; Boch, S.; Prati, D.; Jung, K.; Baumgartner, V.; Blaser, S.; Böhm, S.; et al. The impact of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hédl, R.; Šipoš, J.; Chudomelová, M.; Utinek, D. Dynamics of herbaceous vegetation during four years of experimental coppice introduction. Folia Geobot. 2017, 52, 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Machar, I.; Schlossarek, M.; Pechanec, V.; Uradnicek, L.; Praus, L.; Sıvacıoğlu, A. Retention forestry supports bird diversity in managed, temperate hardwood floodplain forests. Forests 2019, 10, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Šipoš, J.; Hédl, R.; Hula, V.; Chudomelová, M.; Košulič, O.; Niedobová, J.; Riedl, V. Patterns of functional diversity of two trophic groups after canopy thinning in an abandoned coppice. Folia Geobot. 2017, 52, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bogdziewicz, M.; Zwolak, R. Responses of small mammals to clear-cutting in temperate and boreal forests of Europe: A meta-analysis and review. Eur. J. For. Res. 2014, 133, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sands, R. (Ed.) Forestry in a Global Context; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-1-78064-158-4. [Google Scholar]
  60. McDermott, C.; Cashore, B.; Kanowski, P. Global Environmental Forest Policies: An International Comparison; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Aubry, K.B.; Halpern, C.B.; Maguire, D.A. Ecological effects of variable retention harvests in the northwestern United States: The DEMO study. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 2004, 78, 119–137. [Google Scholar]
  62. Work, T.T.; Spence, J.R.; Volney, W.J.A.; Morgantini, L.E.; Innes, J.L. Integrating biodiversity and forestry practices in western Canada. For. Chron. 2003, 79, 906–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gustafsson, L.; Kouki, J.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: A review of ecological consequences. Scand. J. For. Res. 2010, 25, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gustafsson, L.; Baker, S.C.; Bauhus, J.; Beese, W.J.; Brodie, A.; Kouki, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Lohmus, A.; Pastur, G.M.; Messier, C.; et al. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: A world perspective. BioScience 2012, 62, 633–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pastur, G.M.; Lencinas, M.V.; Cellini, J.M.; Peri, P.L.; Esteban, R.S. Timber management with variable retention in Nothofagus pumilio forests of Southern Patagonia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 436–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Baker, S.C.; Read, S.M. Variable retention silviculture in Tasmania’s wet forests: Ecological rationale, adaptive management and synthesis of biodiversity benefits. Aust. For. 2011, 74, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lõhmus, A.; Lõhmus, P. Epiphyte communities on the trunks of retention trees stabilise in 5 years after timber harvesting, but remain threatened due to tree loss. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 891–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Amori, G.; Mazzei, A.; Storino, P.; Urso, S.; Luzzi, G.; Aloise, G.; Gangale, C.; Ouzounov, D.; Luiselli, L.; Pizzolotto, R.; et al. Forest management and conservation of faunal diversity in Italy: A review. Plant Biosyst. 2021, 155, 1226–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fedrowitz, K.; Koricheva, J.; Baker, S.C.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Palik, B.; Rosenvald, R.; Beese, W.; Franklin, J.F.; Kouki, J.; Macdonald, E.; et al. Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 1669–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 17 00687 g001
Figure 1. Map of all sampling locations in Croatia in continental and alpine biogeographical regions.
Figure 1. Map of all sampling locations in Croatia in continental and alpine biogeographical regions.
Forests 17 00687 g001
Forests 17 00687 g002
Figure 2. Box plots illustrating species richness, Shannon (H), evenness, and Simpson (1-D) indices of small mammals in different forest plant communities (A–D) and in different forest-stand-age categories (E–H). Median values and interquartile ranges are indicated in the plots. Different letters indicate significant differences following Tukey’s post hoc test. Forest-plant-community categories: 1 = floodplain oak forests; 2 = lowland oak forests (no flood); 3 = sessile oak, hornbeam and beech forests; 4 = beech forests; 5 = mixed beech–fir forest. Stand-age categories: 1 = 1–30; 2 = 31–80; 3 = 81<; 4 = uneven-aged.
Figure 2. Box plots illustrating species richness, Shannon (H), evenness, and Simpson (1-D) indices of small mammals in different forest plant communities (A–D) and in different forest-stand-age categories (E–H). Median values and interquartile ranges are indicated in the plots. Different letters indicate significant differences following Tukey’s post hoc test. Forest-plant-community categories: 1 = floodplain oak forests; 2 = lowland oak forests (no flood); 3 = sessile oak, hornbeam and beech forests; 4 = beech forests; 5 = mixed beech–fir forest. Stand-age categories: 1 = 1–30; 2 = 31–80; 3 = 81<; 4 = uneven-aged.
Forests 17 00687 g002
Forests 17 00687 g003
Figure 3. Rarefaction curves of small-mammal species richness in all five forest plant communities.
Figure 3. Rarefaction curves of small-mammal species richness in all five forest plant communities.
Forests 17 00687 g003
Forests 17 00687 g004
Figure 4. Species–habitat biplot diagram from CCAs summarizing the effect of forest plant community (red triangles) (A) and stand age (green triangles) (B) on rodent species composition. Empty triangles indicate rodent species (CG = Clethrionomys glareolus; AF = Apodemus flavicollis; AS = Apodemus sylvaticus; AA = Apodemus agrarius; MA = Microtus arvalis; ML = Microtus lavernedii). Stand-age categories: 1 = 1–30; 2 = 31–80; 3 = 81<; 4 = uneven-aged.
Figure 4. Species–habitat biplot diagram from CCAs summarizing the effect of forest plant community (red triangles) (A) and stand age (green triangles) (B) on rodent species composition. Empty triangles indicate rodent species (CG = Clethrionomys glareolus; AF = Apodemus flavicollis; AS = Apodemus sylvaticus; AA = Apodemus agrarius; MA = Microtus arvalis; ML = Microtus lavernedii). Stand-age categories: 1 = 1–30; 2 = 31–80; 3 = 81<; 4 = uneven-aged.
Forests 17 00687 g004
Table 1. Species composition of small mammals in different forest plant communities.
Table 1. Species composition of small mammals in different forest plant communities.
Forest Plant
Community		Mixed Beech–
Fir Forests		Beech ForestsSessile Oak, Hornbeam and Beech ForestsLowland Oak
Forests
(No Flood)		Floodplain
Oak Forests		Total
SpeciesN%N%N%N%N%N%
Clethrionomys glareolus8032.318139.2410.84712.06815.538024.1
Apodemus flavicollis16466.127058.43389.223158.812628.682452.2
Apodemus sylvaticus0000000020.520.1
Apodemus agrarius0020.4008621.919343.928117.8
Microtus arvalis20.820.40092.3133.0261.6
Microtus lavernedii000000143.6327.3462.9
Microtus lichtensteini0000000010.210.1
Glis glis10.410.200000020.1
Muscardinus avellanarius00000010.30010.1
Sorex araneus10.400000010.220.1
Crocidura leucodon0010.200000010.1
Crocidura suaveolens0010.20010.30020.1
Neomys milleri0030.60030.830.790.6
Neomys fodiens0010.20010.310.230.2
Total24815.746229.2372.339324.944027.81580100
Total species5 9 2 9 10 14 
Table 2. Species composition of small mammals in different forest-stand-age categories.
Table 2. Species composition of small mammals in different forest-stand-age categories.
Stand Age1–3031–8081<Uneven-Aged Total
SpeciesN%N%N%N%N%
Clethrionomys glareolus178.73524.512416.717242.534823.4
Apodemus flavicollis7839.810472.736148.522355.176651.5
Apodemus sylvaticus000020.30020.1
Apodemus agrarius6231.610.721629.00027918.8
Microtus arvalis126.132.1101.310.2261.7
Microtus lavernedii178.700293.900463.1
Microtus lichtensteini000010.10010.1
Glis glis00000020.520.1
Muscardinus avellanarius10.500000010.1
Sorex araneus10.5000010.220.1
Crocidura leucodon00000010.210.1
Crocidura suaveolens10.5000010.220.1
Neomys milleri63.1000030.790.6
Neomys fodiens10.50010.110.230.2
Total19613.21439.674450.040527.21488100
Total species10 4 8 9 14 
Table 3. Simple effects of the forest plant community and stand age on rodent species composition.
Table 3. Simple effects of the forest plant community and stand age on rodent species composition.
Forest Plant CommunityExplains %Pseudo-Fp
Mixed beech–fir forest4.35.50.011
Beech forests8.311.20.001
Sessile oak, hornbeam and beech forests1.01.30.251
Lowland oak forests (no flood)1.92.40.059
Floodplain oak forests16.123.60.001
Stand AgeExplains %Pseudo-Fp
1 (1–30)4.76.00.002
2 (31–80) 2.22.80.051
3 (81<) 5.87.60.001
4 (uneven-aged)10.514.40.001
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

Bjedov, L.; Vucelja, M.; Margaletić, J.; Krapinec, K.; Tomljanović, K.; Temunović, M. Impact of Forest Plant Communities and Stand Age on Small Mammal Diversity. Forests 2026, 17, 687. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17060687

AMA Style

Bjedov L, Vucelja M, Margaletić J, Krapinec K, Tomljanović K, Temunović M. Impact of Forest Plant Communities and Stand Age on Small Mammal Diversity. Forests. 2026; 17(6):687. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17060687

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bjedov, Linda, Marko Vucelja, Josip Margaletić, Krešimir Krapinec, Kristijan Tomljanović, and Martina Temunović. 2026. "Impact of Forest Plant Communities and Stand Age on Small Mammal Diversity" Forests 17, no. 6: 687. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17060687

APA Style

Bjedov, L., Vucelja, M., Margaletić, J., Krapinec, K., Tomljanović, K., & Temunović, M. (2026). Impact of Forest Plant Communities and Stand Age on Small Mammal Diversity. Forests, 17(6), 687. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17060687

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