Impact of silvicultural methods on vascular epiphytes (ferns, bromeliads and orchids) in a temperate forest in Oaxaca, Mexico Laura Jiménez Bautista a , Anne Damon a,⇑ , Susana Ochoa-Gaona b , Ricardo Clark Tapia c a El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Departamento de Conservación de la Biodiversidad, Carretera Antiguo Aeropuerto km 2.5, Tapachula, Chiapas C.P. 30700, Mexico b El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Departamento de Ciencias de la Sustentabilidad, Av. Rancho Polígono 2-A, Col. Ciudad Industrial, Lerma Campeche, Campeche C.P. 24500, Mexico c Universidad de la Sierra Juárez, Instituto de Estudios Ambientales, Avenida Universidad S/N, Ixtlán de Juárez, Oaxaca C.P. 68725, Mexico article info Article history: Received 11 February 2014 Received in revised form 25 May 2014 Accepted 28 May 2014 Keywords: Método de Desarrollo Silvícola (MDS) Phorophyte a Diversity b Diversity True Diversity Conservation abstract The impact of silvicultural management on the populations of epiphytes in pine-oak forest was evaluated in an area of Oaxaca State in Mexico, where the Method for Silvicultural Development (MSD) is practiced. Sampling was carried out in 5 management categories and their border areas (ÀB): Reforestation with Pine only (RP, RP-B), Reforestation with Pine with Nurse Trees (RPNTr, RPNTr-B), Harvest and Regenera- tion in Stands (HRSt, HRSt-B), areas where a First Thinning has been carried out (1stThin, 1stThin-B) and Conservation areas (CONSV, with no border area). Four transects measuring 50 Â 4 m were set up in each management category of which 2 were in the managed area and 2 in the border area. A total of 32 tree species acting as phorophytes hosting epiphytes, and 31species of epiphytes were recorded (15 orchids, 5 bromeliads and 11 ferns). There was significantly greater abundance of epiphytes in the categories 1stThin-B (2353 ind.) and CONSV (2195 ind.) compared to RPNTr (67 ind.) and RP with only 18 individ- uals. There was a significant difference between management categories for the abundance of orchids and ferns but not for bromeliads. Rhynchostele aptera (Orchidaceae), Tillandsia violacea (Bromeliaceae) and Polypodium sp. (Polypodiaceae) were common throughout the study area, whereas Alamania punicea, Lepanthes schiedei, Rhynchostele cordata (Orchidaceae), Asplenium cuspidatum (Aspleniaceae), Elaphoglossum peltatum (Dryopteridaceae) and Ceradenia oidiophora (Polypodiaceae) were only found in a single category of silvicultural management or conservation area. The biodiversity indices used (Shannon–Weiner, Simpson and True Diversity), indicated that HRSt and CONSV were the most diverse, and RP and RPNTr the least diverse categories. The phorophytes with the greatest abundance of epiphytes were Quercus crassifolia, Ternstroemia lineata and Rapanea juergensenii. We conclude that the silvicultural management category Harvest and Regeneration in Stands (HRSt) favors the conservation of epiphytes, that trees of the genus Quercus are the best phorophytes, that Pinus ayacahuite is a phorophyte for a variety of species especially orchids whereas Pinus patula is a relatively poor phorophyte, and suggest that the borders of managed areas, and reforestation with a diversity of tree species make an important contribution to epiphyte conservation. Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. 1. Introduction The world’s forests offer a diversity of products such as fuel, timber and food, as well as environmental services related to nutrient recycling, the hydrological cycle and soil and biodiversity conservation, and human cultures have developed methods for the management and harvest of these resources (Cairns et al., 1995; CCFM, 2006; FAO, 2010; Sayer and Whitmore, 1991). Modern practices look for techniques to maximize benefits, and focus on directly or indirectly promoting the growth of the trees (Long et al., 2004) as well as improving efficiency by promoting unifor- mity (O ´ Hara, 2001). Within this vision of a homogenized, produc- tive forest environment the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity, and the capacity for the recovery and protection of vulnerable species, has usually not been considered (Franklin et al., 2002). In Mexico two principal methods have been developed for the exploitation of temperate forests, the Mexican Method for the Management of Natural Forests (Método Mexicano de Ordenación de Bosques Naturales, MMOBI) and the Method for Silvicultural Development (MSD) (Método de Desarrollo Silvícola, MDS). The first involves the selective cutting of trees within natural forest ecosystems, and the second applies a series of silvicultural http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.053 0378-1127/Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 (962) 628 9800x5300. E-mail addresses: lajimenez@ecosur.edu.mx (L.J. Bautista), adamon@ecosur.mx (A. Damon), sochoa@ecosur.mx (S. Ochoa-Gaona), rclark@juppa.unsij.edu.mx (R.C. Tapia). Forest Ecology and Management 329 (2014) 10–20 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco