Cargando…

Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis

1. Industrial forestry typically leads to a simplified forest structure and altered species composition. Retention of trees at harvest was introduced about 25 years ago to mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity, mainly from clearcutting, and is now widely practiced in boreal and temperate regions...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fedrowitz, Katja, Koricheva, Julia, Baker, Susan C, Lindenmayer, David B, Palik, Brian, Rosenvald, Raul, Beese, William, Franklin, Jerry F, Kouki, Jari, Macdonald, Ellen, Messier, Christian, Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne, Gustafsson, Lena
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4277688/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25552747
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12289
_version_ 1782350423397498880
author Fedrowitz, Katja
Koricheva, Julia
Baker, Susan C
Lindenmayer, David B
Palik, Brian
Rosenvald, Raul
Beese, William
Franklin, Jerry F
Kouki, Jari
Macdonald, Ellen
Messier, Christian
Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne
Gustafsson, Lena
author_facet Fedrowitz, Katja
Koricheva, Julia
Baker, Susan C
Lindenmayer, David B
Palik, Brian
Rosenvald, Raul
Beese, William
Franklin, Jerry F
Kouki, Jari
Macdonald, Ellen
Messier, Christian
Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne
Gustafsson, Lena
author_sort Fedrowitz, Katja
collection PubMed
description 1. Industrial forestry typically leads to a simplified forest structure and altered species composition. Retention of trees at harvest was introduced about 25 years ago to mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity, mainly from clearcutting, and is now widely practiced in boreal and temperate regions. Despite numerous studies on response of flora and fauna to retention, no comprehensive review has summarized its effects on biodiversity in comparison to clearcuts as well as un-harvested forests. . 2. Using a systematic review protocol, we completed a meta-analysis of 78 studies including 944 comparisons of biodiversity between retention cuts and either clearcuts or un-harvested forests, with the main objective of assessing whether retention forestry helps, at least in the short term, to moderate the negative effects of clearcutting on flora and fauna. . 3. Retention cuts supported higher richness and a greater abundance of forest species than clearcuts as well as higher richness and abundance of open-habitat species than un-harvested forests. For all species taken together (i.e. forest species, open-habitat species, generalist species and unclassified species), richness was higher in retention cuts than in clearcuts. . 4. Retention cuts had negative impacts on some species compared to un-harvested forest, indicating that certain forest-interior species may not survive in retention cuts. Similarly, retention cuts were less suitable for some open-habitat species compared with clearcuts. . 5. Positive effects of retention cuts on richness of forest species increased with proportion of retained trees and time since harvest, but there were not enough data to analyse possible threshold effects, that is, levels at which effects on biodiversity diminish. Spatial arrangement of the trees (aggregated vs. dispersed) had no effect on either forest species or open-habitat species, although limited data may have hindered our capacity to identify responses. Results for different comparisons were largely consistent among taxonomic groups for forest and open-habitat species, respectively. . 6. Synthesis and applications. Our meta-analysis provides support for wider use of retention forestry since it moderates negative harvesting impacts on biodiversity. Hence, it is a promising approach for integrating biodiversity conservation and production forestry, although identifying optimal solutions between these two goals may need further attention. Nevertheless, retention forestry will not substitute for conservation actions targeting certain highly specialized species associated with forest-interior or open-habitat conditions. . Our meta-analysis provides support for wider use of retention forestry since it moderates negative harvesting impacts on biodiversity. Hence, it is a promising approach for integrating biodiversity conservation and production forestry, although identifying optimal solutions between these two goals may need further attention. Nevertheless, retention forestry will not substitute for conservation actions targeting certain highly specialized species associated with forest-interior or open-habitat conditions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4277688
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher John Wiley & Sons Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42776882014-12-29 Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis Fedrowitz, Katja Koricheva, Julia Baker, Susan C Lindenmayer, David B Palik, Brian Rosenvald, Raul Beese, William Franklin, Jerry F Kouki, Jari Macdonald, Ellen Messier, Christian Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne Gustafsson, Lena J Appl Ecol Biodiversity 1. Industrial forestry typically leads to a simplified forest structure and altered species composition. Retention of trees at harvest was introduced about 25 years ago to mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity, mainly from clearcutting, and is now widely practiced in boreal and temperate regions. Despite numerous studies on response of flora and fauna to retention, no comprehensive review has summarized its effects on biodiversity in comparison to clearcuts as well as un-harvested forests. . 2. Using a systematic review protocol, we completed a meta-analysis of 78 studies including 944 comparisons of biodiversity between retention cuts and either clearcuts or un-harvested forests, with the main objective of assessing whether retention forestry helps, at least in the short term, to moderate the negative effects of clearcutting on flora and fauna. . 3. Retention cuts supported higher richness and a greater abundance of forest species than clearcuts as well as higher richness and abundance of open-habitat species than un-harvested forests. For all species taken together (i.e. forest species, open-habitat species, generalist species and unclassified species), richness was higher in retention cuts than in clearcuts. . 4. Retention cuts had negative impacts on some species compared to un-harvested forest, indicating that certain forest-interior species may not survive in retention cuts. Similarly, retention cuts were less suitable for some open-habitat species compared with clearcuts. . 5. Positive effects of retention cuts on richness of forest species increased with proportion of retained trees and time since harvest, but there were not enough data to analyse possible threshold effects, that is, levels at which effects on biodiversity diminish. Spatial arrangement of the trees (aggregated vs. dispersed) had no effect on either forest species or open-habitat species, although limited data may have hindered our capacity to identify responses. Results for different comparisons were largely consistent among taxonomic groups for forest and open-habitat species, respectively. . 6. Synthesis and applications. Our meta-analysis provides support for wider use of retention forestry since it moderates negative harvesting impacts on biodiversity. Hence, it is a promising approach for integrating biodiversity conservation and production forestry, although identifying optimal solutions between these two goals may need further attention. Nevertheless, retention forestry will not substitute for conservation actions targeting certain highly specialized species associated with forest-interior or open-habitat conditions. . Our meta-analysis provides support for wider use of retention forestry since it moderates negative harvesting impacts on biodiversity. Hence, it is a promising approach for integrating biodiversity conservation and production forestry, although identifying optimal solutions between these two goals may need further attention. Nevertheless, retention forestry will not substitute for conservation actions targeting certain highly specialized species associated with forest-interior or open-habitat conditions. John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2014-12 2014-06-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4277688/ /pubmed/25552747 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12289 Text en © 2014 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Biodiversity
Fedrowitz, Katja
Koricheva, Julia
Baker, Susan C
Lindenmayer, David B
Palik, Brian
Rosenvald, Raul
Beese, William
Franklin, Jerry F
Kouki, Jari
Macdonald, Ellen
Messier, Christian
Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne
Gustafsson, Lena
Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis
title Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis
title_full Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis
title_fullStr Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis
title_short Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis
title_sort can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? a meta-analysis
topic Biodiversity
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4277688/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25552747
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12289
work_keys_str_mv AT fedrowitzkatja canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT korichevajulia canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT bakersusanc canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT lindenmayerdavidb canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT palikbrian canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT rosenvaldraul canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT beesewilliam canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT franklinjerryf canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT koukijari canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT macdonaldellen canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT messierchristian canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT sverdrupthygesonanne canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis
AT gustafssonlena canretentionforestryhelpconservebiodiversityametaanalysis