What is the impact of active management on biodiversity in boreal and temperate forests set aside for conservation or restoration? A systematic map

被引:23
作者
Bernes C. [1 ]
Jonsson B.U. [2 ]
Junninen K. [3 ]
Lõhmus A. [4 ]
Macdonald E. [5 ]
Müller J. [6 ]
Sandström J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Mistra Council for Evidence-Based Environmental Management, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm
[2] Department of Natural Sciences, Mid-Sweden University, Sundsvall
[3] Metsähallitus Parks and Wildlife Finland, C/o UEF, P.O. Box 111, Joensuu
[4] Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, Tartu University, Vanemuise 46, Tartu
[5] Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, 751 General Services Building, Edmonton, T6G 2H1, AB
[6] Department of Conservation and Research, Bavarian Forest National Park, Freyunger Str. 2, Grafenau
关键词
Biodiversity; Boreal forest; Browsing; Dead wood; Disturbance legacy; Forest conservation; Forest reserve; Forest restoration; Forest set-aside; Grazing; Habitat management; Partial harvesting; Prescribed burning; Temperate forest; Thinning;
D O I
10.1186/s13750-015-0050-7
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The biodiversity of forests set aside from forestry is often considered best preserved by non-intervention. In many protected forests, however, remaining biodiversity values are legacies of past disturbances, e.g. recurring fires, grazing or small-scale felling. These forests may need active management to keep the characteristics that were the reason for setting them aside. Such management can be particularly relevant where lost ecological values need to be restored. In this review, we identified studies on a variety of interventions that could be useful for conserving or restoring any aspect of forest biodiversity in boreal and temperate regions. Since the review is based on Swedish initiatives, we have focused on forest types that are represented in Sweden, but such forests exist in many parts of the world. The wide scope of the review means that the set of studies is quite heterogeneous. As a first step towards a more complete synthesis, therefore, we have compiled a systematic map. Such a map gives an overview of the evidence base by providing a database with descriptions of relevant studies, but it does not synthesise reported results. Methods: Searches for literature were made using online publication databases, search engines, specialist websites and literature reviews. Search terms were developed in English, Finnish, French, German, Russian and Swedish. We searched not only for studies of interventions in actual forest set-asides, but also for appropriate evidence from commercially managed forests, since some practices applied there may be useful for conservation or restoration purposes too. Identified articles were screened for relevance using criteria set out in an a priori protocol. Descriptions of included studies are available in an Excel file, and also in an interactive GIS application that can be accessed at an external website. Results: Our searches identified nearly 17,000 articles. The 798 articles that remained after screening for relevance described 812 individual studies. Almost two-thirds of the included studies were conducted in North America, whereas most of the rest were performed in Europe. Of the European studies, 58 % were conducted in Finland or Sweden. The interventions most commonly studied were partial harvesting, prescribed burning, thinning, and grazing or exclusion from grazing. The outcomes most frequently reported were effects of interventions on trees, other vascular plants, dead wood, vertical stand structure and birds. Outcome metrics included e.g. abundance, richness of species (or genera), diversity indices, and community composition based on ordinations. Conclusions: This systematic map identifies a wealth of evidence on the impact of active management practices that could be utilised to conserve or restore biodiversity in forest set-asides. As such it should be of value to e.g. conservation managers, researchers and policymakers. Moreover, since the map also highlights important knowledge gaps, it could inspire new primary research on topics that have so far not been well covered. Finally, it provides a foundation for systematic reviews on specific subtopics. Based on our map of the evidence, we identified four subtopics that are sufficiently covered by existing studies to allow full systematic reviewing, potentially including meta-analysis. © 2015 Bernes et al.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 82 条
[1]  
Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper, Vol 163, (2010)
[2]  
Schelhaas M.J., Nabuurs G.J., Schuck A., Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries, Glob Change Biol, 9, pp. 1620-1633, (2003)
[3]  
Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, (2010)
[4]  
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, (2010)
[5]  
Eide W., Arter Och Naturtyper i Habitatdirektivet - Bevarandestatus i Sverige 2013, (2014)
[6]  
Hanski I., Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: Modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation, Ann Zool Fenn, 37, pp. 271-280, (2000)
[7]  
Zehetmair T., Muller J., Runkel V., Stahlschmidt P., Winter S., Zharov A., Et al., Poor effectiveness of Natura 2000 beech forests in protecting forest-dwelling bats, J Nat Conserv., 23, pp. 53-60, (2015)
[8]  
Lohmus A., Kohv K., Palo A., Viilma K., Loss of old-growth, and the minimum need for strictly protected forests in Estonia, Ecol Bull., 51, pp. 401-411, (2004)
[9]  
Meyer P., Schmidt M., Spellmann H., Bedarff U., Bauhus J., Reif A., Et al., Aufbau eines Systems nutzungsfreier Wälder in Deutschland, Natur und Landschaft., 86, pp. 243-249, (2011)
[10]  
Linder P., Structural changes in two virgin boreal forest stands in central Sweden over 72 years, Scand J for Res, 13, pp. 451-461, (1998)