Logging to "salvage" economic returns from forests affected by natural disturbances has become increasingly prevalent globally. Despite potential negative effects on biodiversity, salvage logging is often conducted, even in areas otherwise excluded from logging and reserved for nature conservation, inter alia because strategic priorities for post-disturbance management are widely lacking.A review of the existing literature revealed that most studies investigating the effects of salvage logging on biodiversity have been conducted less than 5 years following natural disturbances, and focused on non-saproxylic organisms.A meta-analysis across 24 species groups revealed that salvage logging significantly decreases numbers of species of eight taxonomic groups. Richness of dead wood dependent taxa (i.e. saproxylic organisms) decreased more strongly than richness of non-saproxylic taxa. In contrast, taxonomic groups typically associated with open habitats increased in the number of species after salvage logging.By analysing 134 original species abundance matrices, we demonstrate that salvage logging significantly alters community composition in 7 of 17 species groups, particularly affecting saproxylic assemblages. Our results suggest that salvage logging is not consistent with the management objectives of protected areas. Substantial changes, such as the retention of dead wood in naturally disturbed forests, are needed to support biodiversity. Future research should investigate the amount and spatio-temporal distribution of retained dead wood needed to maintain all components of biodiversity.
Paddy rice in monsoon Asia plays an important role in global food security and climate change. Here we documented annual dynamics of paddy rice areas in the northern frontier of Asia, including northeastern (NE) China, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan, from 2000 to 2014 through analysis of satellite images. The paddy rice area has increased by 120% (2.5 to 5.5 million ha) in NE China, in comparison to a decrease in South Korea and Japan, and the paddy rice centroid shifted northward from 41.16°N to 43.70°N (~310 km) in this period. Market, technology, policy, and climate together drove the rice expansion in NE China. The increased use of greenhouse nurseries, improved rice cultivars, agricultural subsidy policy, and a rising rice price generally promoted northward paddy rice expansion. The potential effects of large rice expansion on climate change and ecosystem services should be paid more attention to in the future.
The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,680 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate, and can expand the geographical (by 12-25%) and taxonomic (by 5-32%) coverage of English-language evidence, especially in biodiverse regions, albeit often based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges.
SummaryFor the first time, we estimated the population sizes of two swan species and four goose species from observations during the non-breeding period in East Asia. Based on combined counts from South Korea, Japan and China, we estimated the total abundance of these species as follows: 42,000–47,000 Whooper SwansCygnus cygnus; 99,000–141,000 Tundra SwansC. columbianus bewickii; 56,000–98,000 Swan GeeseAnser cygnoides; 157,000–194,000 Bean GeeseA. fabalis; 231,000–283,000 Greater White-fronted GeeseA. albifrons; and 14,000–19,000 Lesser White-fronted GeeseA. erythropus.While the count data from Korea and Japan provide a good reflection of numbers present, there remain gaps in the coverage in China, which particularly affect the precision of the estimates for Bean, Greater and Lesser White-fronted Geese as well as Tundra Swans. Lack of subspecies distinction of Bean Geese in China until recently also limits our ability to determine the true status ofA. f. middendorffiithere, but all indications suggest this population numbers around 18,000 individuals and is in need of urgent attention. The small, highly concentrated and declining numbers of Lesser White-fronted Geese give concern for this species, as do the major declines in Greater White-fronted Geese in China (in contrast to numbers in Japan and Korea, considered to be a separate flyway). In the absence of any demographic data, it is impossible to interpret the causes of these changes in abundance. Improved monitoring, including demographic and tracking studies are required to provide the necessary information to retain populations in favourable conservation status.
Article impact statement: Migratory waterbird and landbird conservation in the East Asian‐Australasian Flyway is a challenge, but the Bonn Convention can help.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.