Combining conservation value with conservation filters to guide forest management for avian biodiversity

Crosby, Andrew D.; Porter, William F.; Roloff, Gary J.; Walters, Michael B.; Donovan, Michael L.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118131

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This effect is likely related to larger variety in vertical forest structure at intermediate levels that provides suitable habitat to a wider variety of species (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961, Crosby et al. 2020). More broadly, the peaking of abundance at medium levels of live basal area could be reflective of multi‐aged stands supporting a variety of species, individual tree size, and vertical layering that provides habitat to a wide range of birds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in bird abundance differ among protected forests but not bird guilds

Doser

Weed

Zipkin

et al. 2021

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improved monitoring and associated inferential tools to efficiently identify declining bird populations, particularly of rare or sparsely distributed species, is key to informed conservation and management across large spatiotemporal regions. We assess abundance trends for 106 bird species in a network of eight forested national parks located within the northeast United States from 2006 to 2019 using a novel hierarchical model. We develop a multispecies, multiregion, removal‐sampling model that shares information across species and parks to enable inference on rare species and sparsely sampled parks and to evaluate the effects of local forest structure. Trends in bird abundance over time varied widely across parks, but species showed similar trends within parks. Three parks (Acadia National Park and Marsh‐Billings‐Rockefeller and Morristown National Historical Parks [NHP]) decreased in bird abundance across all species, while three parks (Saratoga NHP and Roosevelt‐Vanderbilt and Weir‐Farm National Historic Sites) increased in abundance. Bird abundance peaked at medium levels of basal area and high levels of percent forest and forest regeneration, with percent forest having the largest effect. Variation in these effects across parks could be a result of differences in forest structural stage and diversity. By sharing information across both communities and parks, our novel hierarchical model enables uncertainty‐quantified estimates of abundance across multiple geographical (i.e., network, park) and taxonomic (i.e., community, guild, species) levels over a large spatiotemporal region. We found large variation in abundance trends across parks but not across bird guilds, suggesting that local forest condition might have a broad and consistent effect on the entire bird community within a given park. Research should target the three parks with overall decreasing trends in bird abundance to further identify what specific factors are driving observed declines across the bird community. Understanding how bird communities respond to local forest structure and other stressors (e.g., pest outbreaks, climate change) is crucial for informed and lasting management.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in bird abundance differ among protected forests but not bird guilds

Doser

Weed

Zipkin

et al. 2021

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This trade‐off between carbon storage and wildlife habitat for some species may be clearest at the stand scale, typically on the order of a hectare to 100 hectares, where specific carbon pools (e.g., live trees, downed wood) can tip the carbon equation one way or the other while also serving as habitat elements to which individual species respond (Crosby et al, 2020; Hunter, 2005). However, with some important exceptions, much of the research to date that examines the relationship between carbon and wildlife—or biodiversity more generally—does so at broad scales or does not precisely resolve individual species' responses to those “mesofilter” habitat elements (Hunter, 2005).…”

Section: The Relationship Between Carbon and Wildlife Habitatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying trade‐offs and opportunities for forest carbon and wildlife using a climate change adaptation lens

Littlefield

D’Amato

2022

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On a warming planet, a key challenge natural resource managers face is protecting wildlife while mitigating climate change—as through forest carbon storage—to the greatest extent possible. But in some ecosystems, habitat restoration for imperiled species may be incompatible with maximizing carbon storage. For example, promoting early successional forest conditions does not maximize stand‐level carbon storage, whereas uniformly promoting high stocking or mature forest conditions in the name of carbon storage excludes species that require open or young stands. Here, we briefly review the literature regarding carbon and wildlife trade‐offs and then explore four case studies from the Northern Forest region of the United States. In each case, human activities have largely dampened the influence of natural disturbances; restoring or emulating these disturbances is typically required for habitat restoration even when doing so equates to less carbon storage at the stand level. We propose that applying a climate adaptation lens can help managers and planners navigate these trade‐offs and steer away from maladaptive practices that may ultimately reduce adaptive capacity. Instead, critically evaluating the consequences of stand‐level management actions on both carbon and wildlife can then facilitate landscape‐scale climate adaptation planning that supports a diversity of habitats alongside opportunities to invest in maximizing forest carbon.

show abstract

“…In this work, we apply an approach based on the concept of biodiversity indicator species, local forest and land‐use data, and species distribution modeling (SDM) tools, to develop nationwide fine‐grained predictions of forest stands with high conservation values. Using this approach, we aimed to develop important spatial information for forest conservation and management planning at different spatial scales, which is crucially needed to preserve species from the negative effects of intensive forestry (Angelstam et al, 2004 ; Crosby et al, 2020 ). With respect to SDMs, numerous different approaches (e.g., Elith et al, 2006 ) are available and increasingly employed to develop regional or national maps of suitable sites for a given species when only a small proportion of all occurrences of a species is known (Brambilla et al, 2015 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, it is imperative that the focal indicator species are both sensitive to the impacts of forestry and are also indicative of potential forest biodiversity values across a wider range of species and taxonomic groups (Burgas et al, 2014 ; Roberge, Mikusiński, et al, 2008 ). When these preconditions are met, the derived predictive maps can be used to inform not only local forest management planning, but also to provide information across larger regions and entire countries, thereby allowing detection of sites of national importance (Crosby et al, 2020 ; Lehtomäki et al, 2009 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing fine‐grained nationwide predictions of valuable forests using biodiversity indicator bird species

Virkkala

Leikola

Kujala

et al. 2022

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of indicator species in forest conservation and management planning can facilitate enhanced preservation of biodiversity from the negative effects of forestry and other uses of land. However, this requires detailed and spatially comprehensive knowledge of the habitat preferences and distributions of selected focal indicator species. Unfortunately, due to limited resources for field surveys, only a small proportion of the occurrences of focal species is usually known. This shortcoming can be circumvented by using modeling techniques to predict the spatial distribution of suitable sites for the target species. Airborne laser scanning (ALS) and other remote sensing (RS) techniques have the potential to provide useful environmental data covering systematically large areas for these purposes. Here, we focused on six bird of prey and woodpecker species known to be good indicators of boreal forest biodiversity values. We used known nest sites of the six indicator species based on nestling ringing records. Thus, the most suitable nesting sites of these species provide important information for biodiversity‐friendly forest management and conservation planning. We developed fine‐grained, that is, 96 × 96 m grid cell resolution, predictive maps across the whole of Finland of the suitable nesting habitats based on ALS and other RS data and spatial information on the distribution of important forest stands for the six studied biodiversity indicator bird species based on nesting‐habitat suitability modeling, that is, the MaxEnt model. Habitat preferences of the study species, as determined by MaxEnt, were in line with the previous knowledge of species‐habitat relations. The proportion of suitable habitats of these species in protected areas (PAs) was considerable, but our analysis also revealed many potentially high‐quality forest stands outside PAs. However, many of these sites are increasingly threatened by logging because of increased pressures for using forests for bioeconomy and forest industry based on National Forest Strategy. Predicting habitat suitability based on information on the nest sites of indicator species provides a new tool for systematic conservation planning over large areas in boreal forests in Europe, and a corresponding approach would also be feasible and recommendable elsewhere where similar data are available.

show abstract

Combining conservation value with conservation filters to guide forest management for avian biodiversity

Cited by 7 publications

References 56 publications

Trends in bird abundance differ among protected forests but not bird guilds

Trends in bird abundance differ among protected forests but not bird guilds

Identifying trade‐offs and opportunities for forest carbon and wildlife using a climate change adaptation lens

Developing fine‐grained nationwide predictions of valuable forests using biodiversity indicator bird species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About