Comparable benefits of land sparing and sharing indicated by bird responses to stand-level plantation intensity in Hokkaido, northern Japan

Abstract

We examined potentially contrasting conservation benefits of land sparing (land-use specialization) and land sharing (multiple-use forestry) strategies in forested landscapes by investigating relationships between bird functional group densities and basal areas of coniferous trees (an index of plantation intensity) in Sakhalin fir (Abies sachalinensis) and Sakhalin spruce (Picea glehnii) plantations. Densities of most bird functional groups increased with decreasing plantation intensity in both plantation types. In many cases, linear models were best for descriptors of bird density-plantation intensity relationships, but statistical support of linear and nonlinear (quadratic) models was similar. This outcome indicates that ecological benefits of land sparing and land sharing are potentially comparable in the plantations we studied. In real landscapes, land-use decision making depends on a variety of factors other than biodiversity conservation (e.g., social and biophysical factors). Furthermore, niche theory also predicts that population densities could linearly respond to environmental gradients. When density-intensity relationships are linear, as in this study, land-sparing and land-sharing strategies provide similar benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation, and contrasting land-use strategies could be flexibly chosen to enhance the accommodation of biodiversity conservation to resource production

Reducing the extinction of experience: Association between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace

“…However, as large, consolidated greenspace has been proven to be vital to maintain the supply of other urban ecosystem services (Mitchell et al, 2015), future city planning requires a more careful approach to balance a wide array of interests and needs (cf. Yoshii, Yamaura, Soga, Shibuya, & Nakamura, 2015).…”

How many broadleaved trees are enough in conifer plantations? The economy of land sharing, land sparing and quantitative targets

“…Bird abundance ( N ) was assumed to increase linearly with the proportion of broadleaved trees in the basal area ( p bl ) according to N = 6·21 + 8·04 × p bl , following the results of Yoshii et al . (). However, we did not find predominant support of the linear response over the nonlinear response, possibly due to the small sample size.…”

“…Based on the previous empirical study that surveyed birds in plantations with different amounts of broadleaved trees (Yoshii et al 2015), the minimum and maximum values were estimated as bird abundance in 'pure' plantations (with no broadleaved trees) and in natural broadleaved forests (without planted coniferous trees), respectively. Bird abundance (N) was assumed to increase linearly with the proportion of broadleaved trees in the basal area (p bl ) according to N = 6Á21 + 8Á04 9 p bl , following the results of Yoshii et al (2015). However, we did not find predominant support of the linear response over the nonlinear response, possibly due to the small sample size.…”

“…cavity nesters, flycatchers). We excluded three species whose abundance increased with plantation intensity (coal tit Periparus ater, goldcrest Regulus regulus and Sakhalin leaf warbler Phylloscopus borealoides) from N (Yoshii et al 2015). In this regard, these species are known for feeding in coniferous trees and are therefore positively affected by forestry plantations (Yamaura et al 2009).…”

“…We did not find clear thresholds indicating required amounts of broadleaved trees to maintain bird abundance on an ecological basis (Yoshii et al . ). Because broadleaved trees have lower wood values compared with planted coniferous trees and the increase in broadleaved trees requires the space of coniferous trees, the improvement in bird abundance in conifer plantations by increasing broadleaved trees decreases the revenue of foresters.…”