2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.08.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conserving avian richness through structure retention in managed forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Site preparation, planting of specific genotypes or clones and control of competing vegetation are critical tools for meeting production targets [14,15]. Implementing these tools at the harvest unit (i.e., stand) scale, combined with a reduction or absence of natural disturbances and application of forest practice regulations, creates novel landscape patterns that differ substantially from those created by historic disturbance regimes alone [16][17][18]. Increasing intensity of forest management, which compresses successional development, particularly the duration in which stands reside in mature structural stages, has unique implications for organisms with limited dispersal capabilities and slow rates of population growth, such as salamanders.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Site preparation, planting of specific genotypes or clones and control of competing vegetation are critical tools for meeting production targets [14,15]. Implementing these tools at the harvest unit (i.e., stand) scale, combined with a reduction or absence of natural disturbances and application of forest practice regulations, creates novel landscape patterns that differ substantially from those created by historic disturbance regimes alone [16][17][18]. Increasing intensity of forest management, which compresses successional development, particularly the duration in which stands reside in mature structural stages, has unique implications for organisms with limited dispersal capabilities and slow rates of population growth, such as salamanders.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These findings suggest that nest‐site availability may be a limiting factor for white‐headed woodpeckers in this system, a common scenario observed for cavity‐nesting species in managed forests (Newton ). An initial analysis of these data came to a somewhat similar conclusion regarding the importance of snag density (Linden ), yet this previous effort only considered observations from the single year (2010) that used a repeated survey design. Using a hierarchical modeling framework made the inclusion of the 2009 single‐visit data trivial, as the separation of the state and observation processes allowed us to use information from the observation process in 2010 to inform observations from 2009 while fully accounting for uncertainty in the ecological states.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These conditions reflect the similar time‐since‐harvest (4–5 years) and forest vegetation composition for the sampled sites. Thus, we considered snag density an appropriate proxy for nest‐site availability and chose the 25 cm diameter threshold to reflect white‐headed woodpecker nest‐site preferences demonstrated by previous studies (Milne and Hejl ) and our own observations (95% of nest trees >25 cm [ n = 89]; Linden ). We assumed the loss of standing snags between 2009 and 2010 was minimal (Russell et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations