For what, when, and where is green-tree retention better than clear-cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects

Rosenvald, Raul; Lõhmus, Asko

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.09.016

Cited by 323 publications

(239 citation statements)

References 113 publications

(163 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

224

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To proceed towards a more quantitative direction, a systematic review approach (Pullin & Stewart, 2006) including meta-analyses should preferably be applied, although such studies often lose a considerable amount of detail. For example, the only extensive review conducted on tree retention so far was presented a few years ago and included 214 papers, embracing North America and Europe, but then only live trees were targeted (Rosenvald & Lõ hmus, 2008). When exposed to meta-analysis, however, only 39 studies could be used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: a review of ecological consequences

Gustafsson

Kouki

Sverdrup‐Thygeson

2010

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

206

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the mid-1990s, it has been common practice to leave trees for biodiversity purposes when clear-cutting in Finland, Norway and Sweden, and regulations for such tree retention are today included in national legislation and certification standards. Peer-reviewed research publications on tree retention from studies performed in the three countries were analyzed and about 50 relevant biodiversity studies were found, with the first published in 1994. Most studies were directed towards beetles and dead wood, especially high stumps. General conclusions were that retention trees (1) provide some of the substrate types required by early-successional species, (2) alleviate the most serious consequences of clear-cutting on biota, and (3) cannot maintain characteristics of intact mature forests. Larger volumes and more trees tend to maintain diversity better. There is a particular lack of studies on dispersal, landscape effects and long-term dynamics. There is a need to study further the relationship between the biota and the amount of trees, as well as their spatial arrangement. Retention trees should preferably be evaluated in relation to other components in multiscaled conservation, including woodland key habitats and larger protected areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: a review of ecological consequences

Gustafsson

Kouki

Sverdrup‐Thygeson

2010

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

206

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It remains to be determined whether the effects of harvesting on soil communities are predictive or causative of reductions in reforestation rates or tree productivity. If so, a question of practical importance is whether proposed modifications to harvesting practices (Kohm and Franklin, 1997;Rosenvald and Lõhmus, 2008) might preserve intact soil communities in a way that facilitates their recovery in harvested areas.…”

Section: Forest Harvesting Has Long-term Effects On Biodegradation Pomentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest harvesting reduces the soil metagenomic potential for biomass decomposition

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil is the key resource that must be managed to ensure sustainable forest productivity. Soil microbial communities mediate numerous essential ecosystem functions, and recent studies show that forest harvesting alters soil community composition. From a long-term soil productivity study site in a temperate coniferous forest in British Columbia, 21 forest soil shotgun metagenomes were generated, totaling 187 Gb. A method to analyze unassembled metagenome reads from the complex community was optimized and validated. The subsequent metagenome analysis revealed that, 12 years after forest harvesting, there were 16% and 8% reductions in relative abundances of biomass decomposition genes in the organic and mineral soil layers, respectively. Organic and mineral soil layers differed markedly in genetic potential for biomass degradation, with the organic layer having greater potential and being more strongly affected by harvesting. Gene families were disproportionately affected, and we identified 41 gene families consistently affected by harvesting, including families involved in lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose and pectin degradation. The results strongly suggest that harvesting profoundly altered below-ground cycling of carbon and other nutrients at this site, with potentially important consequences for forest regeneration. Thus, it is important to determine whether these changes foreshadow long-term changes in forest productivity or resilience and whether these changes are broadly characteristic of harvested forests.

show abstract

“…In contrast, SMI is based on three stand characteristics which are easy to obtain: tree species, stand age and growing stock, which is heavily influenced by logging intensity. Interactions of the three factors are known to be of major importance for biodiversity issues (Bengtsson et al 2000;Bagnaresi et al 2002;Atlegrim and Sjöberg 2004;Ishii et al 2004;Eriksson and Hammer 2006;Schroeder 2007;Wilson and Puettmann 2007;Rosenvald and Lõhmus 2008;Smith et al 2008;Michel and Winter 2009;Felton et al 2010;Quine and Humphrey 2010).…”

Section: Smi and Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing approaches for the assessment of forest management intensity lack a widely accepted, purely quantitative measure for ranking a set of forest stands along a gradient of management intensity. We have developed a silvicultural management intensity indicator (SMI) which combines three main characteristics of a given stand: tree species, stand age and aboveground, living and dead wooden biomass. Data on these three factors are used as input to represent the risk of stand loss, which is a function of tree species and stand age, and stand density, which is a function of the silvicultural regime, stand age and tree species. Consequently, the indicator consists of a risk component (SMI r ) and a density component (SMI d ). We used SMI to rank traditional management of the main Central European tree species: Norway spruce (Picea abies [Karst.] L.), European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), and oak (Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea L.). By analysing SMI over their whole rotation period, we found the following ranking of management intensity: oak\beech\pine(spruce. Additionally, we quantified the SMI of actual research plots of the German Biodiversity exploratories, which represent unmanaged and managed forest stands including conifer forests cultivated outside their natural range. SMI not only successfully separate managed from unmanaged forests, but also reflected the variability of forest management and stand properties across the entire sample and within the different management groups. We suggest using SMI to quantify silvicultual management intensity of stands differing in species composition, age, silvicultural system (even-aged vs. uneven-aged), thinning grade and stages of stand conversion from one stand type into another. Using SMI may facilitate the assessment of the impact of forest management intensity on biodiversity in temperate forests.

show abstract

For what, when, and where is green-tree retention better than clear-cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects

Cited by 323 publications

References 113 publications

Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: a review of ecological consequences

Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: a review of ecological consequences

Forest harvesting reduces the soil metagenomic potential for biomass decomposition

How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About