2001
DOI: 10.1046/j.0021-8901.2001.00674.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of variable retention harvests on forest ecosystems. II. Diversity and population dynamics of small mammals

Abstract: 1.Variable retention harvests in temperate coniferous forests provide various intensities and sizes of disturbance across a gradient, from clear-cutting to single-tree harvesting. These 'green-tree retention systems' leave large live trees after harvest (i.e. residual trees) to increase structural diversity of the regenerating stand. It is unclear what effect these harvesting patterns will have on wildlife in general, and small mammals in particular. 2.This study was designed to test the hypotheses that: (i) t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
95
2
3

Year Published

2004
2004
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 127 publications
(108 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
8
95
2
3
Order By: Relevance
“…When significant differences were determined for the main effects or their interactions (p 0.05), comparisons among means were made using Duncan's multiple range test (Snedecor and Cochran, 1987;Sullivan and Sullivan, 2001). Values of 0.01, 0.1 and 1.0 were added to dry weights, stipe and pileus diameters, Means followed by the same letter(s) within the same row or column in a treatment group are not significantly different statistically at 5% level of probability using DMRT.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When significant differences were determined for the main effects or their interactions (p 0.05), comparisons among means were made using Duncan's multiple range test (Snedecor and Cochran, 1987;Sullivan and Sullivan, 2001). Values of 0.01, 0.1 and 1.0 were added to dry weights, stipe and pileus diameters, Means followed by the same letter(s) within the same row or column in a treatment group are not significantly different statistically at 5% level of probability using DMRT.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Songbirds in a variety of coniferous mixed, and hardwood forest types have benefited from the retention of residual trees (Hobson and Schieck, 1999;Rodewald and Yahner, 2000;Schieck et al, 2000;Tittler et al, 2001;Whittman et al, 2002;Zimmerman, 2002). Southern red-backed voles (Clethrionomys gapperi), a late-successional associated forest species, are also more common in harvested areas as the basal area in residual trees increases (Sullivan and Sullivan, 2001). The retention of residual structure during logging appears to have benefits to wildlife, but additional research will be necessary to distinguish the effects of retaining commercially mature-but relatively young-trees for wildlife from retaining and managing legacy trees, which are typically much older.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mas, dependendo do grupo taxonômico, da escala espacial e do parâmetro estrutural, a diversidade pode até diminuir com o incremento em heterogeneidade (DAVIDOWITZ & ROSENZWEIG, 1998;SULLIVAN & SULLIVAN, 2001;TEWS et al, 2004). A comunidade de plantas determina a estrutura física do ambiente para as espécies animais em muitos hábitats (MACARTHUR & MACARTHUR, 1961;LAWTON, 1983;MCCOY & BELL, 1991;TEWS et al, 2004).…”
Section: Palavras-chaveunclassified