Reconciling the Tradeoff between Economic and Ecological Objectives in Habitat-Tree Selection: A Comparison between Students, Foresters, and Forestry Trainers

Abstract

Habitat trees provide microhabitats for many forest-related species, and thus habitat-tree retention is one of the main measures to integrate nature conservation objectives into forests managed for wood production. By setting aside habitat trees, forest managers have to solve a crucial tradeoff between economic and environmental benefits. Therefore, it is of major importance that trees with desired characteristics are retained as habitat trees. In this study, we analyze habitat-tree selection. Specifically, we are analyzing the outcome of a habitat-tree selection exercise that took place in a so-called "marteloscope" or "tree marking training site" with silviculture trainers, district foresters, and forestry students. Our results show that participants consistently selected habitat trees with a low economic value. However, the habitat values of the selected trees were highly variable. Selection behavior depended on participants' expertise, with forestry trainers making more consistent decisions and outperforming the students as well as the foresters. Our results show that the selection of optimal habitat trees is not self-evident. We provide some ideas about how it can be improved, benefiting both ecological and economic forest management objectives.

Same Viewpoint Different Perspectives—A Comparison of Expert Ratings with a TLS Derived Forest Stand Structural Complexity Index

“…On the contrary, evaluations by humans are always subjective and reflect the subject's specific perspectives. Recent studies indicate that several factors, like education, or familiar management techniques and economic goals are inconsistently influencing tree selection practices, which may also largely depend on individual preferences [19,37,38]. Our finding that greener forests are perceived as richer in structure underlines the hypothesis that even forest experts unconsciously include a variety of factors in their rating of forest structures that may have no major relevance to it.…”

“…The large standard deviations in the expert ratings show that there is no consistent expert agreement on the quantification of forest structure. A study of Cosyns et al [19] on full inventoried tree-marking training sites has shown that forestry trainers made decisions on habitat tree selection that are more consistent than foresters' or students' choices, which supports the impact of participants' expertise on tree-selection. Nevertheless the overall agreement on which trees to select was low for all groups, which demonstrates the downside that this effect of expertise is limited.…”

“…The emphasis on economic targets especially limits the amount of discretion that foresters perceive when implementing nature conservation programs [18]. Against the backdrop of a multitude of potentially conflicting goals, choices of retention elements may in many cases be suboptimal for the protection of biodiversity and other ecosystem services [19]. The choice of a retention patch is a complex multidimensional decision, which must consider, among other factors, the rarity of the habitat in its surrounding landscape, the occurrence of rare species, and TreMs into account, factors which are more easily observed by an expert than in a technical index like the SSCI, which is purely focused on the stand.…”

Resolving the trade-off between production and biodiversity conservation in integrated forest management: comparing tree selection practices of foresters and conservationists

“…Only recently studies emerged, indicating i.a. that several factors related to individual's expertise can be important for tree selection (Cosyns et al 2018;Pommerening et al 2018;Spinelli et al 2016;Vitkova et al 2016). Correspondingly, empirical implementation research points to the crucial role of forest managers for the success of integrated nature conservation policies.…”

“…Analysing both quantitative data on tree characteristics and qualitative justifications of tree selection decisions together provides novel insights into how which trees are selected by different relevant professional groups. By doing so, this article goes beyond existing studies on tree selection which solely rely on quantitative data (Cosyns et al 2018;Pommerening et al 2018;Spinelli et al 2016;Vitkova et al 2016), and aims to also provide insights into the motivations for tree selection. The latter is specifically relevant for conservation policy to guide practical implementation of integrated forest management strategies.…”