Setting, implementing, and monitoring targets as a basis for adaptive management: a Canadian forestry case study

Adaptive management: where are we now?

“…Active AM was framed by some as a process in which different management actions designed to achieve a specified goal are tested simultaneously, akin to experimental treatments (see Bryan et al 2009;Dzus et al 2009). Most did not specify the need to test a range of options simultaneously, but focused on learning as an explicit objective of management being the key differentiating feature (for example Bond & Loomis 2009;Lawler 2009;Owens 2009).…”

Nest-site selection by old boreal forest cavity excavators as a basis for structural retention guidelines in spatially-aggregated harvests

“…Scenario modelling suggests that retention levels recommended for aggregated harvests based on post-fire residuals (5-20%; Eberhart and Woodard, 1987;Smyth et al, 2005) will be insufficient to conserve habitat for yellowbellied sapsucker, pileated woodpecker, black-capped chickadee, and northern flying squirrel across a larger region (100,000s ha) over the long term (150 years) (Cooke, 2009). Scenario modelling also indicates that maintaining old forest within the range of natural variability for Al-Pac's FMA (56,000 km 2 ) cannot be achieved over the long term (>60 years) if annual allowable cuts are not constrained (Dzus et al, 2009). Thus, while structural retention can achieve our conservation goal of retaining or 'life boating' old forest cavity users in the short-term, additional regional strategies are required over the long term.…”

“…This approach assumes that impacts of harvesting on biodiversity will be ameliorated if harvesting approximates the natural disturbances under which biota evolved (Hunter, 1993;Lindenmayer and Franklin, 2002;Seymour and Hunter, 1999). In the boreal plains of Canada, efforts to minimize risks to forest biodiversity also include spatial aggregation of cutblocks into large (1000s ha) harvest units, which approximates landscape patterns associated with large fire disturbances (Dzus et al, 2009;. In addition to these coarse-filter approaches, habitat requirements of species sensitive to traditional harvest practices may be used as fine-filter guides to structural retention (Hunter, 2005;Lee and Bradbury, 2002;Lindenmayer and Franklin, 2002).…”

Do aggregated harvests with structural retention conserve the cavity web of old upland forest in the boreal plains?

“…For many birds and mammals associated with old boreal forest, residual trees and patches offer habitat 'lifeboats' in small, recently harvested cutblocks (Fisher and Wilkinson, 2005;Mahon et al, 2008;Schieck and Song, 2006;Serrouya and D'Eon, 2004;Vanderwel et al, 2009). At the landscape scale, forestry companies maintain heterogeneity by harvesting along existing stand boundaries and increasing the range of cutblock sizes to better approximate natural patterns (Bergeron et al, 2002;Dzus et al, 2009;Hunter, 1993;Lee et al, 2002;Sougavinski and Doyon, 2005). Landscape patterns associated with large fire disturbances in Canada's western boreal forest are approximated by spatially aggregating cutblocks into large (1000s ha) harvest units (Dzus et al, 2009;Lee et al, 2002).…”

“…At the landscape scale, forestry companies maintain heterogeneity by harvesting along existing stand boundaries and increasing the range of cutblock sizes to better approximate natural patterns (Bergeron et al, 2002;Dzus et al, 2009;Hunter, 1993;Lee et al, 2002;Sougavinski and Doyon, 2005). Landscape patterns associated with large fire disturbances in Canada's western boreal forest are approximated by spatially aggregating cutblocks into large (1000s ha) harvest units (Dzus et al, 2009;Lee et al, 2002). Compared with small cutblocks, these large planning units can accommodate a greater range of residual patch sizes (from single trees to 100s ha) (Lee et al, 2002), which may improve the value of retained structure for old forest species.…”