Management diversification increases habitat availability for multiple biodiversity indicator species in production forests

R Duflot,M Mönkkönen,K Eyvindson

doi:10.1007/s10980-021-01375-8

R Duflot, M Mönkkönen + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01375-8

Copy DOI

Abstract

ContextForest biodiversity is closely linked to habitat heterogeneity, while forestry actions often cause habitat homogenization. Alternative approaches to even-aged management were developed to restore habitat heterogeneity at the stand level, but how their application could promote habitat diversity at landscape scale remains uncertain.ObjectivesWe tested the potential benefit of diversifying management regimes to increase landscape-level heterogeneity. We hypothesize that different styles of forest management would create a diverse mosaic of forest habitats that would in turn benefit species with various habitat requirements.MethodsForest stands were simulated under business-as-usual management, set-aside (no management) and 12 alternative management regimes. We created virtual landscapes following diversification scenarios to (i) compare the individual performance of management regimes (no diversification), and (ii) test for the management diversification hypothesis at different levels of set-aside. For each virtual landscape, we evaluated habitat availability of six biodiversity indicator species, multispecies habitat availability, and economic values of production.ResultsEach indicator species responded differently to management regimes, with no single regime being optimal for all species at the same time. Management diversification led to a 30% gain in multispecies habitat availability, relative to business-as-usual management. By selecting a subset of five alternative management regimes with high potential for biodiversity, gains can reach 50%.ConclusionsVarious alternative management regimes offer diverse habitats for different biodiversity indicator species. Management diversification can yield large gains in multispecies habitat availability with no or low economic cost, providing a potential cost-effective biodiversity tool if the management regimes are thoughtfully selected.

Highlights

Landscape heterogeneity, i.e. the variation of ecological conditions in space and time, offers opportunities for ecological communities with various environmental requirements to co-exist at landscape level
Management diversification led to a 30% gain in multispecies habitat availability, relative to business-as-usual management
Landscapes that have been under intensive human use, for instance in the European boreal and temperate forests, experience a simplification of habitats at stand and landscape scales, threatening forest biodiversity (Kuuluvainen 2002; Kuuluvainen and Gauthier 2018)

Summary

Introduction

I.e. the variation of ecological conditions in space and time, offers opportunities for ecological communities with various environmental requirements to co-exist at landscape level. In forest landscapes under natural dynamics, heterogeneity is provided and maintained by disturbances at different spatial scales such as forest fires, wind throws, and local-scale gap dynamics (Angelstam 1998; Kuuluvainen 2002, 2009; Bouget and Duelli 2004; Schutz et al 2016). Fire suppression and the use of harvesting cycles (rotation length) shorter than tree life span have drastically reduced natural disturbances, while tree planting and seedling, tree selection and harvesting of timber (clear-felling or partial cuts) results in reduced tree species diversity and absence of important natural disturbance legacies (Bengtsson et al 2000; Odion and Sarr 2007; Schutz et al 2016). Forest management modifies the age-class distribution, with a much larger area with early successional stage and a drastic reduction of mature or old forest, as compared to natural forests (Kuuluvainen and Gauthier 2018). In more recently exploited forest landscapes, e.g. in North-American forests, timber extraction may increase heterogeneity by creating open and early stage forest habitats ( perhaps degraded)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion