Woodland Key Habitats Research Articles

Evaluation frameworks and conservation system of Latvian forests

Since the 1990s the forest conservation system in Latvia has developedin two parallel trends. This reflects both traditional application ofcentral European phytosociology by explicit forest communities (at least 19 associations inLatvian forests) and the recently appreciated method of key-habitats in forests.It consists of two attributes: indicator species–habitat specialists andcertain abiotic structures whose persistent presence on the spot is limited byintactness, time-scale and natural disturbances. Following the interpretationmanual of habitats in the European Union, eight forest habitats deserve particularconservation in Latvia. Altogether 8% of Latvian forests are formally protected,although only 1.5% meet the World Conservation Union Category ‘1’where all human intervention must be excluded or minimized. Original analysis ofLatvian forest communities by their phytosociological standard and a comparisonwith similar assemblages elsewhere suggest that four forest groups deserveall-European conservation priority in Latvia because of intactness and largestands still survived or because of narrow distribution area. These are:Alnus glutinosa–Betula spp.–Fraxinus excelsior wetlands (ca. 3000 ha invarious formal reserve networks), northern outposts of mixed riverine hardwoodforests on the bank slopes and in semi-permanently moist ravines (ca. 240ha in reserves), floodplain and riverine Quercusrobur relic woodlands in eastern Latvia (ca. 120 ha inreserves) and dry Fennoscandian–Baltic Pinussylvestris woodlands on dolomites and limestones (no areas formallyprotected by law yet). Preliminary inventory of woodland key-habitats suggeststhat only 3% of Latvian forests can meet the desired criteria. This method,based on 53 indicator species indicating certain habitat properties and 25abiotic structures and stand features, has been found a valuable tool inforestry practice to evaluate the forest before any logging takes place and tomonitor spatial changes of biodiversity.

Red-listed and indicator lichens in woodland key habitats and production forests in Sweden

There are ca. 70 000 "woodland key habitats" (WKHs) in Sweden that according to definition should contain red-listed species, but their species content is seldom known. Indicator species are used as one tool to identify the WKHs. In two areas in southern Sweden red-listed and indicator lichen species were surveyed in line transects in a total of 25 WKHs (45 ha) and, for comparison, in 74 ha of surrounding production forest. Altogether 19 red-listed species, representing ca. 25% of the Swedish Red List forest lichen species so far recorded from the study areas, and 35 indicator species were found. Ninety-five percent of all records were epiphytic. The most evident result from this study was the large difference in the number of species records in the production forests between the two study areas. In contrast, the WKHs in both areas had a similar number of species records. The WKHs were expected to be significantly richer than the production forests in regard to the occurrence of indicator and red-listed species, but this was only found to be true in one of the areas. In both areas there was a tendency for the rarest red-listed species to be confined to the WKHs. Nestedness and correlation analyses suggested that Arthonia vinosa was a relevant indicator of red-listed lichens; however, Calicium parvum was found to be inappropriate as an indicator species. It is concluded that at the regional scale the production forest can host considerable amounts of indicator and red-listed lichen species but that the WKHs are important for the preservation of rare lichens.

Can 'continuity indicator species' predict species richness or red-listed species of saproxylic beetles?

This study investigates the relationship between the abundance of wood-rotting fungus suggested as 'continuity indicator species' and environmental variables for the assemblage of saproxylic (wood-living) beetles associated with Fomitopsis pinicola fruiting bodies in a mature spruce forest in southeastern Norway. The presence of species thought to indicate continuity in old growth is one of the criteria used when finding and delineating small protected areas ('woodland key habitats') in Scandinavian forestry. Although it is clear that remnants of old-growth forest are important for many taxa, documentation as to which entities or species the indicator species indeed indicate is scarce. If stands with a continuous and unbroken input of dead wood have a unique assemblage of wood-rotting fungi, it seems relevant to ask if these stands also have a unique assemblage of rare saproxylic beetles. I find that the indicator species exhibit no significant correlations with beetle species richness or with the presence of red-listed saproxylic beetles as a group. The different characteristics of dead wood conditions are the most important environmental variables that explain both the species richness and the presence of red-listed beetles. Single-species analyses reveal contrasting relationships. The red-listed beetle Atomaria alpina shows a significant and positive association to the abundance of indicator species. Contrary, a group of three red-listed species with similar ecology in the family Cisidae exhibits a significant and negative association to indicator species abundance. This indicates that important patterns are concealed when considering general measures such as overall presence of red-listed beetles. Single-species studies are necessary in order to correctly understand how rare beetles respond to forestry activities and to develop a policy that can secure their continuing existence in the boreal forest.

Red-listed and indicator lichens in woodland key habitats and production forests in Sweden

Red-listed and indicator lichens in woodland key habitats and production forests in Sweden

Red-listed species and indicators: vascular plants in woodland key habitats and surrounding production forests in Sweden

The estimated number of woodland key habitats (WKHs) in Sweden is 60 000–70 000. WKHs according to definition should contain red-listed species, but this is rarely investigated. Indicator species are used as one tool to identify the WKHs. In two forest regions in south-east Sweden with contrasting proportions of WKHs, red-listed and indicator vascular plant species were recorded in line transects and as a comparison also in surrounding production forests. 2370 recordings were made in 25 WKHs (45 ha) and in 74 ha production forest. Differences in vascular plant flora were small between WKHs and production forests within areas but were substantial for production forests between areas. Only one red-listed vascular plant species was found and in very small numbers. The results indicate that vascular plants are not optimal to use as indicators of WKHs and some species ought to be omitted from the indicator list. Methods to discern indicator species are discussed and the results are applied to practical forestry and conservation.

Evaluation of Swedish woodland key habitats using red-listed bryophytes and lichens

All Swedish forest land is at present being surveyed with the aim of mapping woodland key habitats which have an estimated number of ca. 70 000. An untested requirement of these habitats is that they should contain red-listed species. In order to investigate if they fulfill their aim, an inventory of nationally red-listed bryophytes and lichens was performed in ca. 120 randomly selected woodland key habitats distributed throughout the country. The species were recorded in line transects, covering the whole surface of the habitats. The mean number of red-listed species per habitat was 0.7 for bryophytes and 1.4 for lichens with 11 species at the richest site and 71% of the sites having at least one species. Nemoral forests and coniferous forests were the most species-rich habitat types. The habitats of northern Sweden were more species rich than the southern ones. There were weak correlations between presence of bryophytes and lichens. The study shows that a majority of the woodland key habitats contain red-listed bryophyte and lichen species. Further studies are needed in order to record more organism groups and to compare the woodland key habitats with the surrounding matrix forests.