Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:39:28.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The temporal and spatial challenges of target setting for dynamic habitats: the case of dead wood and saproxylic species in boreal forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson  and
Thomas Ranius
Edited by
Marc-André Villard  and
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Affiliation:
Sweden University, Sweden
Thomas Ranius
Affiliation:
University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
Marc-André Villard
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton, Canada
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Affiliation:
Mid-Sweden University, Sweden
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Habitats for species vary substantially in their stability, whether temporally or spatially. Some habitats, such as rocks and lakes, may be present for centuries and only subject to changes in climate, whereas others, such as dung patches or carcasses, may be available only for a single season or even shorter. This variation in predictability constitutes an important selective force for associated species. It has been suggested that the habitat is the template for ecological strategies (Southwood 1977). In this sense, individuals of a species are confronted with the challenge of determining whether reproduction is best achieved “here” or “somewhere else” as well as “now” or “sometime in the future”. By addressing these tradeoffs, the successful reproductive strategy will represent the life history of the species. Species adapted to long-lasting, predictable habitats are expected to generally be more sedentary; for them, the spatial distribution of the habitat is particularly important. This is a basic ecological starting point for appreciating the need to include time and space to a greater extent in forest conservation management. If only total habitat amount is considered, but the temporal and spatial distribution is ignored, important factors influencing the long-term viability of focal species will be missed and thus, at least for some species, the risk of decline and extinction will be severely underestimated.

Type
Chapter
Information
Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes , pp. 207 - 226
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akçakaya, H. R., Radeloff, V. C., Mladenoff, D. J. and He, H. S.. 2004. Integrating landscape and metapopulation modeling approaches: viability of the sharp-tailed grouse in a dynamic landscape. Conservation Biology 18:526–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akçakaya, H. R., Franklin, J., Syphard, A. D. and Stephenson, J. R.. 2005. Viability of Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli ssp. belli): altered fire regimes. Ecological Applications 15:521–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, M., Dahlin, B. and Mossberg, M.. 2005. The forest time machine – a multi-purpose forest management decision-support system. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 49:114–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, H. and Jonsson, B. G.. 2001. Predictability of plant and fungi species richness in relation to area, isolation and stand structure of old-growth forest islands. Journal of Vegetation Science 12:857–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, H., Edman, M. and Ericson, L.. 2005. Temporal variation of wood-fungi diversity in boreal old-growth forests: implications for monitoring. Ecological Applications 15:970–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, K.-O. 2003. Bedömning avlångsiktig överlevnad för hotade arter knutna till ekar på Händelö i Norrköpings kommun. Norrköping, Sweden: Gatu-och parkkontoret [In Swedish.]Google Scholar
Bütler, R., Angelstam, P. and Schlaepfer, R.. 2004. Quantitative targets for the three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus. Ecological Bulletins 51:219–32.Google Scholar
Caswell, H. 2000. Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd edn. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, A. and Stokland, J.. 2004. Vedlevande arters krav på substrat – en sammanställning och analys av 3600 arter. Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping. [In Swedish.]Google Scholar
Dobbertin, M. and Biging, G. S.. 1998. Using the non-parametric classifier CART to model forest tree mortality. Forest Science 44:507–16.Google Scholar
Edman, M., Kruys, N. and Jonsson, B. G.. 2004a. Local dispersal sources strongly affect colonisation patterns of wood-decaying fungi on experimental logs. Ecological Applications 14:893–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edman, M., Gustafsson, M., Stenlid, J. and Ericson, L.. 2004b. Abundance and viability of fungal spores along a forestry gradient – responses to habitat loss and isolation?Oikos 104:35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edman, M., Möller, R. and Ericson, L.. 2006. Effects of enhanced tree growth rate on the decay capacities of three saprotrophic wood-fungi. Forest Ecology and Management 232:12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edman, M., Jönsson, M. and Jonsson, B. G.. 2007. Small-scale fungal- and wind-mediated disturbances strongly influence the temporal availability of logs in an old-growth Picea abies forest. Ecological Applications 17:482–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliasson, P. and Nilsson, S. G.. 2002. “You should hate young oaks and young noblemen”. The environmental history of oaks in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Sweden. Environmental History 7:659–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, J. F., Spies, T. A., Pelt, R.et al. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management 155:399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridman, J. and Ståhl, G.. 2001. A three-step approach for modeling tree mortality in Swedish forests. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 16:455–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grove, S. J. 2002. Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, W., Heikkilä, R. and Hanski, I.. 2002. Estimating the consequences of habitat fragmentation on extinction risk in dynamic landscape. Landscape Ecology 17: 699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, M. H. 2002. Distribution and dispersal of wood-decaying fungi occurring on Norway spruce logs. Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Silvestria 246, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Hagan, J. M. and Grove, S. L.. 1999. Coarse woody debris: humans and nature competing for trees. Journal of Forestry 97:6–11.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. 2000. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37:271–80.Google Scholar
Harmon, M. E.et al. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15:133–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. D., Fahrig, L. and Cappuccino, N.. 2005. Body size affects the spatial scale of habitat-beetle interactions. Oikos 110:101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsson, B. G. 2000. Availability of coarse woody debris in an old-growth boreal spruce forest landscape. Journal of Vegetation Science 11:51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsson, M., Ranius, T., Ekvall, H.et al. 2006. Cost-effectiveness of silvicultural measures to increase substrate availability for red-listed wood-living organisms in Norway spruce forests. Biological Conservation 127:443–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keymer, J. E., Marquet, P. A., Velasco-Hernández, J. X. and Levin, S. A.. 2000. Extinction thresholds and metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes. American Naturalist 156:478–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krankina, O. N. and Harmon, M. E.. 1995. Dynamics of the dead wood carbon pool in northwestern Russian boreal forests. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 82:227–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruys, N., Jonsson, B. G. and Ståhl, G.. 2002. A stage-based matrix model for decomposition dynamics of woody debris. Ecological Applications 12:773–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal-species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B., Manning, A. D., Smith, P. L.et al. 2002 The focal-species approach and landscape restoration: a critique. Conservation Biology 16:338–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindhe, A. and Lindelöw, Å.. 2004. Cut high stumps of spruce, birch, aspen and oak as breeding substrates for saproxylic beetles. Forest Ecology and Management 203:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martikainen, P., Siitonen, J., Punttila, P., Kaila, L. and Rauh, J.. 2000. Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biological Conservation 94:199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellen, K., Marcot, B. G., Ohmann, J. L.et al. 2002. DecAID: A Decaying Wood Advisory Model for Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181:527–33.Google Scholar
Montes, F. and Canellas, I.. 2006. Modelling coarse woody debris dynamics in even-aged Scots pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management 221:220–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naesset, E. 1999. Decomposition rate constants of Picea abies logs in southeastern Norway. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:372–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Økland, B., Bakke, A., Hågvar, S. and Kvamme, T.. 1996. What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multiscaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranius, T. 2002. Influence of stand size and quality of tree hollows on saproxylic beetles in Sweden. Biological Conservation 103:85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranius, T. 2006. Measuring the dispersal of saproxylic insects: a key characteristic for their conservation. Population Ecology 48:177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranius, T. and Fahrig, L.. 2006. Targets for maintenance of dead wood for biodiversity conservation based on extinction thresholds. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 21:201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranius, T. 2007. Extinction risks in metapopulations of a beetle inhabiting hollow trees predicted from time series. Ecography 30:716–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranius, T. and Kindvall, O.. 2004. Modelling the amount of coarse woody debris produced by the new biodiversity-oriented silvicultural practices in Sweden. Biological Conservation 119:51–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranius, T. and Kindvall, O.. 2006. Extinction risk of wood-living model species in forest landscapes as related to forest history and conservation strategy. Landscape Ecology 21: 687–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranius, T., Kindvall, O., Kruys, N. and Jonsson, B. G.. 2003. Modelling dead wood in Norway spruce stands subject to different management regimes. Forest Ecology and Management 182:13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranius, T., Kruys, N. and Jonsson, B. G.. 2004. Estimation of woody debris quantity in European natural boreal forests – a modeling approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34:1025–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, J.-M. 2006. Umbrella species as a conservation planning tool. An assessment using resident birds in hemiboreal and boreal forests. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Conservation Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Roberge, J.-M. and Angelstam, P.. 2003. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology 18:76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, L. M., Ranius, T., Ekbom, B. and Larsson, S.. 2007. Spatial occurrence in a habitat-tracking metapopulation of a saproxylic beetle inhabiting a managed forest landscape. Ecological Applications 17:900–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultze, L. A., Mitchell, R. J., Hunter, M. L.et al. 2006. Evaluating the conceptual tools for forest biodiversity conservation and their implementation in the US. Forest Ecology and Management 232:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siitonen, J. 2001. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins 49:11–42.Google Scholar
Snäll, T. P. J. Ribeiro and Rydin, H.. 2003. Spatial occurrence and colonisations in patch-tracking metapopulations: local conditions versus dispersal. Oikos 103:566–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snäll, T., Pennanen, J., Kivistö, L. and Hanski, I.. 2005. Modelling epiphyte metapopulation dynamics in a dynamic forest landscape. Oikos 109:209–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. 1977. Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies?Journal of Animal Ecology 46:337–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokland, J. N., Eriksen, R., Tomter, S. M.et al. 2003. Forest biodiversity indicators in the Nordic countries. TemaNord 2003: 514. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
Stokland, J. N., Tomter, S. M. and Söderberg, U.. 2004. Development of dead wood indicators for biodiversity monitoring: experiences from Scandinavia. Pp. 205–26 in Marchetti, M. (ed.) Monitoring and Indicators of Forest Biodiversity in Europe – from Ideas to Operationality. EFI proceedings no. 51. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
Tarasov, M. E. and Birdsey, R. A.. 2001. Decay rate and potential storage of coarse woody debris in the Leningrad region. Ecological Bulletins 49:137–48.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. D. 1994. Extinction, colonization, and metapopulations: environmental tracking by rare species. Conservation Biology 8:373–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. D. and Hanski, I.. 1997. Butterfly metapopulations. Pp. 359–86 in Hanski, I. and Gilpin, M.-E. (eds.) Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, X. W. 1999. The decay of forest woody debris: numerical modeling and implications based on some 300 data cases from North America. Oecologia 121:81–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×