1. No category

Seminatural forestry combined with
Reserves: a success story for biodiversity
Conservation?
Asko Lõhmus
& the Conservation Biology Group,
University of Tartu
Contents:
simple
complex
Theory
Real
story
Future
Theory: combining conservation and
forestry toolboxes at landscape scale
Biodiversity values
Society’s demands
•
•
•
•
ecosystems
species
genes
goods and services
Land allocation
e.g. TRIAD approach
Seymour & Hunter 1999
Set-asides
•
•
•
•
area
zoning
spatial pattern
active mgmnt
Managed forests
Monitoring
•
•
indicators
communication
•
•
•
•
plantations
multiple use
silvicultural systems
silviculture
The necessity for broad-scale success stories
• to combine historical, socio-economic, and ecological realities
• „anachronistic“ approaches prevail
Legacy
approach
European
„time-machine“
Angelstam et al. 2011 Forestry.
?
„Living“
sustainable
reality
Planning
approach
Pacific Northwest
restoration plan
Franklin & Johnson 2012 J. For..
The case of Estonia
Key Facts
49% of land cover
Biodiversity: ca. 20,000 species
Economy: 4% GDP (8% export; net exporter)
State-owned forest: 41%,
all FSC-certified
Zoning: 10% strictly
protected + 15%
restricted-management
EEA 2014; Statistics Estonia ; Lõhmus et al. 2004 Ecol. Bull.
Moderate-input
• …
seminatural
forestry
90% clear-felling origin
ditch maintenance
92% nat. regenerated
2% thinned annually
no herbicides, fertilizers
84% mixed forest
23% multi-aged
40% wetland drained
60% 31-90 yrs
>600 ha
wildfire
annually
1. Large carnivores (integrity)
FOREST RESERVES
Populations (hunted):
• wolf – 200 (78)
• brown bear – 550 (38)
• lynx – 400 (16)
Genetic barriers detected:
• islands only
Lynx: 90% quality habitat
outside reserves
Külvik et al. 2003 Adv. Ecol. Sci.; Hindrikson et al. 2013 PLoS ONE;
EEA 2014; R. Kont, M. Keis et al. 2015 / LOORA
2. Polypore fungi (dead wood / manag. intensity)
Downed DW
(mixed forest)
Species richness declines:
• 15% with thinning
• 9%–22% with artificial
regeneration
• 1st generation forest
thinned
No. of polypore species
45
40
R2 = 0.55
35
30
2-ha plots
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
25
50
75
100
125
Logs, m3 / ha
150
175
200
Lõhmus & Kraut 2010 For. Ecol. Manag.; Lõhmus 2011 J. For. Res. +
unpubl.; Lõhmus et al. 2013 Eur. J. For. Res.; Sellis 2014 M. Sc.
3. Saproxylic beetles (retention harvest)
Critical habitat outside reserves:
• most species prefer early-successional sites, notably retention cuts;
• substrate seldom limits; no stand-scale thresholds
Preferences of 34 modelled species
A. Kraut et al. , in prep.
4. Woodpeckers (regeneration retrospective)
• long-term increases, supported by tree-species mixtures
• protected areas as „back-ups“
– no density differences when accounting for tree composition
Three-toed WP
White-backed WP
Lõhmus et al. , submitted
5. Amphibians (hydrology)
Semi-open or sparsely wooded wetland
Large undrained reserve
Artificial drainage
Closed stand
Natural habitat
Ecological trap
Lost habitat
Clear-cutting,
road building
Novel habitat
Suislepp et al. 2011 For. Ecol. Manag.; Remm et al. 2015 Boreal Envir. Res.; E. Soomets, unpubl. data
• Predation, possibly combined with
landscape change
Lahemaa NP
population
– all grouse species
• Loss of forest-meadow mosaics and
wooded grasslands
– Green Woodpecker (Picus viridis)
a most abundant woodpecker → small
island population remaining
Improving retention forestry?
E. Aomets
Managing predators or their access?
E. Kask
6. Long-term declines (specific causes)
Conclusions
When supported by reserves, biodiversity conservation can be
successfully integrated with viable forestry sector.
***
Seminatural forestry can sustain many „matrix“ habitats, but
intensities (input; expectations) matter much.
At best, reserves serve specific goals and provide ‘backup’
habitats, rather than carrying the critical load.
Multiple focal taxon groups provide unique guidance in terms of
limiting factors and the management success and priorities.