How hot are retention patches as structural hotspots? : comparing key elements for biodiversity in retention patches and reference forest stands
Sweden’s historical and current forestry regime has created structurally simplified forest stands with little resemblance of boreal old-growth forests, leading to a decline in many forest dwelling species. Retention forestry was introduced to counteract the negative development by retaining biol...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | H2 |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
SLU/Dept. of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies
2022
|
| Materias: |
| _version_ | 1855572969875570688 |
|---|---|
| author | Östlund, Maja |
| author_browse | Östlund, Maja |
| author_facet | Östlund, Maja |
| author_sort | Östlund, Maja |
| collection | Epsilon Archive for Student Projects |
| description | Sweden’s historical and current forestry regime has created structurally simplified
forest stands with little resemblance of boreal old-growth forests, leading to a
decline in many forest dwelling species. Retention forestry was introduced to
counteract the negative development by retaining biologically important forest
elements. Retention patches are intact forest areas left to represent conditions in the
pre-harvest stand for harbouring of threatened species and structurally enriching
managed forests. However, many biodiversity preservation goals connected to
forests remain unfulfilled, which indicate a need for evaluation of what is retained
during harvest and possible influences on why. I used the Swedish Forest Agency
method for inventorying woodland key habitats to evaluate differences in substrate
supply, conservational quality and physical prerequisites in retention patches
compared to structurally similar reference forest stands located in spruce�dominated boreal forests in Hälsingland, Sweden. My results showed how retention
patches scored lower in the natural value assessment, contained less deciduous live
conservation trees and less coarse deadwood. In general, substrate amounts are
either lower or indifferent in retention patches compared to in reference forests,
indicating that retention patches are not structural hotspots. If retention patches do
not hold equal conservation values as the pre-harvest stand, the forest landscape
would continuously be impoverished, and the threatened species disfavoured. The
structure of retention patches, underlying causes of retention decisions, and
following implications for biodiversity need further studying to ensure that areas
with the highest conservational importance are preserved. |
| format | H2 |
| id | RepoSLU17886 |
| institution | Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publishDateSort | 2022 |
| publisher | SLU/Dept. of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies |
| publisherStr | SLU/Dept. of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies |
| record_format | eprints |
| spelling | RepoSLU178862022-07-01T01:03:25Z How hot are retention patches as structural hotspots? : comparing key elements for biodiversity in retention patches and reference forest stands Östlund, Maja retention forestry retention patches deadwood live conservation trees retention forestry biodiversity preservation substrate diversity Sweden’s historical and current forestry regime has created structurally simplified forest stands with little resemblance of boreal old-growth forests, leading to a decline in many forest dwelling species. Retention forestry was introduced to counteract the negative development by retaining biologically important forest elements. Retention patches are intact forest areas left to represent conditions in the pre-harvest stand for harbouring of threatened species and structurally enriching managed forests. However, many biodiversity preservation goals connected to forests remain unfulfilled, which indicate a need for evaluation of what is retained during harvest and possible influences on why. I used the Swedish Forest Agency method for inventorying woodland key habitats to evaluate differences in substrate supply, conservational quality and physical prerequisites in retention patches compared to structurally similar reference forest stands located in spruce�dominated boreal forests in Hälsingland, Sweden. My results showed how retention patches scored lower in the natural value assessment, contained less deciduous live conservation trees and less coarse deadwood. In general, substrate amounts are either lower or indifferent in retention patches compared to in reference forests, indicating that retention patches are not structural hotspots. If retention patches do not hold equal conservation values as the pre-harvest stand, the forest landscape would continuously be impoverished, and the threatened species disfavoured. The structure of retention patches, underlying causes of retention decisions, and following implications for biodiversity need further studying to ensure that areas with the highest conservational importance are preserved. SLU/Dept. of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies 2022 H2 eng https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/17886/ |
| spellingShingle | retention forestry retention patches deadwood live conservation trees retention forestry biodiversity preservation substrate diversity Östlund, Maja How hot are retention patches as structural hotspots? : comparing key elements for biodiversity in retention patches and reference forest stands |
| title | How hot are retention patches
as structural hotspots? : comparing key elements for biodiversity in
retention patches and reference forest
stands |
| title_full | How hot are retention patches
as structural hotspots? : comparing key elements for biodiversity in
retention patches and reference forest
stands |
| title_fullStr | How hot are retention patches
as structural hotspots? : comparing key elements for biodiversity in
retention patches and reference forest
stands |
| title_full_unstemmed | How hot are retention patches
as structural hotspots? : comparing key elements for biodiversity in
retention patches and reference forest
stands |
| title_short | How hot are retention patches
as structural hotspots? : comparing key elements for biodiversity in
retention patches and reference forest
stands |
| title_sort | how hot are retention patches
as structural hotspots? : comparing key elements for biodiversity in
retention patches and reference forest
stands |
| topic | retention forestry retention patches deadwood live conservation trees retention forestry biodiversity preservation substrate diversity |