miun.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
What is the impact of active management on biodiversity in boreal and temperate forests set aside for conservation or restoration?: A systematic map
Mistra Council for Evidence-Based Environmental Management, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden .
Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Natural Sciences.
Metsähallitus Parks and Wildlife Finland, C/o UEF, P.O. Box 111, Joensuu, Finland .
Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, Tartu University, Vanemuise 46, Tartu, Estonia .
Show others and affiliations
2015 (English)In: Environmental Evidence, ISSN 2047-2382, E-ISSN 2047-2382, Vol. 4, no 1, 25Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Resource type
Text
Abstract [en]

Background: The biodiversity of forests set aside from forestry is often considered best preserved by non-intervention. In many protected forests, however, remaining biodiversity values are legacies of past disturbances, e.g. recurring fires, grazing or small-scale felling. These forests may need active management to keep the characteristics that were the reason for setting them aside. Such management can be particularly relevant where lost ecological values need to be restored. In this review, we identified studies on a variety of interventions that could be useful for conserving or restoring any aspect of forest biodiversity in boreal and temperate regions. Since the review is based on Swedish initiatives, we have focused on forest types that are represented in Sweden, but such forests exist in many parts of the world. The wide scope of the review means that the set of studies is quite heterogeneous. As a first step towards a more complete synthesis, therefore, we have compiled a systematic map. Such a map gives an overview of the evidence base by providing a database with descriptions of relevant studies, but it does not synthesise reported results. Methods: Searches for literature were made using online publication databases, search engines, specialist websites and literature reviews. Search terms were developed in English, Finnish, French, German, Russian and Swedish. We searched not only for studies of interventions in actual forest set-asides, but also for appropriate evidence from commercially managed forests, since some practices applied there may be useful for conservation or restoration purposes too. Identified articles were screened for relevance using criteria set out in an a priori protocol. Descriptions of included studies are available in an Excel file, and also in an interactive GIS application that can be accessed at an external website. Results: Our searches identified nearly 17,000 articles. The 798 articles that remained after screening for relevance described 812 individual studies. Almost two-thirds of the included studies were conducted in North America, whereas most of the rest were performed in Europe. Of the European studies, 58 % were conducted in Finland or Sweden. The interventions most commonly studied were partial harvesting, prescribed burning, thinning, and grazing or exclusion from grazing. The outcomes most frequently reported were effects of interventions on trees, other vascular plants, dead wood, vertical stand structure and birds. Outcome metrics included e.g. abundance, richness of species (or genera), diversity indices, and community composition based on ordinations. Conclusions: This systematic map identifies a wealth of evidence on the impact of active management practices that could be utilised to conserve or restore biodiversity in forest set-asides. As such it should be of value to e.g. conservation managers, researchers and policymakers. Moreover, since the map also highlights important knowledge gaps, it could inspire new primary research on topics that have so far not been well covered. Finally, it provides a foundation for systematic reviews on specific subtopics. Based on our map of the evidence, we identified four subtopics that are sufficiently covered by existing studies to allow full systematic reviewing, potentially including meta-analysis. © 2015 Bernes et al.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 4, no 1, 25
Keyword [en]
Biodiversity, Boreal forest, Browsing, Dead wood, Disturbance legacy, Forest conservation, Forest reserve, Forest restoration, Forest set-aside, Grazing, Habitat management, Partial harvesting, Prescribed burning, Temperate forest, Thinning
National Category
Ecology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-26907DOI: 10.1186/s13750-015-0050-7Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84952330057OAI: oai:DiVA.org:miun-26907DiVA: diva2:897339
Note

Article

Available from: 2016-01-25 Created: 2016-01-25 Last updated: 2016-12-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(3386 kB)15 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 3386 kBChecksum SHA-512
18b7c5d40eaeb3f8db1a5df4440b91e881684dead40671af309b103518b7648b76c61232c991681a266429e46b6e68d158b8ef6cb92a0072e8051098e230bde7
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jonsson, Bengt-GunnarSandström, Jennie
By organisation
Department of Natural Sciences
In the same journal
Environmental Evidence
Ecology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 15 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 158 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf