These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Conservation value of low-productivity forests measured as the amount and diversity of dead wood and saproxylic beetles.
    Author: Hämäläinen A, Strengbom J, Ranius T.
    Journal: Ecol Appl; 2018 Jun; 28(4):1011-1019. PubMed ID: 29446863.
    Abstract:
    In many managed landscapes, low-productivity land comprises most of the remaining relatively untouched areas, and is often over-represented within protected areas. The relationship between the productivity and conservational value of a site is poorly known; however, it has been hypothesized that biodiversity increases with productivity due to higher resource abundance or heterogeneity, and that the species communities of low-productivity land are a nested subset of communities from more productive land. We tested these hypotheses for dead-wood-dependent beetles by comparing their species richness and composition, as well as the amount and diversity of dead wood, between low-productivity (potential forest growth <1 m3 ·ha-1 ·yr-1 ) and high-productivity Scots pine-dominated stands in Sweden. We included four stand types: stands situated on (1) thin soils and (2) mires (both low-productivity), (3) managed stands, and (4) unmanaged stands set aside for conservation purposes (both high-productivity). Beetle species richness and number of red-listed species were highest in the high-productivity set-asides. Species richness was positively correlated with the volume and diversity of dead wood, but volume appeared to be a better predictor than diversity for the higher species richness in set-asides. Beetle species composition was similar among stand types, and the assemblages in low-productivity stands were largely subsets of those in high-productivity set-asides. However, 11% of all species and 40% of red-listed species only occurred in high-productivity stands, while no species were unique to low-productivity stands. We conclude that low-productivity forests are less valuable for conservation than high-productivity forest land. Given the generally similar species composition among stand types, a comparable conservational effect could be obtained by setting aside a larger area of low-productivity forest in comparison to the high-productivity. In terms of dead wood volumes, 1.8-3.6 ha of low-productivity forest has the same value as 1 ha of unmanaged high-productivity forest. This figure can be used to estimate the conservation value of low-productivity forests; however, as high-productivity forests harbored some unique species, they are not completely exchangeable.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]