Size of nature reserves: Densities of large trees and dead wood indicate high value of small conservation forests in southern Sweden

Biodiversity and Conservation

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 1271-1285

  Götmark, Frank ^a   Thorell, Maria ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Conservation strategy; Dead wood; Forest; Large trees; Reserve size

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; DEAD WOOD; DENSITY; FOREST; HABITAT TYPE; NATURE RESERVE; SIZE;

SWEDEN;

AVES; COLEOPTERA; TRACHEOPHYTA;

EID: 0038745704     PISSN: 09603115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023000224642     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ahti T., Hämet-Ahti L. and Jalas J. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Annales Botanici Fennici 5: 169-211.
2. Ås S. 1993. Are habitat islands islands? Woodliving beetles (Coleoptera) in deciduous forest fragments in boreal forest. Ecography 16: 219-228.
3. Ås S. 1999. Invasion of matrix species in small habitat patches. Conservation Ecology 3 http://www.consecol.org: 1.
4. Berg Å. and Tjernberg M. 1996. Common and rare Swedish vertebrates - distribution and habitat preferences. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 101-128.
5. Berg Å., Ehnström B., Gustafsson L., Hallingbäck T., Jonsell M. and Weslien J. 1994. Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. Conservation Biology 8: 718-731.
6. Bücking W. 1997. Natural forest, strict forest reserves, wilderness areas in Germany and in Europe. Forst und Holz 52 (in German with English summary): 515-522.
7. Cowling R.M. and Bond W.J. 1991. How small can reserves be? An empirical approach in Cape Fynbos, South Africa. Biological Conservation 58: 243-256.
8. Desender K., Ervynck A. and Tack G. 1999. Beetle diversity and historical ecology of woodlands in Flanders. Belgian Journal of Zoology 129: 139-155.
9. Diamond J. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographical studies for the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 7: 129-145.
10. Esseen P.-A., Ehnström B., Ericsson L. and Sjöberg K. 1997. Boreal forests. In: Hansson L. (ed.), Boreal Ecosystems and Landscapes: Structures, Processes and Conservation of Biodiversity. Ecological Bulletin No. 46, pp. 16-47.
11. Fischer J. and Lindenmayer D.B. 2002. Small patches can be valuable for biodiversity conservation: two case studies on birds in southeastern Australia. Biological Conservation 106: 129-136.
12. Forman R.T.T. 1999. Land Mosaics - The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
13. Götmark F. and Nilsson C. 1992. Criteria used for protection of natural areas in Sweden 1909-1986. Conservation Biology 6: 220-231.
14. Götmark F., Söderlundh H. and Thorell M. 2000. Buffer zones for forest reserves: opinions of land owners and conservation value of their forest around nature reserves in southern Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1377-1390.
15. Gustafsson L., de Jong J. and Norén M. 1999. Evaluation of Swedish woodland key habitats using red-listed bryophytes and lichens. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1101-1114.
16. Halme E. and Niemelä J. 1993. Carabid beetles in fragments of coniferous forest. Annales Zoologici Fennici 30: 17-30.
17. Hannah L., Carr J.L. and Lankerani A. 1995. Human disturbance and natural habitat: a biome level analysis of a global data set. Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 128-155.
18. Hanski I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
19. Harmon M.E. et al. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15: 133-302.
20. Helliwell D.R. 1976. The effects of size and isolation on the conservation value of wooded sites in Britain. Journal of Biogeography 3: 407-416.
21. Honnay O., Hermy M. and Coppin P. 1999. Effects of area, age and diversity of forest patches in Belgium on plant species richness, and implications for conservation and reforestation. Biological Conservation 87: 73-84.
22. Howlett R. and Dhand R. 2000. Insight: Biodiversity. Nature 405: 207-253.
23. IUCN 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
24. Jonsell M., Weslien J. and Ehnström B. 1998. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 749-764.
25. Keddy P.A. and Drummond C.G. 1996. Ecological properties for the evaluation, management, and restoration of temperate deciduous forest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 6: 748-762.
26. Lawesson J.E., de Blust G., Grashof C., Firbank L., Honnay O., Hermy M. et al. 1998. Species diversity and area-relationships in Danish beech forests. Forest Ecology and Management 106: 235-245.
27. Loman J. and von Schantz T. 1991. Birds in a farmland - more species in small than in large habitat islands. Conservation Biology 5: 176-188.
28. Margules C. and Pressey R.L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243-253.
29. Margules C. and Usher M. 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biological Conservation 21: 79-109.
30. Mason C.F. 2001. Woodland area, species turnover and the conservation of bird assemblages in lowland England. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 495-510.
31. McComb W. and Lindenmayer D. 1999. Dying, dead and down trees. In: Hunter M. (ed.), Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 335-372.
32. Mcffe G. and Carroll R. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Press, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
33. National Board of Forestry 1995. Instruktion för datainsamling vid inventering av nyckelbiotoper. NBF, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish).
34. National Board of Forestry 1997. Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Official Statistics of Sweden. NBF, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish and English; www.svo.se).
35. National Board of Forestry 1999. Nyckelbiotopsinventeringen 1993-1998. Slutrapport. Meddelande 1-1999. NBF, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish).
36. Nee S. 1994. How populations persist. Nature 367: 123-124.
37. Nilsson C. and Götmark F. 1992. Protected areas in Sweden: is natural variety adequately represented? Conservation Biology 6: 232-242.
38. Nilsson S.G. 1997. Forests in the temperate-boreal transition: natural and man-made features. In: Hansson L. (ed.), Boreal Ecosystems and Landscapes: Structures, Processes and Conservation of Biodiversity. Ecological Bulletin No. 46, pp. 61-70.
39. Nilsson S.G., Arup U., Baranowski R. and Ekman S. 1995. Tree-dependent lichens and beetles as indicators in conservation forests. Conservation Biology 9: 1208-1215.
40. Noss R.F. and Cooperrider A.Y. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.
41. Pelletier J.D. 2000. Model assessment of the optimal design of nature reserves for maximizing species longevity. Journal of Theoretical Biology 202: 25-32.
42. Peterken G. 1996. Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
43. Pressey R.L. 1994. Ad hoc reservation: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems? Conservation Biology 8: 662-668.
44. Ranius T. and Jansson N. 2000. The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy cover and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biological Conservation 95: 85-94.
45. Samuelsson J., Gustafsson L. and Ingelög T. 1994. Dying and Dead Trees: A Review of Their Importance for Biodiversity. Swedish Threatened Species Unit, Agricultural University, Uppsala.
46. Shafer C.L. 1990. Nature Reserves: Island Theory and Conservation Practice. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
47. Shafer C.L. 1995. Values and shortcomings of small reserves. BioScience 45: 80-88.
48. Schwartz M.W. 1999. Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 83-108.
49. Schwartz M.W. and van Mantgem P.J. 1997. The value of small preserves in chronically fragmented landscapes. In: Schwartz M.W., Conservation in Highly Fragmented Landscapes. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp. 379-394.
50. SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) 1997. Skogsreservat i Sverige. Naturvårdsverket Rapport No. 4707 (in Swedish).
51. Simberloff D. and Gotelli N. 1984. Effects of insularisation on plants species richness in the prairie-forest ecotone. Biological Conservation 29: 27-46.
52. SOU (Swedish Public Reports) 1997. Skydd av skogsmark (Report 97), and Bilagor (Report 98). Miljödepartementet, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).
53. Soulé M.E. and Simberloff D. 1986. What do genetics and ecology tell us about the design of nature reserves? Biological Conservation 35: 19-40.
54. Soulé M.E. and Terborgh J. 1999a. Conserving nature at regional and continental scales - a scientific program for North America. BioScience 49: 809-817.
55. Soulé M.E. and Terborgh J. (eds) 1999b. Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Island Press, Washington, DC.
56. Turner I.M. and Corlett R.T. 1996. The conservation value of small, isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 330-333.
57. Warren M.S. and Key R.S. 1991. Woodlands: past, present and potential for insects. In: Collins N.M. and Thomas J.A. (eds), The Conservation of Insects and their Habitats. Academic Press, London, pp. 155-211.
58. Wu J.G. and Vanka J.L. 1991. An area-based model of species richness dynamics of forest islands. Ecological Modelling 58: 249-271.