Preadaptation and spatial effects on retention-tree survival in cut areas in Estonia

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 38, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 2616-2625

  Rosenvald, Raul ^a   Lõhmus, Asko ^b   Kiviste, Andres ^a  

^a ESTONIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Estonia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECIDUOUS TREES; ESTONIA; FOREST EDGES; FOREST SITE TYPES; MEAN SIZES; MORTALITY RATES; OPEN CONDITIONS; SPATIAL EFFECTS; SPATIAL VARIATIONS; STANDING DEAD TREES; TREE RETENTIONS; TREE SPECIES;

FORESTRY;

ENVIRONMENTAL DISTURBANCE; MORTALITY; RETENTION; SILVICULTURE; SURVIVAL;

CUTTINGS; DEAD WOOD; ESTONIA; FORESTRY; MORTALITY; SILVICULTURE; TREES;

BALTIC STATES; ESTONIA; EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTHERN EUROPE;

EID: 54349119375     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X08-093     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Achim, A., Ruel, J.-C., Gardiner, B.A., Laflamme, G., and Meunier, S. 2005. Modelling the vulnerability of balsam fir forests to wind damage. For. Ecol. Manage. 204: 35-50. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.072.
2. Adermann, V. 2004. Eesti metsad 2003. Metsavarude hinnang statistilisel valikmeetodil. [Estonian forests 2003. Forest stocks according to statistical sample analyses.] Metsakaitse- ja metsauuenduskeskus, Tallinn.
3. Alenius, V., Hökkä, H., Salminen, H., and Jutras, S. 2003. Evaluating estimation methods for logistic regression in modelling individual-tree mortality. In Modelling Forest Systems. Edited by A. Amaro, D.Reed, and P. Soares. CABI publishing, Oxon, UK. pp. 225-236.
4. Angelstam, P.K. 1998. Maintaining and restoring biodiversity in European boreal forests by developing natural disturbance regimes. J. Veg. Sci. 9: 593-602. doi:10.2307/3237275.
5. Baldwin, L.K., and Bradfield, G.E. 2005. Bryophyte community differences between edge and interior environments in temperate rain-forest fragments of coastal British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 35: 580-592. doi:10.1139/x04-209.
6. Beese, J.W. 2001. Windthrow monitoring of alternative silvicultural systems in montane coastal forests. In Proceedings of the Windthrow Researchers Workshop, 31 January - 1 February 2001, Richmond, B.C. Compiled by S.J. Mitchell and J. Rodney. British Columbia Forestry Continuing Studies Network, Vancouver, B.C. pp. 2-14.
7. 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. Conserv. Biol. 8: 718-731. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08030718.x.
8. Bergeron, Y., Leduc, A., Harvey, B.D., and Gauthier, S. 2002. Natural fire regime: a guide for sustainable management of the Canadian boreal forest. Silva Fenn. 36: 81-95.
9. Busby, P.E., Adler, P., Warren, T.L., and Swanson, F.J. 2006. Fates of live trees retained in forest cutting units, western Cascade Range, Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 36: 2550-2560. doi:10.1139/X06-140.
10. Canham, C.D., Papaik, M.J., and Latty, E.F. 2001. Interspecific variation in susceptibility to windthrow as a function of tree size and storm severity for northern temperate tree species. Can. J. For. Res. 31: 1-10. doi:10.1139/cjfr-31-1-1.
11. Coates, K.D. 1997. Windthrow damage 2 years after partial cutting at the Date Creek silvicultural systems study in the interior cedar-hemlock forests of northwestern British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 27: 1695-1701. doi:10.1139/cjfr-27-10-1695.
12. Dunham, R.A., and Cameron, A.D. 2000. Crown, stem and wood properties of wind-damaged and undamaged Sitka spruce. For. Ecol. Manage. 135: 73-81. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00299-1.
13. Foster, D.R. 1988. Species and stand response to catastrophic wind in central New England, USA. J. Ecol. 76: 135-151. doi:10.2307/2260458.
14. Franklin, J.F., Berg, D.R., Thornburgh, D.A., and Tappeiner, J.C. 1997. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: Variable retention systems. In Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the science of forest management. Edited by K.A. Kohm and J.F. Franklin. Island Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 111-139.
15. Gibbons, P., Cunningham, R.B., and Lindenmayer, D.B. 2008. What factors influence the collapse of trees retained on logged sites? A case-control study. For. Ecol. Manage. 255: 62-67. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.08.020.
16. Hautala, H., and Vanha-Majamaa, I. 2006. Immediate tree uprooting after retention-felling in a coniferous boreal forest in Fennoscandia. Can. J. For. Res. 36: 3167-3172. doi:10.1139/X06-193.
17. Holgen, P., Söderberg, U., and Hånell, B. 2003. Diameter increment in Picea abies shelterwood stands in Northern Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 18: 163-167. doi:10.1080/02827580310003731.
18. Jull, M. 2001. Wind damage and related risk factors for interior douglas-fir leave trees in central BC. In Proceedings of the Windthrow Researchers Workshop, 31 January - 1 February 2001, Richmond, B.C. Compiled by S.J. Mitchell and J. Rodney. British Columbia Forestry Continuing Studies Network, Vancouver, B.C. pp. 12-18.
19. Junninen, K., Penttilä, R., and Martikainen, P. 2007. Fallen retention aspen trees on clear-cuts can be important habitats for redlisted polypores: a case study in Finland. Biodivers. Conserv. 16: 475-490. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-6227-6.
20. Lanquaye-Opoku, N., and Mitchell, S.J. 2005. Portability of stand-level empirical windthrow risk models. For. Ecol. Manage. 216: 134-148. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.032.
21. Lässig, R., and Mocalov, S.A. 2000. Frequency and characteristics of severe storms in the Urals and their infiuence on the development, structure and management of the boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 135: 179-194. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00309-1.
22. Littell, R.C., Stroup, W.W., and Freund, J.R. 2002. SAS for linear models, 4th ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C.
23. Lohmander, P., and Helles, F. 1987. Windthrow probability as a function of stand characteristics and shelter. Scand. J. For. Res. 2: 227-238.
24. Lõhmus, E. 1984. Eesti metsakasvukohatüübid. [Estonian forest site types.] Eesti NSV Agrotööstuskoondise Info- ja juurutusvalitsus. Tallinn, Estonia.
25. Lõhmus, P. 2003. Composition and substrata of forest lichens in Estonia: a meta- analysis. Folia Cryptogam. Est. 40: 19-38.
26. Lõhmus, A., Kohv, K., Palo, A., and Viilma, K. 2004. Loss of old-growth, and the minimum need for strictly protected forests in Estonia. Ecol. Bull. 51: 401-411.
27. Lõhmus, A., Lõhmus, P., Remm, J., and Vellak, K. 2005. Old-growth structural elements in a strict reserve and commercial forest landscape in Estonia. For. Ecol. Manage. 216: 201-215. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.031.
28. Lõhmus, P., Rosenvald, R., and Lõhmus, A. 2006. Effectiveness of solitary retention trees for conserving epiphytes: differential short-term responses of bryophytes and lichens. Can. J. For. Res. 36: 1319-1330. doi:10.1139/X06-032.
29. Lygis, V., Vasiliauskas, R., Larsson, K.H., and Lygis, V. 2005. Wood-inhabiting fungi in the stems of Fraxinus excelsior in declining ash stands of northern Lithuania, with particular reference to Armillaria cepistipes. Scand. J. For. Res. 20: 337-346. doi:10.1080/ 02827580510036238.
30. Mitchell, S.J., Hailemariam, T., and Kulis, Y. 2001. Empirical modelling of cutblock edge windthrow on Vancouver Island, Canada, using stand level information. For. Ecol. Manage. 154: 117-130. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00) 00620-4.
31. Müller, J., and Goßner, M. 2007. Single host trees in a closed forest canopy matrix: a highly fragmented landscape? J. Appl. Entomol. 131: 613-620. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0418.2007.01227.x.
32. Padari, A. 2004. Metsahindamisprogramm "RaieWin". [Forest assessment software "RaieWin".] M.Sc. thesis, Estonian Agricultural University, Tartu.
33. Peltola, H., Kellomäki, S., Väisänen, H., and Ikonen, V.-P. 1999. A mechanistic model for assessing the risk of wind and snow damage to single trees and stands of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch. Can. J. For. Res. 29: 647-661. doi:10.1139/cjfr-29-6-647.
34. Peterson, C.J. 2004. Within-stand variation in windthrow in southern boreal forests of Minnesota: is it predictable? Can. J. For. Res. 34: 365-375. doi:10.1139/x03-257.
35. Rich, R.L., Frelich, L.E., and Reich, P.B. 2007. Wind-throw mortality in the southern boreal forest: effects of species, diameter and stand age. J. Ecol. 95: 1261-1273. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01301.x.
36. Rosenvald, R., and Lõhmus, A. 2007. Breeding birds in hemiboreal clear-cuts: tree retention effects in relation to site type. Forestry, 80: 503-516. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpm027.
37. Rosenvald, R., and Lõhmus, A. 2008. For what, when, and where is green-tree retention better than clear-cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects. For. Ecol. Manage. 255: 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.09.016.
38. Ruel, J.-C. 2000. Factors influencing windthrow in balsam fir forests: from landscape studies to individual tree studies. For. Ecol. Manage. 135: 169-178. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00308-X.
39. Ruel, J.-C., Pin, D., and Cooper, K. 2001. Windthrow in riparian buffer strips: effect of wind exposure, thinning and strip width. For. Ecol. Manage. 143: 105-113. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00510-7.
40. Ruel, J.-C., Raymond, P., and Pineau, M. 2003. Windthrow after shelterwood cutting in balsam fir stands. North. J. Appl. For. 20: 5-13.
41. Schaetzl, R.J., Johnson, D.L., Burns, S.F., and Small, T.W. 1989. Tree uprooting: review of terminology, process and environmental implications. Can. J. For. Res. 19: 1-11. doi:10.1139/x89-001.
42. Scott, R.E., and Mitchell, S.J. 2005. Empirical modelling of windthrow risk in partially harvested stands using tree, neighbourhood, and stand attributes. For. Ecol. Manage. 218: 193-209. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005. 07.012.
43. Talkkari, A., Peltola, H., Kellomäki, S., and Strandman, H. 2000. Integration of component models from the tree, stand and regional levels to assess the risk of wind damage at forest margins. For. Ecol. Manage. 135: 303-313. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00288-7.
44. The Swedich FSC-Council. 1998. Swedish FSC Standard for Forest Certification, Uppsala.
45. Valinger, E., and Fridman, J. 1999. Models to assess the risk of snow and wind damage in pine, spruce, and birch forests in Sweden. Environ. Manage. 24: 209-217. doi:10.1007/s002679900227. PMID:10384030.
46. Walter, S.T., and Maguire, C.C. 2004. Conifer response to three silvicultural treatments in the Oregon Coast Range foothills. Can. J. For. Res. 34: 1967-1978. doi:10.1139/x04-068.
47. Wolf, A., Møller, P.F., Bradshaw, R.H.W., and Bigler, J. 2004. Storm damage and long-term mortality in a semi-natural, temperate deciduous forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 188: 197-210. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2003.07. 009.