Stand characteristics and biodiversity indicators along the productivity gradient in boreal forests: Defining a critical set of indicators for the monitoring of habitat nature quality

Plant Biosystems

Volumn 144, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 211-220

  Liira, J ^a   Kohv, K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^b Eestimaa Looduse Fond   (Estonia)

Author keywords

Anthropogenic disturbance; Biodiversity indicators; Conservation value; Dead wood; Habitat quality; Monitoring; Old growth forest; Stand structure

Indexed keywords

FUNGI; HEXAPODA; MELAMPYRUM; PICEA; PICEA ABIES; PICIDAE; PINUS SYLVESTRIS;

EID: 77951791158     PISSN: 11263504     EISSN: 17245575     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/11263500903560868     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Adermann V. 2008. Estonian forests 2007. The estimation of forest sources by statistical sampling methodology [In Estonian, with English summary]. Tallinn: Ketsakaitse- ja Metsauuenduskeskus.
2. Ahti T, Hämet-Ahti L, Jalas J. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Annales Botanici Fennici 5: 169-211.
3. Andersson L, Martverk R, Külvik M, Palo A, Varblane A. 2003. Woodland key habitat inventory in Estonia 1999-2002. Tartu: Regio Publishing.
4. Angelstam P, Majewski P, Bondrupnielsen S. 1995. West-east cooperation in Europe for sustainable boreal forests. Water Air Soil Pollut 82: 3-11.
5. Aparicio A, Albaladejo RG, Olalla-Tarraga MA, Carrillo LF, Rodriguez MA. 2008. Dispersal potentials determine responses of woody plant species richness to environmental factors in fragmented Mediterranean landscapes. For Ecol Manage 255: 2894-2906.
6. Arler F. 2000. Aspects of landscape or nature quality. Landsc Ecol 15: 291-302.
7. Aunap R, Ainsaar L, Rattas M, Mardiste H, Jaagus J, Kull A, et al. 2004. Atlas of Estonia [in Estonian]. Tartu: Avita.
8. Axelsson AL, Östlund L. 2001. Retrospective gap analysis in a Swedish boreal forest landscape using historical data. For Ecol Manage 147: 109-122.
9. Balmford A, Bennun L, ten Brink B, Cooper D, Cote IM, Crane P, et al. 2005. The convention on biological diversity's 2010 target. Science 307: 212-213.
10. Bengtsson J, Nilsson SG, Franc A, Menozzi P. 2000. Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. For Ecol Manage 132: 39-50.
11. Blasi C, Marchetti M, Chiavetta U, Aleffi M, Audisio P, Azzella MM, et al. 2010. Multi-taxon and forest structure sampling for identification of indicators and monitoring of old-growth forest. Plant Biosyst.
12. Brown PM, Cook B. 2006. Early settlement forest structure in Black Hills ponderosa pine forests. For Ecol Manage 1-3: 284-290.
13. Brunialti G, Frati L, Aleffi M, Marignani M, Rosati L, Burrascano S, et al. 2010. Plant Biosyst.
14. Büchs W. 2003. Biodiversity and agri-environmental indicators - General scopes and skills with special reference to the habitat level. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98: 35-78.
15. Carlsson L, Lazdinis M. 2004. Institutional frameworks for sustainability? A comparative analysis of the forest sectors of Russia and the Baltic States. Ambio 33: 366-370.
16. Dale VH, Beyeler SC. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecol Indic 1: 3-10.
17. Diaci J, Rozenbergar D, Boncina A. 2010. Stand dynamics of Dinaric old-growth forest in Slovenia: Are indirect human influences relevant? Plant Biosyst.
18. Diekmann M, Duprè C, Kolb A, Metzing D. 2008. Forest vascular plants as indicators of plant species richness: A data analysis of a flora atlas from northwestern Germany. Plant Biosyst 142: 584-593.
19. Ejrnaes R, Aude E, Nygaard B, Münier B. 2002. Prediction of habitat quality using ordination and neural networks. Ecol Appl 12: 1180-1187.
20. Ejrnaes R, Liira J, Poulsen RS, Nygaard B. 2008. When has an abandoned field become a semi-natural grassland or heathland? Environ Manage 42: 707-716.
21. Ekbom B, Schroeder LM, Larsson S. 2006. Stand specific occurrence of coarse woody debris in a managed boreal forest landscape in central Sweden. For Ecol Manage 221: 2-12.
22. Ewald J. 2008. Plant species richness in mountain forests of the Bavarian Alps. Plant Biosyst 142: 594-603.
23. FAO. 2007. State of the world's forests 2007. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
24. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309: 570-574.
25. Foster DR, Orwig DA, McLachlan JS. 1996. Ecological and conservation insights from reconstructive studies of temperate old-growth forests. Trends Ecol Evol 11: 419-424.
26. Fridman J, Walheim M. 2000. Amount, structure, and dynamics of dead wood on managed forestland in Sweden. For Ecol Manage 131: 23-36.
27. Gamborg C, Rune F. 2004. Economic and ecological approaches to assessing forest value in managed forests: Ethical perspectives. Soc Nat Res 17: 799-815.
28. Götmark F, Paltto H, Norden B, Götmark E. 2005. Evaluating partial cutting in broadleaved temperate forest under strong experimental control: Short-term effects on herbaceous plants. For Ecol Manage 214: 124-141.
29. Griffis KL, Crawford JA, Wagner MR, Moir WH. 2001. Understory response to management treatments in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. For Ecol Manage 146: 239-245.
30. Grigg D. 1987. The industrial revolution and land transformation. In: Wolman MG, Fournier FGA, editors. Land transformation in agriculture. Chichester: John Wiley. pp. 79-109.
31. Gustafsson L. 2002. Presence and abundance of red-listed plant species in Swedish forests. Conserv Biol 16: 377-388.
32. Halpern CB, McKenzie D, Evans SA, Maguire DA. 2005. Initial responses of forest understories to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention. Ecol Appl 15: 175-195.
33. Jacquemyn H, Butaye J, Hermy M. 2003. Influence of environmental and spatial variables on regional distribution of forest plant species in a fragmented and changing landscape. Ecography 26: 768-776.
34. Jalonen J, Vanha-Majamaa I. 2001. Immediate effects of four different felling methods on mature boreal spruce forest understory vegetation in southern Finland. For Ecol Manage 146: 25-34.
35. Jantunen J, Saarinen K, Saarnio S, Marttila O. 2002. Stand structure in pine, spruce and deciduous forests: A comparison between Finnish and Russian Karelia. Scand J For Res 17: 53-61.
36. Jonsson BG, Jonsell M. 1999. Exploring potential biodiversity indicators in boreal forests. Biodivers Conserv 8: 1417-1433.
37. Jonsson M, Ranius T, Ekvall H, Bostedt G, Dahlberg A, Ehnström B, et al. 2006. Cost-effectiveness of silvicultural measures to increase substrate availability for red-listed woodliving organisms in Norway spruce forests. Biol Conserv 127: 443-462.
38. Jüriado I, Liira J. 2009. Distribution and habitat ecology of the threatened forest lichen Lobaria pulmonaria in Estonia. Folia Cryptogamica Estonica 46: 55-65.
39. Kohv K, Liira J. 2005. Anthropogenic effects on vegetation structure of the boreal forest in Estonia. Scand J For Res 20: 122-134.
40. Köster K, Jõgiste K, Tukia H, Niklasson M, Möls T. 2005. Variation and ecological characteristics of coarse woody debris in Lahemaa and Karula National Parks, Estonia. Scand J For Res 20: 102-111.
41. Kuuluvainen T. 2002. Natural variability of forests as a reference for restoring and managing biological diversity in boreal Fennoscandia. Silva Fennica 36: 97-125.
42. Laasimer L. 1965. Vegetation of the Estonian S.S.R. [in Estonian, with English summary]. Tallinn: Valgus.
43. Lähde E, Laiho O, Norokorpi Y. 1999. Diversity-oriented silviculture in the boreal zone of Europe. For Ecol Manage 118: 223-243.
44. Lamb EG, Bayne E, Holloway G, Schieck J, Boutin S, Herbers J, et al. 2009. Indices for monitoring biodiversity change: Are some more effective than others? Ecol Indic 9: 432-444.
45. Larsen JB, Nielsen AB. 2007. Nature-based forest management - Where are we going? Elaborating forest development types in and with practice. For Ecol Manage 238: 107-117.
46. Lawesson JE, De Blust G, Grashof C, Firbank L, Honnay O, Hermy M, et al. 1998. Species diversity and arearelationships in Danish beech forests. For Ecol Manage 106: 235-245.
47. Liira J, Issak M, Jõgar Ü, Mändoja M, Zobel M. 2009. Restoration management of a floodplain meadow and its cost-effectiveness - The results of a 6-year experiment. Annales Botanici Fennici 46: 397-408.
48. Liira J, Schmidt T, Aavik T, Arens P, Augenstein I, Bailey D, et al. 2008. Plant functional group composition and largescale species richness in the agricultural landscapes of Europe. J Vegetat Sci 19: 3-14.
49. Liira J, Sepp T. 2009. Indicators of structural and habitat natural quality in boreo-nemoral forests along the management gradient. Annales Botanici Fennici 46: 308-325.
50. Liira J, Sepp T, Parrest O. 2007. The forest structure and ecosystem quality in conditions of anthropogenic disturbance along productivity gradient. For Ecol Manage 250: 34-46.
51. Liira J, Zobel K. 2000. Vertical structure of a species-rich grassland canopy, treated with additional illumination, fertilization and mowing. Plant Ecol 146: 183-193.
52. Liira J, Zobel K, Mägi R, Molenberghs G. 2002. Vertical structure of herbaceous canopies: The importance of plant growth-form and species-specific traits. Plant Ecol 163: 123-134.
53. Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Botkin DB. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv Biol 14: 941-950.
54. Linder P, Elfving B, Zackrisson O. 1997. Stand structure and successional trends in virgin boreal forest reserves in Sweden. For Ecol Manage 98: 17-33.
55. Linder P, Östlund L. 1998. Structural changes in three midboreal Swedish forest landscapes, 1885-1996. Biol Conserv 85: 9-19.
56. Lippmaa T. 1935. Eesti geobotaanika põhijooni [The main features of Estonian geobotany] [in Estonian, with German summary]. Tartu: K. Mattiesen.
57. Lõhmus E. 2004. Eesti metsakasvukohatüübid [in Estonian]. Tartu: Eesti Loodusfoto.
58. Lõhmus A, Lõhmus P, Remm J, Vellak K. 2005. Oldgrowth structural elements in a strict reserve and commercial forest landscape in Estonia. For Ecol Manage 216: 201-215.
59. Lõhmus P, Rosenvald R, 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.
60. Maltamo M, Kangas A, Uuttera J, Torniainen T, Saramäki J. 2000. Comparison of percentile based prediction methods and the Weibull distribution in describing the diameter distribution of heterogeneous Scots pine stands. For Ecol Manage 133: 263-274.
61. Meier E, Paal J, Liira J, Jüriado I. 2005. Influence of tree stand age and management on the species diversity in Estonian eutrophic alvar and boreo-nemoral Pinus sylvestris forests. Scand J For Res 20: 135-144.
62. Meikar T, Etverk I. 2000. Forest ownership in Estonia [In Estonian, with English summary]. Metsanduslikud Uurimused 32: 8-18.
63. Moora M, Daniell T, Kalle H, Liira J, Püssa K, Roosaluste E, et al. 2007. Spatial pattern and species richness of boreonemoral forest understorey and its determinants - A comparison of differently managed forests. For Ecol Manage 250: 64-70.
64. Nilsson SG, Ericson L. 1997. Conservation of plant and animal populations in theory and practice. Ecol Bull 46: 117-139.
65. Norton TW. 1996. Conservation of biological diversity in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manage 85: 1-7.
66. Noss RF. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4: 355-364.
67. Noss RF. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and indicators. For Ecol Manage 115: 135-146.
68. Paal J. 2007. The handbook of Natura 2000 habitat types according to Habitat directive [in Estonian, with English summary]. Tallinn: Eesti Keskkonnaministeerium.
69. Peterken GF. 1999. Applying natural forestry concepts in an intensively managed landscape. Global Ecol Biogeogr 8: 321-328.
70. Pykälä J. 2004. Effects of new forestry practices on rare epiphytic macrolichens. Conserv Biol 18: 831-838.
71. Scheller RM, Van Tuyl S, Clark K, Hayden NG, Hom J, Mladenoff DJ. 2008. Simulation of forest change in the New Jersey Pine Barrens under current and pre-colonial conditions. For Ecol Manage 255: 1489-1500.
72. Scholes RJ, Bigg R. 2005. A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434: 45-49.
73. Sepp K, Palang H, Mander Ü, Kaasik A. 1999. Prospects for nature and landscape protection in Estonia. Landsc Urban Plan 46: 161-167.
74. Siitonen J, Martikainen P, Punttila P, Rauh J. 2000. Coarse woody debris and stand characteristics in mature managed and old-growth boreal mesic forests in southern Finland. For Ecol Manage 128: 211-225.
75. Sturtevant BR, Bissonette JA, Long JN, Roberts DW. 1997. Coarse woody debris as a function of age, stand structure, and disturbance in boreal Newfoundland. Ecol Appl 7: 702-712.
76. Trass H, Vellak K, Ingerpuu N. 1999. Floristical and ecological properties for identifying of primeval forests in Estonia. Annales Botanici Fennici 31: 67-80.
77. Uotila A, Kouki J, Kontkanen H, Pulkkinen P. 2002. Assessing the naturalness of boreal forests in eastern Fennoscandia. For Ecol Manage 161: 257-277.
78. Valk U, Eilart J. 1974. Eesti metsad [Estonian forests] [in Estonian, with English summary]. Tallinn: Valgus.
79. Vanha-Majamaa I, Lilja S, Ryömä R, Kotiaho JS, Laaka-Lindberg S, Lindberg H, et al. 2007. Rehabilitating boreal forest structure and species composition in Finland through logging, dead wood creation and fire: The EVO experiment. For Ecol Manage 250: 77-88.
80. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA. 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277: 494-500.
81. Weibull H, Rydin H. 2005. Bryophyte species richness on boulders: Relationship to area, habitat diversity and canopy tree species. Biol Conserv 122: 71-79.
82. Wohlgemuth T, Moser B, Brändli UB, Kull P, Schütz M. 2008. Diversity of forest plant species at the community and landscape scales in Switzerland. Plant Biosyst 142: 604-613.
83. Zobel K, Liira J. 1997. A scale-independent approach to the richness vs biomass relationship in ground-layer plant communities. Oikos 80: 325-332.