Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T20:59:10.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Selecting species to be used as tools in the development of forest conservation targets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Jean-Michel Roberge  and
Per Angelstam
Edited by
Marc-André Villard  and
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Jean-Michel Roberge
Affiliation:
University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Per Angelstam
Affiliation:
University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
Marc-André Villard
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton, Canada
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Affiliation:
Mid-Sweden University, Sweden
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Habitat loss is considered as one of the greatest threats to biodiversity worldwide (Wilson 1988; Pimm and Raven 2000). Both theoretical and empirical studies indicate that there are critical limits to the amount of habitat that can be lost without reducing the viability of populations (e.g. Fahrig 2001) or disrupting important ecosystem processes (Hobbs 1993). In analogy to the concept of critical load of airborne pollution (Nilsson and Grennfelt 1988), which may lead to the loss of ecological integrity in forest ecosystems, critical loss and fragmentation of habitat may lead to dysfunctional habitat networks (Angelstam et al. 2004a,b).

Knowledge about the necessary characteristics, quantity, spatial configuration, and dynamics of different ecosystem types required to maintain forest biodiversity is a prerequisite for effective conservation and restoration planning. Gaining such knowledge requires studies of dose–response, where the dose is the parameter value of a given ecological variable (e.g. amount of a given resource or rate of a key process) and the response can be measured as the status of biodiversity components (e.g. presence of a species, or even better, fitness of individuals in a population). However, the present level of empirical knowledge on that topic is limited, both with respect to which variables are critical at different spatial scales and the parameter values associated with the presence of viable populations or functioning ecosystems (Tear et al. 2005).

Type
Chapter
Information
Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes , pp. 109 - 128
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angelstam, P. 1998a. Maintaining and restoring biodiversity by developing natural disturbance regimes in European boreal forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 9:593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelstam, P. 1998b. Towards a logic for assessing biodiversity in boreal forest. Pp. 301–13 in Bachmann, P., Köhl, M. and Päivinen, R. (eds.) Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelstam, P. 2006. Maintaining cultural and natural biodiversity in Europe's economic centre and periphery. Pp. 125–43 in Agnoletti, M. (ed.) The Conservation of Cultural Landscapes. Oxford, UK: CABI International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelstam, P., Anufriev, V., Balciauskas, L.et al. 1997. Biodiversity and sustainable forestry in European forests – how west and east can learn from each other. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:38–48.Google Scholar
Angelstam, P., Dönz-Breuss, M. and Roberge, J.-M. (eds). 2004a. Targets and tools for the maintenance of forest biodiversity – an introduction. Ecological Bulletins 51:11–24.
Angelstam, P., Boutin, S., Schmiegelow, F.et al. 2004b. Targets for boreal forest biodiversity conservation – a rationale for macroecological research and adaptive management. Ecological Bulletins 51:487–509.Google Scholar
Angelstam, P., Roberge, J.-M., Lõhmus, A.et al. 2004c. Habitat modelling as a tool for landscape-scale conservation – a review of parameters for focal forest birds. Ecological Bulletins 51:427–53.Google Scholar
Angelstam, P., Roberge, J.-M., Ek, T. and Laestadius, L.. 2005. Data and tools for conservation, management, and restoration of forest ecosystems at multiple scales. Pp. 269–83 in Stanturf, J. A. and Madsen, P. (eds.) Restoration of Boreal and Temperate Forests. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Atmar, W. and Patterson, B. D.. 1993. The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat. Oecologia 96:373–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bani, L., Baietto, M., Bottoni, L. and Massa, R.. 2002. The use of focal species in designing a habitat network for a lowland area of Lombardy, Italy. Conservation Biology 16:826–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bani, L., Massimino, D., Bottoni, L. and Massa, R.. 2006. A multiscale method for selecting indicator species and priority conservation areas: a case study for broadleaved forests in Lombardy, Italy. Conservation Biology 20:512–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beazley, K. and Cardinal, N.. 2004. A systematic approach for selecting focal species for conservation in the forests of Nova Scotia and Maine. Environmental Conservation 31:91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglind, S.-Å. 2004. Area-sensitivity of the sand lizard and spider wasps in sandy pine heath forests – umbrella species for early successional biodiversity conservation?Ecological Bulletins 51:189–207.Google Scholar
Berglund, H. and Jonsson, B. G.. 2003. Nested plant and fungal communities; the importance of area and habitat quality in maximizing species capture in boreal old-growth forests. Biological Conservation 112:319–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, J. G. 1991. Nested subsets and the distribution of birds on isolated woodlots. Conservation Biology 5:58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooker, L. 2002. The application of focal species knowledge to landscape design in agricultural lands using the ecological neighbourhood as a template. Landscape and Urban Planning 60:185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. H. 1994. Nested biotas and biological conservation: metrics, mechanisms, and meaning of nestedness. Landscape and Urban Planning 28:73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jong, J. 2002. Populationsförändringar hos Skogslevande Arter i Relation till Landskapets Utveckling. Uppsala, Sweden: Centrum för Biologisk Mångfald. (In Swedish.)Google Scholar
Diamond, J. 1986. Overview: laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. Pp. 3–22 in Diamond, J. M. and Case, T. J. (eds.) Community Ecology. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dzintara, A. (ed.) 1999. Latvijas Mezu Vesture lidz 1940 Gadam. Riga, Latvia: World Wildlife Fund. (In Latvian.)Google Scholar
Esseen, P.-A., Ehnström, B., Ericson, L. and Sjöberg, K.. 1997. Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletins 46:16–47.Google Scholar
Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough?Biological Conservation 100:65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, J. and Lindenmayer, D. B.. 2002. Treating the nestedness temperature calculator as a “black box” can lead to false conclusions. Oikos 99:193–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleishman, E. and Murphy, D. D.. 1999. Patterns and processes of nestedness in a Great Basin butterfly community. Oecologia 119:133–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleishman, E., Murphy, D. D. and Brussard, P. F.. 2000a. A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecological Applications10:569–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleishman, E., Jonsson, B. G. and Sjögren-Gulve, P.. 2000b. Focal species modeling for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Bulletins 48:85–99.Google Scholar
Franklin, J. F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes?Ecological Applications 3:202–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 4:128–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, L. 1998. Nestedness as a conservation tool: plants and birds of oak-hazel woodland in Sweden. Ecology Letters 1:142–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, L. and Larsson, T.-B.. 1997. Conservation of boreal environments: a completed research program and a new paradigm. Ecological Bulletins 46:9–15.Google Scholar
Hess, G. R. and King, T. J.. 2002. Planning open spaces for wildlife. I. Selecting focal species using a Delphi survey approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 58:25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, G. R., Koch, F. H., Rubino, M. J.et al. 2006. Comparing the potential effectiveness of conservation planning approaches in central North Carolina, USA. Biological Conservation 128:358–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. 1993. Effects of landscape fragmentation on ecosystem processes in the Western Australian wheatbelt. Biological Conservation 64:193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honnay, O., Hermy, M. and Coppin, P.. 1999. Nested plant communities in deciduous forest fragments: species relaxation or nested habitats?Oikos 84:119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hylander, K., Nilsson, C., Jonsson, B. G. and Göthner, T.. 2005. Differences in habitat quality explains nestedness in a land snail meta-community. Oikos 108:351–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbeau, L., Mönkkönen, M. and Desrochers, A.. 2001. Long-term effects of forestry on birds of the Eastern Canadian boreal forests: a comparison with Fennoscandia. Conservation Biology 15:1151–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansson, G. 1998. Guild indicator species on a landscape scale – an example with four avian habitat specialists. Ornis Fennica 75:119–27.Google Scholar
Jedrzejewska, B. and Jedrzejewski, W.. 1998. Predation in Vertebrate Communities. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. G., Lawton, J. H. and Shachak, M.. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsson, B. G. 2001. A null model for randomization tests of nestedness in species assemblages. Oecologia 127:309–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juutinen, A. and Mönkkönen, M.. 2004. Testing alternative indicators for biodiversity conservation in old-growth boreal forests: ecology and economics. Ecological Economics 50:35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karr, J. R. 1992. Ecological integrity: protecting Earth's life support systems. Pp. 223–36 in Costanza, R., Norton, B. G. and Haskell, B. D. (eds.) New Goals for Environmental Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
Kavanagh, R. P. 1991. The target species approach to wildlife management: gliders and owls in the forests of southeastern New South Wales. Pp. 377–83 in Lunney, D. (ed.) Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna. Sydney, Australia: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavanagh, R. P., Loyn, R. H., Smith, G. C., Taylor, R. J. and Catling, P. C.. 2004. Which species should be monitored to indicate ecological sustainability in Australian forest management? Pp. 959–87 in Lunney, D. (ed.) Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna (2nd edn). Mosman, NSW, Australia: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, R. E. 2002. Landscapes and Labscapes – Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurlavičius, P., Kuuba, R., Lūkins, M.et al. 2004. Identifying high conservation value forests in the Baltic States from forest databases. Ecological Bulletins 51:351–66.Google Scholar
Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambeck, R. J. 1999. Landscape Planning for Biodiversity Conservation in Agricultural Regions: A Case Study from the Wheatbelt of Western Australia. Environment Australia, Biodiversity Technical Paper 2. Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B., Manning, A. D., Smith, P. L.et al. 2002. The focal-species approach and landscape restoration: a critique. Conservation Biology 16:338–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, A. L., Kauppi, P. E., Angelstam, P. K., Zhang, Y. and Tikka, P. M.. 2005. Importing timber, exporting ecological impact. Science 308:359–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, H. 1984. Die Wälder Europas. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag. (In German.)Google Scholar
Nilsson, J. and Grennfelt, P.. (eds.) 1988. Critical Loads for Sulphur and Nitrogen. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, S. G. 1997. Forests in the temperate-boreal transition: natural and man-made features. Ecological Bulletins 46:61–71.Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. G., Hedin, J. and Niklasson, M.. 2001. Biodiversity and its assessment in boreal and nemoral forests. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Suppl. 3:10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östlund, L. and Zackrisson, O.. 2000. The history of the boreal forest in Sweden: a multidisciplinary approach. Pp. 119–28 in Agnoletti, M. and Anderson, S. (eds.) Methods and Approaches in Forest History. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Paine, R. T. 1969. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. American Naturalist 103:91–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, B. D. and Atmar, W.. 1986. Nested subsets and the structure of insular mammalian faunas and archipelagos. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 28:65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennanen, J. 2002. Forest age distribution under mixed-severity fire regimes – a simulation-based analysis for middle boreal Fennoscandia. Silva Fennica 36:213–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterken, G. F. 1996. Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pimm, S. L. and Raven, P.. 2000. Extinction by numbers. Nature 403:843–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, J.-M. 2006. Umbrella species as a conservation planning tool – an assessment using resident birds in hemiboreal and boreal forests. Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Roberge, J.-M. and Angelstam, P.. 2004. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology 18:76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, J.-M. and Angelstam, P.. 2006. Indicator species among resident forest birds – a cross-regional evaluation in northern Europe. Biological Conservation 130:134–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubino, M. J. and Hess, G. R.. 2003. Planning open spaces for wildlife 2: modeling and verifying focal species habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning 64:89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sætersdal, M., Gjerde, I. and Blom, H. H.. 2005. Indicator species and the problem of spatial inconsistency in nestedness patterns. Biological Conservation 122:305–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, A. K., Ruesink, J. L. and DeWreede, R. E.. 2006. Population viability, ecological processes and biodiversity: valuing sites for reserve selection. Biological Conservation 128:79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D. and Martin, J.-L.. 1991. Nestedness of insular avifaunas: simple summary statistics masking complex species patterns. Ornis Fennica 68:178–92.Google Scholar
Suter, W., Graf, R. F. and Hess, R.. 2002. Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and avian biodiversity: testing the umbrella-species concept. Conservation Biology 16:778–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tear, T. H., Kareiva, P., Angermeier, P. L.et al. 2005. How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. BioScience 55:835–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, I. D. and Angelstam, P.. 1999. Special species. Pp. 434–59 in Hunter, M. L. (ed.) Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uliczka, H., Angelstam, P. and Roberge, J.-M.. 2004. Indicator species and biodiversity monitoring systems for non-industrial private forest owners – is there a communication problem? Ecological Bulletins 51:379–84.Google Scholar
Vera, F. W. M. 2000. Grazing Ecology and Forest History. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, B. 1995. Conserving biological diversity through ecosystem resilience. Conservation Biology 9:747–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wethered, R. and Lawes, M. J.. 2005. Nestedness of bird assemblages in fragmented Afromontane forest: the effect of plantation forestry in the matrix. Biological Conservation 123:125–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, I. D. 1998. Rural Europe since 1500: areas of retardation and tradition. Pp. 243–58 in Butlin, R. A. and Dodgshon, R. A. (eds.) An Historical Geography of Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (ed.) 1988. Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Wright, D. H. and Reeves, J. H.. 1992. On the meaning and measurement of nestedness of species assemblages. Oecologia 92:416–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yaroshenko, A. Yu., Potapov, P. V. and Turubanova, S. A.. 2001. The Intact Forest Landscapes of Northern European Russia. Moscow, Russia: Greenpeace Russia and Global Forest Watch.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×