Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
4.5
2.9
Journals
Forests
Special Issues
Using Forest Management to Achieve Wildlife Conservation on Production Forest...
share announcement

Using Forest Management to Achieve Wildlife Conservation on Production Forest Landscapes

A special issue of Forests (ISSN 1999-4907). This special issue belongs to the section "Forest Ecology and Management".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (20 June 2021) | Viewed by 9697

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Gary Roloff

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Interests: wildlife ecology; biodiversity; conservation biology; wildlife conservation
Dr. Andrew J. Kroll

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Weyerhaeuser, Strategy & Technology Group, Springfield, OR 97478, USA
Interests: forest ecology and management; wildlife conservation; community interactions

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Global demand for wood is increasing along with interest in wildlife conservation. Wood production and wildlife conservation are not incompatible outcomes in managed forests. Oftentimes, subtle changes to silviculture, harvest prescriptions, or planning can result in significant wildlife benefits.

The aim of this Special Issue is to articulate opportunities, based on results from field studies or comprehensive reviews of extant literature, for wildlife conservation as part of production forest management. Papers will be solicited from authors around the world, with an emphasis on major timber-producing regions.

Wildlife–habitat relationships have been studied for hundreds of years. Formal treatment of the forestry–wildlife topic generally dates to the late 1980s and early 1990s, initiated by intense criticism of practices used to manage public forests worldwide, the evolution of ecosystem management as a philosophy, increased regulatory attention to forest-dependent species, and the publication of seminal works on the topic of holistic forest planning. The mid 1990s and early 2000s corresponded to significant changes in how forested landscapes were used, with production demand being met by private land.  This pattern holds today in most countries (with the notable exception of Canada). Part of this shift included intensification of silviculture, with greater emphasis on plantation-style and shorter-rotation forestry. These conditions have substantial implications for wildlife conservation, and perhaps now more than ever provide an opportunity to integrate silvicultural, harvest prescription, and wildlife management activities.

Advances in remote sensing technologies, data management, and analytical techniques, and substantial commitments by forest managers to conduct forestry–wildlife research has produced cutting-edge science to inform wildlife management in production forests now and into the future. This Special Issue will highlight these works, focusing on results of field studies or comprehensive literature reviews with outcomes relevant to current management paradigms used in production forests.

We solicit papers based on field research or literature reviews demonstrating how forest management practices affect wildlife, focusing on applied outcomes relevant to major timber-producing regions of the world, potentially including North America, Russia, Europe, Australia, and parts of Africa.

Prof. Dr. Gary Roloff
Dr. Andrew J. Kroll
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Forests is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • forest planning
  • production forests
  • silviculture
  • timber harvest prescriptions
  • wildlife conservation.

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

8 pages, 1167 KiB  
Communication
Accuracy and Precision of Commercial Thinning to Achieve Wildlife Management Objectives in Production Forests
by Kent Keene, William Gulsby, Allison Colter, Darren Miller, Kristina Johannsen, Karl Miller and James Martin
Forests 2021, 12(4), 411; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040411 - 30 Mar 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1530
Abstract
Tree stocking and the associated canopy closure in production forests is often greater than optimal for wildlife that require an open canopy and the associated understory plant community. Although mid-rotation treatments such as thinning can reduce canopy closure and return sunlight to the [...] Read more.
Tree stocking and the associated canopy closure in production forests is often greater than optimal for wildlife that require an open canopy and the associated understory plant community. Although mid-rotation treatments such as thinning can reduce canopy closure and return sunlight to the forest floor, stimulating understory vegetation, wildlife-focused thinning prescriptions often involve thinning stands to lower tree densities than are typically prescribed for commercial logging operations. Therefore, we quantified the accuracy and precision with which commercial logging crews thinned pre-marked and unmarked mid-rotation loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stands to residual basal areas of 9 (low), 14 (medium), and 18 (high) m2/ha. Following harvest, observed basal areas were 3.36, 1.58, and 0.6 m2/ha below target basal areas for the high, medium, and low basal area treatments, respectively. Pre-marking stands increased precision, but not accuracy, of thinning operations. We believe the thinning outcomes we observed are sufficient to achieve wildlife objectives in production forests, and that the added expense associated with pre-marking stands to achieve wildlife objectives in production forests depends on focal wildlife species and management objectives. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Using Forest Management to Achieve Wildlife Conservation on Production Forest Landscapes)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 1544 KiB  
Article
Acceleration of Forest Structural Development for Large Trees and Mammals: Restoration in Decades or Centuries?
by Thomas P. Sullivan, Druscilla S. Sullivan, Pontus M. F. Lindgren, Douglas B. Ransome and Walt Klenner
Forests 2021, 12(4), 388; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040388 - 25 Mar 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1962
Abstract
There is a demand for more progressive restoration directives to regenerate forest ecosystems impacted by harvesting, wildfire, insect outbreaks, and mineral resource extraction. Forest restoration may take many decades and even centuries without active silvicultural intervention to grow large trees that provide suitable [...] Read more.
There is a demand for more progressive restoration directives to regenerate forest ecosystems impacted by harvesting, wildfire, insect outbreaks, and mineral resource extraction. Forest restoration may take many decades and even centuries without active silvicultural intervention to grow large trees that provide suitable habitat for various wildlife species. We tested the hypotheses (H) that, compared with unmanaged (unthinned and old-growth) stands, large-scale precommercial thinning (heavy thinning to <500 stems/ha) of young lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia), at 20–25 years post-treatment, would enhance: (H1) the architecture of large overstory trees (e.g., diameter, height, and crown dimensions); (H2) mean (i) total abundance and species diversity of forest-floor small mammals, (ii) abundance of tree squirrels; and (H3) relative habitat use by mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). There were three levels of thinning with mean densities of crop trees/ha: 353 (low), 712 (medium) and 1288 (high), an unthinned, and old-growth stand replicated at three areas in south-central British Columbia, Canada. Mammal abundance and habitat use were measured during the period 2013 to 2015. Mean diameter of crop trees was significantly different among stands with the low-density, medium-density, and old-growth stands having diameters larger than the high-density and unthinned stands. Mean height of crop trees was highest in the old-growth stands. Mean crown volume of crop trees was significantly different among stands with the low-density stands 2.1 to 5.8 times higher than the high-density, unthinned, and old-growth stands, and hence partial support for H1. Mean total abundance of forest-floor small mammals was significantly different among stands with the low-density and old-growth stands 1.9 to 2.4 times higher than the other three treatment stands. Mean abundances per stand of the red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) (range of 4.8 to 12.0) and the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) (range of 3.2 to 4.3) were similar among stands. Mean relative habitat use by mule deer was similar among stands, but variable with counts of pellet-groups/ha in the thinned stands were 3.8 to 4.2 and 2.1 to 2.3 times higher than the unthinned and old-growth stands, respectively. Thus, mean total abundance of forest-floor small mammals of H2 was supported, but species diversity and abundance of tree squirrels was not. Enhanced relative habitat use by mule deer (H3) was not supported. To our knowledge, this is the first concurrent measurement of several mammal species in heavily thinned, unthinned, and old-growth forest across three replicate study areas at 20–25 years post-treatment. Although not all mammal responses were significant, there was a strong indication that restored forests via heavy thinning (<500 trees/ha) produced large overstory trees (at least for diameter and crown dimensions) in stands 33 to 42 years old. Comparable old-growth stands, albeit with crop trees of greater height and merchantable volume, ranged from 120 to 167 years of age. Restored forests with large trees capable of supporting at least these mammal species may be achieved in decades rather than centuries. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Using Forest Management to Achieve Wildlife Conservation on Production Forest Landscapes)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

22 pages, 13305 KiB  
Review
Fate of Postharvest Woody Debris, Mammal Habitat, and Alternative Management of Forest Residues on Clearcuts: A Synthesis
by Thomas P. Sullivan, Druscilla S. Sullivan and Walt Klenner
Forests 2021, 12(5), 551; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12050551 - 28 Apr 2021
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2981
Abstract
Coarse woody debris on the forest floor contributes to maintenance of forest biodiversity and long-term ecosystem productivity. Down wood is often dispersed over harvested sites during logging activities, thereby leaving piles of postharvest debris as “excess” material at landings and roadsides. These wood [...] Read more.
Coarse woody debris on the forest floor contributes to maintenance of forest biodiversity and long-term ecosystem productivity. Down wood is often dispersed over harvested sites during logging activities, thereby leaving piles of postharvest debris as “excess” material at landings and roadsides. These wood residues may be burned in most jurisdictions in North America to reduce a perceived fire hazard. The fire hazard debate needs to acknowledge the documented benefits of woody debris retention while striking a balance among biodiversity, bioenergy, and alternative uses for debris, while reducing ignitions by humans. The burning of excess woody debris also creates smoke, causes the release of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and creates human health issues, particularly for vulnerable individuals. The relationship of wildfire smoke to human health problems is well documented. However, there is no scientific evidence showing that postharvest debris piles are ignition points for forest fires, other than those caused by humans. Wood residues from forest harvesting or natural disturbance wood from wildfire and insect outbreaks may be used as renewable biomass “feedstocks” that could help improve energy supplies and reduce GHG emissions. If not marketable, the management of postharvest debris should seek alternative outlets that do not dispose of debris by burning, but still meet fire hazard abatement requirements. The construction of woody debris structures (e.g., piles and windrows) built at the time of forest harvesting and log processing, or later at the site preparation stages, has positive benefits for wildlife habitat and forest biodiversity. A windrow or series of piles may connect patches and reserves of mature forest and riparian areas on clearcut openings. Piles and windrows have consistently provided habitat on new clearcuts for southern red-backed voles (Myodes gapperi) and Microtus voles, as well as a host of other forest-floor small mammal species, at least up to 12 years postconstruction. Woody debris provides important habitat for foraging and cover attributes for marten (Martes americana), weasels (Mustela spp.), and other furbearers. A list of “What to do?” and “When and Where?” with options for construction of woody debris habitats: poorest, good, better, and best are given. In the cases where fire risk from humans is minimized and there are no marketable wood products, eight alternative management scenarios for postharvest woody debris are provided. These include: (1) piles for wildlife habitat; (2) distribution of debris in partial cut forests; (3) machinery to break up and crush debris; (4) protection of riparian zones with barriers for cattle; (5) construction of range fencing; (6) reclamation of landings and skid-trails; (7) soil fertility and reduction in weed competition and drought for planted conifers; and (8) slope stabilization and revegetation. Advantages and disadvantages (if known) are given for each alternative. A flow chart for the fate of excess postharvest woody debris with respect to fire hazard abatement and markets or nonmarkets is given. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Using Forest Management to Achieve Wildlife Conservation on Production Forest Landscapes)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

23 pages, 2346 KiB  
Systematic Review
Systematic Review of Bird Response to Privately-Owned, Managed Pine Stands in the Southeastern U.S.
by Kristine O. Evans, Angela Larsen-Gray, Darren Miller and Craig Loehle
Forests 2021, 12(4), 442; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040442 - 6 Apr 2021
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2536
Abstract
The southeastern U.S. is widely known as a bastion of privately-owned, managed pine (Pinus spp.) forests, comprised primarily of native pine species. The region supports high levels of biodiversity, but also a multi-billion-dollar forest products economy critical to socioeconomic stability of rural [...] Read more.
The southeastern U.S. is widely known as a bastion of privately-owned, managed pine (Pinus spp.) forests, comprised primarily of native pine species. The region supports high levels of biodiversity, but also a multi-billion-dollar forest products economy critical to socioeconomic stability of rural areas. We conducted a systematic review of studies focused exclusively on avifaunal associations within privately-owned, managed pine landscapes in the southeastern U.S. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis framework to examine all available studies that evaluated aspects of avian diversity, abundance, and community composition across a suite of forest types, stand ages, and forest management practices within southeastern managed pine systems in the last 70 years. We screened 160 records through primary database searches, and 1696 secondary records from supplemental searches and other sources, and identified 103 relevant articles for inclusion. As expected, although there is no single forest management practice that best provides for avian communities, we found practices that: (1) involve prudent site preparation; (2) promote forest thinning and intermediate management practices; (3) provide non-pine vegetative cover; (4) supply fine- and meso-filter resources such as retained snags and coarse woody debris; and (5) promote heterogeneity in cover types, largely enhanced value of southeastern managed pine systems to avian communities. Overall, it appears that avian communities can be best maintained by providing a diverse mosaic of forest conditions in managed pine landscapes. Key research gaps include improving understanding avian population demographics, such as survival, reproduction, and dispersal. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Using Forest Management to Achieve Wildlife Conservation on Production Forest Landscapes)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-4
Back to TopTop