Buffer strips can pre-empt extinction debt in boreal streamside habitats

Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Ville A O Selonen¹  Janne S Kotiaho¹ 

[1] Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, PO Box 35, 40014, Finland

关键词: Woodland key habitat;    Valuable habitat;    Legislation;    Forest management;    Extinction debt;    Conservation;   

Others  :  1085316
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6785-13-24

 received in 2013-01-29, accepted in 2013-07-04,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Conservation of biological diversity and economical utilization of natural resources form an almost inevitable confrontation between the two. In practice, however, a balance between the two ought to be found, and in managed boreal forests, preservation of woodland key habitats is increasingly used strategy to safeguard biological diversity. According to the Finnish Forests Act, certain Forest Act habitat (FAH) types must be safeguarded, provided they are clearly distinguishable from their surroundings. Furthermore, once the habitat has been identified as a FAH, its special characteristics must not be altered. Both of these aspects contain ambiguities that potentially undermine the practical application of the Act. We designed a replicated sampling study to address these ambiguities at the most common FAH type, riparian habitat of small boreal streams. As response variables we used vascular plants and mosses. We asked i) how wide is the FAH around small streams that is distinguishable from its surrounding and ii) how wide buffer strip around the FAH is sufficient for long term to preserve the natural species community composition of the FAH.

Results

We found that an average three meters wide strip around the stream constitutes the distinguishable FAH and that a minimum of 45 meters wide buffers on both sides of the stream are needed for the species community composition to remain unaltered.

Conclusions

We conclude that 45 meters wide buffers appear sufficient to safeguard vascular plant and moss species communities within the FAH, prevent local populations from extinctions and thus pre-empt extinction debt that would be realised with more narrow buffers. While 45 meters may seem intolerable from the commercial forestry point of view, anything less than that may be intolerable from the point of view of conservation, and thus against the idea of sustainable use of natural resources.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Selonen and Kotiaho; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Rassi P: Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. Edita: Helsinki; 2001.
• [2]Hanski I: The shrinking world: ecological consequences of habitat loss. Oldendorf/Luhe: International Ecological Institute; 2005.
• [3]Timonen J, Siitonen J, Gustafsson L, Kotiaho JS, Stokland JN, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Monkkonen M: Woodland key habitats in northern Europe: concepts, inventory and protection. Scand J For Res 2010, 25(4):309-324.
• [4]Hanski I: In the midst of ecology, conservation, and competing interests in the society. Ann Zool Fenn 2002, 39(3):183-186.
• [5]Pykälä J: Implementation of Forest Act habitats in Finland: does it protect the right habitats for threatened species? For Ecol Manage 2007, 242(2–3):281-287.
• [6]Savolainen J: Metsälaki perusteluineen. Helsinki: Edita; 1997.
• [7]Kotiaho JS, Selonen VAO: Metsälain erityisen tärkeiden elinympäristöjen kartoituksen laadun ja luotettavuuden analyysi. Helsinki: Suomen ympäristökeskus; 2006.
• [8]Selonen VAO, Mussaari M, Toivanen T, Kotiaho JS: The Conservation Potential of Brook-side Key Habitats in Managed Boreal Forests. Silva Fenn 2011, 45(5):1041-1052.
• [9]Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, Mckee WA, Cummins KW: An Ecosystem Perspective of Riparian Zones. BioScience 1991, 41(8):540-551.
• [10]Nilsson C, Svedmark M: Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water regimes: Riparian plant communities. Environ Manage 2002, 30(4):468-480.
• [11]Naiman RJ, Decamps H: The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1997, 28:621-658.
• [12]Hylander K, Dynesius M, Jonsson BG, Nilsson C: Substrate form determines the fate of bryophytes in riparian buffer strips. Ecol Appl 2005, 15(2):674-688.
• [13]Esseen P, Ehnström B, Ericson L, Sjöberg K: Boreal Forests. Ecol Bull 1997, 46:16-47.
• [14]Pykälä J: Immediate increase in plant species richness after clear-cutting of boreal herb-rich forests. Appl Veg Sci 2004, 7(1):29-34.
• [15]Widenfalk O, Weslien J: Plant species richness in managed boreal forests–Effects of stand succession and thinning. For Ecol Manage 2009, 257(5):1386-1394.
• [16]Brosofske KD, Chen JQ, Naiman RJ, Franklin JF: Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecol Appl 1997, 7(4):1188-1200.
• [17]Harper K, Macdonald S, Burton P, Chen J, Brosofske K, Saunders S, Euskirchen E, Roberts D, Jaiteh M, Esseen P: Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 2005, 19(3):768-782.
• [18]Hylander K, Jonsson BG, Nilsson C: Evaluating buffer strips along boreal streams using bryophytes as indicators. Ecol Appl 2002, 12(3):797-806.
• [19]Stewart KJ, Mallik AU: Bryophyte responses to microclimatic edge effects across riparian buffers. Ecol Appl 2006, 16(4):1474-1486.
• [20]Hylander K, Nilsson C, Güthner T: Effects of Buffer-Strip Retention and Clearcutting on Land Snails in Boreal Riparian Forests. Conserv Biol 2004, 18(4):1052-1062.
• [21]Dynesius M, Hylander K: Resilience of bryophyte communities to clear-cutting of boreal stream-side forests. Biol Conserv 2007, 135(3):423-434.
• [22]Ström L, Hylander K, Dynesius M: Different long-term and short-term responses of land snails to clear-cutting of boreal stream-side forests. Biol Conserv 2009, 142(8):1580-1587.
• [23]Cajander AK: The theory of forest types. Acta For Fenn 1926, 29(3):1-108.
• [24]Clarke KR: Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austral Ecol 1993, 18(1):117-143.
• [25]Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD: PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontol Electron 2001, 4(1):1-9.
• [26]Clarke KR, Warwick RM: A taxonomic distinctness index and its statistical properties. J Appl Ecol 1998, 35(4):523-531.
• [27]Magurran AE: Measuring Biological Diversity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2004.
• [28]Cadotte MW, Cardinale BJ, Oakley TH: Evolutionary history and the effect of biodiversity on plant productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008, 105(44):17012-17017.
• [29]Hämet-Ahti L, Suominen J, Uotila P, Lampinen R, Koistinen M: Retkeilykasvio. Helsinki: Luonnontieteellinen keskusmuseo; 1998.
• [30]Ulvinen T, Syrjänen K, Anttila S: Suomen sammalet - levinneisyys, ekologia, uhanalaisuus. Helsinki: Suomen ympäristökeskus; 2002.
• [31]Macarthur R, Levins R: Limiting Similarity Convergence and Divergence of Coexisting Species. Am Nat 1967, 101(921):377-385.
• [32]Jongman RHG, ter Braak CJF, van Tongeren OFR: Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
• [33]Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA: Habitat Destruction and the Extinction Debt. Nature 1994, 371(6492):65-66.
• [34]Hanski I: Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Ann Zoo Fenn 2000, 37(4):271-280.
• [35]Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen RK, Helm A, Krauss J, Lindborg R, Öckinger E, Pärtel M, Pino J, Rodà F, Stefanescu C, Teder T, Zobel M, Steffan-Dewenter I: Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 2009, 24(10):564-571.
• [36]Flynn DFB, Mirotchnick N, Jain M, Palmer MI, Naeem S: Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity-ecosystem-function relationships. Ecology 2011, 92(8):1573-1581.
• [37]Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S: Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 2012, 486(7401):59-67.
• [38]Young A, Mitchell N: Microclimate and Vegetation Edge Effects in a Fragmented Podocarp-Broadleaf Forest in New-Zealand. Biol Conserv 1994, 67(1):63-72.
• [39]Murcia C: Edge Effects in Fragmented Forests - Implications for Conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 1995, 10(2):58-62.
• [40]Wenger S: A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation. Athens: University of Georgia. Institute of Ecology. Office of Public Service & Outreach; 1999.
• [41]Spittlehouse DL, Adams RS, Winkler RD: Forest, edge, and opening microclimate at Sicamous Creek. Research Report. British Columbia: Ministry of Forests; 2004.