Forest Management Potential Recolonization Benefits of Retention Forestry Practices
Tree retention after forest harvest is often used to enhance biodiversity in forests that are otherwise managed using even-aged systems. It remains unclear to what extent scattered trees and residual patches (i.e., retained structures) actually facilitate recolonization of species in logged areas. F...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Forest science 2021-06, Vol.67 (3), p.356-366 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 366 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 356 |
container_title | Forest science |
container_volume | 67 |
creator | Loehle, Craig Solarik, Kevin A Greene, Daniel U Six, Laura Sleep, Darren J H |
description | Tree retention after forest harvest is often used to enhance biodiversity in forests that are otherwise managed using even-aged systems. It remains unclear to what extent scattered trees and residual patches (i.e., retained structures) actually facilitate recolonization of species in logged areas. For assessing recolonization benefits, it is necessary to consider both survival in retained structures postharvest and recolonization in cleared areas. We conducted a literature review to assess recolonization responses of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, vascular plants, invertebrates, lichens/bryophytes, and mycorrhizal fungi. The clearest benefits of retention were for poorly dispersing plants. Seed dispersal type may be a key life-history trait relative to effectiveness of recolonization, with animal-dispersed seeds having the greatest dispersal range. We found that lichens/bryophytes are likely not dispersal limited (with possible exceptions) but are slow growing and require the development of moist microsite conditions. Significant literature gaps exist for amphibians, nonvolant invertebrates, and mycorrhizal fungi. Overall, recolonization success postharvest is taxon specific, where the benefits of implementing retention systems will depend on the region and species within that region. Species that require a long growth period (some lichens) or are poor dispersers (some herbaceous species) may benefit more from the creation of forest reserves than from retention practices. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/forsci/fxaa054 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2549298799</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2549298799</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p113t-8bc8a0d7f58969f93e231df816b9369e71369637bbd409c543197b381d01e1793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotTk1Lw0AUXETBWL16DniOfS8vye47arEqVCx-gLeySXZlS83W3S2ov95gvczAzDAzQpwjXCIwTa0PsXNT-6U11NWByJBJFSRJHYoMAOtCVvx2LE5iXAOAIigz8Tz3wcSUP-hBv5sPM6R86dNITm_yJ9P5jR_cj07OD_m1GYx1KebejtZfaFT3BeE7XwbdJdeZeCqOrN5Ec_bPE_E6v3mZ3RWLx9v72dWi2CJSKlTbKQ29tLXihi2TKQl7q7BpmRo2EkdsSLZtXwF3dUXIsiWFPaBByTQRF_vebfCfu_HEau13YRgnV2VdcclKMtMv1kFTtg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2549298799</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Forest Management Potential Recolonization Benefits of Retention Forestry Practices</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Loehle, Craig ; Solarik, Kevin A ; Greene, Daniel U ; Six, Laura ; Sleep, Darren J H</creator><creatorcontrib>Loehle, Craig ; Solarik, Kevin A ; Greene, Daniel U ; Six, Laura ; Sleep, Darren J H</creatorcontrib><description>Tree retention after forest harvest is often used to enhance biodiversity in forests that are otherwise managed using even-aged systems. It remains unclear to what extent scattered trees and residual patches (i.e., retained structures) actually facilitate recolonization of species in logged areas. For assessing recolonization benefits, it is necessary to consider both survival in retained structures postharvest and recolonization in cleared areas. We conducted a literature review to assess recolonization responses of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, vascular plants, invertebrates, lichens/bryophytes, and mycorrhizal fungi. The clearest benefits of retention were for poorly dispersing plants. Seed dispersal type may be a key life-history trait relative to effectiveness of recolonization, with animal-dispersed seeds having the greatest dispersal range. We found that lichens/bryophytes are likely not dispersal limited (with possible exceptions) but are slow growing and require the development of moist microsite conditions. Significant literature gaps exist for amphibians, nonvolant invertebrates, and mycorrhizal fungi. Overall, recolonization success postharvest is taxon specific, where the benefits of implementing retention systems will depend on the region and species within that region. Species that require a long growth period (some lichens) or are poor dispersers (some herbaceous species) may benefit more from the creation of forest reserves than from retention practices.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0015-749X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-3738</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/forsci/fxaa054</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bethesda: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Amphibians ; Aquatic plants ; Arthropods ; Biodiversity ; Birds ; Bryophytes ; Dispersal ; Dispersion ; Flowers & plants ; Forest harvesting ; Forest management ; Forestry ; Forests ; Fungi ; Harvest ; Invertebrates ; Lichens ; Life history ; Literature reviews ; Nature reserves ; Plants ; Recolonization ; Reptiles ; Retention ; Seed dispersal ; Seeds ; Species ; Timber ; Trees</subject><ispartof>Forest science, 2021-06, Vol.67 (3), p.356-366</ispartof><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press Jun 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Loehle, Craig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solarik, Kevin A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greene, Daniel U</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Six, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sleep, Darren J H</creatorcontrib><title>Forest Management Potential Recolonization Benefits of Retention Forestry Practices</title><title>Forest science</title><description>Tree retention after forest harvest is often used to enhance biodiversity in forests that are otherwise managed using even-aged systems. It remains unclear to what extent scattered trees and residual patches (i.e., retained structures) actually facilitate recolonization of species in logged areas. For assessing recolonization benefits, it is necessary to consider both survival in retained structures postharvest and recolonization in cleared areas. We conducted a literature review to assess recolonization responses of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, vascular plants, invertebrates, lichens/bryophytes, and mycorrhizal fungi. The clearest benefits of retention were for poorly dispersing plants. Seed dispersal type may be a key life-history trait relative to effectiveness of recolonization, with animal-dispersed seeds having the greatest dispersal range. We found that lichens/bryophytes are likely not dispersal limited (with possible exceptions) but are slow growing and require the development of moist microsite conditions. Significant literature gaps exist for amphibians, nonvolant invertebrates, and mycorrhizal fungi. Overall, recolonization success postharvest is taxon specific, where the benefits of implementing retention systems will depend on the region and species within that region. Species that require a long growth period (some lichens) or are poor dispersers (some herbaceous species) may benefit more from the creation of forest reserves than from retention practices.</description><subject>Amphibians</subject><subject>Aquatic plants</subject><subject>Arthropods</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>Bryophytes</subject><subject>Dispersal</subject><subject>Dispersion</subject><subject>Flowers & plants</subject><subject>Forest harvesting</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Fungi</subject><subject>Harvest</subject><subject>Invertebrates</subject><subject>Lichens</subject><subject>Life history</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Nature reserves</subject><subject>Plants</subject><subject>Recolonization</subject><subject>Reptiles</subject><subject>Retention</subject><subject>Seed dispersal</subject><subject>Seeds</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Timber</subject><subject>Trees</subject><issn>0015-749X</issn><issn>1938-3738</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotTk1Lw0AUXETBWL16DniOfS8vye47arEqVCx-gLeySXZlS83W3S2ov95gvczAzDAzQpwjXCIwTa0PsXNT-6U11NWByJBJFSRJHYoMAOtCVvx2LE5iXAOAIigz8Tz3wcSUP-hBv5sPM6R86dNITm_yJ9P5jR_cj07OD_m1GYx1KebejtZfaFT3BeE7XwbdJdeZeCqOrN5Ec_bPE_E6v3mZ3RWLx9v72dWi2CJSKlTbKQ29tLXihi2TKQl7q7BpmRo2EkdsSLZtXwF3dUXIsiWFPaBByTQRF_vebfCfu_HEau13YRgnV2VdcclKMtMv1kFTtg</recordid><startdate>20210601</startdate><enddate>20210601</enddate><creator>Loehle, Craig</creator><creator>Solarik, Kevin A</creator><creator>Greene, Daniel U</creator><creator>Six, Laura</creator><creator>Sleep, Darren J H</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210601</creationdate><title>Forest Management Potential Recolonization Benefits of Retention Forestry Practices</title><author>Loehle, Craig ; Solarik, Kevin A ; Greene, Daniel U ; Six, Laura ; Sleep, Darren J H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p113t-8bc8a0d7f58969f93e231df816b9369e71369637bbd409c543197b381d01e1793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Amphibians</topic><topic>Aquatic plants</topic><topic>Arthropods</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>Bryophytes</topic><topic>Dispersal</topic><topic>Dispersion</topic><topic>Flowers & plants</topic><topic>Forest harvesting</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Fungi</topic><topic>Harvest</topic><topic>Invertebrates</topic><topic>Lichens</topic><topic>Life history</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Nature reserves</topic><topic>Plants</topic><topic>Recolonization</topic><topic>Reptiles</topic><topic>Retention</topic><topic>Seed dispersal</topic><topic>Seeds</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Timber</topic><topic>Trees</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Loehle, Craig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Solarik, Kevin A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greene, Daniel U</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Six, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sleep, Darren J H</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Forest science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Loehle, Craig</au><au>Solarik, Kevin A</au><au>Greene, Daniel U</au><au>Six, Laura</au><au>Sleep, Darren J H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Forest Management Potential Recolonization Benefits of Retention Forestry Practices</atitle><jtitle>Forest science</jtitle><date>2021-06-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>356</spage><epage>366</epage><pages>356-366</pages><issn>0015-749X</issn><eissn>1938-3738</eissn><abstract>Tree retention after forest harvest is often used to enhance biodiversity in forests that are otherwise managed using even-aged systems. It remains unclear to what extent scattered trees and residual patches (i.e., retained structures) actually facilitate recolonization of species in logged areas. For assessing recolonization benefits, it is necessary to consider both survival in retained structures postharvest and recolonization in cleared areas. We conducted a literature review to assess recolonization responses of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, vascular plants, invertebrates, lichens/bryophytes, and mycorrhizal fungi. The clearest benefits of retention were for poorly dispersing plants. Seed dispersal type may be a key life-history trait relative to effectiveness of recolonization, with animal-dispersed seeds having the greatest dispersal range. We found that lichens/bryophytes are likely not dispersal limited (with possible exceptions) but are slow growing and require the development of moist microsite conditions. Significant literature gaps exist for amphibians, nonvolant invertebrates, and mycorrhizal fungi. Overall, recolonization success postharvest is taxon specific, where the benefits of implementing retention systems will depend on the region and species within that region. Species that require a long growth period (some lichens) or are poor dispersers (some herbaceous species) may benefit more from the creation of forest reserves than from retention practices.</abstract><cop>Bethesda</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/forsci/fxaa054</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0015-749X |
ispartof | Forest science, 2021-06, Vol.67 (3), p.356-366 |
issn | 0015-749X 1938-3738 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2549298799 |
source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Amphibians Aquatic plants Arthropods Biodiversity Birds Bryophytes Dispersal Dispersion Flowers & plants Forest harvesting Forest management Forestry Forests Fungi Harvest Invertebrates Lichens Life history Literature reviews Nature reserves Plants Recolonization Reptiles Retention Seed dispersal Seeds Species Timber Trees |
title | Forest Management Potential Recolonization Benefits of Retention Forestry Practices |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T13%3A18%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Forest%20Management%20Potential%20Recolonization%20Benefits%20of%20Retention%20Forestry%20Practices&rft.jtitle=Forest%20science&rft.au=Loehle,%20Craig&rft.date=2021-06-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=356&rft.epage=366&rft.pages=356-366&rft.issn=0015-749X&rft.eissn=1938-3738&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/forsci/fxaa054&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2549298799%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2549298799&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |