Impact of Forest Management on Species Richness: Global Meta-Analysis and Economic Trade-Offs
Forests managed for timber have an important role to play in conserving global biodiversity. We evaluated the most common timber production systems worldwide in terms of their impact on local species richness by conducting a categorical meta-analysis. We reviewed 287 published studies containing 100...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Scientific reports 2016-04, Vol.6 (1), p.23954-23954, Article 23954 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 23954 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 23954 |
container_title | Scientific reports |
container_volume | 6 |
creator | Chaudhary, Abhishek Burivalova, Zuzana Koh, Lian Pin Hellweg, Stefanie |
description | Forests managed for timber have an important role to play in conserving global biodiversity. We evaluated the most common timber production systems worldwide in terms of their impact on local species richness by conducting a categorical meta-analysis. We reviewed 287 published studies containing 1008 comparisons of species richness in managed and unmanaged forests and derived management, taxon and continent specific effect sizes. We show that in terms of local species richness loss, forest management types can be ranked, from best to worse, as follows: selection and retention systems, reduced impact logging, conventional selective logging, clear-cutting, agroforestry, timber plantations, fuelwood plantations. Next, we calculated the economic profitability in terms of the net present value of timber harvesting from 10 hypothetical wood-producing Forest Management Units (FMU) from around the globe. The ranking of management types is altered when the species loss per unit profit generated from the FMU is considered. This is due to differences in yield, timber species prices, rotation cycle length and production costs. We thus conclude that it would be erroneous to dismiss or prioritize timber production regimes, based solely on their ranking of alpha diversity impacts. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1038/srep23954 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4819217</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1778706757</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c504t-63fc6508a8a496b16b2d630e31968e05515dd3bc4654c7477908c58eaaefce03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkV1LHDEUhkOxVFEv-gdKoDdWGE0y-fSiIOIXKILd2xIymTPryEwyJruC_97I6rK15yaHnIf3vJwXoe-UHFFS6-OcYGK1EfwL2mGEi4rVjG1t9NtoP-dHUkoww6n5hraZIpxIwnfQ3-txcn6BY4cvYoK8wLcuuDmMEMpnwH8m8D1kfN_7hwA5n-DLITZuwLewcNVpcMNL7jN2ocXnPoY49h7Pkmuhuuu6vIe-dm7IsP_-7qLZxfns7Kq6ubu8Pju9qbwgfFHJuvNSEO2040Y2VDaslTWBmhqpgQhBRdvWjedScK-4UoZoLzQ4B50HUu-i3yvZadmM0PriPbnBTqkfXXqx0fX230noH-w8PluuqWFUFYGDd4EUn5blCnbss4dhcAHiMluqlFZEKvGG_vyEPsZlKncolDZaFtDIQv1aUT7FXBLq1mYosW-x2XVshf2x6X5NfoRUgMMVkMsozCFtrPxP7RWeiqDE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1898678796</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Impact of Forest Management on Species Richness: Global Meta-Analysis and Economic Trade-Offs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>Nature Free</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Chaudhary, Abhishek ; Burivalova, Zuzana ; Koh, Lian Pin ; Hellweg, Stefanie</creator><creatorcontrib>Chaudhary, Abhishek ; Burivalova, Zuzana ; Koh, Lian Pin ; Hellweg, Stefanie</creatorcontrib><description>Forests managed for timber have an important role to play in conserving global biodiversity. We evaluated the most common timber production systems worldwide in terms of their impact on local species richness by conducting a categorical meta-analysis. We reviewed 287 published studies containing 1008 comparisons of species richness in managed and unmanaged forests and derived management, taxon and continent specific effect sizes. We show that in terms of local species richness loss, forest management types can be ranked, from best to worse, as follows: selection and retention systems, reduced impact logging, conventional selective logging, clear-cutting, agroforestry, timber plantations, fuelwood plantations. Next, we calculated the economic profitability in terms of the net present value of timber harvesting from 10 hypothetical wood-producing Forest Management Units (FMU) from around the globe. The ranking of management types is altered when the species loss per unit profit generated from the FMU is considered. This is due to differences in yield, timber species prices, rotation cycle length and production costs. We thus conclude that it would be erroneous to dismiss or prioritize timber production regimes, based solely on their ranking of alpha diversity impacts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/srep23954</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27040604</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>704/158/1145 ; 704/158/2454 ; 704/158/670 ; 704/158/672 ; Agroforestry ; Biodiversity ; Clearcutting ; Conservation of Natural Resources ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Economics ; Forest management ; Forestry - economics ; Forests ; Harvesting ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; Logging ; Meta-analysis ; multidisciplinary ; Plantations ; Population Density ; Production costs ; Reviews ; Science ; Species richness ; Timber</subject><ispartof>Scientific reports, 2016-04, Vol.6 (1), p.23954-23954, Article 23954</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2016</rights><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Apr 2016</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016, Macmillan Publishers Limited 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c504t-63fc6508a8a496b16b2d630e31968e05515dd3bc4654c7477908c58eaaefce03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c504t-63fc6508a8a496b16b2d630e31968e05515dd3bc4654c7477908c58eaaefce03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819217/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819217/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27903,27904,41099,42168,51554,53769,53771</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27040604$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chaudhary, Abhishek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burivalova, Zuzana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koh, Lian Pin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hellweg, Stefanie</creatorcontrib><title>Impact of Forest Management on Species Richness: Global Meta-Analysis and Economic Trade-Offs</title><title>Scientific reports</title><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><description>Forests managed for timber have an important role to play in conserving global biodiversity. We evaluated the most common timber production systems worldwide in terms of their impact on local species richness by conducting a categorical meta-analysis. We reviewed 287 published studies containing 1008 comparisons of species richness in managed and unmanaged forests and derived management, taxon and continent specific effect sizes. We show that in terms of local species richness loss, forest management types can be ranked, from best to worse, as follows: selection and retention systems, reduced impact logging, conventional selective logging, clear-cutting, agroforestry, timber plantations, fuelwood plantations. Next, we calculated the economic profitability in terms of the net present value of timber harvesting from 10 hypothetical wood-producing Forest Management Units (FMU) from around the globe. The ranking of management types is altered when the species loss per unit profit generated from the FMU is considered. This is due to differences in yield, timber species prices, rotation cycle length and production costs. We thus conclude that it would be erroneous to dismiss or prioritize timber production regimes, based solely on their ranking of alpha diversity impacts.</description><subject>704/158/1145</subject><subject>704/158/2454</subject><subject>704/158/670</subject><subject>704/158/672</subject><subject>Agroforestry</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Clearcutting</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Forestry - economics</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Harvesting</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>Logging</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>multidisciplinary</subject><subject>Plantations</subject><subject>Population Density</subject><subject>Production costs</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Species richness</subject><subject>Timber</subject><issn>2045-2322</issn><issn>2045-2322</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNplkV1LHDEUhkOxVFEv-gdKoDdWGE0y-fSiIOIXKILd2xIymTPryEwyJruC_97I6rK15yaHnIf3vJwXoe-UHFFS6-OcYGK1EfwL2mGEi4rVjG1t9NtoP-dHUkoww6n5hraZIpxIwnfQ3-txcn6BY4cvYoK8wLcuuDmMEMpnwH8m8D1kfN_7hwA5n-DLITZuwLewcNVpcMNL7jN2ocXnPoY49h7Pkmuhuuu6vIe-dm7IsP_-7qLZxfns7Kq6ubu8Pju9qbwgfFHJuvNSEO2040Y2VDaslTWBmhqpgQhBRdvWjedScK-4UoZoLzQ4B50HUu-i3yvZadmM0PriPbnBTqkfXXqx0fX230noH-w8PluuqWFUFYGDd4EUn5blCnbss4dhcAHiMluqlFZEKvGG_vyEPsZlKncolDZaFtDIQv1aUT7FXBLq1mYosW-x2XVshf2x6X5NfoRUgMMVkMsozCFtrPxP7RWeiqDE</recordid><startdate>20160404</startdate><enddate>20160404</enddate><creator>Chaudhary, Abhishek</creator><creator>Burivalova, Zuzana</creator><creator>Koh, Lian Pin</creator><creator>Hellweg, Stefanie</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160404</creationdate><title>Impact of Forest Management on Species Richness: Global Meta-Analysis and Economic Trade-Offs</title><author>Chaudhary, Abhishek ; Burivalova, Zuzana ; Koh, Lian Pin ; Hellweg, Stefanie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c504t-63fc6508a8a496b16b2d630e31968e05515dd3bc4654c7477908c58eaaefce03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>704/158/1145</topic><topic>704/158/2454</topic><topic>704/158/670</topic><topic>704/158/672</topic><topic>Agroforestry</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Clearcutting</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Forestry - economics</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Harvesting</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>Logging</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>multidisciplinary</topic><topic>Plantations</topic><topic>Population Density</topic><topic>Production costs</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Species richness</topic><topic>Timber</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chaudhary, Abhishek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burivalova, Zuzana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koh, Lian Pin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hellweg, Stefanie</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content 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 Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chaudhary, Abhishek</au><au>Burivalova, Zuzana</au><au>Koh, Lian Pin</au><au>Hellweg, Stefanie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Impact of Forest Management on Species Richness: Global Meta-Analysis and Economic Trade-Offs</atitle><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle><stitle>Sci Rep</stitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><date>2016-04-04</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>23954</spage><epage>23954</epage><pages>23954-23954</pages><artnum>23954</artnum><issn>2045-2322</issn><eissn>2045-2322</eissn><abstract>Forests managed for timber have an important role to play in conserving global biodiversity. We evaluated the most common timber production systems worldwide in terms of their impact on local species richness by conducting a categorical meta-analysis. We reviewed 287 published studies containing 1008 comparisons of species richness in managed and unmanaged forests and derived management, taxon and continent specific effect sizes. We show that in terms of local species richness loss, forest management types can be ranked, from best to worse, as follows: selection and retention systems, reduced impact logging, conventional selective logging, clear-cutting, agroforestry, timber plantations, fuelwood plantations. Next, we calculated the economic profitability in terms of the net present value of timber harvesting from 10 hypothetical wood-producing Forest Management Units (FMU) from around the globe. The ranking of management types is altered when the species loss per unit profit generated from the FMU is considered. This is due to differences in yield, timber species prices, rotation cycle length and production costs. We thus conclude that it would be erroneous to dismiss or prioritize timber production regimes, based solely on their ranking of alpha diversity impacts.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>27040604</pmid><doi>10.1038/srep23954</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2045-2322 |
ispartof | Scientific reports, 2016-04, Vol.6 (1), p.23954-23954, Article 23954 |
issn | 2045-2322 2045-2322 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4819217 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; Nature Free; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | 704/158/1145 704/158/2454 704/158/670 704/158/672 Agroforestry Biodiversity Clearcutting Conservation of Natural Resources Cost-Benefit Analysis Economics Forest management Forestry - economics Forests Harvesting Humanities and Social Sciences Logging Meta-analysis multidisciplinary Plantations Population Density Production costs Reviews Science Species richness Timber |
title | Impact of Forest Management on Species Richness: Global Meta-Analysis and Economic Trade-Offs |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T08%3A10%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact%20of%20Forest%20Management%20on%20Species%20Richness:%20Global%20Meta-Analysis%20and%20Economic%20Trade-Offs&rft.jtitle=Scientific%20reports&rft.au=Chaudhary,%20Abhishek&rft.date=2016-04-04&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=23954&rft.epage=23954&rft.pages=23954-23954&rft.artnum=23954&rft.issn=2045-2322&rft.eissn=2045-2322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/srep23954&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1778706757%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1898678796&rft_id=info:pmid/27040604&rfr_iscdi=true |