Abstract:Conservation Biology 41In an attempt to provide a state of the art of the effect of forest management on biodiversity, 42we performed a MA comparing the species richness of managed and unmanaged forests in 47Our MA provides basic ecological knowledge needed for conservation and ecologically 48 sustainable forestry. In this paper, we showed that forest management has a negative effect 49 on the biodiversity of forest dwelling species. Because we were aware of the limitations of 50 our MA, we used caution when discussing the results considering that: (i) the effect is 51 strongly heterogeneous between different taxa; (ii) there is a trend for recovery of biodiversity 52 once management has been abandoned; (iii) no strong conclusion on the effect of different 53 management types could be drawn from our data due to low replication number. The obvious 54 main conclusion of this paper was that research on the subject in Europe was scarce and 55 that more controlled studies may help answer the questions raised. 113always provided negative slopes, except for bryophytes and birds (see Table 3, p. 107). 114Finally, even if the effect of TSA was significant only for carabids, saproxylic beetles and 115 fungi, most of the negative slopes for taxa have much higher value than the slope for all 160(2002): this paper compares old growth with 15 years-old stands, which were not considered 161 as "young regeneration phases" nor "clearfelling stands" in our protocol. We assume that our 162 selection protocol was restrictive enough regarding the number of studies finally included in 163 our MA; if we had been more restrictive in our inclusion criteria (i.e. excluding young stands), 164we would have rejected this paper. 166 Conclusions 167The paper we published does not aim at influencing European forest and conservation 168 policies in any way, but to provide decision-making tools based on scientific facts. Both 169 managed and unmanaged forests are needed to preserve European forest biodiversity, but 170 since there are many managed forests and very few old-growth ones, a special effort should 171 be allocated to create protected reserves, as suggested by Paillet et al. (2010).

No abstract

Context. Methods quantifying habitat patch importance for maintaining habitat network connectivity have been emphasized in helping to prioritize conservation actions. Functional connectivity is accepted as depending on landscape resistance, and several measures of functional inter-patch distance have been designed. However, how the inter-patch distance, i.e. based on least-cost path or multiple paths, influences the identification of key habitat patches has not been explored. Objectives. We compared the prioritization of habitat patches according to least-cost distance (LCD) and resistance distance (RD), using common binary and probabilistic connectivity metrics. Methods. Our comparison was based on a generic functional group of forest mammals with different dispersal distances, and was applied to two landscapes differing in their spatial extent and fragmentation level. Results. We found that habitat patch prioritization did not depend on distance type when considering the role of patch as contributing to dispersal fluxes. However, the role of patch as a connector facilitating dispersal might be overestimated by LCD-based indices compared with RD for short-and medium-distance dispersal. In particular, when prioritization was based on dispersal probability, the consideration of alternatives routes identified the connectors that probably provided functional connectivity for species in the long term. However, the use of LCD might help identify landscape areas that need critical restoration to improve individual dispersal. Conclusions. Our results provide new insights about the way that inter-patch distance is viewed changes the evaluation of functional connectivity. Accordingly, prioritization

Questions: How does the presence of understorey plant species vary with distance to edge along very large periphery-to-interior and forest patch size gradients? Can forest core and periphery species profiles be identified? What life-history traits can discriminate between forest core and forest periphery species? Location: Temperate forests in the northern half of France. Methods: Local climate, soil, stand characteristics and landscape metrics were collected on 19 989 plots in 1801 forest patches using data from the French National Forest Inventory. Very large distance-to-edge (3-1096 m) and patch size gradients (327-100 000 ha) were explored. Four logistic regression models were compared to determine the response patterns of 214 species to distance-to-edge, while controlling for patch size and local habitat quality (soil, climate and stand). The maximum distance of correlation between species occurrence and distance-to-edge was assessed using response curve characteristics. The relationships between life-history traits (habitat preference, preference for ancient forests , reproduction mode, dispersal mode, life form and autecology) and species profile according to distance-to-edge were tested. Results: Of the 214 species analysed, 40 had a core profile and 38 a periphery profile. The maximum distance of correlation was on average 748 m. Core species were more often species reproducing both by seed and vegetatively, ancient forest species, anemochores, bryophytes, pteridophytes, hemicryptophytes and acidophiles, whereas peripheral species were more often species reproducing by seed only, endozoochores, phanerophytes, thermophiles, basophiles, nitrogen-demanding and heliophiles. Conclusions: Significant periphery-to-core patterns of distribution were detected over much larger ranges than hitherto recognized for common under-storey plant species. Plant traits differentiated forest core from forest periphery species. This deep gradient cannot be solely explained by the usual edge-related biotic and abiotic factors. We hypothesized that it was due to edge displacement following general reforestation since ca. 1830. This edge shift created recent forests with new habitats on former agricultural lands where dispersal-limited core species had slowly expanded and forest edge species regressed at variable speeds. This long periphery-to-interior gradient of presence has important implications for forest plant species distribution, dynamics and conservation.

Aim To disentangle whether long-range periphery-to-core gradient of forest understorey plants could be attributed to past forest landscape and/or to current environmental filtering processes. We investigated (1) whether species response to past land use (ancient versus recent forest) was consistent with species response to distance to present forest edge (core versus periphery) (2) what life-history traits explained plant response to distance to present edge and past land use (3) whether distance to past forest edge explained current species distribution better than distance to present forest edge.Location Temperate forests in the northern half of France (80,000 km²).Methods Local climate, soil and stand characteristics, past land use, and present and past landscape metrics were collected on 11,936 plots using National Forest Inventory data and historical maps from 1831. Logistic regressions were applied to determine the response patterns of 181 species to present and past landscape, while controlling for local habitat quality (soil, climate and stand).Results Species response to distance to present edge very well matched response to past land use. Plant traits related to colonization capacity explained species response to present edge and past land use. The spatial distribution of 42 species was better explained by distance to forest edge in 1831, 37 species were better explained by distance to present edge and 24 species were better explained by distance to present edge and past land use.Main conclusions Two mechanisms were responsible for the long-range periphery-to-core gradient: (1) past landscape and colonization processes and (2) present edge-related mechanisms. This suggests that plant community differences between periphery and core zones are thus related to dispersal limitation and not only to environmental filters. Our results underline the need to combine landscape ecology and history and have important implications for forest plant dynamics and conservation in the context of climate change.