Assessing sustainability indicators for tropical forests: Spatio-temporal heterogeneity, logging intensity, and dung beetle communities

Aguilar-Amuchastegui, Naikoa; Henebry, Geoffrey M.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.07.004

Cited by 37 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, they are a well-defined taxonomic and functional group, and the sampling methods used can be standardized. Also, they have been extensively used in biodiversity studies (among the most recent studies see Aguilar-Amuchastegui and Henebry 2007;Halffter et al 2007;Nichols et al 2007;Spector 2006;Andresen 2003Andresen , 2005Scheffler 2005;Pineda et al 2005;Avendaño-Mendoza et al 2005;Davis et al 2001Davis et al , 2004Halffter and Arellano 2002;McGeoch et al 2002; for a complete reference, see the list of 33 studies cited in Nichols et al 2007). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) diversity in continuous forest, forest fragments and cattle pastures in a landscape of Chiapas, Mexico: the effects of anthropogenic changes

Navarrete

Halffter

2008

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied the diversity of dung beetles in three different habitats in the Lacandona Forest, Chiapas, Mexico. We found a total of 49 species. Of these, 44 were in well-preserved forests (SC) within the limits of the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve, 42 in fragmented forests (SF), and 13 in cattle pastures (PZ). These two latter habitats were part of a fragmented landscape. Even though the species richness between the two forest habitats is similar, there is a change in guild composition and structure. About 12% of the species were exclusively found in SC, while 4.1% and 2% were exclusive of SF and PZ respectively. b diversity was the most important element for overall diversity (c), above that of the local richness (a). Within well-preserved forests, species composition changes substantially, even among neighboring sites. Species diversity within the landscape seems to depend on canopy coverage, soil temperature and geographic distance between sites. Functional groups vary with the habitat. Large-bodied, nocturnal species with specific requirements of soil temperature and compaction are more sensitive to anthropogenic changes. In cattle pastures there is a larger number of heliophilic species, with a higher percentage of small-bodied and roller beetles.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) diversity in continuous forest, forest fragments and cattle pastures in a landscape of Chiapas, Mexico: the effects of anthropogenic changes

Navarrete

Halffter

2008

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The management approach either directly quantifies the intensity of forest management operations in forest stands (Aguilar-Amuchastegui and Henebry 2007;Kueffer and Senn-Irlet 2005;Storaunet et al 2005;Uotila et al 2002;Sippola et al 2004;Zenner et al 2006;Arano and Munn 2006) or assesses the forest management regime applied in forest stands as a whole (Müller et al 2007a, b;Verwer et al 2008;Wulder et al 2007Duncker et al 2008Bell et al 2008). In contrast to the other two approaches, which Table 1 Overview of approaches characterizing forest management intensity grouped according to the main characteristics of land use (hemeroby/naturalness, disturbance, and management) and the address the effect or evidence of land use respectively, the management approach quantifies the intensity of management itself.…”

Section: Approaches For Assessing Forest Management Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others are based on factorial accuracy, using a metric scale of key management factors for a limited set of management practices (e.g. annual investment expenses (Arano and Munn 2006), harvest history based on tree number, basal area, or volume (Zenner et al 2006;Sippola et al 2004;Storaunet et al 2005;Uotila et al 2002;Aguilar-Amuchastegui and Henebry 2007) and time since the last silvicultural thinning or harvest operation (Kueffer and SennIrlet 2005)). However, there is no widely accepted concept on how to combine these diverse factors into a generally applicable, simple, yet accurate measure of forest management intensity.…”

Section: Approaches For Assessing Forest Management Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing approaches for the assessment of forest management intensity lack a widely accepted, purely quantitative measure for ranking a set of forest stands along a gradient of management intensity. We have developed a silvicultural management intensity indicator (SMI) which combines three main characteristics of a given stand: tree species, stand age and aboveground, living and dead wooden biomass. Data on these three factors are used as input to represent the risk of stand loss, which is a function of tree species and stand age, and stand density, which is a function of the silvicultural regime, stand age and tree species. Consequently, the indicator consists of a risk component (SMI r ) and a density component (SMI d ). We used SMI to rank traditional management of the main Central European tree species: Norway spruce (Picea abies [Karst.] L.), European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), and oak (Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea L.). By analysing SMI over their whole rotation period, we found the following ranking of management intensity: oak\beech\pine(spruce. Additionally, we quantified the SMI of actual research plots of the German Biodiversity exploratories, which represent unmanaged and managed forest stands including conifer forests cultivated outside their natural range. SMI not only successfully separate managed from unmanaged forests, but also reflected the variability of forest management and stand properties across the entire sample and within the different management groups. We suggest using SMI to quantify silvicultual management intensity of stands differing in species composition, age, silvicultural system (even-aged vs. uneven-aged), thinning grade and stages of stand conversion from one stand type into another. Using SMI may facilitate the assessment of the impact of forest management intensity on biodiversity in temperate forests.

show abstract

“…A wide array of sensors such as Landsat TM, ETM+, IRS and SPOT and, more recently, ALOS, EO-1 ALI, ASTER have proven to be the most versatile for forest-stand parameter estimation, as their spatial resolutions (15-30 m) are consistent with the average quadrant sizes used when surveying structural parameters in the field (Aguilar- Amuchastegui & Henebry, 2007;Lu et al, 2004;Rosenqvist et al, 2007). We are using Landsat based on its 30+ years of accumulated data (now being released), extensive research on its use for forest cover change monitoring, and the development of straightforward and easily implemented techniques for its use for change and/or disturbance detection, such as Kauth-Thomas's "Tasseled Cap Transformation" (TCT) differences (Collins & Woodcock, 1996).…”

Section: Remote-sensing Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6; Healey et al, 2005;Levien et al, 1999). As forests in general are dynamic (Aguilar-Amuchastegui & Henebry, 2007), stands will exhibit pixels belonging to specific change classes. Those classes are then linked to similar changes observed in reference areas such as a known burned stand or a stand where we know thinning has occurred.…”

Section: Remote-sensing Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting and conserving lands for biodiversity: The role of remote sensing

Wiens

Sutter

Anderson

et al. 2009

Remote Sensing of Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major focus of conservation is on protecting areas to ensure the persistence of biological diversity. Because such areas may be large, not easily accessible, subject to change, and sensitive to the surrounding landscape, remote sensing can be a valuable tool in establishing and managing protected areas. We describe three case studies to illustrate how remote sensing can contribute to setting priorities for conservation actions, monitoring the status of conservation targets, and evaluating the effectiveness of conservation strategies. In the Connecticut River watershed, remote sensing has been used to assess flood regimes and identify key areas of floodplain forests and their context for conservation planning. At Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, remote sensing has provided information to assess the effectiveness of management strategies to restore fire to the longleaf pine sandhills ecosystem, control invasive species, and prioritize annual prescribed burns. In eastern US forests, remote sensing is being used to evaluate the ecological condition and changes at properties where direct access would be difficult. As the resolution and capacities of remote-sensing technology continue to develop, however, several issues are becoming increasingly important. It is essential that the spatial and temporal resolution of remotesensing data be matched to the relevant scales of biodiversity, major threats, and management actions. Data layers must be compatible, both in scale and in measurement properties, and key patterns must be distinguished from irrelevant detail, especially at the finer scales of application in local management. Combining remote sensing with ground surveys can expand the array of information used in management and contribute to the ecological interpretation of remote-sensing data. Because conservation funds are always limited, remote sensing also must be cost effective. This requires balancing the wealth of detail afforded by ever-finer resolution of remote-sensing data with what is actually needed to implement sound conservation and management. Remote sensing is a valuable tool, but it is not a panacea for all of the challenges of conservation monitoring and management.Published by Elsevier Inc.

show abstract

Assessing sustainability indicators for tropical forests: Spatio-temporal heterogeneity, logging intensity, and dung beetle communities

Cited by 37 publications

References 78 publications

Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) diversity in continuous forest, forest fragments and cattle pastures in a landscape of Chiapas, Mexico: the effects of anthropogenic changes

Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) diversity in continuous forest, forest fragments and cattle pastures in a landscape of Chiapas, Mexico: the effects of anthropogenic changes

How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests

Selecting and conserving lands for biodiversity: The role of remote sensing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About