Eco-and Ground Bio-Engineering: The Use of Vegetation to Improve Slope Stability 2007
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5593-5_34
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of postfire logging on soil and vegetation recovery in a Pinus halepensis Mill. forest of Greece

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…terrestrial gastropods, Bros, Moreno‐Rueda & Santos 2011; European rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus , Rollan & Real 2010). There is no evidence that salvage logging negatively impacts vegetation or soil significantly in the mid‐term (Ne’eman, Lahav & Izhaki 1995; Inbar, Wittenberg & Tamir 1997; Spanos et al. 2005).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…terrestrial gastropods, Bros, Moreno‐Rueda & Santos 2011; European rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus , Rollan & Real 2010). There is no evidence that salvage logging negatively impacts vegetation or soil significantly in the mid‐term (Ne’eman, Lahav & Izhaki 1995; Inbar, Wittenberg & Tamir 1997; Spanos et al. 2005).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Post‐fire salvage logging (SL) (i.e., the felling and removal of the burnt tree trunks, also often eliminating the remaining woody debris [branches, logs, and snags] by chipping, mastication, fire, etc.) has historically been routinely and widely practiced by forest administrations around the world (McIver & Starr 2000; Bautista et al 2004; Beschta et al 2004; Spanos et al 2005; Lindenmayer & Noss 2006), particularly in the case of burnt conifer forests. However, there is currently an intense debate about the suitability of this approach.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reasons commonly invoked to justify post‐fire SL may be summarized into five core rationales: (1) recover economic returns from burnt logs; (2) reduce subsequent fire risk; (3) improve site conditions for managed reforestation work in the future (e.g., tree planting); (4) decrease risk of insect pests provoked by burnt wood; and (5) reduce risk of accidents to humans from treefall (Ne’eman et al 1995; Martínez‐Sánchez et al 1999; McIver & Starr 2000; Bautista et al 2004; Spanos et al 2005). These potential reasons to support post‐fire SL, however, depend on the characteristics of the stand affected and the restoration objectives for the area.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This represents a biological legacy with a critical role for the structure and functioning of the post-fire habitat [3][4][5], and with the potential to influence post-disturbance successional trajectories. In this sense, burnt logs, whether standing or felled, generate a vertical habitat structure that may promote secondary succession and accelerate ecosystem regeneration by promoting animal interactions such as seed dispersal [3,6], creating microhabitats that improve seedling recruitment [7][8][9], providing nutrients that increase primary production [10] and, overall, boosting ecosystem functioning [11]. In short, the role of snags and other CWD as biological legacies that promote biodiversity, regeneration, and ecosystem functioning has been increasingly demonstrated by studies performed mostly in the last couple of decades.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reasons for conducting SL are diverse, but are largely related either to the recovery of economic capital still available in the remaining wood soon after the disturbance, or to facilitate future restoration or reforestation [19,20]. Nonetheless, this management action has been sharply criticized in the last two decades, and a growing number of studies have showed that salvage logging may seriously compromise ecosystem regeneration [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]21,22]. It is becoming increasingly clear that the negative effect of SL is related to its impact on habitat structure and components, which is linked primarily to the amount of biomass removed and the simplification of habitat structure [9,10,12,23].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%