Negative or positive effects of plantation and intensive forestry on biodiversity: A matter of scale and perspective

Abstract

Terrestrial biodiversity is closely linked to forest ecosystems but anthropogenic reductions in forest cover and changes in forest structure and composition jeopardize their biodiversity. Several forest species are threatened because of reduced habitat quality and fragmentation or even habitat loss as a result of forest management activities. In response to this threat, integrated forest management (IFM) was developed in the early 1990s and has been applied over large spatial scales ever since. While IFM seeks to satisfy both human resource demands and ecosystem integrity, the whole forest matrix is affected and this may also have negative impacts on biodiversity. The concept of forest zoning (e.g., Triad) avoids these issues by physically separating land uses from each other. The zoning approach has been developed in the same period as IFM, but there are still very few examples of large-scale applications. This may be because its distinctiveness from IFM may not always seem clear and because forest zoning is not easily implemented. Here we explain these differences and show that IFM and the zoning approach are indeed different management paradigms. We advocate the use of high-yield plantations within the zoning paradigm as a means for biodiversity conservation and review the literature (with an emphasis on the northern hemisphere and on plantation forestry within a land-zoning approach) on impacts of forest management activities on biodiversity. Furthermore, we give advice on issues that require consideration when implementing forest zoning at both the stand and the landscape levels. We recommend several small changes in design and management of forest plantations as a means to significantly increase their biodiversity value. We conclude that while forest zoning seems an adequate strategy for the Canadian forestry sector, a shift in paradigm must carry over to policy-makers and legislation if this approach is to succeed.Key words: biodiversity, landbase zoning, forest management, intensive silviculture, plantation forests RÉSUMÉ La biodiversité terrestre est étroitement liée aux écosystèmes forestiers, mais la réduction du couvert forestier par des activités humaines et des changements dans la structure et la composition forestière constituent une menace pour la biodiversité. Plusieurs espèces forestières sont menacées par la dégradation, la fragmentation ou même la perte totale de leur habitat occasionnées par l'aménagement forestier. Pour y remédier, l'aménagement intégré des ressources forestières (AIRF) a été développé et appliqué à grande échelle depuis le début des années 1990. Quoique l' AIRF vise à la fois à satisfaire la demande de produits et services forestiers et à protéger l'intégrité des écosystèmes forestiers, cette approche engendre une pénétration presque totale de la matrice forestière et pose ainsi des risques pour la biodiversité. Par contre, le zonage forestier (ex. Triade) vise à réduire la pénétration du territoire forestier par une séparation spatiale des objectifs d'aménagement....

The value of plantation forests for plant, invertebrate and bird diversity and the potential for cross-taxon surrogacy

“…The potential for these plantation forests to provide habitat for plant and animal species is a key component of sustainable forest management (SFM) (MCPFE 2011;Lindenmayer et al 2000). SFM one of the foremost tools for achieving compatibility between forest industries and the provision of ecosystem services, including the conservation of forest biodiversity (Paritsis and Aizen 2008;Hartmann et al 2010). The objectives of SFM in a landscape can only be realised when its objectives are based on an understanding of the ecology of existing woodlands.…”

Linking forest management, policy and biodiversity indicators – A comparison of Lithuania and Southern Sweden

“…Our study compares the latest estimates of the common forestry practices as well as their trends over the last two decades. Similarly to forest condition indicators, the selection of attributes was based on: evidence of considerable and unequivocal impact of respective management practices on forest biodiversity (Hartmann et al, 2010); and the feasibility of extracting data that are comparable between the studied regions. NFI data turned out to be much more limited in terms of information on management practices compared with that provided for forest condition indicators; therefore this component of data collection was extended to include additional sources (provided under Table 6).…”

Hybrid poplar yields in Québec: Implications for a sustainable forest zoning management system

“…Recently, forest zoning has been proposed for application at the regional or management unit scale only in the public forests of Québec, with no possible application in the southern belt of Québec where urban development, farmland and privately owned forests dominate the landscape (Messier et al 2009, Hartmann et al 2010. However, we feel that applying forest zoning at a regional or management unit scale is based on the erroneous premise that all forested regions or management units of Québec possess sufficient areas of productive sites to create a functional intensive management zone that will compensate, with higher yields, the productivity losses needed to accommodate ecosystem management and conservation.…”

“…Legislation has confirmed this new approach through the Loi sur l' aménagement durable du territoire forestier (Qué-bec 2011a). It appears that the solid arguments made in favour of forest zoning by Canadian researchers have been considered by Québec's decision makers (Binkley 1999;Messier et al 2003Messier et al , 2009Montigny and MacLean 2006;Carmean 2007;Côté et al 2010;Hartmann et al 2010).…”