2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2017.12.033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Retention level affects dynamics of understory plant community recovery in northern temperate hemlock-cedar forests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
6
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
1
6
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In comparison to natural non-stand-replacing disturbances such as windthrow, insect outbreaks, and canopy dieback [8], partial harvesting removes large logs, therefore fewer substrates are available for species with a strong preference for CWD [22,94,134]. However, the long-term effects of partial harvesting on understorey vegetation, in contrast to those of non-stand-replacing natural disturbances, remain to be examined [135].…”
Section: The Effects Of Forest Management Practices (Clearcutting Andmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In comparison to natural non-stand-replacing disturbances such as windthrow, insect outbreaks, and canopy dieback [8], partial harvesting removes large logs, therefore fewer substrates are available for species with a strong preference for CWD [22,94,134]. However, the long-term effects of partial harvesting on understorey vegetation, in contrast to those of non-stand-replacing natural disturbances, remain to be examined [135].…”
Section: The Effects Of Forest Management Practices (Clearcutting Andmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By year 15, several bryophytes that were reduced after harvesting at MASS began to recover. In a BC interior cedar-hemlock forest, Lilles et al (2018) documented that recovery of non-vascular plants over a 24-year period increased with retention level. The bryophyte study at MASS was limited to about 20 species that occur on forest floor and mineral soil.…”
Section: Effects On Tree Growth and Understory Vegetationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Retention studies in many forest types report increased species richness or diversity after harvesting from and influx of early-seral species in cut areas plus species maintained from the pre-harvest stand (e.g. Halpern et al 2012;Roberts et al 2016;Lilles et al 2018), but not in all cases (Craig and Macdonald 2009).…”
Section: Effects On Tree Growth and Understory Vegetationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…agregados) sumadas en el paisaje generan una matriz de distintos habitas para las especies, mientras que una corta de protección es una sola situación. Además, el nivel de retención afecta la dinámica de recuperación de la comunidad de plantas de sotobosque en bosques templados (Lencinas et al, 2011;Lilles et al, 2018). Esto demuestra que retener elementos del bosque primario en el paisaje mejora la conservación y en el resto de las variables abióticas forestales a micro-escala, pues una distribución agrupada puede ofrecer una gran estabilidad ecológica (Lindenmayer et al, 2015;Vanha-Majamaa et al, 2017), garantizando la función y rentabilidad de los bosques a largo plazo.…”
Section: Discussionunclassified
“…Entonces, ¿Cuánto se debe retener? Por su puesto una mayor retención mejora la recuperación ecológica después del aprovechamiento (Lilles et al, 2018).Sin embargo, desde una perspectiva aplicada, la respuesta depende del propósito del aprovechamiento; si se busca mayor ganancia inmediata de dinero una tala rasa (0% de retención del bosque) es la mejor opción, pero si se pretende mantener el turismo, la biodiversidad u otros servicios ecosistémicos, la opción es retener entre 1 al 100% del bosque, ya sea con retenciones agregadas y/o dispersas, procurando un punto intermedio, ej. patrones espaciales, tamaño y forma de los parches o correderos para la conectividad de especies (Maguire et al, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionunclassified