The conservation potential of brook-side key habitats in managed boreal forests

Abstract

Today, maintaining biodiversity is included in the targets of boreal forest management. A widespread approach in northern Europe is to identify and preserve woodland key habitats within managed forests. Woodland key habitats are expected to be patches that host populations of threatened and declining species, and the preservation of these patches is assumed to enable the persistence of the focal species in the landscape. In Finland, the criteria for selecting woodland key habitats are defined in the Finnish Forest Act, and the selection has been done by forest practitioners. Our objective was to determine whether the surroundings of boreal brooks and rivulets qualified as key habitats are truly different from brook-side habitats not granted the key habitat status, and whether the brook-side habitats of the two types differ from the forest matrix managed for timber production. We found that the two brook-side habitats were in most aspects rather alike but there was a difference in the composition of ground vegetation assemblages. In contrast, the control forests were distinct from the brook-sides in terms of dead wood, species richness and assemblages of polypores, species richness of epiphytic mosses, and the composition of beetle assemblages. We conclude that brook-sides in general provide an important habitat clearly diverging from the surrounding matrix but that the conservation value of the brook-sides granted the key habitat status may not be substantially larger than that of the brook-sides without the status.

Differential responses by stream and riparian biodiversity to in‐stream restoration of forestry‐impacted streams

“…), because they are sensitive to changes in soil moisture (Richard, Bernhardt & Bell ) and known indicators of reference‐state riparian forests (Selonen et al . ).…”

“…We also examined separately the cover of large ferns (Athyrium filix-femina L., Dryopteris carthusiana Vill., Matteuccia struthiopteris L., Phegopteris connectilis Michx. ), because they are sensitive to changes in soil moisture (Richard, Bernhardt & Bell 2000) and known indicators of reference-state riparian forests (Selonen et al 2011).…”

Buffer strips can pre-empt extinction debt in boreal streamside habitats

“…All of these habitats are terrestrial and the most numerous FAH type is the riparian habitat of the boreal brooks or rivulets (small streams) [7]. Riparian habitats are a heterogeneous mosaic of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, therefore often harbouring a rich biodiversity [8-10]. Small streams themselves and the adjacent riparian habitats appear to be vulnerable and their biodiversity is often adversely influenced by forests management [11,12].…”

Experimental evidence on biodiversity impacts of variable retention forestry, prescribed burning, and deadwood manipulation in Fennoscandia

“…Moreover, in Scots pine forests, Rodriguez and Kouki (2015) showed that, 13 years after felling, blueberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) cover, flowering, and berry production were still lower than in unharvested forest, irrespective of retention level (10 or 50 m 3 ha −1 ), whereas the resilience of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitisidaea) was higher (but see Granath et al 2018). Riparian brook-side forests, studied in the PuroMONTA experiment in central Finland, are important for many rare and red-listed forest species (Selonen et al 2011;Selonen and Kotiaho 2013;Selonen 2014;. This experiment showed that if clear felling is applied in adjacent forests, unharvested buffer zones surrounding brooks must be at least 35-45 m wide to support the initial riparian plant and moss communities.…”