Trends in bird diversity over 12years in response to large-scale eucalypt plantation establishment: Implications for extensive carbon plantings

Law, Bradley; Chidel, Mark; Brassil, Traecey; Turner, Graham; Kathuria, Amrit

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.02.032

Cited by 30 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite patch age influencing bird diversity within forestry plantings in subtropical Australia (Law, Chidel, Brassil, Turner, & Kathuria, ), patch age had no effect on bird richness variables in our study. This is likely because our study sites contained a mixture of planting types, and many of our older sites were less diverse forestry plantings with open understoreys, which supported similar woodland and forest bird richness as younger, more diverse ecological plantings (Figures b and b).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 66%

Water availability drives aboveground biomass and bird richness in forest restoration plantings to achieve carbon and biodiversity cobenefits

Hagger

Wilson

England

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To combat global warming and biodiversity loss, we require effective forest restoration that encourages recovery of species diversity and ecosystem function to deliver essential ecosystem services, such as biomass accumulation. Further, understanding how and where to undertake restoration to achieve carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation would provide an opportunity to finance ecosystem restoration under carbon markets. We surveyed 30 native mixed‐species plantings in subtropical forests and woodlands in Australia and used structural equation modeling to determine vegetation, soil, and climate variables most likely driving aboveground biomass accrual and bird richness and investigate the relationships between plant diversity, aboveground biomass accrual, and bird diversity. We focussed on woodland and forest‐dependent birds, and functional groups at risk of decline (insectivorous, understorey‐nesting, and small‐bodied birds). We found that mean moisture availability strongly limits aboveground biomass accrual and bird richness in restoration plantings, indicating potential synergies in choosing sites for carbon and biodiversity purposes. Counter to theory, woody plant richness was a poor direct predictor of aboveground biomass accrual, but was indirectly related via significant, positive effects of stand density. We also found no direct relationship between aboveground biomass accrual and bird richness, likely because of the strong effects of moisture availability on both variables. Instead, moisture availability and patch size strongly and positively influenced the richness of woodland and forest‐dependent birds. For understorey‐nesting birds, however, shrub cover and patch size predicted richness. Stand age or area of native vegetation surrounding the patch did not influence bird richness. Our results suggest that in subtropical biomes, planting larger patches to higher densities, ideally using a diversity of trees and shrubs (characteristics of ecological plantings) in more mesic locations will enhance the provision of carbon and biodiversity cobenefits. Further, ecological plantings will aid the rapid recovery of woodland and forest bird richness, with comparable aboveground biomass accrual to less diverse forestry plantations.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 66%

Water availability drives aboveground biomass and bird richness in forest restoration plantings to achieve carbon and biodiversity cobenefits

Hagger

Wilson

England

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results reveal that restoration projects motivated by biodiversity enhancement and offsetting mostly aimed to restore preexisting ecosystem attributes and function to the greatest possible extent. Whereas restoration motivated by water quality improvements and social reasons aimed to restore only some aspects of ecological function and thereby accept a less pristine ecological objective overall, which may impact on biodiversity values as shown in native timber plantations (Hsu et al ; Law et al ). However, restoration focused on enhancing biodiversity can also increase the provision of ecosystem services (Rey Benayas et al ); for example native mixed‐species plantings can provide comparable rates of carbon sequestration to eucalypt plantations with greater habitat values (Cunningham et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What motivates ecological restoration?

Hagger

Dwyer

Wilson

2017

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological restoration projects are motivated by diverse environmental and social reasons. Motivations likely vary between stakeholders or regions, and influence the approach taken to plan, implement, and monitor restoration projects. We surveyed 307 people involved in the restoration of native vegetation across Australia to identify their underlying motivations. We also elicited information on planning, implementation, and monitoring of restoration projects. We found that biodiversity enhancement is the main motivation for undertaking restoration, with biodiversity offsetting, water quality improvements, and social reasons as important secondary motivations. Motivations varied significantly by stakeholder type and region. Restoration projects primarily motivated by ecosystem service provision (e.g. water quality improvements and social reasons) sought less pristine ecological outcomes than projects motivated by biodiversity enhancement or offsetting. Rigorous monitoring designs (e.g. quantitative, repeatable surveys, and use of performance indicators) were rarely used in restoration projects, except for projects motivated by scientific research. Better alignment of different restoration motivations with the planning and monitoring of restoration projects should deliver greater benefits through setting appropriate objectives and evaluating outcomes against these objectives. These improvements will increase the capacity of the restoration practice to meet international biodiversity commitments and communicate restoration outcomes to stakeholders.

show abstract

“…; Law et al. ) and the Scottish uplands (Savory ). In contrast to generalist species, those in the more specialist broadleaf trees and hedgerows group were relatively scarce in our study sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bird‐community responses to habitat creation in a long‐term, large‐scale natural experiment

Whytock

Fuentes‐Montemayor

Watts

et al. 2017

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem function and resilience are compromised when habitats become fragmented due to land-use change. This has led to national and international conservation strategies aimed at restoring habitat extent and improving functional connectivity (i.e., maintaining dispersal processes). However, biodiversity responses to landscape-scale habitat creation and the relative importance of spatial and temporal scales are poorly understood, and there is disagreement over which conservation strategies should be prioritized. We used 160 years of historic post-agricultural woodland creation as a natural experiment to evaluate biodiversity responses to habitat creation in a landscape context. Birds were surveyed in 101 secondary, broadleaf woodlands aged 10-160 years with ≥80% canopy cover and in landscapes with 0-17% broadleaf woodland cover within 3000 m. We used piecewise structural equation modeling to examine the direct and indirect relationships between bird abundance and diversity, ecological continuity, patch characteristics, and landscape structure and quantified the relative conservation value of local and landscape scales for bird communities. Ecological continuity indirectly affected overall bird abundance and species richness through its effects on stand structure, but had a weaker influence (effect size near 0) on the abundance and diversity of species most closely associated with woodland habitats. This was probably because woodlands were rapidly colonized by woodland generalists in ≤10 years (minimum patch age) but were on average too young (median 50 years) to be colonized by woodland specialists. Local patch characteristics were relatively more important than landscape characteristics for bird communities. Based on our results, biodiversity responses to habitat creation depended on local- and landscape-scale factors that interacted across time and space. We suggest that there is a need for further studies that focus on habitat creation in a landscape context and that knowledge gained from studies of habitat fragmentation and loss should be used to inform habitat creation with caution because the outcomes are not necessarily reciprocal.

show abstract

Trends in bird diversity over 12years in response to large-scale eucalypt plantation establishment: Implications for extensive carbon plantings

Cited by 30 publications

References 47 publications

Water availability drives aboveground biomass and bird richness in forest restoration plantings to achieve carbon and biodiversity cobenefits

Water availability drives aboveground biomass and bird richness in forest restoration plantings to achieve carbon and biodiversity cobenefits

What motivates ecological restoration?

Bird‐community responses to habitat creation in a long‐term, large‐scale natural experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About