Variable retention forestry conserves habitat of bird species in Patagonian Nothofagus pumilio forests

Abstract

Variable retention forestry conserves habitat of bird species in Patagonian Nothofagus pumilio forests. Ann. For. Res. 61(2): 147-160.

Assessing the conservation value of nature reserves: terrestrial birds in Isla de los Estados (Staten Island) Provincial Reserve, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina

“…East fjord presented more density and biomass of birds than other fjords (Table 2), which could be related to their accessibility for coast and terrestrial bird species, as well as to the quality of the landscape matrix (Rayner et al 2014) in which each fjord is embedded, or the availability of habitats that could be favorable for bird activities (Lencinas et al 2018). In this fjord, the great use of canopy coincided with the largest density of trees in the forests, which presented greater height and diameter than in the other fjords, as was observed by Huertas Herrera et al (2018).…”

Knowledge arising from long-term research of variable retention harvesting in Tierra del Fuego: where do we go from here?

“…The traditional management was mainly proposed to convert primary uneven forests conformed by patches of different ages (from seedlings to 450-year-old trees) into secondary managed stands with a rotation length of 70-120 years depending of site quality and silviculture treatments (Gea et al 2004;Martínez Pastur et al 2013b). These proposals promote the total removal of the original forest structure, e.g., clear-cuttings was prescribed in 40- Lencinas et al 2005Lencinas et al , 2009Lencinas et al , 2018Soler et al 2015Soler et al , 2016Vergara and Schlatter 2006 Raptors Lencinas et al 2008bLencinas et al , 2010Lencinas et al , 2012Lencinas et al , 2014Lencinas et al , 2015Lencinas et al , 2017Simanonok et al 2011;Soler et al 2015 Lencinas et al 2008aLencinas et al , 2011Lencinas et al , 2017Soler et al 2014Soler et al , 2015Soler et al , 2016 50-m-wide strips, as well as shelterwood cuts in two-stages (first cut leaving 30 m 2 basal area and a final cut that removes the remaining trees after 10-20 years) (Martínez Pastur et al 2000). These silviculture methods were successfully applied in several temperate forests around the world, both using natural regeneration and combined with some plantation of target species (Gustafsson et al 2012;Frelich et al 2015;Donoso et al 2019).…”

“…The plots corresponded to PEBANPA network at Los Cerros Ranch (Tierra del Fuego) (see Peri et al 2016) before and after harvesting (Lencinas et al 2009) and quantified the changes of the habitat use (Lencinas et al 2018). Birds at this latitude are generalist and usually migrants; however, some species are specialist that preferred primary unmanaged forests (e.g., Campephilus magellanicus or Accipiter bicolor) (Lencinas et al 2005(Lencinas et al , 2009(Lencinas et al , 2018Vergara and Schlatter 2006) (Table 1). Bird species richness and density (15 species and 9.2 ind ha −1 ) did not changed with site quality and canopy gap presence in primary unmanaged forests.…”

“…Inside aggregate patches, bird communities were similar to primary unmanaged forests compared with the dispersed retention. Species presented differential habitat preference after harvesting (Vergara and Schlatter 2006;Lencinas et al 2018). Thus, while some species (Carduelis barbata, Phrygilus patagonicus, and Tachycineta leucopyga) preferred harvested forests with more retention (e.g., aggregate patches and dispersed retention), others (Enicognathus ferrugineus, Troglodytes aedon, and Zonotrichia capensis) preferred more open harvested environments (a combination of aggregate patches and clearcuts) (Lencinas et al 2018).…”

“…Species presented differential habitat preference after harvesting (Vergara and Schlatter 2006;Lencinas et al 2018). Thus, while some species (Carduelis barbata, Phrygilus patagonicus, and Tachycineta leucopyga) preferred harvested forests with more retention (e.g., aggregate patches and dispersed retention), others (Enicognathus ferrugineus, Troglodytes aedon, and Zonotrichia capensis) preferred more open harvested environments (a combination of aggregate patches and clearcuts) (Lencinas et al 2018). Harvesting based on variable retention maintained enough vegetation structure in the managed stand to permit the establishment of early successional birds (at least in the dispersed retention), and to maintain the bird species of primary unmanaged forests which could persist in the aggregate patches (Vergara and Schlatter 2006;Lencinas et al 2009Lencinas et al , 2018.…”