Search

The rotation forestry system provides high biomass production, but could also have a negative impact on species sensitive to disturbance. Continuous cover forestry (CCF) could contribute to solving these conflicting goals, but its feasibility in nutrient limited boreal forests is yet unresolved. In a unique experiment, we simultaneously assessed the short-term effect of single-tree selection on both biomass production and biodiversity (vascular plants, bryophytes, wood-inhabiting fungi), and tested fertilization as a way to mediate growth-biodiversity trade-offs. We found that unharvested stands and stands subjected to single-tree selection had a similar species assemblage of vascular plants, bryophytes, and wood-inhabiting fungi. Fertilization increased growth by 37% and induced shifts in two understory species (favoring the grass Avenella flexuosa and disfavoring the bryophyte Hylocomium splendens). We conclude that single-tree selection may become a useful tool to enhance biodiversity in managed forests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessing ecological sustainability involves monitoring of indicators and comparison of their states with performance targets that are deemed sustainable. First, a normative model was developed centered on evidence-based knowledge about (a) forest composition, structure, and function at multiple scales, and (b) performance targets derived by quantifying the habitat amount in naturally dynamic forests, and as required for presence of populations of specialized focal species. Second, we compared the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification standards' ecological indicators from 1998 and 2010 in Sweden to the normative model using a Specific, Measurable, Accurate, Realistic, and Timebound (SMART) indicator approach. Indicator variables and targets for riparian and aquatic ecosystems were clearly under-represented compared to terrestrial ones. FSC's ecological indicators expanded over time from composition and structure towards function, and from finer to coarser spatial scales. However, SMART indicators were few. Moreover, they poorly reflected quantitative evidence-based knowledge, a consequence of the fact that forest certification mirrors the outcome of a complex social negotiation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]