Search

Copyright of Environmental Reviews is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Forecasts of future resource states are central to resource management planning. Many simulation models and planning tools are used to produce such forecasts and apply knowledge of resource change dynamics as key input. Consistency among knowledge sources is therefore important to avoid knowledge ambiguity and uncertainty in resource forecasts and management plan outcomes. Using Ontario's boreal forest landscape as a case study, this paper examined two knowledge sources of forest resource change, practitioner expertise and research studies, commonly applied in plans and policies for large forest landscapes. The two knowledge sources were quantitatively compared by constructing networks of forest cover change for both sources and determining their agreement in structure and transition times. Some networks agreed well, indicating little knowledge ambiguity and comparatively low uncertainty if they were used to forecast forest landscapes. Other networks showed low agreement, thus indicating higher knowledge ambiguity and a dilemma of choice for forest landscape planners who may have to select from these knowledge sets. It is suggested that knowledge disagreements may be widespread in knowledge-driven management planning of many natural resource types and their causes similar. These disagreements signal areas of knowledge uncertainty, where resource planners must address resulting uncertainty of management outcomes and research should focus on improving resource change knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of Canada's terrestrial biodiversity is supported by boreal forests. Natural resource development in boreal forests poses risks to this biodiversity. This paper reviews the scientific literature to assess the effects of natural resource development on terrestrial biodiversity in Canadian boreal forests. We address four questions: (1) To what extent have Canadian boreal forests changed due to natural resource development? (2) How has biodiversity responded to these changes? (3) Will the biodiversity of second-growth forests converge with that of primary boreal forests? (4) Are we losing species from boreal forests? We focus on trees, understory plants, insects, fungi, selected mammals, and songbirds because these groups have been most studied. We review more than 600 studies and found that changes in community composition are prevalent in response to large-scale conversion of forest types, changes in stand structures and age distributions, and altered landscape structure resulting from forest management and habitat loss associated with other developments such as oil and gas, hydroelectric, and mining. The southern boreal forest has been more highly impacted than the north due to more extensive forest management and the cumulative effects of multiple forms of development. There is abundant evidence that most species are not in danger of being extirpated from the boreal forest due to these anthropogenic changes. A few species, including woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus) and grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos), have, however, undergone long-term range contractions. Significant gaps in our ability to assess the effects of natural resource development on biodiversity in the boreal zone are the lack of long-term spatial and population data to monitor the impact of forest changes on ecosystems and species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Forestry Chronicle is the property of Canadian Institute of Forestry and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We used the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area in northeast British Columbia, Canada as a case study to determine potential conflicts between future resource development and high-value habitats of large mammals in an undeveloped boreal landscape. More than 50 % of high-value habitats for caribou, moose, elk, wolves and grizzly bears were located in Special Resource Management Zones, where natural resource developments could occur. We developed geographic information system (GIS) layers of potential forest resources, oil and gas, minerals, wind power, all resources combined, and roads; and quantified the proportions of high-value habitats overlapping these potentials. Greater proportions of high-value habitats across seasons for moose, elk, and wolves overlapped areas with high cumulative resource potential (winter, 49-70 %, growing season, 35-63 %) more than for three other species (grizzly bears, Stone's sheep, mountain goats). This pattern was similar for forest resources, oil and gas, wind power, and roads. Caribou were more seasonally influenced. The proportions of their high-value habitat in areas with high cumulative resource potential (winter, 53 %, growing season, 16 %), as well as high forest and oil and gas potentials, were greatest in winter; in contrast, overlap with high mineral potential was greatest during the growing season. We recommend a quantitative and visual GIS approach to scenario planning in the Muskwa-Kechika to maintain the abundance and diversity of wildlife populations there. Resource development would likely increase early seral habitats, presumably benefiting moose, elk, and wolves, but could adversely affect caribou and grizzly bears through habitat loss and increased access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]