Search

Cavities made by birds are an important microhabitat for many taxa in forests. Long-term dynamics of cavity patterns and the effect of forest management on cavities are, however, largely unknown. We studied cavity production, measured as nest cavity production rates (CPR = no. of new cavities/km2/year), of woodpeckers and tits in forests with different management intensity in southern Finland, based on a data from 37 years. Forests were divided into managed, seminatural and natural stands. The data covered 56 forest stands with the total area of 1690 ha. Stands were inventoried annually for new cavities. The total numbers of woodpecker and tit cavities were 2238 and 329, respectively. There were large differences in CPRs between forest stands with different management intensity. For woodpeckers, the CPR was highest in natural forests (5.7) and lowest in managed forests (1.5). For the tit species, the respective numbers were 0.9 and 0.3. The CPRs of different cavity-making bird species and cavity tree characteristics (e.g. tree condition and species) were consistent, suggesting that different cavity-makers benefit from similar forest and tree characteristics. The results also suggest that forests managed with currently prevailing methods limit the production of cavities. To promote cavities, the results from this and other studies suggest that managed forests should include more features of natural forests, such as more diverse tree species and within-stand structural variability distribution (tree-level heterogeneity), larger amount of decayed wood, more retention trees and snags and longer rotation periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Restoration of degraded habitat is frequently used in ecological compensation. However, ecological restoration suffers from innate problems of long delivery times of features shown to be good proxies for biodiversity, e.g., large dead trees. We tested a possible way to circumvent this problem; the translocation of hard-to-come deadwood substrates from an impact area to a compensation area. Following translocation, deadwood density in the compensation area was locally equivalent to the impact area, around 20 m3 ha−1, a threshold for supporting high biodiversity of rare and red-listed species. However, deadwood composition differed between the impact and compensation area, showing a need to include more deadwood types, e.g., late decomposition deadwood, in the translocation scheme. To guide future compensation efforts, the cost for translocation at different spatial scales was calculated. We conclude that translocation of deadwood could provide a cost-efficient new tool for ecological compensation/restoration but that the method needs refinement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]