Search

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]

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]