Planning timber harvest of residual forest stands without compromising bird and small mammal communities in boreal landscapes

• Published in: Forest ecology and management Vol. 254; no. 2; pp. 261 - 275
• Main Authors: St-Laurent, Martin-Hugues, Ferron, Jean, Haché, Samuel, Gagnon, Réjean
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 25-01-2008; Elsevier
• Subjects: Animal and plant ecology; Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Aves; Biological and medical sciences; Boreal forest; Forest birds; Forest harvesting and working in forest; Forest management. Stand types and stand dynamics. Silvicultural treatments. Tending of stands. Natural regeneration; Forestry; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Magnolia; Regulations; Small mammals; Stand types and stand dynamics. Silvicultural treatments. Tending of stands. Natural regeneration; Successional stages; Synecology; Terrestrial ecosystems; Boreal forest; Regulations; Forest birds; Successional stages; Small mammals; Landscape; Forest stand; Forest logging; Micromammals; Vertebrata; Mammalia; Planning; Aves; Community
• ISSN: 0378-1127; 1872-7042
• DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.08.006

Numerous efforts have been invested in designing and configuring residual forest stands in Canadian boreal forest to preserve their overall biodiversity. Now that several landscapes have been partially logged, the next issue in forest management involves the planning of residual forest stand harvesting without compromising wildlife populations. Residual stands can be cut when adjacent regeneration reaches 3
m in height according to current regulations in several Canadian provinces (e.g., Québec, Ontario, Alberta, and British-Columbia). However, little is known on whether such regenerating habitat (RE-3m) can maintain wildlife communities similar to those found in unharvested mature forest (CO). We estimated the relative abundance of small mammals and forest birds in RE-3m and CO habitats and characterized landscape and stand structures. These variables were then compared between the two contrasting successional stages and were used to build habitat use models (HUMs) for 21 species. CO and RE-3m differed with regard to several landscape characteristics and stand structure variables as a result of logging. Snowshoe Hare, Northern Flicker, Alder Flycatcher, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, White-throated Sparrow and Magnolia Warbler were more abundant in RE-3m than CO, while Red-backed Vole, Brown Creeper and Golden-crowned Kinglet exhibited lower abundances in RE-3m. No significant differences in abundance were observed for the 12 other species. Species HUMs were highly significant and explained between 64.3 and 99.1% of the total variability in abundance. Following variance partitioning, stand structure variables accounted for most of the explained variability (54.2%) while landscape characteristics accounted for only 28.7%. No difference in species richness was observed but community evenness was greater in CO than RE-3m. Our results suggest that current regulations may threaten the maintenance of 3 out of 21 censused species for which abundances were significantly lower in regenerating 3
m tall stands. As stand structure explained a large amount of variability in abundance, it should be considered during timber harvest planning in both mature and regenerating stands. Until we know more on whether the current regulations are suitable for maintaining overall biodiversity, our results suggest that some mature forest stands should be maintained within managed landscapes for a complete logging rotation period.