Losses of natural and semi-natural forests, mostly to agriculture, are a significant concern for biodiversity. Against this trend, the area of intensively managed plantation forests increases, and there is much debate about the implications for biodiversity. We provide a comprehensive review of the function of plantation forests as habitat compared with other land cover, examine the effects on biodiversity at the landscape scale, and synthesise context-specific effects of plantation forestry on biodiversity. Natural forests are usually more suitable as habitat for a wider range of native forest species than plantation forests but there is abundant evidence that plantation forests can provide valuable habitat, even for some threatened and endangered species, and may contribute to the conservation of biodiversity by various mechanisms. In landscapes where forest is the natural land cover, plantation forests may represent a low-contrast matrix, and afforestation of agricultural land can assist conservation by providing complementary forest habitat, buffering edge effects, and increasing connectivity. In contrast, conversion of natural forests and afforestation of natural non-forest land is detrimental. However, regional deforestation pressure for agricultural development may render plantation forestry a ‘lesser evil’ if forest managers protect indigenous vegetation remnants. We provide numerous context-specific examples and case studies to assist impact assessments of plantation forestry, and we offer a range of management recommendations. This paper also serves as an introduction and background paper to this special issue on the effects of plantation forests on biodiversity.

Plantation Forests and Biodiversity: Oxymoron or Opportunity?

To address the challenges of biodiversity conservation and commodity production, a framework has been proposed that distinguishes between the integration (“land sharing”) and separation (“land sparing”) of conservation and production. Controversy has arisen around this framework partly because many scholars have focused specifically on food production rather than more encompassing notions such as land scarcity or food security. Controversy further surrounds the practical value of partial trade‐off analyses, the ways in which biodiversity should be quantified, and a series of scale effects that are not readily accounted for. We see key priorities for the future in (1) addressing these issues when using the existing framework, and (2) developing alternative, holistic ways to conceptualise challenges related to food, biodiversity, and land scarcity.

Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward

What Evolution Is

Gap-based silvicultural systems were developed under the assumption that richness, and diversity of tree species and other biota positively respond to variation in size of harvest-created canopy gaps. However, varying gap size alone often does not meet diversity objectives and broader goals to address contemporary forest conditions. Recent research highlights the need to consider site factors and history, natural disturbance models, within-gap structure and recruitment requirements in addition to light resources for desired tree diversity. This synthesis brings together silvicultural developments and ecological literature on gap-based management, highlighting interactions with other factors such as microsite conditions, non-tree vegetation and more. We pose a revised concept for managers and researchers to use in prescriptions and studies focused on integrated overstory and understory manipulations that increase structural complexity within and around canopy openings.

/pdf/challenges-facing-gap-based-silviculture-and-possible-3uducfpehh.pdf

Challenges facing gap-based silviculture and possible solutions for mesic northern forests in North America

Tamm review: Terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity and intensive forest management in the U.S.

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/flel/pdfs/Betts_etal_2013_FEM.pdf

Initial experimental effects of intensive forest management on avian abundance

Intensive forest management (IFM) promises to help satisfy increasing global demand for wood but may come at the cost of local reductions to forest biodiversity. IFM often reduces early seral plant diversity as a result of efforts to eliminate plant competition with crop trees. If diversity is a function of bottom-up drivers, theory predicts that specialists at lower trophic levels (e.g., insect herbivores) should be particularly sensitive to reductions in plant diversity. We conducted a stand-level experiment to test bottom-up controls on moth community structure, as mediated by degrees of forest management intensity. Using a dataset of 12,003 moths representing 316 moth species, moth richness decreased only slightly, if at all, as herbicide intensity increased (P = 0.062); the moderate treatment, which is most commonly applied in the northwestern USA, was estimated to have 4.72 (±2.14 SE, P = 0.039) fewer species than the control. Structural equation modeling revealed strong support for an effect of herbicide on plant abundance, which influenced plant species richness and subsequently moth species richness. Moth species richness was associated with plant species richness and followed a power law function (z = 0.42, P = 0.006), which is surprisingly consistent with a recent large-scale experiment in agricultural systems, and provides support for bottom-up drivers of moth community structure. Moth abundance was not influenced by the direct effects of silvicultural herbicide treatments. Site-level effects and variation in pre-harvest vegetation communities resulted in residual broadleaf and herbaceous vegetation in even the most intensive treatment. Even at low densities, these residual deciduous and herbaceous plants supported higher than expected moth abundance and richness. We conclude that forest management practices that retain early seral vegetation diversity are the most likely to conserve moth communities.

Plant diversity enhances moth diversity in an intensive forest management experiment.

Research hypotheses have been a cornerstone of science since before Galileo. Many have argued that hypotheses (1) encourage discovery of mechanisms, and (2) reduce bias-both features that should increase transferability and reproducibility. However, we are entering a new era of big data and highly predictive models where some argue the hypothesis is outmoded. We hypothesized that hypothesis use has declined in ecology and evolution since the 1990s, given the substantial advancement of tools further facilitating descriptive, correlative research. Alternatively, hypothesis use may have become more frequent due to the strong recommendation by some journals and funding agencies that submissions have hypothesis statements. Using a detailed literature analysis (N = 268 articles), we found prevalence of hypotheses in eco-evo research is very low (6.7%-26%) and static from 1990-2015, a pattern mirrored in an extensive literature search (N = 302,558 articles). Our literature review also indicates that neither grant success nor citation rates were related to the inclusion of hypotheses, which may provide disincentive for hypothesis formulation. Here, we review common justifications for avoiding hypotheses and present new arguments based on benefits to the individual researcher. We argue that stating multiple alternative hypotheses increases research clarity and precision, and is more likely to address the mechanisms for observed patterns in nature. Although hypotheses are not always necessary, we expect their continued and increased use will help our fields move toward greater understanding, reproducibility, prediction, and effective conservation of nature.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ece3.7365

When are hypotheses useful in ecology and evolution

Deer-mediated ecosystem service versus disservice depends on forest management intensity

Land management practices often directly alter vegetation structure and composition, but the degree to which ecological processes such as herbivory interact with management to influence biodiversity is less well understood. We hypothesized that large herbivores compound the effects of intensive forest management on early seral plant communities and plantation establishment (i.e., tree survival and growth), and the degree of such effects is dependent on the intensity of management practices. We established 225-m2 wild-ungulate (deer and elk) exclosures, nested within a manipulated gradient of management intensity (no-herbicide control, light herbicide, moderate herbicide, and intensive herbicide treatments), replicated at the scale of whole harvest units (10-19 ha). Vegetation structure, composition, and crop-tree responses to herbivory varied across the gradient of herbicide application during the first two years of stand establishment, with herbivory effects most evident at light and moderate herbicide treatments. In the moderate herbicide treatment, which approximates management applied to >2.5 million hectares in the Pacific Northwest, United States, foraging by deer and elk resulted in simplified, low-cover plant communities more closely resembling the intensive herbicide treatment. Herbivory further suppressed the growth of competing vegetation in the light herbicide treatment, improving crop-tree survival, and providing early evidence of an ecosystem service. By changing community composition and vegetation structure, intensive forest management alters foraging selectivity and subsequent plant-herbivore interactions; initial shifts in early seral communities are likely to influence understory plant communities and tree growth in later stages of forest development.

Thomas D. Stokely

Papers

Initial experimental effects of intensive forest management on avian abundance

Plant diversity enhances moth diversity in an intensive forest management experiment.

When are hypotheses useful in ecology and evolution

Deer-mediated ecosystem service versus disservice depends on forest management intensity

Herbicides and herbivory interact to drive plant community and crop-tree establishment