4.7 Review

Conservation ecology of boreal polypores: A review

Journal

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
Volume 144, Issue 1, Pages 11-20

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.07.010

Keywords

Biodiversity; Boreal forest; Dead wood; Forest management; Saproxylic species; Wood-inhabiting fungi

Funding

  1. Department of Ecology, SLU

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Here we quantitatively summarize the conservation ecology of one group of dead-wood-dependent organisms, the polyporous fungi, in boreal Europe. At the substrate scale, the decay stage is the strongest determinant of species richness, with large (>20 cm diameter) downed logs hosting more species than other dead-wood types. At the stand scale, the amount of dead wood is the strongest determinant of poly-pore species richness; the minimum average amount of dead wood for the occurrence of rare polypores appears to be 20-40 m(3)/ha. Species-area analysis shows that in mature boreal forests species accumulation levels off at around 20-30 ha. This leads us to suggest a heuristic 20/20/20 rule of thumb: a 20 ha stand, with an average of 20 m(3)/ha of dead wood of which many are logs >20 cm, is likely to be the minimum for the ecologically justified conservation of polypore diversity at the stand scale in boreal Europe. Equally crucial for polypore diversity, however, is the current and historic extent of suitable habitats at the landscape scale. The time lag between the isolation of a habitat patch and the new equilibrium in the number or occurrence of species seems to be around 100-150 years, indicating that an extinction debt is likely to exist in recently isolated fragments. Only a few studies have addressed the ecological efficiency of the new, biodiversity-oriented forest management tools (retention trees, woodland key habitats). Despite this it seems that the traditional large conservation areas are the most effective means of polypore conservation. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available