4.1 Article

An assessment of the availability of cavities for secondary cavity-nesting birds in certified and conventionally-logged Neotropical rainforests

期刊

IFOREST-BIOGEOSCIENCES AND FORESTRY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 318-322

出版社

SISEF-SOC ITALIANA SELVICOLTURA ECOL FORESTALE
DOI: 10.3832/ifor3220-013

关键词

Argentina; Birds; Cavity Trees; Certification Forest; Forest Stewardship Council; South-America; Subtropical Forests

类别

资金

  1. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica [PICT 2012-0892]
  2. CONICET [PIP 112-201201-00259 CO]
  3. CIT-JUJUY [PIO 1402014100133]
  4. Rufford small grant
  5. Optic for the tropic
  6. Bergstrom Award
  7. Idea Wild

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The high level of forest intervention and the decrease in biodiversity as a result of logging are incentives to implement forest certification schemes. Despite the advances in the results of the impact of forest certification on biodiversity, there are few studies on species with specific habits, such as cavity-nesting birds. The objective of this study is to compare the impact of forest certification and conventional logging on the richness, availability (density) and dominance of potentially suitable cavity trees for secondary cavity-nesting birds in the subtropical forests of northwestern Argentina. Seven sites were selected: three control sites which were not logged for at least 40 years, one site under Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, and three sites with conventional logging. The results suggest that logged forests under FSC-certification may guarantee a diversity, availability (density) and dominance of potentially suitable cavity trees for secondary cavity-nesting birds, as well as certain characteristics (such as DBH > 40 cm), similar to unlogged forests for this group of birds. Therefore, we suggest that the forests of northwestern Argentina should be managed by a scheme under forest certification so that the high levels of cavity tree species are maintained.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据