4.2 Article

The implications of selective logging and forest fragmentation for the conservation of avian diversity in evergreen forests of south-west Ghana

期刊

BIRD CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 27-52

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0959270905000031

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The urgent global objective of developing sustainable tropical forestry management practices, which also target biodiversity conservation, requires rapid comparative studies that address both biogeography and logging practices. This paper examines avifaunal implications (focusing on species diversity and composition) of forest fragmentation and selective logging, by comparing 15 selected reserved forests in south-west Ghana. The regeneration time since last logging varied from 0 (logging continuing) to 21 years, with one unlogged site as control. Extraction levels ranged between 0.20 and 3-75 trees per ha (mean 0.90). Bird sampling involved understorey mist-netting and standardized line-transect walks, which respectively accumulated 8,348 captures and 22,452 single records Of 147 species. Mist-net data showed that understorey bird diversity was positively correlated with logging intensity up to c. 3 trees per ha, reflecting increased influx of open-land species and a persistence of forest obligates during the first 5 years after logging. The overall abundance of forest interior species tended to decrease 5-10 years after logging, but recovered fairly well thereafter. Canopy birds were generally more logging-resilient. Rare forest obligates with high conservation importance were found to be equally abundant in virgin and logged, large forests, whereas these birds were poorly represented in small heavily logged forests. The results are compared with findings from other regions, and conservation implications and constraints are discussed in a global perspective. Finally, recommendations on size-related sustainable extraction levels and regeneration time are presented for the Upper Guinea Forest.

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

4.2
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