4.7 Article

Hollow selection by vertebrate fauna in forests of southeastern Australia and implications for forest management

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 103, 期 1, 页码 1-12

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00109-4

关键词

cavity; hollow-nesting; fauna; habitat; snags

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the types of hollows, and types of hollow-bearing trees, occupied by vertebrate fauna in temperate eucalypt forests in southeastern Australia. Hollow-bearing trees are selected for retention in wood production forests to mitigate the effects of logging on hole-nesting fauna. A total of 471 hollows was examined in 228 trees felled as part of routine logging operations. Fauna had occupied 43% of all hollows (greater than or equal to 2cm minimum entrance width; greater than or equal to 5cm depth). Hollows with small (2-5cm), medium (6-10cm) and large ( > 10cm) minimum entrance widths had occupancy rates of 29, 44 and 62%, respectively. The internal dimensions of hollows, especially hollow depth, were the best predictors of hollow occupancy, even when variables measured at the tree and site levels were considered. Fauna occupied 57% of all hollow-bearing trees. In a Poisson regression model, the number of hollows in trees that contained evidence of occupancy was positively associated with: (1) the total number of hollows visible in the tree; (2) the proportion of the tree's crown that contained dead branches; and (3) tree diameter. The number of different vertebrate species that occupied trees was positively associated with the same explanatory variables except tree diameter. Thus, our results suggest that trees with multiple hollows and dead branches in the crown should be preferentially selected for occupancy by hollow-using fauna. Our results suggest that trees with the largest diameter are not the most suitable for retention. Possibly because they contain proportionally fewer hollows with small entrances, which are favoured by some vertebrate species. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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