J. For. Sci., 2021, 67(9):436-448 | DOI: 10.17221/64/2021-JFS

Woodland key habitat contribution to preserve biological diversity in Lithuania: assessing the difference between 2005 and 2017Original Paper

Indré Ruškyté*, Gediminas Brazaitis, Michael Manton, Žydrunas Preikša
Institute of Forest Biology and Silviculture, Faculty of Forest Sciences and Ecology, Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy, Akademija, Lithuania

In response to the degradation of forest ecosystems, their habitats and the loss of species, many formal conservation policies and voluntary forest conservation tools have been proposed and implemented. The woodland key habitat (WKH) is one such initiative that aims to protect biodiversity. This generally involves two key actions: (i) the creation of policy (conservation action) and (ii) the consequences of the policy or initiative in the field. However, the final step of measuring their success in the field is often missing. The aim of this study is to assess the contribution of the WKH initiative to conserve biodiversity in Lithuania. We compared the changes in spatial distribution, species assemblages and richness within the WKH network between 2005 and 2017. Results showed that the spatial distribution of WKHs decreased in number and by area after 12 years. However, species occurrence, abundance and richness of the WHK network generally increased. In conclusion, we found the WKH initiative has contributed to the conservation of forest habitats and biodiversity in Lithuania. However, the future of the WKH network is uncertain due to the current voluntary system, lack of support and funding.

Keywords: boreal forests; threatened species; conservation; species richness; high conservation value forests

Published: September 15, 2021  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Ruškyté I, Brazaitis G, Manton M, Preikša Ž. Woodland key habitat contribution to preserve biological diversity in Lithuania: assessing the difference between 2005 and 2017. J. For. Sci.. 2021;67(9):436-448. doi: 10.17221/64/2021-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Andersson L., Kriukelis R. (2002): Pilot Woodland Key Habitat Inventory in Lithuania: Final Report. Vilnius, Forest Department, Ministry of Environment, Lithuania, and Regional Forestry Board of Östra Götaland, Sweden: 42.
    2. Andersson L., Kriukelis R., Skuja S. (2005): Woodland Key Habitat Inventory in Lithuania. Vilnius, Forest Department, Ministry of Environment, Lithuania, and Regional Forestry Board of Östra Götaland, Sweden: 250.
    3. Angelstam P. (1997): Landscape analysis as a tool for the scientific management of biodiversity. Ecological Bulletins, 46: 140-170.
    4. Angelstam P., Andersson L. (2001): Estimates of the needs for forest reserves in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 16: 38-51. Go to original source...
    5. Angelstam P., Andersson K., Axelsson R., Elbakidze M., Jonsson B.G., Roberge J.M. (2011): Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991-2010: Policy implementation process and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fennica, 45: 1111-1133. Go to original source...
    6. Angelstam P., Manton M., Green M., Jonsson B.G., Mikusiński G., Svensson J., Sabatini F.M. (2020): Sweden does not meet agreed national and international forest biodiversity targets: A call for adaptive landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 202: 103838. Go to original source...
    7. Bohn U., Neuhäusl R., Gollub G., Hettwer C., Neuhäuslová Z., Raus T., Schluter H., Weber H. (2003): Map of the natural vegetation of Europe. Scale 1: 2 500 000. Münster, Bundesamt für Naturschutz.
    8. Brazaitis G. (2014): Mokslinio tiriamojo projekto. Pakartotinė miško buveinių inventorizacija baigiamoji ataskaita. Akademija, Aleksandras Stulginskis University: 82. (in Lithuanian)
    9. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2010): The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/sp
    10. Eriksson S., Hammer M. (2006): The challenge of combining timber production and biodiversity conservation for long-term ecosystem functioning - A case study of Swedish boreal forestry. Forest Ecology and Management, 237: 208-217. Go to original source...
    11. European Commission (2019): The European Green Deal. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
    12. European Commission (2020): EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ fs_20_906
    13. FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) (2020): The FSC National Forest Stewardship Standard of Lithuania. Bonn, Forest Stewardship Council: 74.
    14. Forestry Statistics (2009): State Forest Service under the Ministry of Environment of the LR. Available at: http://www.amvmt.lt/index.php/leidiniai/misku-ukio-statistika/2009 (in Lithuanian; accessed Apr 15, 2021).
    15. Forestry Statistics (2018): State Forest Service under the Ministry of Environment of the LR. Available at: http://www.amvmt.lt/index.php/leidiniai/misku-ukio-statistika/2018 (in Lithuanian; accessed Apr 15, 2021).
    16. Forestry Statistics (2020): State Forest Service under the Ministry of Environment of the LR. Available at: http://www.amvmt.lt/index.php/leidiniai/misku-ukio-statistika/2020 (in Lithuanian; accessed Apr 30, 2021).
    17. Gotelli N.J., Colwell R.K. (2011): Estimating species richness. In: Magurran A.E., Mcgill B.J. (eds): Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 39-54.
    18. Gu W., Heikkilä R., Hanski I. (2002): Estimating the consequences of habitat fragmentation on extinction risk in dynamic landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 17: 699-710. Go to original source...
    19. Gustafsson L., De Jong J., Norén M. (1999): Evaluation of Swedish woodland key habitats using red-listed bryophytes and lichens. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8: 1101-1114. Go to original source...
    20. Hunter M.L., Schmiegelow F.K.A. (2011): Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry: Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity. 2nd Ed. Boston, Montreal, Prentice Hall: 259.
    21. Karazija S. (1988): Lietuvos miškų tipai. Vilnius, Mokslas: 211. (in Lithuanian)
    22. Karazija S. (2003): Woodland key habitats: the idea and reality. Mūsų Girios, 6/7: 4. (in Lithuanian)
    23. Laita A., Mönkkönen M., Kotiaho J.S. (2010): Woodland key habitats evaluated as part of a functional reserve network. Biological Conservation, 143: 1212-1227. Go to original source...
    24. Lele S., Springate-Baginski O., Lakerveld R., Deb D., Dash P. (2013): Ecosystem services: Origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conservation and Society, 11: 343-358. Go to original source...
    25. Mansourian S., Vallauri D. (2014): Restoring forest landscapes: important lessons learnt. Environmental Management, 53: 241-251. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    26. Manton M., Makrickas E., Banaszuk P., Kołos A., Kamocki A., Grygoruk M., Stachowicz M., Jarašius L., Zableckis N., Sendžikaitė J., Peters J., Napreenko M., Wichtmann W., Angelstam P. (2021): Assessment and spatial planning for peatland conservation and restoration: Europe's transborder Neman River basin as a case study. Land, 10: 174. Go to original source...
    27. Naumov V., Manton M., Elbakidze M., Rendenieks Z., Priednieks J., Uhlianets S., Yamelynets T., Zhivotov A., Angelstam P. (2018): How to reconcile wood production and biodiversity conservation? The Pan-European boreal forest history gradient as an "experiment". Journal of Environmental Management, 218: 1-13. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    28. Noss R.F. (1990): Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4: 355-364. Go to original source...
    29. Petrokas R., Baliuckas V., Manton M. (2020): Successional categorization of European hemi-boreal forest tree species. Plants, 9: 1381. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    30. Popescu V.D., Rozylowicz L., Niculae I.M., Cucu A.L., Hartel T. (2014): Species, habitats, society: an evaluation of research supporting EU's Natura 2000 Network. PLoS ONE, 9: e113648. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    31. Preikša Ž., Brazaitis G. (2011): Diversity and abundance of cryptogams in mature broadleaf and mixed forests and key forest habitats of different forest groups. Miškininkystė, 1: 15-25. (in Lithuanian)
    32. Rašomavičius V. (2021): Red Data Book of Lithuania. Animals, plants, fungi. Available at: https://www.raudonojiknyga.lt/knyga/91-isleista-naujoji-2021-m-lietuvosraudonoji-knyga (in Lithuanian; accessed Apr 30, 2021).
    33. Rauschmayer F., Berghöfer A., Omann I., Zikos D. (2009): Examining processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19: 159-173. Go to original source...
    34. Sabogal C., Besacier C., McGuire D. (2015): Forest and landscape restoration: Concepts, approaches, and challenges for implementation. Unasylva, 66: 3-10.
    35. Stončius D. (2011): Woodland Key Habitats. Vilnius, Lithuanian Fund for Nature: 72. (in Lithuanian)
    36. Svancara L.K., Brannon J.R., Scott M., Groves C.R., Noss R.F., Pressey R.L. (2005): Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: a review of political targets and biological needs. BioScience, 55: 989-995. Go to original source...
    37. Timonen J., Siitonen J., Gustafsson L., Kotiaho J.S., Stokland J.N., Sverdrup-Thygeson A., Mönkkönen M. (2010): Woodland key habitats in northern Europe: concepts, inventory and protection. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 25: 309-324. Go to original source...
    38. Siitonen J. (2001): Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological bulletins, 49: 11-41.
    39. Ylisirniö A.L., Mönkkönen M., Hallikainen V., Ranta-Maunus T., Kouki J. (2016): Woodland key habitats in preserving polypore diversity in boreal forests: effects of patch size, stand structure and microclimate. Forest Ecology and Management, 373: 138-148. Go to original source...
    40. Wiens J.J., Donoghue M.J. (2004): Historical biogeography, ecology and species richness. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19: 639-644. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content