Abstract
Context
Large-scale natural disturbances are crucial drivers of ecosystem function and composition for many forested ecosystems. In the last century, the prevalence of anthropogenic disturbances has increased across Canada’s boreal forest. Habitat disturbance from timber harvest and wildfire is linked to declines of boreal species, including woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou).
Objectives
We tested how disturbances influenced the recovery trajectory of ecological indicators of timber, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat through time following timber harvest and wildfire across the boreal forest of Alberta, Canada.
Methods
During 2021 and 2022, we collected field data from 251 timber harvested and 264 burned stands (0–40 years since disturbance), as well as 256 older forest stands used by caribou (> 40 years since disturbance). Field data included metrics of stand attributes (e.g., basal area, stems per hectare), coarse woody debris (CWD), and abundance of forage for caribou, moose (Alces americanus), and bears (black bear: Ursus americanus, grizzly bear: Ursus arctos).
Results
Basal area of trees and stems per hectare recovered more quickly in timber harvest sites when compared to wildfire sites, but as time since disturbance increased there were no differences in these attributes among timber harvest, wildfire, and caribou use sites. CWD was greatest in recently burned sites, but declined over time to be similar in quantity as in harvested stands and older forest stands. Terrestrial lichens, important forage for caribou, were most abundant in the older caribou use sites, whereas forage for moose and bears, including shrubs, was most abundant in younger timber harvest and wildfire sites.
Conclusions
Our results demonstrate that timber harvesting may result in a quicker development of timber volume when compared to wildfire. However, this anthropogenic disturbance is less advantageous for the development of caribou habitat.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Forest ecosystems in North America have long been shaped by natural disturbances, such as windstorms, insect outbreaks, and wildfire (White 1979; Dale et al. 2001; Flannigan et al. 2003). Disturbance drives successional dynamics and ecosystem function, influencing community composition, species richness, and biophysical characteristics (Attiwill 1994; Weber and Flannigan 1997; Gauthier et al. 2015a). Historically, wildfires have been the dominant stand-replacing natural disturbance type in Canada (Stocks et al. 2002; Gauthier et al. 2015b; Daniel et al. 2017). The leading anthropogenic stand-replacing disturbance is timber harvest, often in the form of clearcutting (Morgenstern 2007; Pinno et al. 2021).
Timber harvest and wildfire have an extensive disturbance footprint, but their respective effects on forest ecosystems are rarely equivalent (McRae et al. 2001; Bergeron et al. 2004; Thiffault et al. 2007; Bartels et al. 2016). Tree size and age-class distributions, and structural complexity of residual forest patches may vary between timber harvest and wildfire (Hunter 1990; Mladenoff et al. 1993; DeLong and Tanner 1996), producing different ecosystem conditions and biological legacies (Franklin et al. 2007; Moussaoui et al. 2016). Additionally, the resulting composition of tree species may differ in post-harvest and post-fire stands, with the former often dominated by deciduous tree species (Carleton and MacLellan 1994; Jackson et al. 2000; Pinto et al. 2008).
Forest managers have used ecosystem-based management (EBM) to reduce the dissimilarities between natural and anthropogenic disturbances (Seymour and Hunter 1999; Bergeron et al. 2002; Harvey et al. 2002). The primary objective of EBM is to develop harvesting regimes that emulate natural disturbance (Christensen et al. 1996; Bergeron et al. 1999; Mori et al. 2013). Flora and fauna have evolved to accommodate natural disturbance dynamics (e.g., type, rate, and extent of disturbance) particular to the ecosystems that they occupy (Weber and Taylor 1992; Bunnell 1995; McRae et al. 2001). Thus, EBM assumes that ecosystem characteristics, including biodiversity, can be maintained when timber harvest replaces natural disturbance (Angelstam 1998; Seip 1998; DeLong 2007). However, to assess if EBM can be effectively applied, there needs to be a comprehensive understanding of the differential effects of timber harvest and wildfire across relatively broad temporal and spatial extents.
Forests across Canada provide a broad suite of ecosystem services, including timber production (Burton et al. 2006, 2010). Over two-thirds of the boreal forest is managed, mainly for timber production (Gauthier et al. 2015b). Forest management generally includes harvesting or silvicultural prescriptions that are intended to promote the regeneration of commercially valuable species (Armstrong 2004; Fourrier et al. 2013; Fleming et al. 2014). Ecological indicators for timber supply often include stand attributes such as tree species composition and harvestable volume (McElhinny et al. 2005; Government of Canada 2021). In this study, we refer to stand attributes as measures of basal area, stem density, and species composition for trees, adhering to standard inventory used for forest management (Government of Alberta 2023). There is ample research on stand dynamics, such as changes in tree species composition and basal area, following timber harvest or wildfire (Greene et al. 1999; Chen and Popadiouk 2002; Haeussler and Kneeshaw 2003; Johnson et al. 2003). However, few studies have compared stand attributes and wildlife habitat of similarly aged harvested and wildfire areas in boreal forests, especially over broad temporal and geographical ranges (Hobson and Schieck 1999; Fourrier et al. 2013; Souliere et al. 2020; Yemshanov et al. 2020).
In tandem with provisioning ecosystem services, forests also provide supporting services, including habitat for a multitude of species (Burton et al. 2006; Saarikoski et al. 2015). Management practices that prioritize certain forest attributes, such as volume of merchantable timber, may reduce the availability of other supporting services (Thom and Seidl 2016). For example, harvesting of old forest can lead to habitat loss and fragmentation for woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), hereafter ‘caribou’, a species listed as Threatened under Canada’s Species-At-Risk Act (Environment Canada 2011). Conversely, recently disturbed forests attract other ungulate species, such as moose (Alces americanus), that are associated with early seral plant communities (Johnson and Rea 2024). An increase in the distribution or abundance of moose can result in more wolves (Canis lupus), a shared predator of moose and caribou (DeCesare et al. 2010; Johnson et al. 2020). This process of apparent competition has contributed to the decline of caribou across western Canada (Serrouya et al. 2011). Therefore, it is important to understand the temporal responses of a range of forest attributes, including indicators of biodiversity and wildlife habitat, following timber harvest and wildfire to effectively inform landscape management (Thom and Seidl 2016; Ihemezie et al. 2021), including habitat of wildlife like caribou.
Timber harvest and wildfire alter forest structure, but the resulting biological legacies can differ between the two disturbance types (McRae et al. 2001). Biological legacies, in the form of dead wood, are vital for supporting forest biodiversity (Huston 1996). Coarse woody debris (CWD), defined as relatively large dead woody material that is undergoing decomposition (Harmon et al. 1986; Harmon and Sexton 1996), provides suitable habitat for an array of different organisms (McMinn and Crossley 1996; Bull 2002). For example, birds and small mammals use standing dead trees, like snags, for nests, nurseries, and storing food (Farnell et al. 2020). In addition, CWD is important for nutrient cycling, long-term carbon storage, and tree regeneration (Sturtevant et al. 1997; Hagan and Grove 1999). The quantity (e.g., volume) and quality (e.g., size and decomposition stage) of CWD are influenced by ecosystem and disturbance type, as well as the successional patterns that follow (Pedlar et al. 2002). Wildfires produce standing dead trees (future downed CWD) and downed woody debris (Franklin et al. 2007; Moore 2022), whereas clearcut harvesting may remove most of the CWD, including future CWD in the form of standing dead trees (Tinker and Knight 2000; McRae et al. 2001).
Timber harvest and wildfire also influence the availability and quality of forage for a multitude of wildlife species (Burton 2013; Commander and White 2020). In western Canada, terrestrial and arboreal lichens are the preferred winter forage of caribou. (Johnson et al. 2001; Bergerud et al. 2008; Denryter et al. 2017). The abundance of lichens generally decreases following wildfire and clearcut harvesting (Ahti 1977; Coxson and Marsh 2001; Russell and Johnson 2019), although forage lichens will typically become accessible for caribou 40–50 years post-disturbance (Nguyen-Xuan et al. 2000; Joly et al. 2003;). Conversely, other more generalist, boreal ungulates, like moose, deer (Odocoileus spp.), and elk (Cervus canadensis) favor vascular plants, which are abundant in early seral forest (Franzmann and Schwartz 1997; Visscher et al. 2006; DeCesare et al. 2010). Increases in the density of generalist ungulates may attract predators like wolves and cougars (Puma concolor) (Serrouya et al. 2021; McKay and Finnegan 2022). Moreover, other predators including black bears (Ursus americanus) and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) also prefer early seral forests to access forbs and berry-producing shrubs (Latham et al. 2011; Souliere et al. 2020). An assessment of forage availability for caribou, moose, and bears following timber harvest or wildfire can be an effective indicator of the impacts of disturbance on wildlife habitat, especially for caribou as increased forage for moose and bears could reflect greater apparent competition and predation risk (DeCesare et al. 2010; Serrouya et al. 2011). Despite initial similarities in vegetation communities following timber harvest or wildfire (Coxson and Marsh 2001), the temporal changes in abundance of forage taxa may differ between these two disturbance types (Reich et al. 2001).
In this study, we compared the temporal responses of stand attributes, woody debris, and abundance of forage for caribou, moose, and bears following timber harvest and wildfire across the boreal and foothill forests of Alberta, Canada. We collected field data from forest stands that had been disturbed by timber harvest and wildfire (< 40 years since disturbance), as well as older forest stands (> 40 years since disturbance) representative of the habitat of woodland caribou, a high-priority conservation species found across the boreal forest in Canada. With a goal of informing effective EBM practices in the boreal forests of western Canada, our objectives were to assess the ecological indicators in relation to (1) post-disturbance temporal trends, (2) differences between site type (timber harvest vs. wildfire vs. caribou use), and (3) trends between forest ecosystem subtypes. We hypothesized (i) stand attributes would initially be similar following timber harvest or wildfire, but the successional trajectories of each disturbance type would diverge over time; (ii) CWD would be more abundant in wildfire sites compared to timber harvested sites, especially immediately after disturbance; and (iii) forage groups for moose and bears would be more abundant in recently disturbed forest (Coxson and Marsh 2001; McClelland et al. 2023), and caribou forage would be more prevalent in mature forest (Ray et al. 2015; Russell and Johnson 2019).
Materials and methods
Study area
The study area included 88,900 km2 of west-central, north-western, and north-eastern Alberta, Canada (Fig. 1). Natural subregions within the study area included the central mixedwood, lower and upper foothills, and lower and upper boreal highlands (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Natural subregions are ecological units defined according to climate, topography, vegetation, and soil properties (Natural Regions Committee 2006)—representing variation in ecosystem subtype (Table 1). The study area incorporated the ranges of nine caribou populations: Chinchaga, East Side Athabasca, West Side Athabasca, Little Smoky, Nipisi, and Red Earth (boreal caribou; COSEWIC 2011), and À la Pêche, Narraway, and Redrock Prairie Creek (central mountain caribou; COSEWIC 2011).
The dominant tree species in the study area included lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), white spruce (Picea glauca), black spruce (Picea mariana), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), tamarack (Larix laricina), and paper birch (Betula papyrifera). Shrubs and forbs included willows (Salix spp.), bog birch (Betula glandulosum), alders (Alnus spp.), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), Labrador tea (Rhododendron groenlandicum), and horsetails (Equisetum spp.). Ungulates in the study area included caribou, moose, elk, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), and mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) at higher elevations. Large carnivores included wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, cougars, Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), coyotes (Canis latrans), and wolverines (Gulo gulo).
Oil and gas extraction, and timber harvest were the primary anthropogenic disturbances in the study area. Conventional clearcutting followed by planting of commercial stock was the prevalent form of timber management in these regions (Schneider 2002; Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2006). Natural disturbance in the study area included forest pathogens, bark beetles (e.g., mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae), windthrow, and wildfire.
Site selection
We selected sites to represent anthropogenic (timber harvest) and natural (wildfire) disturbances, as well as sites that were used by caribou; hereafter ‘cutblock’, ‘wildfire’, and ‘caribou use’ sites (Fig. 1). Sites were stratified by natural subregion and age class; disturbance sites (cutblock and wildfire) were grouped into four 10-year intervals (0–10, 11–20, 21–30, 31–40) reflecting the time since disturbance. All caribou use sites were greater than 40 years since disturbance. Caribou typically select mature forest (> 40 years since disturbance) for their winter habitat (Johnson et al. 2015; Mumma et al. 2018; Rudolph et al. 2019). Sites were randomly selected within each stratum. We identified cutblock and wildfire sites using forest resource inventory and historical wildfire data provided by the Government of Alberta. Cutblock sites were clearcut harvested and wildfire sites experienced large-scale, stand-replacing wildfires (> 94% of area burned, > 200 ha burned area).
We used GPS location data (2019–2022) from collared caribou to identify caribou use sites. Caribou were collared by the Government of Alberta as part of provincial monitoring programs (Government of Alberta Wildlife Caribou Committee Class Protocol #8). First, we partitioned GPS location data into population and season (Table S1; MacNearney et al. 2016; Pigeon et al. 2016; Konkolics et al. 2021) and created a point density layer with a 500-m cell size. Then, we assigned each cell to one of three quantiles representing a low, medium, or high density of caribou locations. Finally, we randomly selected cells from each natural subregion and season that represented areas with high-density of caribou locations, assuming that those areas had a relatively greater use by caribou. If there were insufficient high-density locations for a natural subregion then we randomly selected cells with a medium density of use. We did not draw sample sites from low-density areas.
Cutblock, wildfire, and caribou use sites were > 500 m from other sites within the same strata, and > 20 m from the stratum edge. Most sites were road accessible (< 3 km of the nearest road), except for sites in the north-eastern region, which were only accessible via helicopter. If we encountered strata mismatches in the field (e.g., a caribou use site that had been harvested after GPS data had been collected), we moved the sampling plot by increments of 20 m in a randomly selected cardinal direction until the plot fell within the target stratum.
Field data collection
We sampled 251 cutblock, 264 wildfire, and 256 caribou use sites from early June to late August in 2021 and late May to early September in 2022. We established 100-m2 fixed-diameter circular sampling plots (5.64-m radius; Fig. S1) within each site and recorded diameter at breast height (DBH), species composition, and density counts (stems/ha) for all trees with a DBH ≥ 5 cm. We recorded the status of each tree as alive, snag (dead tree ≥ 1.3 m in length, leaning ≤ 45° from the vertical), or stump (dead tree < 1.3 m high). We also recorded the density of saplings (DBH < 5 cm) by species.
We sampled CWD along four transects (5.64 m in length) within the 100-m2 plot, one at each cardinal direction. Measurements of CWD included logs on the ground and downed woody material at an angle of > 45° from the vertical, > 5 cm diameter, > 1 m length, and with > 50% of the diameter above forest litter or soil where the logs intersected CWD transects. Due to time constraints, we employed a simplified three-class decomposition classification for CWD: type I—little to no decay with intact bark and hard wood; type II—significant decay and bark mostly gone, wood had begun to soften, but retained structure; and type III—debris was soft throughout with a lack of structure. We counted the number of pieces of CWD intersecting each transect, identifying species when possible, and recording if the CWD was on the ground or suspended.
We measured percent cover of large shrubs within 5-m2 circular plots (1.26-m radius) located at the north, east, south, and west edges of the 100-m2 plot (Fig. S1, Table S2). We measured percent cover of dwarf shrubs, forbs, graminoids, terrestrial lichens, and other ground cover (Table S2) in one 1-m2 circular plot (0.564-m radius) within each of the 5-m2 plots (Fig. S1). All measurements of percent cover were taken to the nearest whole percent (i.e., discrete integers).
Ecological indicators
We assessed four stand attributes of trees associated with timber supply: basal area, tree type composition (basal area of only deciduous trees), quadratic mean diameter (QMD in cm), and stems per hectare (SPH) (Table 2). We calculated these attributes for live trees (DBH ≥ 5 cm), excluding snags and stumps.
We used counts of CWD and basal area of snags as indicators of stand-level biodiversity (Table 2). The measure of CWD included the total count of downed debris as well as the count of snags and stumps. This approach followed the protocol of Harmon and Sexton (1996), including debris of all decomposition classes (described in section ‘Field data collection’), suspended or on the ground, as well as standing dead trees: snags and stumps. We also calculated basal area of snags for each site. Although downed debris and standing dead trees may differ in successional state and decomposition class, they can both be important habitat for wildlife and promote biodiversity (Bull 2002).
We defined groups of plants and lichens that represented forage assemblages and components of habitat for caribou, moose, and bears (Tables 2, 3, Table S3). Winter diets of caribou are predominantly comprised of terrestrial lichens, but during spring and summer deciduous shrubs and forbs are regularly consumed (Thomas et al. 1996; Barten et al. 2001; Denryter et al. 2017). Moose browse on sapling foliage during winter but shift to shrubs and herbaceous plants during other seasons (Franzmann and Schwartz 1997; Visscher et al. 2006). Forbs and roots compose a large part of bear diet during spring and early summer, while fruiting shrubs are more important during late summer and fall (Munro et al. 2006; Merkle et al. 2017). For forage groups including lichens, large shrubs, or forbs (Table 3), we summed the percent cover of all plant taxa within a given group, then calculated mean percent cover for each group across the four subplots within each 100-m2 plot. For saplings (Table 3), we summed stem counts of the target species within each 100-m2 plot.
Data analysis
We used two statistical approaches to quantify the relationship between disturbance type and ecological indicator. First, we used non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) to explore patterns in stand attributes and forage groups within each natural subregion (Kruskal 1964). NMDS is an effective ordination method to visualize various types of data, often abundance data, in a reduced dimensional space (Kruskal 1964; Dexter et al. 2018). We used the metaMDS function (“Vegan” package, Oksanen et al. 2022) to generate separate NMDS models for stand attribute and forage group variables. For stand attributes, we first normalized the variables, and we used Euclidean distances to measure dissimilarity among the variables in NMDS. For forage groups, we used Bray distances to measure dissimilarity among the variables (Clarke 1993). For all NMDS, we used the default of 20 re-tests to ensure confidence in the patterns of ordination (Oksanen et al. 2022). Since we were using NMDS to visualize data in a reduced dimensional space, we used two dimensions for all NMDS. We used a stress value threshold of 0.20 to evaluate the goodness of fit for each NMDS; with values above 0.20 indicating a poor fit, values below 0.20 indicating a decent fit, and values below 0.10 indicating a good fit (Kruskal 1964; Clarke 1993). We grouped data by the stratum ‘disturbance type’ to visualize potential clustering or separation of the indicators with disturbance type. We excluded the woody debris variables from ordination analysis, as there were only two variables and we wanted to analyze them separately because they were neither stand attribute nor forage group.
We used generalized linear models (GLM) to explore the relationship between ecological indicators and disturbance type. We used Gaussian linear regression (link = identity) to model stand attributes and snag basal area. The CWD and forage group variables were overdispersed, thus, we used negative binomial count models (link = log) for those variables (“MASS” package, Venables and Ripley 2002). For the forage group variables measured in percent cover, although these data were not discrete integers after calculating mean values for each site, they were still non-negative with overdispersed distributions best suited for negative binomial count models (Zuur et al. 2010; Stoklosa et al. 2022). Therefore, to better align with the requirements of count models, we rounded these percentage values to the nearest whole number (Russell and Johnson 2019). Also, for plots with mean values between 0 and 0.5, we rounded up to 1 to ensure that we did not underrepresent presence of forage among sites. We developed a categorical variable ‘disturbance class’ to include all possible subgroups of ‘disturbance type’ and ‘time since disturbance' (0–10, 11–20, 21–30, 31–40, > 40 years) within models. The ‘disturbance class’ factor included the levels: cutblock 0–10, wildfire 0–10, cutblock 11–20, wildfire 11–20, cutblock 21–30, wildfire 21–30, cutblock 31–40, wildfire 31–40, caribou use > 40. The development of the disturbance class variable enabled us to compare all age classes of the cutblock and wildfire sites to the caribou use sites (caribou use sites all > 40 years). We included disturbance class as a factor in all GLMs, with ‘caribou use > 40’ as the reference category. We scaled each stand attribute variable included in the linear regression models using the scale function in base R. We used the residuals of the linear regression models to confirm normality for stand attribute variables.
We built separate models for each natural subregion, except for the lower and upper foothills where we pooled data due to insufficient sample sizes for some strata (e.g., 0 caribou use sites in the lower foothills).
We considered results statistically significant at α = 0.05. We performed all statistical analyses using R v. 4.1.3 (R Development Core Team, 2022).
Results
Patterns of ordination
The stress values from the NMDS for stand attributes were below the threshold value of 0.20 in all natural subregions, suggesting a good representation in reduced dimensions (central mixedwood = 0.041, foothills = 0.048, lower boreal highlands = 0.046, upper boreal highlands = 0.039). In each natural subregion, there was considerable overlap in stand attributes among cutblock, wildfire, and caribou use sites, especially between cutblock and wildfire sites (Fig. 2). Basal area and QMD were associated with caribou use sites in the foothills and lower boreal highlands based on the direction of the vectors (Fig. 2).
The stress values for forage groups were below the threshold value of 0.20 in all natural subregions, indicating acceptable fit for the representation (central mixedwood = 0.186, foothills = 0.148, lower boreal highlands = 0.190, upper boreal highlands = 0.174). In the central mixedwood and foothills, there was some separation of caribou use sites from cutblock and wildfire sites (Fig. 3). In all natural subregions, the vectors suggest that abundance of caribou lichen was associated with caribou use sites, and moose shrubs and bear shrubs were associated with cutblock sites (Fig. 3).
Impact of disturbances on ecological indicators
Following both timber harvest and wildfire, stand basal area, SPH, and QMD increased through time, and, in most natural subregions approached or exceeded the values observed in caribou use sites by 31–40 years post-disturbance (Figs. 4, 5, Fig. S2, Tables S6, S8, S9). Immediately following both timber harvest and wildfire SPH was low, but increased by 20 years post-disturbance as regenerating trees grew to exceed the lower size limit (DBH ≥ 5 cm; Fig. 4c). In the lower and upper boreal highlands, and the central mixedwood, basal area and SPH were greater in cutblocks than in wildfire sites, particularly during early stand development (0–30 years post-disturbance). Deciduous basal area was generally low in caribou use sites in the foothills, and lower and upper boreal highlands (Fig. 4b). By 21–30 years post-disturbance, basal area of deciduous trees was greater in cutblock sites compared to caribou use sites (Figs. 4b, 5, Table S7). In contrast, basal area of deciduous trees in wildfire sites was not different from the caribou use sites, for all age classes (Figs. 4b, 5). A large proportion of the deciduous trees were comprised of trembling aspen (Fig. S7).
CWD was more abundant in wildfire sites compared to caribou use and cutblock sites until at least 20 years post-disturbance (Figs. 4d, 5, Table S10). In all natural subregions, wildfire resulted in high initial amounts of CWD which then decreased over time, and by 31–40 years post-disturbance CWD in wildfire and caribou use sites were not significantly different from one another (Figs. 4d, 5, Table S10). Snag basal area was greater in wildfire sites than in caribou use sites until at least 10 years post-disturbance (Fig. 5, Fig. S3, Table S11). In the foothills, basal area of snags was significantly less in all age classes of cutblocks than caribou use sites (Fig. 5, Fig. S3, Table S11).
For forage groups, caribou shrubs and moose shrubs were highly correlated (Spearman r = 0.795; Table S4), so only results of moose shrubs are reported. Caribou lichens were less abundant in cutblock than in caribou use sites, particularly in the central mixedwood and lower and upper boreal highlands (Figs. 6a, 7, Table S12). Caribou lichens were also less abundant in wildfire sites 0–10 years post-disturbance in all natural subregions (Figs. 6a, 7). Compared to cutblock sites, caribou lichens were generally more abundant in wildfire sites by 11–20 years post-disturbance (Fig. 6a). There were no clear trends in the abundance of caribou forbs among natural subregions or site types (Fig. 7, Fig. S4, Table S13).
In all natural subregions, moose saplings were generally less frequent in caribou use sites than in cutblock and wildfire sites, where abundance of this forage decreased with increased time since disturbance (Figs. 6b, 7, Table S14). In the foothills, both moose shrubs and forbs were more abundant in cutblocks compared to caribou use sites, regardless of time since disturbance (Figs. 6c, 7, Fig. S5, Tables S15, S16). Moose shrubs were also more abundant in wildfire sites when compared to caribou use sites in the central mixedwood and upper boreal highlands (Figs. 6c, 7).
Bear shrubs were more abundant in cutblock sites when compared to caribou use sites in the central mixedwood and foothills, irrespective of time since disturbance (Figs. 6d, 7, Table S17). Bear shrubs were not observed in caribou use sites in the upper boreal highlands preventing statistical comparison with disturbance type. The abundance of bear forbs did not differ between natural subregion or site type (Fig. 7, Fig. S6, Table S18).
Discussion
The findings of this study confirm that timber harvest and wildfire produce similar outcomes for some ecological indicators but diverge substantively for others. For example, stand attributes important for timber supply regenerated quicker in cutblocks compared to wildfire sites, especially hardwood species like aspen. These results align with Fourrier et al. (2013) who found differences in merchantable timber volume and tree species composition when comparing post-harvest and post-wildfire stands in boreal forests of eastern Quebec, Canada. We found that CWD was more abundant post-wildfire. Additionally, young cutblock and wildfire sites provided ample forage for moose and bears, but both disturbance types greatly diminished the availability of terrestrial lichens—important forage for caribou. Another study conducted in west-central Alberta found that forage availability for grizzly bears was greatest in young age classes of both harvested and burned stands (Souliere et al. 2020). Our work also suggested that the effects of timber harvest and wildfire differed between ecosystem subtypes. For example, composition of tree species differed between the central mixedwood and foothills following disturbance. These results indicate that disturbance type and ecosystem subtype need to be jointly considered when developing goals for forest management. In our study, we covered an ecologically diverse area and assessed a range of indicators for forest products, biodiversity, and habitat for multiple wildlife.
The NMDS visualization suggested a lack of clustering or association of stand attributes relative to the disturbance groups (cutblock, wildfire, caribou use). This could be because time since disturbance was not included in the ordination. After a clearcut or severe wildfire the remnant basal area and stems per hectare would likely be much less than in more mature stands (Greene et al. 1999; Madoui et al. 2015). There was some degree of separation between forage groups and disturbance type, mainly characterized by caribou lichens within the caribou use group, and moose and bear shrubs within the cutblock group. These results are not surprising as terrestrial lichens are typically more abundant in mature than in young forests (Ray et al. 2015; Russell and Johnson 2019), and vascular plants are more prevalent in younger, recently disturbed forest, like cutblocks, than in mature, closed canopy forest (Larsen et al. 2019; Schrempp et al. 2019; McClelland et al. 2023). The paucity of clear findings from the ordination analysis reinforced the need for us to carry out in-depth analyses incorporating time since disturbance.
Impact of disturbances on ecological indicators
In many of the natural subregions, basal area, QMD, and SPH increased more rapidly in cutblocks versus wildfire sites, which may have reflected differences in commercial tree restocking between the two disturbance types (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2006; Yang et al. 2008; Pinno et al. 2021). We also found that basal area of deciduous trees was generally greater in the timber harvest sites, especially in the central mixedwood and lower boreal highlands. This result suggested that highly competitive broad-leaved species, such as aspen, became established via restocking and/or natural regeneration (Chen et al. 2009; Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2023; Bartels et al. 2016). A study by Ilisson and Chen (2009) conducted in the boreal mixedwood of Ontario found that trembling aspen and paper birch were the most abundant trees post-disturbance. In our study area, fewer biological legacies (e.g., snags, stumps, downed debris) in cutblocks could have resulted in increased light and growing space, encouraging rapid regeneration of shade-intolerant, pioneer tree species, such as aspen and birch (Greene et al. 1999; Ilisson and Chen 2009). In contrast, the prevalence of fire-remnant tree structures and exposure of mineral soil in young wildfire sites may have provided seed sources and fertile soil that facilitated the regeneration of pre-disturbance species, including conifers (Carleton and MacLellan 1994; Greene et al. 1999; Franklin et al. 2002).
We found that counts of CWD and basal area of snags were most abundant in the young wildfire sites. This was consistent across natural subregions and in accordance with other studies (Tinker and Knight 2000; McRae et al. 2001; Yan et al. 2007; Moore 2022). For example, in forested areas of northwestern Wyoming the combined mass of downed CWD and snags was almost double in burned stands compared to clearcuts (Tinker and Knight 2000). We observed high initial inputs of standing dead trees and downed debris and then a decrease in CWD over time in the wildfire sites, which matched the initial stages of the “u-shaped” temporal trend (Sturtevant et al. 1997; Feller 2003; Yan et al. 2007). The low abundance of CWD we observed in cutblocks was likely due to timber harvest practices removing standing dead trees and downed woody debris (Hagan and Grove 1999; Schneider 2002; Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2006). The absence of CWD in timber harvest sites likely reduced habitat availability for many taxa (Huston 1996; McMinn and Crossley 1996; Bull 2002). Our assessment of CWD only included counts, as well as basal area of snags, not measures of biomass or volume, and we adopted a simplified decomposition scale to be more time efficient during the field surveys. Given that relatively simplistic sampling protocol, we may not have fully captured all fine-scale variation in the abundance and attributes of CWD (Harmon and Sexton 1996; Yan et al. 2007). However, even with a less rigorous sampling protocol, we still found differences in abundance of CWD among disturbance types, consistent with our hypothesis that counts of CWD would be greatest in recently burned stands.
Abundance of caribou lichens was greatest in the older caribou use sites, and substantively less in cutblock and wildfire sites for at least 10 years following disturbance across all natural subregions. Moreover, percent cover of caribou lichens was scarce in cutblocks for up to 40 years post-harvest. Typically, a large proportion of terrestrial lichens is destroyed following severe, large-scale disturbance events (Dunford et al. 2006; Ray et al. 2015; Cichowski et al. 2022) and it can take from 40 to over 70 years for lichens to regenerate (Brulisauer et al. 1996; Waterhouse et al. 2011; Russell and Johnson 2019). We also found differences among natural subregions. In the central mixedwood and upper and lower boreal highlands, percent cover of caribou lichens was greater in wildfire sites compared to cutblocks 10 years post-disturbance. Nobert et al. (2020), working in the boreal highlands of Alberta, also found terrestrial lichens were more abundant following wildfire when compared to timber harvest. When compared to other natural subregions, we found caribou lichens were less abundant in caribou use sites in the central mixedwood and foothills, which may be explained by wetter edaphic conditions and closed canopies typical of those natural subregions (Table 1; Natural Regions Committee 2006). Lichen growth can be limited by mosses and vascular plants that benefit from moist, productive soil conditions (Coxson and Marsh 2001; Nobert et al. 2020; Cichowski et al. 2022).
Consistent with our hypothesis, and previous research (Strong and Gates 2006; McKay and Finnegan 2023), both moose saplings and shrubs were more abundant in the young timber harvest and wildfire sites compared to the caribou use sites. We observed a decrease in the abundance of moose saplings over time, which corresponded with observed successional patterns for the plant species associated with this forage group in boreal forests (Chen and Popadiouk 2002; Bartels et al. 2016).
We found that bear shrubs were most abundant in cutblocks, with significant differences detected across natural subregions between cutblocks of various age classes and caribou use sites. Our results were consistent with other studies that found fruit-bearing shrubs preferred by bears were abundant in stands following timber harvest (Nielsen et al. 2004; Souliere et al. 2020; Colton et al. 2021). We found that both moose and bear shrubs were sparce or completely absent in caribou use sites (i.e., 0 bear shrubs in upper boreal highlands). This can be expected considering the successional patterns of shade-intolerant shrub species (Hart and Chen 2006) and highlights the different ecological niches of these wildlife species.
We did not observe many differences among disturbance type for caribou forbs, moose forbs, or bear forbs. Generally, each of these forage groups were as abundant in the different-aged disturbance sites as in the caribou use sites. All three forage groups contained a variety of shade tolerant and intolerant dwarf shrubs, forbs, and graminoids that were prevalent during different successional stages (Humbert et al. 2007).
Implications for ecosystem management
We investigated differences in the temporal responses of a range of ecological indicators following timber harvest and wildfire. Focusing on stand attributes related to merchantable timber, we found that by 20 years post-disturbance, basal area, QMD, and SPH in cutblock sites generally reached or even exceeded the amounts in the more mature caribou use sites. This general trend was not observed in the wildfire sites. From the perspective of timber production, forest growth following timber harvest was better than following wildfire. However, greater timber production was expected as those sites likely received silvicultural treatment including planting of commercial seedlings and treatments to reduce competition from brush (Schneider 2002; Pinno et al. 2021).
Timber harvest was not the most advantageous disturbance type for the full set of ecological indicators that we assessed. For example, caribou lichens were sparse in cutblocks and generally increased more quickly after disturbance in wildfire sites. Similarly, we found that CWD abundance was greater in recently burned stands compared to timber harvested ones. In our study area, post-harvest site preparation typically included the removal of dead woody structures that served as habitat for a broad range of biodiversity (Huston 1996; McRae et al. 2001; Bull 2002). Following from EBM, if timber harvest is striving to emulate wildfire, then efforts should be made to retain standing dead trees and downed woody debris (Franklin et al. 2002; Lindenmayer et al. 2012). The retention of both living and dead trees will provide habitat, now and in the future, for biodiversity that is dependent on CWD (Gustafsson et al. 2012; Fedrowitz et al. 2014).
Timber harvest and wildfire remove overstory canopy, promoting the growth of early seral vegetation, such as forbs, shrubs, and saplings (Bergqvist et al. 2018; Schrempp et al. 2019). Although early seral forest resulting from timber harvest produces forage for caribou, moose, and bears, roads built alongside harvesting operations can increase human access, and facilitate predator movement (e.g., wolves) (Serrouya et al. 2017; Mumma et al. 2018, 2019). Caribou face even greater risks when early seral forest attracts apparent competitors (e.g., moose, deer, elk) and their predators (DeCesare et al. 2010; Serrouya et al. 2021).
Our results suggest that neither timber harvest nor wildfire will provide favorable outcomes for the full set of ecological indicators across the boreal forest and temporal period that we studied. Furthermore, the effects of timber harvest and wildfire are not always interchangeable, and these effects may vary between ecosystem subtypes. For instance, timber harvest resulted in a greater production of merchantable timber at a quicker rate when compared to wildfire in most of our study sites. At the same time, CWD was less abundant following timber harvest. Such tradeoffs were more pronounced when considering indicators of wildlife habitat. Timber harvest promoted the growth of essential forage for moose, but it also resulted in forage for bears, a known predator of moose and caribou calves (Ballard 1992; Leblond et al. 2016; McLaren et al. 2021). Our results also demonstrated that even 31–40 years post-harvest, ample forage for both moose and bears was still available in cutblocks, whereas a preferred food source for caribou, terrestrial lichens, was still limited. These results were consistent across most of the ecosystems we sampled (i.e., central mixedwood, lower and upper boreal highlands).
Conclusions
We collected a large and geographically extensive set of field data and compared the temporal responses of multiple ecological indicators to timber harvest and wildfire. The differences in effect of these two disturbance types depends on the ecological attribute (e.g., timber volume, CWD, wildlife forage) and ecosystem subtype, and likely will be influenced by the size and severity of disturbance, pre-disturbance conditions, and silvicultural treatments (DeLong and Tanner 1996; Bergeron et al. 2004; Thiffault et al. 2007). Appropriate management will need to clearly establish which ecosystem attributes are a priority (e.g., wildlife conservation versus timber production), as a “one size fits all” solution is likely not feasible. Trade-offs may be necessary to maximize the functions and services provided by these ecosystems at a landscape scale. Our results suggest that wildfire is better at supporting the retention and supply of CWD and caribou forage. In contrast, timber harvest and associated activities lead to more rapid tree growth and supply of timber products. Therefore, timber harvesting and silviculture that better emulates wildfire, via retention of CWD, may improve the provisioning of the range of ecological indicators that we studied. Such an approach would be more aligned with EBM and could help maintain habitat for a range of species across the landscape.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Ahti T (1977) Lichens of the boreal coniferous zone. In: Seaward MRD (ed) Lichen ecology. Academic Press, London, pp 145–181
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (2023) Alberta’s forest economy: a handbook of public economic and socioeconomic accounts. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/albertas-forest-economy. Accessed 9 Feb 2024
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (2006) Alberta forest management planning standard version 4.1. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/3491799. Accessed 16 Aug 2023
Angelstam PK (1998) Maintaining and restoring biodiversity in European boreal forests by developing natural disturbance regimes. J Veg Sci 9:593–602
Armstrong GW (2004) Sustainability of timber supply considering the risk of wildfire. For Sci 50:626–639
Attiwill PM (1994) The disturbance of forest ecosystems: the ecological basis for conservative management. For Ecol Manag 63:247–300
Ballard WB (1992) Bear predation on moose: a review of recent North American studies and their management implications. Alces 162–176. https://www.alcesjournal.org/index.php/alces/article/view/1805
Bartels SF, Chen HY, Wulder MA, White JC (2016) Trends in post-disturbance recovery rates of Canada’s forests following wildfire and harvest. For Ecol Manag 361:194–207
Barten NL, Bowyer RT, Jenkins KJ (2001) Habitat use by female caribou: Tradeoffs associated with parturition. J Wildl Manag 65:77–92
Bergeron Y, Harvey B, Leduc A, Gauthier S (1999) Forest management guidelines based on natural disturbance dynamics: stand- and forest-level considerations. For Chron 75:49–54
Bergeron Y, Leduc A, Harvey B, Gauthier S (2002) Natural fire regime: a guide for sustainable management of the Canadian boreal forest. Silva fennica, 36. https://depositum.uqat.ca/id/eprint/1172
Bergeron Y, Flannigan M, Gauthier S, Leduc A, Lefort P (2004) Past, current and future fire frequency in the Canadian boreal forest: implications for sustainable forest management. Ambio 33:356–360
Bergerud AT, Luttich SN, Camps L (2008) The return of Caribou to Ungava. McGill’s-Queens University Press, Montreal
Bergqvist G, Wallgren M, Jernelid H, Bergström R (2018) Forage availability and moose winter browsing in forest landscapes. For Ecol Manag 419:170–178
Brulisauer AR, Bradfield GE, Maze J (1996) Quantifying organizational change after fire in lodgepole pine forest understorey. Can J Bot 74:1773–1782
Bull EL (2002) The value of coarse woody debris to vertebrates in the Pacific Northwest. In: Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in Western Forests, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, pp 171–178
Bunnell FL (1995) Forest-dwelling vertebrate faunas and natural fire regimes in British Columbia: patterns and implications for conservation. Conserv Biol 9:636–644
Burton PJ, Messier C, Adamowicz WL, Kuuluvainen T (2006) Sustainable management of Canada’s boreal forests: progress and prospects. Ecoscience 13:234–248
Burton PJ, Bergeron Y, Bogdanski BEC, Juday GP, Kuuluvainen T, McAfree BJ, Ogden A, Teplyakov VK, Alfaro RI, Francis DA, Gauthier S, Hantula J (2010) Sustainability of boreal forests and forestry in a changing environment. In: Mery G, Katila P, Galloway G, Alfaro RI, Kanninen M, Lobovikov M, Varjo J (eds) Forests and society—responding to global drivers of change. International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), Vienna, pp 249–282
Burton PJ (2013) Exploring complexity in boreal forests. In: Messier C, Puettmann KJ, Coates KD (eds) Managing forests as complex adaptive systems. Building resilience to the challenge of global change. Routledge, London, pp 79–109
Carleton TJ, MacLellan P (1994) Woody vegetation responses to fire versus clear-cutting logging: a comparative survey in the central Canadian boreal forest. Ecoscience 1:141–152
Chen HY, Popadiouk RV (2002) Dynamics of North American boreal mixedwoods. Environ Rev 10:137–166
Chen HY, Vasiliauskas S, Kayahara GJ, Ilisson T (2009) Wildfire promotes broadleaves and species mixture in boreal forest. For Ecol Manag 257:343–350
Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S, D’Antonio C, Francis R, Franklin JF, MacMahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ, Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee RG (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:665–691
Cichowski D, Sutherland GD, McNay RS, Sulyma R (2022) Direct and indirect effects of habitat disturbances on caribou terrestrial forage lichens in Montane Forests of British Columbia. Forests 13:251
Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austral Ecol 18:117–143
Colton CP, Coops NC, Burton AC (2021) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) responses to forest harvesting: a review of underlying mechanisms and management recommendations. For Ecol Manag 497:119471
Commander CJ, White JW (2020) Not all disturbances are created equal: disturbance magnitude affects predator–prey populations more than disturbance frequency. Oikos 129:1–12
COSEWIC (2011) Designatable units for caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, p 88
Coxson DS, Marsh J (2001) Lichen chronosequences (postfire and postharvest) in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forests of northern interior British Columbia. Can J Bot 79:1449–1464
Dale VH, Joyce LA, McNulty S, Neilson RP, Ayres MP, Flannigan MD, Hanson PJ, Irland LC, Lugo AE, Peterson CJ, Simberloff D, Swanson FJ, Stocks BJ, Wotton BM (2001) Climate change and forest disturbances: climate change can affect forests by altering the frequency, intensity, duration, and timing of fire, drought, introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, or landslides. Bioscience 51:723–734
Daniel CJ, Ter-Mikaelian MT, Wotton BM, Rayfield B, Fortin MJ (2017) Incorporating uncertainty into forest management planning: timber harvest, wildfire and climate change in the boreal forest. For Ecol Manag 400:542–554
DeCesare NJ, Hebblewhite M, Robinson HS, Musiani M (2010) Endangered, apparently: the role of apparent competition in endangered species conservation. Anim Conserv 13:353–362
DeLong SC (2007) Implementation of natural disturbance-based management in northern British Columbia. For Chron 83:338–346
DeLong SC, Tanner D (1996) Managing the pattern of forest harvest: lessons from wildfire. Biodivers Conserv 5:1191–1205
Denryter KA, Cook RC, Cook JG, Parker KL (2017) Straight from the caribou’s (Rangifer tarandus) mouth: detailed observations of tame caribou reveal new insights into summer–autumn diets. Can J Zool 95:81–94
Dexter E, Rollwagen-Bollens G, Bollens SM (2018) The trouble with stress: a flexible method for the evaluation of nonmetric multidimensional scaling. L&O Methods 16:434–443
Dunford JS, McLoughlin PD, Dalerum F, Boutin S (2006) Lichen abundance in the peatlands of northern Alberta: implications for boreal caribou. Ecoscience 13:469–474
Environment Canada (2011) Scientific assessment to inform the identification of critical habitat for woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population, in Canada: 2011 Update. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. plus Appendices. Ottawa
Farnell I, Elkin C, Lilles E, Roberts AM, Venter M (2020) The effects of variable retention forestry on coarse woody debris dynamics and concomitant impacts on American marten habitat after 27 years. Can J for Res 50:925–935
Fedrowitz K, Koricheva J, Baker SC, Lindenmayer DB, Palik B, Rosenvald R, Beese W, Franklin JF, Kouki J, Macdonald E, Messier C, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Gustafsson L (2014) Review: can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 51:1669–1679
Feller M (2003) Coarse woody debris in the old-growth forests of British Columbia. Environ Rev 11:135–157
Flannigan M, Stocks B, Weber M (2003) Fire regimes and climatic change in Canadian forests. In: Veblen TT, Baker WL, Montenegro G, Swetnam TW (eds) Fire and climatic change in temperate ecosystems of the western Americas. Ecological studies, vol 160. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-21710-X_4
Fleming RL, Leblanc JD, Hazlett PW, Weldon T, Irwin R, Mossa DS (2014) Effects of biomass harvest intensity and soil disturbance on jack pine stand productivity: 15-year results. Can J for Res 44:1566–1574
Fourrier A, Pothier D, Bouchard M (2013) A comparative study of long-term stand growth in eastern Canadian boreal forest: fire versus clear-cut. For Ecol Manag 310:10–18
Franklin JF, Spies TA, Van Pelt R, Carey AB, Thornburgh DA, Berg DR, Lindenmayer DB, Harmon ME, Keeton WS, Shaw DC, Bible K, Chen J (2002) Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. For Ecol Manag 155:399–423
Franklin JF, Mitchell RJ, Palik BJ (2007). Natural disturbance and stand development principles for ecological forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-19
Franzmann AW, Schwartz CC (1997) Ecology and management of the North American moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington
Gauthier S, Bernier PY, Boulanger Y, Guo J, Guindon L, Beaudoin A, Boucher D (2015a) Vulnerability of timber supply to projected changes in fire regime in Canada’s managed forests. Can J for Res 45:1439–1447
Gauthier S, Bernier P, Kuuluvainen T, Shvidenko AZ, Schepaschenko DG (2015b) Boreal forest health and global change. Science 349:819–822
Government of Alberta (2023) Alberta Government forestry permanent sample plots manual. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/alberta-government-forestry-permanent-sample-plots-manual. Accessed 9 Feb 2024
Government of Canada (2021) Canada's national forest inventory ground plot data. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/35c3556c-e48d-41a7-ac50-652257b0a8e8. Accessed 9 Feb 2024
Greene DF, Zasada JC, Sirois L, Kneeshaw D, Morin H, Charron I, Simard MJ (1999) A review of the regeneration dynamics of North American boreal forest tree species. Can J for Res 29:824–839
Gustafsson L, Baker SC, Bauhus J, Beese WJ, Brodie A, Kouki J, Lindenmayer DB, Lõhmus A, Pastur GM, Messier C (2012) Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. Bioscience 62:633–645
Haeussler S, Kneeshaw D (2003) Comparing forest management to natural processes. In: Burton PJ, Messier C, Smith DW, Adamowicz WL (eds) Towards sustainable management of the boreal forest. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, pp 307–368
Hagan JM, Grove SL (1999) Coarse woody debris: humans and nature competing for trees. J for 97:6–11
Harmon ME, Sexton J (1996) Guidelines for measurements of woody detritus in forest ecosystems. US LTER publication No. 20, US LTER network office. University of Washington, Seattle, pp 1–34
Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, Anderson NH, Cline SP, Aumen NG, Sedell JR, Lienkaemper GW, Cromack K, Cummins KW (1986) Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv Ecol Res 15:133–302
Hart SA, Chen HYH (2006) Understory vegetation dynamics of North American boreal forests. Crit Rev Plant Sci 25:381–397
Harvey BD, Leduc A, Gauthier S, Bergeron Y (2002) Stand-landscape integration in natural disturbance-based management of the southern boreal forest. For Ecol Manag 155:369–385
Hobson KA, Schieck J (1999) Changes in bird communities in boreal mixedwood forest: harvest and wildfire effects over 30 years. Ecol Appl 9:849–863
Humbert L, Gagnon D, Kneeshaw D, Messier C (2007) A shade tolerance index for common understory species of northeastern North America. Ecol Ind 7:195–207
Hunter ML (1990) Wildlife, forests, and forestry. Principles of managing forests for biological diversity. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA
Huston MA (1996) Models and management implications of coarse woody debris impacts on biodiversity. In: Mcminn JW, Crossley DA (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on coarse woody debris in southern forests: effects on biodiversity. Asheville, USDA Forest Service, pp 139–143
Ihemezie EJ, Nawrath M, Strauß L, Stringer LC, Dallimer M (2021) The influence of human values on attitudes and behaviours towards forest conservation. J Environ Manag 292:112857
Ilisson T, Chen HY (2009) Response of six boreal tree species to stand replacing fire and clearcutting. Ecosystems 12:820–829
Jackson SM, Pinto F, Malcolm JR, Wilson ER (2000) A comparison of pre-European settlement (1857) and current (1981–1995) forest in central Ontario. Can J for Res 30:605–612
Johnson CJ, Rea RV (2024) Response of moose to forest harvest and management: a literature review. Can J for Res. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2023-0158
Johnson CJ, Parker KL, Heard DC (2001) Foraging across a variable landscape: behavioral decisions made by woodland caribou at multiple spatial scales. Oecologia 127:590–602
Johnson EA, Morin H, Miyanishi K, Gagnon R, Greene DF (2003) A process approach to understanding disturbance and forest dynamics for sustainable forestry. In: Burton PJ, Messier C, Smith DW, Adamowicz WL (eds) Towards sustainable management of the Boreal forest. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, pp 261–306
Johnson CJ, Ehlers LPW, Seip DR (2015) Witnessing extinction – cumulative impacts across landscapes and the future loss of an evolutionarily significant unit of woodland caribou in Canada. Biol Conserv 186:176–186
Johnson CA, Sutherland GD, Neave E, Leblond M, Kirby P, Superbie C, McLoughlin PD (2020) Science to inform policy: linking population dynamics to habitat for a threatened species in Canada. J Appl Ecol 57:1314–1327
Joly K, Dale BW, Collins WB, Adams LG (2003) Winter habitat use by female caribou in relation to wildland fires in interior Alaska. Can J Zool 81:1192–1201
Koetke LJ, Hodder DP, Rea RV, Johnson CJ, Marshall S (2023) Landscape disturbance alters the composition and diversity of the diet of moose, a generalist herbivore. For Ecol Manag 530:120760
Konkolics S, Dickie M, Serrouya R, Hervieux D, Boutin S (2021) A burning question: what are the implications of forest fires for woodland caribou? J Wildl Manag 85:1685–1698
Kruskal JB (1964) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115–129
Larsen TA, Nielsen SE, Cranston J, Stenhouse GB (2019) Do remnant retention patches and forest edges increase grizzly bear food supply? For Ecol Manag 433:741–761
Latham ADM, Latham MC, Boyce MS (2011) Habitat selection and spatial relationships of black bears (Ursus americanus) with woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in northeastern Alberta. Can J Zool 89:267–277
Leblond M, Dussault C, Ouellet JP, St-Laurent MH (2016) Caribou avoiding wolves face increased predation by bears—caught between Scylla and Charybdis. J Appl Ecol 53:1078–1087
Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Lõhmus A, Baker SC, Bauhus J, Beese W, Brodie A, Kiehl B, Kouki J, Pastur GM, Messier C, Neyland M, Palik B, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Volney J, Wayne A, Gustafsson L (2012) A major shift to the retention approach for forestry can help resolve some global forest sustainability issues. Conserv Lett 5:421–431
MacNearney D, Pigeon K, Stenhouse G, Nijland W, Coops NC, Finnegan L (2016) Heading for the hills? Evaluating spatial distribution of woodland caribou in response to a growing anthropogenic disturbance footprint. Ecol Evol 6:6484–6509
Madoui A, Gauthier S, Leduc A, Bergeron Y, Valeria O (2015) Monitoring forest recovery following wildfire and harvest in boreal forests using satellite imagery. Forests 6:4105–4134
McClelland CJ, Nobert B, Larsen TA, Pigeon KE, Finnegan L (2023) The impact of mountain pine beetle outbreaks and their treatment methods on the abundance of plant-foods important to caribou and grizzly bears. For Ecol Manag 532:120841
McElhinny C, Gibbons P, Brack C, Bauhus J (2005) Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: its definition and measurement. For Ecol Manag 218:1–24
McKay T, Finnegan L (2022) Predator–prey co-occurrence in harvest blocks: Implications for caribou and forestry. Ecol Solut Evid 4:e12847
McKay T, Finnegan L (2023) Ungulate occurrence in forest harvest blocks is influenced by forage availability, surrounding habitat and silviculture practices. Ecol Solut Evid 4:e12226
McLaren AAD, Jamieson SE, Bond M, Rodgers AR, Patterson BR (2021) Spring diet of American black bears (Ursus americanus) in a moose (Alces alces)–woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) system in northern Ontario, Canada. Can J Zool 99:721–728
McMinn JW, Crossley DA (1996) Biodiversity and coarse woody debris in southern forests. Diane Publishing Co, Collingdale
McRae DJ, Duchesne LC, Freedman B, Lynham TJ, Woodley S (2001) Comparisons between wildfire and forest harvesting and their implications in forest management. Environ Rev 9:223–260
Merkle JA, Polfus JL, Derbridge JJ, Heinemeyer KS (2017) Dietary niche partitioning among black bears, grizzly bears, and wolves in a multiprey ecosystem. Can J Zool 95:663–671
Mladenoff DJ, White MA, Pastor J, Crow TR (1993) Comparing spatial pattern in unaltered old-growth and disturbed forest landscapes. Ecol Appl 3:294–306
Moore LP (2022) A comparison of coarse woody debris in post-harvest and post-fire island remnants a decade after disturbance in northern Alberta. Dissertation, University of Alberta.
Morgenstern EK (2007) The origin and early application of the principle of sustainable forest management. For Chron 83:485–489
Mori AS, Spies TA, Sudmeier-Rieux K, Andrade A (2013) Reframing ecosystem management in the era of climate change: issues and knowledge from forests. Biol Conserv 165:115–127
Moussaoui L, Fenton NJ, Leduc A, Bergeron Y (2016) Can retention harvest maintain natural structural complexity? A comparison of post-harvest and post-fire residual patches in boreal forest. Forests 7:243
Mumma MA, Gillingham MP, Parker KL, Johnson CJ, Watters M (2018) Predation risk for boreal woodland caribou in human-modified landscapes: Evidence of wolf spatial responses independent of apparent competition. Biol Conserv 228:215–223
Mumma MA, Gillingham MP, Johnson CJ, Parker KL (2019) Functional responses to anthropogenic linear features in a complex predator-multi-prey system. Landsc Ecol 34:2575–2597
Munro RHM, Nielsen SE, Price MH, Stenhouse GB, Boyce MS (2006) Seasonal and diel patterns of grizzly bear diet and activity in west-central Alberta. J Mammal 87:1112–1121
Natural Regions Committee (2006) Natural regions and subregions of Alberta. Government of Alberta. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/0778545725. Accessed 20 July 2023
Nguyen-Xuan T, Bergeron Y, Simard D, Fyles JW, Paré D (2000) The importance of forest floor disturbance in the early regeneration patterns of the boreal forest of western and central Quebec: a wildfire versus logging comparison. Can J for Res 30:1353–1364
Nielsen SE, Munro RHM, Bainbridge EL, Stenhouse GB, Boyce MS (2004) Grizzly bears and forestry: II. Distribution of grizzly bear foods in clearcuts of west-central Alberta. Canada for Ecol Manag 199:67–82
Nobert BR, Larsen TA, Pigeon KE, Finnegan L (2020) Caribou in the cross-fire? Considering terrestrial lichen forage in the face of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) expansion. PLoS ONE 15:e0232248
Oksanen J, Guillaume Blanchet F, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2022) Vegan: Community ecology package. R Package Version 2.6–4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
Pedlar JH, Pearce JL, Venier LA, McKenney DW (2002) Coarse woody debris in relation to disturbance and forest type in boreal Canada. For Ecol Manag 158:189–194
Pigeon K, Hornseth M, MacNearney D, Finnegan L (2016) Analysis and improvement of linear features to increase caribou functional habitat in west-central and north-western Alberta. Final Report prepared for the Forest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta (FRIP OF-13-006), Alberta Upstream Petroleum Research Fund (15-ERPC-01) and BC Oil and Gas Research and Innovation Society (BC OGRIS 15-04), March 2016. pp xi + 84
Pinno BD, Hossain KL, Gooding T, Lieffers VJ (2021) Opportunities and challenges for intensive silviculture in Alberta. Canada Forests 12:791
Pinto F, Romaniuk S, Ferguson M (2008) Changes to preindustrial forest tree composition in central and northeastern Ontario, Canada. Can J for Res 38:1842–1854
Ray DG, Barton JW, Lendemer JC (2015) Lichen community response to prescribed burning and thinning in southern pine forests of the Mid-Atlantic coastal plain, USA. Fire Ecol 11:14–33
Reich PB, Bakken P, Carlson D, Frelich LE, Friedman SK, Grigal DF (2001) Influence of logging, fire, and forest type on biodiversity and productivity in southern boreal forests. Ecology 82:2731–2748
Rudolph TD, MacNearney D, Finnegan L (2019) Lost in translation? Insights into caribou habitat selection from forest inventory data. Facets 4:531–550
Russell KLM, Johnson CJ (2019) Post-fire dynamics of terrestrial lichens: Implications for the recovery of woodland caribou winter range. For Ecol Manag 434:1–17
Saarikoski H, Jax K, Harrison PA, Primmer E, Barton DN, Mononen L, Vihervaara P, Furman E (2015) Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions: the case of boreal forests. Ecosyst Serv 14:144–157
Schneider RR (2002) Alternative futures: Alberta's boreal forest at the crossroads. The Alberta Centre for Boreal Research, Edmonton, Canada
Schrempp TV, Rachlow JL, Johnson TR, Shipley LA, Long RA, Aycrigg JL, Hurley MA (2019) Linking forest management to moose population trends: the role of the nutritional landscape. PLoS ONE 14:e0219128
Seip DR (1998) Ecosystem management and the conservation of caribou habitat in British Columbia. Rangifer 18:203–211
Serrouya R, McLellan BN, Boutin S, Seip DR, Nielsen SE (2011) Developing a population target for an overabundant ungulate for ecosystem restoration. J Appl Ecol 48:935–942
Serrouya R, McLellan B, van Oort H, Mowat G, Boutin S (2017) Experimental moose reduction lowers wolf density and stops decline of endangered caribou. PeerJ 5:e3736
Serrouya R, Dickie M, Lamb C, van Oort H, Kelly AP, DeMars C, McLoughlin PD, Larter NC, Hervieux D, Ford AT, Boutin S (2021) Trophic consequences of terrestrial eutrophication for a threatened ungulate. Proc R Soc b: Biol Sci 288:20202811
Seymour RS, Hunter ML (1999) Principles of ecological forestry. In: Hunter ML (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 22–61
Souliere CM, Coogan SC, Stenhouse GB, Nielsen SE (2020) Harvested forests as a surrogate to wildfires in relation to grizzly bear food-supply in west-central Alberta. For Ecol Manag 456:117685
Stocks BJ, Mason JA, Todd JB, Bosch EM, Wotton BM, Amiro BD, Flannigan MD, Hirsch KG, Logan KA, Martell DL, Skinner WR (2002) Large forest fires in Canada, 1959–1997. J Geophys Res 107:8149
Stoklosa J, Blakey RV, Hui FK (2022) An overview of modern applications of negative binomial modelling in ecology and biodiversity. Diversity 14:320
Strong WL, Gates CC (2006) Herbicide-induced changes to ungulate forage habitat in western Alberta, Canada. For Ecol Manag 222:469–475
Sturtevant BR, Bissonette JA, Long JN, Roberts DW (1997) Coarse woody debris as a function of age, stand structure, and disturbance in boreal Newfoundland. Ecol Appl 7:702–712
Thiffault E, Belanger N, Pare D, Munson AD (2007) How do forest harvesting methods compare with wildfire? A case study of soil chemistry and tree nutrition in the boreal forest. Can J for Res 37:1658–1668
Thom D, Seidl R (2016) Natural disturbance impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity in temperate and boreal forests. Biol Rev 91:760–781
Thomas DC, Edmonds EJ, Brown WK (1996) The diet of woodland caribou populations in west-central Alberta. Rangifer 16:337–342
Tinker DB, Knight DH (2000) Coarse woody debris following fire and logging in Wyoming lodgepole pine forests. Ecosystems 3:472–483
Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edition. Springer, New York. ISBN 0-387-95457-0. https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS4/
Visscher DR, Merrill EH, Fortin D, Frair JL (2006) Estimating woody browse availability for ungulates at increasing snow depths. For Ecol Manag 222:348–354
Waterhouse MJ, Armleder HM, Nemec AFL (2011) Terrestrial lichen response to partial cutting in lodgepole pine forests on caribou winter range in west-central British Columbia. Rangifer 19:119–134
Weber MG, Flannigan MD (1997) Canadian boreal forest ecosystem structure and function in a changing climate: impact on fire regimes. Environ Rev 5:145–166
Weber MG, Taylor SW (1992) The use of prescribed fire in the management of Canada’s forested lands. For Chron 68:324–334
White PS (1979) Pattern, process, and natural disturbance in vegetation. Bot Rev 45:229–299
Yan ER, Wang XH, Huang JJ, Zeng FR, Gong L (2007) Long-lasting legacy of forest succession and forest management: characteristics of coarse woody debris in an evergreen broad-leaved forest of eastern China. For Ecol Manag 252:98–107
Yang Y, Huang S, Dick Dempster WR (2008) Percent stocking models for four major Alberta tree species. Forestry 81:599–615
Yemshanov D, Haight RG, Liu N, Parisien MA, Barber Q, Koch FH, Burton C, Mansuy N, Campioni F, Choudhury S (2020) Assessing the trade-offs between timber supply and wildlife protection goals in boreal landscapes. Can J for Res 50:243–258
Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Nikki Beaudoin, Elise Henze, Isaiah Huska, Claire Kelly, Janine Lock, Christian Louie, Emily Markholm, Tommy O’Neill Sanger, Jesse Shirton, Sarah Wild, Solène Williams, and Micah Winter for their help with field data collection. We also thank the members of the Alberta Regional Caribou Knowledge Partnership for their advice on the study design and analysis. Two anonymous reviewers provided insightful comments that greatly improved the presentation of the research.
Funding
This study was funded by the Alberta Regional Caribou Knowledge Partnership.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by all authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written and prepared by INB and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Best, I.N., Brown, L., Elkin, C. et al. Cut vs. fire: a comparative study of the temporal effects of timber harvest and wildfire on ecological indicators of the boreal forest. Landsc Ecol 39, 81 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01882-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01882-4