Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 475–490 | Cite as

Fallen retention aspen trees on clear-cuts can be important habitats for red-listed polypores: a case study in Finland

  • Kaisa JunninenEmail author
  • Reijo Penttilä
  • Petri Martikainen


Green-tree retention is a relatively new forestry application, which aims at decreasing the negative effects of clear-cut logging on forest biodiversity. In this study, the value of retained aspens in maintaining diverse assemblages of wood-decaying fungi (polypores; Basidiomycota) on clear-cuts was investigated, after the retention trees had died, fallen and started to decay. A total of 110 fallen aspen trunks were investigated on clear-cuts and within old-growth forests in eastern Finland, southern boreal zone; and 499 records of polypores belonging to 46 species were made. The intermediately decayed trunks on a clear-cut area hosted more species and more red-listed species than did trunks within forests. Most of the polypore species with more than two records were found in both habitats. These results suggest that many aspen-associated polypores are able to live and reproduce in sun-exposed habitats, if the quality and quantity of dead wood fulfill the species-specific requirements. This unexpected result, however, may be partly due to the exceptionally great abundance of aspen in the study area. Furthermore, in the long term, the local benefits of fallen retention trees can be limited, unless the local continuity of large aspens, both living and dead, is ensured.


Boreal forest Conservation Dead wood Forest management Polypores Populus tremula Tree retention 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahti T., Hämet-Ahti L. and Jalas J. (1968). Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 5: 167–211Google Scholar
  2. Andersson L.I. and Hytteborn H. (1991). Bryophytes and decaying wood – a comparison between managed and natural forest. Holarctic Ecol. 14: 121–130Google Scholar
  3. Aubry K.B., Amaranthus M.P., Halpern C.B., White J.D., Woodard B.L., Peterson C.E., Lagoudakis C.A. and Horton A.J. (1999). Evaluating the effects of varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention: experimental design of the DEMO study. Northwest Sci. 73: 12–26Google Scholar
  4. Bader P., Jansson S. and Jonsson B.G. (1995). Wood-inhabiting fungi and substratum decline in selectively logged boreal spruce forests. Biol. Conserv. 72: 355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beese W.J. and Bryant A.A. (1999). Effect of alternative silvicultural systems on vegetation and bird communities in coastal montane forests of British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecol. Manage. 115: 231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bendiksen E., Hoiland K., Brandrud T.E. and Jordal J.B. 1997. Truende og sårbare sopparter i Norge – en kommentert rodliste (in Norwegian). Fungiflora. Norsk institutt for naturforskning, Trondheim.Google Scholar
  7. Berg Å., Ehnström B., Gustafsson L., Hallingbäck T., Jonsell M. and Weslien J. (1995). Threat levels and threats to red-listed species in Swedish forests. Conserv. Biol. 9: 1629–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colwell R.K. 1994–2004. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 7. Available at Scholar
  9. Colwell R.K., Mao C.X. and Chang J. (2004). Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85: 2717–2727Google Scholar
  10. Esseen P.-A., Ehnström B., Ericson L. and Sjöberg K. (1992). Boreal forests – the focal habitats of Fennoscandia. In: Hansson, L. (eds) Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation, pp 252–325. Elsevier, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Franklin J.F., Berg D.R., Thornburgh D.A. and Tappeiner J.C. 1997. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest system. In: Kohm K.A. and Franklin J.F. (eds), Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management. Island Press, pp. 111–139.Google Scholar
  12. Gärdenfors U. (ed.) 2000. Rödlistade arter i Sverige – The 2000 Red List of Swedish species. ArtDatabanken, SLU, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  13. Halpern C.B. and McKenzie D. (2001). Disturbance and post-harvest ground conditions in a structural retention experiment. Forest Ecol. Manage. 154: 215–225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hammond H.E.J. (1997). Arthropod biodiversity from Populus coarse woody material in north-central Alberta: a review of taxa and collection methods. Can. Entomol. 129: 1009–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hazell P. and Gustafsson L. (1999). Retention of trees at final harvest – evaluation of a conservation technique using epiphytic bryophyte and lichen transplants. Biol. Conserv. 90: 133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heilmann-Clausen J. and Christensen M. (2003). Fungal diversity on decaying beech logs – implications for sustainable forestry. Biodivers. Conserv. 12: 953–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jalonen J. and Vanha-Majamaa I. (2001). Immediate effects of four different felling methods on mature boreal spruce forest understorey vegetation in southern Finland. Forest Ecol. Manage. 146: 25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jonsell M., Weslien J. and Ehnström B. (1998). Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodivers. Conserv. 7: 749–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaila L., Martikainen P. and Punttila P. (1997). Dead trees left in clear-cuts benefit saproxylic Coleoptera adapted to natural disturbances in boreal forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 6: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koivula M. (2002). Alternative harvesting methods and boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Forest Ecol. Manage. 167: 103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kotiranta H. and Niemelä T. 1996. Threatened Polypores in Finland (in Finnish with English summary). 2nd revised ed. Finnish Environment Institute, Edita.Google Scholar
  22. Kouki J., Löfman S., Martikainen P., Rouvinen S. and Uotila A. (2001). Forest fragmentation in Fennoscandia: linking habitat requirements of wood-associated threatened species to landscape and habitat changes. Scand. J. Forest Res. Suppl. 3: 27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuusinen M. (1994). Epiphytic lichen flora and diversity on Populus tremula in old-growth and managed forests of southern and middle boreal Finland. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 31: 245–260Google Scholar
  24. Kuusinen M. (1996). Cyanobacterial macrolichens on Populus tremula as indicators of forest continuity in Finland. Biol. Conserv. 75: 43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuusinen M. and Penttinen A. (1999). Spatial pattern of the threatened epiphytic bryophyte Neckera pennata at two scales in a fragmented boreal forest. Ecography 22: 729–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee P.C., Crites S., Nietfeld M., Stelfox B. and Nguyen H. (1997). Characteristics and origins of deadwood material in aspen-dominated boreal forests. Ecol. Appl. 7: 691–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindblad I. (1997). Wood-inhabiting fungi on fallen logs of Norway spruce: relations to forest management and substrate quality. Nord. J. Bot. 18: 243–255Google Scholar
  28. Linder P., Elfving B. and Zackrisson O. (1997). Stand structure and successional trends in virgin boreal forest reserves in Sweden. Forest Ecol. Manage. 98: 17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindhe A., Åsenblad N. and Toresson H.-G. (2004). Cut logs and high stumps of spruce, birch, aspen and oak – nine years of saproxylic fungi succession. Biol. Conserv. 119: 443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Magurran A.E. (1988). Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Martikainen P. (2001). Conservation of threatened saproxylic beetles: significance of retained aspen Populus tremula on clearcut areas. Ecol. Bull. 49: 205–218Google Scholar
  32. Martikainen P., Penttilä R., Kotiranta H. and Miettinen O. (2000). New records of Funalia trogii, Perenniporia tenuis and Polyporus pseudobetulinus in Finland, with notes on their habitat requirements. Karstenia 40: 79–92Google Scholar
  33. Miettinen O. (2001). Wood-rotting Aphyllophorales (Basidiomycetes) on aspen (Populus tremula) in managed and old-growth forests of Kainuueastern Finland. University of Helsinki, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  34. Niemelä T. 2004. Guide to the Polypores of Finland (in Finnish with keys in English). 15th revised ed. Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences (Plant Biology), University of Helsinki, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  35. Niemelä T. and Penttilä R. (1992). Antrodia mellita (Basidiomycetes), a new large-pored polypore species with a continental distribution. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 29: 55–65Google Scholar
  36. Nitare J. 2000. Signalarter. Indikatorer på skyddsvärd skog. Flora över kryptogamer (in Swedish with English summary). Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping.Google Scholar
  37. Pedlar J.H., Pearce J.L., Venier L.A. and McKenney D.W. (2002). Coarse woody debris in relation to disturbance and forest type in boreal Canada. Forest Ecol. Manage. 158: 189–194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Penttilä R. (2004). The impacts of forestry on polyporous fungi in boreal forests. University of Helsinki, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  39. Penttilä R. and Kotiranta H. (1996). Short-term effects of prescribed burning on wood-rotting fungi. Silva Fenn. 30: 399–419Google Scholar
  40. Pyle C. and Brown M.M. (1999). Heterogeneity of wood decay classes within hardwood logs. Forest Ecol. Manage. 114: 253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rassi P., Alanen A., Kanerva T., Mannerkoski I. (eds) 2001. The 2000 Red List of Finnish species (in Finnish with English summary). Ministry of the Environment, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  42. Renvall P. (1995). Community structure and dynamics of wood-rotting fungi on decomposing conifer trunks in northern Finland. Karstenia 35: 1–51 Google Scholar
  43. Siitonen J. (2001). Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol. Bull. 49: 11–41Google Scholar
  44. Siitonen J. and Martikainen P. (1994). Occurrence of rare and threatened insects living on decaying Populus tremula – a comparison between Finnish and Russian Karelia. Scand. J. Forest Res. 9: 185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sippola A.-L. and Renvall P. (1999). Wood-decomposing fungi and seed-tree cutting: a 40-year perspective. Forest Ecol. Manage. 115: 183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sippola A.-L., Lehesvirta T. and Renvall P. (2001). Effects of selective logging on coarse woody debris and diversity of wood-decaying polypores in eastern Finland. Ecol. Bull. 49: 243–254Google Scholar
  47. Snäll T. and Jonsson B.G. (2001). Edge effects on six polyporous fungi used as old-growth indicators in Swedish boreal forest. Ecol. Bull. 49: 255–262Google Scholar
  48. Sullivan T.P., Sullivan D.S. and Lindgren P.M.F. (2001). Influence of variable retention harvests on forest ecosystems. I. Diversity of stand structure. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 1221–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sverdrup-Thygeson A. and Ims R.A. (2002). The effect of forest clearcutting in Norway on the community of saproxylic beetles on aspen. Biol. Conserv. 106: 347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Syrjänen K., Kalliola R., Puolasmaa A. and Mattsson J. (1994). Landscape structure and forest dynamics in subcontinental Russian European taiga. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31: 19–34Google Scholar
  51. Tomppo E., Henttonen H., Korhonen K.T., Aarnio A., Ahola A., Heikkinen J. and Tuomainen T. (1999). Pohjois-Savon metsäkeskuksen alueen metsävarat ja niiden kehitys 1967–96 (in Finnish). Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 2B/1999: 389–462Google Scholar
  52. Uotila A., Maltamo M., Uuttera J. and Isomäki A. (2001). Stand structure in semi-natural and managed forests in eastern Finland and Russian Karelia. Ecol. Bull. 49: 149–158Google Scholar
  53. Vanha-Majamaa I. and Jalonen J. (2001). Green tree retention in Fennoscandian forestry. Scand. J. Forest Res. Suppl. 3: 79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kaisa Junninen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reijo Penttilä
    • 2
  • Petri Martikainen
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Forest SciencesUniversity of JoensuuJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Research DepartmentFinnish Environment InstituteHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations