Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 10, pp 2479–2494 | Cite as

The white-backed woodpecker: umbrella species for forest conservation planning?

  • Jean-Michel RobergeEmail author
  • Grzegorz Mikusiński
  • Sören Svensson
Original Paper

Abstract

In northern Europe, a long history of land use has led to profound changes within forest ecosystems. The white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) is one of several specialised forest species whose populations have declined. Conservation management directed at this species’ habitat has made it a de facto umbrella species for conservation of the biodiversity associated with forests rich in deciduous trees and dead wood. We assessed empirically the value of the white-backed woodpecker as an indicator and umbrella species in central Sweden. Occurrence of the woodpecker in breeding bird atlas squares (5 × 5 km2) indicated high species richness of forest birds, particularly species of special conservation concern, which included on average 13% more species in squares with than without the woodpecker. The number of red-listed cryptogam species expected to benefit from conservation actions directed at white-backed woodpecker habitats was higher in squares where the woodpecker bred compared to where is was absent. However, no such pattern was found for red-listed beetles, a group with very few records in the studied squares. White-backed woodpecker occurrence was positively associated with the current area of deciduous and mixed forest of high conservation value. Considering its indicator value, its specialised habitat requirements and its potential as a communication tool, using the white-backed woodpecker as an umbrella species may provide a coarse filter for the conservation of several other deciduous forest species. However, focusing solely on white-backed woodpecker habitat may not provide for the conservation of all such species, which stresses the need for a suite of complementary planning approaches.

Keywords

Boreal forests Conservation planning Dead wood Deciduous forests Dendrocopos leucotos Indicator species Protected areas Umbrella species White-backed woodpecker Woodland key habitats 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank P. Angelstam, L. Gustafsson, K. Perhans and M.-A. Villard for constructive comments on the manuscript at various stages. We are grateful to all field ornithologists who contributed to the Swedish Bird Atlas work. U.T. Carlsson kindly gave access to the original data sheets from Värmland. We also thank P. Nyman, A. Larsson, U. Wahlström and E. Mohlin at the Swedish Forest Agency and J. Edelsjö and O. Kindvall at the Swedish Species Information Centre for their help with obtaining forest and species occurrence data. This work was supported by scholarships from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies, and Helge Ax:son Johnson Foundation to J.-M.R., as well as a grant from the Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA) to G.M.

References

  1. Angelstam P (1997) Landscape analysis as a tool for the scientific management of biodiversity. Ecol Bull 46:140–170Google Scholar
  2. Angelstam P, Wikberg P-E, Danilov P et al (2000) Effects of moose density on timber quality and biodiversity restoration in Sweden, Finland, and Russian Karelia. Alces 36:133–145Google Scholar
  3. Angelstam P, Breuss M, Mikusiński G et al (2002) Effects of forest structure on the presence of woodpeckers with different specialisation in a landscape history gradient in NE Poland. In: Chamberlain D, Wilson A (eds) Avian landscape ecology. IALE(UK). Garstang, United Kingdom, pp 25–38Google Scholar
  4. Angelstam P, Roberge J-M, Lõhmus A et al (2004) Habitat modelling as a tool for landscape-scale conservation–a review of parameters for focal forest birds. Ecol Bull 51:427–453Google Scholar
  5. Anon (1979) Council directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Council of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  6. Anon (2001) The Swedish environmental objectives—the interim targets and action strategies. Summary of Government Bill 2000/01: 130. Ministry of Environment, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  7. Anon (2004) Nyckelbiotoper: livsmiljöer för rödlistade arter. Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  8. Appelqvist T, Lindholm M (2003) Inventering av vedlevande insekter i sekundära lövskogar viktiga för vitryggig hackspett. Report 2003:9, County Administrative Board of Värmland, Karlstad (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  9. Aulén G (1988) Ecology and distribution of white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) in Sweden. Doctoral dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  10. Axelsson A-L, Östlund L, Hellberg E (2002) Changes in mixed deciduous forests of boreal Sweden 1866–1999 based on interpretation of historical records. Landscape Ecol 17:403–418. doi: 10.1023/A:1021226600159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bani L, Massimino D, Bottoni L, Massa R (2006) A multiscale method for selecting indicator species and priority conservation areas: a case study for broadleaved forests in Lombardy, Italy. Conserv Biol 20:512–526. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00331.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bengtsson J, Angelstam P, Elmqvist T et al (2003) Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32:389–396. doi: 10.1639/0044-7447(2003) 032[0389:RRADL]2.0.CO;2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berg Å, Ehnström B, Gustafsson L et al (1994) Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. Conserv Biol 8:718–731. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08030718.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Birdlife International (2004) Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Birdlife International, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlson A (1998) Territory quality and feather growth in the white-backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos. J Avian Biol 29:205–207. doi: 10.2307/3677201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlson A (2000) The effect of habitat loss on a deciduous forest specialist species: white-backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos. Forest Ecol Manag 131:215–221. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99) 00215-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carlson A, Stenberg I (1995) Vitryggig hackspett (Dendrocopos leucotos): biotopval och sårbarhetsanalys. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Wildlife Ecology, Report 27, Uppsala (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  18. Czeszczewik D, Walankiewicz W (2006) Logging affects the white-backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos distribution in the Białowieża Forest. Ann Zool Fenn 43:221–227Google Scholar
  19. Dahlberg A, Stokland, JN (2004) Vedlevande arters krav på substrat - sammanställning och analys av 3600 arter. Swedish National Board of Forestry, Report 7-2004, Jönköping (in Swedish with English summary)Google Scholar
  20. de Jong J (2002) Populationsförändringar hos skogslevande arter i relation till landskapets utveckling. Swedish Biodiversity Centre, CBM Series 7, Uppsala (in Swedish with English summary)Google Scholar
  21. de Jong J, Lonnstad J (2002) White-backed woodpecker landscapes and new nature reserves. Swedish National Board of Forestry, Report 6-2002, JönköpingGoogle Scholar
  22. de Jong J, Almstedt M (eds) (2005) Distribution, quality and quantity of dead wood in forests—what is the objective and how can we reach it? Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 5413, Stockholm (in Swedish with English summary)Google Scholar
  23. Dunk JR, Zielinski WJ, Welsh HH (2006) Evaluating reserves for species richness and representation in northern California. Divers Distrib 12:434–442. doi: 10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00263.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Esseen P-A, Ehnström B, Ericson L, Sjöberg K (1997) Boreal forests. Ecol Bull 46:16–47Google Scholar
  25. Favreau JM, Drew CA, Hess GR et al (2006) Recommendations for assessing the effectiveness of surrogate species approaches. Biodivers Conserv 15:3949–3969. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-2631-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fleishman E, Murphy DD, Brussard PF (2000) A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecol Appl 10:569–579. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000) 010[0569:ANMFSO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fridman J, Walheim M (2000) Amount, structure, and dynamics of dead wood on managed forestland in Sweden. Forest Ecol Manag 131:23–26. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99) 00208-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gärdenfors U (ed) (2005) The 2005 red list of Swedish species. Swedish Species Information Centre, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  29. Gjerde I, Sætersdal M, Nilsen T (2005) Abundance of two threatened woodpecker species in relation to the proportion of spruce plantations in native pine forests of western Norway. Biodivers Conserv 14:377–393. doi: 10.1007/s10531-004-6065-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gustafsson L, Ahlén I (eds) (1996) National atlas of Sweden: geography of plants and animals. Almqvist & Wiksell, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  31. Gustafsson L, de Jong J, Norén M (1999) Evaluation of Swedish woodland key habitats using redlisted bryophytes and lichens. Biodivers Conserv 8:1101–1114. doi: 10.1023/A:1008934526658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hager HA, Gorman RM, Nudds TD (2006) The relative performance of umbrella species for biodiversity conservation in island archipelagos of the Great Lakes, North America. Écoscience 13:475–484. doi: 10.2980/1195-6860(2006) 13[475:TRPOUS]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hess GR, Koch FH, Rubino MJ et al (2006) Comparing the potential effectiveness of conservation planning approaches in central North Carolina, USA. Biol Conserv 128:358–368. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hogstad O, Stenberg I (1994) Habitat selection of a viable population of white-backed woodpeckers Dendrocopos leucotos. Fauna Norv Ser C Cinclus 17:75–94Google Scholar
  35. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonsell M, Weslien J, Ehnström B (1998) Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodivers Conserv 7:749–764. doi: 10.1023/A:1008888319031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jonsell M, Nitterus K, Stighäll K (2004) Saproxylic beetles in natural and man-made deciduous high stumps retained for conservation. Biol Conserv 118:163–173. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.08.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jonsson BG, Kruys N, Ranius T (2005) Ecology of species living on dead wood - lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fenn 39:289–309Google Scholar
  39. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  40. Liedholm H (2006) Myndighet värvar fans till “Lövskogens IK”. SkogsEko 2:10–11 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  41. Lindbladh M (1999) The influence of former land-use on vegetation and biodiversity in the boreo-nemoral zone of Sweden. Ecography 22:485–498Google Scholar
  42. Lindbladh M, Bradshaw R (1998) The origin of present forest composition and pattern in southern Sweden. J Biogeogr 25:463–477. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.1998.2530463.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Linder P, Östlund L (1992) Changes in the boreal forests of Sweden 1870–1991. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 86:199–215 (in Swedish with English summary)Google Scholar
  44. Lund MP, Rahbek C (2002) Cross-taxon congruence in complementarity and conservation of temperate biodiversity. Anim Conserv 5:163–171. doi: 10.1017/S1367943002002226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martikainen P, Kaila L, Haila Y (1998) Threatened beetles in white-backed woodpecker habitats. Conserv Biol 12:293–301. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96484.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mikusiński G, Angelstam P (1997) European woodpeckers and anthropogenic habitat change: a review. Vogelwelt 118:277–283Google Scholar
  47. Mikusiński G, Gromadzki M, Chylarecki P (2001) Woodpeckers as indicators of forest bird diversity. Conserv Biol 15:208–217. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.99236.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mikusiński G, Angelstam P, Sporrong U (2003) Distribution of deciduous stands in villages located in coniferous forest landscapes in Sweden. Ambio 32:520–526. doi: 10.1639/0044-7447(2003) 032[0520:DODSIV]2.0.CO;2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mikusiński G, Pressey RL, Edenius L et al (2007) Conservation planning in forest landscapes of Fennoscandia and an approach to the challenge of Countdown 2010. Conserv Biol 21:1445–1454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Mild K, Stighäll K (2005) Action plan for the conservation of the Swedish population of white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos). Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 5486, Stockholm (in Swedish with English summary)Google Scholar
  51. Nilsson SG (1997) Forests in the temperate-boreal transition: natural and man-made features. Ecol Bull 46:61–71Google Scholar
  52. Nitare J, Norén M (1992) Woodland key habitats of rare and endangered species will be mapped in a new project of the Swedish National Board of Forestry. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 86:219–226 (in Swedish with English summary)Google Scholar
  53. Östlund L, Zackrisson O, Axelsson A-L (1997) The history and transformation of a Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Can J Forest Res 27:1198–1206Google Scholar
  54. Ozaki K, Isono M, Kawahara T et al (2006) A mechanistic approach to evaluation of umbrella species as conservation surrogates. Conserv Biol 20:1507–1515. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00444.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pakkala T, Pellikka J, Lindén H (2003) Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus—a good candidate for an umbrella species in taiga forests. Wildlife Biol 9:309–316Google Scholar
  56. Ranius T, Fahrig L (2006) Targets for maintenance of dead wood for biodiversity conservation based on extinction thresholds. Scand J Forest Res 21:201–208. doi: 10.1080/02827580600688269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roberge J-M, Svensson S (2003) How much time is required to survey land birds in forest-dominated atlas squares? Ornis Fennica 80:111–120Google Scholar
  58. Roberge J-M, Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol 18:76–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roberge J-M, Angelstam P (2006) Indicator species among resident forest birds–a cross-regional evaluation in northern Europe. Biol Conserv 130:134–147. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.12.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roberge J-M, Angelstam P, Villard M-A (2008) Specialised woodpeckers and naturalness in hemiboreal forests—deriving quantitative targets for conservation planning. Biol Conserv 141:997–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rosenberg MS (2003) PASSAGE—pattern analysis, spatial statistics, and geographic exegis, version 1.0. Department of Biology, Arizona State University, TempeGoogle Scholar
  62. Rouvinen S, Kuuluvainen T (2005) Tree diameter distributions in natural and managed old Pinus sylvestris-dominated forests. Forest Ecol Manag 208:45–61. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.11.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rubino MJ, Hess GR (2003) Planning open spaces for wildlife 2: modeling and verifying focal species habitat. Landsc Urban Plan 64:89–104. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02) 00203-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:11–41Google Scholar
  65. Statistics Sweden (2006) Protected nature 2004. Statistics Sweden, Stockholm. http://www.scb.se/templates/Publikation_156597.asp. Accessed 20 Jun 2006.
  66. Suter W, Graf RF, Hess R (2002) Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and avian biodiversity: testing the umbrella-species concept. Conserv Biol 16:778–788. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01129.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Svensson S, Svensson M, Tjernberg M (1999) Svensk fågelatlas. Sveriges Ornitologiska Förening, Stockholm (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  68. Sweden’s County Administrations (2006) GISdata från länsstyrelserna. Sweden’s County Administrations, Stockholm. http://www.gis.lst.se/lstgis/. Accessed 20 Jun 2006.
  69. Virkkala R, Alanko T, Laine T, Tiainen J (1993) Population contraction of the white-backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos in Finland as a consequence of habitat alteration. Biol Conserv 66:47–53. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(93) 90133-L CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Walankiewicz W, Czeszczewik D, Mitrus C, Bida E (2002) Snag importance for woodpeckers in deciduous stands of the Białowieża forest. Notatki Ornitologiczne 43:61–71 (in Polish with English summary)Google Scholar
  71. Walpole MJ, Leader-Williams N (2002) Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodivers Conserv 11:543–547. doi: 10.1023/A:1014864708777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Warman LD, Forsyth DM, Sinclair ARE et al (2004) Species distributions, surrogacy, and important conservation regions in Canada. Ecol Lett 7:374–379. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00590.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Watson J, Freudenberger D, Paull D (2001) An assessment of the focal-species approach for conserving birds in variegated landscapes in southeastern Australia. Conserv Biol 15:1364–1373. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00166.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wesołowski T (1995) Ecology and behaviour of white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) in a primaeval temperate forest (Białowieża National Park, Poland). Die Vogelwarte 38:61–75Google Scholar
  75. Wood DR, Burger LW, Bowman JL, Hardy CL (2004) Avian community response to pine-grassland restoration. Wildlife Soc B 32:819–829. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2004) 032[0819:ACRTPR]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Michel Roberge
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Grzegorz Mikusiński
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sören Svensson
    • 4
  1. 1.Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)RiddarhyttanSweden
  2. 2.School for Forest Engineers, Faculty of Forest SciencesSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)SkinnskattebergSweden
  3. 3.Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  4. 4.Department of Animal EcologyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations