Abstract
We examined potentially contrasting conservation benefits of land sparing (land-use specialization) and land sharing (multiple-use forestry) strategies in forested landscapes by investigating relationships between bird functional group densities and basal areas of coniferous trees (an index of plantation intensity) in Sakhalin fir (Abies sachalinensis) and Sakhalin spruce (Picea glehnii) plantations. Densities of most bird functional groups increased with decreasing plantation intensity in both plantation types. In many cases, linear models were best for descriptors of bird density–plantation intensity relationships, but statistical support of linear and nonlinear (quadratic) models was similar. This outcome indicates that ecological benefits of land sparing and land sharing are potentially comparable in the plantations we studied. In real landscapes, land-use decision making depends on a variety of factors other than biodiversity conservation (e.g., social and biophysical factors). Furthermore, niche theory also predicts that population densities could linearly respond to environmental gradients. When density–intensity relationships are linear, as in this study, land-sparing and land-sharing strategies provide similar benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation, and contrasting land-use strategies could be flexibly chosen to enhance the accommodation of biodiversity conservation to resource production.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


References
Austin MP (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol Model 157:101–111
Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA, Mustoe SH (2000) Bird census techniques, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego
Brockerhoff E, Jactel H, Parrotta J, Quine C, Sayer J (2008) Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity? Biodivers Conserv 17:925–951
Chandler RB, King DI, Raudales R, Trubey R, Chandler C, Chávez VJA (2013) A small-scale land-sparing approach to conserving biological diversity in tropical agricultural landscapes. Conserv Biol 27:785–795
Chey VK, Holloway JD, Hambler C, Speight MR (1998) Canopy knockdown of arthropods in exotic plantations and natural forest in Sabah, north-east Borneo, using insecticidal mist-blowing. Bull Entomol Res 88:15–24
Cook WM, Lane KT, Foster BL, Holt RD (2002) Island theory, matrix effects and species richness patterns in habitat fragments. Ecol Lett 5:619–623
Dullinger S, Essl F, Rabitsch W, Erb K-H, Gingrich S, Haberl H, HĂĽlber K, JarošĂk V, Krausmann F, KĂĽhn I, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Hulme PE (2013) Europe’s other debt crisis caused by the long legacy of future extinctions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:7342–7347
Edwards DP, Gilroy JJ, Woodcock P, Edwards FA, Larsen TH, Andrews DJR, Derhé MA, Docherty TDS, Hsu WW, Mitchell SL, Ota T, Williams LJ, Laurance WF, Hamer KC, Wilcove DS (2014) Land-sharing versus land-sparing logging: reconciling timber extraction with biodiversity conservation. Global Change Biol 20:183–191
Ellis EC, Ramankutty N (2008) Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front Ecol Environ 6:439–447
Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B, Norberg J (2003) Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front Ecol Environ 1:488–494
FAO (2010) Global forest resources assessment 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Fischer J, Brosi B, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Goldman R, Goldstein J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ranganathan J, Tallis H (2008) Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Front Ecol Environ 6:380–385
Fujimaki Y (2012) Birds of Hokkaido, 4th edn. Far East Ornithologists Group, Bibai
Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J, Peres CA, Bradshaw CJA, Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Sodhi NS (2011) Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478:378–381
Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555
Groffman P, Baron J, Blett T, Gold A, Goodman I, Gunderson L, Levinson B, Palmer M, Paerl H, Peterson G, Poff N, Rejeski D, Reynolds J, Turner M, Weathers K, Wiens J (2006) Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9:1–13
Hartley MJ (2002) Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. For Ecol Manag 155:81–95
Hausner VH, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA (2003) Selecting indicator traits for monitoring land use impacts: birds in northern coastal birch forests. Ecol Appl 13:999–1012
Hodgson JA, Kunin WE, Thomas CD, Benton TG, Gabriel D (2010) Comparing organic farming and land sparing: optimizing yield and butterfly populations at a landscape scale. Ecol Lett 13:1358–1367
Kikuchi K, Akasaka T, Yamaura Y, Nakamura F (2013) Abundance and use of cavity trees at the tree- and stand-levels in natural and plantation forests in Hokkaido, Japan. J For Res 18:389–397
Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, Donnelly CF, Nix H, Lindenmayer BD (2002) Effects of forest fragmentation on bird assemblages in a novel landscape context. Ecol Monogr 72:1–18
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
Mastrangelo ME, Gavin MC (2012) Trade-offs between cattle production and bird conservation in an agricultural frontier of the Gran Chaco of Argentina. Conserv Biol 26:1040–1051
Moore SE, Allen HL (1999) Plantation forestry. In: Hunter MLJ (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 400–433
Newton I (1994) The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: a review. Biol Conserv 70:265–276
Newton I (1998) Population limitation in birds. Academic Press, San Diego
Paquette A, Messier C (2010) The role of plantations in managing the world’s forests in the Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 8:27–34
Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333:1289–1291
Ralph CJ, Geupel GR, Pyle P, Martin TE, DeSante DF (1993) Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Reports PSW-GTR-144
R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Ver. 2.15.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/
Sedjo RA, Botkin D (1997) Using forest plantations to spare natural forests. Environment 39:14–30
Toyoshima Y, Yamaura Y, Mitsuda Y, Yabuhara Y, Nakamura F (2013) Reconciling wood production with bird conservation: a regional analysis using bird distribution models and forestry scenarios in Tokachi district, northern Japan. For Ecol Manag 307:54–62
Van Horne B (2002) Approaches to habitat modeling: the tensions between pattern and process and between specificity and generality. In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA, Samson FB (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp 63–72
Vance MD, Fahrig L, Flather CH (2003) Effect of reproductive rate on minimum habitat requirements of forest-breeding birds. Ecology 84:2643–2653
Wiens J (2007) The dangers of black-and-white conservation. Conserv Biol 21:1371–1372
Yamaura Y (2013) Confronting imperfect detection: behavior of binomial mixture models under varying circumstances of visits, sampling sites, detectability, and abundance, in small-sample situations. Ornithol Sci 12:73–88
Yamaura Y, Amano T, Katoh K (2008a) Ecological traits determine the affinity of birds to a larch plantation matrix, in montane Nagano, central Japan. Ecol Res 23:317–327
Yamaura Y, Katoh K, Takahashi T (2008b) Effects of stand, landscape, and spatial variables on bird communities in larch plantations and deciduous forests in central Japan. Can J For Res 38:1223–1243
Yamaura Y, Ikeno S, Sano M, Okabe K, Ozaki K (2009) Bird responses to broad-leaved forest patch area in a plantation landscape across seasons. Biol Conserv 142:2155–2165
Yamaura Y, Oka H, Taki H, Ozaki K, Tanaka H (2012) Sustainable management of planted landscapes: lessons from Japan. Biodivers Conserv 21:3107–3129
Acknowledgments
The forest management office of the Ishikari General Subprefectural Bureau provided assistance in our field survey. We greatly thank the members of the Department of Forest Science and the members of the Forest Ecosystem Management Group of Hokkaido University for their field assistance and helpful discussions during the study. This study was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHIs Grant Nos. 23780153 and 24310029 and the Asahi Glass Foundation (Kondo Jiro Grant of 2012).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Yoshii, C., Yamaura, Y., Soga, M. et al. Comparable benefits of land sparing and sharing indicated by bird responses to stand-level plantation intensity in Hokkaido, northern Japan. J For Res 20, 167–174 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-014-0453-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-014-0453-2