Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 121, Issue 1–3, pp 263–273 | Cite as

Monitoring of Biodiversity Indicators in Boreal Forests: a Need for Improved Focus

  • Ian D. ThompsonEmail author


The general principles of scale and coarse and fine filters have been widely accepted, but management agencies and industry are still grappling with the question of what to monitor to detect changes in forest biodiversity following forest management. Part of this problem can be attributed to the lack of focused questions for monitoring including absence of null models and predicted effects, a certain level of disconnect between research and management, and recognition that monitoring can be designed as a research question. Considerable research from the past decade has not been adequately synthesized to answer important questions, such as which species or forest attributes might be the best indicators of change. A disproportionate research emphasis has been placed on community ecology, and mostly on a few groups of organisms including arthropods, amphibians, migratory songbirds, and small mammals, while other species, including soil organisms, lichens, bats, raptors, some carnivores, and larger mammals remain less well-known. In most studies of community ecology, the question of what is the importance, if any, of the regularly observed subtle changes in community structures, and causes of observed changes is usually not answered. Hence, our ability to deal with questions of persistence is limited, and demographic research on regionally--defined key species (such as species linked to processes, species whose persistence may be affected, species with large home ranges, species already selected as indicators, and rare and threatened species) is urgently needed. Monitoring programs need to be designed to enable managers to respond to unexpected changes caused by forest management. To do this, management agencies need to articulate null models for monitoring that predict effects, focus fine--scale monitoring on key species (defined by local and regional research) in key habitats (rare, declining, important) across landscapes, and have a protocol in place to adapt management strategies to changes observed. Finally, agencies must have some way to determine and define when a significant change has occurred and to predict the persistence of species; this too should flow from a well--designed null model.


biodiversity boreal forest indicator selection monitoring research needs 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Attiwill, P. M.: 1994, ‘The disturbance of forest ecosystems: The ecological basis for conservative management’, Forest Ecology and Management 63, 247–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergeron, Y. and Harvey, B.: 1997, ‘Basing silviculture on natural ecosystem dynamics: An approach applied to the southern boreal mixedwood forest of Quebec’, Forest Ecology and Management 92, 235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berglund, H. and Jonsson, B. G.: 2001, ‘Predictability of plant and fungal species richness of old growth boreal forest islands’, Journal of Vegetation Science 12, 857–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonar, R. L.: 2000, ‘Availability of pileated woodpecker cavities and use by other species’, Journal of Wildlife Management 64, 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunnell, F. L., Boyland, M. and Wind, E.: 2002, ‘How should we spatially distribute dying and dead wood?’ in: W. F. Laudenslayer, P. J. Shea, C.P. Witherspoon and T. E. Lisk (eds), Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW–GTR—181, 739–752.Google Scholar
  6. Carignan, V. and Villard, M.-A.: 2002, ‘Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: A review’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 78, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson, M. and Schmiegelow, F.: 2003, ‘Cost-effective sampling design applied to large—scale monitoring of boreal birds’, Conservation Ecology 62, 11. [].
  8. Drapeau, P., Nappi, A., Giroux, J.-F., Leduc, A. and Savard, J.-P.: 2002, ‘Distribution patterns of birds associated with snags in natural and managed eastern boreal forests’, in: W. F. Laudenslayer, P. J. Shea, C. P. Witherspoon, and T. E. Lisk (eds), Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW—GTR—181, 193–205.Google Scholar
  9. Esseen, P.-A., Renhorn, K.-E. and Pettersson, R. B.: 1996, ‘Epiphytic lichen biomass in managed and old-growth boreal forests: Effect of branch quality’, Ecological Applications 6, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbs, J. P., Droege, S. and Eagle. P.: 1998, ‘Monitoring populations of plants and animals’, BioScience 48, 935–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haila, Y., Hanski, I. K., Niemela, J., Punttila, P., Raivo, S. and Tukia, H.: 1994, ‘Forestry and the boreal fauna: Matching management with natural forest dynamics’, Annales Zoologica Fennici 31, 187–202.Google Scholar
  12. Hannon, S. J., Cotterill, S. E. and Schmiegelow, F. K. A.: 2004, ‘Identifying rare species of songbirds in managed forests: Application of an ecoregional template to a boreal mixedwood system’, Forest Ecology and Management 191, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansson, L.: 2001, ‘Key habitats in Swedish managed forests’, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Supplement 3, 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harris, L. D.: 1984, ‘The fragmented forest, island biogeography theory and the preservation of biotic diversity’, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 211 p.Google Scholar
  15. Hunter, M. L.: 1990, ‘Wildlife, forests, and forestry’, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 370 p.Google Scholar
  16. Hunter, M. L.: 1993, ‘Natural fire regimes as spatial models for managing boreal forests’ Biological Conservation 65, 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jonsson, B. G. and Jonsell, M.: 1999, ‘Exploring potential indicators in boreal forests’, Biodiversity and Conservation 8, 1417–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krebs, C. J. 1991, ‘The experimental paradigm and long—term population studies’ Ibis, supplement 1, 3–8.Google Scholar
  19. Landres, P. B., Verner, J. and Thomas, J. W.: 1988, ‘Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species: A critique’, Conservation Biology 2, 316–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landres, P. B., Morgan, P. and Swanson, F. J.: 1999, ‘Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems’, Ecological Applications 9, 1179–1188.Google Scholar
  21. Link, W. A., Barker, R. J. and Sauer, J. R.: 1994, ‘Within-site variability in surveys of wildlife populations’, Ecology 75, 1097–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McLaren, M. A., Thompson, I. D. and Baker, J. A.: 1998, ‘Selection of vertebrate wildlife indicators for monitoring sustainable forest management in Ontario’, The Forestry Chronicle 74, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mulder, B. S., Noon, B. R., Spies, T. A., Raphael, M. G., Palmer, C. J., Olsen, A. R., Reeves, G. H. and Welsh, H. H.: 1999, ‘The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan’ USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Station, General Technical Report PNW—GTR—437. 138 p.Google Scholar
  24. Nichols, J. D.: 1999, ‘Monitoring is not enough: On the need for a model—based approach to migratory bird management’, in: R. Bonney, D. N. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Nichols (eds), Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in Flight planning process. [].
  25. Noss, R. F.: 1987, ‘From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A look at the Nature Conservancy (USA)’, Biological Conservation 41, 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Noss, R. F.: 1999, ‘Assessing and mentoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and indicators’, Forest Ecology and Management 115, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perera, A. H., Buse, L. J. and Weber, M. G. (eds): 2004, ‘Emulating natural forest landscape disturbances’, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 315p.Google Scholar
  28. Phillippi, T. E., Dixon, P. M. and Taylor, B. A.: 1998, ‘Detecting trends in species composition’, Ecological Applications 8, 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., Simons, T. R., Farnsworth, G. L., Bailey, L. L. and Sauer, J. R.: 2002, ‘Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: Statistical methods for design and analysis.’ Environmetrics 13, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prendergast, J. R., Quinn, R. M., Lawton, J. H., Eversham, B. and Gibbons, D. H.: 1993, ‘Are species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies?’, Nature 365, 335–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reich, P. B., Bakken, P., Carleson, D., Frelich, L. E., Friedman, S. K. and Grigal, D. F.: 2001, ‘Influence of logging, fire, and forest type on biodiversity and productivity in southern boreal forests’ Ecology 82, 2731–2748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rempel, R. S. and Kushneriuk, R. S.: 2003, ‘The influence of sampling scheme and interpolation method on the power to detect spatial effects of forest birds in Ontario (Canada)’ Landscape Ecology 18, 741–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schumaker, N. H., Ernst, T., White, D., Baker, J. and Haggerty, P.: 2004, ‘Projecting wildlife responses to alternative future landscapes in Oregon's Willamette Basin’ Ecological Applications 14, 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Setterington, M. A., Thompson, I. D. and Montevecchi, W. A.: 2000, ‘Woodpecker abundance and habitat use in mature balsam fir forests in Newfoundland’, Journal of Wildlife Management 64, 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steeger, C. and Dulisse, J.: 2002, ‘Characteristics and dynamics of cavity nest trees in southern British Columbia’, in: W. F. Laudenslayer, P. J. Shea, C. P. Witherspoon and T. E. Lisk (eds), Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, PSW—GTR—181, 275–289.Google Scholar
  36. Steele, B. B., Bayne, R. L. and Grant, C. V.: 1984, ‘Environmental monitoring using populations of birds and small mammals: Analyses of sampling effort’, Biological Conservation 39, 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson, I. D., Baker, J. A. and Ter—Mikaelian, M.: 2003, ‘A review of the long—term effects of post—harvest silviculture on vertebrate wildlife, and predictive models, with an emphasis on boreal forests in Ontario, Canada’, Forest Ecology and Management 177, 441–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson, I. D. and Harestad, A. S.: 2004, ‘The ecological and genetic basis for emulating natural disturbances in forest management: Theory guiding practice’, in: A. H. Perera, L. J. Buse, and M. G. Weber (eds), Emulating natural forest landscape disturbances: Concepts and applications. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, pp. 29–42.Google Scholar
  39. Walters, C. J. and Holling, C. S.: 1990, ‘Large—scale management experiments and learning by doing’, Ecology 71, 2060–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Work, T. T., Shorthouse, D. P., Spence, J. R., Volney, W. J. A. and Langor, D.: 2004, ‘Stand composition and structure of the boreal mixedwood and epigaeic arthropods of the Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance (EMEND) landbase in northwestern Alberta’, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34, 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations