Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 1271–1285 | Cite as

Size of nature reserves: densities of large trees and dead wood indicate high value of small conservation forests in southern Sweden

  • Frank GötmarkEmail author
  • Maria Thorell
Article

Abstract

The optimal size of nature reserves has been debated for some time. Although edge and core habitats are often recognized, it is commonly assumed in theory and in studies of a particular habitat type that reserves or patches of different sizes have similar habitat structure. However, for older, highly fragmented landscapes it has been suggested that small areas are of conservation interest as high-quality remnants, whereas large areas are more degraded. We studied 49 randomly selected forest reserves in the size range 5–230 ha (typical for many highly fragmented landscapes) and 3653 sites of key habitat (unprotected deciduous broadleaf forest). Structures in forest that are generally correlated with value for biodiversity were measured, and reserve objectives were examined from declaration texts. Both the density of large trees and the density of dead wood (snags, logs) decreased with increasing reserve size. The mean size of identified key habitats was very small (1.6 ha). A botanical objective for establishment of reserves was more frequently used for smaller reserves. In contrast, cultural and especially recreational objectives were more commonly used when larger reserves were established, suggesting higher values for recreation in these reserves. For vascular plants, birds and beetles, a literature review indicated that small forest patches do not contain impoverished communities, but are often rich (per unit of area). Small reserves and key habitats have several disadvantages, but they are probably important components of reserve networks for biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes.

Conservation strategy Dead wood Forest Large trees Reserve size 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahti T., Hämet-Ahti L. and Jalas J. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Annales Botanici Fennici 5: 169–211.Google Scholar
  2. Ås S. 1993. Are habitat islands islands? Woodliving beetles (Coleoptera) in deciduous forest fragments in boreal forest. Ecography 16: 219–228.Google Scholar
  3. Ås S. 1999. Invasion of matrix species in small habitat patches. Conservation Ecology 3 http://www.consecol.org: 1.Google Scholar
  4. Berg Å. and Tjernberg M. 1996. Common and rare Swedish vertebrates – distribution and habitat preferences. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 101–128.Google Scholar
  5. Berg Å., Ehnström B., Gustafsson L., Hallingback T., Jonsell M. and Weslien J. 1994. Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. Conservation Biology 8: 718–731.Google Scholar
  6. Bücking W. 1997. Natural forest, strict forest reserves, wilderness areas in Germany and in Europe. Forst und Holz 52 (in German with English summary): 515–522.Google Scholar
  7. Cowling R.M. and Bond W.J. 1991. How small can reserves be? An empirical approach in Cape Fynbos, South Africa. Biological Conservation 58: 243–256.Google Scholar
  8. Desender K., Ervynck A. and Tack G. 1999. Beetle diversity and historical ecology of woodlands in Flanders. Belgian Journal of Zoology 129: 139–155.Google Scholar
  9. Diamond J. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographical studies for the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 7: 129–145.Google Scholar
  10. Esseen P.-A., Ehnström B., Ericsson L. and Sjöberg K. 1997. Boreal forests. In: Hansson L. (ed.), Boreal Ecosystems and Landscapes: Structures, Processes and Conservation of Biodiversity. Ecological Bulletin No. 46, pp. 16–47.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer J. and Lindenmayer D.B. 2002. Small patches can be valuable for biodiversity conservation: two case studies on birds in southeastern Australia. Biological Conservation 106: 129–136.Google Scholar
  12. Forman R.T.T. 1999. Land Mosaics – The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  13. Götmark F. and Nilsson C. 1992. Criteria used for protection of natural areas in Sweden 1909–1986. Conservation Biology 6: 220–231.Google Scholar
  14. Götmark F., Söderlundh H. and Thorell M. 2000. Buffer zones for forest reserves: opinions of land owners and conservation value of their forest around nature reserves in southern Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1377–1390.Google Scholar
  15. Gustafsson L., de Jong J. and Norén M. 1999. Evaluation of Swedish woodland key habitats using red-listed bryophytes and lichens. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1101–1114.Google Scholar
  16. Halme E. and Niemelä J. 1993. Carabid beetles in fragments of coniferous forest. Annales Zoologici Fennici 30: 17–30.Google Scholar
  17. Hannah L., Carr J.L. and Lankerani A. 1995. Human disturbance and natural habitat: a biome level analysis of a global data set. Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 128–155.Google Scholar
  18. Hanski I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Harmon M.E. et al. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15: 133–302.Google Scholar
  20. Helliwell D.R. 1976. The effects of size and isolation on the conservation value of wooded sites in Britain. Journal of Biogeography 3: 407–416.Google Scholar
  21. Honnay O., Hermy M. and Coppin P. 1999. Effects of area, age and diversity of forest patches in Belgium on plant species richness, and implications for conservation and reforestation. Biological Conservation 87: 73–84.Google Scholar
  22. Howlett R. and Dhand R. 2000. Insight: Biodiversity. Nature 405: 207–253.Google Scholar
  23. IUCN 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  24. Jonsell M., Weslien J. and Ehnström B. 1998. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 749–764.Google Scholar
  25. Keddy P.A. and Drummond C.G. 1996. Ecological properties for the evaluation, management, and restoration of temperate deciduous forest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 6: 748–762.Google Scholar
  26. Lawesson J.E., de Blust G., Grashof C., Firbank L., Honnay O., Hermy M. et al. 1998. Species diversity and area-relationships in Danish beech forests. Forest Ecology and Management 106: 235–245.Google Scholar
  27. Loman J. and von Schantz T. 1991. Birds in a farmland – more species in small than in large habitat islands. Conservation Biology 5: 176–188.Google Scholar
  28. Margules C. and Pressey R.L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243–253.Google Scholar
  29. Margules C. and Usher M. 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biological Conservation 21: 79–109.Google Scholar
  30. Mason C.F. 2001. Woodland area, species turnover and the conservation of bird assemblages in lowland England. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 495–510.Google Scholar
  31. McComb W. and Lindenmayer D. 1999. Dying, dead and down trees. In: Hunter M. (ed.), Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 335–372.Google Scholar
  32. Meffe G. and Carroll R. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Press, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  33. National Board of Forestry 1995. Instruktion for datainsamling vid inventering av nyckelbiotoper. NBF, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  34. National Board of Forestry 1997. Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Official Statistics of Sweden. NBF, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish and English; www.svo.se).Google Scholar
  35. National Board of Forestry 1999. Nyckelbiotopsinventeringen 1993–1998, Slutrapport. Meddelande 1–1999. NBF, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  36. Nee S. 1994. How populations persist. Nature 367: 123–124.Google Scholar
  37. Nilsson C. and Götmark F. 1992. Protected areas in Sweden: is natural variety adequately represented? Conservation Biology 6: 232–242.Google Scholar
  38. Nilsson S.G. 1997. Forests in the temperate-boreal transition: natural and man-made features. In: Hansson L. (ed.), Boreal Ecosystems and Landscapes: Structures, Processes and Conservation of Biodiversity. Ecological Bulletin No. 46, pp. 61–70.Google Scholar
  39. Nilsson S.G., Arup U., Baranowski R. and Ekman S. 1995. Tree-dependent lichens and beetles as indicators in conservation forests. Conservation Biology 9: 1208–1215.Google Scholar
  40. Noss R.F. and Cooperrider A.Y. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. Pelletier J.D. 2000. Model assessment of the optimal design of nature reserves for maximizing species longevity. Journal of Theoretical Biology 202: 25–32.Google Scholar
  42. Peterken G. 1996. Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  43. Pressey R.L. 1994. Ad hoc reservation: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems? Conservation Biology 8: 662–668.Google Scholar
  44. Ranius T. and Jansson N. 2000. The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy cover and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biological Conservation 95: 85–94.Google Scholar
  45. Samuelsson J., Gustafsson L. and Ingelög T. 1994. Dying and Dead Trees: A Review of Their Importance for Biodiversity. Swedish Threatened Species Unit, Agricultural University, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  46. Shafer C.L. 1990. Nature Reserves: Island Theory and Conservation Practice. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  47. Shafer C.L. 1995. Values and shortcomings of small reserves. BioScience 45: 80–88.Google Scholar
  48. Schwartz M.W. 1999. Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 83–108.Google Scholar
  49. Schwartz M.W. and van Mantgem P.J. 1997. The value of small preserves in chronically fragmented landscapes. In: Schwartz M.W., Conservation in Highly Fragmented Landscapes. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp. 379–394.Google Scholar
  50. SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) 1997. Skogsreservat i Sverige. Naturvårdsverket Rapport No. 4707 (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  51. Simberloff D. and Gotelli N. 1984. Effects of insularisation on plants species richness in the prairie-forest ecotone. Biological Conservation 29: 27–46.Google Scholar
  52. SOU (Swedish Public Reports) 1997. Skydd av skogsmark (Report 97), and Bilagor (Report 98). Miljödepartementet, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  53. Soulé M.E. and Simberloff D. 1986. What do genetics and ecology tell us about the design of nature reserves? Biological Conservation 35: 19–40.Google Scholar
  54. Soulé M.E. and Terborgh J. 1999a. Conserving nature at regional and continental scales – a scientific program for North America. BioScience 49: 809–817.Google Scholar
  55. Soulé M.E. and Terborgh J. (eds) 1999b. Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  56. Turner I.M. and Corlett R.T. 1996. The conservation value of small, isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 330–333.Google Scholar
  57. Warren M.S. and Key R.S. 1991.Woodlands: past, present and potential for insects. In: Collins N.M. and Thomas J.A. (eds), The Conservation of Insects and their Habitats. Academic Press, London, pp. 155–211.Google Scholar
  58. Wu J.G. and Vanka J.L. 1991. An area-based model of species richness dynamics of forest islands. Ecological Modelling 58: 249–271.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of GöteborgGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations