Habitat Quality Assessment and Modelling for Forest Biodiversity and Sustainability

  • Sandra Luque
  • Nina Vainikainen

Abstract

Safeguarding biodiversity has been one of the most important issues in the environmental and forest policies since 1990s. The problem remains in terms of decisions and knowledge on where to set appropriate conservation targets. Hence, we need detailed and reliable information about forest structure and composition and methods for estimating this information over the whole spatial domain. The approach presented aims to develop a practical tool for conservation planners and foresters to evaluate alternative conservation plans to expand and connect protected areas while identifying key forest habitats and its associated biodiversity value. In order to reach this goal and learn more about habitat quality for woodland species in boreal forests and spatial characteristics of forest landscape, we used a combination of remote sensing and field data derived from the Multi-source Finnish National Forest Inventory (MS-NFI) Habitat quality assessment and suitability maps constitute a useful approach for designing management plans to improve biodiversity conservation. In this chapter, we present an approach and tools for assessing biodiversity values in both managed and protected forest areas. The approach is intended to assist decision-making concerning protection of valuable habitats and management of natural resources. The different habitat quality models presented are used as a surrogate for biodiversity value. The indicators and the models developed reflect a sound scientific basis that can be implemented in other European countries that invest in national forest inventories. Within this framework, focusing on forests in Finland and on end-user needs, this effort constitutes the first attempt undertaken at the landscape level to use National Forest Inventory data for forest biodiversity monitoring and management.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Alanen A, Leivo A, Lindgren L, Piri E (1995) Lehtojen hoito-opas. Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja, sarja B, no 26, pp120Google Scholar
  2. Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different propositions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrén H (1997) Habitat fragmentation and changes in biodiversity. Ecol Bull 46:171–181Google Scholar
  4. Angelstam P, Anderson L (2001) Estimates of the needs for forest reserves in Sweden. Scand J For Res Supplement 3: 38–51Google Scholar
  5. Angelstam P, Pettersson B (1997) Principles of present Swedish forest biodiversity management. Ecol Bull 46;191–203Google Scholar
  6. Bartha D, Ódor P, Horváth T, Tímár G, et al (1997) Relationship of tree stand heterogeneity and forest naturalness. Acta Silv Lign Hung, 2:7–22Google Scholar
  7. Burgess RL, Sharpe DM (eds) (1981) Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. Springer Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Burrough P, McDonnell A (1998) Principles of geographical information systems. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Cajander AK (1926) The theory of forest types. Acta Forest Fenn 29:1–108Google Scholar
  10. CBD (2002) Convention on Biological Diversity. Conference of the Parties (COP) http://www.biodiv.org/convention/cops.sht
  11. Esseen PA, Ehnström B, Ericson L, Sjöberg K (1997) Boreal forests. Ecol Bull 46:16–47Google Scholar
  12. Fahrig L (1998) When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival? Ecol Model 105:273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on Biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34: 487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finnish Forest Research Institute (2006) Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, Vammala, Finland.Google Scholar
  15. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry (2001) Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry, 2001. Finnish Forest Research Institute, pp374Google Scholar
  16. Gigord L, Pico, F, Shykoff J (1999) Effects of habitat fragmentation on Dombeya acutangula (Sterculiaceae), a native tree on La Réunion (Indian Ocean). Biol Conserv 88 43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guisan A, Zimmermann ZE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guisan A, Theurillat JP, Kienast F (1998) Predicting the potential distribution of plant species in an alpine environment. J Veg Sci 9: 65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanski, I. 2000. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37: 271–281.Google Scholar
  20. Hanski I, Hammond P (1995) Biodiversity in boreal forests. Trends Ecol Evol 10: 5–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanson L, Larsson TB (1997) Conservation of boreal environments a completed research program and a new paradigm. Ecol Bull 46: 9–15Google Scholar
  22. Hildén M, Auvinen AP, Primmer E (2005) Suomen biodiversiteettiohjeman arviointi. (Evaluation of the Finnish national action plan for biodiversity.) Suomen ympäristö 770. Edita, Helsinki, pp251Google Scholar
  23. Johnston K, Ver hoef JM, Krivoruchko K, Lucas N (2001) Using ArcGIS Geostatistical Analyst. ESRI Press, Redlands, pp300Google Scholar
  24. Jongman RHG, ter Braak CJF, van Tongeren OFR (1995) Data analysis in community and landscape ecology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Salisbury, E.J., 1926. The geographical distribution of plants in relation to climatic factors. Geogr J 57:312–335Google Scholar
  25. Junninen K, Simila M, Kouki J, Kotiranta H (2006) Assemblages of wood-inhabiting fungi along the gradients of succession and naturalness in boreal pine-dominated forests in Fennoscandia. Ecography 29:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kangas A, Maltamo M (eds) (2006) Forest inventory. Methodology and applications. Managing Forest Ecosystems. Vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht, pp363Google Scholar
  27. Kappes H (2005) Influence of coarse woody debris on the gastropod community of a managed calcareous beech forest in western Europe. J Mollusc Stud 71: 85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kouki J (1994) Biodiversity in the Fennoscandian boreal forests: natural variation and its management. Ann Zool Fenn 31:1–217Google Scholar
  29. Kuusinen M, Siitonen J (1998) Epiphytic lichen diversity in old-growth and managed Picea abies stands in southern Finland. J Veg Sci 9:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Löfman S (2006) Changes in forest landscape structure in southern Finland in the late 1900’s. Dissertationes Forestales 32, University of Joensuu, Finland, pp30Google Scholar
  31. Löfman S, Kouki J (2001) Fifty years of landscape transformation in managed forests of southern Finland. Scand J For Res 16:44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lord JM, Norton DA (1990) Scale and the spatial concept of fragmentation. Conserv Biol 4: 197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luque S (2000) Evaluating temporal changes using multispectral scanner and thematic mapper data on the landscape of a natural reserve: The New Jersey pine barrens, a case Study. Int J Remote Sens. Special Issue Remote Sensing and Landscape Ecology: Landscape Patterns and Landscape Change 21(13&14):2589–2611Google Scholar
  34. Luque S, Lathrop RG Jr, Bognar JA (1994) Temporal and spatial changes in the New Jersey pine barrens landscape. Landscape Ecol 9(4):287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luque S, Riutta T, Joensuu J, Rautjärvi N, Tomppo E (2004) Multi-source forest inventory data for biodiversity monitoring and planning at the forest landscape level. In Marchetti M (ed) Monitoring and indicators of forest biodiversity in Europe – from ideas to operationality. EFI – IUFRO Proceedings, pp. 430–444Google Scholar
  36. Magura T, Tothmeresz B, Bordan Z (2004) Effects of nature management practice on carabid assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a non-native plantation. Biol Conserv 93:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martikainen P, Siitonen J, Punttila P, Kaila L, Rauh J (2000) Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv 94:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCoy, J., and K. Johnston. 2001. Using ArcGIS Spatial Analyst. ESRI Press, Redlands. 240 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Mielikäinen K, Hynynen J (2003) Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe–boreal zone: case Finland J Environ Manage 67:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (1994) Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki, Finland, pp20Google Scholar
  41. Ministry of the Environment (2004) METSO – The forest biodiversity programme for southern Finland 2002–2007. http://wwwb.mmm.fi/metso/TIEDOTUSMATERIAALI/esitteet_ ja_kalvosarjat/metso_booklet.pdf
  42. Moore NW (1962) The heaths of dorset and their conservation. J Ecology 50:369–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moretti M, Obrist MK, Duelli P (2004) Arthropod biodiversity after forest fires: winners and losers in the winter fire regime of the southern Alps. Ecography 27:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MOSSE - Biodiversity and Monitoring Programme: METSO 2003–2007 (2007) Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland http://wwwb.mmm.fi/metso/ international/research/LIST_and_PRESENTATIONS_ of_RES_PROJECTS.html
  45. 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. Sven. Bot. Tidskr. 86, pp. 219–226 (In Swedish, with English summary)Google Scholar
  46. Noss RF (2001) Forest Fragmentation in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Landscape Ecol 16:371–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nuutinen T, Anola-Pukkila A, Haara A, Kärkkäinen L, et al (2001) Team report from Finnish Forest Research Institute, MELA Team. In Nordic Trends in Forest Inventory, Management Planning and Modelling Proceedings of SNS Meeting, Slovalla, Finland April 17–19, 2001, pp21–28Google Scholar
  48. Odor P, Standovar T (2001) Richness of bryophyte vegetation in near natural and managed beech stands: the effects of management-induced differences in dead wood. Ecol Bull 49: 219–229Google Scholar
  49. Pascual-Hortal, L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation Landscape Ecol 21:959–967Google Scholar
  50. Perlman DL, Adelson G (1997) Biodiversity: Exploring Values and Priorities in Conservation. Blackell Science, MA., USA.pp192Google Scholar
  51. Ponge JF (2003) Humus forms in terrestrial ecosystems: a framework to biodiversity. Soil Biol Biochem 35:935–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pressey RL, Nicholls AO (1989) Efficiency in Conservation Evaluation: Scoring versus Iterative Approaches. Biol Conserv 50:199-218Google Scholar
  53. Rassi P, Alanen A, Kanerva T, Mannerkoski I (eds) (2001) The Red List of Finnish Species. Ministry of the Environment & Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, pp432 (English Summary)Google Scholar
  54. Rautjärvi N, Luque A, Tomppo E (2001) Mapping spatial patterns from national forest inventory data: a regional conservation planning tool. Schriften aus Fortslichen Falcultät der Universität Göttingen und der Niedersächsischen Forstlichen Versuchsanstalt. band 138: 293–302. J.D. auerländer’s Verlag Frankfurt am Main, pp407Google Scholar
  55. Reid WV (2006) Nature: the many benefits of ecosystem services, Nature,.443:749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. ReVelle CS, Williams JC, Boland JJ (2002) Counterpart models in facility location science and reserve selection science. Environ Model Asses 7:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ (2002) Optimization in reserve selection procedures-why not? Biol Conserv 107:125–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Romero-Calcerrada R, Luque S (2006) Habitat quality assessment using weights-of-evidence based GIS modelling: the case of Picoides tridactylus as keystone species indicator of the biodiversity value of the Finnish forest. Ecol Model 196:62–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study, Landscape Urban Planning 83 (2–3): 91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schmidt W (2005) Herb layer species as indicators of biodiversity of managed and unmanaged beech forests. For Snow Landsc Res 79 (1/2): 111–125Google Scholar
  61. Schmiegelow FKA, Mönkkönen M (2002) Fragmentation issues in dynamic landscapes: avian perspectives from the boreal forest. Ecol Appl 12:375–389Google Scholar
  62. Schuster A (1994) Regional distribution of breeding birds elaborated by a geographic information system – Possibilities and limitations. In Hagemeijer EJM, Vertrael TJ (eds) Bird Numbers 1992 – Distribution, monitoring and ecological aspects, Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg/Heerlen and SOVON, Beek-Ubbergen, pp493–501Google Scholar
  63. Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylix organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:1–31Google Scholar
  64. Siitonen P, Tanskanen A, Lehtinen A (2002) Method for selection of old-forest reserves. Conserv Biol 16:1398–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Spence JR (2001) The new boreal forestry: adjusting timber management to accommodate biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16(11):591–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Store R, Jokimaki J (2003) A GIS-based multi-scale approach to habitat suitability modelling. Ecol Model 169:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Store R, Kangas J (2001) Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape Urban Plan 55:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Strandberg B, Kristiansen SM, Tybirk K (2005) Dynamic oak-scrub to forest succession: effects of management on understorey vegetation, humus forms and soils. For Ecol Manage 211:318–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Suomen ympärsitö 437 (2000) Metsien suojelun tarve Etelä-Suomessa ja Pohjanmaalla. Etelä-Suomen ja Pohjanmaan metsien suojelun tarve -työryhmän mietintö.(Forest protection in southern Finland and Ostrobothnia.) Edita, Helsinki, pp284Google Scholar
  70. Sverdrup-Thygeson A (2002) Key habitats in the Norwegian production forests: A case study. Scand J For Res 17:166–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tomppo E (1992) Satellite image aided forest site fertility estimation for forest income taxation purposes. Acta Forestalia Fennica 229, pp70Google Scholar
  72. Tomppo E (2006) The Finnish National Forest Inventory. In Kangas A, Maltamo M (eds) Forest inventory. Methodology and applications. Managing Forest Ecosystems. Vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht, pp179–194Google Scholar
  73. Tomppo E, Halme M (2004) Using coarse scale forest variables as ancillary information and weighting of variables in k-NN estimation: a genetic algorithm approach. Remote Sens Environ 92:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Uotila A, Kouki J (2005) Understorey vegetation in spruce-dominated forests in eastern Finland and Russian Karelia: Successional patterns after anthropogenic and natural disturbances. Forest Ecol Manage 215 (1–3): 113–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Uotila A, Kouki J, Kontkanen H, Pulkkinen P (2002) Assessing the naturalness of boreal forests in eastern Fennoscandia. Forest Ecol Manage 161: 257–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Väisänen R, Järvinen O (1996) How are extensive, human-caused habitat alterations expressed on the scale of local bird populations in boreal forests? Ornis Scandinavica 17:282-292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vallauri D, André J, Dodelin B, Eynard-Machet R, Rambaud D (2005) Bois mort et à cavités : une clé pour des forêts vivantes. Lavoisier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  78. Vellak K, Ingerpuu N (2005) Management effects on bryophytes in estonian forests. Biodiver Conserv 14:3255–3263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Virkkala R, Korhonen KT, Haapanen R, Aapala K (2000) Protected forests and mires in forest and mire vegetation zones in Finland based on the 8th National Forest Inventory. Finnish Environment Institute, Forest Research Institute. The Finnish Environment n.395Google Scholar
  80. Virolainen K, Nättinen K, Siitonen J, Kuitunen M (2001) Selecting herb-rich forest networks to protect different measures of biodiversity. Ecol Appl 11:411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277: 494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Webb NR, Haskins LE (1980) An ecological survey of the Heathlands in the Poole Basin, Dorset, England. Biol Conserv 17:281-296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wilcove DS, McLellan CH, Dobson AP (1986) Habitat Fragmentation in the Temperate Zone. In Soulé ME (ed.). Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp237–256Google Scholar
  84. Wilson EO, Willis EO (1975) Applied biogeography. In Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA, pp522–534Google Scholar
  85. Winter S, Flade M, Schumacher H, Kerstan E, Möller G (2005) The importance of near-natural stand structures for the biocoenosis of lowland beech forests. For Snow Landsc Res 79 1/2: 127–144Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Luque
    • 1
  • Nina Vainikainen
  1. 1.Cemagref, – Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Research. UR Ecosystèmes MontagnardsGrenoble, F-38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations