Advertisement

Gaming with Deadwood: How to Better Teach Forest Protection When Bugs Are Lurking Everywhere

  • Marian Drăgoi
Chapter

Abstract

Maintaining healthy forests implies both extracting infested trees and hosting a thriving population of insectivorous birds; therefore, some trees for biodiversity (TFBs) should be left uncut, especially in forests pending an FSC certificate. Inspired by the Operant Learning/Conditioning theory, we designed a training drill for foresters responsible for marking the sanitation fellings and selecting TFBs. The drill was piloted with two groups of students in Rarau-Giumalau natural reserve in Romania and was found to be effective for achieving a certain ratio between trees to be cut and TFBs. It also helps the fieldwork teams get better organised. Even though the new procedure cannot cure aggressive fungal diseases or massive attacks of insects it helps forest rangers perform the two tasks simultaneously.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the two anonymous peer reviewers for their support in improving the first version of this chapter. I also acknowledge Mrs. Monica Vasile for her useful comments and feedback on the second draft of this paper, and to Mr. Dan Grigoroaea, ranger with the Muntii Calimani National Park for valuable hints about the ecologically optimal amount of deadwood per hectare in Norway spruce forests. Many thanks to my colleagues from Suceava office of the National Forest Administration for supporting our research with field data concerning sanitation cuttings.

References

  1. Abrudan, I. V. (2007). Cross-sectoral linkages between forestry and other sectors in Romania. In Y. C. Dubé & F. Schmithüsen (Eds.), Cross-sectoral policy developments in forestry (pp. 183–189). Rome, Italy: CABI. Google Scholar
  2. Abrudan, I. V., Marinescu, V., Ionescu, O., Ioras, F., Horodnic, S. A., & Sestras, R. (2009). Developments in the Romanian forestry and its linkages with other sectors. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, 37, 14–21.Google Scholar
  3. Anderegg, W. R. L., Plavcová, L., Anderegg, L. D. L., Hacke, U. G., Berry, J. A., & Field, C. B. (2013). Drought’s legacy: Multiyear hydraulic deterioration underlies widespread aspen forest die-off and portends increased future risk. Global Change Biology, 19, 1188–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anonymous. (2016). Ministry orders published in official. Journal of Romania, vol. 539, 551.Google Scholar
  5. Borlea, G. F. (2004). Ecology of elms in Romania. Forest Systems, 13, 29–35.Google Scholar
  6. Bouriaud, L., & Marzano, M. (2016). Conservation, extraction and corruption: Is sustainable forest management possible in Romania? In E. Gilberthorpe & G. Hilson (Eds.), Natural resource extraction and indigenous livelihoods: Development challenges in an era of globalization (pp. 221–240). London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  7. Brasier, C. M., & Scott, J. K. (1994). European oak declines and global warming: A theoretical assessment with special reference to the activity of Phytophthora cinnamomi. EPPO Bulletin, 24, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behaviour problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 18, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman, D., Georgiadou, Y., & Labonte, J. (2009). Volunteered geographic information: The nature and motivation of producers. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 4, 332–358.Google Scholar
  10. Drăgoi, M., Palagianu, C., & Miron-Onciul, M. (2015). Benefit, cost and risk analysis on extending the forest roads network: A case study in Crasna Valley (Romania). Annals of Forest Research, 58(2), 333–345.  https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2015.366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drapeau, P., Nappi, A., Imbeau, L., & Saint-Germain, M. (2009). Standing deadwood for keystone bird species in the eastern boreal forest: Managing for snag dynamics. The Forestry Chronicle, 85(2), 227–234.  https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc85227-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dudley, N., & Vallauri, D. (2004). Deadwood–Living forests. WWF report, October 2004. Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund for Nature. http://wwwpanda.org/downloads/forests/deadwoodwithnotes.pdf.
  13. Duduman, M. L., Olenici, N., Olenici, V., & Bouriaud, L. (2014). The impact of natural disturbances on the Norway spruce special cultures situated in Nord Eastern Romania, in relation with management type. In E. Scrieberna & M. Stark (Eds.), Adaptation in forest management under changing framework conditions. Proceedings of IUFRO Symposium, 19–23 May 2014 (Groups 3.08.00 and 4.05.00) (pp. 44–45). Sopron, Hungary.Google Scholar
  14. Estellés-Arolas, E., & González-Ladrón-De-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flannigan, M. D., Stocks, B. J., & Wotton, B. M. (2000). Climate change and forest fires. Science of Total Environment, 262(3), 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gavrilut, I., Halalisan, A.-F., Giurca, A., & Sotirov, M. (2015). The interaction between FSC certification and the implementation of the EU timber regulation in Romania. Forests, 7, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hălălişan, A. F., Marinchescu, M., & Abrudan, I. V. (2012). The evolution of forest certification: A short review. Bulletin of the Transylvania University of Brasov, Series II. Forestry, Wood Industry, Agricultural Food Engineering.Google Scholar
  18. Humphrey, J. W., Sippola, A. L., Lempérière, G., Dodelin, B., Alexander, K. N., & Butler, J. E. (2005). Deadwood as an indicator of biodiversity in European forests: From theory to operational guidance. Monitoring and Indicators of Forest Biodiversity in Europe—From Ideas to Operationality, 51, 193–206.Google Scholar
  19. Jeffery, R. W. (2012). Financial incentives and weight control. Preventive Medicine, 55, S61–S67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johansson, J., & Lidestav, G. (2011). Can voluntary standards regulate forestry? Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(3), 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonášová, M., & Prach, K. (2004). Central-European mountain spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) forests: Regeneration of tree species after a bark beetle outbreak. Ecological Engineering, 23, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joseph, G. S., Cumming, G. S., Cumming, D. H., Mahlangu, Z., Altwegg, R., & Seymour, C. L. (2011). Large termitaria act as refugia for tall trees, deadwood and cavity-using birds in a miombo woodland. Landscape Ecology, 26, 439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keen, M., Brown, V. A., & Dyball, R. (Eds.). (2005). Social learning in environmental management: Towards a sustainable future. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Knorn, J., Kuemmerle, T., Radeloff, V. C., Szabo, A., Mindrescu, M., Keeton, W. S., et al. (2012). Forest restitution and protected area effectiveness in post-socialist Romania. Biological Conservation, 146, 204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lassauce, A., Lieutier, F., & Bouget, C. (2012). Woodfuel harvesting and biodiversity conservation in temperate forests: Effects of logging residue characteristics on saproxylic beetle assemblages. Biological Conservation, 147, 204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lawrence, A. (2009). Forestry in transition: Imperial legacy and negotiated expertise in Romania and Poland. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lučan, R. K., Hanák, V., & Horáček, I. (2009). Long-term re-use of tree roots by European forest bats. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(7), 1301–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miles, D. B., & Ricklefs, R. E. (1984). The correlation between ecology and morphology in deciduous forest passerine birds. Ecology, 65, 1629–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nagel, T. A., Diaci, J., Jerina, K., Kobal, M., & Rozenbergar, D. (2014). Simultaneous influence of canopy decline and deer herbivory on regeneration in a conifer–broadleaf forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 45, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nichiforel, L., & Schanz, H. (2011). Property rights distribution and entrepreneurial rent-seeking in Romanian forestry: A perspective of private forest owners. European Journal of Forest Research, 130, 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olenici, N., Duduman, M.-L., Olenici, V., Bouriaud, O., Tomescu, R., & Rotariu, C. (2011). The first outbreak of Ips duplicatus in Romania. In H. Delb & S. Pontuali (Eds.), Proceedings of the Working Party 7.03.10 Methodology of Forest Insect and Disease Survey in Central Europe (pp. 135–140), 10th Workshop, Vol. 89, 20–23 September 2010, Freiburg, Germany. Freiburg: FVA.Google Scholar
  32. Panayotov, M., Bebi, P., Tsvetanov, N., Alexandrov, N., Laranjeiro, L., & Kulakowski, D. (2015). The disturbance regime of Norway spruce forests in Bulgaria. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 45, 1143–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pautasso, M., Aas, G., Queloz, V., & Holdenrieder, O. (2013). European ash (Fraxinus excelsior) dieback–A conservation biology challenge. Biological Conservation, 158, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Radu, S. (2006). The ecological role of deadwood in natural forests. In D. Gafta & J. Akeroyds (Eds.), Nature conservation, environmental science and engineering (environmental science) (pp. 137–141). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar
  35. Schroth, G., & McNeely, J. A. (2011). Biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services and livelihoods in tropical landscapes: Towards a common agenda. Environmental Management, 48(2), 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.Google Scholar
  37. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Skinner, B. F. (1988). An operant analysis of problem solving. In A. C. Catania & S. Harnad (Eds.), The selection of behavior the operant behaviorism of B. F. Skinner: Comments and consequences (pp. 221–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sproull, G. J., Adamus, M., Bukowski, M., Krzyżanowski, T., Szewczyk, J., Statwick, J., et al. (2015). Tree and stand-level patterns and predictors of Norway spruce mortality caused by bark beetle infestation in the tatra mountains. Forest Ecology and Management, 354, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stanciu, E. (2017). Secretary of state report at the end of the mandate. Manuscript (Unpublished).Google Scholar
  41. Stanovský, J. (2002). The influence of climatic factors on the health condition of forests in the Silesian Lowland. Journal of Forest Science, 48, 451–458.Google Scholar
  42. Thomas, F. M., Blank, R., & Hartmann, G. (2002). Abiotic and biotic factors and their interactions as causes of oak decline in Central Europe. Forest Pathology, 32, 277–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thyer, B. A., Dulmus, C. N., & Sowers, K. M. (2012). Human behaviour in the social environment: Theories for social work practice. New Jersey: Wiley. Google Scholar
  44. Verkerk, P. J., Lindner, M., Zanchi, G., & Zudin, S. (2011). Assessing impacts of intensified biomass removal on deadwood in European forests. Ecological Indicators, 11, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marian Drăgoi
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SuceavaSuceavaRomania

Personalised recommendations