Recovery of a boreal ground‐beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) fauna 15 years after variable retention harvest

• Published in: The Journal of applied ecology Vol. 57; no. 9; pp. 1717 - 1729
• Main Authors: Wu, Linhao, He, Fangliang, Spence, John R., Fajardo, Alex
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2020
• Subjects: Biodiversity; biodiversity conservation; boreal forest; Boreal forests; Carabidae; Clearcutting; Compartments; Coniferous forests; Conifers; Deciduous forests; dispersed green‐tree retention; Ecological succession; Ecosystem management; EMEND; Environmental changes; Fauna; Forest management; Harvesting; Impact resistance; Natural disturbance; Recovery; Retention; Sustainable forestry; variable retention
• ISSN: 0021-8901; 1365-2664
• DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13687

Retention harvests are preferred over traditional clear‐cuts for sustainable forest management because maintenance and re‐establishment of native forest biodiversity is a priority. However, few studies have examined long‐term responses of biotic assemblages to retention harvest at particular sites. We studied the effects of decreasing initial harvest intensities (clear‐cut, 10%, 20%, 50% and 75% dispersed green‐tree retention) on carabid beetle assemblages relative to assemblage changes in un‐harvested control stands in four successionally ordered cover‐types of boreal mixedwood forest. We also studied temporal effects by comparing assemblages over a 16‐year pre‐ and post‐harvest period, using data collected through monitoring of the EMEND (Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance) experiment in NW Alberta, Canada. Retention harvests affected assemblages differently across cover‐types. Assemblages in compartments harvested in the earlier forest successional stages of ‘deciduous’ or ‘deciduous with spruce understorey’ converged towards the pre‐harvest structure of corresponding controls over time. In contrast, beetle assemblages in ‘mixed’ or ‘conifer’ compartments, that represent later successional forest, moved steadily away from their pre‐harvest structures during the first post‐harvest decade. These latter assemblages became strikingly more similar to those under deciduous canopies by 15‐year post‐harvest. Synthesis and applications. Variable retention harvests will promote and maintain biodiversity better than clear‐cutting. Higher retention levels promote faster recovery, but towards fauna typical of early successional forest in all cover‐types. Carabids associated with conifer habitats are less resistant to impact from harvesting than are those from broadleaf deciduous forest. Therefore, conifer‐dominated stands present the most significant management challenge and higher retention levels are required to promote rapid and effective faunal recovery in such late successional stands. Variable retention harvests will promote and maintain biodiversity better than clear‐cutting. Higher retention levels promote faster recovery, but towards fauna typical of early successional forest in all cover‐types. Carabids associated with conifer habitats are less resistant to impact from harvesting than are those from broadleaf deciduous forest. Therefore, conifer‐dominated stands present the most significant management challenge and higher retention levels are required to promote rapid and effective faunal recovery in such late successional stands.