Juha Siitonen 
,
Jenni Hottola,
Auli Immonen
Differences in stand characteristics between brook-side key habitats and managed forests in southern Finland
Siitonen J., Hottola J., Immonen A. (2009). Differences in stand characteristics between brook-side key habitats and managed forests in southern Finland. Silva Fennica vol. 43 no. 1 article id 216. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.216
Abstract
Preservation of small habitat patches termed as “woodland key habitats” or “especially important habitats” in the Finnish Forest Act has become an integral part of biodiversity-oriented forest management. Forest Act habitats belong to particular habitat types defined in the act, and they are supposed to have natural-like stand characteristics. However, very little is known about the actual stand structure in the designated habitats. Our aim was to compare stand characteristics between brook-side key habitats and comparable managed forests as controls. Seven study areas were selected from four regions across southern Finland. Within each study area ten key habitats and ten controls (140 stands) were randomly selected. Living and dead trees and cut stumps were measured in each stand within a 0.2 ha plot. The average degree of previous cutting was significantly lower whereas the volume of dead wood, volume of deciduous trees, and stand diversity were each significantly higher in key habitats than controls. The average volume of dead wood was 11.7 m3 ha–1 in key habitats and 6.5 m3 ha–1 in controls. However, there was considerable variation among individual stands, and a large part of key habitats could not be distinguished from randomly selected control stands with respect to stand characteristics. The preservation of natural brook channels with their immediate surroundings is undoubtedly important for maintaining aquatic and semiaquatic biodiversity. Nevertheless, when complementing the forest conservation network in the future, main emphasis in selecting potentially valuable stands should be placed on important structural features such as dead wood and old trees.
Keywords
dead wood;
woodland key habitats;
stand structure;
CWD;
WKH;
Forest Act
-
Siitonen,
Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa Research Unit, P.O. Box 18, FI-01301 Vantaa, Finland
E-mail
juha.siitonen@metla.fi
- Hottola, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa Research Unit, P.O. Box 18, FI-01301 Vantaa, Finland E-mail jh@nn.fi
- Immonen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa Research Unit, P.O. Box 18, FI-01301 Vantaa, Finland E-mail ai@nn.fi
Received 23 May 2008 Accepted 19 January 2009 Published 31 December 2009
Views 5205
Available at https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.216 | Download PDF
Send to email
