Short-term responses of small mammal diversity to varying stand-scale patterns of retention tree patches.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 16 04 2021
accepted: 12 08 2022
entrez: 31 8 2022
pubmed: 1 9 2022
medline: 9 9 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Retention forestry is a common practice for biodiversity conservation in forests managed for wood production. Retention forestry often leaves unharvested patches of trees that vary in size and spatial pattern but experiments evaluating the effects of different retention patch configurations at a constant level of retention are lacking for many regions and taxonomic groups. We implemented an experimental study in clearcut conifer stands with retention across the U.S. Pacific Northwest region. The study consisted of five stand-level (11-55 ha) experimental treatments each replicated 10 times within a randomized complete block design, resulting in 50 treated stands. Retained tree density was comparable across treatments but size, number, and location (upland or riparian) of patches within stands varied among the five treatments. Within experimental treatments, we measured small mammal (<1kg) species and functional trait (i.e., body size, diet, activity stratum) richness in retention patches, surrounding harvested portions of stands, and nearby unharvested stands. We evaluated species and functional trait richness by treatment using generalized linear mixed-effects models and species-specific responses to retention placement using a community occupancy model. We obtained repeat captures of 21 species of small mammals but found limited evidence of a treatment effect on species richness, and no differences in functional trait richness. Species richness was highest where all retained trees were aggregated into one patch placed adjacent to a forested riparian buffer (mean = 6.6 species, 95% CI = 5.7-7.5), and lowest in the treatment containing one retention patch in the upland portion of a harvested stand (mean = 4.7 species, 95% CI = 3.8-5.6). Furthermore, estimates of species richness within retention patches of harvested stands (i.e., not considering species in harvested areas) did not differ among treatments, indicating that the slightly elevated species richness in riparian-associated retention results from 1-2 species in these patches that do not occur in adjacent harvested portions of each treated stand. Patch occupancy of several species was higher in riparian patches than harvested portions of the treated stands, and fewer species had higher occupancy in upland patches compared to harvested portions of treated stands. Our results indicated that at retention densities currently required in Oregon and Washington, the location of retention patches had a small influence on stand-scale measures of small mammal diversity, but local increases in species richness may be obtained by retaining trees adjacent to riparian buffers.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36044523
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273630
pii: PONE-D-21-12718
pmc: PMC9432693
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0273630

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

A.J. Kroll is employed by Weyerhaeuser, which provided funding to support this research. Jake Verschuyl is employed by NCASI, which provided funding for this research. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Références

J Anim Ecol. 2013 Jul;82(4):781-90
pubmed: 23506201
Biometrics. 1987 Dec;43(4):783-91
pubmed: 3427163
Ecol Lett. 2009 Jan;12(1):22-33
pubmed: 19087109
Ecology. 2013 Nov;94(11):2392-402
pubmed: 24400491
Mol Ecol. 2003 Mar;12(3):711-24
pubmed: 12675826
Ecol Appl. 2018 Oct;28(7):1830-1840
pubmed: 29992697
J Appl Ecol. 2014 Dec;51(6):1669-1679
pubmed: 25552747
Science. 1976 Jan 23;191(4224):285-6
pubmed: 17832147
Ecology. 2010 Jan;91(1):299-305
pubmed: 20380219
Ecology. 2017 Jun;98(6):1613-1622
pubmed: 28317111
Proc Biol Sci. 2015 Feb 22;282(1801):20142620
pubmed: 25567651
Ecol Lett. 2014 Jul;17(7):866-80
pubmed: 24751205
Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Apr;21(4):178-85
pubmed: 16701083

Auteurs

Sean M Sultaire (SM)

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.

Andrew J Kroll (AJ)

Weyerhaeuser, Springfield, OR, United States of America.

Jake Verschuyl (J)

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Anacortes, WA, United States of America.

Gary J Roloff (GJ)

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH