1 / 20

Gal FIDEJ, Andrej ROZMAN, Tihomir RUGANI, Tom NAGEL, Igor DAKSKOBLER, Jurij DIACI

Does salvage logging influence forest recovery following partial canopy disturbances in beech dominated forests?. Gal FIDEJ, Andrej ROZMAN, Tihomir RUGANI, Tom NAGEL, Igor DAKSKOBLER, Jurij DIACI. Introduction. Abundant literature about negative ecological effect s on salvage logging.

avak
Download Presentation

Gal FIDEJ, Andrej ROZMAN, Tihomir RUGANI, Tom NAGEL, Igor DAKSKOBLER, Jurij DIACI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Does salvage logging influence forest recovery following partial canopy disturbances in beech dominated forests? Gal FIDEJ, Andrej ROZMAN, Tihomir RUGANI, Tom NAGEL, Igor DAKSKOBLER, Jurij DIACI

  2. Introduction • Abundant literature about negative ecological effectson salvage logging. • Beech dominated forests and small to medium scale disturbance frequent in Slovenia. Question: how to react in these situations? • Goal: analyze the influence of salvage logging in these situations.

  3. Methods • Retrospective study. • Influence of salvage loggingwas analyzed on 8 sites throughout Slovenia. • Beech dominated forests. • Every site 2 stratum: salvaged and NON-salvaged part -> stratified random subsampling for plots.

  4. Methods

  5. Methods • Regeneration above 20 cm in 4 height classes: • 20-50 cm • 51-130 cm • 131 cm -5 cm DBH • >5 cm DBH • Phytosociological mapping (Braun-Blanquet, 1964) of plants. • Analysis: treatment effect (salvage – no salvage) on regeneration (composition, density, height structure) were analysed with linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) in R. Other ecological factors were also included in the model.

  6. Study sites

  7. Results – Regeneration density • Density higher on SAL (Not st. sig.). • LMM = treatment, altitude, slope, rockiness, CWD. • Density in neg. relationship with altitude (-0,41) and CWD (-0,29).

  8. Results –Species diversity • Beech dominates on all sites. • Followed by more light demanding species.

  9. Results – Species diversity Plants • Shannon index for plant diversity slightly higher in NON-SAL (Not St. sig.). • Shannon index decreased with altitude. • Shannon for trees not statistically different. Trees

  10. Results – Height structure • Higher density of smaller regeneration and lower density of taller regeneration on salvaged areas, but not st. significant.

  11. Results – Height structure • Tree sp. ratio similar in 1. and 2. H class. • Third H class: beech prevails on SAL sites. • 3. class: advanced regeneration and salvaging? ?

  12. Results – Height of dominant trees • Small, but statistically sig. difference (LMM; p = 0.0019) betweenheightof dominant trees.

  13. Results – Plant Coverage • Slightly more coverage in tree and shrub layer on NSAL sites, but differences not stat. significant. Treelayer Herblayer Shrublayer

  14. Results – Plant coverage by logging technique Loggingtechnique • Sig. Diferences between logging method in shrub layer (p=0,009). Treatment

  15. Results – Erosion Treatment • Low erosion; mean= 4.1 % (0-30%) • 28 plots (55%) without erosion. • No sig. differences between treatments • No. Sig. differences between logging method Loggingmethod

  16. Results – Browsing • Slightly higer but significant (Chi-2, p=0,000) browsing damages on salvaged sites 1: no or up to 10 % oflateralshoots 2: terminal and/or < 50 % lateral s. 3: terminal + majorityoflateral s.

  17. Discussion • No major differences in term of density, structure, species composition. • Removing deadwood decreases biodiversity. • Dead wood – potential substrate for regeneration in future (spruce, fir). • No differences in erosion – skidding trails were excluded from plots. • Loggingmethod!

  18. Sites

  19. Conclusions • Salvage logging is a viable option in cases of relatively small (to intermediate) scale disturbances on beech sites. • Decision making on salvaging: considerthe size of affected area, relief, altitude, inclination, bedrock type (erodibility), advanced regeneration, soiltype, presenceofforestroads, skiddingtrails,…andeconomics.

  20. Thank you for your attention!

More Related