MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2930790428 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13395

Impacts of dead wood manipulation on the biodiversity of temperate and boreal forests. A systematic review

2019· review· en· W2930790428 on OpenAlex
Jennie Sandström, Claes Bernes, Kaisa Junninen, Asko Lõhmus, S. Ellen Macdonald, Jörg Müller, Bengt Gunnar Jonsson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersStiftelsen för Miljöstrategisk Forskning
KeywordsBiodiversitySpecies richnessAbundance (ecology)EcologyTaigaBiologyTemperate rainforestHabitatTemperate forestCoarse woody debrisThreatened speciesTemperate climateAgroforestryEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dead wood ( DW ) provides critical habitat for thousands of species in forests, but its amount, quality and diversity have been heavily reduced by forestry. Therefore, interventions aiming to increase DW might be necessary to support its associated biodiversity, even in protected forests, which may be former production forests. Our aim was to synthesize the current state of knowledge drawn from replicated experimental studies into solid quantitative evidence of the effects of DW manipulation on forest biodiversity, with a focus on protected forests. We conducted a full systematic review of effects of DW manipulation on forest biodiversity in boreal and temperate regions. We included three intervention types: creation of DW from live trees at the site, addition of DW from outside the site and prescribed burning. Outcomes included abundance and species richness of saproxylic insects, ground insects, wood‐inhabiting fungi, lichens, reptiles and cavity‐nesting birds. In total, we included 91 studies, 37 of which were used in meta‐analyses. Although meta‐analysis outcomes were heterogeneous, they showed that increasing the amount of DW (“ DW enrichment”) has positive effects on the abundance and richness of saproxylic insects and fungi. The positive effect on saproxylic pest insect abundance tended to be less than that on saproxylic insects in general. No significant effects were found for ground insects or cavity‐nesting birds. Although reviewed studies were mainly short term, our results support that management that increases DW amounts has the potential to increase the abundance of DW ‐dependent species and, in most cases, also their species richness. Studies of burning showed positive effects on the abundance of saproxylic insects similar to those of other interventions, even though burning on average resulted in a smaller enrichment of DW amounts. Policy implications . The findings of the review suggest that manipulating dead wood (DW) can be an effective part of conservation management to support biodiversity in protected areas. The findings also indicate that the diversity of DW types is important, a mix of DW qualities should be favoured. Burning seems to be an effective method to increase biodiversity but to benefit cavity‐nesting birds, snag losses need to be minimized.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it