Comparable benefits of land sparing and sharing indicated by bird responses to stand-level plantation intensity in Hokkaido, northern Japan

Published Date
February 2015, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 167–174

Title 

Comparable benefits of land sparing and sharing indicated by bird responses to stand-level plantation intensity in Hokkaido, northern Japan

• Author 

• Chiaki Yoshii, 
• Yuichi Yamaura, 
• Masashi Soga, 
• Masato Shibuya, 
• Futoshi Nakamura

Abstract

We examined potentially contrasting conservation benefits of land sparing (land-use specialization) and land sharing (multiple-use forestry) strategies in forested landscapes by investigating relationships between bird functional group densities and basal areas of coniferous trees (an index of plantation intensity) in Sakhalin fir (Abies sachalinensis) and Sakhalin spruce (Picea glehnii) plantations. Densities of most bird functional groups increased with decreasing plantation intensity in both plantation types. In many cases, linear models were best for descriptors of bird density–plantation intensity relationships, but statistical support of linear and nonlinear (quadratic) models was similar. This outcome indicates that ecological benefits of land sparing and land sharing are potentially comparable in the plantations we studied. In real landscapes, land-use decision making depends on a variety of factors other than biodiversity conservation (e.g., social and biophysical factors). Furthermore, niche theory also predicts that population densities could linearly respond to environmental gradients. When density–intensity relationships are linear, as in this study, land-sparing and land-sharing strategies provide similar benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation, and contrasting land-use strategies could be flexibly chosen to enhance the accommodation of biodiversity conservation to resource production.


References

1. Austin MP (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol Model 157:101–111CrossRef
2. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA, Mustoe SH (2000) Bird census techniques, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego
3. Brockerhoff E, Jactel H, Parrotta J, Quine C, Sayer J (2008) Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity? Biodivers Conserv 17:925–951CrossRef
4. Chandler RB, King DI, Raudales R, Trubey R, Chandler C, Chávez VJA (2013) A small-scale land-sparing approach to conserving biological diversity in tropical agricultural landscapes. Conserv Biol 27:785–795PubMedCrossRef
5. Chey VK, Holloway JD, Hambler C, Speight MR (1998) Canopy knockdown of arthropods in exotic plantations and natural forest in Sabah, north-east Borneo, using insecticidal mist-blowing. Bull Entomol Res 88:15–24CrossRef
6. Cook WM, Lane KT, Foster BL, Holt RD (2002) Island theory, matrix effects and species richness patterns in habitat fragments. Ecol Lett 5:619–623CrossRef
7. Dullinger S, Essl F, Rabitsch W, Erb K-H, Gingrich S, Haberl H, Hülber K, Jarošík V, Krausmann F, Kühn I, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Hulme PE (2013) Europe’s other debt crisis caused by the long legacy of future extinctions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:7342–7347PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8. Edwards DP, Gilroy JJ, Woodcock P, Edwards FA, Larsen TH, Andrews DJR, Derhé MA, Docherty TDS, Hsu WW, Mitchell SL, Ota T, Williams LJ, Laurance WF, Hamer KC, Wilcove DS (2014) Land-sharing versus land-sparing logging: reconciling timber extraction with biodiversity conservation. Global Change Biol 20:183–191CrossRef
9. Ellis EC, Ramankutty N (2008) Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front Ecol Environ 6:439–447CrossRef
10. Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B, Norberg J (2003) Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front Ecol Environ 1:488–494CrossRef
11. FAO (2010) Global forest resources assessment 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
12. Fischer J, Brosi B, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Goldman R, Goldstein J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ranganathan J, Tallis H (2008) Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Front Ecol Environ 6:380–385CrossRef
13. Fujimaki Y (2012) Birds of Hokkaido, 4th edn. Far East Ornithologists Group, Bibai
14. Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J, Peres CA, Bradshaw CJA, Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Sodhi NS (2011) Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478:378–381PubMedCrossRef
15. Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555PubMedCrossRef
16. Groffman P, Baron J, Blett T, Gold A, Goodman I, Gunderson L, Levinson B, Palmer M, Paerl H, Peterson G, Poff N, Rejeski D, Reynolds J, Turner M, Weathers K, Wiens J (2006) Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9:1–13CrossRef
17. Hartley MJ (2002) Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. For Ecol Manag 155:81–95CrossRef
18. Hausner VH, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA (2003) Selecting indicator traits for monitoring land use impacts: birds in northern coastal birch forests. Ecol Appl 13:999–1012CrossRef
19. Hodgson JA, Kunin WE, Thomas CD, Benton TG, Gabriel D (2010) Comparing organic farming and land sparing: optimizing yield and butterfly populations at a landscape scale. Ecol Lett 13:1358–1367PubMedCrossRef
20. Kikuchi K, Akasaka T, Yamaura Y, Nakamura F (2013) Abundance and use of cavity trees at the tree- and stand-levels in natural and plantation forests in Hokkaido, Japan. J For Res 18:389–397CrossRef
21. Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, Donnelly CF, Nix H, Lindenmayer BD (2002) Effects of forest fragmentation on bird assemblages in a novel landscape context. Ecol Monogr 72:1–18CrossRef
22. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Lõhmus A, Baker SC, Bauhus J, Beese W, Brodie A, Kiehl B, Kouki J, Pastur GM, Messier C, Neyland M, Palik B, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Volney J, Wayne A, Gustafsson L (2012) A major shift to the retention approach for forestry can help resolve some global forest sustainability issues. Conserv Lett 5:421–431CrossRef
23. Mastrangelo ME, Gavin MC (2012) Trade-offs between cattle production and bird conservation in an agricultural frontier of the Gran Chaco of Argentina. Conserv Biol 26:1040–1051PubMedCrossRef
24. Moore SE, Allen HL (1999) Plantation forestry. In: Hunter MLJ (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 400–433CrossRef
25. Newton I (1994) The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: a review. Biol Conserv 70:265–276CrossRef
26. Newton I (1998) Population limitation in birds. Academic Press, San Diego
27. Paquette A, Messier C (2010) The role of plantations in managing the world’s forests in the Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 8:27–34CrossRef
28. Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333:1289–1291PubMedCrossRef
29. Ralph CJ, Geupel GR, Pyle P, Martin TE, DeSante DF (1993) Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Reports PSW-GTR-144
30. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Ver. 2.15.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/
31. Sedjo RA, Botkin D (1997) Using forest plantations to spare natural forests. Environment 39:14–30CrossRef
32. Toyoshima Y, Yamaura Y, Mitsuda Y, Yabuhara Y, Nakamura F (2013) Reconciling wood production with bird conservation: a regional analysis using bird distribution models and forestry scenarios in Tokachi district, northern Japan. For Ecol Manag 307:54–62CrossRef
33. Van Horne B (2002) Approaches to habitat modeling: the tensions between pattern and process and between specificity and generality. In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA, Samson FB (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp 63–72
34. Vance MD, Fahrig L, Flather CH (2003) Effect of reproductive rate on minimum habitat requirements of forest-breeding birds. Ecology 84:2643–2653CrossRef
35. Wiens J (2007) The dangers of black-and-white conservation. Conserv Biol 21:1371–1372PubMedCrossRef
36. Yamaura Y (2013) Confronting imperfect detection: behavior of binomial mixture models under varying circumstances of visits, sampling sites, detectability, and abundance, in small-sample situations. Ornithol Sci 12:73–88CrossRef
37. Yamaura Y, Amano T, Katoh K (2008a) Ecological traits determine the affinity of birds to a larch plantation matrix, in montane Nagano, central Japan. Ecol Res 23:317–327CrossRef
38. Yamaura Y, Katoh K, Takahashi T (2008b) Effects of stand, landscape, and spatial variables on bird communities in larch plantations and deciduous forests in central Japan. Can J For Res 38:1223–1243CrossRef
39. Yamaura Y, Ikeno S, Sano M, Okabe K, Ozaki K (2009) Bird responses to broad-leaved forest patch area in a plantation landscape across seasons. Biol Conserv 142:2155–2165CrossRef
40. Yamaura Y, Oka H, Taki H, Ozaki K, Tanaka H (2012) Sustainable management of planted landscapes: lessons from Japan. Biodivers Conserv 21:3107–3129CrossRef

For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10310-014-0453-2