Restoration dilemmas between future ecosystem and current species values: The concept and a practical approach in Estonian mires.

Ecosystem restoration is gaining political and economic support worldwide, but its exact targets and costs often remain unclear. A key issue, both for predicting restoration success and assessing the costs, is the uncertainty of post-restoration development of the ecosystem. A specific combination of uncertainties emerges when ecosystem restoration would negatively affect pre-restoration species conservation values. Such dilemma appears to be common, but largely ignored in restoration planning; for example, in historically degraded forests, wetlands and grasslands that provide novel habitats for some threatened species. We present a framework of linked options for resolving the dilemma, and exemplify its application in extensive mire restoration in Estonia. The broad options include: redistributing the risks by timing; relocating restoration sites; modifying restoration techniques; and managing for future habitats of the species involved. In Estonia, we assessed these options based on spatially explicit mapping of expected future states of the ecosystem, their uncertainty, and the distribution of species at risk. Such planning documentation, combined with follow-up monitoring and experimentation, can be used for adaptive management, by funding organizations and for academic research.

Regional-Scale In-Depth Analysis of Soil Fungal Diversity Reveals Strong pH and Plant Species Effects in Northern Europe.

Soil microbiome has a pivotal role in ecosystem functioning, yet little is known about its build-up from local to regional scales. In a multi-year regional-scale survey involving 1251 plots and long-read third-generation sequencing, we found that soil pH has the strongest effect on the diversity of fungi and its multiple taxonomic and functional groups. The pH effects were typically unimodal, usually both direct and indirect through tree species, soil nutrients or mold abundance. Individual tree species, particularly Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, and Populus x wettsteinii, and overall ectomycorrhizal plant proportion had relatively stronger effects on the diversity of biotrophic fungi than saprotrophic fungi. We found strong temporal sampling and investigator biases for the abundance of molds, but generally all spatial, temporal and microclimatic effects were weak. Richness of fungi and several functional groups was highest in woodlands and around ruins of buildings but lowest in bogs, with marked group-specific trends. In contrast to our expectations, diversity of soil fungi tended to be higher in forest island habitats potentially due to the edge effect, but fungal richness declined with island distance and in response to forest fragmentation. Virgin forests supported somewhat higher fungal diversity than old non-pristine forests, but there were no differences in richness between natural and anthropogenic habitats such as parks and coppiced gardens. Diversity of most fungal groups suffered from management of seminatural woodlands and parks and thinning of forests, but especially for forests the results depended on fungal group and time since partial harvesting. We conclude that the positive effects of tree diversity on overall fungal richness represent a combined niche effect of soil properties and intimate associations.

Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis.

Industrial forestry typically leads to a simplified forest structure and altered species composition. Retention of trees at harvest was introduced about 25 years ago to mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity, mainly from clearcutting, and is now widely practiced in boreal and temperate regions. Despite numerous studies on response of flora and fauna to retention, no comprehensive review has summarized its effects on biodiversity in comparison to clearcuts as well as un-harvested forests. Using a systematic review protocol, we completed a meta-analysis of 78 studies including 944 comparisons of biodiversity between retention cuts and either clearcuts or un-harvested forests, with the main objective of assessing whether retention forestry helps, at least in the short term, to moderate the negative effects of clearcutting on flora and fauna. Retention cuts supported higher richness and a greater abundance of forest species than clearcuts as well as higher richness and abundance of open-habitat species than un-harvested forests. For all species taken together (i.e. forest species, open-habitat species, generalist species and unclassified species), richness was higher in retention cuts than in clearcuts. Retention cuts had negative impacts on some species compared to un-harvested forest, indicating that certain forest-interior species may not survive in retention cuts. Similarly, retention cuts were less suitable for some open-habitat species compared with clearcuts. Positive effects of retention cuts on richness of forest species increased with proportion of retained trees and time since harvest, but there were not enough data to analyse possible threshold effects, that is, levels at which effects on biodiversity diminish. Spatial arrangement of the trees (aggregated vs. dispersed) had no effect on either forest species or open-habitat species, although limited data may have hindered our capacity to identify responses. Results for different comparisons were largely consistent among taxonomic groups for forest and open-habitat species, respectively. Synthesis and applications. Our meta-analysis provides support for wider use of retention forestry since it moderates negative harvesting impacts on biodiversity. Hence, it is a promising approach for integrating biodiversity conservation and production forestry, although identifying optimal solutions between these two goals may need further attention. Nevertheless, retention forestry will not substitute for conservation actions targeting certain highly specialized species associated with forest-interior or open-habitat conditions. Our meta-analysis provides support for wider use of retention forestry since it moderates negative harvesting impacts on biodiversity. Hence, it is a promising approach for integrating biodiversity conservation and production forestry, although identifying optimal solutions between these two goals may need further attention. Nevertheless, retention forestry will not substitute for conservation actions targeting certain highly specialized species associated with forest-interior or open-habitat conditions.