Producing wood at least cost to biodiversity: integrating Triad and sharing-sparing approaches to inform forest landscape management.

Forest loss and degradation are the greatest threats to biodiversity worldwide. Rising global wood demand threatens further damage to remaining native forests. Contrasting solutions across a continuum of options have been proposed, yet which of these offers most promise remains unresolved. Expansion of high-yielding tree plantations could free up forest land for conservation provided this is implemented in tandem with stronger policies for conserving native forests. Because plantations and other intensively managed forests often support far less biodiversity than native forests, a second approach argues for widespread adoption of extensive management, or 'ecological forestry', which better simulates natural forest structure and disturbance regimes - albeit with compromised wood yields and hence a need to harvest over a larger area. A third, hybrid suggestion involves 'Triad' zoning where the landscape is divided into three sorts of management (reserve, ecological/extensive management, and intensive plantation). Progress towards resolving which of these approaches holds the most promise has been hampered by the absence of a conceptual framework and of sufficient empirical data formally to identify the most appropriate landscape-scale proportions of reserves, extensive, and intensive management to minimize biodiversity impacts while meeting a given level of demand for wood. In this review, we argue that this central challenge for sustainable forestry is analogous to that facing food-production systems, and that the land sharing-sparing framework devised to establish which approach to farming could meet food demand at least cost to wild species can be readily adapted to assess contrasting forest management regimes. We develop this argument in four ways: (i) we set out the relevance of the sharing-sparing framework for forestry and explore the degree to which concepts from agriculture can translate to a forest management context; (ii) we make design recommendations for empirical research on sustainable forestry to enable application of the sharing-sparing framework; (iii) we present overarching hypotheses which such studies could test; and (iv) we discuss potential pitfalls and opportunities in conceptualizing landscape management through a sharing-sparing lens. The framework we propose will enable forest managers worldwide to assess trade-offs directly between conservation and wood production and to determine the mix of management approaches that best balances these (and other) competing objectives. The results will inform ecologically sustainable forest policy and management, reduce risks of local and global extinctions from forestry, and potentially improve a valuable sector's social license to operate.

When are hypotheses useful in ecology and evolution?

Research hypotheses have been a cornerstone of science since before Galileo. Many have argued that hypotheses (1) encourage discovery of mechanisms, and (2) reduce bias-both features that should increase transferability and reproducibility. However, we are entering a new era of big data and highly predictive models where some argue the hypothesis is outmoded. We hypothesized that hypothesis use has declined in ecology and evolution since the 1990s, given the substantial advancement of tools further facilitating descriptive, correlative research. Alternatively, hypothesis use may have become more frequent due to the strong recommendation by some journals and funding agencies that submissions have hypothesis statements. Using a detailed literature analysis (N = 268 articles), we found prevalence of hypotheses in eco-evo research is very low (6.7%-26%) and static from 1990-2015, a pattern mirrored in an extensive literature search (N = 302,558 articles). Our literature review also indicates that neither grant success nor citation rates were related to the inclusion of hypotheses, which may provide disincentive for hypothesis formulation. Here, we review common justifications for avoiding hypotheses and present new arguments based on benefits to the individual researcher. We argue that stating multiple alternative hypotheses increases research clarity and precision, and is more likely to address the mechanisms for observed patterns in nature. Although hypotheses are not always necessary, we expect their continued and increased use will help our fields move toward greater understanding, reproducibility, prediction, and effective conservation of nature.

Do birds help trees grow? An experimental study of the effects of land-use intensification on avian trophic cascades.

By regulating populations of herbivores, predators can indirectly influence plant production. However, the factors influencing the strength of this type of trophic cascade are still unclear. We hypothesized that changes to plant community structure would affect the number of avian predators, thereby mediating cascade strength. Using a 4-yr, blocked, split-plot experiment, we independently manipulated both predators (birds) and plants in an early seral managed forest system in western Oregon, USA, and measured abundance across three trophic levels. We applied herbicides, as a surrogate for land-use intensification, to recently clear-cut stands to establish an experimental gradient in plant abundance and species richness, and excluded birds using 28, 225 m2 exclosures. In total, we counted and identified 94,738 arthropods of 141 families in paired control and bird exclosure plots. On average, insectivorous birds reduced arthropod abundance by 16% and plant damage by 14%, and some well-known pests (e.g., Adelges cooleyi) of crop trees (mostly Pseudotsuga menziesii) in our system were reduced by as much as 30%. However, this effect did not translate into a trophic cascade that increased crop-tree growth in the presence of birds. We experimentally reduced plant abundance and diversity by 67% and 55%, respectively, in the most intensive herbicide treatment in relation to untreated controls, but reduced vegetative resources did not change the strength of the direct effect of birds on arthropods or the indirect effect of birds on plants.