Translocation of deadwood in ecological compensation: A novel way to compensate for habitat loss.

Restoration of degraded habitat is frequently used in ecological compensation. However, ecological restoration suffers from innate problems of long delivery times of features shown to be good proxies for biodiversity, e.g., large dead trees. We tested a possible way to circumvent this problem; the translocation of hard-to-come deadwood substrates from an impact area to a compensation area. Following translocation, deadwood density in the compensation area was locally equivalent to the impact area, around 20 m3 ha-1, a threshold for supporting high biodiversity of rare and red-listed species. However, deadwood composition differed between the impact and compensation area, showing a need to include more deadwood types, e.g., late decomposition deadwood, in the translocation scheme. To guide future compensation efforts, the cost for translocation at different spatial scales was calculated. We conclude that translocation of deadwood could provide a cost-efficient new tool for ecological compensation/restoration but that the method needs refinement.

"Land-sparing benefits biodiversity while land-sharing benefits ecosystem services": Stakeholders' perspectives on biodiversity conservation strategies in boreal forests.

Biodiversity conservation and economic profit from forests can be combined by various land-sparing and land-sharing approaches. Using a semi-structured survey, we evaluated support for scenarios representing contrasting conservation strategies in a managed boreal forest landscape. Land-sparing approaches were supported by the conservation organisation, regional administrations and the forest company, mainly motivated by the benefit for biodiversity based on ecological theory. Land-sharing approaches were supported by one recreational organisation, some municipalities and the forest owners' association, mainly motivated by the delivery of ecosystem services. Stakeholder groups using certain ecosystem services had motivations that we related to an anthropocentric mindset, while others focused more on species conservation, which can be related both to an anthropocentric or an ecocentric mindsets. Forest conservation planning should consider stakeholders' preferences to handle land-use conflicts. Since reaching consensus among multiple stakeholders seems unfeasible, a combination of land-sparing and land-sharing approaches is probably the best compromise.

Land sharing complements land sparing in the conservation of disturbance-dependent species.

Alteration of natural disturbances in human-modified landscapes has resulted in many disturbance-dependent species becoming rare. Conservation of such species requires efforts to maintain or recreate disturbance regimes. We compared benefits of confining efforts to habitats in protected areas (a form of land sparing) versus integrating them with general management of production land (a form of land sharing), using two examples: fire in forests and grazing in semi-natural grasslands. We reviewed empirical studies from the temperate northern hemisphere assessing effects of disturbances in protected and non-protected areas, and compiled information from organisations governing and implementing disturbances in Sweden. We found advantages with protection of areas related to temporal continuity and quality of disturbances, but the spatial extent of disturbances is higher on production land. This suggests that an approach where land sparing is complemented with land sharing will be most effective for preservation of disturbance-dependent species in forests and semi-natural grasslands.

Keeping pace with forestry: Multi-scale conservation in a changing production forest matrix.

The multi-scale approach to conserving forest biodiversity has been used in Sweden since the 1980s, a period defined by increased reserve area and conservation actions within production forests. However, two thousand forest-associated species remain on Sweden's red-list, and Sweden's 2020 goals for sustainable forests are not being met. We argue that ongoing changes in the production forest matrix require more consideration, and that multi-scale conservation must be adapted to, and integrated with, production forest development. To make this case, we summarize trends in habitat provision by Sweden's protected and production forests, and the variety of ways silviculture can affect biodiversity. We discuss how different forestry trajectories affect the type and extent of conservation approaches needed to secure biodiversity, and suggest leverage points for aiding the adoption of diversified silviculture. Sweden's long-term experience with multi-scale conservation and intensive forestry provides insights for other countries trying to conserve species within production landscapes.

Correction to: Keeping pace with forestry: Multi-scale conservation in a changing production forest matrix.

In the original published article, the sentence "Nevertheless, semi-natural forest remnants continue to be harvested and fragmented (Svensson et al. 2018; Jonsson et al. 2019), and over 2000 forest-associated species (of 15 000 assessed) are listed as threatened on Sweden's red-list, largely represented by macro-fungi, beetles, lichens and butterflies (Sandström 2015)."under the section Introduction was incorrect. The correct version of the sentence is "Nevertheless, semi-natural forest remnants continue to be harvested and fragmented (Svensson et al. 2018; Jonsson et al. 2019), and approximately 2000 forest-associated species (of 15 000 assessed) are on Sweden's red-list, largely represented by macro-fungi, beetles, lichens and butterflies (Sandström 2015)."