Articles containing the keyword 'cement'

The element content (Ca, Mg, K, Na, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Pb, S) of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) bark and Bryoria lichens, as well as the occurrence and coverage of epiphytic lichens and the length of Bryoria species, were studied in the vicinity of Kolari cement works, NW Finland. Fruticose Bryoria species had the highest coverage on pine trunks at a distance of 2 km or more from the cement works. At a distance of 1 km the foliose – or even crustose – Parmeliopsis species were most abundant, while nearer to the works lichens were almost completely absent. The length of Bryoria was reduced at distances of less than 2 km from the cement works. The calcium content in Bryoria species increased very steeply close to the works; by a factor of 60 at a distance of 1 km compared to 16 km. No corresponding increase in other elements was observed near the cement works. All the elements studied in pine bark showed a significant negative correlation with distance, and a significant positive correlation with the calculated dust deposition levels. There were only minor differences between the north and south of the pine trunks, or the side facing or away from the works. Pine bark analysis is recommended for element accumulation studies.

The PDF includes an abstract in English.

• Kortesharju, E-mail: mk@mm.unknown
• Kortesharju, E-mail: jk@mm.unknown

• Pingoud, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Espoo, Finland E-mail: kim.pingoud@vtt.fi
• Pohjola, University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: jp@nn.fi
• Valsta, University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: lv@nn.fi

• Ling, Centre for Advanced Computational Solutions (C-fACS), Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand E-mail: hl@nn.nz
• Samarasinghe, Centre for Advanced Computational Solutions (C-fACS), Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand E-mail: sandhya.samarasinghe@lincoln.ac.nz
• Kulasiri, Centre for Advanced Computational Solutions (C-fACS), Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand E-mail: gdk@nn.nz

• Cancino, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad de Concepción, Chile E-mail: jcancino@udec.cl
• Saborowski, Institut für Forstliche Biometrie und Informatik, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany E-mail: js@nn.de

• Repo, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Centre, P.O. Box 68, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: tapani.repo@metla.fi
• Laukkanen, University of Joensuu, Department of Physics, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: jl@nn.fi
• Silvennoinen, University of Joensuu, Department of Physics, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: rs@nn.fi

• Samarasinghe, Lincoln University, Appl. Computing, Mathematics and Statistics Group, P.O. Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand E-mail: ss@nn.nz
• Kulasiri, Lincoln University, Appl. Computing, Mathematics and Statistics Group, P.O. Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand E-mail: kulasird@tui.lincoln.ac.nz

Large parts of the boreal forest ecosystems have been greatly affected by human use, and the current timber-oriented forest management practice that dominates boreal forests is proven to cause biodiversity and ecosystem services declines. These negative effects are mitigated in various ways, including in-situ measures implemented upon harvest. The measures comprise trade-offs between economic and ecological aims; thus, requiring solid knowledge of their effectiveness. However, comprehensive literature review of the effectiveness of such measures is scarce. We aim to fill part of this void by reviewing the scientific literature that have gauged effects of four in-situ conservation measures: green tree retention (GTR), patch retention (PR), dead wood retention (DW) and riparian buffer zones (RB). Two outcomes were considered, species richness and species abundance across taxa.

From a total of 3012 initial papers, 48 met our inclusion criteria that generated 238 unique results. Results were grouped according to control. 178 studies used mature, unlogged forest as control. Out of those, 68% of the findings were not significant, i.e., suggesting no significant impact of harvest with biodiversity measures on species richness and species abundance compared to no harvest. Eighteen percent of the observations showed negative effects and 14% of the observations showed positive effects compared to no harvest. Sixty studies used harvest with no measures as control, of which 45% showed significant positive effects, meaning that compared to harvest with no measures, harvest with conservation measures has positively effects on species richness and abundance. However, 43% of the studies found no significant effect of the implemented conservation measures compared to harvest with no measures taken.

The relatively few significant results reported restrain distinct conclusions on the effectiveness of the assessed conservation measures, but some degree of conservation measure is likely to have positive effects on biodiversity in timber-production forest. However, the scientific basis does not allow for pointing to threshold levels. Higher transparency of study design and statistical results would allow us to include more studies. There is a clear need for more research of effectiveness of common conservation measures in timber-production forests in order to strengthen the knowledge basis. In particular, there are few studies that employ harvest without any conservation measure as control. This is pivotal knowledge for forest managers as well as for policymakers for preserving biodiversity and the ecosystems in forest.

• Tange, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Evenstad, Norway; Glommen Mjøsen Skog SA, Elverum, Norway https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3145-8159 E-mail: ane.tange@inn.no
• Sjølie, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Evenstad, Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8099-3521 E-mail: hanne.sjolie@inn.no
• Austrheim, University Museum Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Natural History, Trondheim, Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3909-6666 E-mail: gunnar.austrheim@ntnu.no

• Kuuluvainen, University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: timo.kuuluvainen@helsinki.fi
• Aakala, University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: ta@nn.fi

Long-term (47 years) effect of experimental whole tree harvesting (WTH) with a heavy soil scarification on ground cover vegetation was assessed in a dry nutrient-poor Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stand in Latvia. Neighbouring conventionally managed young (10 years) and mature (119 years) stands of the same type were used for comparison. Higher species richness was observed in the WTH stand compared to conventionally managed young and mature stands (24, 18 and 16 species, respectively), likely due to the profound disturbance. The Shannon diversity index was higher in the young than in the WTH and mature stands (2.36, 1.77 and 1.63, respectively); still, the composition and structure of ground cover vegetation in WTH was more similar to the mature stand. Nevertheless, the occurrence of oligotrophic species in the WTH stand suggested decreased soil nutrient content and potential development of different plant community. Hence, such method might be considered for restoration of oligotrophic stands. Nevertheless, the period of 47 years appeared sufficient for the ground cover vegetation to recover after the WTH.

• Jansons, Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”, 111 Rigas Str., LV 2169, Salaspils, Latvia E-mail: aris.jansons@silava.lv
• Robalte, Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”, 111 Rigas Str., LV 2169, Salaspils, Latvia E-mail: robalte.l@gmail.com
• Čakšs, Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”, 111 Rigas Str., LV 2169, Salaspils, Latvia E-mail: chakijs95@gmail.com
• Matisons, Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”, 111 Rigas Str., LV 2169, Salaspils, Latvia E-mail: roberts.matisons@silava.lv