Woodland key habitat contribution to preserve biological diversity in Lithuania: assessing the difference between 2005 and 2017


Ruškytė I., Brazaitis G., Manton M., Preikša Ž. (2021): Woodland key habitat contribution to preserve biological diversity: assessing the difference between 2005 and 2017. J. For. Sci., 67: 436–448.

download PDF

In response to the degradation of forest ecosystems, their habitats and the loss of species, many formal conservation policies and voluntary forest conservation tools have been proposed and implemented. The woodland key habitat (WKH) is one such initiative that aims to protect biodiversity. This generally involves two key actions: (i) the creation of policy (conservation action) and (ii) the consequences of the policy or initiative in the field. However, the final step of measuring their success in the field is often missing. The aim of this study is to assess the contribution of the WKH initiative to conserve biodiversity in Lithuania. We compared the changes in spatial distribution, species assemblages and richness within the WKH network between 2005 and 2017. Results showed that the spatial distribution of WKHs decreased in number and by area after 12 years. However, species occurrence, abundance and richness of the WHK network generally increased. In conclusion, we found the WKH initiative has contributed to the conservation of forest habitats and biodiversity in Lithuania. However, the future of the WKH network is uncertain due to the current voluntary system, lack of support and funding.

Andersson L., Kriukelis R. (2002): Pilot Woodland Key Habitat Inventory in Lithuania: Final Report. Vilnius, Forest Department, Ministry of Environment, Lithuania, and Regional Forestry Board of Östra Götaland, Sweden: 42.
Andersson L., Kriukelis R., Skuja S. (2005): Woodland Key Habitat Inventory in Lithuania. Vilnius, Forest Department, Ministry of Environment, Lithuania, and Regional Forestry Board of Östra Götaland, Sweden: 250.
Angelstam P. (1997): Landscape analysis as a tool for the scientific management of biodiversity. Ecological Bulletins, 46: 140–170.
Angelstam P., Andersson L. (2001): Estimates of the needs for forest reserves in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 16: 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/028275801300090582
Angelstam P., Andersson K., Axelsson R., Elbakidze M., Jonsson B.G., Roberge J.M. (2011): Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991–2010: Policy implementation process and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fennica, 45: 1111–1133. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.90
Angelstam P., Manton M., Green M., Jonsson B.G., Mikusiński G., Svensson J., Sabatini F.M. (2020): Sweden does not meet agreed national and international forest biodiversity targets: A call for adaptive landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 202: 103838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103838
Bohn U., Neuhäusl R., Gollub G., Hettwer C., Neuhäuslová Z., Raus T., Schluter H., Weber H. (2003): Map of the natural vegetation of Europe. Scale 1: 2 500 000. Münster, Bundesamt für Naturschutz.
Brazaitis G. (2014): Mokslinio tiriamojo projekto. Pakartotinė miško buveinių inventorizacija baigiamoji ataskaita. Akademija, Aleksandras Stulginskis University: 82. (in Lithuanian)
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2010): The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/sp
Eriksson S., Hammer M. (2006): The challenge of combining timber production and biodiversity conservation for long-term ecosystem functioning – A case study of Swedish boreal forestry. Forest Ecology and Management, 237: 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.046
European Commission (2019): The European Green Deal. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
European Commission (2020): EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_20_906
FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) (2020): The FSC National Forest Stewardship Standard of Lithuania. Bonn, Forest Stewardship Council: 74.
Forestry Statistics (2009): State Forest Service under the Ministry of Environment of the LR. Available at: http://www.amvmt.lt/index.php/leidiniai/misku-ukio-statistika/2009 (in Lithuanian; accessed Apr 15, 2021).
Forestry Statistics (2018): State Forest Service under the Ministry of Environment of the LR. Available at: http://www.amvmt.lt/index.php/leidiniai/misku-ukio-statistika/2018 (in Lithuanian; accessed Apr 15, 2021).
Forestry Statistics (2020): State Forest Service under the Ministry of Environment of the LR. Available at: http://www.amvmt.lt/index.php/leidiniai/misku-ukio-statistika/2020 (in Lithuanian; accessed Apr 30, 2021).
Gotelli N.J., Colwell R.K. (2011): Estimating species richness. In: Magurran A.E., Mcgill B.J. (eds): Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 39–54.
Gu W., Heikkilä R., Hanski I. (2002): Estimating the consequences of habitat fragmentation on extinction risk in dynamic landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 17: 699–710. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022993317717
Gustafsson L., De Jong J., Norén M. (1999): Evaluation of Swedish woodland key habitats using red-listed bryophytes and lichens. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8: 1101–1114.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008934526658
Hunter M.L., Schmiegelow F.K.A. (2011): Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry: Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity. 2nd Ed. Boston, Montreal, Prentice Hall: 259.
Karazija S. (1988): Lietuvos miškų tipai. Vilnius, Mokslas: 211. (in Lithuanian)
Karazija S. (2003): Woodland key habitats: the idea and reality. Mūsų Girios, 6/7: 4. (in Lithuanian)
Laita A., Mönkkönen M., Kotiaho J.S. (2010): Woodland key habitats evaluated as part of a functional reserve network. Biological Conservation, 143: 1212–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.029
Lele S., Springate-Baginski O., Lakerveld R., Deb D., Dash P. (2013): Ecosystem services: Origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conservation and Society, 11: 343–358. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.125752
Mansourian S., Vallauri D. (2014): Restoring forest landscapes: important lessons learnt. Environmental Management, 53: 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0213-7
Manton M., Makrickas E., Banaszuk P., Kołos A., Kamocki A., Grygoruk M., Stachowicz M., Jarašius L., Zableckis N., Sendžikaitė J., Peters J., Napreenko M., Wichtmann W., Angelstam P. (2021): Assessment and spatial planning for peatland conservation and restoration: Europe’s trans-border Neman River basin as a case study. Land, 10: 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020174
Naumov V., Manton M., Elbakidze M., Rendenieks Z., Priednieks J., Uhlianets S., Yamelynets T., Zhivotov A., Angelstam P. (2018): How to reconcile wood production and biodiversity conservation? The Pan-European boreal forest history gradient as an “experiment”. Journal of Environmental Management, 218: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.095
Noss R.F. (1990): Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4: 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x
Petrokas R., Baliuckas V., Manton M. (2020): Successional categorization of European hemi-boreal forest tree species. Plants, 9: 1381. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9101381
Popescu V.D., Rozylowicz L., Niculae I.M., Cucu A.L., Hartel T. (2014): Species, habitats, society: an evaluation of research supporting EU's Natura 2000 Network. PLoS ONE, 9: e113648. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113648
Preikša Ž., Brazaitis G. (2011): Diversity and abundance of cryptogams in mature broadleaf and mixed forests and key forest habitats of different forest groups. Miškininkystė, 1: 15–25. (in Lithuanian)
Rašomavičius V. (2021): Red Data Book of Lithuania. Animals, plants, fungi. Available at: https://www.raudonojiknyga.lt/knyga/91-isleista-naujoji-2021-m-lietuvos-raudonoji-knyga (in Lithuanian; accessed Apr 30, 2021).
Rauschmayer F., Berghöfer A., Omann I., Zikos D. (2009): Examining processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19: 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.506
Sabogal C., Besacier C., McGuire D. (2015): Forest and landscape restoration: Concepts, approaches, and challenges for implementation. Unasylva, 66: 3–10.
Stončius D. (2011): Woodland Key Habitats. Vilnius, Lithuanian Fund for Nature: 72. (in Lithuanian)
Svancara L.K., Brannon J.R., Scott M., Groves C.R., Noss R.F., Pressey R.L. (2005): Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: a review of political targets and biological needs. BioScience, 55: 989–995. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0989:PVECAR]2.0.CO;2
Timonen J., Siitonen J., Gustafsson L., Kotiaho J.S., Stokland J.N., Sverdrup-Thygeson A., Mönkkönen M. (2010): Woodland key habitats in northern Europe: concepts, inventory and protection. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 25: 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2010.497160
Siitonen J. (2001): Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological bulletins, 49: 11–41.
Ylisirniö A.L., Mönkkönen M., Hallikainen V., Ranta-Maunus T., Kouki J. (2016): Woodland key habitats in preserving polypore diversity in boreal forests: effects of patch size, stand structure and microclimate. Forest Ecology and Management, 373: 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.04.042
Wiens J.J., Donoghue M.J. (2004): Historical biogeography, ecology and species richness. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19: 639–644.
download PDF

© 2021 Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences | Prohlášení o přístupnosti