Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31529355›Full record

ReviewAmbio2020

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

Adam Felton, Therese Löfroth, Per Angelstam, Lena Gustafsson, Joakim Hjältén, Annika M Felton, Per Simonsson, Anders Dahlberg, Matts Lindbladh, Johan Svensson and 10 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ambio, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Adam FeltonSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden. adam.felton@slu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8380-0430
Therese LöfrothSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden.
Per AngelstamFaculty of Forest Sciences, School for Forest Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 43, 730 91, Skinnskatteberg, Sweden.
Lena GustafssonDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7044, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
Joakim HjälténDepartment of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83, Umeå, Sweden.
Annika M FeltonSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden.
Per Simonsson, Härnösand, Sweden.
Anders DahlbergDepartment of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7026, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
Matts LindbladhSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden.
Johan SvenssonDepartment of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83, Umeå, Sweden.
Urban NilssonSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden.
Isak LodinSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden.
P O HedwallSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden.
Anna SténsDepartment of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden.
Tomas LämåsDepartment of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83, Umeå, Sweden.
Jörg BrunetSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden.
Christer KalénNational Forest Agency, Bryggargatan 19-21, 503 38, Borås, Sweden.
Bengt KriströmDepartment of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 90183, Umeå, Sweden.
Pelle GemmelSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden.
Thomas RaniusDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7044, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

FORMAS 2015-01190
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

ForestryTreesBiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesForestsSwedenBiodiversity conservationClimate change mitigationEven-aged forestryGreen-tree retentionHabitat lossProtected areas

Identifiers

PMID31529355
PMCPMC7067752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.