ArticleGlobal change biology2025
A Global Assessment of Plant and Animal Community Responses to Forest Management Over Time.
Article in Global change biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A global assessment of animal community responses to agricultural management.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Regional land use and land-use intensity effects on vertebrate biodiversity across Europe identified using species distribution models.Landscape ecology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Transitions to forest management that mitigate negative effects of forest use on biodiversity are required to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. To facilitate such transitions, it is vital to understand the effects of different forest management practices on biodiversity. In this study, we analyzed observation data of 182 studies (312,453 abundance values) from three global biodiversity databases to estimate the effects of seven types of forest management on plant and animal (i.e., insects and vertebrates) biodiversity over time, and on threatened animals. We captured biodiversity in four distinct metrics (i.e., quantifiable measures of community composition): (i) intactness, (ii) relative species richness, (iii) compositional similarity, and (iv) relative total abundance, all calculated as the difference in biodiversity between managed and undisturbed forests. Overall, we find larger effects of forest management on intactness and similarity compared to richness and abundance. This suggests that forest management leads to a loss of species that specifically occur in undisturbed forests but that this decline is partially offset by an influx of species from other areas. We find that extensive forest management, such as selective cutting and agroforestry, supports higher levels of overall and threatened biodiversity than intensive management, such as forest and perennial tree crop plantations. We also find significant increases in animal community intactness and similarity in agroforests and forest plantations over 40 and 80 years since establishment, respectively, but do not find this for relative species richness and total abundance. This indicates that animal communities in these management systems become increasingly similar to those of undisturbed forests. Overall, our results highlight the potential of selective cutting and agroforests to mitigate biodiversity loss compared to more intensive systems, as well as the potential of longer rotation periods in forest plantations to increase habitat availability for species specifically adapted to undisturbed forests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.