Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Evaluation frameworks and conservation system of Latvian forests

Evaluation frameworks and conservation system of Latvian forests Since the 1990s the forest conservation system in Latvia has developedin two parallel trends. This reflects both traditional application ofcentral European phytosociology by explicit forest communities (at least 19 associations inLatvian forests) and the recently appreciated method of key-habitats in forests.It consists of two attributes: indicator species–habitat specialists andcertain abiotic structures whose persistent presence on the spot is limited byintactness, time-scale and natural disturbances. Following the interpretationmanual of habitats in the European Union, eight forest habitats deserve particularconservation in Latvia. Altogether 8% of Latvian forests are formally protected,although only 1.5% meet the World Conservation Union Category ‘1’where all human intervention must be excluded or minimized. Original analysis ofLatvian forest communities by their phytosociological standard and a comparisonwith similar assemblages elsewhere suggest that four forest groups deserveall-European conservation priority in Latvia because of intactness and largestands still survived or because of narrow distribution area. These are:Alnus glutinosa–Betula spp.–Fraxinus excelsior wetlands (ca. 3000 ha invarious formal reserve networks), northern outposts of mixed riverine hardwoodforests on the bank slopes and in semi-permanently moist ravines (ca. 240ha in reserves), floodplain and riverine Quercusrobur relic woodlands in eastern Latvia (ca. 120 ha inreserves) and dry Fennoscandian–Baltic Pinussylvestris woodlands on dolomites and limestones (no areas formallyprotected by law yet). Preliminary inventory of woodland key-habitats suggeststhat only 3% of Latvian forests can meet the desired criteria. This method,based on 53 indicator species indicating certain habitat properties and 25abiotic structures and stand features, has been found a valuable tool inforestry practice to evaluate the forest before any logging takes place and tomonitor spatial changes of biodiversity. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biodiversity and Conservation Springer Journals

Evaluation frameworks and conservation system of Latvian forests

Prieditis, Normunds
Biodiversity and Conservation , Volume 11 (8) – Oct 12, 2004
Download PDF
16 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/evaluation-frameworks-and-conservation-system-of-latvian-forests-NbS9GGbqtB

References (79)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Life Sciences; Evolutionary Biology; Tree Biology; Plant Sciences
ISSN
0960-3115
eISSN
1572-9710
DOI
10.1023/A:1016217832105
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Since the 1990s the forest conservation system in Latvia has developedin two parallel trends. This reflects both traditional application ofcentral European phytosociology by explicit forest communities (at least 19 associations inLatvian forests) and the recently appreciated method of key-habitats in forests.It consists of two attributes: indicator species–habitat specialists andcertain abiotic structures whose persistent presence on the spot is limited byintactness, time-scale and natural disturbances. Following the interpretationmanual of habitats in the European Union, eight forest habitats deserve particularconservation in Latvia. Altogether 8% of Latvian forests are formally protected,although only 1.5% meet the World Conservation Union Category ‘1’where all human intervention must be excluded or minimized. Original analysis ofLatvian forest communities by their phytosociological standard and a comparisonwith similar assemblages elsewhere suggest that four forest groups deserveall-European conservation priority in Latvia because of intactness and largestands still survived or because of narrow distribution area. These are:Alnus glutinosa–Betula spp.–Fraxinus excelsior wetlands (ca. 3000 ha invarious formal reserve networks), northern outposts of mixed riverine hardwoodforests on the bank slopes and in semi-permanently moist ravines (ca. 240ha in reserves), floodplain and riverine Quercusrobur relic woodlands in eastern Latvia (ca. 120 ha inreserves) and dry Fennoscandian–Baltic Pinussylvestris woodlands on dolomites and limestones (no areas formallyprotected by law yet). Preliminary inventory of woodland key-habitats suggeststhat only 3% of Latvian forests can meet the desired criteria. This method,based on 53 indicator species indicating certain habitat properties and 25abiotic structures and stand features, has been found a valuable tool inforestry practice to evaluate the forest before any logging takes place and tomonitor spatial changes of biodiversity.

Journal

Biodiversity and Conservation – Springer Journals

Published: Oct 12, 2004

There are no references for this article.