Abstract
Purpose of Review
We aimed to summarize the evidence linking multi-purpose forest management (MPF) to bird nesting and fledging success in temperate and boreal forests and to identify outstanding research gaps. Forest birds are in decline worldwide, but an ongoing move from production-oriented management towards MPF, integrating biodiversity conservation with other uses, may help counteracting these trends. The effects of MPF on bird diversity and abundance are well-studied, but less is known about effects on bird demographics.
Recent Findings
We retrieved 101 studies, reporting 342 outcomes of MPF for nesting and fledging success. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, we opted for a systematic mapping approach, accompanied by vote-counting and narrative review. Studies covered 11 types of MPF and 151 bird species. The most frequently studied interventions were overstorey retention and prescribed burning, but research was markedly biased towards temperate North America. Most outcomes (79.5%) were non-significant, and studies often found that breeding success was driven by ecological processes at both broader and finer scales than management interventions. Thus, managing for breeding success likely requires complementary management actions at various scales. Nonetheless, significant positive and negative outcomes of MPF were also found, inclusively affecting species of conservation concern, highlighting the variability and context-dependence of MPF effects.
Summary
In order to foster effectiveness of MPF for forest birds, future research should focus on a set of under-researched interventions and regions, as well as on ecosystem-wide experiments accounting for functional links between bird abundance, demographics, nest predation, and food supply.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Close to 31% of the global terrestrial surface is covered by forests, encompassing most of the worlds’ terrestrial biodiversity, and nearly half of that area consists of boreal and temperate forests [1]. Forest intactness is declining worldwide [2], as are the populations of forest-dependent species [3], including birds [4], the most closely monitored taxonomic group [5]. Abundance of boreal forest breeding birds has declined by more than 30% since 1970 in North America [6] and by 20% since 1980 in Europe [7], mostly due to the combined effects of climate change and rapid expansion of intensive forestry [8, 9]. In the temperate zone, declines are not as strong [6, 7], but a long history of human settlement and forest use has left little intact forest [10], and intensification of timber extraction still plays a role in driving bird declines [11, 12]. Thus, a shift in forest management practices in temperate and boreal forests may contribute to revert such declines.
Production-oriented silviculture is characterized by a simplification of forest structure, leading to loss of biodiversity by filtering out taxa dependent on late-successional structures or naturally-disturbed areas [13,14,15]. One option to address this issue is to set aside areas of forest for natural development. This segregative approach is uniquely beneficial to biodiversity if applied at large spatial scales [16, 17]. In addition, there is increasing societal interest in multi-purpose forest management (MPF) approaches, also designated multi-functional, integrative [18], ecologically sustainable [19] or closer-to-nature forest management (as per EU Forest Strategy for 2030, [20, 21]). MPF is defined as a set of practices that enable the provision of wood products alongside other services, including biodiversity conservation, by restoring and maintaining forest ecosystem integrity [18, 19]. It encompasses a broad array of practices, such as retention forestry [22], close-to-nature forestry [23], structural complexity enhancement [24], and natural disturbance-based forest management [25•], with a common denominator of bridging the biodiversity gap between fully-protected and intensively-managed forests [26]. Especially in the temperate zone, where old-growth forests are rare and would take a long time to develop, MPF practices are an attractive option for conservation [16].
MPF practices have proven effective at increasing structural complexity of production forests [27, 28]. In several European countries, the implementation of close-to-nature forestry in recent decades is thought to explain a reversal in the negative trends of forest bird populations [29,30,31]. Nonetheless, no form of MPF has an univocally positive effect on bird abundance and diversity, but outcomes rather vary across species and functional groups [32, 33]. Thus, the implementation of multiple MPF types is likely necessary to boost bird diversity at the landscape scale [34, 35]. For instance, species dependent on mature forests respond positively to retention of large living trees, tree patches and snags following harvesting [32, 36], whereas several specialized woodpeckers and ground or shrub-foraging species benefit from the creation of open forest conditions, as through prescribed burns [37, 38]. However, most aforementioned research focuses on the responses of bird assemblages to MPF in terms of abundance, species richness, and composition, which do not necessarily reflect habitat quality [39]. In order to achieve its conservation goals, management should strive not only to create habitat where targeted species are temporarily abundant but also to create high-quality habitat, enabling those species’ long-term persistence [40].
Demographic parameters—e.g. annual adult survival, clutch size or nesting success—determine the long-term stability of bird populations, providing as a whole a better measure of habitat quality than short-term abundance responses [40, 41•]. Unfortunately, as highlighted by [42, 43] in their reviews of birds’ responses to timber management and restoration plantings, very few studies have examined demographic responses. Nonetheless, there is evidence of standard forestry practices affecting nesting success (e.g. [44, 45]), potentially creating demographic sinks [46••]. Consequently, evaluating the effectiveness of MPF practices for bird conservation in a comprehensive manner implies measuring their demographic outcomes. Additionally, these data can inform predictive models of population dynamics under multiple management scenarios (e.g. [47, 48]), help in prioritization of conservation areas (as in [49]), and allow for detection of ecological traps (e.g. [50, 51]), i.e. situations where abundance of a species is decoupled from habitat quality, due to a low-quality habitat attracting individuals [39]. Ecological traps are a risk especially in novel habitats, such as those created by silvicultural management [52, 53].
Among bird demographic parameters, nesting success—the probability that at least one chick fledges from a nest [54]—is fairly easy to estimate and hence the most commonly evaluated [55, 56]. Alongside it, a more detailed metric, fledging success—expressed either as number of fledglings or proportion of eggs resulting in fledged young—is also often measured. Both metrics represent a sensitive point in the annual cycle of forest-breeding birds, since nestling growth is highly energy-demanding [57], and rates of nest loss, especially in passerines, can be very high [58], thus conditioning recruitment for the following breeding season [59, 60]. These demographic metrics may be affected jointly by multiple factors [61], such as food availability for nestlings [62], nest predation [63], parasitism [64] or brood parasitism [65]. However, it is nest predation that assumes a prominent role in limiting nesting success, particularly for open-cup nesters [63]. Direct control or exclusion of nest predators has proven an effective tool to boost populations of many bird species [66,67,68]. On the other hand, fledging success can be strongly influenced by weather conditions, food availability and interactions of the two—individual nestlings are susceptible to starvation, as demonstrated in studies carrying out experimental food supplementation [57, 62], or observing phenological mismatches with food supply (e.g. [69]). Therefore, measuring nesting and fledging success is helpful to narrow down the ecological drivers of changes in bird population size, so management can be adjusted to directly address those drivers [70, 71].
The effects of forest structure on nest predation and, thus on nesting success, have been thoroughly investigated using artificial nests [72], although this method precludes conclusions about species-specific predator–prey interactions [73, 74]. Timber harvests were for long hypothesized to increase nest predation, both due to creation of habitat edges at the stand scale and fragmentation of forests at the landscape scale [75], but it is yet unclear if partial harvesting, a form of MPF, could produce similar outcomes. Multiple artificial-nest studies have even found nest predation to increase towards the forest interior [76, 77]. On the other hand, wherever MPF promotes more complex vegetation, this may reduce nest predation by ensuring improved nest concealment (e.g. [44]). As for the effects of MPF on nestling food supply, studies have shown negative effects of partial harvesting on food provisioning rates for some species (e.g. [78]), but no effect on food abundance for others (e.g. [79]), and prescribed burns reportedly increase abundance of spiders [80•], a key prey item for songbirds [81, 82]. Still, it is unclear whether changes in food supply due to MPF practices translate into increased fledging success in contrast to intensively-managed stands. A growing body of evidence reveals declines in forest insect populations [83, 84], but such declines may be countered by increasing forest structural complexity [83] and favouring native plant species [85], with potential benefits for birds. Clearly, more evidence is needed from studies explicitly linking management practices with demographic outcomes and their drivers, especially through experimental approaches [43, 86, 87].
In this paper, we review the current evidence linking MPF practices in boreal and temperate forests to bird demographics, focusing on nesting and fledging success, and aiming to answer the following questions: (1) Do MPF practices result in improved nesting or fledging success outcomes for forest birds, when compared with more production-oriented management or with natural benchmarks? (2) How do outcomes vary across different forms of MPF? (3) What implications does this have for assessing habitat quality in MPF treatments? (4) Which research gaps exist, regarding regions, management interventions, experimental designs and species covered? With this we strive not only to offer a summary of the available evidence, but also provide directions for further research, ultimately aiming to strengthen evidence-based management towards the conservation of forest birds.
Methods
Inclusion Criteria
For screening of studies resulting from database searches, we defined an a priori set of inclusion criteria, described below. We followed the PICO (Population-Intervention-Control-Outcome) framework, adapted from evidence-based medicine methodology [88, 89].
The population of interest consisted of studies on forest-inhabiting breeding birds conducted in boreal and temperate forests on either hemisphere, including peer-reviewed studies as well as the grey literature they may cite. We included four biomes [90]—(1) boreal forests/taiga, (2) temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, (3) temperate coniferous forests and (4) Mediterranean forests, woodland and scrub—but also any smaller forest patches (e.g. riparian corridors) in neighbouring drier biomes (deserts or temperate grasslands and savannas). We defined forests as per FAO [91], thus including early-successional areas with potential to develop into forest. Studies may focus on one or more bird species, of which at least one must be a forest bird species, understood as nesting and foraging more than incidentally in forests over a significant portion of its range [33].
The treatments of interest were MPF interventions. We only included interventions modifying stand-scale forest structure and which are expected to offer a benefit for biodiversity when compared with production-oriented forestry, even if biodiversity conservation was not the primary management goal. This included direct interventions, e.g. creating canopy gaps by harvesting, but also indirect interventions, e.g. exclusion from ungulate browsing, and passive interventions, e.g. avoiding thinning of understorey vegetation. Conversely, we excluded clearcutting (when compared against unharvested forests), control of silvicultural insect pests, direct control of nest predators, food supplementation, provision of nest boxes, modifications of landscape-level forest amount or configuration, and conversion of non-forest land to forest. We only included studies with experimental or quasi-experimental designs, i.e. where management interventions were treated categorically, controls were available, and treatment effects were separable from other measured covariates. So-called “natural experiments” (e.g. wildfires, storms, insect outbreaks) were excluded, as they may differ in their effects from anthropogenic modifications [50].
MPF interventions may be compared both against more production-oriented, “business-as-usual” management practices, or against stands that represent a target state or benchmark. We named these as alternative management (AM) and natural reference (NR) controls, respectively. Whereas the former provide information on the actual impact of MPF interventions, the latter inform how closely that impact approaches a desired scenario [92••]. NR controls are not necessarily unmanaged forests but must not have been recently subjected to the MPF intervention or its more intensive alternative. The choice of which stand types are designated as AM or NR controls depends on the type of management intervention under study and is described in detail in Table 1.
Lastly, we included studies reporting on two response variables—nesting success and fledging success, as defined in the “Introduction” section. Studies must have conducted a statistical test of the difference in these parameters between the treatment and control. Other demographic parameters, such as clutch size or annual adult survival, did not fall under the scope of this review. Nesting or fledging success measurements may have been obtained from natural nests or nest boxes, but we excluded studies using artificial eggs or quail eggs.
Database Search and Article Screening
We built one search string with 39 terms, having in mind the scope and inclusion criteria of this review: (*bird* OR avian) AND (forest* OR woodland*) AND (experiment* OR manipulat* OR remov* OR reduct* OR control* OR addit* OR supplement* OR creat* OR enrich* OR retain* OR promot* OR restor* OR improv* OR conserv* OR manag* OR prescrib* OR legac* OR treatment OR intervention OR retention OR silvicult*) AND (food* OR feed* OR forag* OR predat* OR “nest* site*” OR “nest supply” OR “nest availability”) AND (“nest* success” OR “breeding success” OR productiv* OR fledg*ing* OR offspring OR survival). MPF is a term with very broad definitions, and many relevant studies do not include it in their title, abstract or keywords. Likewise, terminology about individual MPF practices is varied and often inconsistent. For this reason, instead of including “multi-purpose forest management” or any specific practice in our search string, we used a set of verbs which maximizes search sensitivity whilst sacrificing specificity, as suggested by [93]. Furthermore, we did not include geographical terms in our search string, but filtered out studies outside of temperate and boreal biomes during the subsequent screening process.
Using the aforementioned search string, we ran a topic search (i.e. title, abstract and keywords) on the Web of Science Core Collection and eight other Web of Science databases (BIOSIS Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents Connect, Data Citation Index, KCI-Korean Journal Database, Russian Science Citation Index, SciELO Citation Index and Zoological Record), on 15 December 2021. We searched for additional studies on the Conservation Evidence database (https://www.conservationevidence.com/data/studies), which was purposefully built to gather evidence about the effectiveness of management actions [94], on 15 June 2022. We filtered the search on Conservation Evidence using the following criteria: category “Forest” or “Birds”; habitat “Forest & Woodland”; threat “Natural systems modification”, “Biological resource use” or “Other”; action type “Land/water management”, “Land/water protection”, “Species management” or “Other”. We applied no filters for keywords or countries. Searches on both databases were repeated once more on 22 November 2023, to capture recently published studies.
After removing duplicate results, search hits were then screened against the inclusion criteria, first by reading the title, then the abstract or summary, and when necessary by reading the full text. Each of these steps resulted in a portion of the search hits being excluded, until we reached a set of relevant studies. Whenever there was doubt about whether to exclude a study based on the title or abstract, we adopted a conservative approach and retained it for the next step of screening. Lastly, we expanded that set of studies by screening all studies citing them in the Web of Science Core Collection (forward search), as well by screening their bibliographies (backward search), and adding any relevant hits. This citation-based search method (“citation chasing” or “snowballing”), though not widely in use, is recommended to supplement a database search [95, 96], and it provided us with relevant grey literature which is not captured by Web of Science searches. Citation chasing is especially effective at detecting semantically-connected studies when the topic of interest contains inconsistent terminology [95, 97], as is our case. When we found more than one study on the same study area and species, with overlapping datasets, we kept only the study with the largest dataset. The full screening workflow, with the number of publications considered on each step, is presented on Fig. 1, as a PRISMA flowchart [98], designed with R package “DiagrammeR” [99, 100].
Data Extraction and Summarization
We analysed studies following a systematic mapping approach [101, 102], which prioritizes building a comprehensive summary of the state of evidence, knowledge gaps and knowledge clusters in a broad topic of interest—as are different management actions and their effects on forest birds (e.g. [92••])—over a purely quantitative analysis of a narrower set of studies. From each study, we extracted all bibliographical information and study area coordinates, which we assigned to the biomes defined by [90]. As a taxonomy is lacking for MPF interventions, we classified the interventions analysed in each study using an ad hoc approach, based on their conservation goals, on which vegetation layers were most affected and which tools were employed (e.g. harvesting or fire). We provide a description of each of these classes on Table 1. Based on the intervention under study, we checked which type of control was used (AM, NR or both) and which experimental design the study followed—before-after (BA), control-impact (CI) or with both comparisons (BACI).
Next, we extracted all relevant outcomes reported in each study. Each study may contain multiple outcomes, defined as the response of a single bird species or an aggregate of species to a given MPF intervention in comparison with a given control (AM or NR), measured by a given response type (fledging or nesting success). For each outcome, we noted if the outcome of the MPF practice was statistically significant (at α = 0.05), and if significant we noted the direction of the effect. We then obtained the frequencies of non-significant, negative and positive reported effects for each MPF intervention type, grouping them by control type and response type, and plotted these summaries with R and package “ggplot2” [103]. We opted for this vote-counting approach to summarize study outcomes, rather than for a meta-analysis, because studies were very heterogenous in nature, including several understudied management types, and did not always report the necessary data for a meta-analysis (as in [92••]). However, vote-counts do not take into account variations in sampling effort and overall study validity across studies [95]. In order to carry out a critical appraisal of study outcomes, in particular identifying whether non-significant effects may be explained by lack of statistical power, we extracted for each outcome a metric of sampling effort—the number of monitored nests per year and per treatment. The literature suggests a minimum sample size of 20 nests per year and per treatment to estimate nesting success [104]. We then tested whether increasing sampling effort is linked with an increasing proportion of significant effects, using a logistic generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with R package “lme4” [105], taking study identity as a random factor.
Interpretation of vote-counts may be further complicated by pooling of effects from varying numbers of studies and species subjected to the same MPF intervention, as well as by the varied habitat requirements of those species. Therefore, in order to put study outcomes into context, we extracted information on the species associated with each outcome, namely to which nesting and feeding guild they belong (according to Birds of the World, [106]), and whether they are species of conservation concern, i.e. with a threat status in global [107] or relevant national and subnational red lists (e.g. NatureServe status, for the USA and Canada, [108]). Lastly, we noted down for each study if other variables, such as abundance or clutch size, were measured, as well as any explanations that the authors proposed for the reported breeding success outcomes, especially concerning nest predators and food supply for nestlings. If abundance outcomes were available, we also recorded whether the direction of MPF effects on species’ abundances matches that of breeding success.
Results
We identified 101 relevant studies (Appendix S1). The search on Web of Science yielded 5339 hits, which were narrowed down to 67 relevant studies after screening (Fig. 1). We then added 4 relevant studies from the Conservation Evidence database and 30 studies resulting from backwards and forwards citation searches (after excluding duplicates). The earliest studies were published in 1990, and since then an average of 3.5 studies were published per year, reaching a maximum of 9 in 2011 (Fig. 2). Studies were published in 31 indexed peer-reviewed journals, besides one study in conference proceedings, one technical report, one doctoral dissertation and one study in a non-indexed journal. Out of the 97 studies, 55 were published in just five journals: Forest Ecology and Management (19 studies), Journal of Wildlife Management (12), Condor/Ornithological Applications (9), Conservation Biology (8) and The Wilson Bulletin/The Wilson Journal of Ornithology (7).
Studies were geographically concentrated in North America (Fig. 3), with only 13 studies in Europe, and none found in temperate or boreal regions of Asia, Oceania, Africa or South America. As for the distribution of studies across biomes, nearly half (46 studies) took place in temperate broadleaf & mixed forests, followed by temperate conifer forests (31), and much fewer in boreal forests (5) and Mediterranean forests (5). More than half of the reviewed studies only compared MPF outcomes against an alternative management control (53 studies), whilst 32 studies only used a natural reference control and 16 used both control types. Only 16 studies made use of a before-after control-impact (BACI) study design, and all others but one used a control-impact design. As a whole, 151 bird species are covered (Appendix S2), but nesting or fledging success outcomes are reported at single-species level for only 95 of them, and 57 studies report outcomes for only one species. Among all species covered, there are 118 songbirds from 23 families (Parulidae being best represented), 17 woodpeckers, 4 hummingbirds, 4 Galliformes, 3 raptors and 5 species from other groups.
We classified the MPF interventions covered by the studies into 11 types (Table 1). The most frequent intervention type was retaining overstorey (37 studies), followed by restoring fire (19) and thinning overstorey (13). Four types were represented by less than five studies: creating dead wood (1), restoring hydrology (2), buffering edges (3) and salvage logging with retention (4). Additionally, MPF types were not represented equally across different biomes (Fig. 4). For instance, studies on the effects of overstorey retention took place mainly in temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, whereas studies on the effects of restoring fire, overstorey thinning and understorey retention took place mainly in temperate conifer forests and temperate conifer savannas. The 101 reviewed studies reported 354 management outcomes, each study reporting between 1 and 14 outcomes (listed in Appendix S1). Nesting success was much more often reported than fledging success, with 260 and 94 outcomes respectively. The most ubiquitous measure of nesting success was the daily nest survival rate, measured using the Mayfield method [122]. The two species with the highest number of reported outcomes were the great tit (Parus major, 14 outcomes) and the wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina, 13 outcomes). The proportion of outcomes found for each nesting guild varied according to the MPF intervention under study, but ground-nesting species were generally underrepresented, especially in regards to overstorey retention (Appendix S3). Sampling effort ranged from 0.2 to 184.8 (median = 10.7) nests per year and per treatment. The proportion of significant outcomes (positive or negative) was not significantly related with sampling effort (logistic GLMM, likelihood ratio test χ2 = 0.6057, p = 0.436, Appendix S4).
When contrasting MPF practices against alternative management practices (AM), the most frequent outcome was a non-significant effect on nesting and fledging success (199 of 239 outcomes, 83%, upper panel of Fig. 5), and for each intervention type individually. This remained true (40 of 49 outcomes) when including only outcomes based on a high sampling effort (> 20 nests monitored per year and sampling unit, Appendix S5). We found 26 positive effects (11%) of MPF on nesting or fledging success when compared with AM, covering seven intervention types, and 14 negative effects (6%), covering six intervention types (upper panel of Fig. 5). Four species of conservation concern—Siberian tit (Poecile cinctus), Bachman’s sparrow (Peucaea aestivalis), white-headed woodpecker (Leuconotopicus albolarvatus) and golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera)—showed higher breeding success in MPF treatments. Two others—cerulean warbler (Setophaga cerulea), prairie warbler (Setophaga discolor)—, as well as a group containing hooded warbler (Setophaga citrina) and worm-eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum), showed instead a lower breeding success in MPF treatments. The full list of species for which positive and negative effects were reported is in Appendix S6. Overstorey retention showed a lower frequency of positive effects (2 of 51) compared with restoring fire (11 of 55). Four intervention types—overstorey retention, understorey retention, edge buffering and restoring hydrology—showed either non-significant or positive effects on breeding success, whereas three intervention types—understorey thinning, dead wood creation and others—showed either non-significant or negative effects. Out of the 239 comparisons with AM controls, 117 were accompanied by abundance data (Appendix S7). In 6 of those instances, concerning 5 species, MPF resulted in both higher breeding success and higher abundance. In 3 cases, concerning 2 species (cerulean warbler and northern cardinal, Cardinalis cardinalis), there was indication of an ecological trap, with higher abundance but lower breeding success in MPF treatments. For one species, the wood thrush, MPF (prescribed burning) resulted in lower abundance but higher breeding success, compared to the AM control.
When contrasting MPF practices against natural references (NR), the most frequent outcome was a non-significant effect on nesting and fledging success (84 of 114 outcomes, 74%, lower panel of Fig. 5). This remained true (16 of 22 outcomes) when including only outcomes based on a high sampling effort (Appendix S5). Reported outcomes compared with NR controls were few for most MPF types, except for retaining overstorey, retaining understorey and salvage with retention, and did not exist for three types—buffering edges, restoring hydrology and creating dead wood. Non-significant effects were the most frequent outcome for overstorey retention (57 of 73) and retention in salvage logging (15 of 17), but not for understorey retention. In the case of overstorey retention, a non-significant effect on breeding success was often accompanied by a significant increase in abundance in MPF treatments, compared to NR controls (20 of 46 instances, Appendix S7). We found 21 negative effects (18%) in comparison to NR, encompassing seven intervention types, and 10 positive effects (9%), covering only two intervention types—overstorey retention and understorey retention. As for species of conservation concern, these were reported to have either lower (8 outcomes) or similar (non-significant, 15 outcomes) breeding success in MPF treatments than in NR controls. The full list of species for which positive and negative effects were reported is in Appendix S6. Three species, two of them of conservation concern—yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) and house wren (Troglodytes aedon)—showed evidence of an ecological trap, with decreases in breeding success in MPF treatments concurring with an increase in abundance. Another species, the California towhee (Melozone crissalis) showed the opposite pattern, with higher density in NR controls (long-ungrazed forest) but higher nesting and fledging success in the MPF treatment (a moderately-grazed area).
Discussion
Effects of MPF on Nesting and Fledging Success
Our review indicates that demographic responses of forest bird species to different MPF practices in temperate and boreal forests are mixed and highly context-dependent. We found multiple cases where MPF led to increases in breeding success, several of which referred to species of conservation concern. In contrast, we also identified negative effects and several instances where MPF created ecological traps. Despite that, non-significant effects were the most frequently reported outcome, and this was remarkably consistent across management types, control types and responses analysed. This must be interpreted with caution, due to the small sample sizes of most studies and associated low statistical power. Still, we showed that non-significant effects remained dominant at larger sample sizes and that positive and negative effects can be of sufficient magnitude to be detected with small sample sizes. Therefore, our results do suggest that stand-level MPF practices frequently lead to neutral or small-magnitude effects on bird breeding success. Given the contribution of low productivity levels to the declining populations of many forest species [112, 123, 124], this highlights a need for complementary management solutions (e.g. [125]) or further adaptation of MPF practices, in order to effectively boost breeding success and fulfil long-term commitments towards forest biodiversity conservation (e.g. [126]).
Studies showing non-significant responses to MPF often identified other factors with a significant influence on nesting and fledging success, pointing the way for management actions that may be more effective at increasing bird productivity. Several studies proposed that retention practices should focus on retaining favoured nesting substrates or high-quality foraging microhabitats for targeted species (e.g. [127,128,129]), acting on smaller-scale features than usual for MPF. Also for grassland birds, nest survival has been found to be more strongly affected by fine-scale habitat than by patch-level management actions [130]. Other reviewed studies showed that nesting success was rather driven by patterns of nest predation and brood parasitism at larger spatial (e.g. forest fragmentation, in [131]) and temporal scales (e.g. tree masting cycles, in [132]). In landscapes with high forest cover, levels of predation may be low across the landscape (e.g. [133]), and harvest gaps do not provide comparable anthropogenic subsidies to generalist predators [134] and brood parasites [135] as does the proximity to farmland and urbanized areas. Conversely, in highly-fragmented forests, landscapes may be saturated with generalist predators and brood parasites, so that nest success remains overall low, regardless of local management (e.g. [136]). Moreover, in a structurally complex forest environment, where multiple predator guilds are present, MPF may result in compositional turnover of the nest predator assemblage, but not necessarily in overall increases in nest predation [127], as seen for Bachman’s sparrows in the context of overstorey thinning [137••]. This possibly explains why prescribed burns lead to lower increases in nest survival in forests than in simpler grassland environments [66]. Manifestly, effects of MPF on nest predation and nesting success are contingent on the identity of prey and predators, and future nest monitoring studies should ascertain nest predator identities, e.g. through camera trapping [138].
When positive effects of MPF on nesting success were found, in comparison with alternative management controls, this was attributed to a change not only in nest predator abundances (e.g. [139, 140]), but also in the accessibility of nests to predators (e.g. [141,142,143]). For instance, standard thinning practices have been shown to reduce nesting success for boreal forest species through reduced nest concealment [43, 101], and understorey retention may counteract that effect, an idea which is supported by two of the reviewed studies [142, 143]. Also the restoration of flooding regimes was shown to increase the nesting success of prothonotary warblers (Protonotaria citrea), a floodplain forest indicator species, thanks to decreased accessibility of flooded areas to raccoons (Procyon lotor), their main nest predator [141]. Furthermore, although none of the reviewed studies investigated this link, MPF may alter the behaviour and habitat selection of nest predators [144], thereby affecting bird nesting success. That is a topic worthy of further investigation, again requiring knowledge of nest predator identities.
Regarding positive effects of MPF on fledging success, several studies on parid species linked that outcome with an improved food supply for nestlings. For the Siberian tit, a specialist of mature forests, overstorey retention was linked to both higher abundances and higher fledging success, in comparison with intensively-managed stands, and this was likely driven by insect availability [145]. Also great tits showed increased feeding activity and fledging success in low-browsing areas in Norway [146]. Both studies are consistent with previous evidence of bottom-up forces driving the abundance and richness of boreal forest songbirds [147, 148]. Fledging success of great tits was also increased where conifer plantations were enriched with broadleaf trees [149], and where exotic or resource-poor native trees were replaced by insect-rich native tree species [150]. Both studies included data on food supply, supporting the assertion that tree species identity is more important than tree diversity in providing food for nestlings. In fact, many foliage-gleaning birds exhibit foraging specialization on less common, early to mid-successional broadleaf tree species with high arthropod densities [151, 152].
As for negative effects of MPF on nesting and fledging success, these were accompanied in several cases by increases in abundance, indicating ecological traps (e.g. [127, 153, 154]). MPF treatments may create such situations due to a combination of attractive foraging conditions with lack of safe nesting sites and high accessibility to brood parasites [127, 155]. Nonetheless, it has been proposed that management measures that consider fine-scale habitat quality (e.g. retaining beech trees with heart rot, for yellow-bellied sapsuckers [127]) can help disarm ecological traps. Negative effects can also arise from the fact that MPF interventions have diverse and sometimes opposing goals (e.g. overstorey retention vs. overstorey thinning or prescribed burns), targeting different species groups, so that any form of MPF risks producing negative impacts on non-targeted species. Among the reviewed studies, the negative effects of prescribed burns concerned primarily ground-nesting species, likely affected by reduction of nest concealment through fire [66]. Fire and fire-surrogate treatments are known to produce conservation trade-offs for sensitive forest interior species [139, 156, 157] and our results reinforce the need for complementary management strategies at the landscape scale, in order to minimize such trade-offs. Lastly, short-term decreases in breeding success following MPF treatments may not reflect longer-term outcomes. For instance, removal of non-native understorey vegetation can force birds to nest in exposed locations, decreasing nest survival, before native vegetation can fully recover [158], even if native shrubs are ultimately safer nesting sites [159].
Surprisingly, multiple reviewed studies found higher nesting or fledging success in MPF treatments than in natural reference controls (e.g. [128, 160,161,162]). In the context of understorey retention, this suggests that certain shrub-nesting species, otherwise expected to benefit from a denser understorey, are well-adapted to moderate disturbance of that layer [163]. In the case of overstorey retention, these positive effects reveal that unharvested stands may be inadequate benchmarks, as they carry the legacy of previous management [164], and in such cases birds may actually benefit from small-scale harvests mimicking natural gap formation processes [165].
Implications for Habitat Quality
Even when MPF practices do not affect bird breeding success, that does not necessarily translate into ineffectiveness of MPF in improving habitat quality for birds. In multiple reviewed studies, abundance was measured concurrently with breeding outcomes, and the former increased in response to MPF interventions. There is also an ample body of literature linking various MPF practices with increased abundances of targeted bird species (see Introduction). This hints that abundance is often limited by factors other than breeding success, and thus abundance can be a suitable indicator for changes in habitat quality with MPF treatments. For instance, no positive effects were reported for salvage with retention, dead wood creation and restoration of traditional Mediterranean silvopastoral systems (in MPF category “others”) on nesting or fledging success, but these interventions primarily targeted cavity-nesting birds, which have high levels of nest survival [63]. Instead, populations of cavity-nesters are limited by the scarcity of suitable nesting sites in production forests [33], an issue which the aforementioned types of MPF help minimizing (see both reviewed studies [121, 166], and others, e.g. [117, 167, 168]). In [169], protecting the understorey from overbrowsing provided more nest sites for orange-crowned warblers, thereby increasing their density (Leiothlypis celata), despite no change in nesting success. Birds may also respond to increased food abundance in MPF treatments through denser packing of territories, rather than increased productivity [170, 171], in line with the concept of an ideal free distribution [172]. Moreover, in the case of overstorey retention, although nesting success and abundance may be reduced after harvesting, this form of management remains a preferable alternative to clearcuts, in which nesting habitat for closed-forest specialists is entirely missing [173, 174].
Although we focused on nesting and fledging success, other demographic metrics should not be overlooked when judging the effects of MPF on habitat quality for forest birds. For example, post-fledging survival may be strongly limited by food supply and predation, and limit in turn population growth [175], whilst being also responsive to habitat management [176]. Among our reviewed studies, [177] noted that partial harvests may produce a demographic trade-off for wood thrushes, boosting post-fledging survival even when nesting success is reduced. Also [178] found that burning and overstorey thinning resulted in improved body condition of pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) nestlings, despite no significant change in fledging success. Food availability can also condition reproductive investment, expressed as number of broods or clutch size [179]. Hence, future demographic studies should incorporate various aspects of the annual cycle of forest birds, to obtain a full picture of their response to MPF interventions.
Research Gaps
In the course of this review, we identified a set of prominent research gaps. Eight MPF types were covered by less than 10 studies each (Table 1), representing priorities for future research. For example, as natural disturbances are on the rise in European forests [180], it is especially relevant to develop salvage logging practices which safeguard biodiversity and forest resilience [181]. Also restoration of hydrological regimes is increasingly applied as a tool to recover boreal forest peatlands (e.g. [182]) and temperate floodplain forests [183], a particularly species-rich habitat [184]. Additionally, the better-studied practices of prescribed burning and overstorey thinning have mostly been evaluated in the context of temperate conifer forests and pine savannas, but fires and other large-scale natural disturbances play an increasingly-recognized role in temperate broadleaf forests [185, 186], thus warranting further research in that biome.
As for the bird species covered, ground-nesters were under-represented in the studies we reviewed. Ground-nesting birds dependent on closed-canopy forests may be particularly sensitive to changes in nest predation driven by harvest gaps and associated change in ground cover [174, 187]. Besides, in our review we noted negative outcomes of prescribed burning for non-targeted ground-nesting birds. Hence, future research on the effects of overstorey retention and prescribed fire should prioritize this bird guild. As for the studied response variables, nesting success was much more often measured than fledging success. High nesting success, as that shown by cavity-nesters [188], may sometimes not be a good indicator of fledging success. Cavity-nesters show lowered fledging success in salvage-logged areas [189•], but is yet unclear to what degree retention practices could minimize these effects. Studies on fledging success would also be warranted when creating forest edge buffers, given their potential to improve foraging conditions [190].
Studies were patently biased towards temperate North America, a pattern also found in previous systematic reviews on retention forestry practices [32] or on restoration success [191]. This is perhaps the result of the pioneering role of the USA in implementation of MPF practices, such as retention harvests [22] and prescribed burns [109], alongside the establishment of long-term, nation-wide research networks to evaluate these practices, such as the US Forest Service Experimental Forests [192], the Fire and Fire Surrogate Study [193] or the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program [194]. However, this bias implies that current research is out of step with worldwide implementation of MPF practices, and more demographic studies are needed in other parts of the world. Managed forests cover large swathes of Europe and Asia [195], and increasingly so in boreal regions [9]. MPF practices, under the designation of close-to-nature forestry, and more recently retention forestry, are widely implemented in Europe [196], Japan (e.g. [197]) and in temperate regions of South America [198]. In the fire-prone forests of Australia, the use of prescribed burns is well-established [199] and previous research has examined their effects on bird assemblages (e.g. [200]), but has stopped short of examining demographic responses.
Studies also showed several methodological limitations. Nest-finding is more time-consuming than standard bird surveys, and precise estimates of breeding success require frequent visits (i.e. every 2–4 days) until chicks fledge [56]. Finding nests of certain species may be especially difficult, it may involve disturbance risks for threatened species, and the number of available nests depends on territory density. This implies that breeding success can only be compared between habitats where the species is nesting, and larger nest search areas are needed where densities are lower, so as to ensure sufficient sample size. Moreover, the time and cost of nest monitoring prevent researchers from achieving high sample sizes, that would enable higher statistical power, and from collecting data from multiple independent sites—incurring the risk of pseudoreplication, and thus limiting reliability and reproducibility of findings. One option to ensure sufficient sample sizes is to aggregate nest data within bird functional groups (e.g. nesting guild), as done in several reviewed studies. That approach, however, obscures intra-guild variation across species in their responses to management [201]. Another promising alternative is to use reproductive activity indices (e.g. [202]), as implemented in two studies we reviewed [203, 204], or even behavioural observations alongside point count surveys [205]. Still, caution is needed with these approaches, due to low detectability of relevant behaviours in forest habitats [206], and local validation with nest monitoring data is still recommended.
Adaptive management provides unique opportunities for demographic studies, as research can take advantage of large extents of forests undergoing management changes [71, 92••]. Nonetheless, adaptive management studies still suffer from short durations [207], and only a few of the studies we reviewed covered more than 10 years after intervention. Only longer-term monitoring can assess the effect of retaining structures across harvesting rotations, or detect time-lagged responses of nest predators. Studies covering large spatial and temporal scales would also facilitate the use of BACI experimental designs—which were uncommon in the reviewed studies but provide the best-quality evidence [86]—and improve the chance of finding adequate natural references (as in [178]). Indeed, more than half of the studies did not include natural references as controls, and especially for prescribed burns and overstorey thinning, control stands under natural disturbance regimes (e.g. [208]) are lacking.
Conclusions and Management Implications
The studies we reviewed reveal that, whilst stand-level MPF practices appear to have limited effects on the nesting and fledging success of boreal and temperate forest birds, this may be attributed to a mismatch between the scale of management and the scale at which ecological processes act, especially nest predation. Other tools, such as landscape-level planning (e.g. [209]), predator control [66], and fine-scale provision of specific microhabitats (e.g. [127, 210]) should complement MPF in order to boost productivity for species of conservation interest. MPF practices can still contribute to improve habitat quality for birds in managed forests, but abundance and other demographic metrics are potentially better-suited indicators of habitat quality at that scale than nesting or fledging success. Nonetheless, for particular species and intervention types, including species of conservation concern, we found evidence of positive breeding success outcomes. With this review, we offer an annotated list of studies from which practitioners may glean valuable information for their specific management scenarios. Moreover, several biomes, intervention types and species groups were underrepresented in the reviewed studies. The lack of context-specific research is a recognized obstacle for the implementation of conservation measures by practitioners [211]. Thus, we also call for continued development of locally-relevant studies on the effects of MPF on bird demographics, focusing on the set of research gaps we identified.
There is still insufficient evidence as to how MPF practices could be combined and upscaled, given the varying benefits of different MPF types for different sets of species, possible trade-offs for non-targeted species, and the economic costs associated with long-term application of management prescriptions. Furthermore, management decisions are strongly driven by the intuitive knowledge of practitioners [211], which may condition which practices they are willing to implement, i.e. the “knowing-doing gap”, and ultimately which practices are studied. Researchers themselves are in a unique position to develop innovative management approaches [212], testing the boundaries of current management traditions (e.g. [28]). Therefore, we argue for the need of ecosystem-wide experimental studies, focused on species of conservation concern, where management actions are tested across spatial scales, and which combine abundance measures, demographics and functional links with nest predators and food resources (see [213•]), if possible also quantifying the associated economic costs (see [35]). The advancement of sustainable forest management depends on both innovative experimental approaches and context-specific studies on current practices, so MPF can fully deliver on its conservation promises.
Data Availability
Reviewed studies and their details are listed in the Supplementary Information.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
FAO, UNEP. The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and people. Rome: FAO and UNEP; 2020. Available from: http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca8642en. Accessed 16 Feb 2021.
Potapov P, Hansen MC, Laestadius L, Turubanova S, Yaroshenko A, Thies C, et al. The last frontiers of wilderness: tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci Adv. 2017;3:e1600821. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600821.
Hill SLL, Arnell A, Maney C, Butchart SHM, Hilton-Taylor C, Ciciarelli C, et al. Measuring forest biodiversity status and changes globally. Front For Glob Change. 2019;2:Article 70. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00070.
Donald PF, Arendarczyk B, Spooner F, Buchanan GM. Loss of forest intactness elevates global extinction risk in birds. Anim Conserv. 2019;22:341–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12469.
Collen B, Loh J, Whitmee S, McRae L, Amin R, Baillie JEM. Monitoring change in vertebrate abundance: the living planet index. Conserv Biol. 2009;23:317–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01117.x.
Rosenberg KV, Dokter AM, Blancher PJ, Sauer JR, Smith AC, Smith PA, et al. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science. 2019;366:120–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1313.
EBCC/BirdLife/RSPB/CSO. European common bird indicators, 2022 update. Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS); 2022. Available from: https://pecbms.info/european-common-bird-indicators-2022-update/. Accessed 31 Jan 2023.
Cadieux P, Boulanger Y, Cyr D, Taylor AR, Price DT, Sólymos P, et al. Projected effects of climate change on boreal bird community accentuated by anthropogenic disturbances in western boreal forest, Canada. Divers Distrib. 2020;26:668–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13057.
Ceccherini G, Duveiller G, Grassi G, Lemoine G, Avitabile V, Pilli R, et al. Abrupt increase in harvested forest area over Europe after 2015. Nature. 2020;583:72–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2438-y.
Potapov P, Yaroshenko A, Turubanova S, Dubinin M, Laestadius L, Thies C, et al. Mapping the world’s intact forest landscapes by remote sensing. E&S. 2008;13:art51. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02670-130251.
Betts MG, Yang Z, Hadley AS, Smith AC, Rousseau JS, Northrup JM, et al. Forest degradation drives widespread avian habitat and population declines. Nat Ecol Evol. 2022;6:709–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01737-8.
Wade ASI, Barov B, Burfield IJ, Gregory RD, Norris K, Butler SJ. Quantifying the detrimental impacts of land-use and management change on european forest bird populations. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e64552. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064552.
Bengtsson J, Nilsson SG, Franc A, Menozzi P. Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. For Ecol Manage. 2000;132:39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00378-9.
Paillet Y, Bergès L, Hjältén J, Ódor P, Avon C, Bernhardt-Römermann M, et al. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol. 2010;24:101–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01399.x.
Siitonen J. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull. 2001;49:11–41.
Betts MG, Phalan BT, Wolf C, Baker SC, Messier C, Puettmann KJ, et al. Producing wood at least cost to biodiversity: integrating Triad and sharing–sparing approaches to inform forest landscape management. Biol Rev. 2021:brv.12703. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12703.
Blattert C, Lemm R, Thees O, Hansen J, Lexer MJ, Hanewinkel M. Segregated versus integrated biodiversity conservation: value-based ecosystem service assessment under varying forest management strategies in a Swiss case study. Ecol Ind. 2018;95:751–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.016.
Borrass L, Kleinschmit D, Winkel G. The, “German model” of integrative multifunctional forest management—analysing the emergence and political evolution of a forest management concept. Forest Policy Econ. 2017;77:16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.028.
Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Lõhmus A, Baker SC, Bauhus J, Beese W, et al. A major shift to the retention approach for forestry can help resolve some global forest sustainability issues: retention forestry for sustainable forests. Conserv Lett. 2012;5:421–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00257.x.
European Commission D-G, for A and RD. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: New EU Forest Strategy for 2030. European Commission. 2021; Report No.: COM/2021/572.
Larsen JB, Angelstam P, Bauhus J, Carvalho JF, Diaci J, Dobrowolska D, et al. Closer-to-nature forest management. European Forest Institute; 2022. Available from: https://efi.int/publications-bank/closer-nature-forestmanagement. Accessed 4 Dec 2023.
Gustafsson L, Baker SC, Bauhus J, Beese WJ, Brodie A, Kouki J, et al. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. Bioscience. 2012;62:633–45. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.6.
Bauhus J, Puettmann K, Kühne C. Close-to-nature forest management in europe: does it support complexity and adaptability of forest ecosystems? In: Messier C, Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, editors. Managing forests as complex adaptive systems: Building resilience to the challenge of global change. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge; 2013. p. 187–213.
Keeton WS. Managing for late-successional/old-growth characteristics in northern hardwood-conifer forests. For Ecol Manage. 2006;235:129–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.08.005.
Kuuluvainen T, Angelstam P, Frelich L, Jõgiste K, Koivula M, Kubota Y, et al. Natural disturbance-based forest management: moving beyond retention and continuous-cover forestry. Front For Glob Change. 2021:4. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.629020. This paper makes a solid case for innovative forest management approaches, overcoming the ecological limitations of currently established MPF practices.
Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF. Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive, multiscaled approach. Island Press; 2002.
Outcalt KW, Brockway DG. Structure and composition changes following restoration treatments of longleaf pine forests on the Gulf Coastal Plain of Alabama. For Ecol Manage. 2010;259:1615–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.039.
Thom D, Keeton WS. Disturbance-based silviculture for habitat diversification: effects on forest structure, dynamics, and carbon storage. For Ecol Manage. 2020;469:118132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118132.
Kamp J, Frank C, Trautmann S, Busch M, Dröschmeister R, Flade M, et al. Population trends of common breeding birds in Germany 1990–2018. J Ornithol. 2021;162:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-020-01830-4.
Knaus P, Antoniazza S, Wechsler S, Guélat J, Kéry M, Strebel N, et al. Swiss Breeding Bird Atlas 2013–2016. Distribution and population trends of birds in Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Sempach: Swiss Ornithological Institute; 2018.
Reif J, Skálová AJ, Vermouzek Z, Voříšek P. Long-term trends in forest bird populations reflect management changes in Central European forests. Ecol Ind. 2022;141:109137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109137.
Basile M, Mikusiński G, Storch I. Bird guilds show different responses to tree retention levels: a meta-analysis. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2019;18:e00615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00615.
Mikusiński G, Roberge J-M, Fuller RJ. Ecology and conservation of forest birds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2018.
Augustynczik ALD, Asbeck T, Basile M, Bauhus J, Storch I, Mikusiński G, et al. Diversification of forest management regimes secures tree microhabitats and bird abundance under climate change. Sci Total Environ. 2019;650:2717–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.366.
Mönkkönen M, Juutinen A, Mazziotta A, Miettinen K, Podkopaev D, Reunanen P, et al. Spatially dynamic forest management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. J Environ Manage. 2014;134:80–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.021.
Vanderwel MC, Malcolm JR, Mills SC. A meta-analysis of bird responses to uniform partial harvesting across North America. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:1230–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00756.x.
Saab VA, Latif QR, Block WM, Dudley JG. Short-term benefits of prescribed fire to bird communities of dry forests. Fire Ecol. 2022;18:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-022-00130-x.
Versluijs M, Eggers S, Hjältén J, Löfroth T, Roberge J-M. Ecological restoration in boreal forest modifies the structure of bird assemblages. For Ecol Manage. 2017;401:75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.06.055.
van Horne B. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J Wildl Manag. 1983;47:893. https://doi.org/10.2307/3808148.
Johnson MD. Measuring habitat quality: a review. The Condor. 2007;109:489–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/109.3.489.
Mott R, TAA P, Jackson MV, Rogers DJ, O’Connor JA, Brookes JD, et al. Measuring habitat quality for waterbirds: A review. Ecol Evol. 2023;13:e9905. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9905. Although focused on wetland habitats, this review provides a thorough overview of how habitat quality for birds can be quantified, highlighting that it can only be directly assessed through demographic rates.
Sallabanks R, Arnett EB, Marzluff JB. An evaluation of research on the effects of timber harvest on bird populations. Wildl Soc Bull. 2000;28:13.
Belder DJ, Pierson JC, Ikin K, Lindenmayer DB. Beyond pattern to process: current themes and future directions for the conservation of woodland birds through restoration plantings. Wildl Res. 2018;45:473. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR17156.
Griesser M, Nystrand M, Eggers S, Ekman J. Impact of forestry practices on fitness correlates and population productivity in an open-nesting bird species. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:767–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00675.x.
King DI, Griffin CR, Degraff RM. Effects of clearcutting on habitat use and reproductive success of the ovenbird in forested landscapes. Conserv Biol. 1996;10:1380–6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10051380.x.
Layton-Matthews K, Griesser M, CFD C, Ozgul A. Forest management affects seasonal source-sink dynamics in a territorial, group-living bird. Oecologia. 2021;196:399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-021-04935-6. An excellent study demonstrating the effects of standard forestry practices on multi-scale population dynamics of a specialist bird, the Siberian jay (Perisoreus infaustus). Forestry affected negatively reproduction and survival, which in turn led to lower metapopulation growth and stability.
Haché S, Cameron R, Villard M-A, Bayne EM, MacLean DA. Demographic response of a neotropical migrant songbird to forest management and climate change scenarios. For Ecol Manage. 2016;359:309–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.10.002.
Streby HM, Kramer GR, Peterson SM, Andersen DE. Evaluating outcomes of young forest management on a target species of conservation concern. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4319. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4319.
Tschumi M, Schaub M, Arlettaz R. Territory occupancy and parental quality as proxies for spatial prioritization of conservation areas. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e97679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097679.
Robertson BA, Hutto RL. Is selectively harvested forest an ecological trap for olive-sided flycatchers? The Condor. 2007;109:109–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/109.1.109.
Hollander FA, Titeux N, Dyck H. Habitat-dependent prey availability and offspring provisioning explain an ecological trap in a migratory bird. Funct Ecol. 2013;27:702–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12077.
Battin J. When good animals love bad habitats: ecological traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conserv Biol. 2004;18:1482–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00417.x.
Bock CE, Jones ZF. Avian habitat evaluation: should counting birds count? Front Ecol Environ. 2004;2:403–10. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0403:AHESCB]2.0.CO;2.
Murray BG. Measuring annual reproductive success in birds. The Condor. 2000;102:470–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/102.2.470.
Faaborg J, Holmes RT, Anders AD, Bildstein KL, Dugger KM, Gauthreaux SA, et al. Conserving migratory land birds in the New World: do we know enough? Ecol Appl. 2010;20:398–418. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0397.1.
Martin TE, Geupel GR. Nest-monitoring plots: methods for locating nests and monitoring success (Métodos para localizer nidos y monitorear el éxito de estos). J Field Ornithol. 1993;64:507–19.
Martin TE. Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 1987;18:453–87. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.002321.
Nice MM. Nesting success in altricial birds. Auk. 1957;74:305–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/4081922.
Holmes RT. Avian population and community processes in forest ecosystems: long-term research in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. For Ecol Manage. 2011;262:20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06.021.
Sæther B-E, Bakke Ø. Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology. 2000;81:642–53. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0642:ALHVAC]2.0.CO;2.
Zanette L, Clinchy M, Smith JNM. Combined food and predator effects on songbird nest survival and annual reproductive success: results from a bi-factorial experiment. Oecologia. 2006;147:632–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0330-y.
Ruffino L, Salo P, Koivisto E, Banks PB, Korpimäki E. Reproductive responses of birds to experimental food supplementation: a meta-analysis. Front Zool. 2014;11:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-014-0080-y.
Martin TE. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecol Monogr. 1995;65:101–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937160.
Møller AP, Allander K, Dufva R. Fitness effects of parasites on passerine birds: a review. In: Blondel J, Gosler A, Lebreton JD, McCleery R, editors. Population biology of passerine birds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1990. p. 269–80.
Payne RB. Brood parasitism in birds: strangers in the nest. Bioscience. 1998;48:377–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313376.
Hartway C, Mills LS. A meta-analysis of the effects of common management actions on the nest success of North American birds: assessing bird management. Conserv Biol. 2012;26:657–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01883.x.
Salo P, Banks PB, Dickman CR, Korpimäki E. Predator manipulation experiments: impacts on populations of terrestrial vertebrate prey. Ecol Monogr. 2010;80:531–46. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1260.1.
Smith RK, Pullin AS, Stewart GB, Sutherland WJ. Is nest predator exclusion an effective strategy for enhancing bird populations? Biol Cons. 2011;144:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.008.
Visser ME, van Noordwijk AJ, Tinbergen JM, Lessells CM. Warmer springs lead to mistimed reproduction in great tits (Parus major). Proc R Soc Lond B. 1998;265:1867–70. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0514.
Broughton RK, Hinsley SA. The ecology and conservation of the Marsh Tit in Britain. British Birds. 2015;108:12–29.
Marzluff JM, Raphael MG, Sallabanks R. Understanding the effects of forest management on avian species. Wildl Soc Bull. 2000;28:1132–43.
Herrera JM, Doblas-Miranda E. Land-cover change effects on trophic interactions: current knowledge and future challenges in research and conservation. Basic Appl Ecol. 2013;14:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2012.11.008.
Pärt T, Wretenberg J. Do artificial nests reveal relative nest predation risk for real nests? J Avian Biol. 2002;33:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-048X.2002.330107.x.
Zanette L. What do artificial nests tells us about nest predation? Biol Cons. 2002;103:323–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00143-4.
Lahti DC. The “edge effect on nest predation” hypothesis after twenty years. Biol Cons. 2001;99:365–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00222-6.
Bakermans MH, Rodewald AD, Vitz AC. Influence of forest structure on density and nest success of mature forest birds in managed landscapes: forest structure and mature forest birds. J Wildl Manag. 2012;76:1225–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.349.
Foggia JR, Rush SA, Miller DA, Wigley TB, Martin JA. Effects of forest structure and harvest-induced edges on predation risk: apparent predation risk for the shrub-nesting birds. Wildl Soc Bull. 2018;42:237–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.879.
D’Astous É, Villard M-A. Effects of selection harvesting on bark invertebrates and nest provisioning rate in an old forest specialist, the brown creeper (Certhia americana). Écoscience. 2012;19:106–12. https://doi.org/10.2980/19-2-3472.
Johnston JC, Holberton RL. Forest management and temporal effects on food abundance for a ground-foraging bird (Catharus guttatus). For Ecol Manage. 2009;258:1516–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.07.012.
Campbell JW, Grodsky SM, Milne MA, Vigueira P, Vigueira CC, Stern E, et al. Prescribed fire and other fuel-reduction treatments alter ground spider assemblages in a Southern Appalachian hardwood forest. For Ecol Manage. 2022;510:120127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120127. This study directly relates a MPF practice with the supply of an important food item for birds, contributing to understand mechanistic links between management practices and habitat quality.
Ramsay SL, Houston DC. Amino acid composition of some woodland arthropods and its implications for breeding tits and other passerines. Ibis. 2003;145:227–32. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1474-919X.2003.00133.x.
Razeng E, Watson DM. Nutritional composition of the preferred prey of insectivorous birds: popularity reflects quality. J Avian Biol. 2015;46:89–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.00475.
Staab M, Gossner MM, Simons NK, Achury R, Ambarlı D, Bae S, et al. Insect decline in forests depends on species’ traits and may be mitigated by management. Commun Biol. 2023;6:338. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-04690-9.
Wagner DL. Insect declines in the anthropocene. Annu Rev Entomol. 2020;65:457–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025151.
Tallamy DW, Shriver WG. Are declines in insects and insectivorous birds related? Ornithological Applications. 2021;123:duaa059. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duaa059.
Block WM, Franklin AB, Ward JP, Ganey JL, White GC. Design and implementation of monitoring studies to evaluate the success of ecological restoration on wildlife. Restor Ecol. 2001;9:293–303. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001.009003293.x.
Irwin LL, Wigley TB. Toward an experimental basis for protecting forest wildlife. Ecol Appl. 1993;3:213–7. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941823.
Crystal-Ornelas R. Robcrystalornelas/meta-analysis_of_ecological_data: first release (version v0.1.0). Zenodo; 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4320107. Accessed 11 Nov 2021.
Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RSA. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12. https://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12.
Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience. 2001;51:933–8. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2.
FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Rome: FAO; 2001.
Walsh JC, Gibson MR, Simmonds JS, Mayfield HJ, Bracey C, Melton CB, et al. Effectiveness of conservation interventions for Australian woodland birds: a systematic review. Biol Cons. 2023;282:110030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110030. This study followed similar goals and approaches (systematic mapping) as our review, focusing on Australian forest birds but summarizing a wider breadth of conservation interventions.
Pullin AS, Stewart GB. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol. 2006;20:1647–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x.
Sutherland WJ, Taylor NG, MacFarlane D, Amano T, Christie AP, Dicks LV, et al. Building a tool to overcome barriers in research-implementation spaces: the conservation evidence database. Biol Cons. 2019;238:108199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108199.
Haddaway NR, Bethel A, Dicks LV, Koricheva J, Macura B, Petrokofsky G, et al. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4:1582–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x.
Haddaway NR, Grainger MJ, Gray CT. Citationchaser: a tool for transparent and efficient forward and backward citation chasing in systematic searching. Res Synth Methods. 2022;13:533–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1563.
Janssens ACJW, Gwinn M, Brockman JE, Powell K, Goodman M. Novel citation-based search method for scientific literature: a validation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-0907-5.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/.
Iannone R. DiagrammeR: graph/network visualization. 2022. Available from: https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=DiagrammeR.
Haddaway NR, Bernes C, Jonsson B-G, Hedlund K. The benefits of systematic mapping to evidence-based environmental management. Ambio. 2016;45:613–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0773-x.
James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ Evid. 2016;5:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6.
Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2016. Available from: https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org.
Hensler GL, Nichols JD. The Mayfield method of estimating nesting success: a model, estimators and simulation results. The Wilson Bulletin. 1981;93:42–53.
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Soft. 2015;67:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Billerman SM, Keeney BK, Rodewald PG, Schulenberg TS, editors. Birds of the world. Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; 2022. Available from: https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/home. Accessed 28 Mar 2023.
IUCN. The IUCN red list of threatened species. 2nd ed. 2022. Available from: https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 23 Nov 2023.
NatureServe. NatureServe Network Biodiversity Location Data accessed through NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia: NatureServe; 2023. Available from: https://explorer.natureserve.org/. Accessed 20 Nov 2023.
Ryan KC, Knapp EE, Varner JM. Prescribed fire in North American forests and woodlands: history, current practice, and challenges. Front Ecol Environ. 2013:11. https://doi.org/10.1890/120329.
Brawn JD, Robinson SK, Thompson FR III. The role of disturbance in the ecology and conservation of birds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 2001;32:251–76. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114031.
Kalies EL, Chambers CL, Covington WW. Wildlife responses to thinning and burning treatments in southwestern conifer forests: a meta-analysis. For Ecol Manage. 2010;259:333–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.024.
Eggers S, Low M. Differential demographic responses of sympatric Parids to vegetation management in boreal forest. For Ecol Manage. 2014;319:169–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.02.019.
Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J-P, Dussault C, Waller DM. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2004;35:113–47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105725.
Krueper D, Bart J, Rich TD. Response of vegetation and breeding birds to the removal of cattle on the San Pedro River, Arizona (U.S.A.). Conserv Biol. 2003;17:607–15. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01546.x.
McNeish RE, McEwan RW. A review on the invasion ecology of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii, Caprifoliaceae) a case study of ecological impacts at multiple scales. J Torrey Bot Soc. 2016;143:367–85. https://doi.org/10.3159/TORREY-D-15-00049.1.
Wohlgemuth T, Bürgi M, Scheidegger C, Schütz M. Dominance reduction of species through disturbance—a proposed management principle for central European forests. For Ecol Manage. 2002;166:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00662-4.
Thorn S, Chao A, Georgiev KB, Müller J, Bässler C, Campbell JL, et al. Estimating retention benchmarks for salvage logging to protect biodiversity. Nat Commun. 2020;11(4762):8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18612-4.
Gates JE, Gysel LW. Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field-forest ecotones. Ecology. 1978;59:871–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938540.
Lõhmus A, Remm L, Rannap R. Just a ditch in forest? Reconsidering draining in the context of sustainable forest management. Bioscience. 2015;65:1066–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv136.
Nielsen CLR, Gates RJ. Reduced nest predation of cavity-nesting wood ducks during flooding in a bottomland hardwood forest. The Condor. 2007;109:210–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/109.1.210.
Robles H, Ciudad C, Matthysen E. Tree-cavity occurrence, cavity occupation and reproductive performance of secondary cavity-nesting birds in oak forests: The role of traditional management practices. For Ecol Manage. 2011;261:1428–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.01.029.
Mayfield HF. Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bull. 1975;87:456–66.
Böhning-Gaese K, Taper ML, Brown JH. Are declines in North american insectivorous songbirds due to causes on the breeding range? Conserv Biol. 1993;7:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07010076.x.
Ford HA, Walters JR, Cooper CB, Debus SJS, Doerr VAJ. Extinction debt or habitat change? – Ongoing losses of woodland birds in north-eastern New South Wales. Aust Biol Conserv. 2009;142:3182–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.08.022.
Jiménez JE, Conover MR. Ecological approaches to reduce predation on ground-nesting gamebirds and their nests. Wildl Soc Bull. 2001;29:62–9.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment. EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 : bringing nature back into our lives. Publ Off Eur Union. 2021.
Tozer DC, Burke DM, Nol E, Elliott KA. Managing ecological traps: logging and sapsucker nest predation by bears. J Wildl Manag. 2012;76:887–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.336.
Rolstad J, Rolstad E, Saeteren O. Black woodpecker nest sites: characteristics, selection, and reproductive success. J Wildl Manag. 2000;64:1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/3803216.
Moorman CE Jr, DCG, Kilgo JC. Hooded warbler nesting success adjacent to group-selection and clearcut edges in a southeastern bottomland forest. Condor. 2002;104:366–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/104.2.366.
Shew JJ, Nielsen CK, Sparling DW. Finer-scale habitat predicts nest survival in grassland birds more than management and landscape: a multi-scale perspective. J Appl Ecol. 2019;56:929–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13317.
Cooper RJ, Wood LA, Gannon JJ, Wilson RR. Effects of timber harvest and other factors on a floodplain forest indicator species, the prothonotary warbler. Wetlands. 2009;29:574–85. https://doi.org/10.1672/08-139.1.
Mahon CL, Martin K. Nest survival of chickadees in managed forests: habitat, predator, and year effects. J Wildl Manag. 2006;70:1257–65. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1257:NSOCIM]2.0.CO;2.
Gram WK, Porneluzi PA, Clawson RL, Faaborg J, Richter SC. Effects of experimental forest management on density and nesting success of bird species in Missouri Ozark forests. Conserv Biol. 2003;17:1324–37. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02171.x.
Rodewald AD, Kearns LJ, Shustack DP. Anthropogenic resource subsidies decouple predator–prey relationships. Ecol Appl. 2011;21:936–43. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0863.1.
Morse SF, Robinson SK. Nesting success of a neotropical migrant in a multiple-use, forested landscape. Conserv Biol. 1999;13:327–37. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.013002327.x.
Newell FL, Rodewald AD. Management for oak regeneration: short-term effects on the bird community and suitability of shelterwood harvests for canopy songbirds: shelterwood harvesting and songbirds. J Wildl Manag. 2012;76:683–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.314.
Malone KM, Terhune TM, Sieving KE. Bachman’s sparrow survival and nest predation response to a hardwood canopy reduction experiment. Ecosphere. 2021;12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3389. One of the most recent studies included in our review, this is a well-designed study, using a before-after control-impact design, and focusing on a species of conservation concern. By using video surveillance for nest monitoring, the authors were also able to ascertain predator identity, thereby explaining why the management treatment did not lead to an increase in nesting success.
Maag N, Mallord JW, Burgess MD, Lüpold S, Cristinacce A, Arlettaz R, et al. Accounting for predator species identity reveals variable relationships between nest predation rate and habitat in a temperate forest songbird. Ecol Evol. 2022;12:e7411. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9411.
Brawn JD. Effects of restoring oak savannas on bird communities and populations. Conserv Biol. 2006;20:460–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00310.x.
Germaine HL, Germaine SS. Forest restoration treatment effects on the nesting success of western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana). Restor Ecol. 2002;10:362–7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.2002.00129.x.
Hoover JP. Effects of hydrologic restoration on birds breeding in forested wetlands. Wetlands. 2009;29:563–73. https://doi.org/10.1672/08-75.1.
Kubel JE, Yahner RH. Quality of anthropogenic habitats for golden-winged warblers in central Pennsylvania. Wilson J Ornithol. 2008;120:801–12. https://doi.org/10.1676/06-114.1.
Easton WE, Martin K. The effect of vegetation management on breeding bird communities in British Columbia. Ecol Appl. 1998;8:1092–103. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[1092:TEOVMO]2.0.CO;2.
Kirby RB, Cherry MJ, Muller LI, Warren RJ, Chamberlain MJ, Conner LM. Indirect predation management in a longleaf pine ecosystem: hardwood removal and the spatial ecology of raccoons. For Ecol Manage. 2016;381:327–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.09.046.
Virkkala R. Ecology of the Siberian Tit Parus cinctus in relation to habitat quality: effects of forest management. Ornis Scand. 1990;21:139–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/3676810.
Mathisen KM, Pedersen S, Nilsen EB, Skarpe C. Contrasting responses of two passerine bird species to moose browsing. Eur J Wildl Res. 2012;58:535–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-011-0601-3.
Folkard NFG, Smith JNM. Evidence for bottom-up effects in the boreal forest: do passerine birds respond to large-scale experimental fertilization? Can J Zool. 1995;73:2231–7. https://doi.org/10.1139/z95-264.
Elo M, Roberge J, Rajasärkkä A, Mönkkönen M. Energy density and its variation in space limit species richness of boreal forest birds. J Biogeogr. 2012;39:1462–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02700.x.
Massa B, Cusimano CA, Margagliotta B, Galici R. Reproductive characteristics and differential response to seasonal temperatures of blue and great tits (Cyanistes caeruleus & Parus major) in three neighbouring mediterranean habitats. Révue d’Écologie - la Terre et la Vie. 2011:66.
Dekeukeleire D, Hertzog LR, Vantieghem P, van Schrojenstein Lantman IM, Sercu BK, Boonyarittichaikij R, et al. Forest fragmentation and tree species composition jointly shape breeding performance of two avian insectivores. For Ecol Manage. 2019;443:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.04.023.
Holmes RT, Robinson SK. Tree species preferences of foraging insectivorous birds in a northern hardwoods forest. Oecologia. 1981;48:31–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00346985.
Korňan M, Adamík P. Tree species preferences of foraging insectivorous birds in a primeval mountain mixed forest: implications for management. Scand J For Res. 2017;32:671–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2017.1299211.
Boves TJ, Buehler DA, Sheehan J, Wood PB, Rodewald AD, Larkin JL, et al. Emulating natural disturbances for declining late-successional species: a case study of the consequences for cerulean warblers (Setophaga cerulea). PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e52107. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052107.
Novak LD, Comer CE, Conway WC, Scognamillo DG, Gay RD. Nesting ecology of early-successional birds in restored longleaf and loblolly pine stands. Wilson J Ornithol. 2016;128:314–27. https://doi.org/10.1676/wils-128-02-314-327.1.
Eng ML, Stutchbury BJM, Burke DM, Elliott KA. Influence of forest management on pre- and post-fledging productivity of a Neotropical migratory songbird in a highly fragmented landscape. Can J For Res. 2011;41:2009–19. https://doi.org/10.1139/x11-119.
Eales J, Haddaway NR, Bernes C, Cooke SJ, Jonsson BG, Kouki J, et al. What is the effect of prescribed burning in temperate and boreal forest on biodiversity, beyond pyrophilous and saproxylic species? A Syst Rev Environ Evid. 2018;7:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0131-5.
McBrayer LD, Orton RW, Kinsey CT, Neel LK. Conservation and management strategies create opportunities for integrative organismal research. Integr Comp Biol. 2020;60:509–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icaa069.
Rodewald AD, Rohr RP, Fortuna MA, Bascompte J. Does removal of invasives restore ecological networks? An Exp Approach Biol Invasions. 2015;17:2139–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0866-7.
Borgmann KL, Rodewald AD. Nest predation in an urbanizing landscape: the role of exotic shrubs. Ecol Appl. 2004;14:1757–65. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5129.
Purcell KL. Long-term avian research at the San Joaquin experimental range: recommendations for monitoring and managing oak woodlands. For Ecol Manage. 2011;262:12–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.039.
Purcell KL, Verner J. Density and reproductive success of California towhees. Conserv Biol. 1998;12:442–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.96354.x.
Robinson SK, Robinson WD. Avian nesting success in a selectively harvested north temperate deciduous forest. Conserv Biol. 2001;15:1763–71. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00226.x.
Camprodon J, Brotons L. Effects of undergrowth clearing on the bird communities of the Northwestern Mediterranean Coppice Holm oak forests. For Ecol Manage. 2006;221:72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.044.
Munteanu C, Nita MD, Abrudan IV, Radeloff VC. Historical forest management in Romania is imposing strong legacies on contemporary forests and their management. For Ecol Manage. 2016;361:179–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.023.
Lewandowski P, Przepióra F, Ciach M. Single dead trees matter: Small-scale canopy gaps increase the species richness, diversity and abundance of birds breeding in a temperate deciduous forest. For Ecol Manage. 2021;481:118693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118693.
Robles H, Ciudad C, Vera R, Olea PP, Purroy FJ, Matthysen E. Sylvopastoral management and conservation of the middle spotted woodpecker at the south-western edge of its distribution range. For Ecol Manage. 2007;242:343–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.052.
Castro J, Moreno-Rueda G, Hódar JA. Experimental test of postfire management in pine forests: impact of salvage logging versus partial cutting and nonintervention on bird-species assemblages: effect of salvage logging on bird communities. Conserv Biol. 2009;24:810–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01382.x.
Kilgo JC, Vukovich MA. Can snag creation benefit a primary cavity nester: Response to an experimental pulse in snag abundance. Biol Cons. 2014;171:21–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.003.
Fierro-Calderón K, Martin TE. Does vegetation change over 28 years affect habitat use and reproductive success? The Auk. 2020;137:ukz061. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukz061.
Hurteau S, Sisk T, Dickson B, Block W. Variability in nest density, occupancy, and home range size of western bluebirds after forest treatments. Forest Science. 2010;56:131–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/56.1.131.
Haché S, Villard M-A, Bayne EM. Experimental evidence for an ideal free distribution in a breeding population of a territorial songbird. Ecology. 2013;94:861–9. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1025.1.
Fretwell SD, Lucas HL. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor. 1969;19:16–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01601953.
Dellinger RL, Wood PB, Keyser PD. Occurrence and nest survival of four thrush species on a managed central Appalachian forest. For Ecol Manage. 2007;243:248–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.020.
Bourque J, Villard M-A. Effects of selection cutting and landscape-scale harvesting on the reproductive success of two neotropical migrant bird species. Conserv Biol. 2001;15:184–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.99436.x.
Naef-Daenzer B, Grüebler MU. Post-fledging survival of altricial birds: ecological determinants and adaptation. J Field Ornithol. 2016;87:227–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofo.12157.
Cox WA, Thompson FR, Cox AS, Faaborg J. Post-fledging survival in passerine birds and the value of post-fledging studies to conservation. J Wildl Manage. 2014;78:183–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.670.
Schlossberg S, King DI, Destefano S, Hartley M. Effects of early-successional shrubland management on breeding wood thrush populations. J Wildl Manage. 2018;82:1572–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21559.
Versluijs M, Roberge J-M, Eggers S, Boer J, Hjältén J. Ecological restoration for biodiversity conservation improves habitat quality for an insectivorous passerine in boreal forest. Biol Cons. 2019;237:90–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.06.025.
Robertson BA. The influence of spatio-temporal variation in food availability and nest-predation risk on clutch-size decisions. Condor. 2009;111:523–33. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2009.080026.
Forzieri G, Girardello M, Ceccherini G, Spinoni J, Feyen L, Hartmann H, et al. Emergent vulnerability to climate-driven disturbances in European forests. Nat Commun. 2021;12:1081. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21399-7.
Thorn S, Müller J, Leverkus AB. Preventing European forest diebacks. Science. 2019;365:1388. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz2198.
Maanavilja L, Aapala K, Haapalehto T, Kotiaho JS, Tuittila E-S. Impact of drainage and hydrological restoration on vegetation structure in boreal spruce swamp forests. For Ecol Manage. 2014;330:115–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.07.004.
Hughes FMR, Rood SB. Allocation of river flows for restoration of floodplain forest ecosystems: a review of approaches and their applicability in Europe. Environ Manage. 2003;32:12–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-2834-8.
Wesołowski T, Fuller RJ, Flade M. Temperate forests: a European perspective on variation and dynamics in bird assemblages. In: Mikusiński G, Roberge J-M, Fuller RJ, editors. Ecology and conservation of forest birds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018. p. 253–317.
Nowacki GJ, Abrams MD. The demise of fire and “Mesophication” of forests in the Eastern United States. Bioscience. 2008;58:123–38. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580207.
Spînu AP, Niklasson M, Zin E. Mesophication in temperate Europe: a dendrochronological reconstruction of tree succession and fires in a mixed deciduous stand in Białowieża Forest. Ecol Evol. 2020;10:1029–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5966.
Bellamy PE, Burgess MD, Mallord JW, Cristinacce A, Orsman CJ, Davis T, et al. Nest predation and the influence of habitat structure on nest predation of Wood Warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix, a ground-nesting forest passerine. J Ornithol. 2018;159:493–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-017-1527-7.
Martin TE. Nest Predation and Nest Sites. Bioscience. 1993;43:523–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311947.
Basile M, Krištín A, Mikusiński G, Thorn S, Żmihorski M, Pasinelli G, et al. Salvage logging strongly affects woodpecker abundance and reproduction: a meta-analysis. Curr Forestry Rep. 2022;9:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-022-00175-w. This meta-analysis demonstrates that a standard forestry practice (salvage logging) can affect not only abundances, but also reproduction of forest specialist birds.
Kaiser SA, Lindell CA. Effects of distance to edge and edge type on nestling growth and nest survival in the Wood Thrush. The Condor. 2007;109:288–303. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/109.2.288.
Ruiz-Jaen MC, Mitchell AT. Restoration success: How is it being measured? Restor Ecol. 2005;13:569–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00072.x.
Stoleson SH, King DI, Tomosy M. Avian research on U.S. forest service experimental forests and ranges: emergent themes, opportunities, and challenges. For Ecol Manag. 2011;262:49–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.038.
McIver J, Youngblood A, Stephens SL. The national Fire and Fire Surrogate study: ecological consequences of fuel reduction methods in seasonally dry forests. Ecol Appl. 2009;19:283–4. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1785.1.
Schultz CA, Jedd T, Beam RD. The collaborative forest landscape restoration program: A history and overview of the first projects. J Forest. 2012;110:381–91. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.11-082.
Lesiv M, Schepaschenko D, Buchhorn M, See L, Dürauer M, Georgieva I, et al. Global forest management data for 2015 at a 100 m resolution. Scientific Data. 2022;9:199. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01332-3.
Gustafsson L, Bauhus J, Asbeck T, Augustynczik ALD, Basile M, Frey J, et al. Retention as an integrated biodiversity conservation approach for continuous-cover forestry in Europe. Ambio. 2020;49:85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01190-1.
Yoshida T, Noguchi M, Akibayashi Y, Noda M, Kadomatsu M, Sasa K. Twenty years of community dynamics in a mixed conifer broad-leaved forest under a selection system in northern Japan. Can J For Res. 2006;36:1363–75. https://doi.org/10.1139/x06-041.
Martínez Pastur GJ, Rosas YM, Toro Manríquez M, Huertas Herrera A, Miller JA, Cellini JM, et al. Knowledge arising from long-term research of variable retention harvesting in Tierra del Fuego: where do we go from here? Ecol Process. 2019;8:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-019-0177-5.
Burrows N, McCaw L. Prescribed burning in southwestern Australian forests. Front Ecol Environ. 2013;11:e25–34. https://doi.org/10.1890/120356.
Kuchinke D, Di Stefano J, Sitters H, Loyn R, Gell P, Palmer G. Prescribed burn severity has minimal effect on common bird species in a fire-prone forest ecosystem. For Ecol Manage. 2020;475:118437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118437.
Kelly JK, Schmidt KA, Ostfeld RS. Not all nesting guild members are alike: nest predators and conspecific abundance differentially influence nest survival in the ground-nesting Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) and Veery (Catharus fuscescens). Wilson J Ornithol. 2017;129:112–21. https://doi.org/10.1676/1559-4491-129.1.112.
Vickery PD, Hunter ML, Wells JV. Use of a new reproductive index to evaluate relationship between habitat quality and breeding success. Auk. 1992;109:697–705. https://doi.org/10.2307/4088145.
Long AM, Marshall ME, Morrison ML, Hays KB, Farrell SL. Responses of a federally endangered songbird to understory thinning in oak-juniper woodlands. Environ Manage. 2017;59:684–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0810-3.
Tucker JW Jr, Robinson WD, Grand JB. Breeding productivity of Bachman’s sparrows in fire-managed longleaf pine forests. Wilson J Ornithol. 2006;118:131–7. https://doi.org/10.1676/05-022.1.
Bonifait S, Villard M-A, Paulin D. An index of reproductive activity provides an accurate estimate of the reproductive success of Palm Warblers. J Field Ornithology. 2006;77:302–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1557-9263.2006.00056.x.
Rangen SA, Hobson KA, Clark RG. A comparison of density and reproductive indices of songbirds in young and old boreal forest. Wildl Soc Bull. 2000;28:110–8.
Westgate MJ, Likens GE, Lindenmayer DB. Adaptive management of biological systems: A review. Biol Cons. 2013;158:128–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.016.
Minnich RA, Barbour MG, Burk JH, Sosa-Ramirez J. Californian mixed-conifer forests under unmanaged fire regimes in the Sierra San Pedro Martir. Baja California. Mexico J Biogeography. 2000;27:105–29. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00368.x.
Harris JP, O’Connell TJ. Mesopredator predation risk limits northern bobwhite nesting habitat. Ecosphere. 2023;14:e4516. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4516.
Geleynse DM, Nol E, Burke DM, Elliott KA. Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) demographic response to hardwood forests managed under the selection system. Can J For Res. 2016;46:499–507. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0112.
Hulme PE. Bridging the knowing-doing gap: know-who, know-what, know-why, know-how and know-when. J Appl Ecol. 2014;51:1131–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12321.
Arlettaz R, Schaub M, Fournier J, Reichlin TS, Sierro A, Watson JEM, et al. From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. Bioscience. 2010;60:835–42. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.10.
Glass A, Eichholz MW. Estimating direct and indirect effects of habitat structure on nesting field sparrows (Spizella pusilla) using structural equation models. Front Ecol Evol. 2023;11:1094152. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1094152. Although focused on a grassland bird species, this study is a good example of how to bring together management practices, abundance, demographics and associated processes (nest predation and arthropod biomass), disentangling direct and indirect effects of management.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to J. Penner and M. Wohlwend for supporting the work of the ConFoBi Research Training Group, in the context of which this work was carried out. We thank D. Gundermann for the support with data extraction for this review and M. Bhardwaj for valuable feedback on sections of the manuscript. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers for their thorough and constructive feedback on the manuscript.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. João M. Cordeiro Pereira received funding from the German Science Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), for a doctoral project in the framework of the Research Training Group ConFoBi (grant number GRK 2123/1 TPX).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J.M.C.P. conceptualized the study, under the supervision of G.M. and I.S. J.M.C.P. and G.M. carried out the database search and screening of studies. J.P. conducted the data extraction and analysis and wrote the manuscript draft. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Cordeiro Pereira, J.M., Mikusiński, G. & Storch, I. A Systematic Review of the Effects of Multi-purpose Forest Management Practices on the Breeding Success of Forest Birds. Curr. For. Rep. 10, 175–195 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-024-00216-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-024-00216-6