Skip to main content
Log in

Size of nature reserves: densities of large trees and dead wood indicate high value of small conservation forests in southern Sweden

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The optimal size of nature reserves has been debated for some time. Although edge and core habitats are often recognized, it is commonly assumed in theory and in studies of a particular habitat type that reserves or patches of different sizes have similar habitat structure. However, for older, highly fragmented landscapes it has been suggested that small areas are of conservation interest as high-quality remnants, whereas large areas are more degraded. We studied 49 randomly selected forest reserves in the size range 5–230 ha (typical for many highly fragmented landscapes) and 3653 sites of key habitat (unprotected deciduous broadleaf forest). Structures in forest that are generally correlated with value for biodiversity were measured, and reserve objectives were examined from declaration texts. Both the density of large trees and the density of dead wood (snags, logs) decreased with increasing reserve size. The mean size of identified key habitats was very small (1.6 ha). A botanical objective for establishment of reserves was more frequently used for smaller reserves. In contrast, cultural and especially recreational objectives were more commonly used when larger reserves were established, suggesting higher values for recreation in these reserves. For vascular plants, birds and beetles, a literature review indicated that small forest patches do not contain impoverished communities, but are often rich (per unit of area). Small reserves and key habitats have several disadvantages, but they are probably important components of reserve networks for biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahti T., Hämet-Ahti L. and Jalas J. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Annales Botanici Fennici 5: 169–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ås S. 1993. Are habitat islands islands? Woodliving beetles (Coleoptera) in deciduous forest fragments in boreal forest. Ecography 16: 219–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ås S. 1999. Invasion of matrix species in small habitat patches. Conservation Ecology 3 http://www.consecol.org: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg Å. and Tjernberg M. 1996. Common and rare Swedish vertebrates – distribution and habitat preferences. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 101–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg Å., Ehnström B., Gustafsson L., Hallingback T., Jonsell M. and Weslien J. 1994. Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. Conservation Biology 8: 718–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bücking W. 1997. Natural forest, strict forest reserves, wilderness areas in Germany and in Europe. Forst und Holz 52 (in German with English summary): 515–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowling R.M. and Bond W.J. 1991. How small can reserves be? An empirical approach in Cape Fynbos, South Africa. Biological Conservation 58: 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desender K., Ervynck A. and Tack G. 1999. Beetle diversity and historical ecology of woodlands in Flanders. Belgian Journal of Zoology 129: 139–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond J. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographical studies for the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 7: 129–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esseen P.-A., Ehnström B., Ericsson L. and Sjöberg K. 1997. Boreal forests. In: Hansson L. (ed.), Boreal Ecosystems and Landscapes: Structures, Processes and Conservation of Biodiversity. Ecological Bulletin No. 46, pp. 16–47.

  • Fischer J. and Lindenmayer D.B. 2002. Small patches can be valuable for biodiversity conservation: two case studies on birds in southeastern Australia. Biological Conservation 106: 129–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman R.T.T. 1999. Land Mosaics – The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Götmark F. and Nilsson C. 1992. Criteria used for protection of natural areas in Sweden 1909–1986. Conservation Biology 6: 220–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Götmark F., Söderlundh H. and Thorell M. 2000. Buffer zones for forest reserves: opinions of land owners and conservation value of their forest around nature reserves in southern Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1377–1390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson L., de Jong J. and Norén M. 1999. Evaluation of Swedish woodland key habitats using red-listed bryophytes and lichens. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1101–1114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halme E. and Niemelä J. 1993. Carabid beetles in fragments of coniferous forest. Annales Zoologici Fennici 30: 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah L., Carr J.L. and Lankerani A. 1995. Human disturbance and natural habitat: a biome level analysis of a global data set. Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 128–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon M.E. et al. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15: 133–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helliwell D.R. 1976. The effects of size and isolation on the conservation value of wooded sites in Britain. Journal of Biogeography 3: 407–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honnay O., Hermy M. and Coppin P. 1999. Effects of area, age and diversity of forest patches in Belgium on plant species richness, and implications for conservation and reforestation. Biological Conservation 87: 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett R. and Dhand R. 2000. Insight: Biodiversity. Nature 405: 207–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsell M., Weslien J. and Ehnström B. 1998. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 749–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keddy P.A. and Drummond C.G. 1996. Ecological properties for the evaluation, management, and restoration of temperate deciduous forest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 6: 748–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawesson J.E., de Blust G., Grashof C., Firbank L., Honnay O., Hermy M. et al. 1998. Species diversity and area-relationships in Danish beech forests. Forest Ecology and Management 106: 235–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loman J. and von Schantz T. 1991. Birds in a farmland – more species in small than in large habitat islands. Conservation Biology 5: 176–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules C. and Pressey R.L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules C. and Usher M. 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biological Conservation 21: 79–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason C.F. 2001. Woodland area, species turnover and the conservation of bird assemblages in lowland England. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 495–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComb W. and Lindenmayer D. 1999. Dying, dead and down trees. In: Hunter M. (ed.), Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 335–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meffe G. and Carroll R. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Press, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Board of Forestry 1995. Instruktion for datainsamling vid inventering av nyckelbiotoper. NBF, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Board of Forestry 1997. Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Official Statistics of Sweden. NBF, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish and English; www.svo.se).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Board of Forestry 1999. Nyckelbiotopsinventeringen 1993–1998, Slutrapport. Meddelande 1–1999. NBF, Jönköping, Sweden (in Swedish).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nee S. 1994. How populations persist. Nature 367: 123–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson C. and Götmark F. 1992. Protected areas in Sweden: is natural variety adequately represented? Conservation Biology 6: 232–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson S.G. 1997. Forests in the temperate-boreal transition: natural and man-made features. In: Hansson L. (ed.), Boreal Ecosystems and Landscapes: Structures, Processes and Conservation of Biodiversity. Ecological Bulletin No. 46, pp. 61–70.

  • Nilsson S.G., Arup U., Baranowski R. and Ekman S. 1995. Tree-dependent lichens and beetles as indicators in conservation forests. Conservation Biology 9: 1208–1215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss R.F. and Cooperrider A.Y. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier J.D. 2000. Model assessment of the optimal design of nature reserves for maximizing species longevity. Journal of Theoretical Biology 202: 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterken G. 1996. Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R.L. 1994. Ad hoc reservation: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems? Conservation Biology 8: 662–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranius T. and Jansson N. 2000. The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy cover and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biological Conservation 95: 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelsson J., Gustafsson L. and Ingelög T. 1994. Dying and Dead Trees: A Review of Their Importance for Biodiversity. Swedish Threatened Species Unit, Agricultural University, Uppsala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer C.L. 1990. Nature Reserves: Island Theory and Conservation Practice. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer C.L. 1995. Values and shortcomings of small reserves. BioScience 45: 80–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz M.W. 1999. Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 83–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz M.W. and van Mantgem P.J. 1997. The value of small preserves in chronically fragmented landscapes. In: Schwartz M.W., Conservation in Highly Fragmented Landscapes. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp. 379–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) 1997. Skogsreservat i Sverige. Naturvårdsverket Rapport No. 4707 (in Swedish).

  • Simberloff D. and Gotelli N. 1984. Effects of insularisation on plants species richness in the prairie-forest ecotone. Biological Conservation 29: 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • SOU (Swedish Public Reports) 1997. Skydd av skogsmark (Report 97), and Bilagor (Report 98). Miljödepartementet, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé M.E. and Simberloff D. 1986. What do genetics and ecology tell us about the design of nature reserves? Biological Conservation 35: 19–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé M.E. and Terborgh J. 1999a. Conserving nature at regional and continental scales – a scientific program for North America. BioScience 49: 809–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé M.E. and Terborgh J. (eds) 1999b. Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Island Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner I.M. and Corlett R.T. 1996. The conservation value of small, isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 330–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren M.S. and Key R.S. 1991.Woodlands: past, present and potential for insects. In: Collins N.M. and Thomas J.A. (eds), The Conservation of Insects and their Habitats. Academic Press, London, pp. 155–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J.G. and Vanka J.L. 1991. An area-based model of species richness dynamics of forest islands. Ecological Modelling 58: 249–271.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Götmark.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Götmark, F., Thorell, M. Size of nature reserves: densities of large trees and dead wood indicate high value of small conservation forests in southern Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 1271–1285 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023000224642

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023000224642

Navigation