Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation frameworks and conservation system of Latvian forests

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

  • Angelstam P. 1996. The ghost of forest past — natural disturbance regimes as a basis for reconstruction of biologically diverse forests in Europe. In: DeGraaf R.M. and Miller R.I. (eds), Conservation of Faunal Diversity in Forested Landscapes. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 287–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous 1984. Daba un dabas resursi [Nature and nature resources]. In: Encyclopaedia of Latvia Vol. 5/ 2. GER, Riga, Latvia, pp. 34–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous 1996. Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. Council of Europe, UNEP and European Centre for Nature Conservation, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous 2000. Biotopu rokasgramata. Eiropas savienibas aizsargajamie biotopi Latvija [Handbook of Habitats. Protected Habitats of European Union in Latvia]. Latvijas dabas fonds, Riga, Latvia.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Björndalen J.E. 1994. A gradient analysis approach to the conservation of basiphilous pine forests in Fennoscandia. In: Symposium on Community Ecology and Conservation Biology (Abstracts). August 14–18, 1994. Institute of Systematic Botany and Geobotany at the University of Bern, Bern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun-Blanquet J. 1964. Pflanzensoziologie, 3rd edn. Springer-Verlag, Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown A.G., Harper D. and Peterken G.F. 1997. European floodplain forests: structure, functioning and management. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 6: 169–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley M.F.V. and Crundwell A.C. 1991. Additions and amendments to the mosses of Europe and Azores. Journal of Bryology 16: 337–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley M.F.V., Crundwell A.C., Dull R., Hill M.O. and Smith A.J.E. 1981. Mosses of Europe and the Azores: an annotated list of species, with synonyms from the recent literature. Journal of Bryology 11: 609–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Community 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of European Community L206: 7–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devillers P. and Devillers-Terschuren J. 1996. Palearctic Habitats Classification. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann M. and Lawesson J.E. 1999. Shifts in ecological behaviour of herbaceous forest species along a transect from northern central to north Europe. Folia Geobotanica 34: 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ek T., Susko U. and Auzins R. 1998. Mezaudzu atslegas biotopu inventarizacijas metodika [Inventory Methodology of Woodland Key-Habitats]. Valsts meza dienests, Riga, Latvia.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission 1999. Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats. EUR 15/2 October. European Commission, DG Environment.

  • Gavrilova G. and Sulcs V. 1999. Flora of Latvian Vascular Plants. Latvian Academic Library, Riga, Latvia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grolle R. 1976. Verzeichnis der Lebermoose Europas und benachbarter Gebiete. Feddes Repertorium 87: 171–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groombridge B. and Jenkins M.D. (eds) 1996. Assessing biodiversity status and sustainability. WCMC Biodiversity Series Vol. 5, World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 1–104.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Haila Y. and Kouki J. 1994. The phenomenon of biodiversity in conservation biology. Annales Zoologici Fennici 31: 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen L. and Knudsen H. (eds) 1997. Nordic Macromycetes Vol. 3. Nordswamp, Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermy M., Honnay O., Firbank L., Grashof-Bokdam C. and Lawesson J. 1999. An ecological comparison between ancient and other forest plant species in Europe, and the implications for forest conservation. Biological Conservation 91: 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingelög T., Andersson R. and Tjernberg M. (eds) 1993. Red Data Book of the Baltic Region. Lists of Threatened Vascular Plants and Vertebrates. Swedish Threatened Species Unit, Uppsala, Sweden.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson B.G. and Jonsell M. 1999. Exploring potential biodiversity indicators in boreal forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1417–1433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerney M.P., Cameron R.A.D. and Jungbluth J.H. 1983. Die Landschnecken Nord-und Mitteleuropas. Paul Parey Verlag, Hamburg/ Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laasimer L., Kuusk V., Tabaka L. and Lekavicius A. (eds) 1993. Flora of the Baltic Countries Vol. 1. Estonian Academy of Sciences, Tartu, Estonia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lähde E., Laiho O., Norokorpi Y. and Saksa T. 1991. The structure of advanced virgin forests in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 6: 527–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laivins M. 1986. Latvijas ezeru salu ozolu un liepu (Querco-Tilietum Laivins 1983) mezu sabiedribas [Oak–Lime Forest Communities of Latvian Lake Islands]. Jaunakais Mezsaimnieciba 28: 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larmanis V., Prieditis N. and Rudzite M. 2000. Mezaudzu atslegas biotopu rokasgramata [Handbook of Key-Habitats in Forests]. Valsts meza dienests, Riga, Latvia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer D.B. 1999. Future directions for biodiversity conservation in managed boreal forests: indicator species, impact studies and monitoring programs. Forest Ecology and Management 115: 277–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer D.B., Margules C.R. and Botkin D.B. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 14: 941–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder P. 1998. Stand structure and successional trends in forest reserves in Boreal Sweden, Ph.D. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder P. and Östlund L. 1998. Structural changes in three mid-boreal Swedish forest landscapes, 1885–1996. Biological Conservation 85: 9–19.

    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., 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 

  • Nitare J. and Norén M. 1992. Nyckelbiotoper kartlaggs i nytt projekt vid Skogsstyrelsen [Woodland key-habitats will be mapped in a new project of State Forest Service]. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 86: 219–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordén B. 2000. Dispersal ecology and conservation of wood-decay fungi, Ph.D. Thesis, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss R. 1995. Maintaining Ecological Integrity in Representative Reserve Networks. WWF-Canada and WWF-USA, Toronto/Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss R. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115: 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlson M., Söderström L., Hornberg G., Zackrisson O. and Hermansson J. 1997. Habitat qualities versus long-term continuity as determinants of biodiversity in boreal old-growth swamp forests. Biological Conservation 81: 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Östlund L., Zackrisson O. and Axelsson A.L. 1997. The history and transformation of a Scandinavian boreal landscape since the 19th century. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27: 1198–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paal J. 1998. Rare and threatened plant communities of Estonia. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1027–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piterans A. 2001. Latvijas kerpju konspekts [Checklist of the lichens of Latvia]. Latvijas Vegetacija 3: 5–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R.L., Humphries C.J., Margules C.R., Vane-Wright R.I. and Williams P.H. 1993. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 124–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieditis N. 1997. Vegetation of wetland forests in Latvia: a synopsis. Annales Botanici Fennici 34: 91–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieditis N. 1999a. Latvijas mezs: daba un daudzveidiba [Latvian Forest: Nature and Diversity]. WWF, Riga, Latvia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieditis N. 1999b. Status of wetland forests and their structural richness in Latvia. Environmental Conservation 26: 332–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryvarden L. and Gilbertson R.L. 1993, 1994. European Polypores. Part 1 and 2. Fungiflora, Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelsson J., Gustafsson L. and Ingelog T. 1994. Dying and Dead Trees — A Review of Their Importance for Biodiversity. Swedish Threatened Species, Uppsala, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarma P. 1959. Dinamika lesnih fitocenozov v Latvii [Dynamics of forest phytocoenoses in Latvia]. Rastitelnostj Latvii 2: 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnittler M. and Günther K.-F. 1999. Central European vascular plants requiring priority conservation measures — an analysis from national Red Lists and distribution maps. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 891–925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöors H. 1965. Forest regions. Acta Phytogeographica Suecica 50: 48–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spellerberg I.F. 1994. Monitoring Ecological Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strods H. (ed.) 1999. Latvijas meza vesture [History of Latvian Forest]. WWF, Riga, Latvia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susko U. 1998. Natural Forests of Latvia. A Study on Biodiversity, Structures, Dependent Species and Forest History. WWF, Riga, Latvia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 1997. Forest Reserves in Sweden. Report No. 4707.

  • Tabaka L. (ed.) 1974. Flora i rastitelnostj Latvii. Primorskaja nizmennostj [Flora and Vegetation of Latvia. The Coastal Lowland]. Zinatne, Riga, Latvia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tibell L. 1992. Crustose lichens as indicators of forest continuity in boreal forests. Nordic Journal of Forestry 12: 427–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trass H. and Malmer N. 1973. North European approaches to classification. In: Whittaker R.H. (ed.), Ordination and Classification of Communities. Handbook of Vegetation Science Vol. 5. Junk, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 529–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trass H., Vellak K. and Ingerpuu N. 1999. Floristical and ecological properties for identification of primaeval forests in Estonia. Annales Botanici Fennici 36: 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegers J. 1990. Forested wetlands in western Europe. In: Lugo A.O., Brinson M. and Brown S. (eds), Forested Wetlands. Ecosystems of the World Vol. 15. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 407–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wulf M. 1997. Plant species as indicators of ancient woodland in northwestern Germany. Journal of Vegetation Science 8: 635–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yurkevitch I.D., Geltman V.S. and Lovchij N.F. 1968. Tipi i assotsiatsii chernoolhovikh lesov (po issledovanijam v BSSR) [Types and Associations of Black Alder Forests (on the Basis of Investigations in the BSSR)]. Nauka i Technika, Minsk, Belarus.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gandrs Publishers, LV–1050, Riga, Latvia

    Normunds Prieditis

Authors
  1. Normunds Prieditis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prieditis, N. Evaluation frameworks and conservation system of Latvian forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 11, 1361–1375 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016217832105

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016217832105

Search

Navigation