Scholarlink

Context <p>A central principle in ecology is that patterns and processes observed at one scale may shift in magnitude and direction across scales. Yet this insight is often overlooked in forest management, including the practice of aggregated retention. While patch-scale studies have documented local ecological benefits, potential trade-offs at broader scales via “spatial leakage” of edge effects (e.g., loss of interior forest) remain poorly understood.</p> Objectives <p>We address this knowledge gap by examining how retention within individual harvest blocks influences the extent of edge-affected forest with reduced “interior-like” function at the landscape scale.</p> Methods <p>We apply fundamental geometric scaling laws to generate null expectations of how retention within individual harvest blocks influences the extent of edge-affected forests, thereby reducing interior habitat at the landscape scale. We then use spatially explicit landscape simulations to test and validate this relationship.</p> Results <p>We show that retention levels of ~ 20% increase the edge-affected area of the landscape by ~ 4 – 30% per unit area harvested, depending on the assumed edge-affected distance. These findings demonstrate that, when considering loss of interior forest, patch-scale benefits do not necessarily translate into landscape-level gains, as retaining local patches within harvests cannot offset the geometric scaling of perimeter and area when total landscape harvest remains unchanged.</p> Conclusions <p>In the context of increasing human pressure on forests, understanding scale-dependent trade-offs from habitat reconfiguration is critical for designing effective and sustainable conservation strategies. Our study highlights that patch-scale benefits of retention forestry will not always translate into landscape-scale gains in forest habitat, as they are constrained by geometric scaling relationships between perimeter and area. These relationships generate spatial leakage that is magnified by edge effects, a mechanism that is often overlooked in assessments of local outcomes from retention forestry.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The geometry of retention: paradoxical consequences of aggregated retention forestry

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月22日

查看全文
  • Kyle W. Taylor,
  • Leonardo Viliani,
  • Scott E. Nielsen

摘要

Context

A central principle in ecology is that patterns and processes observed at one scale may shift in magnitude and direction across scales. Yet this insight is often overlooked in forest management, including the practice of aggregated retention. While patch-scale studies have documented local ecological benefits, potential trade-offs at broader scales via “spatial leakage” of edge effects (e.g., loss of interior forest) remain poorly understood.

Objectives

We address this knowledge gap by examining how retention within individual harvest blocks influences the extent of edge-affected forest with reduced “interior-like” function at the landscape scale.

Methods

We apply fundamental geometric scaling laws to generate null expectations of how retention within individual harvest blocks influences the extent of edge-affected forests, thereby reducing interior habitat at the landscape scale. We then use spatially explicit landscape simulations to test and validate this relationship.

Results

We show that retention levels of ~ 20% increase the edge-affected area of the landscape by ~ 4 – 30% per unit area harvested, depending on the assumed edge-affected distance. These findings demonstrate that, when considering loss of interior forest, patch-scale benefits do not necessarily translate into landscape-level gains, as retaining local patches within harvests cannot offset the geometric scaling of perimeter and area when total landscape harvest remains unchanged.

Conclusions

In the context of increasing human pressure on forests, understanding scale-dependent trade-offs from habitat reconfiguration is critical for designing effective and sustainable conservation strategies. Our study highlights that patch-scale benefits of retention forestry will not always translate into landscape-scale gains in forest habitat, as they are constrained by geometric scaling relationships between perimeter and area. These relationships generate spatial leakage that is magnified by edge effects, a mechanism that is often overlooked in assessments of local outcomes from retention forestry.