Search

Restoration of degraded habitat is frequently used in ecological compensation. However, ecological restoration suffers from innate problems of long delivery times of features shown to be good proxies for biodiversity, e.g., large dead trees. We tested a possible way to circumvent this problem; the translocation of hard-to-come deadwood substrates from an impact area to a compensation area. Following translocation, deadwood density in the compensation area was locally equivalent to the impact area, around 20 m 3  ha -1 , a threshold for supporting high biodiversity of rare and red-listed species. However, deadwood composition differed between the impact and compensation area, showing a need to include more deadwood types, e.g., late decomposition deadwood, in the translocation scheme. To guide future compensation efforts, the cost for translocation at different spatial scales was calculated. We conclude that translocation of deadwood could provide a cost-efficient new tool for ecological compensation/restoration but that the method needs refinement., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Biodiversity conservation and economic profit from forests can be combined by various land-sparing and land-sharing approaches. Using a semi-structured survey, we evaluated support for scenarios representing contrasting conservation strategies in a managed boreal forest landscape. Land-sparing approaches were supported by the conservation organisation, regional administrations and the forest company, mainly motivated by the benefit for biodiversity based on ecological theory. Land-sharing approaches were supported by one recreational organisation, some municipalities and the forest owners' association, mainly motivated by the delivery of ecosystem services. Stakeholder groups using certain ecosystem services had motivations that we related to an anthropocentric mindset, while others focused more on species conservation, which can be related both to an anthropocentric or an ecocentric mindsets. Forest conservation planning should consider stakeholders' preferences to handle land-use conflicts. Since reaching consensus among multiple stakeholders seems unfeasible, a combination of land-sparing and land-sharing approaches is probably the best compromise., (© 2023. The Author(s).)