Search for: All records

Abstract In many regions of the world, forest management has reduced old forest and simplified forest structure and composition. We hypothesized that such forest degradation has resulted in long-term habitat loss for forest-associated bird species of eastern Canada (130,017 km 2 ) which, in turn, has caused bird-population declines. Despite little change in overall forest cover, we found substantial reductions in old forest as a result of frequent clear-cutting and a broad-scale transformation to intensified forestry. Back-cast species distribution models revealed that breeding habitat loss occurred for 66% of the 54 most common species from 1985 to 2020 and was strongly associated with reduction in old age classes. Using a long-term, independent dataset, we found that habitat amount predicted population size for 94% of species, and habitat loss was associated with population declines for old-forest species. Forest degradation may therefore be a primary cause of biodiversity decline in managed forest landscapes. 

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) initiated one of the most sweeping changes to forest management in the world, affecting 10 million hectares of federal land. The NWFP is a science-based plan incorporating monitoring and adaptive management and provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the influence of policy. We used >25 years of region-wide bird surveys, forest data, and land-ownership maps to test this policy’s effect on biodiversity. Clearcutting decreased rapidly, and we expected populations of older-forest–associated birds to stabilize on federal land, but to continue declining on private industrial lands where clearcutting continued. In contrast, we expected declines in early-seral–associated species on federal land because of reduced anthropogenic disturbance since the NWFP. Bayesian hierarchical models revealed that bird species’ population trends tracked changes in forest composition. However, against our expectations, declines of birds associated with older forests accelerated. These declines are partly explained by losses of older forests due to fire on federal land and continued clearcutting elsewhere. Indeed, the NWFP anticipated that reversing declines of older forests would take time. Overall, the early-seral ecosystem area was stable, but declined in two ecoregions—the Coast Range and Cascades—along with early-seral bird populations. Although the NWFP halted clearcutting on federal land, this has so far been insufficient to reverse declines in older-forest–associated bird populations. These findings underscore the importance of continuing to prioritize older forests under the NWFP and ensuring that the recently proposed creation of early-seral ecosystems does not impede the conservation and development of older-forest structure.

 

Research hypotheses have been a cornerstone of science since before Galileo. Many have argued that hypotheses (1) encourage discovery of mechanisms, and (2) reduce bias—both features that should increase transferability and reproducibility. However, we are entering a new era of big data and highly predictive models where some argue the hypothesis is outmoded. We hypothesized that hypothesis use has declined in ecology and evolution since the 1990s, given the substantial advancement of tools further facilitating descriptive, correlative research. Alternatively, hypothesis use may have becomemorefrequent due to the strong recommendation by some journals and funding agencies that submissions have hypothesis statements. Using a detailed literature analysis (N = 268 articles), we found prevalence of hypotheses in eco–evo research is very low (6.7%–26%) and static from 1990–2015, a pattern mirrored in an extensive literature search (N = 302,558 articles). Our literature review also indicates that neither grant success nor citation rates were related to the inclusion of hypotheses, which may provide disincentive for hypothesis formulation. Here, we review common justifications for avoiding hypotheses and present new arguments based on benefits to the individual researcher. We argue that stating multiple alternative hypotheses increases research clarity and precision, and is more likely to address the mechanisms for observed patterns in nature. Although hypotheses are not always necessary, we expect their continued and increased use will help our fields move toward greater understanding, reproducibility, prediction, and effective conservation of nature.