Policy language in restoration ecology

elating restoration ecology to policy is one of the aims of the Society for Ecological Restoration and its journal Restoration Ecology. As an interdisciplinary team of researchers in both ecological science and political science, we have struggled with how policy-relevant language is and could be deployed in restoration ecology. Using language in scientific publications that resonates with overarching policy questions may facilitate linkages between researcher investigations and decision-makers' concerns on all levels. Climate change is the most important environmental problem of our time and to provide policymakers with new relevant knowledge on this problem is of outmost importance. To determine whether or not policy-specific language was being included in restoration ecology science, we surveyed the field of restoration ecology from 2008 to 2010, identifying 1,029 articles, which we further examined for the inclusion of climate change as a key element of the research. We found that of the 58 articles with “climate change” or “global warming” in the abstract, only 3 identified specific policies relevant to the research results. We believe that restoration ecologists are failing to include themselves in policy formation and implementation of issues such as climate change within journals focused on restoration ecology. We suggest that more explicit reference to policies and terminology recognizable to policymakers might enhance the impact of restoration ecology on decision-making processes

The intensity of forest management affects the nest cavity production of woodpeckers and tits in mature boreal forests

Cavities made by birds are an important microhabitat for many taxa in forests. Long-term dynamics of cavity patterns and the effect of forest management on cavities are, however, largely unknown. We studied cavity production, measured as nest cavity production rates (CPR = no. of new cavities/km2/year), of woodpeckers and tits in forests with different management intensity in southern Finland, based on a data from 37 years. Forests were divided into managed, seminatural and natural stands. The data covered 56 forest stands with the total area of 1690 ha. Stands were inventoried annually for new cavities. The total numbers of woodpecker and tit cavities were 2238 and 329, respectively. There were large differences in CPRs between forest stands with different management intensity. For woodpeckers, the CPR was highest in natural forests (5.7) and lowest in managed forests (1.5). For the tit species, the respective numbers were 0.9 and 0.3. The CPRs of different cavity-making bird species and cavity tree characteristics (e.g. tree condition and species) were consistent, suggesting that different cavity-makers benefit from similar forest and tree characteristics. The results also suggest that forests managed with currently prevailing methods limit the production of cavities. To promote cavities, the results from this and other studies suggest that managed forests should include more features of natural forests, such as more diverse tree species and within-stand structural variability distribution (tree-level heterogeneity), larger amount of decayed wood, more retention trees and snags and longer rotation periods.Peer reviewe