Jump to content

Significance of deadwood to forest ecosystems

From UBC Wiki
A tree that is no longer alive still stands in a forest with moss covering it.
Mossy Dead Tree standing in forest

Overview

Mossy Dead Tree Stump

Dead trees are an important part of biodiversity in many forest types, but they have a history of being overlooked in conservation measures, especially in urban environments.[1][2] Deadwood is removed from forests as a part of forest management, for aesthetic purposes, safety precautions or for fuel.[3][4] Dead woody debris plays a crucial role in nutrient cycling, releasing a slow and steady flow of nutrients, minimizing loss by leaching.[3] On top of being an important part of long-term nutrient availability, dead trees harbor an abundance of flora and fauna which rely on these distinct microhabitats for survival.[5] In Europe’s boreal forests, approximately 20-25% of species depend on dead trees for their survival.[6] For forest ecosystems, dead trees play a vital and irreplaceable role. To preserve the biodiversity of these forest ecosystems, conservation efforts must focus on the preservation of dead trees alongside their living counterparts.

Background

History of Deadwood in Managed Forests

Deadwood and course woody debris has traditionally been discarded and removed from managed and urban forests as a part of regular forest management.[3] Deadwood was seen as a sign of a poorly managed forest and often removed.[3] The term 'debris' stemmed from the attitude towards deadwood, and its need for removal.[3] The ecological value of woody debris was widely unknown until the 1970's when the rise of threatened species in managed forests caused scientists to rethink forest ecosystem dynamics; including the removal of dead trees and course woody debris.[7][3] Research now shows that dead wood, including standing trees, weakened trees, fallen logs and coarse woody debris play a key role in ecosystem function and nutrient cycling.[7]

Removal of Deadwood in Urban Parks

In parks and protected areas with lots of human activity, deadwood is often removed for safety reasons and to mitigate fire risk.[4] In 2025 the Vancouver Park's Board began the removal of thousands of dead and decaying trees in Stanley Park following extreme drought conditions and a hemlock looper outbreak.[4] Other locations in Metro Vancouver like Lynn Canyon in the District of North Vancouver go about removing hazard trees as they pose a risk to public safety due to risk of tree failure.[8] Trees are often removed if they are diseased, dead, present a risk to infrastructure, or certain development is approved.[9] Although trees both dead and alive provide many ecological services to urban areas, public safety comes first.[9]

Removal of Deadwood for Fire Management

With climate change, increasing temperatures and drought conditions, it has become common practice to remove deadwood from forests to remove fuel loads from the understory.[10] Fuel can be described as 'any organic matter, living or dead, in the ground, on the ground, or in the air that can ignite and burn'.[11] The accumulation of deadwood in forest understory's can lead to an increase in flammable material.[11] However, a build up of small material deadwood has been found to be more of an issue compared to larger woody debris, as its small surface area acts as kindling for sparks.[11] Larger pieces of coarse woody debris provide ecological functions different from smaller pieces.[12] They often last longer, hold more moisture making them less flammable, and contribute more organic material to the soil.[12] Historically, in ecosystems where fire is a natural part of the landscape, Indigenous cultures have often integrated fire into land management to reduce smaller scale coarse woody debris fuel loads.[13] These cultural burns can help reduce the intensity of wildfires by periodically removing small scale fuel.[13] The banning of cultural burning and overall negative attitude towards fire has resulted in large fuel build ups and associated negative attitudes towards deadwood.[14]

Economic History of Dead Tree Removal and Salvage Logging

A principal driver of dead tree removal has been economics.[15] After large scale disturbances, foresters aimed to remove salvageable dead trees for wood products before rot, fungi, and other natural processes further damaged the wood.[15] Dead tree removal following insect outbreaks has also been used to attempt to buffer or defer the infestation, however salvaging rates could not keep up with insect movement, and results were unsuccessful.[16]

Coarse woody debris

Concern Surrounding Deadwood Removal

The rise of threatened species and loss of biodiversity has caused an increase in public awareness of forest structure and systems, including deadwood.[7] For example, the Western Screech Owls Stewardship Project in the Gulf Islands has credited the decline of the species to habitat loss due to logging and the removal of old dead and decaying trees.[17] Public concern regarding the actual motives behind deadwood removal have also sparked controversy following the mass removal of trees from Stanley Park in 2025.[4] Debate on whether the removal of the dead trees was for economic or ecological reasons has stirred conservation groups, who claim the removal was unnecessary.[18]

Preserving biodiversity in urban and managed forests can be a challenge. To properly protect biodiversity, ecosystem functions, nutrient cycling and the habitat of species at risk, when possible large dead and woody debris should be left to be a part of regular nutrient cycling.[3] The challenge for the future will be finding a balance between active forest management, reduction of fire fuel-load, protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services.[10]

Ecosystem Role

Screech owl in dead tree. Screech owls often use dead and decaying trees for shelter[17]

Habitat

Shelter and nesting sites

Standing dead trees (snags) and fallen logs act as important habitat features for many forest organisms.[5] These structures serve as shelter, nesting sites, and feeding substrates for birds, mammals, insects, and fungi, and become particularly important in forests where natural habitat features are limited or reduced by management practices.[5] Cavities formed in dead or decaying trees are widely used by cavity-nesting species. Many birds actively excavate these cavities, which are subsequently reused by a variety of secondary users such as small mammals, reptiles, and other bird species.[5] Because these cavities are reused, a single tree can support multiple species over time, helping maintain habitat availability within the forest. Beyond nesting functions, deadwood also provides a surface where many organisms feed, grow, and complete parts of their life cycle. Decomposing wood hosts diverse communities of fungi and invertebrates that depend on deadwood for growth and reproduction. These organisms break down organic material and, in turn, become food for higher trophic levels such as birds and small mammals.[7] Through these relationships, deadwood supports complex food webs and contributes to energy flow within forest ecosystems. Deadwood also influences habitat quality by modifying local environmental conditions. Logs and snags can buffer temperature fluctuations, retain moisture, and reduce exposure to desiccation.[19] These microhabitats are particularly important for species that are sensitive to environmental stress, allowing them to persist under otherwise unfavorable conditions. As a result, deadwood enhances the stability of microclimatic conditions at small spatial scales. In addition, fallen logs contribute to the physical structure of the forest floor by acting as movement pathways and refuges for ground-dwelling organisms.[19] These structures create protected routes that facilitate movement and provide shelter during extreme environmental conditions. By increasing structural complexity and spatial heterogeneity, deadwood supports biodiversity across multiple trophic levels and plays a key role in maintaining habitat diversity. Collectively, these functions demonstrate that deadwood is not merely a byproduct of tree mortality but a fundamental and dynamic component of forest habitat systems that supports a wide range of ecological processes.

Tree Microhabitats

Tree microhabitats are essential for providing homes for forest-dwelling species and driving ecosystem biodiversity. Microhabitats are morphological features present on trees that are used by highly specialized species in at least one part of their lifecycle, such as cavities, cracks, bark features, or fungal fruiting[20]. These features act as shelters, breeding locations or critical hibernation or feeding spots for many species. The decay process of dead trees is a main mechanism for the production of microhabitats. Microhabitats can be formed directly linked to the cause of death (bark peels, crack and conks of fungi) or formed indirectly such as the softening or drying of wood making it easier for woodpeckers to forage and excavate compared to the harder living wood[5].

Structural complexity

The presence of deadwood adds variation to forest structure by introducing differences in form, size, and decay stage. This creates a range of microenvironments with varying levels of moisture, light, and temperature.[7] Such variability allows different species to occupy different niches, reducing competition and supporting coexistence. In addition, the diversity of decay stages contributes to temporal heterogeneity within ecosystems. Newly fallen logs, moderately decomposed wood, and highly decayed substrates each provide distinct ecological conditions and support different biological communities.[2] Over time, this structural diversity becomes an important component of ecosystem stability. Forests with more complex physical structures tend to support a wider range of organisms, highlighting the role of deadwood in maintaining both habitat diversity and ecological resilience.[7] This structural complexity is particularly important in managed forests, where simplification of forest structure can reduce habitat availability. Retaining deadwood is therefore increasingly recognized as a key strategy for restoring structural diversity in these systems.[21]

Nutrient Cycling

Fungi growing on a decomposing fallen log.

Nutrient storage

Deadwood stores nutrients that have built up in woody tissues during a tree’s lifetime.[19] After the tree dies, these nutrients remain in the wood instead of being immediately released into the soil. Deadwood also intercepts litterfall and throughfall (rain passing through the canopy), allowing nutrients to be retained within logs instead of being rapidly transferred to the soil or lost through leaching.[19] This helps keep nutrients available within the ecosystem over time. Over time, deadwood acts as a long-term nutrient reservoir, gradually releasing nutrients. This slow release helps maintain nutrient balance in forest ecosystems.

Soil and moisture effects

As deadwood decomposes, nutrients are gradually released back into the soil through the activity of fungi, microorganisms, and invertebrates.[7] These organisms break down complex organic materials such as lignin and cellulose, helping drive nutrient cycling within the ecosystem. Deadwood also improves soil structure and increases water-holding capacity, creating moist conditions that many organisms depend on, particularly in environments that experience seasonal dryness.[19] These conditions can improve seedling survival and support microbial activity. In some forest ecosystems, decaying logs act as important substrates for seedling establishment, especially where conditions on the forest floor are less favorable due to competition or limited moisture. This helps support forest regeneration over time.

Decomposition processes

Decomposition is an important process in deadwood that helps regulate nutrient cycling. It is mainly carried out by fungi and other decomposers that break down compounds such as lignin and cellulose.[22] The rate of decomposition can vary depending on environmental conditions, including moisture, temperature, and the characteristics of the wood itself. These differences affect how quickly nutrients are released and redistributed within the ecosystem, connecting decomposition to overall ecosystem functioning.[22] In addition, decomposition processes contribute to long-term carbon storage and release dynamics, showing that deadwood is an important part of forest carbon dynamics. [22]

Biodiversity

Habitat for specialized species

Deadwood created by natural disturbances, such as bark beetle outbreaks, provides habitat for specialized species that depend on specific structural conditions.[10] These species are often adapted to particular stages of wood decay or specific physical characteristics of dead trees. For example, barbastelle bats (Barbastella barbastellus) have been observed to roost beneath loose bark of dead trees, relying on structural features that are typically absent in living trees.[10] This shows how deadwood supports species with specialized habitat requirements. Such species are often dependent on the continued availability of deadwood, meaning that reductions in deadwood can directly impact their populations and ecological roles.

Increase in forest biodiversity

Natural disturbances that generate deadwood can increase biodiversity by creating new niches and adding structural variation within forests.[7] These changes provide a wider range of habitat conditions that support diverse species. A substantial proportion of forest organisms depend on dead or decaying wood during some stage of their life cycle, particularly fungi, insects, and other saproxylic species.[7] These organisms form the foundation of many forest food webs. In addition, forests with higher amounts of deadwood tend to support greater species diversity compared to intensively managed forests where deadwood is removed.[11] This shows the importance of deadwood in maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Overall, deadwood plays a fundamental role in shaping biodiversity patterns and supporting ecological processes within forest ecosystems.

Ecosystem-level implications

Beyond its role in supporting individual species, deadwood contributes to broader ecosystem functioning. By influencing habitat availability, nutrient cycling, and structural complexity, it helps shape biodiversity patterns at the ecosystem scale.[2] Differences in the amount, type, and distribution of deadwood can lead to variations in community composition and ecological interactions. This demonstrates that deadwood is not only a habitat feature, but also a fundamental component of forest ecosystems that supports biodiversity across multiple spatial and temporal scales.[21]

Threats to Deadwood Integrity

Mountain Pine Beetle damage in the Fraser Experimental Forest 2007

Salvage Logging

Salvage logging is a practice in which damaged or dead trees are removed from disturbed forest ecosystems. The practice of salvage logging occurs after natural disasters, including windstorms, wildfires, and insect outbreaks, with the intention of retaining the economic value of impacted ecosystems [23]. Due to an increase in the number of disturbances to forest ecosystems, the implementation rates of salvage logging practices have seen significant growth worldwide [24]. In part, this growth can additionally be explained by attitudes toward disturbed forests. In general, disturbed forests are seen as unwanted and thus are suitable candidates for extractive practices[25]. However, salvage logging is a controversial practice. With regard to Poland’s Białowieża Forest, a significant hotspot for biodiversity, the European Commission strongly urged the banning of salvage logging due to its impacts on biodiversity and environmental integrity [26]. Another point of controversy is that salvage logging occurs at rates greater than traditional logging practices. In 23 studied cases from Europe, 55% of disturbed forests were salvage-logged, including 68% of protected forests studied [24]. Overall, salvage logging has drastic impacts on removal rates of deadwood from forests and threatens the presence of deadwood in forest ecosystems.

Forest Management Practices

Forest management practices have altered the natural composition of forests and the amount of deadwood present within them. Managed forests have less dead wood than natural forests, and the deadwood that is present is different in diversity of species, size, and type[27]. Standing deadwood, known as snags, occurs at very low rates in managed and formerly-managed forests compared to those which have never been managed [28]. In Austria, studies of managed forests compared to never-managed forests concluded that snags represent on average 2.5% of standing volume in managed forests, and up to 8.9% in never-managed forests[28]. The integrity of deadwood in managed forests depends on the employed management strategies, which can severely impact the proportion of deadwood in these forests.

Management considerations and ecological trade-offs

The ecological importance of deadwood is often a point of tense when implementing forest management practices. Deadwood is frequently removed due to concerns related to wildfire risk, timber value, and public safety. However, scientific evidence indicates that large-scale removal of dead trees does not necessarily reduce wildfire risk and may lead to unintended ecological consequences[13].

Studies suggest that removing deadwood can disrupt natural regeneration processes and reduce ecosystem resilience by eliminating important structural and biological legacies left after disturbances [10][13]. Deadwood contributes to post-disturbance recovery by providing habitat, maintaining nutrient cycling, and supporting species that depend on decaying wood.

As a result, forest management strategies increasingly recognize the need to balance risk reduction with biodiversity conservation. Retaining a certain amount of deadwood is now considered an important component of sustainable forest management aimed at maintaining ecological integrity [20]. This highlights the importance of integrating ecological knowledge into forest management decisions.

Impact on Saproxylic Organisms and Ecosystem Services

Saproxylic Organisms

Morimus asper, a saproxylic beetle.

Saproxylic organisms are those which depend upon deadwood for their survival. Beetles and fungi make up the majority of these organisms, along with other saproxylic insects[21]. Populations of saproxylic organisms decrease after salvage logging practices[29]. In many regions, saproxylic species are among the most threatened due to forest management practices that reduce the number of deadwood[30].

The impacts of deadwood removal are recorded among the various groups of saproxylic organisms. As the largest and most diverse group dependent on deadwood, beetles are well-studied and many are considered to be species at risk[31]. In Germany, 86% of beetles that depend on deadwood are threatened[32]. Including beetles, all saproxylic insects face the harm of deadwood removal. Due to extensive forest management, many saproxylic insect populations are regarded as threatened[33]. The disturbance of deadwood in old-growth forests directly contributes to the decrease in biodiversity of saproxylic insects [34]. In contrast to the extensive studies on beetles, saproxylic fungi are typically excluded from attempts to maintain ecosystem integrity when removing deadwood[35]. On top of the exclusion when trying to manage deadwood, restored deadwood does not provide these same benefits to fungi as natural deadwood, despite attempts to reinstate its ecosystem role[36].

Overall, the failure of forest management practices to consider potential harm to saproxylic organisms threatens the survival of a variety of populations and species.

Ecosystem services

Carbon storage

Deadwood is plays a significant role in the carbon cycle as one of many forms of carbon storage. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identifies five carbon pools which are vital for climate change mitigation[37]. Across the globe, approximately 8% of carbon storage in forests is done by deadwood[22]. Despite these benefits, the role of deadwood as a carbon pool is vastly underestimated compared to living wood[37]. In forests where deadwood has been removed, the total amount of carbon storage by deadwood is significantly lower than those which employ management strategies that allow for the retention of deadwood[38]. Forest management that removes deadwood interrupts the natural carbon cycle and disturbs deadwood's role of carbon storage. To maintain the carbon storage functions of forests, deadwood must be maintained.

Biogeochemical cycling

The decay of deadwood in forests helps to maintain the natural flow of biogeochemical cycles. These biogeochemical cycles are essential for maintaining soil nutrient content, and the removal of deadwood leads to a decrease in available nutrients in soil[39]. In addition to acting as carbon sinks, deadwood decay acts as an important source of organic carbon leaching into forest soils[40]. The concentration of organic carbon in soils is twice as high in unmanaged forests as the concentration in managed forests[40]. Deadwood removal prevents deadwood from leaching nutrients into soil as it decays, directly impacting biogeochemical flows that are necessary to maintain forest ecosystem health.

Current Remedial Actions

Deadwood Enrichment

Passive Enrichment

Passive deadwood enrichment involves forest preservation process that completely exclude forms of anthropogenic disturbances, such as logging, to foster production of deadwood. This includes designating forests as protected areas or protecting single habitat tree or tree groups[41]. This allows deadwood to accumulate via natural processes like aging or biological disturbances[42]. Retaining living trees and allowing them to reach the end of their life space is an effective method of increasing future deadwood availability. It ensures the availability of microhabitats for insects, provides a foundation for further development of deadwood, provides a supply of seeds for forest rejuvenation and supports the development of old growth areas in forests[19]. Another method of passive enrichment is the retention of deadwood at all decay stages[19]. Which ensures that the deadwood's roles in habitat availability and in nutrient cycling are balanced throughout all necessary stages.

Active Enrichment

Active deadwood enrichment uses human intervention to add or preserve deadwood in forest ecosystems. Active strategies aim to integrate economic and ecological demands via leaving tree parts, such as tree tops or tree stumps, after harvest and logging activities[42]. This artificial creation of deadwood can promote biodiversity within managed forests by introducing and increasing the amount of deadwood in the forest and thus the number of microhabitats available for dependent species[19].

Deadwood Management

Retaining Large Coarse Woody Debris

The Province of British Columbia stated in the Wildlife Tree Retention Management Guide that a portion of the total area of all cut blocks harvested within a one-year period should be left behind for wildlife.[43] If the wildlife trees set for retention are felled of blow down, they should be left to function as coarse woody debris unless they pose a significant threat to forest health or worker safety.[43] The Chief Forester's Guidance on Coarse Woody Debris Management acknowledged that larger pieces of course woody debris are less flammable and function differently from smaller pieces, and hence larger pieces should be left behind for ecological function and biodiversity. [12] Monitoring of course woody debris in managed forests is an ongoing practice, and the methods used in forestry are always changing.[12] Allowing removal of smaller hazard trees, but leaving behind larger, non hazardous deadwood within the forest to act as nutrient source, soil stabilizer, habitat and moisture retention would benefit the future generation of forests to grow on the land.[12]

Practicing Correct Timing of Deadwood Removal

An arborist uses a hand saw to prune dead and hazardous limbs in the canopy of a tree.

If removal of deadwood is deemed necessary, removal should be scheduled to avoid breeding, nesting, and rearing seasons for birds and wildlife.[44] Wildlife trees, which are defined as 'a standing dead or live tree with special characteristics that provide food and shelter for wildlife' are protected under the Wildlife Act (2004).[44] The Wildlife Act prohibits the killing, harming, harassment, capture or taking of species at risk and the damage or destruction of a residence of a species at risk except as authorized by regulation, permit or agreement.[44] It also protects all birds and their eggs; nests while they are occupied by a bird or egg; and the nests of eagles, peregrine falcons, gyrfalcons, ospreys, and herons year-round.[44] The loss of wildlife trees has been associated with declines of threatened wildlife, therefor when possible, the preferred option is limbing or topping rather than removing the tree in its entirety.[44]

Assessments by Professionals

Removal of any trees and dead woody debris should be conducted by a professional. Qualified professionals should asses trees before removal to see if they are true hazards or can be left behind for habitat.[43] Workers responsible for assessing dangerous trees must have successfully completed the Wildlife/Danger Tree Assessors Course and hold current certification.[43] A qualified professional can also determine if the proposed tree for removal is providing wildlife habitat and should be left behind for ecological purposes.[44]

Forestry Frameworks

Policies and Guidelines

Policy‑level actions such as tree retention guidelines provide legally enforceable management frameworks to ensure consistent biodiversity protection across forests. Such policies and guidelines have been implemented across national, regional and local levels. British Columbia’s Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR) has a default wildlife tree retention practice requirement for agreement holders to retain a minimum of 7% of the total area of harvested cut blocks annually as Wildlife Tree Retention (WTR), with at least 3.5% retained of each cut block[43] . High value tree patches are defined as areas of trees with high wildlife value, including large dead or decaying trees that provide habitat sites for local fauna and benefit local biodiversity[43]. This also ensure long term production of coarse woody debris which supports forest nutrient cycling and soil moisture retention. BC’s FPPR wildlife tree retention practice embeds deadwood retention practices into regulatory forest law which supports and enforces compliance across operators. It is an example of the role of government bodies in biodiversity conservation. However, it has been criticized that the current FPPR as it lacks the support to adopt of new terminology of the retention systems rather than clearcut with reserves[45]. It has been proposed that the commitment to wildlife tree retention in legislation should be supported by silvicultural prescriptions that articulate the long-term intent reserve trees and involve adaptive management practices and long term monitoring to maintain effectiveness[45].

Forest Certification

Forest certification such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) use a market-based incentive approach to encourage forest managers to retain deadwood as a method in increase or maintain biodiversity. These certification standards require forest management maintains or enhances structural elements essential for biodiversity, including deadwood [46][47]. Environmentally, post-certified forests show higher retention rates of trees left during harvesting to provide live and dead or decaying wood as habitat than non‑certified forests[48]. Economically, forest certification increases the market value of sustainably sourced timber as certified wood products often sell at a premium price across markets where there is high buyer demand for sustainably sourced products[49]. Certification also shifts public and industry attitudes toward deadwood as it normalizes the presence of deadwood within forests and provides consumers with transparency of forest management practices.

Summary

Historically, forest management practices have involved the removal of deadwood to maintain forest integrity, ensure safety of people using recreational forests, and manage fire. Additionally, the economic incentives of salvage logging have further increased the drive to remove deadwood from forest ecosystems. As research into deadwood revealed its ecological value, concern for the harms of its removal became prominent in the mainstream.

The ecological value of deadwood is expansive. Deadwood provides habitat and microhabitats for birds, mammals, insects, fungi, and other organisms. Nutrient cycles are dependent on deadwood for its ability to retain nutrients and later release those nutrients back into soil, continuing nutrient cycling. Contributions to forest biodiversity are also a key feature of deadwood with its ability to sustain specialized saproxylic organisms and create ecosystem niches.

Harmful human activity such as salvage logging and extensive forest management has decreased the amount of dead wood in forested ecosystems. This decrease is most notably harmful to saproxylic organisms and the ecosystem functions that deadwood provides. Management practices that prioritize the removal of deadwood directly contribute to reductions in populations for saproxylic organisms. Furthermore, these management practices impact the ecosystem services that deadwood provides, harming the health of forest ecosystems.

A growth in recognition of the significance of deadwood for biodiversity and ecosystem services has led to increasing attempts to conserve deadwood. Many conservation strategies have already been employed, including enrichment, planning deadwood removal in accordance with crucial events for wildlife, partial removal practices, and professional assessment.

To further protect deadwood and maintain its important ecosystem role, solutions continue to be developed. Policy and guideline implementations hope to regulate deadwood removal to align with conservation goals. Alongside policies, certification strategies require forest management practices to retain and enhance deadwood in order to receive certification. This certification incentivizes companies to ensure deadwood is well-maintained even in extensively managed forests. Together with existing remedial strategies, these solutions highlight the ecological importance of deadwood and aim to conserve its ecosystem services and role in biodiversity.

References

  1. ↑ Kalman & Whitehead, Harold & Lorne (2011). "Conservation of the Hollow Tree in Vancouver's Stanley Park" (PDF). Journal of Preservation Technology,: 42.CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Seibold, S., C. Bässler, R. Brandl, M.M. Gossner, S. Thorn, M. D. Ulyshen, & J. Müller. (2015). "Experimental studies of dead-wood biodiversity — A review identifying global gaps in knowledge". Biological Conservation. 191: 139–149 – via Science Direct.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Lombardi, F., & B. Mali. (2016). "Dead wood as a driver of forest functions". Italian Journal of Agronomy. 11: 23–26 – via Science Direct.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 "Plan to remove Stanley Park trees faces growing criticism". CBC News. Mar 19, 2024 5:01 PM PDT. Retrieved March 6th, 2026. Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Paillet, Yoan; Archaux, Frédéric; Boulanger, Vincent; Debaive, Nicolas; Fuhr, Marc; Glig, Olivier; Gosselin, Frédéric; Guilbert, Eric (9 January 2017). "Snags and large trees drive higher tree microhabitat densities in strict forest reserves". Forest Ecology and Management. 389: 176–186 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  6. ↑ Pasanen, H., K. Junninen, J. Boberg, S. Tatsumi, J. Stenlid, & J. Kouki. (2018). "Life after tree death: Does restored dead wood host different fungal communities to natural woody substrates?". Forest Ecology and Management. 409: 863–871 – via Science Direct.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 Bauhus, J., Baber, K., & Müller, J. (2018). "Dead Wood in Forest Ecosystems" (PDF). Advances in Ecological Research. 16 – via Research Gate.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ↑ "Parks, Trails and Recreation: Managing Hazard Trees". District of North Vancouver. March 9th, 2026. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 City of Vancouver. (n.d.) Vancouvers Urban Forest. https://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/urban-forest-strategy.aspx
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 Sorenson, Quinn M.; Wayman, Rebecca Bewley; Ursell, Tara L.; Safford, Hugh D. (2025). "Removing dead trees after mass drought mortality enhances fire-adapted tree recruitment, reduces future fire severity, and has mixed effects on carbon stocks". Frontiers For Global Change. 8.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Government of Northwest Territories, Environment and Climate Change. (n.d.). Wildfire science. https://www.gov.nt.ca/ecc/en/services/wildfire-operations/wildfire-science
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Government of British Columbia. (2010) Chief Forester's Guidance Coarse Woody Debris Management. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/conservation-habitat-management/wildlife-conservation/wildlife-tree-committee/chief_forester_short_cwd.pdf
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 The Government of British Columbia. (2026, January 29). Cultural and prescribed fire.https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/wildfire-status/prevention/prescribed-burning
  14. ↑ Cultural Burning and Prescribed Fire. (n.d.) History of Fire. Retrieved April 10, 2026 from: https://prescribedfire.ca/history-of-fire/
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 DellaSala, D. A.; Buma, B.; Leverkus, A. B.; Lindenmayer, D. B.; Müller, J.; Price, K.; Six, D. L.; Zylstra, P.; Burton, P. J. (2025). "Removing dead trees will not save us from fast-moving wildfires". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 122(47).
  16. ↑ Dobor, Laura; Hlásny, Tomáš; Rammer, Werner; Zimová, Soňa; Barka, Ivan; Seidl, Rupert (September 28, 2019). "Is salvage logging effectively dampening bark beetle outbreaks and preserving forest carbon stocks?". Journal of Applied Ecology. 57(1): 67–76.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Ferguson, R. (n.d.) Western Screech-Owl Stewardship Project – Our First Year, Salt Spring Island Conservancy. https://saltspringconservancy.ca/western-screech-owl-stewardship-project-our-first-year/
  18. ↑ Forest Emergency. (n.d.) Stop logging Stanley Park - Park board is cutting up to 25% of the trees in Stanley Park. https://forestemergency.org/stanley-park/
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 Vítková, Lucie; Bače, Radek; Kjučukov, Petr; Svoboda, Miroslav (24 July 2018). "Deadwood management in Central European forests: Key considerations for practical implementation". Forest Ecology and Management. 429: 394–405 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Bütler, Rita; Lachat, Thibault; Krumm, Frank; Kraus, Daniel; Larrieu, Laurent (2024). Field Guide to Tree-Related Microhabitats. Birmensdorf: Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Lassauce, A., Paillet, Y., Jactel, H., & Bouget, C. (2011). Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: Meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecological Indicators, 11(5), 1027–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.02.004
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 Wijas, B. J., Allison, S. D., Austin, A. T., Cornwell, W. K., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Eggleton, P., Fraver, S., Ooi, M. K. J., Powell, J. R., Woodall, C. W., & Zanne, A. E. (2024). The role of deadwood in the carbon cycle: Implications for models, forest management, and future climates. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 55(1), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110421-102327
  23. ↑ Leverkus, Alexandro B.; Gustafsson, Lena; Lindenmayer, David B.; Castro, Jorge; Benayas, Jose Maria Rey; Ranius, Thomas; Thorn, Simon (08 June 2020). "Salvage logging effects on regulating ecosystem services and fuel loads". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 18: 391–400 – via ESA Journals. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Muller, Jorg; Noss, Reed F.; Thorn, Simon; Bassler, Claude; Leverkus, Alexandro B.; Lindenmayer, Davis (09 March 2018). "Increasing disturbance demands new policies to conserve intact forest". Conservation Letters. 12 – via CONBIO. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  25. ↑ Flint, Courtney G.; McFarlane, Bonnie; Muller, Martin (05 September 2008). "Human Dimensions of Forest Disturbance by Insects: An International Synthesis". Environmental Management. 43: 1174–1186 – via Springer Nature. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ↑ Schiermeier, Quirin (20 July 2017). "European Commission urges logging ban in ancient Białowieża Forest". Nature. 547: 267–268.
  27. ↑ Blaser, Stefan; Prati, Daniel; Senn-Irlet, Beatrice; Fischer, Markus (15 September 2013). "Effects of forest management on the diversity of deadwood-inhabiting fungi in Central European forests". Forest Ecology and Management. 304: 42–48 – via Science Direct.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Oettel, Janine; Zolles, Anita; Gschwantner, Thomas; Lapin, Katharina; Kinderman, Georg; Schweiner, Karl-Manfred; Gossner, Martin M.; Essl, Franz (11 January 2023). "Dynamics of standing deadwood in Austrian forests under varying forest management and climatic conditions". Journal of Applied Ecology. 60: 696–713 – via British Ecological Society.
  29. ↑ Thorn, S., Bässler, C., Brandl, R., Burton, P. J., Cahall, R., Campbell, J. L., Castro, J., Choi, C., Cobb, T., Donato, D. C., Durska, E., Fontaine, J. B., Gauthier, S., Hebert, C., Hothorn, T., Hutto, R. L., Lee, E., Leverkus, A. B., Lindenmayer, D. B., … Müller, J. (2018). Impacts of salvage logging on biodiversity: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(1), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12945
  30. ↑ Graf, M., Seibold, S., Gossner, M. M., Hagge, J., Weiß, I., Bässler, C., & Müller, J. (2022). Coverage based diversity estimates of facultative saproxylic species highlight the importance of deadwood for biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management, 517, 120275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120275
  31. ↑ Bače, R., Svoboda, M., & Vítková, L. (2019). Deadwood management in production forests. Management guidelines for forest managers in Central European temperate forests, (s 31).
  32. ↑ Floren, A., & Schmidl, J. (2008). Introduction: canopy arthropod research in Europe. Bioform Entomology, Nuremberg.
  33. ↑ Ranius, T. (2006). Measuring the dispersal of saproxylic insects: A key characteristic for their conservation. Population Ecology, 48(3), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-006-0262-3
  34. ↑ Ulyshen, M. D., & Šobotník, J. (2018). An introduction to the diversity, ecology, and conservation of saproxylic insects. In M. D. Ulyshen (Ed.), Saproxylic Insects: Diversity, Ecology and Conservation (pp. 1–47). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75937-1_1
  35. ↑ Moose, R. A., Schigel, D., Kirby, L. J., & Shumskaya, M. (2019). Dead wood fungi in North America: an insight into research and conservation potential. Nature Conservation, 32, 1-17.
  36. ↑ Saine, S., Penttilä, R., Furneaux, B., Monkhouse, N., Zakharov, E. V., Ovaskainen, O., & Abrego, N. (2024). Natural deadwood hosts more diverse pioneering wood‐inhabiting fungal communities than restored deadwood. Restoration Ecology, 32(1), e14056. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14056
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 Pfeifer, Marion; Lefebvre, Veronique; Turner, Edgar; Cusack, Jeremy; Khoo, MinSheng; Chey, Vun K.; Peni, Maria; Ewers, Robert M. (28 April 2015). "Deadwood biomass: an underestimated carbon stock in degraded tropical forests?". Environmental Research Letters. 10 – via IOPScience.
  38. ↑ Alessandro Paletto, Isabella de Meo, Paolo Cantiani, Fabrizio Ferretti. Effects of forest management on the amount of deadwood in Mediterranean oak ecosystems. Annals of Forest Science, 2014, 71 (7), pp.791-800. ⟨10.1007/s13595-014-0377-1⟩. ⟨hal-01102882⟩
  39. ↑ Edelmann, P., Weisser, W. W., Ambarlı, D., Bässler, C., Buscot, F., Hofrichter, M., Hoppe, B., Kellner, H., Minnich, C., Moll, J., Persoh, D., Seibold, S., Seilwinder, C., Schulze, E.-D., Wöllauer, S., & Borken, W. (2023). Regional variation in deadwood decay of 13 tree species: Effects of climate, soil and forest structure. Forest Ecology and Management, 541, 121094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121094
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 Hollands, C., Shannon, V. L., Sawicka, K., Vanguelova, E. I., Benham, S. E., Shaw, L. J., & Clark, J. M. (2022). Management impacts on the dissolved organic carbon release from deadwood, ground vegetation and the forest floor in a temperate Oak woodland. Science of The Total Environment, 805, 150399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150399
  41. ↑ Chisika, Sylvester Ngome; Yoem, Chunho (05 March 2021). "Enhancing Ecologically Sustainable Management of Deadwood in Kenya's Natural Forests". International Journal of Forestry Research. 2021 – via Wiley Online Library. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 Vogel,, Sebastian; Gossner, Martin M.; Mergner, Ulrich; Müller, Jörg; Thorn, Simon (28 April 2020). "Optimizing enrichment of deadwood for biodiversity by varying sun exposure and tree species: An experimental approach". Journal of Applied Ecology. 57: 2075–2085 – via British Ecological Society.CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 Government of British Columbia. (2006). Wildlife Tree Retention: Management Guidance. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/conservation-habitat-management/wildlife-conservation/wildlife-tree-committee/wt-guidance-05-2006.pdf
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 44.3 44.4 44.5 Government of British Columbia. (n.d.) Best management practices for tree topping, limbing and removal in riparian areas. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/best-management-practices/hazardtree_26may_09.pdf
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 Beese, W. J., Deal, J., Dunsworth, B. G., Mitchell, S. J., & Philpott, T. J. (2019). Two decades of variable retention in British Columbia: A review of its implementation and effectiveness for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Processes, 8(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-019-0181-9
  46. ↑ Forest Stewardship Council Canada (2018). "FSC National Forest Stewardship Standard of Canada" (PDF).
  47. ↑ PFEC Canada (2025). "PEFC Canada - Sustainable Forest Management Document" (PDF).
  48. ↑ Sverdrup-Thygeson, A., Borg, P., & Bergsaker, E. (2008). A comparison of biodiversity values in boreal forest regeneration areas before and after forest certification. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23(3), 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580802158228
  49. ↑ Deniz, T. (2023). The Effect of Forest Certification on Log Sale Prices: A Case Study in Northwestern Turkey. Forests, 14(3), 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14030596


This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Significance_of_deadwood_to_forest_ecosystems&oldid=893800"