The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Indicators of Biodiversity for Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management
Abstract
Abstract: The conservation of biological diversity has become one of the important goals of managing forests in an ecologically sustainable way. Ecologists and forest resource managers need measures to judge the success or failure of management regimes designed to sustain biological diversity. The relationships between potential indicator species and total biodiversity are not well established. Carefully designed studies are required to test relationships between the presence and abundance of potential indicator species and other taxa and the maintenance of critical ecosystem processes in forests. Other indicators of biological diversity in forests, in addition or as alternatives to indicator species, include what we call structure‐based indicators. These are stand‐level and landscape‐level (spatial) features of forests such as stand structural complexity and plant species composition, connectivity, and heterogeneity. Although the adoption of practices to sustain (or recreate) key characteristics of forest ecosystems appear intuitively sensible and broadly consistent with current knowledge, information is lacking to determine whether such stand‐ and landscape‐level features of forests will serve as successful indices of (and help conserve) biodiversity. Given our limited knowledge of both indicator species and structure‐based indicators, we advocate the following four approaches to enhance biodiversity conservation in forests: (1) establish biodiversity priority areas (e.g., reserves) managed primarily for the conservation of biological diversity; (2) within production forests, apply structure‐based indicators including structural complexity, connectivity, and heterogeneity; (3) using multiple conservation strategies at multiple spatial scales, spread out risk in wood production forests; and (4) adopt an adaptive management approach to test the validity of structure‐based indices of biological diversity by treating management practices as experiments. These approaches would aim to provide new knowledge to managers and improve the effectiveness of current management strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation.
Mills, L. S., & Doak, D. F. (1993) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1312122 · Cited by 1,306
Cited by
Tews, J., Brose, U., Grimm, V., Tielbörger, K., Wichmann, M. C., Schwager, M., & Jeltsch, F. (2004) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.0305-0270.2003.00994.x · Cited by 2,575
Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom
Bateman, I. J., Harwood, A. R., Mace, G. M., Watson, R. T., Abson, D. J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., Crowe, A., Day, B. H., Dugdale, S., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1234379 · Cited by 1,031
Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: Its definition and measurement
McElhinny, C., Gibbons, P., Brack, C., & Bauhus, J. (2005) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.034 · Cited by 890
Koivula, M. (2011) · ZooKeys · doi:10.3897/zookeys.100.1533 · Cited by 366
Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy crop production: a state‐of‐the‐art review
Immerzeel, D. J., Verweij, P. A., van der Hilst, F., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2014) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12067 · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Lindenmayer, D. B., Margules, C. R., & Botkin, D. B.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-08-15
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 941-950
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W1965431014
- Cited by
- 976
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Indicators of Biodiversity for Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x
- The paper
- Lindenmayer, D. B., Margules, C. R., & Botkin, D. B. (2000). Indicators of Biodiversity for Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.