Publication:
How does FSC forest certification affect the acoustically active fauna in Madre de Dios, Peru?

dc.contributor.authorCampos-Cerqueira, M.
dc.contributor.authorTejeda-Gómez, V.
dc.contributor.authorAguilar-Amuchastegui, N.
dc.contributor.authorGutiérrez, L.N.
dc.contributor.authorAide, T.M.
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-23T18:55:20Z
dc.date.available2022-01-23T18:55:20Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/557
dc.titleHow does FSC forest certification affect the acoustically active fauna in Madre de Dios, Peru?en
dcterms.abstractDespite several efforts to quantify the effectiveness of forest certification in developing sustainable use of forest resources, there is little evidence that certi- fied forests are more effective in conserving fauna than non-certified managed forest. To evaluate the impact of forest certification on the fauna, we compared the biodiversity in reference sites (n = 23), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified management sites (n = 24) and non-FSC management sites (n = 20) in the Tahuamanu region of Peru, during the dry season of 2017. Specifically, we determined if the acoustic space used (ASU), soundscapes composition, and the bird richness and composition significantly varied among the three manage- ment types. Variation in ASU was best explained by management type and mean ASU in the FSC sites was significantly greater than the reference and non-FSC sites, possibly suggesting greater richness of acoustically active species. An ordination analysis of the soundscapes showed that there was a significant difference among the three management types. There was greater dissimilarity in soundscape composition between the FSC and non-FSC sites, and greater overlap between FSC and reference sites. Bird identifications resulted in 11,300 detections of 226 bird species. Bird species richness and composition were not significantly different among the management types, indicating, in this context, that birds may not be the best indicators of different management strategies. The weak discrimination by the bird community is likely due to their dispersal ability, undisturbed primary forest matrix, and the occurrence of bamboo patches. The differences in ASU among the management types were most likely due to differences in acoustically active insects, which may be more sensitive to changes in microhabitat differences. Our findings correspond with the conclu- sions of other studies that certified forests can maintain levels of fauna biodi- versity similar to those of undisturbed primary forest in the Amazon region.en
dcterms.accessRightsPublic
dcterms.accessRightsOpen access
dcterms.bibliographicCitationCampos-Cerqueira, M., Mena, J.L., Tejeda-Gómez, V., Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N., Gutierrez, N. and Aide, T.M., 2020. How does FSC forest certification affect the acoustically active fauna in Madre de Dios, Peru?. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 6(3), pp.274-285.en
dcterms.issued2019
dcterms.languageen
dcterms.licenseCC-BY-4.0en
dcterms.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
fsc.evidenceCategoryFSC impact-related
fsc.focus.forestZoneTropical
fsc.focus.sustainDimensionEnvironmental
fsc.issue.environmentalBiodiversity
fsc.subjectBiodiversity
fsc.subjectAnimal biodiversity
fsc.topic.environmentalBiodiversity
fsc.topic.environmentalAnimal biodiversity
is.availability.fullTextFull text available
is.contributor.funderTypePrivate funds (NGOs, companies, VSS self-funded etc)
is.contributor.memberForest Stewardship Council
is.coverage.countryPeru
is.coverage.countryAlpha2PE
is.coverage.geographicLevelRegion
is.coverage.latitude-9.189967
is.coverage.longitude-75.015152
is.coverage.placeTahumanu
is.coverage.regionSouth America
is.evaluation.collectionField measurement
is.evaluation.counterfactsYes
is.evaluation.dataSourceIndependent researcher data
is.evaluation.findingsAcoustic space use, which is reflecting acoustically active fauna, was significantly higher in FSC-certified forests than in uncertified forests.
is.evaluation.findingsAcoustic space use, which is reflecting acoustically active fauna, was significantly higher in FSC-certified forests than in primary undisturbed forests.
is.evaluation.findingsBird species richness was not different in FSC-certified forests and uncertified forests (using acousting monitoring).
is.evaluation.findingsBird species richness was not different in FSC-certified forests and in primary undisturbed forests (using acousting monitoring).
is.evaluation.findingsBird species composition was not different in FSC-certified forests and in uncertified forests (using acousting monitoring).
is.evaluation.findingsBird species composition was not different in FSC-certified forests and in primary undisturbed forests (using acousting monitoring).
is.evaluation.outcomeyes
is.evaluation.significanceStatistically significant
is.evidenceSubTypeEmpirical study - with matched control, data collected post-intervention
is.evidenceTypeEmpirical study
is.focus.productsEco-system services
is.focus.sdgSDG 15 - Life on Land
is.focus.sectorsForestry
is.focus.sustainDimensionEnvironmental
is.focus.sustainIssuePlant and wildlife conservation
is.focus.sustainLensEcosystem
is.focus.sustainOutcomeHabitat for plants and wildlife
is.focus.systemElementMandE outcomes and impacts
is.focus.systemElementMandE performance monitoring
is.identifier.codeImpacts
is.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.120
is.identifier.fscdoihttp://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international577
is.identifier.schemeNameForest Stewardship Council
is.identifier.schemeTypeVoluntary Sustainability Standards
is.item.reviewStatusPeer reviewed
is.journalNameRemote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
Download