Reductions in management intensity are often proposed to support a broader range of beneficial ecosystem responses than traditional management approaches. However, few studies evaluate ecosystem responses across approaches. Also, managers lack information about how species traits mediate responses across management approaches, a potentially substantial source of spatial and temporal variation in population and community responses that if ignored may hinder effectiveness of management programs. We used data collected over eight years from a manipulative experiment to test how four forest management strategies influenced avian community composition and wood production. After harvesting, we evaluated responses to three levels of plant cover suppression (Light, Moderate, and Intensive herbicide applications) in relation to a control without herbicide. We predicted the Moderate and Intensive treatments would exert strong negative effects on leaf‐gleaning insectivores, including species of conservation concern due to long‐term population declines. However, given high forest productivity, we expected temporal duration of effects to be short. Richness of leaf‐gleaning bird species was reduced by 20–50% during the first four years post‐harvest (when herbicide treatments were on‐going), but the effect size declined over the next four years once treatments were completed (13–20% reduction). Effect sizes were substantially smaller for the non‐leaf‐gleaner group during years 1–4 (19–27%) and disappeared during years 5–8 (2–3%). However, in our final year of observation, we did find an average of five fewer non‐leaf‐gleaner species on Light vs. Control units. In the last two years of observation, turnover probabilities for the leaf‐gleaner species remained higher on all treatments compared to the Control (0.11–0.21), indicating that new species continued to colonize treatments. Planted conifers were 40–44% taller and 74–81% larger in diameter in the Moderate and Intensive treatments compared to the Control, leading to substantial gains in wood biomass. Current practices provided more balance between two ecosystem responses, avian diversity and wood production, compared to less intensive alternatives. When short‐term negative effects occur, the spatial distribution of harvesting and regeneration regionally indicates that habitat is often available locally to support leaf‐gleaning and non‐leaf‐gleaning bird populations while releasing other portions of the region for high priority conservation objectives including late‐successional forest reserves.

中文翻译：

---

在长期的森林​​经营实验中，保护和生产对策因干扰强度而异。

与传统的管理方法相比，经常建议降低管理强度以支持更大范围的有益生态系统反应。但是，很少有研究评估各种方法对生态系统的反应。此外，管理人员缺乏有关物种特征如何介导各种管理方法响应的信息，这是种群和社区响应的时空变化的潜在重要来源，如果忽略这些信息，可能会影响管理计划的有效性。我们使用了八年来通过操纵实验收集的数据，以测试四种森林管理策略如何影响鸟类群落组成和木材生产。收获后，与没有除草剂的对照相比，我们评估了对三种水平的植物覆盖抑制的响应（轻度，中度和强化除草剂施用）。我们预计，适度和集约化处理将对吸叶食虫动物产生强烈的负面影响，包括由于长期人口减少而引起的保护关注物种。但是，鉴于森林的高生产力，我们预计效果的持续时间会很短。在收获后的前四年（进行除草剂治疗时），吸叶鸟类的丰富度降低了20％到50％，但是一旦完成治疗，效果在接下来的四年内就下降了（13-20％）减少百分比）。对于非叶子采摘组，在1-4年期间的影响大小明显较小（19-27％），而在5-8年间消失了（2-3％）。但是，在最后的观察年中，我们的确发现轻型与对照组之间的非叶子清洁器物种平均减少了五个。在最近两年的观察中，与对照相比，所有处理中叶片清道夫物种的周转概率仍然较高（0.11-0.21），表明新物种继续在治疗中殖民。与对照相比，在中度和强化处理下，种植的针叶树高40-44％，直径大74-81％，从而大大增加了木材生物量。与强度较低的替代方案相比，当前的做法在禽类多样性和木材生产这两种生态系统对策之间提供了更大的平衡。当发生短期负面影响时，区域性收获和更新的空间分布表明，栖息地通常可在本地提供以支持叶子采集和非叶子采集的鸟类种群，同时释放该区域的其他部分以实现优先重点保护目标，包括后期成功的森林保护区。与对照相比，在中度和强化处理下，种植的针叶树高40-44％，直径大74-81％，从而大大增加了木材生物量。与强度较低的替代方案相比，当前的做法在两种生态系统对策，鸟类多样性和木材生产之间提供了更大的平衡。当发生短期负面影响时，区域性收获和更新的空间分布表明，栖息地通常可在本地提供以支持叶子采集和非叶子采集的鸟类种群，同时释放该区域的其他部分以实现优先重点保护目标，包括后期成功的森林保护区。与对照相比，在中度和强化处理下，种植的针叶树高40-44％，直径大74-81％，从而大大增加了木材生物量。与强度较低的替代方案相比，当前的做法在两种生态系统对策，鸟类多样性和木材生产之间提供了更大的平衡。当发生短期负面影响时，区域性收获和更新的空间分布表明，栖息地通常可在本地提供以支持叶子采集和非叶子采集的鸟类种群，同时释放该区域的其他部分以实现优先重点保护目标，包括后期成功的森林保护区。与强度较低的替代方案相比，当前的做法在禽类多样性和木材生产这两种生态系统对策之间提供了更大的平衡。当发生短期负面影响时，区域性收获和更新的空间分布表明，栖息地通常可在本地提供以支持叶子采集和非叶子采集的鸟类种群，同时释放该区域的其他部分以实现优先重点保护目标，包括后期成功的森林保护区。与强度较低的替代方案相比，当前的做法在禽类多样性和木材生产这两种生态系统对策之间提供了更大的平衡。当发生短期负面影响时，区域性收获和更新的空间分布表明，栖息地通常可在本地提供以支持叶子采集和非叶子采集的鸟类种群，同时释放该区域的其他部分以实现优先重点保护目标，包括后期成功的森林保护区。