CADIC   02618
CENTRO AUSTRAL DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS
Unidad Ejecutora - UE
congresos y reuniones científicas
Título:
Forests in mountain environments of Tierra del Fuego: Biodiversity and productive values.
Autor/es:
MV LENCINAS; R SOLER ESTEBAN; A HUERTAS HERRERA; G MARTÍNEZ PASTUR
Lugar:
Braganca
Reunión:
Conferencia; International Conference on Research for Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions.; 2016
Institución organizadora:
University of Braganca
Resumen:
Tierra del Fuego (Argentina) is an archipelago located in the southernmost South America region, where landscape is characterized by the last spurs of Los Andes Mountains. Here, lowlands (LL= 0-300 m.a.s.l.) were covered by grasslands, shrublands, peatlands, open and closed forests; mountain environments (ME= 300-600 m.a.s.l.) were dominated by closed forests; and alpine areas (AA= >600 m.a.s.l.) were usually covered by sparse forests and grasslands. Forests types were Nothofagus antarctica (NA), N. pumilio (NP) and mixed N. pumilio and N. betuloides (M). The objective was to analyse differences in productive values (cattle stocking rate and timber) and potential biodiversity (combination of habitat suitability maps of 20 most important understory plant species of each forest type) among altitudinal levels across forest landscapes. LL had most of forests (73%) of the three types, while ME (26%) and AA (1%) where dominated by NP and M. Cattle stocking rate in NA decreased with altitude. Timber forests are mainly in LL (73% in NP and 88% in M) where 91% of the harvested areas were located there. Potential biodiversity in NA was intermingle in LL (low, middle and high qualities), while potential increased with altitude in ME. NP presented the highest qualities in LL and decreased with altitude. Finally, M increased the qualities with altitude. Forests are the main ecosystems in mountains (ME and AA) but represent a small percentage of forestlands with low productive values (cattle stocking rate for NA, and timber for NP and M). Mountains presented lower potential biodiversity for NA and NP forests compared to LL, but the potential in M increased in these areas. Trade-offs between productive activities and biodiversity conservation can occurred in LL for NA and NP, but these conflicts can be avoided for M (timber was greater in LL and biodiversity potential was greater in ME).