INTRO: Forest management has an impact on maintaining biodiversity in forest landscape. As conservation network alone does not maintain sustainable conditions for red-listed species it is important to consider other practises, too. Here the authors provide valuable information on the possibilities of these practises to conserve polypore species, that can be considered as key species in forest ecosystem.
MERITS: Co-operation with practitioners is fruitful as the information from the field is valuable for understanding the impact of the methods used. The authors have assessed the red-list status for the species in consern and thus have detailed knowlodge on the ecology of these species. They have a good possibility to consider and understand what these species demand for conservation.
CRITIQUE: There are no weaknessess.
DISCUSSION: Considering red-listed species it is important to consider them/ these species groups individually in conservation planning. However, in practise with lack of resources it would often be most effective to focus on so called umbrella species / or habitats, and that way end up conserving also more sensitive species. However, in order to know if this would happen in practise or not, it is important to study in detail the requirements of sensitive species, as well as consider they conservation needs. For this reason this topic is important.
- - -
INTRO: Fungal conservation is a young discipline that has been mostly using the methods and guidelines derived based on research focusing on other species groups. Here the authors present an analysis focusing on the reasons threatening fungi, and provide ways forward to develop specialized conservation planning and actions for wood-inhabiting fungi..
MERITS: The abstract is well written and presents an interesting topic The data (Estonian red list avaluation and some background information on the assessed species) is also interesting and adequate.
CRITIQUE: No weaknesses, the abstract can be printed as it is.
DISCUSSION: I will definitely come to listen this talk in the congress.
- - -
INTRO: The current ecological information and updated IUCN status assessments of polypore fungi in Estonia, as well as implications for protecting the red-listed species, are presented in the study.
MERITS: The study provides updated information about the current ecological status of polypore fungi in Estonia, which will assist in designing conservation practices aiming to protect these species. Several options to conserve threatened polypore species, besides establishing the traditional protection areas, are provided in the abstract.
CRITIQUE: No information about the nature of the data used to assess the IUCN red list status were presented in the abstract. How were the population trends and population sizes evaluated? Were there any species classified as data deficient? Is the data sufficient to evaluate effective conservation options for polypores primarily occurring in different habitats, or are there some habitats which are still poorly known?
DISCUSSION: The updated information about the conservation status of polypore fungi is crucial in protecting red-listed species and the diversity of saprotrophic fungi. As stated in the abstract, in addition to the strict protection areas, courses of action in forestry and land use are also needed for protecting polypore species. The results of the study can be applied to allocate the limited conservation resources, and to design forestry and land use practices which aim to preserve fungal diversity.
- - -
INTRO: This study presents a fresh approach to conservation planning considering fungi. First they assessed the threat status for all polypores in Estonia and then in collaboration with practitioners they identified the best conservation option for each of the threatened species. Using these data they were able to extract specific set of conservation actions that would improve the situation of majority of the sensitive species.
MERITS: Very interesting study and fresh approach.
CRITIQUE: Minor problem with writing.
DISCUSSION: This research is very important especially because it combines the knowledge of practitioners with researchers. The identification of fungal specific conservation planning is very much in need in my opinion, although it must be remembered that polypores only consist minor part of wood-inhabiting fungal diversity.
- - -
INTRO: To estimate the potential of the IUCN red lists for improving conservation management and land-use on a sectoral scale, Runnel and Löhmus assessed the IUCN red list status for all Estonian polypore species. Based on this assessment, they selected the most important and applicable conservation options covering a set of approaches for all 59 threatened species. They found that the predicted intensification of forestry was well reflected by the red-list assessment, and that these few, specific management decisions affect most of the threatened polypore species. Based on their findings, Runnel and Löhmus give conservation options for the traditional strict site protection (e.g. assessment of woodland key habitats, and preservation of deadwood in specific locations), and stress the need for explicit conservation frameworks for fungi.
MERITS: The topic of the abstract is really interesting with its multi-disciplinary approach, and it aims to bring new insights into the practical side of biodiversity conservation. The introduction succeeds in giving a motivation for the work. I liked how the authors explained some of conservation options in a bit more detail, and in this way demonstrated the need for explicit conservation frameworks for fungi.
CRITIQUE: I have some questions concerning the sentence "The red-list assessments clearly mirrored a predicted intensification of forestry (replacing historically low intensity of logging and largely natural regeneration), which were partly compensated by habitat improval within the established reserve system." (L8-L11). Firstly, the word 'predicted' appears a bit confusing - predicted by who? For me the meaning is more clear without this word in the sentence. Secondly, does the latter half of the sentence mean that the intensification of forestry has been partly compensated by habitat improval within the established reserve system in Estonia? I would recommend adding more details to this part, and revising the whole sentence for clarity.
Additionally, even though the amount of information is strictly limited in abstracts, could you maybe explain in more detail what namely were the "small number of specific management decisions" (L11)?
DISCUSSION: Making the IUCN red list assessment for all Estonian polypore specias as a part of this project is really valuable and important work. Hopefully these assessments and distinguished conservation options would also be implemented in the planning of conservation management in Estonia.
