<TITLE: Woodland Key Habitats: What Kind of Contribution do They Make to Forest Conservation?
ACADEMIC DOMAIN: natural sciences
DISCIPLINE: biology
EVENT TYPE: seminar discussion
FILE ID: USEMD200
NOTES: students give short presentations (ULECD060 and USEMD210 are part of the same course)

RECORDING DURATION: 84 min 10 sec

RECORDING DATE: 13.11.2006

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 9

NUMBER OF SPEAKERS: 9

S1: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Dutch; ACADEMIC ROLE: research student; GENDER: male; AGE: 24-30

NS2: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: English (Ireland); ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 17-23

S3: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Dutch; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 17-23

NS4: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: English (Ireland); ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 24-30

S5: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: undergraduate; GENDER: female; AGE: 17-23

S6: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 24-30

S7: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: research student; GENDER: female; AGE: 24-30

S8: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Dutch; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 17-23

S9: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Japanese; ACADEMIC ROLE: junior staff; GENDER: male; AGE: 31-50

SU: unidentified speaker

SS: several simultaneous speakers>


<NS4> so </NS4>
<NS2> @that's a good start@ </NS2>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<NS4> well we all started on er different pages to read again but kind of added it it to what we discussed last week you know i think somebody did edge-effects didn't they </NS4>
<NS2> this week </NS2>
<NS4> mhm they read about a paper on edge-effects </NS4>
<S3> you did right <S1> [er] </S1> [did] you [read about] </S3>
<S5> [erm not for] this week no </S5>
<S3> oh </S3>
<NS4> oh sorry </NS4>
<S3> @nobody did@ </S3>
<S5> er i read about the abundance and viability of fungal spores <S3> [what] <NS4> [sorry] </NS4> </S3> er abundance and viability of fungal spores <NS4> oh okay </NS4> fungal fungal spores </S5>
<NS4> i did er about vascular plants and their erm use as regi- er their registered st- [status] </NS4>
<S1> [let's pass] the book </S1>
<NS4> yeah well i just just explain like i okay well we were talking about the importance of different taxa or woodland key habitats for different taxa the other day so i looked at vascular plants er in a study that was done in sweden erm they looked at er one two three four different aspects of using vascular p- plants as indicator species for erm woodland key habitats or erm the occurrence of red-listed species in these woodland key habitats and they found that there was no significance detected between the presence of the registered s- er species and the vas- er the indicator species in the woodland key habitats to the production forests but there was a general trend that they occurred more often in the the key habitats and they did a cumulative species curve as well to see did they sample enough of the production forest and the woodland key habitats and they didn't sample enough of the woodland key habitats and in the whole study they only found one red-listed erm vascular plant species er so i- in the region that they were studying there was actually 20 vascular pla- er registered species altogether er of vascular plants and they came to the conclusion that the 19 other red-listed species must have been very very rare and then they looked at the difference between the study areas and the study areas were quite different because one had acidic soils the other had erm calcareous soils so obviously the ones on calcareous soils would be more diverse anyway erm but the one on their study site the study site on calcareous soils had a higher density of the woodland key habitats and as a rule erm they said that the if there's a high density of woodland key habitats they tend to be more diverse and they'll have more of the red-listed species and they found that in that study but i think it might be a bit biased because of the environmental conditions erm they <SIGH> what else did they do , erm , oh they said a bit about er the conservation status of woodland key habitats in sweden and that they weren't as we said last week that they weren't protected by law but there is erm the forest stewardship council of sweden has erm certified 40 per cent of swedish forest land and in this erm st- er in this certification erm la- er forest owners er have to protect those woodland key habitats so i thought i didn't have time to look up this stewardship thing but it would be an idea to look it up erm that's <NAME S8> sorry <ANSWERS PHONE> hey <NAME S8> yeah we're down in 1402 , no hello , she can't answer . erm , overall anyway there is very few red-listed erm plants found in woodland key habitats and they came to the conclusion that they weren't good indicators for the er for designating the key habitats but erm to protect them it'd probably be better to to protect these vascular plants it'd be better to actually find sites where they occur and protect those sites <S3> mhm </S3> without <NS2> [mhm] </NS2> [using] yeah and that lichens and bryophytes were better indicators to use so that was it </NS4>
<P:05>
<S1> and why did they think bryophytes were better indicators to use </S1>
<NS4> erm they didn't say they just said there was an there's another study by the same guy and he said i'll i'll have to look that up and <S8 ENTERS THE ROOM> so he said that they were better to use as far as i can remember . yeah he just said that the majority of them yeah yeah he didn't explain why yeah but there is another study that he mentioned that he has completed so i'll look that up </NS4>
<S7> the same research group has been studying different taxa [in different areas] </S7>
<NS4> [well this one] person yeah [gustafsson yeah] </NS4>
<S7> [leinonen yeah] actually it's she leinonen </S7>
<NS4> oh sorry <SS> [@@] </SS> [yeah leinonen yes] yeah well , she has been looking at it obviously , and there was er another paper mentioned in it as well that er they were the people that defined the term woodland key habitat and i must look that up so i don't have the internet at home so <S1> i do </S1> <SS> [@@] </SS> [yeah] so i'll do (xx) research on them </NS4>
<S7> so the concept of woodland key habitats in sweden links strongly to forest certification er <NS4> oh okay </NS4> it might not be the same situation in finland </S7>
<NS4> oh okay </NS4>
<S1> and that's that's stewardship right <NS4> [yeah the] </NS4> [what you were talking] about that is the FSC which is <S7> [yeah] </S7> [sometimes] <NS4> [FSC yeah] </NS4> [seen on wood in] the shops <NS4> oh okay </NS4> that's forest certification <NS4> yeah </NS4> the letters [stand for] </S1>
<NS4> [okay] </NS4>
<S3> [oh yes] and they get this erm when when a forester uses a certificate <NS4> yeah </NS4> then er you get the certificate on the wood you buy <NS4> yeah </NS4> and then well some people prefer that wood <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [because] it has <NS4> [so] </NS4> [er] you know the FSC thing [on] </S3>
<NS4> [wouldn't] i assumed that that's what <SS> yeah mhm [okay] </SS> [that's] what it does [yeah] <S3> [oh] okay </S3><S3> [@yeah@] </S3> [yeah] @yeah@ so that is the way that they are protected <S3> okay </S3> [(xx)] </NS4>
<S7> [in finland] the main <NS4> yeah </NS4> forest certification system is is different E-FSC i think [but i'm not] </S7>
<NS4> [oh okay we] can [look it up yeah] </NS4>
<S3> [mhm yeah that] is true yeah i heard i he- i heard about it that in er finland they don't want to have FSC <S7> [yeah] </S7> [because] it's er they don't agree with the rules </S3>
<S7> yeah the rules in FSC are more tight than <S3> [yeah] </S3> [in] (xx) </S7>
<S3> actually i know someone who is totally into this so i could actually [ask] <NS4> [oh okay] yeah </NS4> @about it@ he is trying to fight the finnish <S7> mhm </S7> @forestry companies so@ </S3>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S7> [and who is @she@] </S7>
<S3> what oh er he <S7> [he] </S7> [er] i don't know i i only know his first name he's he's from the netherlands but he lives in finland and <S7> [oh] </S7> [er] he's working as he er he's doing er how do you call it low-production cutting the woods (xx) and going to the forest <S7> [alright yeah] </S7> [and cutting] (xx) so yeah i think he's on a mhm black-list of the forest [(@industry@)] </S3>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S7> i'd be interested to know who he is </S7>
<S3> okay i [will i i can ask] </S3>
<S7> [(xx)] find out his name </S7>
<S3> yeah i can ask </S3>
<P:06>
<S7> okay who wants to be the next one </S7>
<NS2> @@ , okay well <SS> [@@] </SS> [@i'll go@] er i did er one on polypore diversity in herb-rich woodland key habitats in a the national park in eastern finland and it's quite similar to the study that was er we we heard last week from <NAME S3> erm it's er i- instead it looked at a in you were (xx) sort of like commercial forest it looked at er key woodland habitat that was surrounded by like a a reserve habitat so <S3> [mhm] </S3> [(xx)] and so they yes they looked at the woodland key habitat and compared it with the old wood forests and and the purpose was to detect if the woodland key habitats which had been selected by the (xx) in this certain point rich vascular plants flora were also hostile toward the polyporus species erm they compared the species richness abundance and community composition and the key woodland habitat (xx) surrounded with with like a (xx) forest surrounding it erm so they mainly looked at the cor- the coarse woody debris because that's what the polyporus lives on erm , so that's all they got actually the reul- results mainly showed that the erm herb-rich woodsla- woodland key habitats in the reserve erm were not hot-spots for the po- polypore species which was quite similar to the result found last week <NS4> [mhm] </NS4> [erm] so they said that this supports earlier observations that the diversity of the polyporus fungi is not erm connected with the fertility of the parasite type but the amount and quality of the coarse woody debris erm so it's er it's quite important how much coarse woody debris and dead and dying wood is there erm . they did say however that er the size of the the reserve in finland has a a big thing to do with why erm the results were found (xx) key woodland habitats but they did say that er in a different study that erm er they did find a correlation between er vascular plants and indico- -cator polypore richness in the larger sites there's er most of the sites in the netherlands are less than point-five of a hectare [and this] </NS2>
<SS> [finland] [@@] </SS>
<NS2> [oh finland @sorry sorry i i'm so sorry@] @er in finland@ er we just moved from the netherlands so that's why <SS> @@ </SS> it still hasn't gotten into my head er yeah are less than point-five and they said that if they got the size up to bigger than point-five maybe there'd be a bit of a difference obviously if there's more coarse woody debris around as well you'd have to look at the quality and the amount of er coarse woody debris so that was the main conclusion really of this i didn't want to go too much into it because [(you had said that)] </NS2>
<S8> [yeah] </S8>
<S3> [well it this is] little bit different [i think from mine because] </S3>
<NS2> [it is a little bit different but (it can offer)] </NS2>
<S3> because in mine they found er that if there is a herb- er herb-rich forest <NS2> [yeah] </NS2> [areas] there are more species </S3>
<NS2> [okay oh i didn't (notice that one)] </NS2>
<S3> [er but but with you they say that] it's er that it's not not correlated with the habitat at all does it [say that or not] </S3>
<NS2> [mhm] </NS2>
<S8> but it <NS4> [the] </NS4> [says] that it's not correlated with the productivity that's what she said </S8>
<NS4> fertility [of the site] </NS4>
<SS> [yeah yeah] </SS>
<S3> [oh] fertility </S3>
<NS2> yeah yeah and it's erm it's all got to do with the coarse woody debris and they <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [think] that the key woodland habitats are are too small and that there isn't enough <S3> [mhm] </S3> [coarse] woody debris because of the erm i presume management and they didn't say why [(xx)] </NS2>
<NS4> [because] with the lichen study i did as well they said that they needed bigger erm <NS2> areas [yeah] </NS2> [areas] as well </NS4>
<S3> [mhm] </S3>
<NS2> [yeah] [i think it's because] </NS2>
<NS4> [that are between one and] 10 hectares <NS2> [yeah] </NS2> [well] most of them are under like <NS2> [yeah] </NS2> [well] the average is under [one hectare] </NS4>
<NS2> [because when you think] about it for a bigger area you are gonna have more s- more <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [coarse] woody debris so <S3> yeah </S3> more </NS2>
<S3> it sounds very logical to @me@ </S3>
<NS4> [yeah] </NS4>
<NS2> [yeah] like @i mean@ i really i think that's sort of what they're saying <S3> [okay] </S3> [make] them bigger @@ </NS2>
<S3> yeah also er i think it's slight- [slightly different than] </S3>
<NS2> [they said from] f- from the size they are now like even if they make them er point-five or bigger of <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [a hectare] it will make a like a <NS4> [a difference] </NS4> [big difference] because in finland the mean-size of er woodland key ha- habitats left uncut in forests the average from 1996 to 1999 was point-three-five of a hectare in state-owned forests and point-two-eight of a hectare in private-owned forests so they're pretty small the the bits left uncut [and stuff so] <SS> [yeah] mhm </SS> erm yeah </NS2>
<S3> okay </S3>
<NS4> [so er] </NS4>
<S7> [is is] that in the (xx) er it's quite different from all the other studies we've been reading about because it was conducted within the koli national park <NS2> [yeah] </NS2> [in] eastern finland so woodland <NS4> [mhm] </NS4> [key] habitats were within continuous <NS2> oh [okay yeah] </NS2> [forest landscape] <NS4> [okay] </NS4> [inside] a <S3> [yeah] </S3> [national] park </S7>
<NS4> and <NS2> [mhm] </NS2> [was] there a difference between key habitats er what the d- diversity in within the key habitats and outside them [in the park] </NS4>
<NS2> [yeah they] found that it's slightly higher outside is that right </NS2>
<S3> the same [or] </S3>
<NS2> [they] found that the diversity was [slightly higher in the in the surrounding area yeah] </NS2>
<NS4> [was it like , surrounding area] than in the </NS4>
<NS2> than the key woodland one key woodland [habitat] <NS4> [oh] okay </NS4> [yeah] </NS2>
<S1> [but] it it so outside and inside <SS> yeah [yeah] </SS> [it is] both inside of the [national park] </S1>
<NS2> [yes yeah] </NS2>
<NS4> [yeah i understand that] yeah i was just wondering was there [yeah] </NS4>
<NS2> [yeah] they they found but that's because they were so small they said <NS4> yeah </NS4> that was the [main] </NS2>
<S3> [and] </S3>
<S7> it was a bit funny comparison since what's relevant is what is the meaning of or importance of woodland key habitats within a managed landscape <SS> yeah [yeah] </SS> [that's much] more relevant </S7>
<NS2> i think that's <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [an important] part of it yeah </NS2>
<S3> but maybe that is er this study is rel- is relevant in the sense that you can say that er because you they found out that the diversity outside <NS4> mhm </NS4> of woodland key habitat is higher within an [an a] </S3>
<NS2> [a reserve] yeah </NS2>
<S3> a reserve so that a reserve is always better than a woodland <NS2> [than yeah] </NS2> [key habitat] that's very logical [with a nation-] </S3>
<SS> [mhm yeah] </SS>
<NS4> [but] </NS4>
<S1> [well] but these woodland key habitats were inside this the reserve so [i don't think] </S1>
<S3> [yeah but the] </S3>
<S1> er maybe the main i- idea is isn't that that that diversity where where a lot of plant species are that's not always correlated with [other (xx) right] </S1>
<NS2> [with other s- yeah] </NS2>
<SS> [mhm] </SS>
<S1> so in a na- so in a national park if you have one hot-spot of plants that doesn't tell you anything about the richness in polypores <SS> [mhm] </SS> [so] so you might well one f- some of the studies might be on a really particular species like some (xx) species <NS2> [mhm] </NS2> [or] whatever and this doesn't give you enough information to know if woodland key habitats are good <NS2> yeah </NS2> good or bad for species <SS> mhm </SS> <COUGH> because i thought it was a little bit strange this study [so] </S1>
<SS> [@mhm@] </SS>
<NS2> yeah because they talk about the different indicators as well so you can't really use them with this , mhm , @yeah@ </NS2>
<S8> shall i do the next one <NS4> yeah yeah </NS4> so erm my paper erm basically deals with the er the process of the inventory in sweden of the er woodland key habitats and also about er its application or er the i- ideas of the writer for application of this the concept and er what what he writes about is that er first of all they they begin er with a few definitions and erm the o- obviously like the woodland key habitats is the one from previous time but erm they explain that the woodland er key habitats comes from the word keystone species and that they just use the since keystone species means basically a species what other species are dependent on they just used it now like a habitat what species are dependent on to live in and er that's why they chose this name which i thought was quite nice then er they erm explained also a definition for the signal-species which are also used in in this er in the inventory and they said that er er the definition for signal-species were erm fairly rare but easy recognisable species so that's the definition (xx) erm then they said that a- at least i haven't come across this before er they er noted that er they measure or they er so if there was presence a presence of key elements and key elements are basically things like the presence of dead wood or the presence of burned logs or erm and these things erm he he gives a criticism on on them because er these key elements are erm supposed to you know indicate the presence of a woodland key habitat but er in the inventory of the swedish er er key habitats he said that they only like put down the remarks like there is a presence of the dead wood things like that but they didn't quantify it so they didn't measure it really and i think that's quite important because just the project was a bit you know rough they didn't have like real accurate data or a really no specific data and er he had two other like comments on the way the process was going and he thought that it could be better because he said that erm in order to er to define which areas were woodland key habitats they only er looked at erm the presence of individuals but they didn't study communities or or populations whereas er the- th- these parts were just missing and erm he said that in metapopulations like over time for ce- certain species they just would occur in different places so if you see a species somewhere and you m- mark it as a woodland key habitat it could actually be a sink where the species is just there but he will in time you know disappear and i think that this is like the main point of his story he says that he thinks that er you have like the source and the sink areas and er it's important to find the source areas and make them woodland key habitats because it you know it is also for the the future erm er persistence of the species it's important and er that that's basically the main part of his story and then he says er he tells a little bit about er the way that the er the people were informed of of it of the that they had woodland key habitats and they say that erm that they were given they were informed and they were given a map and they were given advice of management or how to protect their sites and they er the people who did the inventories were given courses and they were es- given especially courses on er er to inventory er and identify bryophytes fungi and lichens but that they didn't get any ecological theory so they could just only spot the things but they couldn't (xx) you know much for the rest of the of the habitat and he said that erm especially these bryophytes fungi and lichens are the the main species looked at and also a few vascular plants then er he gives a few statistics which i thought were interesting i can share it with you erm er first of all he said that er the key habitats in sweden er are not really representative of the er ratio of deciduous versus er coniferous forest he says that like in in in reality there is a lot more coniferous forests than than er deciduous forests but that the key habitats of er comprise of er 40 per cent of conifer forests no sorry 40 per cent of deciduous and 35 of coniferous forest so there is less coniferous forest in the woodland key habitats whereas it is you know there is much more of it so it's not really representative of the actual distribution of forest erm then he said that er since the deciduous forests make up like the largest part of the woodland key habitats they say that the er large part of these things which are called deciduous forest are are actually wooded meadows er which are either used or abandoned er and minor woodlands so that th- they don't really you know have a lot of old growth deciduous or you know like er natural deciduous i mean er then he said that red-listed species were only found in 44 per cent of the key habitats which i was really surprised by because i would think that er since in the definition they say the presence of re- red-listed species so i thought it's er it's strange that only 44 per cent did actually have these species then they say about er the relative amount of species which were er used to i- indicated as er as a key s- er woodland key habitat and they said that er among the the red-listed species er two polypores and four tree-lichens were like m- most frequently used like this this species is fre- most frequently used and among the er signal-species there were two lichens and one bryophyte and one vascular plant which were er like m- more than other species just like seen and then it became a woodland key habitat erm then they er state about a little bit of the forestry-act and they say that erm , it i- it is about like legal protection and things like that and what he basically says is that the woodland key habitats are not directly legally protected like by law <NS4> mhm </NS4> but that er that for smaller sites that they erm er that it is assumed that the owner takes care of of the woodland key habitats whereas for the larger patches he hopes that they will be declared as national er nature reserves according to the nature protection act and </S8>
<DISC CHANGE>
<S8> hectare so this also restricts the amount of the size of the woodland key habitats since it's it's put down in the forestry-act that this is like the maximum more or less amount that they can ask of people to protect and neglect <NS4> [mhm] </NS4> [from] forestry practices , erm then he explains er he also stresses about the importance of the matrix er around the areas er and of course that the woodland key habitats are small so they have er big problems with edge-effect and then he explains he has done a a case study about a hazel woodland and he used this as an example to er to stress the importance of the interactions between wood- woodland key habitats and for example forest around it and erm so it's basically like what what you er explained about <NAME NS2> er that there was like you know key habitats inside a na- er a national park or a reserve and that they said that er for example in hazel forest they are used as a as erm a r- a real big food a very important food resource for er al- the animals and like the birds and the squirrels and things like that they come out of the forest and they go there and they eat the the acorns and they eat the er the hazelnuts and er but actually that these these hazel forests are erm are a succession of stage and er if you remember the the list of the key habitats the different <NS2> [mhm] </NS2> [types] of key habitats as we discussed previous time that they say that the er hazel habitats were er c- classified as either wooded meadows or as hazel woodlands but that these two things er were actually the same type of of erm of habitat but it's just in a different stage of succession so that's that the the woodened wooded meadow if it's like er left left behind or you know neglected and not not l- used anymore then it will by succession turn into the hazel woodland and he says that he thinks that it's important that you er wi- with er when you work with a woodland key habitat er that it's important that you er remember that in time the the woodland key habitat will change and that they will turn in for example mature forest or er that's so that that you need to update the amount of er woodland key habitats in time because er sometimes like for example er he says in the sites that were sites after burning after a while maybe this effect is is you know like all the the wood the burned wood er is decomposed and it's got it has disappeared erm so that er he says that for in the future you also need to plant for new sites to replace these sites and do some prescribed burning in a site and then this site can be you know re- can replace the old site erm i think yeah then he he says that there's really er not enough er research done on woodland key habitats and he gives a list of all the things that he thinks should be @studied <NS4> [oh okay] </NS4> [there's there's] the list@ erm i don't if you are interested i can </S8>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S3> [no i think it's] </S3>
<S8> [i can show you but i think you can] look it up [but er] </S8>
<NS4> [(it should be in there)] </NS4>
<S8> but he says just that erm apart from apart from the this study erm he thinks monitoring is important but it's very funny i though it was really funny that the way he thinks that er that the woodland key habitats can be used for nature conservation is actually the thing he s- er describes it's exactly the same like the ecological main-structure in the netherlands <SS> @mhm@ okay </SS> so i i don't know but he he wants to you know er create the the connecting corridors and the buffer-zones around it it and it's really like ecological main-structure and he he actually thinks that the woodland key habitats can be used as you know the the er the areas which can be connected in the like er patches <S3> mhm-hm </S3> in the ecological main-structure but that's just my opinion <NS4> [oh okay] </NS4> [but i think] it looks a lot like that </S8>
<NS4> i think two of the important things he said was the er that some of the woodland key habitats might be actually just sinks and that they need to protect the source <S8> mhm-hm </S8> and i think that's why the density of the network is very important and the second thing they mentioned it in my paper as well about er key habitats that might be just a successional stage they mentioned er for vascular plants anyway that er they needed to reintroduce maybe grazing and mowing <S8> mhm-hm </S8> so active management of sites is probably very important also so it was quite interesting because it backed up the things <S3> [mhm] </S3> [that] were said in my study </NS4>
<S8> that's good </S8>
<NS4> yeah [and] </NS4>
<S3> [yeah] <NAME S8> you said something about er er about er legal protection <S8> yeah </S8> and er you didn't hear it because you were not there yet but er er <NAME NS4> also told er talked about FSC you know what it [is right] </S3>
<S8> [yeah] (xx) </S8>
<S3> yeah well i think er it is would be nice [to er look] </S3>
<S8> [there was also] a little (xx) </S8>
<S3> okay to look go at FSC er mhm thing to look it up because er i think there might be it might say something about it and FSC can be a way to protect er woodland key [habitats] </S3>
<S8> [yeah] he they stated in my paper also about the FSC and they s- he said that he er when he talked about that the smaller sites should protected by the owner he said that the , mhm that er key habitats may also be included in the forest certification system <SS> [yeah mhm] </SS> [in the FSC so that's] that they sometimes you know are the same sites </S8>
<S3> yeah <NS2> uh-huh </NS2> yeah [it's in this] </S3>
<S8> [that's what] they said yeah but it's it's good idea i think to look it up <S3> yeah </S3> mhm </S8>
<S5> so <S3> yeah yeah </S3> i could be the next i'm not sure was it my article so good because it wasn't so straight about the woodland key habitats it was more about the erm dispersal but i thought it's very in- <COUGH> important to us to also er read more about dispersals of species in fragmented landscapes so it was er about abundance and viability of fungal spores along the forest gra- gradient in sweden and it was studied for two wood-decaying fungi fumitopsis rosea and phlebia centrifuga and these both are confined to old-growth spruce forests in the region and towards the south the historical impa- impact of forest increases and amount of old-gro- growth forest decreases and the aim er for this study was to study the species' ability to disperse in fragmented landscapes and erm to research if there is a gene-flow between population and is it enough to stop genetic difference differentiation in small isolated population , and of course the ability to disperse is good also for estimating how this fragmented la- population will survive so they first studied the abundance of fungal spores by measuring er the spore deposition and , it was made by , some kind of background spore-level studies with specific hetero @correlation@ er in spore-traps er which were consisting wood discus homokaryotic mycelia acetate and , to minimise the impact only one fruiting-body they er located these sites farther than two kilometres from the nearest old-growth forest and they also account the regional variation of climate so they took the southern er sites two weeks earlier than the northern ones and for second they er measured the viability of fungal spores by germination test and these spores for the germination test were sampled er from the same (xx) regions than were used for the study of background spore deposition , and , they were <SIC> growned </SIC> in nutrient media to test the germination success and , er there was a significantly decline in the spore deposition towards the south both species er for example for fumitopsis rosea there was 111 spores per square metre per day in the north and compared less than one spore in in the four southernmost region and for , phlebia centrifuga it was er 27 spores in the northern area and it did decline to less than two spores in the four southernmost region , and there wasn't no deposition er towards the south er south of the distribution border so they also had two sites which were outside of the distribution borders , and , the germinability was also much higher in the north compared to isolated population of the south , and because of this low spore deposition i- well it was not enough to help the sisi- situation through gene-flow they (xx) both and er , mhm there was also quite much variation among the southern population in this germinability er and they thought in the south the effect of population size is er more important than the distance to nearby population , and they concluded that some population in mid and south sweden may suffer from negative genetic effects for example inbreeding and the combination of low spore deposition and low germinability of spores may be a threat to a long-time persistence of these species in southern sweden and well it's generally thought that dispersal is not conce- considered to limit the occurrence of wood-decaying fungi because these viable fungal spores can disperse more than 300 kilometres from the spore source spot , even if the species can disperse long distance there's always only a small fraction of the spores which are landing on a suitable <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [substrata] and will mate and produce fruiting-bodies and that was only er also one reason why why these er me- in this measurement they used the minimum values of spore deposition and several species may end up in the same situation erm considering the decline of dead wood in swedish forest and population may remain only due to a time-delay and if the popul- er if the situation doesn't get better also the distribution borders may move up to north </S5>
<S3> erm sorry why did you think this was of relevance for the key habitats </S3>
<S5> well i think er we should also read more about er , how these species disperse <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [because] it's quite relevant [when we think about key habitats] </S5>
<NS2> [(xx) i think so] </NS2>
<NS4> [i think it is very important] </NS4>
<S8> yeah </S8>
<S5> [i mean] </S5>
<NS4> [because] when you <NS2> [yeah] </NS2> [think] that they're trying to like for genetics for example if you've only got small populations you're gonna get problems like inbreeding <SS> mhm [mhm] </SS> [and] i think yeah i i think (xx) like <NS2> yeah </NS2> increasing genetic diversity it's very important for healthy populations of species </NS4>
<SS> [mhm yeah] </SS>
<S8> [and maybe] </S8>
<S3> [so do you think we should] more focus also on <NS2> [connecting] </NS2> [on species] er like not only on articles which are going about </S3>
<S8> [not only density level but also the species level] </S8>
<S3> [er key habitats yeah also on the] species level so that we focu- er <NS2> [yeah] </NS2> [more] (xx) </S3>
<NS4> yeah </NS4>
<S8> (xx) </S8>
<S3> [yeah (xx)] </S3>
<S5> [also on] connectivity [and] </S5>
<NS4> [well] yeah i think yeah <S3> mhm </S3> because it does bring it back to the idea of having a denser network </NS4>
<S3> yeah yeah it [does mhm] </S3>
<NS4> [yeah and] maybe larger [sizes] </NS4>
<S8> [it's like] an argument <SS> [yeah] </SS> [for] why you would have </S8>
<S3> okay </S3>
<NS4> and larger sizes so that if er polyporus fungi wants to disperse or is dispersing the chances of landing in a in a suitable patch which would be your woodland key habitat would be increased with the larger size of it <S3> [mhm-hm] </S3> [of the] patch </NS4>
<S1> and if it's <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [closer] yeah </S1>
<NS4> yeah and if it's closer yeah so i think [it is a very relevant study] </NS4>
<S3> [right i think they i think they] said that the dispersal did not erm yeah the di- distance did not measure right the dispersal <S5> erm </S5> i think you said that or </S3>
<S5> it's generally <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [estimated] but well , according to this article it it's not quite that like er it's about er 100 metres er , near the fruiting-bodies where there's enough of those spores but <NS4> mhm </NS4> it's not so long distance </S5>
<P:05>
<S3> okay yeah , <NS4> [er] </NS4> [well] yeah i'm sorry that i was maybe quite rude in saying wha- how how this is relevant because <NS4> yeah </NS4> i think because you started off by explaining the method and i was like do we need to know how they measured it but okay maybe that's <SS> [mhm] @@ </SS> [my] <NS4> approach </NS4> @my approach@ of saying things i'm sorry if i was rude @there@ </S3>
<S1> i think <NS4> [yeah but] </NS4> [it was also] quite interesting what you mentioned about the that the the population might be a kind of leftover population [and (xx)] </S1>
<SS> [mhm] </SS>
<S3> oh the extinction er thresholds er extinction </S3>
<S1> so if you answered a question about this </S1>
<S3> yes i did <SS> @@ </SS> @erm@ the extinction er debt </S3>
<NS2> @debt@ </NS2>
<NS4> debt [yeah] </NS4>
<NS2> [debt] </NS2>
<S3> is it debt </S3>
<NS4> [debt] </NS4>
<S3> [de-] <NS2> [debt] </NS2> [debt] oh maybe i wrote it wrong [no] </S3>
<NS2> [debt] </NS2>
<S3> was it er i thought it was debt </S3>
<NS4> D-E-B-T </NS4>
<S3> D B <NS4> yeah </NS4> do you say </S3>
<SS> (xx) debt </SS>
<S3> oh do you say debt </S3>
<NS4> you don't [pronounce the B] </NS4>
<S3> [you don't] <SIGH> <SS> [@@] </SS> [english] okay </S3>
<S8> oh <S3> [yeah] </S3> [by the way] erm i forgot to mention one thing which came up er last week and i think er we were puzzled at some stage that er from some articles er they said that we should create buffer-zones <NS4> mhm </NS4> but that they didn't give any practical [(xx)] </S8>
<NS2> [for size yeah] </NS2>
<SS> [mhm yeah] </SS>
<S8> there was actually some practical in my er in my @@ whoops it's okay </S8>
<S3> you dropped something here you are </S3>
<S8> erm they said here that er the the practical application of the the buffer-zones er he pointed out two things erm really similar with the things what we learned in lectures (earlier) er he said first of all er the forestry operations should be limited er within the buffer-zones so er and that er the the erm key habitat features so like the key elements that they er should be promoted there so that there <NS2> [mhm] </NS2> [would be] like a lot of dead wood there a lot of er woody de- debris or you know the things that species need and er yeah it's quite funny they even considered er some areas er like just further away wh- where the er wood was cut down that the wood could be you know brought from there <NS2> [@mhm@] </NS2> [and] put into the into the the </S8>
<NS2> [did it say anything about sizes] </NS2>
<S8> [buffer-zones so they would have like] really ha- what </S8>
<NS2> did it say anything about the actual size </NS2>
<S8> the s- </S8>
<S3> [the size of the buffer-zone] </S3>
<NS2> [like in (xx) yeah] the si- like </NS2>
<S8> oh the size of the buffer-zone no that's <NS2> [alright] </NS2> [that's] not really a [part of this study] </S8>
<NS2> [like did it say oh okay] </NS2>
<S8> but but just more like what kind of measures you can do like [what] </S8>
<SS> [(xx) mhm] </SS>
<S8> no i think that was in your previous one </S8>
<NS2> no i never said no no er it only talked about the edge-effect </NS2>
<S8> [oh yeah the edge yeah yeah sorry] </S8>
<NS2> [not about size of what the buffers] should be <SS> [(xx)] </SS> [that's something that we] looked up </NS2>
<S8> we have to <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [try to] figure that </S8>
<NS4> [it might be interesti- @@] </NS4>
<NS2> [(xx)] (no problem with that) </NS2>
<S5> and maybe we can also link the ecological restoration in our [presentation] </S5>
<NS4> [yeah] [i think oh yeah yeah] </NS4>
<SS> [yes yeah] </SS>
<S5> in finland we have [a lot] </S5>
<NS2> [could be] measured yeah </NS2>
<S5> of those restoration camps where we kill trees but there is a continuity of <NS2> [oh yeah] </NS2> [different] ages <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [of] dead wood </S5>
<S8> yeah </S8>
<NS4> and [what would be quite] </NS4>
<S3> [murder trees] </S3>
<NS4> @interesting@ our last lecture on the fragmented landscapes when they talked about improving the the general quality of the entire erm <SS> [yeah] </SS> [forested landscape] er but it was actually better to improve around the areas that were er <S7> high-quality </S7> of of high-quality </NS4>
<NS2> yeah </NS2>
<S3> so that [would be key habitats] </S3>
<NS4> [so those could be around] your woodland key habitats <SS> yeah </SS> and it [might be yeah yeah exactly] </NS4>
<S8> [if they are] </S8>
<S3> [if those are high-quality] @@ yeah yeah [okay] </S3>
<NS4> [and] maybe to look at the dispersal ability of other other er taxa as well might be quite interesting <NS2> mhm-hm </NS2> so </NS4>
<S3> @i think we have quite a lot@ </S3>
<S8> @yeah@ </S8>
<NS4> mhm so although it is a long @presentation@ </NS4>
<S3> yeah it is it is i think we have we <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [have to] we can do it [so] </S3>
<NS4> [and] it's good to get an all-round <S3> yeah </S3> [view yeah] </NS4>
<NS2> [view yeah] </NS2>
<S3> that's interesting that we i was thinking oh we last time we already had everything but now <NS4> [@no@] </NS4> [we've got] new things coming no i mean not everything but erm <NS2> [yeah like yeah] </NS2> [all the topic] main main things [you (couldn't couldn't)] </S3>
<NS4> [sort of topics] [yeah] </NS4>
<S1> [actually] i actually i thought this er this article in your hand that is er pretty usef- or this concept of raising or up-raising the managed wood managed forest standard quality <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [or] improving woodland key habitat is really interesting but these studies are quite hard to find <NS4> [oh okay] </NS4> [somewhere] i actually er took that study that you now [refer to] </S1>
<NS4> [oh okay] </NS4>
<S8> the hunski </S8>
<S1> yeah the hunski study <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [well] that one you probably wo- would have found i don't know who wants to read it [but there are] </S1>
<NS4> [oh okay i think] [i have it] </NS4>
<S8> [i have this] i have this [as well] </S8>
<S1> [yeah] [but] </S1>
<S3> [did] we already read it or not </S3>
<S8> yeah we had to read it for the exam </S8>
<SS> [yeah] </SS>
<S3> [oh yeah] i read it yeah [we've already read @it@ but it's okay] </S3>
<S1> [read it really yeah there are] a few few more <NS4> [oh okay] </NS4> [like] more theoretical studies but they <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [don't] always refer explicitly they don't have the word woodland key habitat so i thought it might be difficult to find them </S1>
<NS4> oh okay </NS4>
<S1> [because i] </S1>
<S8> [maybe] we can just you know see how it's relevant or just like think about woodland key habitats when you're reading <NS2> [oh yeah] </NS2> [it so] yeah </S8>
<SS> [yeah] </SS>
<S1> [yeah yeah exactly] because they they are definitely er really relevant like [the theoretical point and] </S1>
<NS2> [yeah i have that one yeah] <NS4> mhm okay </NS4> i have one </NS2>
<NS4> okay [so] </NS4>
<NS2> [(xx)] the last lecturer gave us (xx) </NS2>
<NS4> [yeah] </NS4>
<S1> [because] some of the articles they also refer to this study [of hunski] </S1>
<SS> [yeah] </SS>
<S8> [maybe] maybe we can <NS4> [okay] </NS4> [read it] for next week then if you didn't [read it] </S8>
<NS2> [yeah we] could do it wednesday [(xx)] </NS2>
<NS4> [yeah] </NS4>
<S8> because it's a nice article to present </S8>
<SS> yeah mhm-hm </SS>
<NS2> erm if that one needs to be read (xx) maybe i'll manage to read that one because it's (xx) </NS2>
<NS4> yeah have you [read] </NS4>
<NS2> [but] have you read the that one </NS2>
<S8> oh unless everybody read it already </S8>
<NS2> yeah i'd say they [probably might have] </NS2>
<S8> [(xx)] mhm </S8>
<S7> i'm not sure [(xx)] </S7>
<NS4> [oh okay] well have you read it </NS4>
<NS2> yeah so [well i think we all have it yes it's a it's a good paper though] </NS2>
<NS4> [it's quite interesting because i think] it brings the <NS2> [yeah] </NS2> [costs] that are associated with restoration into account as well and a lot of the time the economic aspect of er restoration concerning biodiversity er outweighs maybe the benefits <SS> mhm </SS> that well people see that it that it outweighs the benefits concerning (xx) so it's quite a good read and and you said that he presented it to foresters as [well] </NS4>
<SS> [yeah] yeah </SS>
<S8> he did </S8>
<NS4> @yeah@ </NS4>
<SS> [(xx)] </SS>
<S3> [i i'm i'm always curious if they do that you know because it is no use if you just talk about it among amongst yourselves because then nothing else you know] </S3>
<S8> he said something that they were just criticising the methods and things [like that] </S8>
<SS> [yeah] yeah </SS>
<NS4> where [it would it be more beneficial] </NS4>
<S8> [maybe what he's saying] </S8>
<NS4> maybe for well it'd be more beneficial for them to to use that but it might be more time-consuming <NS2> yeah </NS2> because they'd have to focus on different spots in stead of [just (xx)] </NS4>
<S8> [but they can reduce the costs] </S8>
<NS2> [just (xx) yeah] </NS2>
<NS4> yeah so or just leave it i think it's easier maybe just to leave a dead tree here [and there and burn a bit here] </NS4>
<S8> [yeah i think so] </S8>
<SS> [yeah mhm] @@ </SS>
<S3> but did he not say that these er that foresters are normally like they have their bosses too that ask something of them and that they can't actually they just don't [have a] </S3>
<S8> [they] are limited <S3> [they] </S3> [in] what they can do </S8>
<NS2> [they are limited in what they can do] </NS2>
<S3> [yeah they are just limited] maybe they want to do it but they [just can't] </S3>
<NS4> [oh yeah] </NS4>
<S8> maybe we should go talk to the decision-maker @@ </S8>
<S3> yeah @who's the decision-maker@ </S3>
<S8> i don't know </S8>
<SS> yeah mhm </SS>
<NS4> so yeah so a lot of the time er i think conservations don't erm incorporate the practical problems of restoration <S8> [mhm] </S8> [quality] that the ideas and the concepts are like <S8> there </S8> <S7> yeah </S7> they're easier to come up with than actually [going out there and] </NS4>
<NS2> [to implement yeah] </NS2>
<NS4> yeah implementing the measures </NS4>
<S8> how to do it </S8>
<SS> mhm-hm yeah </SS>
<S3> yeah that could be one of our things in our discussion <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [about the] key habitats <NS4> [(or probably)] </NS4> [i think] that's actually an important question @isn't it@ </S3>
<NS4> yeah like involving practical <S3> yeah </S3> implementation measures <S3> yeah </S3> i agree </NS4>
<S1> in those studies that i gave there also because you can of course well if if you have to invest your money somewhere what would be better <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [than] a big reserve somewhere but they also discuss this article of hunski <NS4> [oh okay] </NS4> [because he just] chose one direction of course </S1>
<SS> yeah </SS>
<NS2> that's why i think in theory woodland key habitats are good because <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [you] know they're just getting the the right (xx) in reserves </NS2>
<NS4> mhm making it work </NS4>
<NS2> yeah </NS2>
<S3> d- did did you read an article </S3>
<S6> article <S3> yes </S3> for for [now yeah] </S6>
<S3> [yeah yeah] okay yeah so you can [maybe (xx)] </S3>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S6> erm yeah erm mine was again about these er forest-act habitats in finland and their erm their survey and er this article was about evaluation of the quality and er reliability of this survey <S3> [mhm] </S3> [erm] because er finnish environment research centre or SYKE and er forestry development centre or tapio er wanted to er evaluate this so the for for its errors and deficiencies <SIGH> er because there were hundreds of people doing this survey and there are always erm some errors and deficiencies in <SIGH> er this er if i- in surveys of this size er in spite of instructions and education and mhm , <SIGH> and er these er instructions are not er quite clear er either and . mhm , yeah and er they er analysed four points especially in this survey er first er the general quality of data and second the er effects of er year for data collecting third er the effects of inventor to data collecting and four the er comparability of er data between er these foresty forestry centres er for er different areas in in finland and <SIGH> the er functions they assessed er were the area of these er found sites er the data of dead wood and the er data of er additional attributes in biodiversity and and er the data of species and erm they found out that er the year and the local forestry centre er affected a lot to the area of these found habitats and erm er the effect of the year was er partly because of changing instructions erm it ha- it it had a huge effect er so that i- in the end of the survey the areas were erm about 30 per cent smaller than in the beginning of this survey and erm also the er <SIGH> assessment of the amount of dead wood er changed it increased towards the end of this er survey and erm . yeah the er erm er the the values er also differed hugely be- between forestry centres also in in areas and in dead wood mhm , and it it was because er partly because of because of the er er instructions they changed er on this survey a- and they originally were er probably a bit different for for each of these er forestry centre areas and erm . and er they looked more closely er er of central er finland area and they found out that the er the er inventors er also affected hugely hugely on for example er the area erm found so that erm er if the inventors were <SIC> unexperienced </SIC> er there was er more erm . their er areas differed more in size than of those inventors who were more experienced , and erm <P:06> and er they found out that er , er when they looked <SIGH> er in this er data material collected that er , erm in the use of er extra attributes in defining biodiversity in these areas were the most severe errors so that erm er these extra attributes tell if the site is er at all a a forest-act habitat or not erm so that er er finally [<SIGH>] </S6>
<S8> [s- sorry] could you explain the the er attributes a little bit more because i don't <S6> [erm] </S6> [really know] what you mean </S8>
<S6> i don't er i don't know about them er m- m- more <S8> okay </S8> because er th- they just said that er these extra attributes w- were used er for for evaluating these these forest-act habitats <S8> okay </S8> so that er </S6>
<NS4> it should be in the habit- er the [forest-act] </NS4>
<S8> [we we have to look it] up otherwise yeah </S8>
<S6> mhm [yeah] </S6>
<NS4> [i i'd] say they're mentioned in the forest-act </NS4>
<S6> yeah pro- probably probably <S8> [okay sorry] </S8> [it's it's there] yeah but yeah they used them for for <SIGH> er defining if the site is a forest-act habitat after all and erm <P:05> and erm er finally they found out that er 8.2 of these sites evaluated er were evaluated er as forest-act habitats er er with wrong basis <SIGH> and er </S6>
<NS4> [er what what number] </NS4>
<S1> [for the wrong reasons] you mean </S1>
<S6> yeah </S6>
<NS4> how m- what percentage did they what percentage [of] </NS4>
<S6> [er] 8.2 </S6>
<NS4> 8.2 [per cent] <S6> [yeah] yeah </S6> okay </NS4>
<S6> yeah <NS4> because erm </NS4> yeah erm <P:06> erm yeah and er <P:05> and erm they concluded that er this er data of dead wood and about species were er very er incomplete er not all inventors were er not all inventors collected them <NS4> [mhm-hm] </NS4> [all so] they really can't be used and er , one fifth of these areas were er er undiscovered and one third of them er incorrectly surveyed er in in some in some points , and , and erm they concluded that er special attention should be paid er in checking er the real status of these discovered study sites , and and er for for the new survey er the these extra attributes attributes should be erm , er correctly defined <P:05> erm , yeah . erm yeah those were the <NS4> [okay] </NS4> [most] important points </S6>
<SS> [mhm] </SS>
<NS4> [it is] yeah i think it's very important because erm it brings in the subject- subjective nature of designating the sites that all the inventors you know they're following the instructions <S6> mhm </S6> by what they consi- like what [they think they are being told to do] <S6> [mhm yeah yeah yeah] exactly </S6> but they're not necessarily </NS4>
<S8> doing [all the same things yeah] </S8>
<NS4> [doing it correctly] and <S6> [mhm] </S6> [then] the quality of the different sites then is going to vary so <S6> mhm </S6> that's a an important aspect maybe for future maybe to like recommendations that <S3> mhm </S3> you know better instructions (for a set-out) <SS> mhm </SS> and inventors should be maybe inspired to maybe do some courses or something on <S6> [yeah] </S6> [how] to identify the si- the sites [correctly so that yeah oh they were] </NS4>
<S6> [yeah yeah they were they were educated all all] all the time yeah <NS4> oh [okay] </NS4> [but] but still er [there were these huge differences] </S6>
<NS4> [yeah] </NS4>
<S8> [it's difficult to make (xx)] </S8>
<NS4> [yeah] </NS4>
<S3> yeah maybe we could like have er something that's which which is called er practical implications <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [and] then this is one of the things <NS4> yeah </NS4> the other thing would be money [i think] <SS> [yeah] yes </SS> something like that but also yeah <NS4> yeah </NS4> yeah i have to say that i did not read anything @yeah i i'm only here commenting on you guys@ er because i i wasn't er too sure which articles we already read <NS4> oh okay </NS4> and i didn't want to read something again @@ and i also was wondering er do we want to include the baltic countries in our discussion or not or do we already have enough do we just compare sweden and finland or <NS4> [mhm] </NS4> [because] er it would (xx) [it's in the baltic countries but] </S3>
<NS4> [yeah there's] latvia </NS4>
<S3> yeah <NS2> [yeah] </NS2> [but also] o- one general [one] </S3>
<NS4> [oh] was there </NS4>
<S3> yeah about all the baltic countries w- </S3>
<NS4> i don't know will there be a lot to <S3> yeah </S3> <NS2> [mhm] </NS2> [discuss] then [to] </NS4>
<S3> [and] then also because with i think we are now kind of looking also at the what is the legal protection in sweden and finland <SS> [mhm] </SS> [and] if we also look at the baltic countries it would be maybe a bit too @much@ if we have <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [to] look up their how they <S6> yeah </S6> i don't know [do er] </S3>
<S6> [yeah] we can maybe we can mention them if we find something essential about [them but] <SS> [mhm] yeah </SS> but like we concentrate on finland and sweden </S6>
<SS> [yeah] </SS>
<S8> [were] were there any other articles of (xx) that you haven't selected yet that are are use- useful for reading next week or </S8>
<NS4> well er i didn't get a cha- chance to look through the abstracts so </NS4>
<S8> okay <NS4> yeah </NS4> did you or [who] </S8>
<S3> [no] not i didn't read everything but i saw there were quite a lot </S3>
<NS4> yeah [there was there was yeah] </NS4>
<SS> [(xx)] </SS>
<S3> [all sorts of countries] and also quite a lot that we already had so i and i was <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [like] oh shit which one i like so i think maybe for next time we have to for me anyway be more @precise which [article i have to read]@ </S3>
<NS4> [oh okay yeah] we can read one of these </NS4>
<NS2> [yeah] </NS2>
<S3> [oh] actually i was er for this time i <NS4> [okay] </NS4> [actually] wanted to look up er the forest stewardship council <NS4> [oh okay] </NS4> [the] FSC thing and see how they mention [habitat key habitats] </S3>
<S8> [(xx)] </S8>
<NS4> yeah </NS4>
<S3> for next week or or [the next week (xx)] </S3>
<NS4> [just one thing yeah] in your article <S8> [yes] </S8> [as well] you mentioned erm how they came up with the term <S8> yes </S8> and who which reference did they give for it was [it] </NS4>
<S8> [erm] for for the term for er <NS4> [for wood-] </NS4> [polypore] species or for </S8>
<NS4> no woodland key habitats was it (xx) </NS4>
<S8> no no no they say er er the woodland key habitat definition i- is formally defined by the national board of forestry </S8>
<NS2> [okay (xx)] </NS2>
<NS4> [oh okay like formally] i suppose this was just the initial concept </NS4>
<S8> maybe <S3> mhm </S3> i don't know the national board of forestry (xx) <NS4> okay </NS4> woodland (xx) </S8>
<SS> mhm </SS>
<S3> you said the erm an idea er because last week i made this presen- <SS> yeah </SS> this this draft and er for the presentation and i think i can add more things <NS4> [oh okay] </NS4> [after] today <NS2> yeah </NS2> but is it maybe an idea if ev- everyone like for example your article was really about the practical implication like the qua- </S3>
<NS4> [of the (whole thing)] </NS4>
<S3> [the quality of the] surveys if if everyone who has who adds <S8> [their own] </S8> [things] of his article in that presentation then send it to me and i copy-paste it and </S3>
<S8> put it in there </S8>
<NS4> [yeah] </NS4>
<S3> [yeah] so what you can do for example is that you er write down how you would like to have in the presentation and underneath you have this thing that you can add comments and then you just type out er kind of summary or of what you would like to say if you with that slide [so] </S3>
<SS> [yeah mhm] </SS>
<S8> [what do you mean] with add comments </S8>
<S3> [er so] </S3>
<S1> [oh you] mean (xx) changes </S1>
<S3> no no no no </S3>
<NS4> [(xx) powerpoint presentation yeah] </NS4>
<S1> [oh] </S1>
<S3> [no what i mean if yeah if you look at the powerpoint] you have like underneath <S8> yes </S8> you can write things <NS2> yeah </NS2> underneath it [did you ever see it] </S3>
<NS2> [so that it's that part you] actually talk about <S3> [yeah] </S3> [it's] not what you see </NS2>
<S3> and b- [you're supposed to remember what (xx)] </S3>
<S8> [oh i didn't know that] sorry </S8>
<S3> okay maybe i can show you </S3>
<S8> yeah no problem </S8>
<S1> and you and you know this </S1>
<SU-7> [mhm] </SU-7>
<SU-6> [i think so] yeah </SU-6>
<S8> the comment box [is it] </S8>
<S1> [do you know] okay [because i only recently (got it)] </S1>
<S8> [<NAME S3> is it like a comment box or is] it [a slide] </S8>
<S3> [yeah] yeah underneath the slide there is a comment box and <NS4> yeah </NS4> if you if you have of course not if you sh- show the slide-show but if you have the if you can change things in the slide </S3>
<S1> but some people manage to present do their presentation and on their own computer they see </S1>
<NS2> [it has the] </NS2>
<SS> [yeah] </SS>
<S1> [see it written but not] on the s- [not on the projector screen] </S1>
<S3> [or maybe there is some] kind of feature <NS4> yeah </NS4> @feature@ but er yeah i think that <NS2> yeah </NS2> would be a good thing </S3>
<NS4> okay so what headings were you thinking of </NS4>
<S3> er well i think as well i i kind of forgot what i @i already <NS4> [okay yeah but so] </NS4> [put in there]@ but i was thinking like we can focus on what we already said the last time <NS4> [mhm] </NS4> [to er] on the on the legal protection in the two different countries i think that's er it's a good one and also what what you said so i actually do agree with @you@ is er with the the usefulness for the different species <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [and] also the characteristics then of these species or with the with the polypores <NS4> mhm </NS4> we can maybe concentrate on that er yeah and so i think we can also add er er something about the mhm plus and the minus of using the this thing </S3>
<NS4> woodland [key habitat] </NS4>
<S3> [or yeah] because you you had a very good article like it mentioned the succession and it mentioned the sourcing and matrix and </S3>
<NS4> but what would you consider the disadvantages of using [the] </NS4>
<S3> [yeah] the well if you for example if you have a key a <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [woodland] key habitat and you just </S3>
<S8> when it <S3> [let it s-] </S3> [is a sink] maybe </S8>
<S3> when when when it is a sink <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [or] when it's er er er suc- in succession you have to <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [actually] change it again so you yeah yeah it's a bit difficult </S3>
<NS4> [maybe] </NS4>
<S8> [it's] also about er practical [application] </S8>
<S3> [yeah] <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [actually] it is @yeah@ <S8> it is </S8> <NS4> yeah </NS4> yeah it's true </S3>
<S8> like wh- how you can <S3> mhm </S3> you know use it </S8>
<S3> yeah and also the yeah the ecolog- ecological main-structure i think we can include that as well like how much do we want them to be connected </S3>
<SS> mhm-hm </SS>
<S8> yeah i think we have to say something about connectivity <S3> [yeah] </S3> [and] and about that they are really small and that's why they have edge-effects and </S8>
<NS2> [yeah] </NS2>
<S3> [and] the extinction debt we can mention that </S3>
<NS4> and maybe <S8> [yeah] </S8> [we] should look into natura 2000 to see if some of those <NS2> [oh yeah] </NS2> [areas] are [protec-] </NS4>
<S3> [sorry what] </S3>
<NS4> natura [2000] </NS4>
<S8> [natura 2000] </S8>
<S3> oh okay yeah </S3>
<NS4> yeah to see if some of those @those areas@ are protected or designated under that because then they would [need to be protected] </NS4>
<S3> [also as] also as er legal protection </S3>
<NS2> yeah </NS2>
<NS4> yeah because doesn't natura 2000 erm well the end-pro- or the the <S8> [results] </S8> [inten-] yeah the <NS2> [end yeah] </NS2> [end-result is] to have connecting <NS2> matrix </NS2> <S3> [well yeah] </S3> [matrix] of or networks of protected areas i think [isn't it yeah] </NS4>
<NS2> [mhm] </NS2>
<S3> [yeah well] actually here in finland they have er they have the between the border between finland and russia maybe you <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [guys] already know they have the european green-belt </S3>
<SS> yeah </SS>
<NS4> [i've heard about that yeah] </NS4>
<S3> [(xx) there so] that's probably also that's also natura 2000 is it not </S3>
<S7> i think [that's a i think it's] </S7>
<NS2> [the emerald yeah] </NS2>
<S3> [is it something different] </S3>
<S7> a separate initiative [i think] </S7>
<S3> [oh] </S3>
<NS4> yeah [it would be because] </NS4>
<NS2> [the emerald zone is it] </NS2>
<NS4> russia has nothing to do [with it] </NS4>
<NS2> [oh yeah] </NS2>
<S8> it's the one that was put on the the old erm erm how do you call this this ice-curtain iron-curtain on the old <NS4> [oh okay yeah] </NS4> [iron-curtain] that's where they put the green-belt </S8>
<NS4> okay </NS4>
<S3> yeah so yeah maybe it's like in the i think the european green-belt's also about connectivity so <S8> mhm-hm </S8> if the sites <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [were] there so so [you can (xx)] </S3>
<NS2> [mhm i don't know] [(xx)] </NS2>
<S8> [so <NAME S3>] did you put it in your essay in the the the essay that we had to do in the holidays you know the (x-mas) essay </S8>
<S3> yeah [what what] </S3>
<S8> [you] you also put this in like the green-belt </S8>
<S3> no i did not <S8> okay </S8> but i put the the the ecological network of the netherlands [in it @@] </S3>
<S8> [okay @okay@ alright] no i had it also in this in my </S8>
<S3> oh [okay] </S3>
<NS2> [did] you have the emerald thing or the </NS2>
<NS4> the emerald was it the </NS4>
<S3> [yeah what's that] </S3>
<S8> [oh the emerald] zones [oh yeah] </S8>
<NS2> [did you have] [yeah that one yeah] </NS2>
<S3> [what was that] </S3>
<S8> [emeralds] the [green-belt] </S8>
<NS2> [gree-] and the natura 2000 </NS2>
<S8> and natura [2000] </S8>
<S3> [is is] [er is is the em- emerald one is it also] </S3>
<NS2> [they're the tree european things] </NS2>
<NS4> [oh okay and] </NS4>
<S3> relevant for finland and [sweden] </S3>
<NS2> [i don't know] i don't see er i don't know </NS2>
<NS4> [is it european union] </NS4>
<NS2> [i never looked it] yeah </NS2>
<S8> it is EU </S8>
<NS2> so i presume so [yeah] </NS2>
<S8> [no yeah] the emerald network was the network which was europe <S7> [yeah] </S7> [and] also er countries to the south of europe like er i think some north african countries [as well (xx)] </S8>
<S3> [oh] </S3>
<NS4> [oh okay] </NS4>
<NS2> [yeah and yeah it's] so that the other (xx) </NS2>
<S3> @okay@ so emerald network we have to <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [look at] that as <NS2> [yeah] </NS2> [well] so we have we can [i think we can make a] </S3>
<S8> [maybe i still have] that from my </S8>
<NS2> do you [have still the (xx)] </NS2>
<S3> [yeah oh] </S3>
<S8> [yeah i still have like the references] of it and </S8>
<SS> mhm okay </SS>
<NS2> [we could look at the (xx)] </NS2>
<S8> [and a short explanation if you want you know] </S8>
<NS4> yeah i think that [would be] </NS4>
<S3> [yeah that's] okay yeah <SS> yeah mhm </SS> yeah i think we can make a very b- big thing about er legal @protection@ </S3>
<NS2> @yeah@ </NS2>
<NS4> well if they're not protected in finland <S3> mhm </S3> so [(it would be)] </NS4>
<S3> [but there] there's legal protection in </S3>
<NS4> oh yeah in fin- in sweden </NS4>
<S3> sweden yeah maybe we <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [can] talk about all the different ways in which they could be protected <NS4> mhm </NS4> so through natura 2000 or through FSC or through <NS4> yeah [mhm-hm] </NS4> [the] governments <NS2> yeah </NS2> er d- did you er not say that er for f- er the f- the f- yeah the documents in from finland so from the ministry of environment and ministry of agriculture and forestry that these were in sw- finnish right </S3>
<S7> <COUGH> there are english tran- translations available in the internet </S7>
<S3> there there are <S7> yeah </S7> oh good @because er@ </S3>
<S1> well i i didn't find them there </S1>
<S3> you did not find them </S3>
<S1> [@yeah i mean yeah i mean@ it (xx)] </S1>
<S3> [yeah] </S3>
<NS4> [i was going through some of the sites the other day] and it is quite difficult i don't know how to find things i think on those websites <S3> oh okay </S3> yeah i did find some things but i haven't had a chance to go through them yet <S3> okay </S3> so </NS4>
<S7> yeah i remember er too that it was difficult to find the english translations <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [but] er i can send them to you </S7>
<NS4> okay </NS4>
<S3> yeah that is i think that's because then we can conclude that in our (xx) in there as well <NS4> mhm </NS4> as one of the <SS> mhm-hm </SS> . but is it is that an idea because like er i think you could write erm something on on le- the lichens and on vascular plants <NS4> yeah </NS4> the applica- implications </S3>
<NS4> mhm <S3> and [yes] </S3> [and] also <NAME S1> er posed a good question about why bryophytes and lichens are better indicator species so i might have a a look at it to see why they are <S3> [mhm okay] </S3> [i've got] a reference here from my paper that i </NS4>
<S3> yeah , and someone can write about mhm buffer-zones and yeah i don't know i think , think ev- er i think everyone knows what his his or her articles @actually@ were about <NS4> yeah </NS4> and then <NS2> [mhm] </NS2> [er] if everyone just writes </S3>
<NS2> a small bit about it <S3> [yeah] </S3> [as much] as (xx) just like a case study so maybe just talk about the edge-effect and focus on its [(xx)] </NS2>
<S3> [yeah] well i <S1> [mhm] </S1> [think i] yeah what sorry </S3>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S1> [nothing] there is something else because this is all like really theoretical <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [and] reading articles and everything we thought that it might be nice to also look at some study or data so well <NAME S7> would have some er data which <NS4> [okay] </NS4> [would] maybe be nice to analyse and you could also kind of shortly present it in a <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [presentation] and [everything] </S1>
<NS2> [yeah] </NS2>
<NS4> that'd be interesting </NS4>
<S1> so </S1>
<NS2> that'd be excellent </NS2>
<NS4> yeah </NS4>
<S7> i'm going going to send you an excel file with data on wood-inhabiting fungi erm on polypores in brookside key habitats which is one type of woodland key habitat <NS4> mhm-hm </NS4> in finland and i've been collecting the data with my assistants (xx) hand you a . <PASSES OUT HANDOUTS> form with explanations i'm sorry that this time i'll give you so too much <SS> @@ thanks </SS> erm , there will be inventory of 100 and <P:05> 39 er sites of which 69 are brookside key habitats and 70 are ordinary managed forests that are similar otherwise but they are not (xx) woodland key habitats and they don't have the brook <NS4> oh okay </NS4> inside the forest mhm we wanted to have 70 of both types but one of the selected woodland key habitat sites was clear-cut before the actual inventory even though it's er prohibited in the law to clear-cut woodland key ha- key habitat but [that happens] </S7>
<SS> [mhm] yeah </SS>
<NS4> and was it purposefully done did they know it it was there or </NS4>
<S7> they must have known </S7>
<NS4> [yeah] </NS4>
<S1> [do they] get punishment </S1>
<S7> well they should <SS> [@mhm@] </SS> [but they rarely get] no punishment there there's actually a a study on that as well </S7>
<SS> mhm </SS>
<NS4> [because it's yeah] </NS4>
<S7> [what what kind] of punishment do they actually do people <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [actually] have when they break the law <NS4> yeah </NS4> or the forest-act </S7>
<NS4> because if you consider that i think there was was it 96,000 woodland key habitats i think that's what i read [last week] <S7> [yeah mhm] yes </S7> in private forests <S7> mhm </S7> so like you're not i- like you wouldn't have the man-power to go out and see if <S7> [mhm] </S7> [they] actually still exist so they could be </NS4>
<NS2> @gone@ </NS2>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<NS4> [yeah they] [could be gone] </NS4>
<S1> [it would take] a lot of time to look at <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [it] yeah because they you cut them only like every 80 years so </S1>
<NS4> yeah </NS4>
<S7> but the forestry centres do go out and check if they if the woodland key habitats have been cut or not but that they do that only for a certain proportion <NS4> okay [yeah] <NS2> [mhm] </NS2> </NS4> of the woodland key habitats </S7>
<S8> can they <NS4> [so] </NS4> [see it] maybe also from satellites </S8>
<S1> [not sure] </S1>
<S7> [yeah] [i think it's] </S7>
<S8> [because] i think [that is] </S8>
<S1> [but there is] i don't know if they now already [have different (xx)] </S1>
<S7> [i don't think they do that but] but it's good [to have (xx)] </S7>
<S3> [recommendations] <SS> @@ </SS> @use satellites@ </S3>
<S1> well one by the way one of the questions you could also think of which puzzles me is like why are the why is it unknown why is it secret in finland which <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [where is] where are the woodland key habitats especially if you compare it to sweden where i don't know if anyone checked this website where you can zoom in </S1>
<S3> yeah [to the place yeah] </S3>
<S1> [to the country yeah] it's amazing because there <S3> [mhm] </S3> [you] really see it <S3> [mhm] </S3> [so] every individual who <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [lives] close to a woodland key habitat can just go there and have a look <SS> [yeah] </SS> [but] er so i think that offers automatically much better protection </S1>
<NS4> [mhm-hm] </NS4>
<S7> [so still] about this study <S3> yeah </S3> we we wanted to compare brookside key habitats and ordinary managed forests if brookside key habitats had er more species more red-lifted red-listed species than ordinary managed forests and also compare the quality of the forests er in particular the volume of dead wood and that was larger in woodland key habitats than in ordinary managed forests , and we selected four forestry centres mhm along a gradient in land-use history er , from south-western finland to eastern finland forests in south-western finland <DOOR OPENS> <SU> [oh sorry] </SU> [have been] , have been managed much longer and more intensively than the forests in eastern finland and we also selected sites both in the southern boreal vegetation zone and middle boreal vegetation zone because there's also a difference in land-use history so you can <COUGH> play with the data and and er see what you can find out <NS4> yeah </NS4> there are differences between regions and these forest categories and vegetation zones </S7>
<NS2> mhm </NS2>
<NS4> and countries </NS4>
<P:06>
<S1> so i don't know if everyone want to look at it together <NS4> mhm </NS4> or if you like a few people want to want to do it <NS2> [yeah] </NS2> [and] (xx) </S1>
<S7> how would you like to do it </S7>
<S3> @i was thinking about this how to do this@ mhm </S3>
<P:05>
<S8> probably i don't know but just you know set a date go and look at it and like the amount of people that want to you know <S3> so </S3> so do this unless they (xx) and just you know beforehand just discuss who's going to do what and er like people that are not doing this are doing something else (what t-) time we should </S8>
<NS4> well before thursday sometime <SS> yeah </SS> tomorrow or wednesday maybe [(xx)] </NS4>
<S8> [let's look] </S8>
<P:10>
<S3> i don't know what i did it's my stomach is er @making a lot of noise@ </S3>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<NS2> erm </NS2>
<S3> well for me wednes- <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [i can] wednesday is actually because the deadline of the other report is on wednesday so i erm could meet on wednesday </S3>
<NS4> wednesday [okay yeah] </NS4>
<S3> [not on tuesday] if that's okay </S3>
<NS2> what a week wednesday <S3> yeah </S3> yeah that'd be [(xx)] </NS2>
<S8> [yes that's good] </S8>
<NS2> yeah that's quite alright </NS2>
<S8> this like this wednesday yeah </S8>
<S3> er </S3>
<NS2> yeah like <S8> yeah </S8> the day after tomorrow </NS2>
<S8> okay yeah okay </S8>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S3> but erm yeah but it's a bit strange to like sit if we are all together behind <NS4> yeah </NS4> one cou- <NS2> [yeah] </NS2> [it's] not just that two people could do this and then tell the others what they found out two people that like to play with excel @@ <NS4> mhm-hm </NS4> is that okay i don't know , [yeah] </S3>
<S8> [yeah] </S8>
<NS4> i don't know how [good i would be because] </NS4>
<S8> [what should the other people do] </S8>
<NS2> [yeah (xx)] [yeah] </NS2>
<S3> [what] </S3>
<NS4> i haven't worked with excel for a long time </NS4>
<S3> okay yeah well i i don't <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [mind] working with it so maybe i can help you </S3>
<P:09>
<NS2> @@ </NS2>
<S3> c- can you er <NS2> yeah yeah </NS2> a- are you available on wednesday afternoon or not you're er <S5> mhm </S5> so [then] </S3>
<S5> [after] 12 would be fine </S5>
<NS2> yeah </NS2>
<S3> yeah i'm also free after 12 . and would you like to do something with this data with excel or maybe yeah </S3>
<S5> yeah i @think so@ </S5>
<S3> @@ , okay [sh-] </S3>
<S5> [there] isn't any other [volunteers so] </S5>
<S3> [yeah well] we can do it <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [together] if you like yeah <S5> yeah </S5> at w- what time maybe after [lunch] </S3>
<S5> [12] o'clock or [(xx)] </S5>
<S3> [or] before lunch mhm </S3>
<S5> 12 o'clock or one o'clock or </S5>
<S3> mhm yeah i think one o'clock is okay </S3>
<S7> in any case i'm going to send the file to each of you </S7>
<SS> yeah [(xx)] </SS>
<NS2> [(xx)] as <NS4> [yeah] </NS4> [well then] erm </NS2>
<S7> mhm thank you for the learning diaries we didn't receive <NAME S8>'s yet <S8> oh </S8> or did you send it to someone </S7>
<S8> yeah </S8>
<S7> to whom </S7>
<S8> oh i thought i had to send it to otso or (xx) what is his name </S8>
<S1> mhm next time maybe everyone sends it to me <NAME S7> [and otso] </S1>
<NS4> [oh okay] </NS4>
<NS2> alright [because i sent it to otso] </NS2>
<S3> [all three of you] </S3>
<S1> yeah <NS4> yeah </NS4> but i got [already from] </S1>
<S8> [because i only] sent it to him </S8>
<S1> yeah i've got from otso i've got <NS4> oh [okay] </NS4> [yours] but y- from you there was a message without attachment so maybe you forgot to <SS> [@@] <S8> [oh] </S8> </SS> maybe forg- you forgot to <NS4> [oh okay] </NS4> [attach it] and from <NAME> he well i don't know how big his inbox is but he said he didn't receive anything </S1>
<NS4> okay i'll send it this afternoon </NS4>
<S8> i can i can resend it [to you] </S8>
<S1> [yeah if you c-] if you could do that <S8> [yeah] </S8> [that's] that's fine </S1>
<S8> of course </S8>
<NS2> what about [the rest of us] </NS2>
<S3> [(what er but)] we have to send it to all three of you </S3>
<S1> no yeah [yeah i mean er] </S1>
<S7> [but we already got] yours [from last week] </S7>
<S3> [yeah i know] but next [time] </S3>
<NS2> [oh] </NS2>
<S1> next time [from from everyone] </S1>
<NS2> [oh yeah that's okay yeah] <NS4> yeah </NS4> alright because i'm thinking it says just to the (xx) </NS2>
<S1> mhm-hm okay yeah </S1>
<S3> er w- where do you want to meet on [wednesday] </S3>
<S5> [maybe] downstairs in the computer room </S5>
<S3> yeah [there's computers] </S3>
<S5> [yeah] yeah </S5>
<P:11>
<NS2> i'm taking these papers </NS2>
<NS4> mhm </NS4>
<S1> erm maybe one of the things that's worth thinking about is also like it's always nice if you have a presentation and you can present something like ideas for future research <SS> [mhm] </SS> [or] ideas for further scientific and further political er activity i would start thinking about that or if you see some ideas there's <NS2> uh-huh </NS2> [so] </S1>
<S3> [like] recommendations i think we already had er some [that er] </S3>
<S1> [oh maybe] may- yeah maybe </S1>
<S3> [because we said er] </S3>
<S1> [you even got it] in the powerpoint presentation already but it's alway- always good to to propose some some <S3> [like s-] </S3> [well] what should be done in future </S1>
<S3> like the use of satellites </S3>
<S1> @mhm@ well </S1>
<S3> @@ <S1> [mhm did] </S1> [it's er that] is something </S3>
<S1> did anyone see by the way this <SS> yeah </SS> yeah i was really surprised about this sentence about er the <READING ALOUD> the results implicated that only one out of five of the key habitats were found </READING ALOUD> </S1>
<S3> yes it's strange </S3>
<S1> one out of five [that's really] </S1>
<S8> [were found] </S8>
<S1> yeah </S1>
<S3> what do they mean by found </S3>
<S8> found what do they mean by that </S8>
<S3> that they found it </S3>
<S1> i think that they well just like the articles </S1>
<NS4> mhm </NS4>
<S7> they helped [the mapping (project)] </S7>
<S1> [er it's hard to] present yeah that it's quite recent so <NS4> [mhm] </NS4> [so] i think they just rechecked the area </S1>
<S3> oh they were just [(blind)] </S3>
<S1> [and then] then noticed like hey actually here are five key habitats and only one is on the list <NS2> mhm </NS2> and one out of five is quite big <SS> [yeah] </SS> [big thing] because in the finnish text i think they complain that one fifth is not found <SS> [mhm yeah] </SS> [alright but this is] quite this is quite something else </S1>
<S8> different yeah </S8>
<S1> this says 20 per cent is found </S1>
<S7> so it seems that there are there are some serious deficiencies in in the mapping of woodland key habitats in both sweden and finland </S7>
<NS4> yeah </NS4>
<S1> t- this comparison with numbers would su- suggest that in sweden in next round they will they will find a lot of new <NS4> okay </NS4> if you would (xx) it it would go up for from one per cent (xx) land coverage to five per cent <NS4> yeah </NS4> and that would and the connectivity value would <S7> [mhm] </S7> [rise] quite quite a lot no clue what they are @going to do with this@ this </S1>
<NS4> we'd hope that they're still there </NS4>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S1> [(it sounds so stupid)] </S1>
<NS4> maybe they're just too small that they just keep @missing them@ </NS4>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<NS2> [@but they actually are small@] </NS2>
<S3> [@when they're walking around oh hey i see one fell just fell over a woodland key habitat@] yeah or just like like with random they have to take a random sample and just throw something in the <NS4> [@yeah@] </NS4> [article] @oh yeah@ does everyone know now what to er what article to read like for next time [or what to do] </S3>
<S8> [we'll be doing] [(xx)] </S8>
<NS4> [i'm gonna read this one] and </NS4>
<NS2> [yeah i'll do this one] </NS2>
<NS4> [i'm gonna look at] erm [the reference yeah] </NS4>
<S5> [so we all have read this] already was there something new no <NS4> erm </NS4> for our presentation </S5>
<NS4> well it's basically what our last lecture on (climated) <S5> [mhm] </S5> [landscapes] just read it and like it's just about that so maybe it'd be worth reading something else because i think have you read it </NS4>
<S8> this one <NS4> yeah </NS4> yeah i did </S8>
<NS4> yeah i think most of us [have read it] </NS4>
<S5> [yeah okay] </S5>
<S8> half of us really </S8>
<S9 ENTERS THE ROOM>
<S9> er excuse me er do you need more time </S9>
<SS> [no] </SS>
<S1> [no we're] we are in the last minute </S1>
<S9> last [minute] </S9>
<S1> [just] er you can go [and sit and and (xx)] </S1>
<S9> [okay yeah] <NS4> erm </NS4> okay yeah </S9>
<S3> okay </S3>
<S8> er for next time then i will also read this article but i will also look up about the emerald er network [and those] </S8>
<S3> [oh you're going] to look up the [emerald] </S3>
<S8> [yes] i will do that <S3> okay </S3> [because for me that's (xx)] </S8>
<NS4> [maybe yeah] </NS4>
<S5> should i read something about restoration or </S5>
<NS2> mhm </NS2>
<S3> erm </S3>
<NS4> or maybe the [dispersal for] </NS4>
<S1> [mhm d- <SIGH>] don't take too much er if you're <SS> [yeah] </SS> [already looking at the] data and [everything but but but just just] </S1>
<SS> [yeah (xx)] </SS>
<NS2> we'll meet again on friday <NS4> yeah </NS4> [is it friday] </NS2>
<S1> [i don't (xx)] </S1>
<NS4> no [thursday] <NS2> [thursday] thursday </NS2> yeah [so] </NS4>
<NS2> [erm] </NS2>
<S3> erm , yeah maybe er someone can also look at erm er you're you were going to send the these finnish [(xx)] </S3>
<NS4> [mhm] </NS4>
<S7> [yeah the] f- finnish forest-act and nature conservation </S7>
<S3> yeah maybe to someone who can read it or well maybe we could actually [just go through it (with each other)] </S3>
<S8> [just google it yeah] </S8>
<SS> [mhm yeah] </SS>
<S3> do you do you maybe want to do that </S3>
<S6> yeah yeah i can do that </S6>
<S3> mhm okay well it could be the same @in finnish@ </S3>
<S7> yeah er it had finnish links as well </S7>
<NS4> okay [yeah] </NS4>
<S3> [@@] secret (xx) </S3>
<NS4> okay </NS4>
<S1> okay let's hike to <S3> [okay yeah] </S3> [room number] three </S1>
