For a given investment in protected area, the incremental gains in species conservation decrease rapidly with increasing amount and cost of surveys. Therefore, contrary to Balmford and Gaston (1999), they argue that with diminishing returns from additional survey information, resources might be better directed toward other conservation actions, depending on their relative costs and benefits. Here, we conduct a case study to determine how much time and money can be spent on gathering information to help foresters prioritize

and select retention trees on clearcuts in a boreal forest landscape in Sweden. To our knowledge, it is the first conservation planning study that addresses the small scale level of individual trees. Retention forestry, which involves

leaving GW-572016 in vitro trees and dead wood at forestry operations to benefit biodiversity and ecosystem functions, is now practiced widely in boreal and temperate forests, and is increasing in application (Gustafsson et al., 2012 and Lindenmayer et al., 2012). In boreal forests, which Enzalutamide cell line comprise about 30% of all forests globally (Hansen et al. 2010), retention forestry is used to create a more heterogeneous forest landscape that resembles a landscape shaped by natural disturbances of varying intensity (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). Two main approaches are normally used in parallel: single trees dispersed over the clearcut, and trees retained in small, undisturbed forest patches (Lõhmus et al., 2006 and Nelson and Halpern, 2005). European aspen (Populus tremula L) is a frequently used tree species for retention in Sweden ( Swedish Forest Agency 2012) since it is a key species for beetles, birds, lichens

and bryophytes, including many declining species ( Angelstam and crotamiton Mikusinski, 1994, Kuusinen, 1996 and Siitonen and Martikainen, 1994). In Sweden, retention actions are a legal requirement with the same prescriptions irrespective of ownership. Current guidelines at two of the largest Swedish forest companies (Stora Enso and SCA) for selecting retention trees state that at least 10 trees of high conservation value should be retained per hectare, alone or in patches. Large and old trees shall be prioritized, and in the case of aspens, if there are very few of them, all of them should be retained. In more aspen-rich stands, only a portion of the trees need to be retained. The decision on which solitary trees to retain is normally made by the cutting team, but the guidelines do not include any information on how much time to spend planning per hectare or whether planning must be made prior to cutting or successively while cutting. Thus, basic guidelines for tree selection exist but whether they promote biodiversity better than a random selection has not been rigorously tested.