Forests are critical habitats for biodiversity and they are also essential for the provision of a wide range of ecosystem services that are important to human well-being. There is increasing evidence that biodiversity contributes to forest ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Here we provide a review of forest ecosystem services including biomass production, habitat provisioning services, pollination, seed dispersal, resistance to wind storms, fire regulation and mitigation, pest regulation of native and invading insects, carbon sequestration, and cultural ecosystem services, in relation to forest type, structure and diversity. We also consider relationships between forest biodiversity and multifunctionality, and trade-offs among ecosystem services. We compare the concepts of ecosystem processes, functions and services to clarify their definitions. Our review of published studies indicates a lack of empirical studies that establish quantitative and causal relationships between forest biodiversity and many important ecosystem services. The literature is highly skewed; studies on provisioning of nutrition and energy, and on cultural services, delivered by mixed-species forests are under-represented. Planted forests offer ample opportunity for optimising their composition and diversity because replanting after harvesting is a recurring process. Planting mixed-species forests should be given more consideration as they are likely to provide a wider range of ecosystem services within the forest and for adjacent land uses. This review also serves as the introduction to this special issue of Biodiversity and Conservation on various aspects of forest biodiversity and ecosystem services.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

A database was constructed of tree-anchorage measurements from almost 2000 trees from 12 conifer species that were mechanically overturned on 34 sites in the United Kingdom between 1960 and 2000. Anchorage was compared among species, soil groups (freely-draining mineral, gleyed mineral, peaty mineral, and deep peat) and root depth classes (shallow, <40 cm; medium, 40–80 cm; and deep, >80 cm) using regressions of critical turning moment against stem mass. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) was used as a benchmark because it formed the largest part of the database and was the only species with all soil-group and depth-class combinations. Anchorage of Sitka spruce was strongest on peat and poorest on gleyed mineral soils. Deep rooting increased critical turning moments by 10%–15% compared with trees of equivalent mass with shallower roots. Significantly better anchorage than Sitka spruce was found for grand fir (Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl.), with various rooting depths on freely draining and gleyed mineral soils and for Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) on medium-depth mineral soil. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) had poorer anchorage than Sitka spruce over a range of soil groups and root depth classes. Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) on shallow gleyed mineral soil, and Corsican pine (Pinus nigra subsp. laricio (Poir.) Maire) on medium depth mineral soil, also had poorer anchorage. Other combinations had similar anchorage to the equivalent Sitka spruce. These results are discussed with respect to the development of forest wind-risk models.

Any near-term gains in reducing extreme poverty will be maintained only if environmental sustainability is also achieved.