In recent decades, the conservation of biodiversity has become one of the main areas under consideration in managing forests in an ecologically sustainable way. Forest management practices are primary drivers of diversity and may enhance or decrease forest biodiversity, according to the measures applied (thinning options). We have focused on three beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests across a latitudinal gradient in Italy, characterised by different structures resulting from dissimilar management. We tested the short-term effects of differently-based silvicultural intervention vs. stands where no silvicultural practices were applied on biodiversity indicators and related proxies: deadwood amounts, microhabitat density, floristic richness and life form abundance. In each study area, the occurrence of the above indicators and proxies was evaluated before and after the implementation of crop tree thinning (CTT) and thinning from below (LT) methods, comparing them with control areas where no interventions were performed. After two years, the management options resulted in different responses of the investigated parameters. The CTT increased deadwood amounts in comparison with the LT ones, while stumps increased significantly after the LT thinning. Microhabitats increased significantly where intervention was not undertaken. On the contrary, they remained unaltered after the LT treatments. CTT thinning created favourable conditions for the development of microhabitats and their proliferation in the long term. Two years after the application of the CTT thinning treatment, all forest stands demonstrated a significant increase in their floristic richness and herb layer cover. Significant differences were also found in both the frequency and cover of life forms in relation to silvicultural treatment. These findings provide a better understanding of short-term effects of silvicultural treatment useful for maintaining biodiversity in mountain beech forests.
The use of biocontrol agents (BCAs) represents a promising alternative to conventional methods for the management of gray mold in vineyards during the berry ripening stage. The main advantages of BCAs are the short preharvest interval and lack of chemical fungicide residues in wine. In this study, eight commercial BCAs (based on different Bacillus or Trichoderma species and strains, Aureobasidium pullulans, Metschnikowia fructicola, and Pythium oligandrum) and a reference fungicide (boscalid) were applied to a vineyard during berry ripening over three seasons to evaluate the dynamics over time in terms of their relative efficacies in gray mold control. At 1–13 days after application of BCAs to the berry surfaces in field conditions, the berries were collected and artificially inoculated with conidia of Botrytis cinerea under controlled laboratory conditions, and gray mold severity was observed after 7 days of incubation. Significant differences were observed in gray mold severity among years, according to the number of days the BCAs grew on the berry surface before B. cinerea inoculation, and the season by day interaction (altogether accounting for >80% of the experimental variance). The variability in BCA efficacy was closely related to the environmental conditions at the time of application and in the following days. Overall, the BCA efficacy increased with the degree days accumulated between BCA application in the vineyard and B. cinerea inoculation in the dry (no rain) periods (r = 0.914, P = 0.001). Rainfall and the associated drop in temperature caused a relevant reduction of BCA efficacy. These results demonstrate that BCAs are an effective alternative to conventional chemicals for the preharvest control of gray mold in vineyards. However, environmental conditions can considerably affect the BCA efficacy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.