Biodiversity and ecosystem services in forests: management and restoration founded on ecological theory

Mori, Akira

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12854

Cited by 31 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with previous studies, we found that the change in tree species composition toward a higher proportion of less vulnerable and site‐adapted species has paramount importance in managing forests under climate change (Jandl et al., 2019). Diverse ecosystems generally show lower disturbance rates compared with monospecific forests (Griess et al., 2012; Neuner et al., 2015) and are also superior in the provisioning of ecosystem services (Mori, 2017). Still, some previous studies suggested that the pest control effect may depend more on species composition of the forest than on diversity (Koricheva et al., 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting vulnerability of monospecific and species‐diverse forests to wind and bark beetle disturbance: The role of management

Dobor

Hlásny

Zimová

2020

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting vulnerability of monospecific and species‐diverse forests to wind and bark beetle disturbance: The role of management

Dobor

Hlásny

Zimová

2020

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, resistant plant types that do not respond to N addition display stable N:P stoichiometric characteristics that enable them to thrive in an environment that may be affected by N deposition. Overall, greater biodiversity is important for ecosystem functions (Landuyt et al, 2019;Mori, 2017), the effects of decreased plant diversity after N deposition on the performance of ecosystem functions need more investigations in the forest ecosystems.…”

Section: Con Clus Ionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stoichiometric traits (N:P) of understory plants contribute to reductions in plant diversity following long‐term nitrogen addition in subtropical forest

Shen

Thompson

et al. 2021

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Forests supply multiple regulating, material and nonmaterial ecosystem services, i.e. nature's contributions to people (IPBES 2019), including timber and other nontimber products, wild food, carbon sequestration, groundwater recharge, flood regulation, protection from soil erosion, recreational opportunities and habitat provision (Bauhus et al 2010;Gamfeldt et al 2013;Miura et al 2015;Mori 2017;van der Plas et al 2017;Storch et al 2018). Both national (BMELV 2011) and international (FAO 2013) policy guidelines call for new strategies in forest management, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National Forest Inventories capture the multifunctionality of managed forests in Germany

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Forests perform various important ecosystem functions that contribute to ecosystem services. In many parts of the world, forest management has shifted from a focus on timber production to multi-purpose forestry, combining timber production with the supply of other forest ecosystem services. However, it is unclear which forest types provide which ecosystem services and to what extent forests primarily managed for timber already supply multiple ecosystem services. Based on a comprehensive dataset collected across 150 forest plots in three regions differing in management intensity and species composition, we develop models to predict the potential supply of 13 ecosystem services. We use those models to assess the level of multifunctionality of managed forests at the national level using national forest inventory data. Results Looking at the potential supply of ecosystem services, we found trade-offs (e.g. between both bark beetle control or dung decomposition and both productivity or soil carbon stocks) as well as synergies (e.g. for temperature regulation, carbon storage and culturally interesting plants) across the 53 most dominant forest types in Germany. No single forest type provided all ecosystem services equally. Some ecosystem services showed comparable levels across forest types (e.g. decomposition or richness of saprotrophs), while others varied strongly, depending on forest structural attributes (e.g. phosphorous availability or cover of edible plants) or tree species composition (e.g. potential nitrification activity). Variability in potential supply of ecosystem services was only to a lesser extent driven by environmental conditions. However, the geographic variation in ecosystem function supply across Germany was closely linked with the distribution of main tree species. Conclusions Our results show that forest multifunctionality is limited to subsets of ecosystem services. The importance of tree species composition highlights that a lack of multifunctionality at the stand level can be compensated by managing forests at the landscape level, when stands of complementary forest types are combined. These results imply that multi-purpose forestry should be based on a variety of forest types requiring coordinated planning across larger spatial scales.

show abstract

Biodiversity and ecosystem services in forests: management and restoration founded on ecological theory

Cited by 31 publications

References 62 publications

Contrasting vulnerability of monospecific and species‐diverse forests to wind and bark beetle disturbance: The role of management

Contrasting vulnerability of monospecific and species‐diverse forests to wind and bark beetle disturbance: The role of management

Stoichiometric traits (N:P) of understory plants contribute to reductions in plant diversity following long‐term nitrogen addition in subtropical forest

National Forest Inventories capture the multifunctionality of managed forests in Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About