Current European policies are unlikely to jointly foster carbon sequestration and protect biodiversity

Burrascano, Sabina; Chytrý, Milan; Kuemmerle, Tobias; Giarrizzo, Eleonora; Luyssaert, Sebastiaan; Sabatini, Francesco; Blasi, C.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.005

Cited by 78 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The ongoing process of agricultural intensification in productive areas, which co-occurs with deintensification or even abandonment of marginal areas, may offer important conservation opportunities (Jepsen et al, 2015;Navarro & Pereira, 2012;Schnitzler, 2014). In many Western European countries, satisfying wood demands increasingly relies on imports, while forests located in remote areas are today being managed much less intensively than in the past (Burrascano et al, 2016;Navarro & Pereira, 2012). As a result of these economic changes, as well as of changing management priorities, the proportion of European forests in the olderage classes is increasing, although wide regional differences exist (FOREST EUROPE, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Where are Europe’s last primary forests?

Sabatini

Burrascano

Keeton

et al. 2018

Diversity and Distributions

Self Cite

318

260

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Primary forests have high conservation value but are rare in Europe due to historic land use. Yet many primary forest patches remain unmapped, and it is unclear to what extent they are effectively protected. Our aim was to (1) compile the most comprehensive European‐scale map of currently known primary forests, (2) analyse the spatial determinants characterizing their location and (3) locate areas where so far unmapped primary forests likely occur. Location Europe. Methods We aggregated data from a literature review, online questionnaires and 32 datasets of primary forests. We used boosted regression trees to explore which biophysical, socio‐economic and forest‐related variables explain the current distribution of primary forests. Finally, we predicted and mapped the relative likelihood of primary forest occurrence at a 1‐km resolution across Europe. Results Data on primary forests were frequently incomplete or inconsistent among countries. Known primary forests covered 1.4 Mha in 32 countries (0.7% of Europe’s forest area). Most of these forests were protected (89%), but only 46% of them strictly. Primary forests mostly occurred in mountain and boreal areas and were unevenly distributed across countries, biogeographical regions and forest types. Unmapped primary forests likely occur in the least accessible and populated areas, where forests cover a greater share of land, but wood demand historically has been low. Main conclusions Despite their outstanding conservation value, primary forests are rare and their current distribution is the result of centuries of land use and forest management. The conservation outlook for primary forests is uncertain as many are not strictly protected and most are small and fragmented, making them prone to extinction debt and human disturbance. Predicting where unmapped primary forests likely occur could guide conservation efforts, especially in Eastern Europe where large areas of primary forest still exist but are being lost at an alarming pace.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Where are Europe’s last primary forests?

Sabatini

Burrascano

Keeton

et al. 2018

Diversity and Distributions

Self Cite

318

260

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The potential for grasslands to deliver these ES is likely to be substantial, and it is unlikely that conversion of grassland to forest will supply many of these services at comparable rates (Burrascano et al. ). Biodiversity and ES thus provide major arguments for maintaining grazed grasslands despite the large climate effects of methane‐emitting livestock.…”

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, Burrascano et al. ). This carbon is rapidly decomposed and released as CO 2 if grasslands are transformed into cropland or intensified by plowing and re‐sowing (Soussana et al.…”

Section: Provisioning and Regulating Ecosystem Services From Grasslandsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…, UK NEA , Burrascano et al. ). However, these and several other trade‐offs can be modified or avoided by appropriate management practices, and these are important to identify.…”

Section: Grassland Management Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides having a high conservation value and supporting food production, grasslands may also be important contributors of ES (Sala and Paruelo 1997, Pilgrim et al 2010, Bullock et al 2011, Lemaire et al 2011, Lavorel et al 2013, Werling et al 2014, Burrascano et al 2016, Modernel et al 2016. However, grasslands have remained under-appreciated in the framework of ES (Fr elichov a et al 2014; see Appendix S1), and sometimes, grasslands have been combined with other rangelands that include shrubland, deserts and savannas (e.g., Sala et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Grasslands—more important for ecosystem services than you might think

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extensively managed grasslands are recognized globally for their high biodiversity and their social and cultural values. However, their capacity to deliver multiple ecosystem services (ES) as parts of agricultural systems is surprisingly understudied compared to other production systems. We undertook a comprehensive overview of ES provided by natural and semi‐natural grasslands, using southern Africa (SA) and northwest Europe as case studies, respectively. We show that these grasslands can supply additional non‐agricultural services, such as water supply and flow regulation, carbon storage, erosion control, climate mitigation, pollination, and cultural ES. While demand for ecosystems services seems to balance supply in natural grasslands of SA, the smaller areas of semi‐natural grasslands in Europe appear to not meet the demand for many services. We identified three bundles of related ES from grasslands: water ES including fodder production, cultural ES connected to livestock production, and population‐based regulating services (e.g., pollination and biological control), which also linked to biodiversity. Greenhouse gas emission mitigation seemed unrelated to the three bundles. The similarities among the bundles in SA and northwestern Europe suggest that there are generalities in ES relations among natural and semi‐natural grassland areas. We assessed trade‐offs and synergies among services in relation to management practices and found that although some trade‐offs are inevitable, appropriate management may create synergies and avoid trade‐offs among many services. We argue that ecosystem service and food security research and policy should give higher priority to how grasslands can be managed for fodder and meat production alongside other ES. By integrating grasslands into agricultural production systems and land‐use decisions locally and regionally, their potential to contribute to functional landscapes and to food security and sustainable livelihoods can be greatly enhanced.

show abstract

Natural disturbance regimes as a guide for sustainable forest management in Europe

Aszalós

Thom

Aakala

et al. 2022

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Europe, forest management has controlled forest dynamics to sustain commodity production over multiple centuries. Yet over-regulation for growth and yield diminishes resilience to environmental stress as well as threatens biodiversity, leading to increasing forest susceptibility to an array of disturbances. These trends have stimulated interest in alternative management systems, including natural dynamics silviculture (NDS). NDS aims to emulate natural disturbance dynamics at stand and landscape scales through silvicultural manipulations of forest structure and landscape patterns. We adapted a "Comparability Index" (CI) to assess convergence/divergence between natural disturbances and forest management effects. We extended the original CI concept based on disturbance size and frequency by adding the residual structure of canopy trees after a disturbance as a third dimension. We populated the model by compiling data on natural disturbance dynamics and management from 13 countries in Europe, covering four major forest types (i.e., spruce, beech, oak, and pine-dominated forests). We found that natural disturbances are highly variable in size, frequency, and residual structure, but European forest management fails to encompass this complexity. Silviculture in Europe is skewed toward even-aged systems, used predominately (72.9% of management) across the countries assessed. The residual structure proved crucial in the comparison of natural disturbances and silvicultural systems. CI indicated the highest congruence between uneven-aged silvicultural systems and key natural disturbance attributes. Even so, uneven-aged practices emulated only a portion of the complexity associated with natural disturbance effects. The remaining silvicultural systems perform poorly in terms of retention compared to tree survivorship after natural disturbances. We suggest that NDS can enrich Europe's portfolio of management systems, for example where wood production is not the primary objective. NDS is especially relevant to forests managed for habitat quality, risk reduction, and a variety of ecosystem services. We suggest a holistic approach integrating NDS with more conventional practices.

show abstract

Current European policies are unlikely to jointly foster carbon sequestration and protect biodiversity

Cited by 78 publications

References 38 publications

Where are Europe’s last primary forests?

Where are Europe’s last primary forests?

Grasslands—more important for ecosystem services than you might think

Natural disturbance regimes as a guide for sustainable forest management in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About