Forest Dieback, a Tangible Proof of Climate Change? A Cross-Comparison of Forest Stakeholders’ Perceptions and Strategies in the Mountain Forests of Europe and China

Abstract

Forest dieback due to climate change poses a risk to mountain forests throughout the world, and has severe consequences in terms of lost ecosystem services for forest stakeholders. This contribution aims to analyze how forest stakeholders perceive forest dieback, and the way in which they adapt to it. We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews in three midmountain case study areas in France, Germany and China, enabling a cross-comparison of different settings affected by forest dieback. Results show that forest dieback is not a new phenomenon for stakeholders who consider that it has increased over the last few decades, due to rising temperatures and extreme weather events. In all survey areas, respondents consider forest dieback as tangible proof of climate change, identifying context-specific impacts with varying levels of severity. Cause-effect relationships are not easy to establish.Forest stakeholders are unable to determine whether climate change is a triggering or aggravating factor. For adaptive strategies, respondents can be grouped into three main profiles: proactive, reactive and wait-and-see forest stakeholders. These types of stakeholders differ in terms of their investment capacities, economic dependency, emotional attachment to forests, knowledge level, and capacity to obtain actionable information through participation in institutional networks.

Forest management, site characteristics and climate change affect multiple biotic threats in riparian forests

“…Although globally the spread of pests and diseases is driven by climate change, many stakeholders react to environmental changes locally. Furthermore, even across the same geographic region, stakeholders can have highly diverse reactions to these changes (Deuffic et al 2020). The outcome of this study clearly supports a recommendation that forest management measures require a threat-specific response to lower the risk of large-scale outbreaks and related threats.…”

How to Recognise a Healthy Forest: Perspectives from Private Forest Managers in Britain

“…In our sample, and aligning with existing analysis (e.g. Sousa-Silva et al, 2018;Deuffic et al, 2020), forest managers are cognizant of the interactions between climate change and forest health. They are alert to the threats posed by climate change (and associated problems such as drought and the lack of adaptive capacity of species such as oak), and are aware of their forests' interlinked vulnerability to pests and diseases.…”

Climate-Smart Silviculture in Mountain Regions

“…These possible actions should be undertaken considering uncertainties about climate change impacts on forests and their reactions (Lindner et al 2014). The potential silvicultural disturbance-prevention measures include (1) the use of more climate-adapted tree species or their genotypes (Kauppi et al 2018;Thurm et al 2018), the introduction of economic alternatives to main species (Deuffic et al 2020), management to facilitate the establishment of species outside of historical natural ranges and genomics-based assisted migration in reforestation (transformation) (Hagerman and Pelai 2018); (2) application of more diversified species composition of forests (mixtures of conifers with broadleaves, shade-tolerant with intolerant species, more drought-resistant with less-resistant species) involving also conversion from single-species to multispecies stands where site conditions permit (Kerr et al 2010;Jactel et al 2017), this allows to distribute silvicultural risk to many tree species in a stand; (3) managing for and/or increasing resilience (Hagerman and Pelai 2018); (4) more frequent and intensive thinnings (selective or differentiation) and shorter and/or diversified rotation length (Jactel et al 2009;Silva et al 2018;Deuffic et al 2020); (5) shaping the diversified age structure of forests (uneven-aged/selection structure) (Schütz 2002;O'Hara 2014;Deuffic et al 2020); (6) increasing stand stability and decreasing stand density (Knoke et al 2008;Deuffic et al 2020); (7) fire-smart landscape management techniques (Kauppi et al 2018;Lindner et al 2020). In addition, the realization of the concepts of close-to-nature silviculture (Schütz 1999;Brang et al 2014;O'Hara 2014) and/or continuous cover forestry (Mason et al 1999;Pukkala and Gadov 2012) seems to enhance adaptation to climate change and, to some extent, mitigate its effects on forests (Fig.…”