Index of biodiversity potential (IBP) versus direct species monitoring in temperate forests

Zeller, Laura; Baumann, Charlotte; Gonin, Pierre; Heidrich, Lea; Keye, Constanze; Konrad, Felix; Larrieu, Laurent; Meyer, Peter; Sennhenn‐Reulen, Holger; Müller, Jörg; Schall, Peter; Ammer, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108692

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Paillet et al 2018). In addition, the response of biodiversity to a given indicator depends on the taxonomic or functional group studied (Zeller et al 2022), so no indicator may represent biodiversity overall. This was confirmed by our analyses.…”

Section: Conclusion: Towards New Indicators Definitions and Better Re...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, most of the indicators are indirect (structural) proxies of the forest ecosystem state (e.g. deadwood or forest fragmentation), whose link with biodiversity often lacks strong scientific evidence (Gao et al 2015; Paillet et al 2018; Storch et al 2023; Zeller et al 2022). Indeed, only two indicators involve other species than trees (namely 4.8 Threatened forest species, 4.10 Common forest bird species, Table 1) and to date, despite a large corpus of individual studies and few syntheses (Zeller et al 2023), no global and systematic assessment of the correlations between multi-taxonomic biodiversity and Forest Europe indicators has been attempted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

One to rule them all? Assessing the performance of sustainable forest management indicators against multitaxonomic data for biodiversity conservation

Paillet,

Zapponi,

Schall

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most broad-scale forest biodiversity indicators are based on data from national forest inventories and are used to assess the state of biodiversity through several regional initiatives and reporting. Although valuable, these indicators are essentially indirect and evaluate habitat quantity and quality rather than biodiversityper se. Besides, most of these indicators are applicable at regional or national scales, while their use at a more local level is difficult. Therefore, their link to biodiversity may be weak, which decreases their usefulness for decision-making.For several decades, Forest Europe indicators assessed the state of European forests, in particular its biodiversity. However, no extensive study has been conducted to date to assess the performance of these indicators against multitaxonomic data. We hypothesized that – as implied by the reporting process – no single biodiversity indicator from Forest Europe can represent overall forest biodiversity, but that several – eventually combined – indicators would reflect habitat quality for at least some taxa in a comprehensive way. We tested the set of indicators proposed by Forest Europe against the species richness of six taxonomic and functional groups (tracheophytes, epixylic and epiphytic bryophytes, birds, saproxylic beetles, saproxylic non-lichenized fungi and epixylic and epiphytic lichenized fungi) across several hundreds of plots over Europe. We showed that, while some indicators perform relatively well across groups (e.g. deadwood volume), no single indicator represented all biodiversity at once, and that a combination of several indicators performed better. Surprisingly, some indicators showed weak links with the biodiversity of the six taxonomic and functional groups.Forest Europe indicators were chosen for their availability and ease of understanding for most people. However, our analyses showed that there are still gaps in the monitoring framework, and that surveying certain taxa along with stand structure is necessary to support policymaking and tackle forest biodiversity loss at the large scale.Impact statementBiodiversity indicators used to assess the state of Europe’s forests perform unequally; a combination of indicators is more informative

show abstract

Section: Conclusion: Towards New Indicators Definitions and Better Re...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One to rule them all? Assessing the performance of sustainable forest management indicators against multitaxonomic data for biodiversity conservation

Paillet,

Zapponi,

Schall

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, there is no established or widely accepted approach to monitor biodiversity comprehensively across large spatial and temporal scales and functional groups (Burrascano et al 2021;Noss 1990;Pielou 1975). Therefore, the use of information about structural diversity of forests as a surrogate for habitat quality for different taxonomic and functional groups (TGs) has been suggested as a useful approach (Zeller et al 2022;Gardner 2010;Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). While we have an extensive spatial coverage of information about forest structure through large-scale forest inventories, quantitative, and comprehensive assessments of species diversity across a wide range of TGs have been carried out at few places only, for example in the Biodiversity Exploratories project (Penone et al 2019;Fischer et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking structure and species richness to support forest biodiversity monitoring at large scales

Storch

Boch

Goßner

et al. 2023

Annals of Forest Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key message Authors have analyzed the possible correlation between measurements/indicators of forest structure and species richness of many taxonomic or functional groups over three regions of Germany. Results show the potential to use structural attributes as a surrogate for species richness of most of the analyzed taxonomic and functional groups. This information can be transferred to large-scale forest inventories to support biodiversity monitoring. Context We are currently facing a dramatic loss in biodiversity worldwide and this initiated many monitoring programs aiming at documenting further trends. However, monitoring species diversity directly is very resource demanding, in particular in highly diverse forest ecosystems. Aims We investigated whether variables applied in an index of stand structural diversity, which was developed based on forest attributes assessed in the German National Forest Inventory, can be calibrated against richness of forest-dwelling species within a wide range of taxonomic and functional groups. Methods We used information on forest structure and species richness that has been comprehensively assessed on 150 forest plots of the German biodiversity exploratories project, comprising a large range of management intensities in three regions. We tested, whether the forest structure index calculated for these forest plots well correlate with the number of species across 29 taxonomic and functional groups, assuming that the structural attributes applied in the index represent their habitat requirements. Results The strength of correlations between the structural variables applied in the index and number of species within taxonomic or functional groups was highly variable. For some groups such as Aves, Formicidae or vascular plants, structural variables had a high explanatory power for species richness across forest types. Species richness in other taxonomic and functional groups (e.g., soil and root-associated fungi) was not explained by individual structural attributes of the index. Results indicate that some taxonomic and functional groups depend on a high structural diversity, whereas others seem to be insensitive to it or even prefer structurally poor stands. Conclusion Therefore, combinations of forest stands with different degrees of structural diversity most likely optimize taxonomic diversity at the landscape level. Our results can support biodiversity monitoring through quantification of forest structure in large-scale forest inventories. Changes in structural variables over inventory periods can indicate changes in habitat quality for individual taxonomic groups and thus points towards national forest inventories being an effective tool to detect unintended effects of changes in forest management on biodiversity.

show abstract

“…has not yet been subjected to more robust testing (Gao et al, 2015;Zeller et al, 2022). Nevertheless, deadwood volume and diversity, higher tree age and increasing openness of the canopy significantly increase the diversity of key taxonomic groups (Gao et al, 2015;Hofmeister et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Structural forest components in the form of large trees, snags, lying deadwood, open space and diverse understory increase local heterogeneity and consequently provide a richer diversity of habitats and species; these structural features are thus considered to be useful biodiversity indicators (McElhinny et al, 2005). The concept of using structure‐based indicators as a proxy for biodiversity has not yet been subjected to more robust testing (Gao et al, 2015; Zeller et al, 2022). Nevertheless, deadwood volume and diversity, higher tree age and increasing openness of the canopy significantly increase the diversity of key taxonomic groups (Gao et al, 2015; Hofmeister et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of habitat quality to mixed severity disturbance regime in Norway spruce forests

Bače

Hofmeister

Vítková

et al. 2023

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Natural disturbances change forest habitat quality for many species. As the extent and intensity of natural disturbances may increase under climate change, it is unclear how this increase can affect habitat quality on different spatial scales. To support management tools and policies aiming to prevent habitat loss, we studied how habitat quality develops in the long run depending on the disturbance severity using a space-for-time substitution approach.2. We explored the effects of time since disturbance (0-250 years) and disturbance severity (20%-100% canopy removal) on structure-based habitat quality indicators in European primary Norway spruce Picea abies forests using 1000 m 2 circular plots in hierarchical design (a total of 407 plots in 35 stands). Disturbance history was reconstructed from tree cores. Habitat quality indicators were modelled as a function of the severity of the most severe disturbance and the time since this disturbance. We hypothesised that high within-stand habitat heterogeneity is formed by different successional stages after disturbances of various intensities.3. The results showed a U-shaped response of habitat quality to post-disturbance habitat succession on the plot scale. The decline deepened with disturbance severity. The U-shape response occurred in: large tree occurrence, amount of standing and lying deadwood, diversity of understory and understory openness.The spatial diversity in disturbance parameters increased spatial diversity of habitat quality on a stand level as expected. This high within-stand habitat heterogeneity also decreased with increasing age of the most recent disturbance. This suggests that the absence of young successional stages results in the absence of some important elements for biodiversity, for example sun-exposed snags. Synthesis and applications.Our results demonstrate that currently intensifying natural disturbance regime can consequently result in a lower habitat heterogeneity. In managed spruce forests after natural disturbances, we recommend at | 1353

show abstract

Index of biodiversity potential (IBP) versus direct species monitoring in temperate forests

Cited by 11 publications

References 83 publications

One to rule them all? Assessing the performance of sustainable forest management indicators against multitaxonomic data for biodiversity conservation

One to rule them all? Assessing the performance of sustainable forest management indicators against multitaxonomic data for biodiversity conservation

Linking structure and species richness to support forest biodiversity monitoring at large scales

Response of habitat quality to mixed severity disturbance regime in Norway spruce forests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About