Primary forest distribution and representation in a Central European landscape: Results of a large-scale field-based census

Mikoláš, Martin; Ujházy, Karol; Jasík, Marián; Wiezik, Michal; Gallay, Igor; Polák, Pavol; Vysoký, Juraj; Čiliak, Marek; Meigs, Garrett W.; Svoboda, Miroslav; Trotsiuk, Volodymyr; Keeton, William S.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117466

Cited by 49 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If this is true, then the current upgrading gap of primary forests might change to restoration or protection gap in many areas in Finland (from pink to blue or brown in Figure 5). By contrast, in certain contexts even national parks may provide insufficient protection to primary forests, for instance where widespread salvage logging is allowed after insect, wind and fire disturbances (Mikoláš et al., 2019; Schickhofer & Schwarz, 2019). Finally, when prioritizing areas for restoration, our analysis neither explicitly accounted for opportunity costs, land tenure, productivity or rent, nor did we treat the uneven distribution of threatened species and biodiversity hotspots.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, where primary forests are still relatively widespread, such as in parts of Eastern Europe, managers must be aware of the uniqueness of these forests in a broader biogeographical context. Recent reports of primary forest loss from these key areas (Mikoláš et al., 2017, 2019; Schickhofer & Schwarz, 2019) are, therefore, of greatest concern and require prompt and coordinated action. Likewise, even small regions could make important contributions to restoring missing primary forests for some forest types at the European scale.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only recently the EU commission released a new “Biodiversity Strategy for 2030,” which emphasizes the need to define, map, monitor and strictly protect all of the EU's remaining primary and old‐growth forests (European Commission, 2020). Until this strategy comes into force, however, many primary forests remain unprotected (Mikoláš et al., 2019; Sabatini et al., 2018), and it is unclear in which forest types such protection gaps are largest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many protected areas allow for human activities (e.g. salvage logging) that could jeopardize natural forest dynamics, such as successional recovery from natural disturbance and carryover of biological legacies (Mikoláš et al., 2019; Thorn et al., 2018). Such activities should thus be banned from primary forests, if the goal is to allow these forests to develop naturally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…setting aside forest and discontinuing forest management, salvage logging or disturbance suppression) or actively (e.g. removing non‐native species, translocating species, restoring natural hydrological conditions or promoting the development of key structural elements, such as deadwood or veteran trees; Keenelyside et al., 2012; Mazziotta et al., 2016; Mikoláš et al., 2019; Schnitzler, 2014). Still, restoring conditions closer to those found in primary forests faces many challenges, not the least of which is the long timeframes involved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Protection gaps and restoration opportunities for primary forests in Europe

Sabatini

Keeton

Lindner

et al. 2020

Diversity and Distributions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Primary forests are critical for forest biodiversity and provide key ecosystem services. In Europe, these forests are particularly scarce and it is unclear whether they are sufficiently protected. Here we aim to: (a) understand whether extant primary forests are representative of the range of naturally occurring forest types, (b) identify forest types which host enough primary forest under strict protection to meet conservation targets and (c) highlight areas where restoration is needed and feasible. Location Europe. Methods We combined a unique geodatabase of primary forests with maps of forest cover, potential natural vegetation, biogeographic regions and protected areas to quantify the proportion of extant primary forest across Europe's forest types and to identify gaps in protection. Using spatial predictions of primary forest locations to account for underreporting of primary forests, we then highlighted areas where restoration could complement protection. Results We found a substantial bias in primary forest distribution across forest types. Of the 54 forest types we assessed, six had no primary forest at all, and in two‐thirds of forest types, less than 1% of forest was primary. Even if generally protected, only ten forest types had more than half of their primary forests strictly protected. Protecting all documented primary forests requires expanding the protected area networks by 1,132 km2 (19,194 km2 when including also predicted primary forests). Encouragingly, large areas of non‐primary forest existed inside protected areas for most types, thus presenting restoration opportunities. Main conclusion Europe's primary forests are in a perilous state, as also acknowledged by EU's “Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.” Yet, there are considerable opportunities for ensuring better protection and restoring primary forest structure, composition and functioning, at least partially. We advocate integrated policy reforms that explicitly account for the irreplaceable nature of primary forests and ramp up protection and restoration efforts alike.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Protection gaps and restoration opportunities for primary forests in Europe

Sabatini

Keeton

Lindner

et al. 2020

Diversity and Distributions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Quantifying natural disturbances using a large‐scale dendrochronological reconstruction to guide forest management

Čada

Trotsiuk

Janda

et al. 2020

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimates of historical disturbance patterns are essential to guide forest management aimed at ensuring the sustainability of ecosystem functions and biodiversity. However, quantitative estimates of various disturbance characteristics required in management applications are rare in longer-term historical studies. Thus, our objectives were to (1) quantify past disturbance severity, patch size, and stand proportion disturbed and (2) test for temporal and subregional differences in these characteristics. We developed a comprehensive dendrochronological method to evaluate an approximately two-century-long disturbance record in the remaining Central and Eastern European primary mountain spruce forests, where wind and bark beetles are the predominant disturbance agents. We used an unprecedented large-scale nested design data set of 541 plots located within 44 stands and 6 subregions. To quantify individual disturbance events, we used tree-ring proxies, which were aggregated at plot and stand levels by smoothing and detecting peaks in their distributions. The spatial aggregation of disturbance events was used to estimate patch sizes. Data exhibited continuous gradients from low-to high-severity and small-to large-size disturbance events. In addition to the importance of small disturbance events, moderate-scale (25-75% of the stand disturbed, >10 ha patch size) and moderate-severity (25-75% of canopy disturbed) events were also common. Moderate disturbances represented more than 50% of the total disturbed area and their rotation periods ranged from one to several hundred years, which is within the lifespan of local tree species. Disturbance severities differed among subregions, whereas the stand proportion disturbed varied significantly over time. This indicates partially independent variations among disturbance characteristics. Our quantitative estimates of disturbance severity, patch size, stand proportion disturbed, and associated rotation periods provide rigorous baseline data for future ecological research, decisions within biodiversity conservation, and silviculture intended to maintain native biodiversity and ecosystem functions. These results highlight a need for sufficiently large and adequately connected networks of strict reserves, more complex silvicultural treatments

show abstract

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

Aszalós

Thom

Aakala

et al. 2022

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

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

Primary forest distribution and representation in a Central European landscape: Results of a large-scale field-based census

Cited by 49 publications

References 57 publications

Protection gaps and restoration opportunities for primary forests in Europe

Protection gaps and restoration opportunities for primary forests in Europe

Quantifying natural disturbances using a large‐scale dendrochronological reconstruction to guide forest management

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About