Stand Structural Characteristics Are the Most Practical Biodiversity Indicators for Forest Management Planning in Europe

Abstract

Including biodiversity assessments in forest management planning is becoming increasingly important due to the importance of biodiversity for forest ecosystem resilience provision and sustainable functioning. Here we investigated the potential to include biodiversity indicators into forest management planning in Europe. In particular, we aimed to (i) identify biodiversity indicators and data collection methods for biodiversity assessments at the stand and landscape levels, and (ii) evaluate the practicality of those indicators for forest management planning. We performed a literature review in which we screened 188 research studies published between 1990 and 2020. We selected 94 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and examined in more detail. We considered three aspects of biodiversity: structure, composition, and function, and four forest management categories: unmanaged, managed, plantation, and silvopastoral. We used three criteria to evaluate the practicality of forest biodiversity indicators: cost-effectiveness, ease of application, and time-effectiveness. We identified differences in the practicality of biodiversity indicators for their incorporation into management plans. Stand-level indicators are more practical than landscape-level indicators. Moreover, structural biodiversity indicators (e.g., large trees, canopy openness, and old forest stands) are more useful in management plans than compositional indicators, as these are easily observable by non-professionals and can be obtained by forest inventories. Compositional indicators such are vascular plants, fungi, bryophyte, lichens, and invertebrate species are hard to identify by non-professionals and thus are impractical. Functional indicators (e.g., nutrient cycling) are not sufficiently addressed in the literature. Using recently updated existing databases (e.g., national forest inventories and bird atlases) is very time and cost-efficient. Remote sensing and other technology (e.g., smartphone applications) are promising for efficient data collection in the future. However, more research is needed to make these tools more accurate and applicable to a variety of ecological conditions and scales. Until then, forest stand structural variables derived from inventories can help improve management plans to prepare European forests towards an uncertain future.

How mountains and elevations shape the spatial distribution of beetles in Peninsular Malaysia

“…Although habitat preferences by beetle species may regularly mirror their scavenging behaviours, elucidation of the causal mechanisms underpinning the relationships between habitat complexity and beetles are critical for the development of general principles linking habitat, functional roles and diversity 51 . Moreover, indicators are very useful in management of different ecosystems such as montane and forest ecosystems as discussed by Cosovic et al 52 .…”

Acceleration of Forest Structural Development for Large Trees and Mammals: Restoration in Decades or Centuries?

“…1 Crop trees of lodgepole pine were those trees retained during the PCT treatment. 2 Total crop trees in old-growth stands included lodgepole pine + other coniferous species. 3 Basal area for old-growth stands included all crop tree species.…”

“…Forest restoration is heralded as a crucial endeavour for future economic and environmental sustainability in temperate and boreal coniferous forests of North America and Eurasia in the 21st century [1,2]. The current loss of forest cover from ongoing harvesting and unpredictable outbreaks of wildfire, insects, windthrow, and drought seems to be unprecedented in modern industrial times [3][4][5][6].…”

Weak relationships of continuous forest management intensity and remotely sensed stand structural complexity in temperate mountain forests

“…Analyzing the relationship of stand structure and forest management is hence relevant under these changing environmental conditions to monitor consequences of disturbances in differently managed forests. This allows to adapt management strategies according to these new challenges to create resilient forest ecosystems (Ćosović et al 2020;Atkins et al 2020;Holzwarth et al 2020). Improving the understanding of the influence of management intensity of a specific silvicultural approach on the stand structure allows managers to select the right tools to maintain the desired stand structure (Messier et al 2013;Schall et al 2018a).…”

“…Improving the understanding of the influence of management intensity of a specific silvicultural approach on the stand structure allows managers to select the right tools to maintain the desired stand structure (Messier et al 2013;Schall et al 2018a). In addition, stand structure is an important factor for the associated biodiversity (Schall et al 2018b(Schall et al , 2020Frey et al 2020;Ćosović et al 2020). The relationship of stand structure and forest management has received attention in forest science for a long time (Neumann and Starlinger 2001;Berryman and McCune 2006;Ehbrecht et al 2017; Communicated by Christian Ammer.…”