The forest structure and ecosystem quality in conditions of anthropogenic disturbance along productivity gradient

Liira, Jaan; Sepp, Toivo; Parrest, Oliver

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.007

Cited by 108 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 60 publications

(103 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Lust et al (1998) stated that in old pine stands some tree species may grow as spontaneous intermediate trees which subsequently contribute to more complex structure and higher biological diversity. Similar results were published by MacLachlan et al (2000) or Liira et al (2007), who described lower heterogeneity, density or lower complexity of structural attributes from stands with strong anthropogenic impacts. In some cases, development and especially the spontaneous growth of intermediate trees of autochthonous species in pine stands may be disturbed by undesirable expansion of allochthonous species (Maddelein et al 1990).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

How close to nature is close-to-nature pine silviculture?

Bílek¹,

Vacek²,

Vacek³

et al. 2016

J. For. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural parameters of Scots pine stands (129-191 years) on their natural sites (270-600 m a.s.l.) are described on 6 permanent research plots (PRP; 3 in managed stands using near-natural silvicultural practices and 3 in stands without active forest management for 3 decades at least) in areas of western, central and eastern Bohemia and in the Polish part of the Krkonoše Mts. In the framework of the study structural and growth parameters, horizontal and vertical structure and biodiversity were evaluated on the plots. A comparison of the plots, and of managed and unmanaged plots showed a relatively high variability in different parameters. Nevertheless, the results document that managed stands, compared to forest stands without management, mostly have significantly higher standing volumes (1.5 times in total and 1.7 times in pine), which is caused by more extreme sites. An opposite trend was found out in dead wood volume, which is distinctly higher in unmanaged stands. Differences in the other parameters are not so pronounced, probably because small-scale management is used and because a relatively short time since the stands were left to spontaneous development has elapsed (30-52 years).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

How close to nature is close-to-nature pine silviculture?

Bílek¹,

Vacek²,

Vacek³

et al. 2016

J. For. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, it is taken into account (1) by defining discrete categories such as managed versus natural (e.g. Paillet et al 2010), and intensive versus extensive regimes (Batary et al 2007;Bowman et al 2000;Meier et al 2005), (2) by using an ordinal gradient of 3-4 levels (Flynn et al 2009;Müller et al 2007a;Oehl et al 2003), (3) by deriving an index (Herzog et al 2006;Liira et al 2007;Mas and Dietsch 2003;Wilson et al 2003), (4) by using the main axis of a principal component analysis of management components (Kerr and Cihlar 2004) or (5) by simply treating the single management components separately in multivariate statistics (e.g. Dormann et al 2007;Billeter et al 2008;Grandchamp et al 2005;Kleijn et al 2009).…”

Section: Conceptual Approaches For Assessing Land-use Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…cut stumps, forest tracks, neighbouring clear-cut areas, ditches, etc. ; Kohv and Liira 2005;Liira and Sepp 2009;Liira et al 2007). However, the general suitability of this approach is not yet clear because studies so far focus on specific forest types in small geographic regions.…”

Section: Approaches For Assessing Forest Management Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing approaches for the assessment of forest management intensity lack a widely accepted, purely quantitative measure for ranking a set of forest stands along a gradient of management intensity. We have developed a silvicultural management intensity indicator (SMI) which combines three main characteristics of a given stand: tree species, stand age and aboveground, living and dead wooden biomass. Data on these three factors are used as input to represent the risk of stand loss, which is a function of tree species and stand age, and stand density, which is a function of the silvicultural regime, stand age and tree species. Consequently, the indicator consists of a risk component (SMI r ) and a density component (SMI d ). We used SMI to rank traditional management of the main Central European tree species: Norway spruce (Picea abies [Karst.] L.), European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), and oak (Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea L.). By analysing SMI over their whole rotation period, we found the following ranking of management intensity: oak\beech\pine(spruce. Additionally, we quantified the SMI of actual research plots of the German Biodiversity exploratories, which represent unmanaged and managed forest stands including conifer forests cultivated outside their natural range. SMI not only successfully separate managed from unmanaged forests, but also reflected the variability of forest management and stand properties across the entire sample and within the different management groups. We suggest using SMI to quantify silvicultual management intensity of stands differing in species composition, age, silvicultural system (even-aged vs. uneven-aged), thinning grade and stages of stand conversion from one stand type into another. Using SMI may facilitate the assessment of the impact of forest management intensity on biodiversity in temperate forests.

show abstract

“…Quanto osservato denota quindi che la fase evolutiva che sta attraversando Sasso Fratino è quella di una foresta matura non ancora in fase sene scente: l'apporto di necromassa al terreno dovuto alla caduta di alberi è attualmente estremamente mo desto in buona parte della Riserva e del tutto assente nelle AdS campionate. È tuttavia possibile che, in tempi più lunghi, qui si riscontreranno maggiori quantitativi di legno morto al suolo dovuti all'au mento della mortalità di alberi vecchi e di grandi di mensioni, fenomeno caratterizzante boschi nella fase di invecchiamento più marcata (old-growth -Harmon et al 1986, Jonsson 2000, Siitonen et al 2000, Wolyn ski 2001, Krankina et al 2002, Di Filippo et al 2004, Gilg 2004, Marchetti & Lombardi 2006, Motta et al 2006, Liira et al 2007.…”

Section: Figunclassified

“…2006), e fungendo spesso da nicchia ideale per la germinazione di molte specie arboree (Waddel 2002, Motta et al 2006, è considerata come componente fondamentale per il mantenimento e l'incremento della biodiversità (Harmon et al 1986, Wolynski 2001, Gilg 2004, Mircu et al 2006, Stevenson et al 2006, Woodall & Nagel 2006, Liira et al 2007, Ranius & Jonsson 2007. La quantità di legno morto in fore sta è riconosciuta, in base al "criterio 4" del MCPFE Relativamente ai rapporti tra quantità di necromas sa e interventi colturali, numerosi autori (Green & Peterken 1997, Linder & Östlund 1998, Kirby et al 1998, Fridman & Walheim 2000, Angers et al 2005 evidenziano come questi ultimi possano incidere ne gativamente, e che di conseguenza in boschi poco di sturbati sia più elevata la quantità di legno morto.…”

Section: Introduzioneunclassified

Cultural treatments and woody debris: the study case of beech forests in Casentino (Italy)

Salvadori¹,

Bianchi²,

Calamini³

2009

Forest@

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroduzioneLa necromassa legnosa in foresta, costituendo un habitat ideale per la vita di numerosi vertebrati ed in vertebrati (Bernicchia 2003, Paolucci 2003, Pesarini 2003, Renvall 2003, Riva & Bonini 2003, Rukalsky & Faccoli 2003, Schlaghamersky 2003, Tedaldi 2003, Tellini Florenzano 2003, Kappes et al. 2006, Odor et al. 2006), e fungendo spesso da nicchia ideale per la germinazione di molte specie arboree (Waddel 2002, Motta et al. 2006, è considerata come componente fondamentale per il mantenimento e l'incremento della biodiversità (Harmon et al. 1986, Wolynski 2001, Gilg 2004, Mircu et al. 2006, Stevenson et al. 2006, Woodall & Nagel 2006, Liira et al. 2007, Ranius & Jonsson 2007. La quantità di legno morto in fore sta è riconosciuta, in base al "criterio 4" del MCPFE Relativamente ai rapporti tra quantità di necromas sa e interventi colturali, numerosi autori (Green & Peterken 1997, Linder & Östlund 1998, Kirby et al. 1998, Fridman & Walheim 2000, Angers et al. 2005 evidenziano come questi ultimi possano incidere ne gativamente, e che di conseguenza in boschi poco di sturbati sia più elevata la quantità di legno morto. (in terms of total dry weight) mostly composed by fine woo dy debris.

show abstract

The forest structure and ecosystem quality in conditions of anthropogenic disturbance along productivity gradient

Cited by 108 publications

References 60 publications

How close to nature is close-to-nature pine silviculture?

How close to nature is close-to-nature pine silviculture?

How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests

Cultural treatments and woody debris: the study case of beech forests in Casentino (Italy)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About