Evidence for forest biodiversity conservation: Recent scientific advances and future perspectives in temperate forests
Convened by: Kurt Bollmann, Martin. M. Gossner
Biodiversity conservation has gained increasing attention in multifunctional forest management because forest reserves are considered to be too small to sustain forest biodiversity effectively (Bollmann & Braunisch 2013). Preserving forest biodiversity is thus a challenge, in particular in Europe where 96 percent of forest area is used. New concepts and instruments facilitating biodiversity primary focus on the type and quantity of forest structures that are left behind (Gustafsson et al. 2012). Restorations encompass measures from the tree to the forest landscape scale and target for increasing microhabitat abundance, preserving single habitat trees, retaining old-growth stands and dead wood, improving vertical and horizontal heterogeneity and emulating natural disturbances by curling, gap cutting and prescribed burning. To date, most scientific evidence for the impact of forest use on its biodiversity have been provided by observational analysis from natural forests or comparative studies of reserves with managed forests. However, field experiments with dead wood (Gossner et al. 2016; Seibold et al. 2016) as well as standardized assessment of the impact of management types (e.g. Doerfler et al. 2017; Schall et al. 2017) have complemented these studies in recent times. The session will discuss current progress in forest biodiversity research, management and restoration from various regions. They represent different ecological and cultural legacies that can influence appropriate and effective solutions for evidence-based forest biodiversity management. The symposium will bring together researchers from across Europe to explore how new scientific evidence challenges policy makers and practitioners by the management of forest biodiversity.
1. Bollmann K. & Braunisch V. (2013). To integrate or to segregate: balancing commodity production and biodiversity conservation in European forests. In: Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity (eds. Kraus, D & Krumm, F). European Forest Institute Freiburg, pp. 18–31.
2. Doerfler I., et al. (2017). Success of a deadwood enrichment strategy in production forests depends on stand type and management intensity. For Ecol Manage, 400, 607–620.
3. Gossner M.M., et al. (2016). Deadwood enrichment in European forests – Which tree species should be used to promote saproxylic beetle diversity? Biol. Conserv., 201, 92–102.
4. Gustafsson L., et al. (2012). Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: A world perspective. Bioscience, 62, 633–645.
5. Schall P., et al. (2017). The impact of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests. Journal of Applied Ecology. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12950
6. Seibold S., et al. (2016). Dead-wood addition promotes non-saproxylic epigeal arthropods but effects are mediated by canopy openness. Biol Conserv, 204, Part B, 181–188.