Suchergebnisse

Abstract Recent studies reveal the use of tree cavities by wild honeybee colonies in European forests. This highlights the conservation potential of forests for a highly threatened component of the native entomofauna in Europe, but currently no estimate of potential wild honeybee population sizes exists. Here, we analyzed the tree cavity densities of 106 forest areas across Europe and inferred an expected population size of wild honeybees. Both forest and management types affected the density of tree cavities. Accordingly, we estimated that more than 80,000 wild honeybee colonies could be sustained in European forests. As expected, potential conservation hotspots were identified in unmanaged forests, and, surprisingly, also in other large forest areas across Europe. Our results contribute to the EU policy strategy to halt pollinator declines and reveal the potential of forest areas for the conservation of so far neglected wild honeybee populations in Europe.

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.

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 km(2)(19,194 km(2)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.

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 1,132km2 (19,194km2 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.

Recent studies show that several tree species are spreading to higher latitudes and elevations due to climate change. European beech, presently dominating from the colline to the subalpine vegetation belt, is already present in upper montane subalpine forests and has a high potential to further advance to higher elevations in European mountain forests, where the temperature is predicted to further increase in the near future. Although essential for adaptive silviculture, it remains unknown whether the upward shift of beech could be assisted when it is mixed with Norway spruce or silver fir compared with mono-specific stands, as the species interactions under such conditions are hardly known. In this study, we posed the general hypotheses that the growth depending on age of European beech in mountain forests was similar in mono-specific and mixed-species stands and remained stable over time and space in the last two centuries. The scrutiny of these hypotheses was based on increment coring of 1240 dominant beech trees in 45 plots in mono-specific stands of beech and in 46 mixed mountain forests. We found that (i) on average, mean tree diameter increased linearly with age. The age trend was linear in both forest types, but the slope of the age–growth relationship was higher in mono-specific than in mixed mountain forests. (ii) Beech growth in mono-specific stands was stronger reduced with increasing elevation than that in mixed-species stands. (iii) Beech growth in mono-specific stands was on average higher than beech growth in mixed stands. However, at elevations > 1200 m, growth of beech in mixed stands was higher than that in mono-specific stands. Differences in the growth patterns among elevation zones are less pronounced now than in the past, in both mono-specific and mixed stands. As the higher and longer persisting growth rates extend the flexibility of suitable ages or size for tree harvest and removal, the longer-lasting growth may be of special relevance for multi-aged silviculture concepts. On top of their function for structure and habitat improvement, the remaining old trees may grow more in mass and value than assumed so far. ; The authors would like to acknowledge networking support by the COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action CLIMO (Climate-Smart Forestry in Mountain Regions—CA15226) financially supported by the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation HORIZON 2020. This publication is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union's HORIZON 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No 778322. Thanks are also due to the European Union for funding the project 'Mixed species forest management. Lowering risk, increasing resilience (REFORM)' (# 2816ERA02S under the framework of Sumforest ERA-Net). Further, we would like to thank the Bayerische Staatsforsten (BaySF) for providing the observational plots and to the Bavarian State Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Forestry for permanent support of the Project W 07 'Long-term experimental plots for forest growth and yield research' (#7831-26625-2017). We also thank the Forest Research Institute, ERTI Sárvár, Hungary, for assistance and for providing observational plots. Furthermore, our work was partially supported by the SRDA via Project No. APVV-16-0325 and APVV-15-0265, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland, the Project "EVA4.0" No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000803 funded by OP RDE and the Project J4-1765 funded by the Slovenian Research Agency and also by the Bulgarian National Science Fund (BNSF) and the Project No. DCOST 01/3/19.10.2018.