Protection gaps and restoration opportunities for primary forests 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\u27s 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\u27s primary forests are in a perilous state, as also acknowledged by EU\u27s “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

Biomass and morphology of fine roots in temperate broad-leaved forests differing in tree species diversity: is there evidence of below-ground overyielding?

Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning in forests have only recently attracted increasing attention. The vast majority of studies in forests have focused on above-ground responses to differences in tree species diversity, while systematic analyses of the effects of biodiversity on root systems are virtually non-existent. By investigating the fine root systems in 12 temperate deciduous forest stands in Central Europe, we tested the hypotheses that (1) stand fine root biomass increases with tree diversity, and (2) ‘below-ground overyielding’ of species-rich stands in terms of fine root biomass is the consequence of spatial niche segregation of the roots of different species. The selected stands represent a gradient in tree species diversity on similar bedrock from almost pure beech forests to medium-diverse forests built by beech, ash, and lime, and highly-diverse stands dominated by beech, ash, lime, maple, and hornbeam. We investigated fine root biomass and necromass at 24 profiles per stand and analyzed species differences in fine root morphology by microscopic analysis. Fine root biomass ranged from 440 to 480 g m−2 in the species-poor to species-rich stands, with 63–77% being concentrated in the upper 20 cm of the soil. In contradiction to our two hypotheses, the differences in tree species diversity affected neither stand fine root biomass nor vertical root distribution patterns. Fine root morphology showed marked distinctions between species, but these root morphological differences did not lead to significant differences in fine root surface area or root tip number on a stand area basis. Moreover, differences in species composition of the stands did not alter fine root morphology of the species. We conclude that ‘below-ground overyielding’ in terms of fine root biomass does not occur in the species-rich stands, which is most likely caused by the absence of significant spatial segregation of the root systems of these late-successional species

Forest succession on abandoned farmland; current estimates, forecasts and uncertainties

The usefulness of a cable crane Larix 3T was analysed in terms of damage, productivity and unit costs during timber extraction. The cable crane was used in the stands managed under the irregular shelterwood cutting system in the Wetlina Forest District in the Bieszczady Mountains

Bialowieza Forest: what it used to be, what it is now and what we want it to be in the future

For many centuries, management of the Białowieża Forest has not focused on timber production. Therefore, despite hunting, grazing by domestic animals and sporadic cutting of valuable trees the forest has retained its natural character. After World War I, a small part of the Białowieża Forest was protected as a reserve that later became a national park, while the remainder was managed for timber. After World War II, the protection status of the Polish part of the Białowieża Forest was maintained with the national park at the center surrounded by managed stands. During the last few decades, the national park was enlarged and new reserves were established. However, the majority of the Białowieża Forest is still managed for timber. The forest management has been sustainable for decades and in the last few years logging has even been strongly reduced, to a level comparable with some national parks. In recent years the Białowieża Forest, like many areas in Central Europe, has been plagued by a high spruce mortality caused by bark beetles. In managed forests, cutting the infested spruces and removing them from the forest is a standard practice aimed at reducing the growth rate of the bark beetle population. This, however, raises the question of whether we expect the Białowieża Forest to remain a managed forest, in which case the fight against bark beetles would be justified, or whether we want it to be converted into a large national park? In the latter case, cutting trees to fight bark beetles would be inconsistent with the aim of conservation. Recent discussions concerning the Białowieża Forest have been dominated by two different ideologies for nature protection. The first approach aims at protecting nature to make it sustainable, beautiful and healthy. In the second approach, protecting nature is achieved by removing any direct human influence, even if the resulting natural environment does not meet our expectations