Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Criteria to evaluate the conservation value of strictly protected forest reserves in Central Europe

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A major goal of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is to improve the protection of biodiversity. One approach to meet this goal is the implementation of strictly protected forest reserves (SPFRs). Many countries have adopted this approach and set target values for SPFRs, for example Germany aims to set aside 5 % of the forest area by 2020 (BMU, Strategie zur Biologischen Vielfalt, 2007). The contribution of SPFRs to biodiversity conservation cannot be assessed without considering the quality or conservation value of these areas. One challenge lies in the selection of specific criteria to evaluate this contribution of existing SPFRs. For Central Europe we reviewed these specific evaluation criteria and their ecological theory and evidence underpinning their relevance for an assessment as well as the interrelations between criteria. In addition, we present a framework for the integration of these criteria into an evaluation process. To identify criteria typically used or recommended for the evaluation of SPFRs, we analyzed the international conventions and reviewed the scientific literature on biodiversity conservation, specifically on area selection, status assessment and gap analysis. Since nearly all criteria were interrelated and operate at different scales, we developed a coherent evaluation framework to integrate them. Within this framework the criteria cover the fundamental aspects: space (completeness and connectivity), time (habitat continuity and persistence), and function (naturalness, rarity/threat and representativeness). This approach, once it is complemented by indicators, may be used to evaluate the extent to which individual SPFRs as well as a system of SPFRs contribute to the protection of natural forest biodiversity at a national level. It may be particularly relevant for Central European countries with a similar ecological, historical and political context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alagador D, Triviño M, Cerdeira JO et al (2012) Linking like with like: optimising connectivity between environmentally-similar habitats. Landsc Ecol 27:291–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht A, Hanewinkel M, Bauhus J, Kohnle U (2010) How does silviculture affect storm damage in forests of south-western Germany? Results from empirical modeling based on long-term observations. Eur J For Res 131:229–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Angermeier PL (2000) The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conserv Biol 14:373–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Araujo MB, Williams PH, Fuller RJ (2002) Dynamics of extinction and the selection of nature reserves. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 269:1971–1980

    Google Scholar 

  • Aune K, Jonsson BG, Moen J (2005) Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: is forest policy promoting fragmentation? Biol Conserv 124:89–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey S (2007) Increasing connectivity in fragmented landscapes: an investigation of evidence for biodiversity gain in woodlands. For Ecol Manag 238:7–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakys R, Vasaitis R, Barklund P et al (2009) Investigations concerning the role of Chalara fraxinea in declining Fraxinus excelsior. Plant Pathol 58:284–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartha D, Odor P, Horvath T et al (2006) Relation of tree stand heterogenity and forest naturalness. Acta Silv Lign Hung 2:7–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O, Schreiber K-F (1999) Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag GmbH Heidelberg, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauhus J, Puettmann K, Messier C (2009) Silviculture for old-growth attributes. For Ecol Manag 258:525–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauhus J, Puettmann K, Kühne C (2013) Close-to-nature forest management in Europe. Does it support complexity and adaptability of forest ecosystems? Manag. For. Complex Adapt. Syst. Bulding Resil. Chall. Glob. Change. Rutledge, the Earthscan forest library, London, London, pp 187–213

  • Bengtsson J, Nilson S, Frank A, Menozzi P (2000) Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. For Ecol Manag 132:39–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman K-O, Jansson N, Claesson K et al (2012) How much and at what scale? Multiscale analyses as decision support for conservation of saproxylic oak beetles. For Ecol Manag 265:133–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi L, Bottacci A, Calamini G et al (2011) Structure and dynamics of a beech forest in a fully protected area in the northern Apennines (Sasso Fratino, Italy). IForest Biogeosci For 4:136–144

    Google Scholar 

  • BIP (2010) Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. In: Biodiversity indicators partnership. http://www.bipindicators.net/indicators. Assecced 13 Jun 2013

  • Blasi C, Marchetti M, Chiavetta U et al (2010) Multi-taxon and forest structure sampling for identification of indicators and monitoring of old-growth forest. Plant Biosyst 144:160–170

    Google Scholar 

  • BMELV (2001) Aufnahmeanweisung für die Bundeswaldinventur II (2001 – 2002). Bonn

  • BMELV (2004) Die zweite Bundeswaldinventur—BWI II. Das Wichtigste in Kürze, BMELV, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • BMU (2007) Strategie zur Biologischen Vielfalt. BMU, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobiec A, van der Burgt H, Meijer K et al (2000) Rich deciduous forests in Białowieża as a dynamic mosaic of developmental phases: premises for nature conservation and restoration management. For Ecol Manag 130:159–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohn U, Gollub G, Hettwer C et al (2003) Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas. LV Druck im Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster-Hiltrup

  • Bollmann K (2011) Naturnaher Waldbau und Förderung der biologischen Vielfalt im Wald. Forum Für Wissen 2011:27–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollmann K, Müller J (2012) Naturwaldreservate: welche, wo und wofür? (Essay). Schweiz Z F Forstwes 163:187–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollmann K, Bergamini A, Senn-Irlet B et al (2009) Konzepte, Instrumente und Herausforderungen bei der Förderung der Biodiversität im Wald|Concepts, instruments and challenges for the conservation of biodiversity in the forest. Schweiz Z F Forstwes 160:53–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Branquart E, Latham J (2007) Selection Criteria for Protected Forest Areas Dedicated to Biodiversity Conservation in Europe. COST Action E27 Prot. In: Frank G, Parviainen J (eds) Forest areas—analysis and harmonisation. PROFOR Results Conclus Recomm, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Branquart E, Verheyen K, Latham J (2008) Selection criteria of protected forest areas in Europe: the theory and the real world. Biol Conserv 141:2795–2806

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunet J, Valtinat K, Mayr ML et al (2011) Understory succession in post-agricultural oak forests: habitat fragmentation affects forest specialists and generalists differently. For Ecol Manag 262:1863–1871

  • Bücking W (2003) Are there threshold numbers for protected forests? J Environ Manage 67:37–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bunce RGH, Bogers MMB, Evans D et al (2013) The significance of habitats as indicators of biodiversity and their links to species. Ecol Indic 33:19–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrascano S, Keeton WS, Sabatini FM, Blasi C (2013) Commonality and variability in the structural attributes of moist temperate old-growth forests: a global review. For Ecol Manag 291:458–479

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton PJ, Macdonald SE (2011) The Restorative Imperative: challenges, Objectives and Approaches to Restoring Naturalness in Forests. Silva Fenn 45:843–863

    Google Scholar 

  • Buse J (2011) “Ghosts of the past”: flightless saproxylic weevils (Coleoptera: curculionidae) are relict species in ancient woodlands. J Insect Conserv 16:93–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Buse J, Schröder B, Assmann T (2007) Modelling habitat and spatial distribution of an endangered longhorn beetle—a case study for saproxylic insect conservation. Biol Conserv 137:372–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Bußler H (2006) Urwaldreliktbäume mit Tradition—Die Erhaltung und Entwicklung alter Waldstandorte mit Habitattradition ist unerlässlich. LWF Aktuell 53:6–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16:242–248

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2006) Replacement cost: a practical measure of site value for cost-effective reserve planning. Biol Conserv 132:336–342

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2014) Convention on Biological Diversity http://www.cbd.int/. Accessed 7Jul 2013

  • CBD, COP I-XI (2014) Convention on Biological Diversity, Cop Decisions I-XI. http://www.cbd.int/decisions/. Accessed 14 Jul 2013

  • Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 360:443–455

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chape S, Spalding M, Jenkins M (2008) The world’s protected areas: status, values and prospects in the 21st century, Clothbound edn. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist MR, Wilmer B, Aplet GH (2005) Assessing the value of roadless areas in a conservation reserve strategy: biodiversity and landscape connectivity in the northern Rockies. J Appl Ecol 42:181–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Drever CR, Snider J, Drever MC (2010) Rare forest types in northeastern Ontario: a classification and analysis of representation in protected areas. Can J For Res 40:423–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Drever CR, Drever MC, Sleep DJH (2012) Understanding rarity: a review of recent conceptual advances and implications for conservation of rare species. For Chron 2:165–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley N (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland 86 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley N, Parrish J (2006) Closing the gap: creating ecologically representative protected area systems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellmauer Essl F (2004) Entwicklung von Kriterien, Indikatoren und Schwellenwerten zur Beurteilung des Erhaltungszustandes der Natura 2000-Schutzgüter. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft und der Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Wein

    Google Scholar 

  • Er KBH, Innes JL (2003) The presence of old-growth characteristics as a criterion for identifying temperate forests of high conservation value. Int For Rev 5:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • European Comission (1995) Council Directiw 92/43/EEC of21 Mav I992 on the consercation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. As amended by the Accession Act of Austria, Finland and Sweden. EC Off J L 1:135

  • FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2006) Global Forest Resources Assessment. http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/41256/en/. Accessed 7 Jul 2014

  • FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2012) State of the world’s forests, 2012. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris E, Filibeck G, Marignani M, Rosati L (2010) The power of potential natural vegetation (and of spatial-temporal scale): a response to Carrión & Fernández (2009): correspondence. J Biogeogr 37:2211–2213

    Google Scholar 

  • Farwig N, Berens DG (2012) Imagine a world without seed dispersers: a review of threats, consequences and future directions. Basic Appl Ecol 13:109–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Finck P (2002) Vom Einzelgebiet zum Verbundsystem—Status und Perspektiven der Entwicklung von Schutzgebietssystemen. Schr-R Dtsch Rates Für Landespfl 73:34–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574

  • Forest Europe, UNECE and FAO (2011) State of Europe’s forests, 2011: status & trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Forest Europe, Liaison Unit Oslo, Aas, Norway

  • Förschler M et al (2012) Ökologisches Potenzial eines möglichen Nationalparks im Nordschwarzwald. Naturschutz U Landschaftsplanung 44:273–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank G (2004) Naturwaldreservate im Burgenland. Geogr Jahrb Im Burgenland 28:49–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Fridman J (2000) Conservation of Forest in Sweden: a strategic ecological analysis. Biol Conserv 96:95–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz Ö, Gustafsson L, Larsson K (2008) Does forest continuity matter in conservation?—a study of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes in beech forests of southern Sweden. Biol Conserv 141:655–668

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiser R (1989) Spezielle Käfer-Biotope, welche für die meisten übrigen Tiergruppen weniger relevant sind und daher in der Naturschutzpraxis zumeist übergangen werden. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Roten Liste gefährdeter Biotope in der BR Deutschland. Schriftenreihe Für Landschaftspflege Naturschutz 29:268–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales EK, Arcese P, Schulz R, Bunnell FL (2003) Strategic reserve design in the central coast of British Columbia: integrating ecological and industrial goals. Can J For Res 33:2129–2140

    Google Scholar 

  • Götmark F (2013) Habitat management alternatives for conservation forests in the temperate zone: review, synthesis, and implications. For Ecol Manag 306:292–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Graae B (2003) Vegetation and soil differences in ancient opposed to new forests. For Ecol Manag 177:179–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabherr G, Koch G, Kirchmeier H (1998) Naturnähe Österreichischer Wälder. Sonderdr Österr Forstz 1:1–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Guralnick RP, Hill AW, Lane M (2007) Towards a collaborative, global infrastructure for biodiversity assessment. Ecol Lett 10:663–672

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heink U (2009) Repräsentanz ein geeignetes Bewertungskriterium für den Naturschutz? GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 18:322–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinken T (2008) Welche populationsbiologischen und genetischen Konsequenzen hat Habitatfragmentierung für Pflanzen? Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen für ein Biotopverbundsystem für Pflanzen in Brandenburg1. Naturschutz Landschaftspflege Brandenbg 17:201–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermy M, Verheyen K (2007) Legacies of the past in the present-day forest biodiversity: a review of past land-use effects on forest plant species composition and diversity. Ecol Res 22:361–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermy M, Honnay O, Firbank L et al (1999) An ecological comparison between ancient and other forest plant species of Europe, and the implications for forest conservation. Biol Conserv 91:9–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Höchtl F, Lehringer S, Konold W (2005) “Wilderness”: what it means when it becomes a reality—a case study from the southwestern Alps. Landsc Urban Plan 70:85–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F et al (2006) Evaluating Effectiveness: a framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas, 2nd edn. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Höltermann A (2013) Das 5 % Ziel. Holz-Zentralblatt 40:977–978

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter ML (1999) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 698 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacobelli A, Alidina H, Blasutti A, et al. (2006) A landscape-based protected areas gap analysis and GIS tool for conservation planning. http://awsassets.wwf.ca/downloads/wwf_forest_aor_fullreport.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2013

  • Ibisch P, Kreft S (2007) Naturschutz und Klimawandel-mehr oder weniger Wildnis. Tagungsband Zum Aldo-Leopold-Symp. Vom 8 Bis 11 Nov 2007 Münch. Aldo-Leopold-Forum für Umweltethik e.V. Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Gesundheit, Dresden, pp 43–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikauniece S, Brūmelis G, Zariņš J (2012) Linking woodland key habitat inventory and forest inventory data to prioritize districts needing conservation efforts. Ecol Indic 14:18–26

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (1978) The IUCN plant red data book: comprising red data sheets on 250 selected plants threatened on a world scale. IUCN, Morges, Switzerland, p 540

  • IUCN (2012) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. In: Red list overv. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 27 May 2013

  • IUCN, WCPA (2010) Richtlinien für die Anwendung der IUCN-Managementkategorien für Schutzgebiete Deutsche Fassung

  • Izco J (1998) Types of rarity of plant communities. J Veg Sci 9:641–646

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalas J (1955) Hemerobie und hemerochore Pflanzenarten. Ein terminologischer Reformversuch. Acta Soc Fauna Flora Fenn 72:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Kati V, Devillers P, Dufrêne M et al (2004) Hotspots, complementarity or representativeness? designing optimal small-scale reserves for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 120:471–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann G, Etter T, Bader L (1993) Seltene Waldgesellschaften. Kurzkommentar zur gesamtkantonalen Grobübersicht über die seltenen und besonders wertvollen Lebensräume im Wald. http://www.so.ch/fileadmin/internet/vwd/vkfaa/pdf/wni_solothurn_-_seltene_waldgesellschaften.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2011

  • Kaufmann, Bader, Steiger (2001) Waldreservatskonzept Kanton Solothurn. http://www.so.ch/fileadmin/internet/vwd/vkfaa/pdf/waldreservatskonzept_solothurn_v6.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec 2011

  • Kaule G (1991) Arten- und Biotopschutz. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart 519 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Korpel S (1995) Die Urwälder der Westkaparten. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart 316 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowarik I (1987) Kritische Anmerkungen zum theoretischen Konzept der potentiellen natürlichen Vegetation mit Anregungen zu einer zeitgemäßen Modifikation. Tüxenia 7:53–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupfer JA (2006) National assessments of forest fragmentation in the US. Glob Environ Change 16:73–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Langhammer PF (2007) Identification and gap analysis of key biodiversity areas: targets for comprehensive protected area systems. IUCN, Gland 116 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson T-B (2001) Biodiversity evaluation tools for european forests criteria indic sustain. For. Manag.Unit Level, Nancy, pp 75–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Launer A, Murphy D (1994) Umbrella species and the conservation of habitat fragments: a case of a threatened butterfly and a vanishing grassland ecosystem. Biol Conserv 69:145–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Leroux SJ, Schmiegelow FKA, Lessard RB, Cumming SG (2007) Minimum dynamic reserves: a framework for determining reserve size in ecosystems structured by large disturbances. Biol Conserv 138:464–473

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull ESA 15:237–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Franklin F (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity. Islandpress, Washington DC 351 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Fischer J (2006) General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 131:433–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder P (1997) Stand structure and successional trends in virgin boreal forest reserves in Sweden. For Ecol Manag 98:17–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombard A (2003) Effectiveness of land classes as surrogates for species in conservation planning for the Cape Floristic Region. Biol Conserv 112:45–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Luyssaert S, Schulze E-D, Börner A et al (2008) Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455:213–215

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 203

  • Machado A (2004) An index of naturalness. J Nat Conserv 12:95–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey R (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL, Williams PH (2002) Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J Biosci 27:309–326

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Usher MB (1981) Assessment of wildlife conservation values. Biol Conserv 21:79–104

  • Mayer Y, Müller-Kroehling S, Gerstmeier R (2006) Laufkäfer in isolierten Laubwäldern als Zeigerarten für die Habitatgröße, Bestandstradition und die Naturnähe der Bestockung. Mitteilungen Dtsch Ges Für Allg Angew Entomol 15:117–122

    Google Scholar 

  • MCPFE (2013) Forest europe. In: For. Eur. Grow. Life. http://www.foresteurope.org/sfm_criteria. Accessed 10 Apr 2013

  • Mergner U (2014) Ein Plädoyer für die kleinflächige Stilllegung in Wäldern Small is beautiful. AFZ-Wald 3:25–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer P, Schmidt M (2011) Accumulation of dead wood in abandoned beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests in northwestern Germany. For Ecol Manag 261:342–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer P, Bücking W, Gehlhar U et al (2007) Das Netz der Naturwaldreservate in Deutschland: flächenumfang, Repräsentativität und Schutzstatus im Jahr 2007. Forstarchiv 78:188–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer P, Schmidt M, Spellmann H et al (2011) Aufbau eines Systems nutzungsfreier Wälder in Deutschland. Nat Landsch 86:246–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Moning C, Müller J (2009) Critical forest age thresholds for the diversity of lichens, molluscs and birds in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) dominated forests. Ecol Indic 9:922–932

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravčík M, Sarvašová Z, Merganič J, Schwarz M (2010) Forest naturalness: criterion for decision support in designation and management of protected forest areas. Environ Manage 46:908–919

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Müller J, Bütler R (2010) A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur J For Res 129:981–992

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller J, Bußler H, Bense U et al (2005) Urwaldrelikt-Arten—Xylobionte Käfer als Indikatoren für Strukturqualität und Habitattradition. Waldökologie Online 2:106–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indic 8:14–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton DA (1999) Forest Reserves. In: Hunter ML (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 525–555

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1991) Landscape connectivity: different functions at different scales. Landsc. Link. Biodivers. Island Press, Washington, D.C, p 222

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1992) The wildlands project: land conservation strategy. Policy biodiversity. Island Press, Environ, p 415

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1999) Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. For Ecol Manag 115:135–146

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2008) OECD key environmental indicators

  • Opdam P, Wascher D (2004) Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biol Conserv 117:285–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Paillet Y, BergèS L, HjäLtéN J et al (2010) Biodiversity Differences between Managed and Unmanaged Forests: meta-Analysis of Species Richness in Europe. Conserv Biol 24:101–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parviainen J (2005) Virgin and natural forests in the temperate zone for Europe. Snow Landsc Res 79:9–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Parviainen J, Bücking W, Vandekerkhove K et al (2000) Strict forest reserves in Europe: efforts to enhance biodiversity and research on forests left for free development in Europe (EU-COST-Action E4). Forestry 73:107–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterken GF (1976) WRONG Natural woodland: ecology and conservation in northern temperate regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 552 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterken G (1977) Habitat conservation priorities in British and European woodlands. Biol Conserv 11:223–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterken GF (2001) Ecological effects of introduced tree species in Britain. For Ecol Manag 141:31–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, Thompson JN (1978) Patch dynamics and the design of nature reserves. Biol Conserv 13:27–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Plachter H (1991) Naturschutz. G. Fischer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Prabhu R, Colfer CJP, Dudley RG (1999) Guidelines for developing, testing and selecting criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. Criteria and indicators toolbox series, No 1. CIFOR. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia

  • Pressey R, Humphries C, Margules C et al (1993) Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol Evol 8:124–128

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Primack RB (2002) Essentials of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranius T (2002) Influence of stand size and quality of tree hollows on saproxylic beetles in Sweden. Biol Conserv 103:85–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif A (2012) Nationalpark Nordschwarzwald? Die zweitbeste Lösung für den Naturschutz. Nat Landsch 44:218–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif A, Walentowski H (2008) The assessment of naturalness and its role for nature conservation and forestry in Europe. Waldökologie Landschaftsforschung Naturschutz 6:63–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif A, Coch T, Knoerzer D, Suchant R (2001) Landschaftspflege in verschiedenen Lebensräumen-WALD. Handb. Naturschutz Landschaftspflege. ecomed, Landsberg, pp XIII–7.1

  • Reif A, Wagner U, Bieling C (2005) Analyse und Diskussion der Erhebungsmethoden und Ergebnisse der zweiten Bundeswaldinventur vor dem Hintergrund ihrer ökologischen und naturschutzfachlichen Interpretierbarkeit. BfN-Skripten, Bonn 46p

    Google Scholar 

  • Remmert H (1991) The mosaic-cycle concept of ecosystems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennwald E (2000) Verzeichnis und Rote Listen der Pflanzengesellschaften Deutschlands. LV Druck im Landwirtschaftsverlag, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds KM, Johnson KN, Gordon SN (2003) The science/policy interface in logic-based evaluation of forest ecosystem sustainability. For Policy Econ 5:433–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Riecken U, Finck P, Raths U et al (2006) Rote Liste der gefährdeten Biotoptypen Deutschlands. Bad Goedesberg, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ (2001) How large do reserve networks need to be? Ecol Lett 4:602–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, AkçAkaya HR, Andelman SJ et al (2004) Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience 54:1092

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolstad J, Gjerde I, Gundersen VS, Saetersdal M (2002) Use of indicator species to assess forest continuity: a critique. Conserv Biol 16:253–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Rondinini C, Pressey RL (2007) Special section: systematic conservation planning in the European Landscape: conflicts, environmental changes, and the challenge of countdown 2010. Conserv Biol 21:1404–1405

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosati L, Marignani M, Blasi C (2008) A gap analysis comparing Natura 2000 vs national protected area network with potential natural vegetation. Commun Ecol 9:147–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothley KD (2006) Finding the tradeoffs between the reserve design and representation. Environ Manag 38:327–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubio L, Saura S (2012) Assessing the importance of individual habitat patches as irreplaceable connecting elements: an analysis of simulated and real landscape data. Ecol Complex 11:28–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatini FM, Burrascano S, Tuomisto H, Blasi C (2014) Ground layer plant species turnover and beta diversity in southern-european old-growth forests. PLoS One 9:e95244

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saitta A, Bernicchia A, Gorjón SP et al (2011) Biodiversity of wood-decay fungi in Italy. Plant Biosyst 145:958–968

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP et al (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:123–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherzinger W (1996) Naturschutz im Wald—Qualitätsziele einer dynamischen Waldentwicklung. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart 447p

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherzinger W (2012) Schutz der Wildnis—ein gewichtiger Beitrag zur Landeskultur. Silva Ferra 1:38–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt CB, Burgess ND, Coad L et al (2009) Global analysis of the protection status of the world’s forests. Biol Conserv 142:2122–2130

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Davis F, Csuti B et al (1993) Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildl Monogr 123:1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith PGR, Theberge JB (1986) A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas. Environ Manag 10:715–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Spies TA, Turner MG (1999) Dynamic forest mosaics. In: Hunter ML (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 95–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Suck R, Bushart M (2011) Karte der Potentiellen Natürlichen Vegetation Deutschlands. LV Druck GmbH & Co. KG, Bonn, Bad Goedesberg

  • Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 3:571–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas RC, Kirby KJ, Reid CM (1997) The conservation of a fragmented ecosystem within a cultural landscape—the case of ancient woodland in England. Biol Conserv 82:243–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulanova NG (2000) The effects of windthrow on forests at different spatial scales: a review. For Ecol Manag 135:155–167

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (1992) Text of the CBD. In: The Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2013

  • United Nations (2010) Protected areas. In: Programme Work Protected Areas. https://www.cbd.int/programmes/pa/pow-goals-alone.pdf. Accessed 14 Jul 2013

  • Usher MB, Erz W (1994) Erfassen und Bewerten im Naturschutz. Quelle & Meyer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Teeffelen AJA, Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2006) Connectivity, probabilities and persistence: comparing reserve selection strategies. Biodivers Conserv 15:899–919

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheyen K, Bossuyt B, Hermy M, Tack G (1999) The land use history (1278-1990) of a mixed hardwood forest in western Belgium and its relationship with chemical soil characteristics. J Biogeogr 26:1115–1128

    Google Scholar 

  • Vimal R, Rodrigues ASL, Mathevet R, Thompson JD (2010) The sensitivity of gap analysis to conservation targets. Biodivers Conserv 20:531–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Volz K-R (2013) Waldnaturschutz: integrale Politikgestaltung gefragt-Nutzungsfreie Wälder als Element einer nachhaltigen, multifunktionalen Forstwirtschaft. Holz-Zentralblatt 49:1219–1220

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Drachenfels O (2010) Klassifikation und Typisierung von Biotopen für Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung. Naturschutz Landschaftspfl Niedersachs 47:1–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Oheimb G, Westphal C, Tempel H, Hardtle W (2005) Structural pattern of a near-natural beech forest () (Serrahn, North-east Germany). For Ecol Manag 212:253–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreugdenhil D, Terborgh J, Cleef AM et al (2003) Comprehensive protected areas system composition and monitoring. IUCN, WICE

    Google Scholar 

  • Walz U, Stein C (2014) Indicators of hemeroby for the monitoring of landscapes in Germany. J Nat Conserv 22:279–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Willner W, Grabherr G (2007) Die Wälder und Gebüsche Österreichs 2, 2. Elsevier, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag Heidelberg, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter S (2012) Forest naturalness assessment as a component of biodiversity monitoring and conservation management. Forestry 85:293–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter S, Flade M, Schumacher H et al (2005) The importance of near-natural stand structures for the biocoenosis of lowland beech forests. Snow Landsc Res 79:127–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter S, Fischer HS, Fischer A (2010) Relative quantitative reference approach for naturalness assessments of forests. For Ecol Manag 259:1624–1632

    Google Scholar 

  • Wulf M (1994) Überblick zur Bedeutung des Alters von Lebensgemeinschaften, dargestellt am Beispiel “historisch alter Wälder. NNA-Berichte 3–14

  • Wulf M, Kelm H-J (1994) Zur Bedeutung “historisch alter Wälder” für den Naturschutz—Untersuchungen naturnaher Wälder im Elbe–Weser-Dreieck. NNA-Berichte 15–50

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) for financial support of this work with funds from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) within the project: “Natürliche Waldentwicklung als Ziel der Nationalen Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt (NWE5)” (No. 3510 84 0100). We cordially thank Bernhard Thiel and Helen Desmond for their thorough revision of the language. We are grateful for the valuable comments and constructive critiques received from two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Site Classification and Vegetation Science, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, Institute of Forest Sciences, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacherstr. 4, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Juliane Schultze, Stefanie Gärtner & Albert Reif

  2. Chair of Silviculture, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, Institute of Forest Sciences, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacherstr. 4, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Juliane Schultze & Jürgen Bauhus

  3. Nordwestdeutsche Forstliche Versuchsanstalt. Abt. A, Grätzelstr. 2, 37079, Göttingen, Germany

    Peter Meyer

Authors
  1. Juliane Schultze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefanie Gärtner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jürgen Bauhus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Albert Reif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juliane Schultze.

Additional information

Communicated by Georg Winkel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schultze, J., Gärtner, S., Bauhus, J. et al. Criteria to evaluate the conservation value of strictly protected forest reserves in Central Europe. Biodivers Conserv 23, 3519–3542 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0787-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0787-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation