How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests
- First Online:
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 (SMIr) and a density component (SMId). 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.
KeywordsLand-use intensity Silvicultural systems Biodiversity exploratories Thinning Unmanaged
Land-use intensity is known to be a major driver of biodiversity. However, although the relationship between land use and biodiversity has recently become a hot spot of ecological research, the actual impact of land-use intensity on various taxa is not known. Thus, for agricultural systems and for forests, there is an increasing interest in whether or not, and to what extent, biodiversity is influenced by management intensity (Fischer et al. 2010). For forests, such analyses require a large set of stands that differ in attributes thought to be relevant for stand management, such as tree species composition, stand age, and stand density. Additionally, the stands need to be positioned along a management intensity gradient. However, as the following literature review shows, a purely quantitative measure for the assessment of forest management intensity of single stands is lacking, although several approaches exist. The same is true for silvicultural regimes, which describe the planned sequence of silvicultural interventions in stand development phases.
The objectives of this study are therefore (1) to review existing approaches, (2) to present a purely quantitative measure of silvicultural management intensity’ (SMI), (3) to quantify the components of SMI for main tree species in Central Europe, (4) to demonstrate that the indicator is applicable both for silvicultural regimes as well as for specific developmental phases in these regimes (i.e. forest stands at a given age).
Conceptual approaches for assessing land-use intensity
From a systems point of view, land-use intensity can be described either by the output obtained from a unit of land in terms of natural or monetary yield (Turner and Doolittle 1978) or by the input invested into managing the unit of land to achieve output in terms of human effort, materials, chemicals, energy, etc. or money (Herzog et al. 2006; Arano and Munn 2006). Theoretically, the output approach is more appropriate when comparing a single crop under different management regimes, whereas the input approach is preferred when key input factors exist across the land-uses studied, for example fertilization (Dormann et al. 2007; Kleijn et al. 2009) or pesticide application (Geiger et al. 2010; Gibbs et al. 2009). Management intensity includes different management components. 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).
Approaches which measure the output of forest systems, that is yield or harvests, irrespective of stand state or management regime, may be influenced by changes in the efficiency of land use. Thus, for example, an increase in productivity may be due to improved management skills, increased productivity of crops through selective breeding or by recovery of previously over-utilized ecosystems. Concepts based on the assessment of management input are challenged by a multitude of qualitatively different management practices between and within land uses. Therefore, many approaches rely on categorical, dichotomous definitions of land use. Forests, for example, are classified as unmanaged or managed, and close-to-nature forestry contrasts with even-aged, or age class-based, forestry. Ordinal gradients may distinguish between undisturbed forests, disturbed forests, and timber plantations. However, qualitative categories are broad. Additionally, the position of a given land-use category along a land-use intensity gradient is ambiguous. In the case of forests, these categories do not adequately address interactions of tree species composition, stand age, and logging intensity.
Approaches for assessing forest management intensity
Approaches designed to assess land-use intensity across the full spectrum of land-use types are based on artificial concepts which do not allow direct measurement, like hemeroby (Jalas 1955; Sukopp 1969; Naveh and Lieberman 1994; Hill et al. 2002; Grabherr et al. 1998), or use quantities difficult to measure, like human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP: Erb et al. 2009; Haberl et al. 2007; Vitousek et al. 1986), or quantify the difference between the actual state of a system and a reference state (often based on vegetation composition) like naturalness (Dierschke 1984). The HANPP concept is one of the few non-monetary quantitative concepts that focuses on system output by quantitatively assessing the amount of net primary production (NPP) harvested or destroyed during harvest. However, HANPP also includes a component which relates to the system state because the production opportunity induced by humans through for example land cover change, irrigation, fertilization and soil degradation is also considered by relating the NPP of the actual vegetation to the potential NPP of a reference state (i.e. natural vegetation). In contrast, the hemeroby concept adopts a blend of criteria related to system input, output, and state (e.g. fertilization, biomass removal, soil properties, and vegetation composition) to assess qualitatively the degree of anthropogenic influence on a land unit, especially the vegetation component, using an ordinal scale.
Overview of approaches characterizing forest management intensity grouped according to the main characteristics of land use (hemeroby/naturalness, disturbance, and management) and the number of indicators employed (multi-criteria indicator systems or classifications, key-indicator approaches, key-factor approaches)
Hemeroby and naturalness approaches
State-related key-indicators (Luyssaert et al. 2011)
Key-factor-related approaches (rate related)
Related to financial inputs (Arano and Munn 2006)
Related to thinning and harvest history (Kueffer and Senn-Irlet 2005)
The naturalness approach, also referred to as the reverse hemeroby approach (e.g. Winter et al. 2010), had already been suggested 52 years ago (Sukopp 1969; Jalas 1955). It tries to quantify the deviance in the actual system state of a forest stand from a natural reference state, which is based on properties observed in primary forests (i.e. largely undisturbed forests in case of European temperate forests; e.g. Tabaku 1999; Meyer et al. 2003; Christensen et al. 2005; Drössler and von Lüpke 2005, 2007) or ascribed to the so-called potential natural vegetation (Tüxen 1956; Leuschner 1997; Bohn and Neuhäusl 2004). This approach is often applied to temperate forests, where a number of indicators of naturalness have been suggested. The most important of these are tree species composition, quantity and decay status of dead wood, spatial structure, number of very old trees, gap size, etc. To undertake a comprehensive assessment of forest state, that is by employing a number of selected indicators, naturalness approaches tend to be formalized as multi-criteria scoring systems (Winter et al. 2010; Šmelko and Fabrika 2007; Grabherr et al. 1998; Bartha 2004), the most extensive being that presented by Grabherr et al. (1998). These authors describe a specific reference state for each forest type in Austria. Another approach measuring forest land-use intensity by relating actual state to a natural reference state was recently presented by Luyssaert et al. (2011). In this case, two indicators, stand density and the diameter of the mean basal area tree in a given stand, are used and their deviation from the self-thinning line determined. However, this approach does not distinguish between tree species and site.
The disturbance approach follows different concepts: On the one hand, the occurrence and strength of anthropogenic disturbances in forest stands may be quantified by measurements which do not require a reference state (e.g. 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. Again, no distinction between different tree species is made. On the other hand, the temporal and spatial deviance between natural and anthropogenic disturbances is assessed for contiguous areas treated by single silvicultural interventions. The deviance is interpreted as a measure of naturalness of forest management regimes (Seymour et al. 2002). However, the approach of Seymour et al. (2002) addresses the landscape level rather than single stands.
The management approach either directly quantifies the intensity of forest management operations in forest stands (Aguilar-Amuchastegui and Henebry 2007; Kueffer and Senn-Irlet 2005; Storaunet et al. 2005; Uotila et al. 2002; Sippola et al. 2004; Zenner et al. 2006; Arano and Munn 2006) or assesses the forest management regime applied in forest stands as a whole (Müller et al. 2007a, b; Verwer et al. 2008; Wulder et al. 2007 Duncker et al. 2008; Bell et al. 2008). In contrast to the other two approaches, which address the effect or evidence of land use respectively, the management approach quantifies the intensity of management itself. Different management practices therefore represent factors rather than indicators. Some relevant papers have a general focus and use multi-criteria classifications based on management decisions and practices (e.g. choice of tree species; type of regeneration; extent of soil preparation, machine operation, fertilization and liming, application of pesticides and herbicides; integration of succession elements, protection and development of habitats, harvested biomass compartments, final harvest system, rotation length) (Duncker et al. 2008; Bell et al. 2008; Mason and Perks 2011; Edwards et al. 2011). Others are based on factorial accuracy, using a metric scale of key management factors for a limited set of management practices (e.g. annual investment expenses (Arano and Munn 2006), harvest history based on tree number, basal area, or volume (Zenner et al. 2006; Sippola et al. 2004; Storaunet et al. 2005; Uotila et al. 2002; Aguilar-Amuchastegui and Henebry 2007) and time since the last silvicultural thinning or harvest operation (Kueffer and Senn-Irlet 2005)). However, there is no widely accepted concept on how to combine these diverse factors into a generally applicable, simple, yet accurate measure of forest management intensity.
Conclusions for designing a silvicultural management intensity index
Silvicultural stand management affects the compositional, horizontal and vertical structure of forest stands as well as the fluxes of organic matter and nutrients in several ways. Thus, basically any measure referring to forest structure, to the export of organic matter and nutrients or to (size and) changes in organic matter and nutrient pools may be said to characterize ‘intensity’ for good reason. However, for actual forest management in Central Europe, which ensures sustainability of wood harvests, wood and nutrient exports may not be the most relevant indicators for stand-level intensity. In fact, presently, the harvest yield is generally lower than the average increment (German Federal Ministry of Food 2006; Ciais et al. 2008), and soil fertility does not decrease even without fertilization on many sites if whole tree harvests are not conducted (Blanco et al. 2005; Meiwes et al. 2008; Saarsalmi et al. 2010).
Management decisions influencing SMI on the strategic level
Qualitative relationship between silvicultural management intensity and components of strategic and operational forest stand management
Forest management intensity increases with
Selecting/raising more productive species
Change in species composition
Selecting/raising species more susceptible to natural disturbances
Decreased system stability and change in species composition
Decreasing length of rotation period
Decreased system maturity
Larger size of management units
Spatial homogenization with temporal synchronization
More uniform silvicultural management (esp. even-aged forest management)
Temporal synchronization with spatial homogenization
Increasing harvest ratio (unit harvest per unit production)
Increased matter, energy and nutrient export
Increasing control of non-crop species
Change in species composition
Increasing productivity of merchantable timber without species change
Unknown (perhaps: increased allocation towards wood or increased NPP)
Increasing strength of thinning and tending
Increased intensity of disturbances
Increasing frequency of thinning and tending
Increased frequency of disturbances
Increasing share of artificial regeneration
Decreased natural self-reproduction
Decreasing density of artificial regeneration when no natural regeneration is intended
Decreased on site selection capacity
Characteristics from German yield tables site class 1 for European beech, sessile and pedunculate oak, Norway spruce and Scots pine (Schober 1987)
Sessile and pedunculate oak
Site index h100(100) (m)
Total wood increment (IV-100) (m3 ha−1 100 years−1)
First age tabulated (years)
Last age tabulated (years)
Min basal area G (m2 ha−1)
At age (years)
Max basal area G (m2 ha−1)
At age (years)
Maximum natural basal area Gnat,max (m2 ha−1)
Due to h100 (m)
At age (years)
Maximum natural stocking density
Management decisions at the strategic level that are independent of tree species are confined to spatial aspects such as extent and patchiness of silvicultural management operations. Larger forest management units may be associated with an increase in management intensity per se, because, in larger forests, more options exist for rationalizing workflow, and fostering spatial homogenization and temporal synchronization. However, the size of management units in Central Europe largely depends on forest ownership. While large public (state, municipalities) and private (usually private enterprises with inherited property) landowners establish management units for their economical and ecological advantage within a contiguous forest property, management options of small woodland owners are constrained by forest parcel size. This interaction of size and ownership, in combination with the small variability in stand size of large landowners, puts the (potentially) indicative value of spatial aspects of management units into perspective.
The forest management system employed, that is age class versus uneven-aged management, represents another strategic decision important for SMI. The gradient of unifom to patchy forest management is characterized by the extremes of clear-cut and single tree selection system (or plenter forests). If patchiness, duration and extent of overlap of the overstorey, and regeneration are taken into account, other silvicultural systems relying on retention trees, for example shelterwood cuttings or group selection systems lie between these two extremes. Even-aged management, however, is not exclusively related to the regeneration system but may also distinguish uniform schemes of thinning and harvesting, for example regularly spaced cuttings and strip-cutting, from non-uniform strategies, for example selective thinning (Table 2).
In summary, we conclude that two factors are relevant for management intensity at the strategic level: (1) stand age and tree species-specific risk of stand loss and (2) abundance of mature overstorey trees over the whole regeneration phase. The risk approach avoids an assessment of tree species per se, for example by adopting a productivity gradient, as well as by defining a reference state relative to natural vegetation. The unbiased nature of both assessments may be difficult to ensure. Thus, it is not clear how the difference in productivity of different tree species could be transferred into a consistent indicator of SMI. Although there might be a correlation between naturalness and management intensity, a quantitative assessment of naturalness at a stand level against an assumed reference state is difficult to achieve because adequate references other than mountainous Central European forests do not exist anymore. Instead, we suggest that the choice of a certain tree species indicates the acceptance of a higher risk, which in turn reflects a strategic decision to increase management intensity. With regard to the stand age-related risk component, we suggest that management intensity should logically decrease with stand age, since existing older stands have survived thus far. For the second factor, quantifying the temporal and spatial overlap of mature trees and regeneration, we propose to measure the relative deviance between actual biomass and biomass carrying capacity, with carrying capacity being species and site specific.
Management decisions influencing SMI at the operational level
Silvicultural management intensity at the operational level is mostly related to fellings through tending, thinning, and harvest operations, which reduce stem number, basal area, growing stock (merchantable wood volume), and biomass. Fellings may also affect tree species composition. As the felled trees partly remain in the forest as harvest residuals (e.g. small trees, branches, stem sections with defects), removals do not equal fellings. In the case where trees are lost due to natural events (e.g. ageing, windthrow) and remain in the stand, the discrepancy between “fellings” and removals becomes even more evident. Therefore, removals are more indicative of silvicultural management intensity than trees lost due to natural or silvicultural reasons. Thus, we propose to measure removals by the deviance between actual biomass of living and dead trees and maximum biomass, with maximum biomass being species, age and site specific.
Stand regeneration by planting and sowing is generally considered to reflect more intensive silvicultural operations than by promoting natural regeneration. Aside from the active introduction of seedlings or seeds, artificial regeneration may require additional measures like soil preparation and weed control. Consequently, management intensity would increase with increasing number of trees planted. However, we assume that exactly the opposite applies as a low plant density results in a reduced potential of natural selection. The reduction in planted seedling density to the lowest possible number for still high-quality timber production is therefore seen as an attribute of higher silvicultural intensity. Thus, we suggest assessing silvicultural management intensity in artificially regenerated young stands analogously to fellings in later developmental phases. It could therefore be defined as the deviation in tree density from a reference value representing natural regeneration density. However, since the effect of tree removal on silvicultural management intensity is already very high in young stands due to low biomass, the additional absolute effect of low planting densities is negligible. In contrast to regular plantings, enrichment plantings and planting in advance under the canopy of mature stands are not regarded as intensive measures. These plantings or direct seedings normally aim at the conversion of pure (often conifer) stands into mixed stands for various ecological and economical reasons (Ammer et al. 2008; Knoke et al. 2008). Such efforts therefore contribute to future stand stability and do not affect present stand management intensity.
Materials and methods
Definition of SMI
Based on the considerations above, we suggest that SMI can be described by two components, risk of stand loss and stand density, which theoretically are independent of one another. The risk component defines the combined effect of tree species selection and stand age on SMI. The stand density component quantifies the effect of removals and regeneration method using actual biomass related to a reference. Both components are applicable to stand management regimes as well as to individual stands. Here, we use basal area as a proxy of biomass, because the dependency of basal area on species, age and site quality is well documented. However, the following definitions also apply to biomass and to other proxies like stem volume.
Survival functions of calamities for the main Central European forest tree species were compiled by Staupendahl (2011), who conducted a literature review on stand survival probability for Austria, Germany and Switzerland based on studies by Brücken (1984) (Norway spruce), Dittrich (1986) (European beech, sessile and pedunculate oak, Norway spruce, and Scots pine) and König (1996) (Norway spruce). Original studies on survival probabilities were also conducted by Kouba (2002) and Hanewinkel and Holecy (2005) (Norway spruce, European silver fir). However, most studies were focused on Norway spruce. Only Dittrich (1986) also investigated European beech, sessile and pedunculate oak, and Scots pine. His work, however, covered a period (1971–1981) and region (GDR, i.e. former East Germany) known for its high air pollution levels, which were well above that of the present day. Recently, Staupendahl and Zucchini (2011) developed survival functions for European beech, sessile and pedunculate oak, Norway spruce, Scots pine and Douglas fir based on inventory data systematically sampled in the Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, between 1994 and 2008. For European beech, oaks and Scots pine, stand ages range from young stands up to 180 years and older, while for Norway spruce, the oldest stands were about 150 years old. As the forests of Rhineland-Palatinate are mainly located in the submontane zone, yet also comprise a considerable fraction in low to middle montane and colline zones, these findings are believed to be representative for the present day Central Europe.
Stand density component
For even-aged stands, Gnat may be estimated using actual hdom and Gnat,max using the actual site index, which depends on stand age and actual hdom,. Site index curves (Pretzsch 2009; Skovsgaard and Vanclay 2008) could be used to assess expected maximum hdom. For uneven-aged stands (plenter forests), Gnat,max may also be calculated via site index, but using height growth of even-aged stands on comparable sites as reference. For silvicultural regimes, SMId,regime may be determined by estimating the age dependency of Gnat via the growth of hdom with stand age for a specific site index, and, subsequently, relating Gnat and Gnat,max to the prescribed time course of G (Eq. 7).
Aggregation of components
Although SMIr and SMId describe two distinctly different components of silvicultural management intensity and thus should preferably be addressed separately (or together) in further analyses, both may equally be aggregated to a single parameter of silvicultural intensity. We propose combining the components by viewing them as vectors which are arranged either straight or orthogonal, that is as sum of vectors or as the length of the Euclidean vector. For convenience, sum of vectors and length of the Euclidean vector may be replaced by their equivalents that scale the potential maximum to 1, the arithmetic and the quadratic mean.
Application of SMI
SMI of actual forest stands
In order to demonstrate the response and sensitivity of SMI and its components to actual forest management, we employed the measure to the 30 so-called very intensive plots studied within the Bidiversity Exploratories (Fischer et al. 2010; see Appendix). These plots represent the range of land-use intensity (for details, see Fischer et al. 2010) found within the three exploratories Schäbische Alb, Hainich-Dün and Schorfheide-Chorin, namely: managed, even-aged forest with natural vegetation replaced by conifers (coniferous forest:); managed even-aged and uneven-aged forest without species change (beech forest and selection forest); formerly managed forests left unmanaged for decades (unmanaged forest). Stand characteristics are summarized in Supplementary material, Table 2.
Species and diameter at breast height (dbh) of trees (calliper limit dbh >7 cm) growing on the plots (VIPs) were surveyed in late 2012. 26 VIPs were sampled using five circular subplots of size 500 m2 (12.62 m in radius) per plot. The subplots were located on a diagonal cross within each quadratic one ha plot. The distance between the centres of the diagonal subplots was randomly chosen between 35 and 50 m each. For 3 VIPs, species and dbh of all trees were obtained by the local management teams of the Biodiversity Exploratories. Additionally, basal area was estimated for one VIP covered by a thicket of European beech. We used this stand inventory data together with records of the forest administration to determine SMI. For the majority of plots stand age, the age of different stand layers or of admixed species was obtained from records from the various forest administrations. However, for unmanaged and selection forests in the Hainich-Dün stand age, assessed as age of the overstorey, was estimated from diameter of the largest 30 trees per ha based on data which Mund (2004) sampled in nearby selection forests. Maximum natural basal area Gnat,max for plots was estimated from species (absolute or relative) site indices using region specific yield tables (Scots pine in Schorfheide-Chorin: Lembcke et al. 1975; European beech in Schorfheide-Chorin and Hainich-Dün: Dittmar et al. 1986; European beech in the Schwäbische Alb: Schober 1972; Norway spruce in Hainich-Dün: Wenk et al. 1984; Norway spruce in the Schwäbische Alb: Wiedemann 1936/42). For Norway spruce growing in Hainich-Dün and the Schwäbische Alb, maximum natural basal area was directly obtained from Assmann and Franz (1965). Beforehand, the site indices of Wenk et al. (1984) and Wiedemann (1936/42) were paralleled with Assmann and Franz (1965) using index height and mean annual increment. The best site qualities for European beech and Scots pine Gnat,max for the specific region were estimated according to Döbbeler (2004) using the maximum top heights tabulated in the respective yield tables (at a stand age of 130 years for pine and 160 years for beech). These maximum natural basal areas were found to be about 30 % larger than the standard stocking tabulated for European beech and about 24 % larger for Scots pine; a finding that corresponds well with the highest stocking degrees considered by Dittmar et al. (1986, p. 55: 1.3) and Lembcke et al. (1975, p 58: 1.15). Thus, for lower site qualities, Gnat,max was estimated by adding 30 and 24 %, respectively. For oak, which is admixed on only some plots, we generally fixed Gnat,max to 80 % of that of beech (Röhrig et al. 2006). Other species, which occasionally occur in some plots, were appended to European beech when broad-leafed, to Norway spruce when coniferous and growing in the Schwäbische Alb or Hainich–Dün and to Scots pine when coniferous and growing in Schorfheide-Chorin.
Risk and density components of silvicultural management intensity were calculated as described above (Eqs. (2), (4) with parameters from Staupendahl and Zucchini (2011), Supplementary material, Table 1 for SMIr and Eqs. (5), (6) for SMId). SMId was related to basal area of living trees only, as information on deadwood amount was not available. SMI was calculated as average of risk and density components.
SMI of silvicultural regimes
We determined SMIr, SMId and SMI for silvicultural regimes using German yield tables for site class 1 describing moderate thinning (B grade) for European beech, sessile and pedunculate oak, Norway spruce and Scots pine and heavy thinning (C grade) for European beech and oaks (Schober 1987, Table 3). The yield tables are based on silvicultural regimes characterized by thinning from below with an intervention frequency of about 5 years. Under moderate thinning, intermediate fellings comprise about 50 % of total volume production, in the case of oak even 60 %. For heavy thinning, intermediate fellings are higher and stocking degree is decreased (Table 3).
Change over time of Gnat was determined from dominant heights h100 (tabulated for stand ages) using Eq. (9) with parameters given by Spellmann et al. (1999). Gnat,max was estimated by adding 5 % to Gnat of the oldest stand age tabulated for European beech, and Scots pine in order to account for some limited additional growth. For oaks and Norway spruce, the correction was 3 and 8 %, as the period tabulated differed. Below the youngest age tabulated, we interpolated G and Gnat linearly so that values of 0 were achieved for stands just established, although G is known to grow sigmoidally with a time delay until regeneration reaches breast height. This simplification was deliberately applied here as it affects the thinning effect only marginally and prevents an overestimation of the age class effect.
Risk and density components were calculated as described for actual forest stands (see above).
Silvicultural management intensity indicator of the very intensive plots of the Biodiversity Exploratories (see Supplementary material, Table 3; Fig. 4) was found to vary considerably, with an unmanaged beech forest in the Hainich-Dün comprising the lowest value (0.002) and a young Norway spruce forest in the Schwäbische Alb the highest (0.547). SMId ranged from 0 (unmanaged beech) to 0.837 (beech thicket), and SMIr varied between 0 (old managed beech forest) and 0.769 (young Norway spruce forest) (Supplementary material, Table 3 and Fig. 4).
Silvicultural management intensity for silvicultural regimes represented in German yield tables of site class 1 with thinning from below (Schober 1987)
Sessile and pedunculate oak
Rotation period (years)
Maximum natural basal area Gnat,max (m2 ha−1)
Mean basal area G (m2 ha−1)
Mean deviation from Gnat,max (m2 ha−1)
While for agricultural land, the management inputs and the harvest outputs can be reliably measured within short periods of time, both components vary largely within a forest management cycle. Harvests (output) may be very low in young stands compared to mature stands, whereas, for management inputs, the converse may be true. Consequently, two temporally different forest management intensity measures need to be distinguished: (1) the actual state of a stand (e.g. by addressing stand density, basal area, biomass, stocking volume, diameter distribution) and (2) the management regime where the actual state of the stand is regarded as one state in a chronological sequence of states. In short, the stand may be viewed as a single observation at a given point in time or as a temporal realization of a management regime. Both measures are addressed by the SMI.
The approach to quantify SMI presented in this study combines three main stand characteristics of a given stand: tree species, age, and biomass. These factors are represented by different risks, which are a function of tree species and age, and different stand densities, which are a function of the silvicultural regime and stand age. The results showed that by regarding components, SMIr and SMId, not only silvicultural regimes, but also actual stands, could be successfully assessed. Unfortunately, the degree of appropriateness of this ranking cannot be tested as there is no absolute, “true” management intensity. We believe that SMI adequately addresses the most important components of any forest management decision: the choice of tree species and its treatment, both of which are addressed by the two components of SMI.
In this study, SMI was calculated by using basal area as a proxy for biomass for practical reasons (basal area of a stand is much easier to determine than stand volume or biomass). Due to the stand age-dependent nonlinear relationship between basal area and biomass (Pretzsch 2009), the age class effect on SMId would be more pronounced if related to biomass (or volume) instead of basal area. However, the direction of the response to stand growth and silvicultural interventions is independent of the measure used. Dead wood, which should contribute to SMId, could not be considered in this study because such data were not yet available from the biodiversity exploratories.
A forest manager’s perspective
A forest manager must make two basic decisions. First, which species should be planted/sown/regenerated naturally? Second, how will the stand be treated throughout the rotation period? These two questions include various sub-questions such as: How often, and how intensively should the stand be thinned?; Which cutting system should be used in the final harvest, that is a clear-cut or selective cuttings that extend the final harvest over decades?; and, will all mature trees be removed in the final cuttings or will some retention trees be kept as habitat and/or seed trees? Another important question might be whether or not the stand should be converted from an even-aged into an uneven-aged stand. The forest manager’s answers to these questions are very much influenced by his economic expectations. A risk-averse person will most likely consider species characterized by a low risk. In contrast, a risk taker may choose a highly productive species, taking a higher uncertainty of the expected high income into account, that is appreciating a high variation in financial returns which might be compensated for by an exceptionally high return (Knoke et al. 2005). However, accounting for higher risks means intensification. Thus, a tree species such as Norway spruce which is very productive but vulnerable to abiotic (for example storms, see von Lüpke and Spellmann 1999; Polomski and Kuhn 2001) and biotic (for example bark beetles, see Eriksson et al. 2007; Bolte et al. 2010) threats must be managed much more intensively than a less vulnerable species. In this context, measures such as repeated tendings and thinnings might be necessary to increase single tree stability, salvage cuttings, bark beetle control, etc. Decisions on the frequency and intensity of thinnings are also very much driven by economic considerations. They depend, for example, on the liquidity of the woodland-owner. Even thinnings aiming at increasing stand resilience and resistance can be seen as investments to secure future income.
Rating pure and mixed stands
In general, SMI can be applied to pure and mixed stands, but for mixed stands assessments may be more uncertain. SMId for mixed stands is calculated as the weighted sum of pure stands (Eq. 6). However, mixing may increase (overyielding) or decrease (underyielding) biomass carrying capacity (Pretzsch and Schütze 2009). Presently, reliable information on the effect of species mixtures on stand yield is only available for Norway spruce-European beech stands (Pretzsch et al. 2010). However, these studies revealed that overyielding is very much dependent on site quality. For other species, namely mixtures of various broadleaved species, the picture is still unclear. In fact, Jacob et al. (2010) found no over- or under-yielding effects within stands differing in tree species diversity. Accordingly, no general patterns of maximum stand density of mixed stands versus pure stands were found by Woodall et al. (2005).
Unfortunately, the results on the effect of mixtures on stand stability are even more inconsistent than for productivity. Whereas, for example, König (1996) and von Lüpke and Spellmann (1999) did not find a positive effect of tree mixture on stand resistance in the case of Norway spruce and European beech and concluded that stand type is not as important as soil type. Schütz et al. (2006) and Griess et al. (2012) reported evidence of European beech stabilizing admixed Norway spruce in mixed stands. This finding was considered for SMIr of mixed stands. While admixed species of lower risk proportionally decrease the risk of stand loss, admixed species of higher risk do not affect the risk of the main tree species.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no comprehensive quantitative survival functions derived for the main European tree species within the same region other than those by Staupendahl and Zucchini (2011). However, Eqs. (2) and (4), defining these functions, could easily be adjusted if other regional information or consistent information about mixed stands were available.
Rating even-aged and uneven-aged stands
Even-aged stand management traditionally leads to a final harvest removing the mature stand in one (cleacut) or several (shelterwood) steps. The result, a cleared area or planted with seedlings, thus reflects a past but very intensive measure, namely the final cut(s). In contrast, modern continuous-cover concepts, selective cutting systems, and uneven-aged stand management never reduce the growing stock to zero. Even though the same amount of timber may be harvested within a given period of time by these alternative approaches, they do not alter the environmental conditions of the forest as intensely as the traditional systems. Moreover, there is no indication that biomass carrying capacity is affected by the age structure of a forest. The different approaches of stand management are represented by SMId. Thus, the more constant and high the growing stock, the less intense the interventions have been in the past. In uneven-aged stands, the risk of stand loss, SMIr, is quantified using the stratum of the oldest stem members. This approach is based on the finding that the risk of stand loss is lower under uneven-aged management (Rottmann 1986).
Measures such as slash removal, soil preparation, fertilization, planting or direct seeding and weeding are usually not necessary in continuous-cover-systems. However, as we focused on silvicultural practices in the narrower sense (thinning, harvests), SMI may be of limited applicability for silvicultural systems which rely very much on the above mentioned measures. For such systems, additional terms quantifying these management measures might be a useful extension of the present approach (Blüthgen et al. 2012). Nevertheless, we believe that the ability of SMI to contrast the different systems and all stages of transformation from one system to another or to rate different thinning concepts is advantageous. It takes the basic elements of the conceptually well-established HANPP approach into account (Vitousek et al. 1986; Haberl et al. 2007). However, HANPP has not yet been elaborated at the stand level for Central European forests managed at varying intensities.
SMI and biodiversity
As outlined in the introduction, there is an increasing interest in the impact of land-use intensity on biodiversity. There are already a number of quantitative and qualitative indicators representing forest structure (see the review of McElhinny et al. 2005). Some of these indicators, as for example the amount of deadwood, have been used as a measure for management intensity (Müller et al. 2007b). In fact, structural indicators such as the number of trees with nesting holes and trees above a threshold minimum diameter etc. have been found to be closely related to the diversity of various taxa, that is wood-inhabiting fungi, saproxylic beetles, birds and lichens (Moning and Müller 2009; Moning et al. 2009; Müller and Bütler 2010; Müller et al. 2010). Why then suggest another index which may be used to investigate the effect of management intensity on biodiversity? We believe that many different stands could only be adequately contrasted by using a large set of structural measures. Thus, a very dense 10-year-old European beech thicket and a 100-year-old mature stand, both of which contain no dead wood due to the complete removal of the felled biomass, would need a different set of structural parameters than two stands of different species of equal age. However, to measure various attributes is laborious. In contrast, SMI is based on three stand characteristics which are easy to obtain: tree species, stand age and growing stock, which is heavily influenced by logging intensity. Interactions of the three factors are known to be of major importance for biodiversity issues (Bengtsson et al. 2000; Bagnaresi et al. 2002; Atlegrim and Sjöberg 2004; Ishii et al. 2004; Eriksson and Hammer 2006; Schroeder 2007; Wilson and Puettmann 2007; Rosenvald and Lõhmus 2008; Smith et al. 2008; Michel and Winter 2009; Felton et al. 2010; Quine and Humphrey 2010).
Another approach for the quantification of forest land-use intensity, which is also based on easily measurable variables, was recently suggested by Luyssaert et al. (2011). In contrast to our approach, the index of these authors does not take into account differences between tree species and stand age. Moreover, it does not consider different site conditions, which SMI accounts for by using hdom in Eqs. (8) and (9). Instead, Luyssaert et al.’s index (2011) is based on the two components: (1) the deviation of the actual stem number of a given stand from a reference stem number, which was derived from nine Slovakian old-growth forests and (2) the deviation of the mean quadratic diameter from the maximum mean diameter indicated by a self-thinning line which does not differentiate between species and site. However, the parameters a and b of the self-thinning equation (ln N = a − b ln dg), where N is the stem number of living trees and dg the quadratic mean DBH, are known to vary considerably for different site conditions (parameter a) and tree species (parameter b) (Pretzsch and Biber 2005).
It should be noted that SMI is not a measure of naturalness. Instead, it tries to quantify how intense a given stand has been managed so far, irrespective of the question whether or not the species in question was cultivated within our outside its natural range. This means that if biodiversity data are analysed against SMI, covariates representing habitat properties or naturalness may also be taken into account. In addition, the spatial configuration and share of land-use units and other landscape elements may be additional, important components affecting biodiversity (Tscharntke and Brandl 2004).
This work was inspired by discussions with Markus Fischer, Ernst-Detlef Schulze, and Wolfgang Weisser who, among others, initiated the biodiversity exploratories of the German Science foundation (DFG). We are also grateful to Jörg Hailer and Ulf Pommer for stand data of three plots. Finally, we thank Helen Desmond for very helpful linguistic corrections and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on a previous version of this manuscript.
- Ammer C, Bickel E, Kölling C (2008) Converting Norway spruce stands with beech—a review on arguments and techniques. Austrian J For Sci 125:3–26Google Scholar
- Assmann E (1961) Waldertragskunde. BLV Verlagsgesellschaft, München Bonn WienGoogle Scholar
- Bartha D (2004) Die Naturnähe der Wälder—Bewertung auf Bestandesebene. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 175:8–13Google Scholar
- Bell FW, Parton J, Stocker N, Joyce D, Reid D, Wester M, Stinson A, Kayahara G, Towill B (2008) Developing a silvicultural framework and definitions for use in forest management planning and practice. For Chron 84:678–693Google Scholar
- Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, Bugter R, Arens P, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Baudry J, Bukacek R, Burel F, Cerny M, De Blust G, De Cock R, Diekotter T, Dietz H, Dirksen J, Dormann C, Durka W, Frenzel M, Hamersky R, Hendrickx F, Herzog F, Klotz S, Koolstra B, Lausch A, Le Coeur D, Maelfait JP, Opdam P, Roubalova M, Schermann A, Schermann N, Schmidt T, Schweiger O, Smulders MJM, Speelmans M, Simova P, Verboom J, van Wingerden W, Zobel M, Edwards PJ (2008) Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J Appl Ecol 45:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blüthgen N, Dormann CF, Prati D, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T, Hölzel N, Alte F, Boch S, Gockel S, Hemp A, Müller J, Nieschulze J, Renner SC, Schöning I, Schumacher U, Socher SA, Wells K, Birkhofer K, Buscot F, Oelmann Y, Rothenwöhrer C, Scherber C, Tscharntke T, Weinern CN, Fischer M, Kalko EKV, Linsenmair KL, Schulze ED, Weisser WW (2012) A quantitative index of land-use intensity in grasslands: integrating mowing, grazing and fertilization. Basic Appl Ecol 13:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bohn U, Neuhäusl R (eds) (2004) Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas/Map of the natural vegetation of Europe. BfN-Schriftenvertrieb im Landwirtschaftsverlag, MünsterGoogle Scholar
- Brücken W (1984) Analyse langfristiger Kalamitätsaufzeichnungen eines größeren Privatforstbetriebes. Diploma Thesis, Fakultät für Forstwissenschaften und Waldökologie, Universität Göttingen, (unpublished)Google Scholar
- Dierschke H (1984) Natürlichkeitsgrade von Pflanzengesellschaften unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Vegetation. Phytocoenologia 12:173–184Google Scholar
- Dittmar O, Knapp E, Lembcke G (1986) DDR-Buchenertragstafel 1983. IFE-Berichte aus Forschung und Entwicklung 4. Eberswalde-FinowGoogle Scholar
- Dittrich K (1986) Realistische Zielstrukturen forstlicher Betriebsklassen auf der Grundlage langfristiger Waldentwicklung—Ein Beitrag zur Objektivierung der Nachhaltregelung. Ph.D Thesis TU Dresden, Fak. für Bau-, Wasser- u. Forstwesen, DresdenGoogle Scholar
- Döbbeler H (2004) Simulation and evaluation of silvicultural treatments under current and changed climate conditions with the Forest Growth Model SILVA 2.2. Dissertation, Göttingen University, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
- Döbbeler H, Spellmann H (2002) Methodological approach to simulate and evaluate silvicultural treatments under climate change. Forstwiss Centbl 121:52–69Google Scholar
- Dormann CF, Schweiger O, Augenstein I, Bailey D, Billeter R, de Blust G, DeFilippi R, Frenzel M, Hendrickx F, Herzog F, Klotz S, Liira J, Maelfait JP, Schmidt T, Speelmans M, van Wingerden W, Zobel M (2007) Effects of landscape structure and land-use intensity on similarity of plant and animal communities. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:774–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Drössler VL, von Lüpke B (2005) Canopy gaps in two virgin beech forest reserves in Slovakia. J For Sci 51:446–457Google Scholar
- Drössler VL, von Lüpke B (2007) Stand structure, regeneration and site conditions in two virgin beech forest reserves in Slovakia. Allg Forst Jagdztg 178(7–8):121–135Google Scholar
- Duncker P, Spiecker H, Tojic K (2008) Definition of forest management alternatives. Eforwood project PD 2.1.3. http://22.214.171.124/eforwood/Results/ResultArchive/tabid/222/Default.aspx. Accessed 24 Mar 2009
- Eichhorn F (1904) Beziehungen zwischen Bestandshöhe und Bestandsmasse. Allg Forst Jagdztg 80:45–49Google Scholar
- Fischer M, Bossdorf O, Gockel S, Hänsel F, Hemp A, Hessenmöller D, Korte G, Nieschulze J, Pfeiffer S, Prati D, Renner S, Schöning I, Schumacher U, Wells K, Buscot F, Kalko EKV, Linsenmair KE, Schulze ED, Weisser WW (2010) Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: the Biodiversity Exploratories. Basic Appl Ecol 11:473–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Geiger F, Bengtsson J, Berendse F, Weisser WW, Emmerson M, Morales MB, Ceryngier P, Liira J, Tscharntke T, Winqvist C, Eggers S, Bommarco R, Part T, Bretagnolle V, Plantegenest M, Clement LW, Dennis C, Palmer C, Onate JJ, Guerrero I, Hawro V, Aavik T, Thies C, Flohre A, Hanke S, Fischer C, Goedhart PW, Inchausti P (2010) Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. Basic Appl Ecol 11(2):97–105Google Scholar
- German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection. (2006) The second national forest inventory—2nd national forest inventoryGoogle Scholar
- Grabherr G, Koch G, Kirchmeir H, Reiter K (1998) Hemerobie österreichischer Waldökosysteme. Veröffentlichung des Österreichischen MaB-Programms, vol 17. Universitätsverlag Wagner, InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
- Griess VC, Acevedo R, Härtl F, Staupendahl K, Knoke T (2012) Does mixing tree species enhance stand resistance against natural hazards? A case study for spruce. For Ecol Manag 267:284–296Google Scholar
- Hanewinkel M, Holecy J (2005) Risikoanalyse durch altersstufenweise Ermittlung von Übergangswahrscheinlichkeiten mit Hilfe von digitalisierten Forstkarten. In: Teuffel Kv, Baumgarten M, Hanewinkel M et al (eds) Waldumbau für eine zukunftsorientierte Waldwirtschaft. Springer, Berlin, pp 269–277Google Scholar
- Herzog F, Steiner B, Bailey D, Baudry J, Billeter R, Bukacek R, De Blust G, De Cock R, Dirksen J, Dormann CF, De Filippi R, Frossard E, Liira J, Schmidt T, Stockli R, Thenail C, van Wingerden W, Bugter R (2006) Assessing the intensity of temperate European agriculture at the landscape scale. Eur J Agron 24:165–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ishii H, Tanabe S, Hiura T (2004) Exploring the relationships among canopy structure, stand productivity, and biodiversity of temperate forest ecosystems. For Sci 50:342–355Google Scholar
- Jalas J (1955) Hemerobe und hemerochore Pflanzenarten. Ein terminologischer Reformversuch. Acta Societatia Pro Fauna et Flora Fennica 72:1–15Google Scholar
- Jüttner O (1955) Ertragstafeln für Eichen. In: Schober R (1987) Ertragstafeln der wichtigsten Baumarten. Sauerländer’s, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
- Kira T, Sihdei T (1967) Primary production and turnover of organic matter in different forest ecosystems of the western pacific. Jpn J Ecol 17:70–87Google Scholar
- Kleijn D, Kohler F, Baldi A, Batary P, Concepcion ED, Clough Y, Diaz M, Gabriel D, Holzschuh A, Knop E, Kovacs A, Marshall EJP, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J (2009) On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proc Biol Sci 276(1658):903–909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- König A (1996) Sturmgefährdung von Beständen im Altersklassenwald. J.D. Sauerländer’s, Frankfurt a. MGoogle Scholar
- Lembcke G, Knapp E, Dittmar O (1975) DDR-Kiefern-Ertragstafel 1975. Institut für Forstwissenschaften Eberswalde, Abt. Waldbau/Ertragskunde, EberswaldeGoogle Scholar
- Leniere A, Houle G (2006) Response of herbaceous plant diversity to reduced structural diversity in maple-dominated (Acer saccharum Marsh.) forests managed for sap extraction. For Ecol Manag 231:94–104Google Scholar
- Leuschner C (1997) The concept of a potential natural vegetation (PNV): problems and suggested improvements. Flora 192:379–391Google Scholar
- Meiwes KJ, Asche N, Block J, Kallweit R, Kölling C, Raben G, von Wiplert K (2008) Potenziale und Restriktionen der Biomassenutzung im Wald. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift/Der Wald 63:598–603Google Scholar
- Mund M (2004) Carbon pools of European beech forests (Fagus sylvatica) under different silvicultural management. Universität Göttingen, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
- Naveh Z, Lieberman AS (1994) Landscape ecology. Theory and application, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Paillet Y, Berges L, Hjalten J, Odor P, Avon C, Bernhardt-Romermann M, Bijlsma RJ, De Bruyn L, Fuhr M, Grandin U, Kanka R, Lundin L, Luque S, Magura T, Matesanz S, Meszaros I, Sebastia MT, Schmidt W, Standovar T, Tothmeresz B, Uotila A, Valladares F, Vellak K, Virtanen R (2010) Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol 24:101–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pretzsch H (2009) Forest dynamics, growth and yield—from measurement to model. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Pretzsch H, Biber P (2005) A re-evaluation of Reineke’s rule and stand density index. For Sci 51:304–320Google Scholar
- Reineke L (1933) Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J Agric Res 46:627–638Google Scholar
- Röhrig E, Bartsch N, von Lüpke B (2006) Waldbau auf ökologischer Grundlage, 7th edn. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
- Rottmann M (1986) Wind und Sturmschäden im Wald. Sauerländer’s Verlag, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
- Sachs L, Hedderich J (2009) Angewandte Statistik—Methodensammlung mit R, 13th edn. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Schober R (1972) Die Rotbuche 1971. Schriftenreihe der Forstlichen Fakultät der Universität Göttingen und Mitteilungen der Niedersächsischen Forstlischen Versuchsanstanstalt 43/44. Sauerländer, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
- Schober R (1987) Ertragstafeln der wichtigsten Baumarten. Sauerländer’s, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
- Schroeder LM (2007) Retention or salvage logging of standing trees killed by the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus: consequences for dead wood dynamics and biodiversity. Scand J For Res 524–530Google Scholar
- Šmelko Š, Fabrika M (2007) Evaluation of qualitative attributes of forest ecosystems by means of numerical quantifiers. J For Sci 53:529–537Google Scholar
- Smith GF, Gittings T, Wilson M, French L, Oxbrough A, O’Donoghue S, O’Halloran J, Kelly DL, Mitchell FJG, Kelly T, Iremonger S, McKee AM, Giller P (2008) Identifying practical indicators of biodiversity for stand-level management of plantation forests. Biodivers Conserv 17:991–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Spellmann H, Nagel J, Böckmann T (1999) Summarische Nutzungsplanung auf der Basis von Betriebsinventuren. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 170(7):122–128Google Scholar
- Staupendahl K (2011) Modellierung der Überlebenswahrscheinlichkeit von Waldbeständen mithilfe der neu parametrisierten Weibull-Funktion. Forstarchiv 82:10–19Google Scholar
- Staupendahl K, Zuicchini W (2011) Schätzung der Überlebensfunktion der Haumptbaumarten auf der Basis von Zeitreihendaten der Rheinland-Pfälzischen Waldzustandserhebung. Allg Forst- und J-Ztg 182:129–145Google Scholar
- Sterba H (1981) Natürlicher Bestockungsgrad und Reineckes SDI. Centralblatt für das gesamte Forstwesen 98:101–116Google Scholar
- Sterba H (1987) Estimating potential density from thinning experiments and inventory data. For Sci 33:1022–1034Google Scholar
- Storaunet KO, Rolstad J, Gjerde I, Gundersen VS (2005) Historical logging, productivity, and structural characteristics of boreal coniferous forests in Norway. Silva Fenn 39:429–442Google Scholar
- Tabaku V (1999) Struktur von Buchen-Urwäldern in Albanien im Vergleich mit deutschen Buchen-Naturwaldreservaten und -Wirtschaftswäldern. Univ, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
- Tüxen R (1956) Die heutige potentielle natürliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Vegetationskartierung. Angew. Pflanzensoziologie 13:5–42Google Scholar
- von Lüpke B, Spellmann H (1999) Aspects of stability, growth and natural regeneration in mixed Norway spruce-beech stands as a basis for silvicultural decisions. In: Olsthoorn AFM, Bartelink HH, Gardiner JJ, Pretzsch H, Hekhuis HJ, Franc A (eds) Management of mixed-species forest: silviculture and economics. DLO Institute for Forestry and Nature Research (IBN-DLO), Wageningen, pp 245–267Google Scholar
- Wenk G, Römisch K, Gerold D (1984) DDR-Fichtenertragstafel. TU Dresden, Sektion Forstwirtschaft Tharandt, Wissenschaftsbereich Forsteinrichtung u. Forstl. Ertragskunde, TharandtGoogle Scholar
- Wiedemann E (1936/42) Die Fichte 1936. Schaper, HannoverGoogle Scholar
- Wiedemann E (1943) Ertragstafel der Baumart Kiefer (mäßige Durchforstung). In: Schober R (1987) Ertragstafeln der wichtigsten Baumarten. Sauerländer’s, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
- Wulder MA, Campbell C, White JC, Flannigan M, Campbell ID (2007) National circumstances in the international circumboreal community. For Chron 83:539–556Google Scholar
- Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J BiolOsaka City Univ 14:107–132Google Scholar
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.