Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 14, pp 3519–3542 | Cite as

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

  • Juliane Schultze
  • Stefanie Gärtner
  • Jürgen Bauhus
  • Peter Meyer
  • Albert Reif
Original Paper


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.


Forest biodiversity conservation Natural forest development Protected areas Forest conservation Evaluation framework CBD 



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.


  1. Alagador D, Triviño M, Cerdeira JO et al (2012) Linking like with like: optimising connectivity between environmentally-similar habitats. Landsc Ecol 27:291–301Google Scholar
  2. 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 131:229–247Google Scholar
  3. Angermeier PL (2000) The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conserv Biol 14:373–381Google Scholar
  4. Araujo MB, Williams PH, Fuller RJ (2002) Dynamics of extinction and the selection of nature reserves. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 269:1971–1980Google Scholar
  5. Aune K, Jonsson BG, Moen J (2005) Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: is forest policy promoting fragmentation? Biol Conserv 124:89–95Google Scholar
  6. Bailey S (2007) Increasing connectivity in fragmented landscapes: an investigation of evidence for biodiversity gain in woodlands. For Ecol Manag 238:7–23Google Scholar
  7. Bakys R, Vasaitis R, Barklund P et al (2009) Investigations concerning the role of Chalara fraxinea in declining Fraxinus excelsior. Plant Pathol 58:284–292Google Scholar
  8. Bartha D, Odor P, Horvath T et al (2006) Relation of tree stand heterogenity and forest naturalness. Acta Silv Lign Hung 2:7–22Google Scholar
  9. Bastian O, Schreiber K-F (1999) Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag GmbH Heidelberg, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Bauhus J, Puettmann K, Messier C (2009) Silviculture for old-growth attributes. For Ecol Manag 258:525–537Google Scholar
  11. 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 187–213Google Scholar
  12. Bengtsson J, Nilson S, Frank A, Menozzi P (2000) Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. For Ecol Manag 132:39–50Google Scholar
  13. 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 265:133–141Google Scholar
  14. 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 4:136–144Google Scholar
  15. BIP (2010) Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. In: Biodiversity indicators partnership. Assecced 13 Jun 2013
  16. 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 144:160–170Google Scholar
  17. BMELV (2001) Aufnahmeanweisung für die Bundeswaldinventur II (2001 – 2002). BonnGoogle Scholar
  18. BMELV (2004) Die zweite Bundeswaldinventur—BWI II. Das Wichtigste in Kürze, BMELV, BonnGoogle Scholar
  19. BMU (2007) Strategie zur Biologischen Vielfalt. BMU, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 130:159–175Google Scholar
  21. Bohn U, Gollub G, Hettwer C et al (2003) Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas. LV Druck im Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster-HiltrupGoogle Scholar
  22. Bollmann K (2011) Naturnaher Waldbau und Förderung der biologischen Vielfalt im Wald. Forum Für Wissen 2011:27–36Google Scholar
  23. Bollmann K, Müller J (2012) Naturwaldreservate: welche, wo und wofür? (Essay). Schweiz Z F Forstwes 163:187–198Google Scholar
  24. 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 160:53–67Google Scholar
  25. 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, WienGoogle Scholar
  26. Branquart E, Verheyen K, Latham J (2008) Selection criteria of protected forest areas in Europe: the theory and the real world. Biol Conserv 141:2795–2806Google Scholar
  27. 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 262:1863–1871Google Scholar
  28. Bücking W (2003) Are there threshold numbers for protected forests? J Environ Manage 67:37–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Bunce RGH, Bogers MMB, Evans D et al (2013) The significance of habitats as indicators of biodiversity and their links to species. Ecol Indic 33:19–25Google Scholar
  30. 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 291:458–479Google Scholar
  31. Burton PJ, Macdonald SE (2011) The Restorative Imperative: challenges, Objectives and Approaches to Restoring Naturalness in Forests. Silva Fenn 45:843–863Google Scholar
  32. Buse J (2011) “Ghosts of the past”: flightless saproxylic weevils (Coleoptera: curculionidae) are relict species in ancient woodlands. J Insect Conserv 16:93–102Google Scholar
  33. 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 137:372–381Google Scholar
  34. Bußler H (2006) Urwaldreliktbäume mit Tradition—Die Erhaltung und Entwicklung alter Waldstandorte mit Habitattradition ist unerlässlich. LWF Aktuell 53:6–7Google Scholar
  35. Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16:242–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2006) Replacement cost: a practical measure of site value for cost-effective reserve planning. Biol Conserv 132:336–342Google Scholar
  37. CBD (2014) Convention on Biological Diversity Accessed 7Jul 2013
  38. CBD, COP I-XI (2014) Convention on Biological Diversity, Cop Decisions I-XI. Accessed 14 Jul 2013
  39. 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 360:443–455Google Scholar
  40. 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, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 42:181–191Google Scholar
  42. Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355Google Scholar
  43. 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 40:423–435Google Scholar
  44. Drever CR, Drever MC, Sleep DJH (2012) Understanding rarity: a review of recent conceptual advances and implications for conservation of rare species. For Chron 2:165–175Google Scholar
  45. Dudley N (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland 86 pGoogle Scholar
  46. Dudley N, Parrish J (2006) Closing the gap: creating ecologically representative protected area systems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  47. 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, WeinGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 5:1–8Google Scholar
  49. 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 1:135Google Scholar
  50. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2006) Global Forest Resources Assessment. Accessed 7 Jul 2014
  51. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2012) State of the world’s forests, 2012. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 37:2211–2213Google Scholar
  53. Farwig N, Berens DG (2012) Imagine a world without seed dispersers: a review of threats, consequences and future directions. Basic Appl Ecol 13:109–115Google Scholar
  54. Finck P (2002) Vom Einzelgebiet zum Verbundsystem—Status und Perspektiven der Entwicklung von Schutzgebietssystemen. Schr-R Dtsch Rates Für Landespfl 73:34–42Google Scholar
  55. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574Google Scholar
  56. 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, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  57. Förschler M et al (2012) Ökologisches Potenzial eines möglichen Nationalparks im Nordschwarzwald. Naturschutz U Landschaftsplanung 44:273–281Google Scholar
  58. Frank G (2004) Naturwaldreservate im Burgenland. Geogr Jahrb Im Burgenland 28:49–68Google Scholar
  59. Fridman J (2000) Conservation of Forest in Sweden: a strategic ecological analysis. Biol Conserv 96:95–103Google Scholar
  60. 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 141:655–668Google Scholar
  61. 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 29:268–276Google Scholar
  62. 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 33:2129–2140Google Scholar
  63. Götmark F (2013) Habitat management alternatives for conservation forests in the temperate zone: review, synthesis, and implications. For Ecol Manag 306:292–307Google Scholar
  64. Graae B (2003) Vegetation and soil differences in ancient opposed to new forests. For Ecol Manag 177:179–190Google Scholar
  65. Grabherr G, Koch G, Kirchmeier H (1998) Naturnähe Österreichischer Wälder. Sonderdr Österr Forstz 1:1–39Google Scholar
  66. Guralnick RP, Hill AW, Lane M (2007) Towards a collaborative, global infrastructure for biodiversity assessment. Ecol Lett 10:663–672PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Heink U (2009) Repräsentanz ein geeignetes Bewertungskriterium für den Naturschutz? GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 18:322–339Google Scholar
  68. Heinken T (2008) Welche populationsbiologischen und genetischen Konsequenzen hat Habitatfragmentierung für Pflanzen? Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen für ein Biotopverbundsystem für Pflanzen in Brandenburg1. Naturschutz Landschaftspflege Brandenbg 17:201–208Google Scholar
  69. 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 22:361–371Google Scholar
  70. 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 91:9–22Google Scholar
  71. 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 70:85–95Google Scholar
  72. Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F et al (2006) Evaluating Effectiveness: a framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas, 2nd edn. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  73. Höltermann A (2013) Das 5 % Ziel. Holz-Zentralblatt 40:977–978Google Scholar
  74. Hunter ML (1999) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 698 pGoogle Scholar
  75. Iacobelli A, Alidina H, Blasutti A, et al. (2006) A landscape-based protected areas gap analysis and GIS tool for conservation planning. Accessed 8 Feb 2013
  76. 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 43–62Google Scholar
  77. Ikauniece S, Brūmelis G, Zariņš J (2012) Linking woodland key habitat inventory and forest inventory data to prioritize districts needing conservation efforts. Ecol Indic 14:18–26Google Scholar
  78. 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 540Google Scholar
  79. IUCN (2012) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. In: Red list overv. Accessed 27 May 2013
  80. IUCN, WCPA (2010) Richtlinien für die Anwendung der IUCN-Managementkategorien für Schutzgebiete Deutsche FassungGoogle Scholar
  81. Izco J (1998) Types of rarity of plant communities. J Veg Sci 9:641–646Google Scholar
  82. Jalas J (1955) Hemerobie und hemerochore Pflanzenarten. Ein terminologischer Reformversuch. Acta Soc Fauna Flora Fenn 72:1–15Google Scholar
  83. Kati V, Devillers P, Dufrêne M et al (2004) Hotspots, complementarity or representativeness? designing optimal small-scale reserves for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 120:471–480Google Scholar
  84. Kaufmann G, Etter T, Bader L (1993) Seltene Waldgesellschaften. Kurzkommentar zur gesamtkantonalen Grobübersicht über die seltenen und besonders wertvollen Lebensräume im Wald. Accessed 13 Dec 2011
  85. Kaufmann, Bader, Steiger (2001) Waldreservatskonzept Kanton Solothurn. Accessed 14 Dec 2011
  86. Kaule G (1991) Arten- und Biotopschutz. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart 519 pGoogle Scholar
  87. Korpel S (1995) Die Urwälder der Westkaparten. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart 316 pGoogle Scholar
  88. Kowarik I (1987) Kritische Anmerkungen zum theoretischen Konzept der potentiellen natürlichen Vegetation mit Anregungen zu einer zeitgemäßen Modifikation. Tüxenia 7:53–67Google Scholar
  89. Kupfer JA (2006) National assessments of forest fragmentation in the US. Glob Environ Change 16:73–82Google Scholar
  90. Langhammer PF (2007) Identification and gap analysis of key biodiversity areas: targets for comprehensive protected area systems. IUCN, Gland 116 pGoogle Scholar
  91. Larson T-B (2001) Biodiversity evaluation tools for european forests criteria indic sustain. For. Manag.Unit Level, Nancy, pp 75–83Google Scholar
  92. 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 69:145–153Google Scholar
  93. 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 138:464–473Google Scholar
  94. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull ESA 15:237–240Google Scholar
  95. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin F (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity. Islandpress, Washington DC 351 pGoogle Scholar
  96. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Fischer J (2006) General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 131:433–445Google Scholar
  97. Linder P (1997) Stand structure and successional trends in virgin boreal forest reserves in Sweden. For Ecol Manag 98:17–33Google Scholar
  98. Lombard A (2003) Effectiveness of land classes as surrogates for species in conservation planning for the Cape Floristic Region. Biol Conserv 112:45–62Google Scholar
  99. Luyssaert S, Schulze E-D, Börner A et al (2008) Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455:213–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. MacArthur RH (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 203Google Scholar
  101. Machado A (2004) An index of naturalness. J Nat Conserv 12:95–110Google Scholar
  102. Margules CR, Pressey R (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Margules CR, Pressey RL, Williams PH (2002) Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J Biosci 27:309–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Margules CR, Usher MB (1981) Assessment of wildlife conservation values. Biol Conserv 21:79–104Google Scholar
  105. 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 15:117–122Google Scholar
  106. MCPFE (2013) Forest europe. In: For. Eur. Grow. Life. Accessed 10 Apr 2013
  107. Mergner U (2014) Ein Plädoyer für die kleinflächige Stilllegung in Wäldern Small is beautiful. AFZ-Wald 3:25–27Google Scholar
  108. Meyer P, Schmidt M (2011) Accumulation of dead wood in abandoned beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests in northwestern Germany. For Ecol Manag 261:342–352Google Scholar
  109. Meyer P, Bücking W, Gehlhar U et al (2007) Das Netz der Naturwaldreservate in Deutschland: flächenumfang, Repräsentativität und Schutzstatus im Jahr 2007. Forstarchiv 78:188–196Google Scholar
  110. Meyer P, Schmidt M, Spellmann H et al (2011) Aufbau eines Systems nutzungsfreier Wälder in Deutschland. Nat Landsch 86:246–249Google Scholar
  111. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  112. 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 9:922–932Google Scholar
  113. 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 46:908–919PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 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 129:981–992Google Scholar
  115. Müller J, Bußler H, Bense U et al (2005) Urwaldrelikt-Arten—Xylobionte Käfer als Indikatoren für Strukturqualität und Habitattradition. Waldökologie Online 2:106–113Google Scholar
  116. Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indic 8:14–25Google Scholar
  117. Norton DA (1999) Forest Reserves. In: Hunter ML (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 525–555Google Scholar
  118. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364Google Scholar
  119. Noss RF (1991) Landscape connectivity: different functions at different scales. Landsc. Link. Biodivers. Island Press, Washington, D.C, p 222Google Scholar
  120. Noss RF (1992) The wildlands project: land conservation strategy. Policy biodiversity. Island Press, Environ, p 415Google Scholar
  121. Noss RF (1999) Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. For Ecol Manag 115:135–146Google Scholar
  122. OECD (2008) OECD key environmental indicatorsGoogle Scholar
  123. Opdam P, Wascher D (2004) Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biol Conserv 117:285–297Google Scholar
  124. 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 24:101–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. Parviainen J (2005) Virgin and natural forests in the temperate zone for Europe. Snow Landsc Res 79:9–18Google Scholar
  126. 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 73:107–118Google Scholar
  127. Peterken GF (1976) WRONG Natural woodland: ecology and conservation in northern temperate regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 552 pGoogle Scholar
  128. Peterken G (1977) Habitat conservation priorities in British and European woodlands. Biol Conserv 11:223–236Google Scholar
  129. Peterken GF (2001) Ecological effects of introduced tree species in Britain. For Ecol Manag 141:31–42Google Scholar
  130. Pickett STA, Thompson JN (1978) Patch dynamics and the design of nature reserves. Biol Conserv 13:27–37Google Scholar
  131. Plachter H (1991) Naturschutz. G. Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  132. 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, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  133. Pressey R, Humphries C, Margules C et al (1993) Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol Evol 8:124–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Primack RB (2002) Essentials of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, MAGoogle Scholar
  135. Ranius T (2002) Influence of stand size and quality of tree hollows on saproxylic beetles in Sweden. Biol Conserv 103:85–91Google Scholar
  136. Reif A (2012) Nationalpark Nordschwarzwald? Die zweitbeste Lösung für den Naturschutz. Nat Landsch 44:218–221Google Scholar
  137. Reif A, Walentowski H (2008) The assessment of naturalness and its role for nature conservation and forestry in Europe. Waldökologie Landschaftsforschung Naturschutz 6:63–76Google Scholar
  138. Reif A, Coch T, Knoerzer D, Suchant R (2001) Landschaftspflege in verschiedenen Lebensräumen-WALD. Handb. Naturschutz Landschaftspflege. ecomed, Landsberg, pp XIII–7.1Google Scholar
  139. 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 46pGoogle Scholar
  140. Remmert H (1991) The mosaic-cycle concept of ecosystems. Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  141. Rennwald E (2000) Verzeichnis und Rote Listen der Pflanzengesellschaften Deutschlands. LV Druck im Landwirtschaftsverlag, BonnGoogle Scholar
  142. Reynolds KM, Johnson KN, Gordon SN (2003) The science/policy interface in logic-based evaluation of forest ecosystem sustainability. For Policy Econ 5:433–446Google Scholar
  143. Riecken U, Finck P, Raths U et al (2006) Rote Liste der gefährdeten Biotoptypen Deutschlands. Bad Goedesberg, BonnGoogle Scholar
  144. Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ (2001) How large do reserve networks need to be? Ecol Lett 4:602–609Google Scholar
  145. Rodrigues ASL, AkçAkaya HR, Andelman SJ et al (2004) Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience 54:1092Google Scholar
  146. Rolstad J, Gjerde I, Gundersen VS, Saetersdal M (2002) Use of indicator species to assess forest continuity: a critique. Conserv Biol 16:253–257Google Scholar
  147. 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 21:1404–1405Google Scholar
  148. Rosati L, Marignani M, Blasi C (2008) A gap analysis comparing Natura 2000 vs national protected area network with potential natural vegetation. Commun Ecol 9:147–154Google Scholar
  149. Rothley KD (2006) Finding the tradeoffs between the reserve design and representation. Environ Manag 38:327–337Google Scholar
  150. 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 11:28–37Google Scholar
  151. 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:e95244PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. Saitta A, Bernicchia A, Gorjón SP et al (2011) Biodiversity of wood-decay fungi in Italy. Plant Biosyst 145:958–968Google Scholar
  153. Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP et al (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:123–159Google Scholar
  154. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32Google Scholar
  155. Scherzinger W (1996) Naturschutz im Wald—Qualitätsziele einer dynamischen Waldentwicklung. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart 447pGoogle Scholar
  156. Scherzinger W (2012) Schutz der Wildnis—ein gewichtiger Beitrag zur Landeskultur. Silva Ferra 1:38–63Google Scholar
  157. Schmitt CB, Burgess ND, Coad L et al (2009) Global analysis of the protection status of the world’s forests. Biol Conserv 142:2122–2130Google Scholar
  158. Scott JM, Davis F, Csuti B et al (1993) Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildl Monogr 123:1–41Google Scholar
  159. Smith PGR, Theberge JB (1986) A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas. Environ Manag 10:715–734Google Scholar
  160. Spies TA, Turner MG (1999) Dynamic forest mosaics. In: Hunter ML (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 95–144Google Scholar
  161. Suck R, Bushart M (2011) Karte der Potentiellen Natürlichen Vegetation Deutschlands. LV Druck GmbH & Co. KG, Bonn, Bad GoedesbergGoogle Scholar
  162. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 3:571–573Google Scholar
  163. 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 82:243–252Google Scholar
  164. Ulanova NG (2000) The effects of windthrow on forests at different spatial scales: a review. For Ecol Manag 135:155–167Google Scholar
  165. United Nations (1992) Text of the CBD. In: The Convention on Biological Diversity. Accessed 15 Apr 2013
  166. United Nations (2010) Protected areas. In: Programme Work Protected Areas. Accessed 14 Jul 2013
  167. Usher MB, Erz W (1994) Erfassen und Bewerten im Naturschutz. Quelle & Meyer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  168. Van Teeffelen AJA, Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2006) Connectivity, probabilities and persistence: comparing reserve selection strategies. Biodivers Conserv 15:899–919Google Scholar
  169. 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 26:1115–1128Google Scholar
  170. Vimal R, Rodrigues ASL, Mathevet R, Thompson JD (2010) The sensitivity of gap analysis to conservation targets. Biodivers Conserv 20:531–543Google Scholar
  171. Volz K-R (2013) Waldnaturschutz: integrale Politikgestaltung gefragt-Nutzungsfreie Wälder als Element einer nachhaltigen, multifunktionalen Forstwirtschaft. Holz-Zentralblatt 49:1219–1220Google Scholar
  172. Von Drachenfels O (2010) Klassifikation und Typisierung von Biotopen für Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung. Naturschutz Landschaftspfl Niedersachs 47:1–322Google Scholar
  173. 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 212:253–263Google Scholar
  174. Vreugdenhil D, Terborgh J, Cleef AM et al (2003) Comprehensive protected areas system composition and monitoring. IUCN, WICEGoogle Scholar
  175. Walz U, Stein C (2014) Indicators of hemeroby for the monitoring of landscapes in Germany. J Nat Conserv 22:279–289Google Scholar
  176. Willner W, Grabherr G (2007) Die Wälder und Gebüsche Österreichs 2, 2. Elsevier, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag Heidelberg, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  177. Winter S (2012) Forest naturalness assessment as a component of biodiversity monitoring and conservation management. Forestry 85:293–304Google Scholar
  178. 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 79:127–144Google Scholar
  179. Winter S, Fischer HS, Fischer A (2010) Relative quantitative reference approach for naturalness assessments of forests. For Ecol Manag 259:1624–1632Google Scholar
  180. Wulf M (1994) Überblick zur Bedeutung des Alters von Lebensgemeinschaften, dargestellt am Beispiel “historisch alter Wälder. NNA-Berichte 3–14Google Scholar
  181. Wulf M, Kelm H-J (1994) Zur Bedeutung “historisch alter Wälder” für den Naturschutz—Untersuchungen naturnaher Wälder im Elbe–Weser-Dreieck. NNA-Berichte 15–50Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliane Schultze
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stefanie Gärtner
    • 1
  • Jürgen Bauhus
    • 2
  • Peter Meyer
    • 3
  • Albert Reif
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Site Classification and Vegetation Science, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, Institute of Forest SciencesUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Silviculture, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, Institute of Forest SciencesUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  3. 3.Nordwestdeutsche Forstliche Versuchsanstalt. Abt. AGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations