Skip to main content

Is generalisation of uneven-aged management in mountain forests the key to improve biodiversity conservation within forest landscape mosaics?



Uneven-aged management systems based on selection silviculture have become popular in European mountain forests and progressively replace other silvicultural practices. In time, this trend could lead to a homogenisation of the forest mosaic with consequences on structural indices recognised as beneficial to forest biodiversity.


This study was conducted to investigate the potential effects of a generalisation of the selection silvicultural system on structural diversity in the forest landscape with consequences for forest biodiversity conservation.


We compared four structural indices (tree species richness, diameter heterogeneity, deadwood volume and basal area of mature trees) in five different stand types typical of the northern French Alps, using forest plot data in the Vercors mountain range. Through virtual landscape simulations, we then calculated predicted mean proportions of stand types under two different conservation strategies: (i) maximising mean index values at the landscape level and (ii) maximising the number of plots in the landscape with index values above given thresholds.


Multi-staged forests did not maximise all indices, the best solution being to combine the five stand types in uneven proportions to improve biodiversity conservation.


The expansion of selection silviculture in European heterogeneous forest landscapes could enhance biodiversity conservation if other stand types with complementary structural characteristics are maintained.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


  1. Angers VA, Messier C, Beaudet M, Leduc A (2005) Comparing composition and structure in old-growth and harvested (selection and diameter-limit cuts) northern hardwood stands in Quebec. For Ecol Manag 217:275–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ares A, Shanti B, Puettmann KJ (2009) Understory vegetation response to thinning disturbance of varying complexity in coniferous stands. Appl Veg Sci 12:472–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bagnaresi U, Giannini R, Grassi G, Minotta G, Paffetti D, Pini Prato E et al (2002) Stand structure and biodiversity in mixed, uneven-aged coniferous forests in the eastern Alps. Forestry 75:357–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barbier S, Chevalier R, Loussot P, Bergès L, Gosselin F (2009) Improving biodiversity indicators of sustainable forest management: tree genus abundance rather than tree genus richness and dominance for understory vegetation in French lowland oak hornbeam forests. For Ecol Manag 258:S176–S186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Battles JJ, Shlisky AJ, Barrett RH, Heald RC, Allen-Diaz BH (2001) The effects of forest management on plant species diversity in a Sierran conifer forest. For Ecol Manag 146:211–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beese WJ, Bryant AA (1999) Effect of alternative silvicultural systems on vegetation and bird communities in coastal montane forests of British Columbia, Canada. For Ecol Manag 115:231–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bouget C, Duelli P (2004) The effects of windthrow on forest insect communities: a literature review. Biol Conserv 118:281–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bruciamacchie M (2005) Protocole de suivi des espaces naturels protégés. Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement Durable.

  9. Bunnell FL, Huggard DJ (1999) Biodiversity across spatial and temporal scales: problems and opportunities. For Ecol Manag 115:113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carey AB (2001) Induced spatial heterogeneity in forest canopies: responses of small mammals. J Wildl Manag 65:1014–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chávez V, Macdonald SE (2010) The influence of canopy patch mosaics on understory plant community composition in boreal mixed wood forest. For Ecol Manag 259:1067–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cordonnier T, Courbaud B, Berger F, Franc A (2008) Permanence of resilience and protection efficiency in mountain Norway spruce forest stands: a simulation study. For Ecol Manag 256:347–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Decocq G, Aubert M, Dupont F, Alard D, Saguez R, Wattez-Franger A et al (2004) Plant diversity in a managed temperate deciduous forest: understorey response to two silvicultural systems. J Appl Ecol 41:1065–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Di Ciccio TJ, Romano JP (1988) A review of bootstrap confidence intervals. J R Stat Soc B 50:338–354

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ et al (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fox J (2002) Bootstrapping regression models. Appendix to an R and S-PLUS companion to applied regression. Sage publications

  17. Gauquelin X, Courbaud B (2006) Guide des sylvicultures de montagne—Alpes du Nord françaises. Cemagref, CRPF Rhône-Alpes, ONF

  18. Hansen AJ, McComb WC, Vega R, Raphael MG, Hunter M (1995) Bird habitat relationships in natural and managed forests in the West Cascades of Oregon. Ecol Appl 5:555–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harrell FE (2001) Regression modeling strategies, with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. Springer, New-York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Haveri BA, Carey AB (2000) Forest management strategy, spatial heterogeneity, and winter birds in Washington. Wildl Soc Bull 28:643–652

    Google Scholar 

  21. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lassauce A, Paillet Y, Jactel H, Bouget C (2011) Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecol Indic 11:1027–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Matthews JD (1991) Silvicultural systems. Oxford University Press, New-York

    Google Scholar 

  24. McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2004) Variance heterogeneity, transformations, and models of species abundance: a cautionary tale. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61:1294–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McElhinny C, Gibbons P, Brack C, Bauhus J (2005) Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: its definition and measurement. For Ecol Manag 218:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McMullin RT, Duinker PN, Richardson DHS, Cameron RP, Hamilton DC, Newmaster SG (2010) Relationships between the structural complexity and lichen community in coniferous forests of southwestern Nova Scotia. For Ecol Manag 260:744–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. MCPFE (2003) Improved pan-European indicators for sustainable forest management. Expert level meeting of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Vienna.

  28. O’Hara K (2009) Multiaged silviculture in North America. J For Sci 55:432–436

    Google Scholar 

  29. Økland B, Bakke A, Hågvar S, Kvamme T (1996) What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multiscaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodivers Conserv 5:75–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Penttilä R, Siitonen J, Kuusinen M (2004) Polypore diversity in managed and old-growth boreal Picea abies forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv 117:271–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Poirazidis K, Kati V, Schindler S, Triantakonstantis D, Kalivas D, and Gatzogiannis S (2010) Landscape and biodiversity in Dadia – Lefkimi – Soufli Forest National Park. In: Biodiversity, management and conservation. WWF Greece, Athens

  32. Schall P, Ammer C (2013) How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests. Eur J For Res 132:379–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Spies TA, Turner MGI (1999) Dynamic forest mosaics. In: Hunter ML (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 335–361

    Google Scholar 

  34. Uotila A, Kouki J (2005) Understorey vegetation in spruce-dominated forests in eastern Finland and Russian Karelia: successional patterns after anthropogenic and natural disturbances. For Ecol Manag 215:113–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vuidot A, Paillet Y, Archaux F, Gosselin F (2011) Influence of the tree characteristics and forest management on tree microhabitats. Biol Conserv 144:441–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Werner SM, Raffa KF (2000) Effects of forest management practices on the diversity of ground-occurring beetles in mixed northern hardwood forests of the Great Lakes region. For Ecol Manag 139:135–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Willson MF (1974) Avian community organization and habitat structure. Ecology 55:1017–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The map of forest stand structure was provided by the National Forest Office (NFO), and we thank all the local forest managers who contributed to the field work preparation. Several people assisted in the field, and this research could not have been done without their help. We especially thank Marc Fuhr, Eric Mermin, Gilles Favier, Pascal Tardif, Sophie Labonne, Romain Verger, David Thomasset and Jonathan Charles. Special appreciation goes to Valentine Lafond for her comments that helped us in improving the manuscript as well as Ron Smith from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology who helped with valuable comments and the editing of the final manuscript. We also thank the anonymous reviewers, the editor and the associate editor for their valuable comments that also strongly helped to improve the manuscript. This research was conducted on the long-term research site Zone Atelier Alpes, a member of LTER France.


This work was financially supported by a graduate student research fellowship to M. Redon from Grenoble University, France, and by funds from the FORGECO project (ANR-09-STRA-02-01).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Cordonnier.

Additional information

Contributions of the co-authors

Mathilde Redon: selecting structural indices, designing the experiment and doing field work, ranking of stand types according to the results of statistical analysis and writing the paper.

Sandra Luque: supervising the work and revising the paper.

Thomas Cordonnier: supervising the research project, designing the experiment and doing field work, performing the simulation study and writing the paper.

Frédéric Gosselin: performing statistical analyses and writing corresponding parts; revising the paper.

Handling Editor: Laurent Bergès

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Appendix S1

(DOC 100 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Redon, M., Luque, S., Gosselin, F. et al. Is generalisation of uneven-aged management in mountain forests the key to improve biodiversity conservation within forest landscape mosaics?. Annals of Forest Science 71, 751–760 (2014).

Download citation


  • Uneven-aged management
  • Selection silviculture
  • Biodiversity indicators
  • Stand structural diversity
  • Mountain forests
  • Landscape homogenisation