Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What Is Known About the Management of European Beech Forests Facing Climate Change? A Review

  • CLIMATE CHANGE AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION (OC CAMPOE, SECTION EDITOR)
  • Published:
Current Forestry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This paper aims to retrace the most significant management strategies adopted across European beech forests over the last 25 years, highlighting those that are most efficient and promising. We investigate five main topics including forest management, forest models, species mixture, genetic, and regeneration.

Recent Findings

European beech is one of the most widespread and important tree species for the European forest sector. In the light of the ongoing climate crisis, understanding the growth dynamics and the response of beech forests to climate change is crucial to identify advantageous management strategies. Ecology, growth, management, distribution, interaction with other species, genetic, and regeneration aspects of European beech were investigated in different geographical areas of Europe. Despite recent researches focusing on climate change issues, how adaptation and mitigation measures can be integrated into silvicultural guidelines to improve the resilience of European beech forests remains unclear.

Summary

To answer this question, we collected and reviewed articles about the management of European beech facing climate change, which were published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 25 years. Articles were grouped into five geographic European areas, according to the classification used by the State of Europe’s forests. Obtained articles were further clustered into five main topics: management, mixed forest, modelling, genetic, and regeneration. The review highlighted the importance of using long-term monitoring plots to understand the effect of climate change on the stability of European beech forests, suggesting climate-smart measures that would help these forests adapt to climate change.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Sáenz-Romero C, Lindig-Cisneros RA, Joyce DG, Beaulieu J, Clair JBS, Jaquish BC. Assisted migration of forest populations for adapting trees to climate change. Rev Chapingo Ser Ciencias For y del Ambient. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo; 2016;22:303–23.

  2. Spinoni J, Naumann G, Vogt J, Barbosa P. European drought climatologies and trends based on a multi-indicator approach. Glob Planet Chang. Elsevier; 2015;127:50–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jia G, Shevliakova E, Artaxo P, De Noblet-Ducoudré N, Houghton R, House J, et al. Landclimate interactions. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Calvo Buendia E, Masson-Delmotte V, et al. editors. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. 2019.

  4. Rumpf SB, Hülber K, Klonner G, Moser D, Schütz M, Wessely J, et al. Range dynamics of mountain plants decrease with elevation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115:1848–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Caudullo G, Welk E, San-Miguel-Ayanz J. Chorological maps for the main European woody species. Data Br. 2017;12:662–6. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352340917301981.

  6. Leuschner C, Ellenberg H. Beech and mixed beech forests BT - Ecology of Central European Forests: Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe, Volume I. In: Leuschner C, Ellenberg H, editors. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 351–441.

  7. ForestEurope, UNECE, FAO. State of Europe’s Forests 2011. Status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. 2011.

  8. Durrant TH, de Rigo D, Caudullo G. Fagus sylvatica in Europe: distribution, habitat, usage and threats. Eur atlas For tree species. 2016;9495.

  9. Cudlín P, Klopčič M, Tognetti R, Máli F, Alados CL, Bebi P, et al. Drivers of treeline shift in different European mountains. Clim Res. 2017;73:135–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Calderaro C, Cocozza C, Palombo C, Lasserre B, Marchetti M, Tognetti R. Climate–growth relationships at the transition between Fagus sylvatica and Pinus mugo forest communities in a Mediterranean mountain. Ann For Sci. 2020;77:63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Geßler A, Keitel C, Kreuzwieser J, Matyssek R, Seiler W, Rennenberg H. Potential risks for European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in a changing climate. Trees. Springer; 2007;21:1–11.

  12. •• Jandl R, Spathelf P, Bolte A, Prescott CE. Forest adaptation to climate change—is non-management an option? Ann For Sci. 2019;76. This article provides a number of case studies that reflect the options and limitations of management and non-management for coping with climate change in temperate to boreal areas. Moreover, they formulate the conceptual basis for adaptive forest management.

  13. Cocozza C, de Miguel M, Pšidová E, Ditmarová L, Marino S, Maiuro L, et al. Variation in ecophysiological traits and drought tolerance of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Seedlings from Different Populations . Front. Plant Sci. . 2016. p. 886.

  14. Duncker PS, Barreiro SM, Hengeveld GM, Lind T, Mason WL, Ambrozy S, et al. Classification of forest management approaches: a new conceptual framework and its applicability to European forestry. Ecol Soc. 2012;17.

  15. Torresan C, del Río M, Hilmers T, Notarangelo M, Bielak K, Binder F, et al. Importance of tree species size dominance and heterogeneity on the productivity of spruce-fir-beech mountain forest stands in Europe. For Ecol Manag. Elsevier; 2020;457:117716.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Di Salvatore U, Tonti D, Bascietto M, Chiavetta U, Cantiani P, Fabbio G, et al. ManFor C.Bd sites and the drivers of forest functions. Ital J Agron. 2016;11.

  17. Cheaib A, Badeau V, Boe J, Chuine I, Delire C, Dufrêne E, et al. Climate change impacts on tree ranges: model intercomparison facilitates understanding and quantification of uncertainty. Ecol Lett. Wiley Online Library; 2012;15:533–44.

    Google Scholar 

  18. •• Baumbach L, Niamir A, Hickler T, Yousefpour R. Regional adaptation of European beech (Fagus sylvatica) to drought in Central European conditions considering environmental suitability and economic implications. Reg Environ Chang. 2019;19:1159–74. This study applies species distribution models (SDMs), reviews uncertainties resulting from different modeling approaches, estimates the economic value of pure and mixed beech, and fir stands discussing managerial implications. The combination of ecological, economic, and uncertainty analyses represents a good tool to evaluate climate change effects and assist the regional adaptation of forests.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Morin X, Fahse L, Jactel H, Scherer-Lorenzen M, García-Valdés R, Bugmann H. Long-term response of forest productivity to climate change is mostly driven by change in tree species composition. Sci Rep. 2018;8:5627. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23763-y.

  20. Bolte A, Hilbrig L, Grundmann B, Kampf F, Brunet J, Roloff A. Climate change impacts on stand structure and competitive interactions in a southern Swedish spruce–beech forest. Eur J For Res. Springer; 2010;129:261–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang W, Peng C, Kneeshaw DD, Larocque GR, Luo Z. Drought-induced tree mortality: ecological consequences, causes, and modeling. Environ Rev. NRC Research Press; 2012;20:109–21.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rigling A, Bigler C, Eilmann B, Feldmeyer-Christe E, Gimmi U, Ginzler C, et al. Driving factors of a vegetation shift from Scots pine to pubescent oak in dry Alpine forests. Glob Chang Biol. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2013;19:229–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Annighöfer P. Stress relief through gap creation? Growth response of a shade tolerant species (Fagus sylvatica L.) to a changed light environment. For Ecol Manage. Elsevier; 2018;415:139–47.

  24. Cole CT, Anderson JE, Lindroth RL, Waller DM. Rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have increased growth in natural stands of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Glob Chang Biol. Wiley Online Library; 2010;16:2186–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Landuyt D, Perring MP, Seidl R, Taubert F, Verbeeck H, Verheyen K. Modelling understorey dynamics in temperate forests under global change–challenges and perspectives. Perspect plant Ecol Evol Syst. Elsevier; 2018;31:44–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Millar CI, Stephenson NL. Temperate forest health in an era of emerging megadisturbance. Science (80- ). American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2015;349:823–6.

  27. Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, Houghton RA, Lomax G, Miteva DA, et al. Natural climate solutions. Science (80- ). American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2015;349:11645–50.

  28. Bowditch E, Santopuoli G, Binder F, del Río M, La Porta N, Kluvankova T, et al. What is climate-smart forestry? A definition from a multinational collaborative process focused on mountain regions of Europe. Ecosyst Serv. 2020;43.

  29. Verkerk PJ, Costanza R, Hetemäki L, Kubiszewski I, Leskinen P, Nabuurs GJ, et al. Climate-smart forestry: the missing link. For Policy Econ. 2020;115.

  30. Bosela M, Štefančík I, Petráš R, Vacek S. The effects of climate warming on the growth of European beech forests depend critically on thinning strategy and site productivity. Agric For Meteorol. Elsevier; 2016;222:21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pretzsch H, Biber P, Schütze G, Uhl E, Rötzer T. Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870. Nat Commun. 2014;5. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84919711963&doi=10.1038%2Fncomms5967&partnerID=40&md5=d96c0d8ab2796282fc21ac745683ad5e.

  32. Farahat E, Linderholm HW. Growth–climate relationship of European beech at its northern distribution limit. Eur J For Res. Springer; 2018;137:619–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Knutzen F, Dulamsuren C, Meier IC, Leuschner C. Recent climate warming-related growth decline impairs European beech in the center of its distribution range. Ecosystems. Springer; 2017;20:1494–511.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Tognetti R, Lasserre B, Di Febbraro M, Marchetti M. Modeling regional drought-stress indices for beech forests in Mediterranean mountains based on tree-ring data. Agric For Meteorol. Elsevier; 2019;265:110–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Piovesan G, Biondi F, Filippo A Di, Alessandrini A, Maugeri M. Drought‐driven growth reduction in old beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests of the central Apennines, Italy. Glob Chang Biol. Wiley Online Library; 2008;14:1265–81.

  36. Jump AS, Hunt JM, Penuelas J. Rapid climate change-related growth decline at the southern range edge of Fagus sylvatica. Glob Chang Biol. Wiley Online Library; 2006;12:2163–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zimmermann J, Hauck M, Dulamsuren C, Leuschner C. Climate warming-related growth decline affects Fagus sylvatica, but not other broad-leaved tree species in Central European mixed forests. Ecosystems. Springer; 2015;18:560–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hacket-Pain AJ, Cavin L, Friend AD, Jump AS. Consistent limitation of growth by high temperature and low precipitation from range core to southern edge of European beech indicates widespread vulnerability to changing climate. Eur J For Res. Springer; 2016;135:897–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. • Bosela M, Lukac M, Castagneri D, Sedmák R, Biber P, Carrer M, et al. Contrasting effects of environmental change on the radial growth of co-occurring beech and fir trees across Europe. Sci Total Environ. 2018;615:1460–9. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969717324348. This study analysed the radial growth in managed and unmanaged mixed beech-fir forests across continental Europe. The authors conclude that the long-term growth patterns and growth–climate sensitivity of fir and beech trees did not significantly differ between managed and unmanaged forests, and thus, forest management does not necessarily alter their sensitivity to environmental changes.

  40. Tognetti R, Lombardi F, Lasserre B, Cherubini P, Marchetti M. Tree-ring stable isotopes reveal twentieth-century increases in water-use efficiency of Fagus sylvatica and Nothofagus spp. in Italian and Chilean Mountains. PLoS One. Public Library of Science; 2014;9:e113136.

  41. Tegel W, Seim A, Hakelberg D, Hoffmann S, Panev M, Westphal T, et al. A recent growth increase of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) at its Mediterranean distribution limit contradicts drought stress. Eur J For Res. Springer; 2014;133:61–71.

  42. Aertsen W, Janssen E, Kint V, Bontemps J-D, Van Orshoven J, Muys B. Long-term growth changes of common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) are less pronounced on highly productive sites. For Ecol Manage. Elsevier; 2014;312:252–9.

  43. Coomes DA, Flores O, Holdaway R, Jucker T, Lines ER, Vanderwel MC. Wood production response to climate change will depend critically on forest composition and structure. Glob Chang Biol. Wiley Online Library; 2014;20:3632–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bolte A, Czajkowski T, Kompa T. The north-eastern distribution range of European beech—a review. Forestry. Oxford University Press; 2007;80:413–29.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nocentini S. Structure and management of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests in Italy. iForest-Biogeosciences For. SISEF-Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology; 2009;2:105.

  46. Analytics C. Web of science. 2018.

  47. FOREST EUROPE 2020: State of Europe’s Forests 2020. 2020.

  48. Lovett GM, Rueth H. Soil nitrogen transformations in beech and maple stands along a nitrogen deposition gradient. Ecol Appl. Wiley Online Library; 1999;9:1330–44.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Prietzel J, Bachmann S. Changes in soil organic C and N stocks after forest transformation from Norway spruce and Scots pine into Douglas fir, Douglas fir/spruce, or European beech stands at different sites in Southern Germany. For Ecol Manag. Elsevier; 2012;269:134–48.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Leberecht M, Dannenmann M, Gschwendtner S, Bilela S, Meier R, Simon J, et al. Ectomycorrhizal communities on the roots of two beech (Fagus sylvatica) populations from contrasting climates differ in nitrogen acquisition in a common environment. Appl Environ Microbiol Am Soc Microbiol. 2015;81:5957–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Diaconu D, Kahle H-P, Spiecker H. Tree-and stand-level thinning effects on growth of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) on a northeast-and a southwest-facing slope in southwest Germany. Forests. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; 2015;6:3256–77.

  52. Krug JHA. How can forest management increase biomass accumulation and CO2 sequestration? A case study on beech forests in Hesse. Germany Carbon Balance Manag. 2019;14:17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Štefančík I, Vacek Z, Sharma RP, Vacek S, Rösslová M. Effect of thinning regimes on growth and development of crop trees in Fagus sylvatica stands of Central Europe over fifty years. Dendrobiology. 2018;79:141–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. van der Maaten E. Thinning prolongs growth duration of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) across a valley in southwestern Germany. For Ecol Manage. Elsevier; 2013;306:135–41.

  55. Cardil A, Imbert JB, Camarero JJ, Primicia I, Castillo F. Temporal interactions among throughfall, type of canopy and thinning drive radial growth in an Iberian mixed pine-beech forest. Agric For Meteorol. Elsevier; 2018;252:62–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cescatti A, Piutti E. Silvicultural alternatives, competition regime and sensitivity to climate in a European beech forest. For Ecol Manag. Elsevier; 1998;102:213–23.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Becagli C, Puletti N, Chiavetta U, Cantiani P, Salvati L, Fabbio G. Early impact of alternative thinning approaches on structure diversity and complexity at stand level in two beech forests in Italy. Ann Silvic Res. 2013;37.

  58. Fabbio G, Cantiani P, Ferretti F, Di Salvatore U, Bertini G, Becagli C, et al. Sustainable land management, adaptive silviculture, and new forest challenges: evidence from a latitudinal gradient in Italy. Sustain. 2018.

  59. Diaconu D, Kahle H-P, Spiecker H. Thinning increases drought tolerance of European beech: a case study on two forested slopes on opposite sides of a valley. Eur J For Res. 2017;136:319–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sohn JA, Saha S, Bauhus J. Potential of forest thinning to mitigate drought stress: a meta-analysis. For Ecol Manage. 2016;380:261–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Mausolf K, Wilm P, Härdtle W, Jansen K, Schuldt B, Sturm K, et al. Higher drought sensitivity of radial growth of European beech in managed than in unmanaged forests. Sci Total Environ. 2018;642:1201–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Chiavetta U, Skudnik M, Becagli C, Bertini G, Ferretti F, Cantiani P, et al. Diversity of structure through silviculture. Ital J Agron. 2016;11.

  63. Rambo TR, North MP. Canopy microclimate response to pattern and density of thinning in a Sierra Nevada forest. For Ecol Manag. Elsevier; 2009;257:435–42.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Latif ZA, Blackburn GA. The effects of gap size on some microclimate variables during late summer and autumn in a temperate broadleaved deciduous forest. Int J Biometeorol. Springer; 2010;54:119–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Pretzsch H. The course of tree growth. Theory and reality. For Ecol Manage. 2020;478:118508. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112720312779.

  66. Pretzsch H. Trees grow modulated by the ecological memory of their past growth. Consequences for monitoring, modelling, and silvicultural treatment. For Ecol Manage. 2021;487:118982. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112721000712.

  67. Castaño-Santamaría J, López-Sánchez CA, Obeso JR, Barrio-Anta M. Modelling and mapping beech forest distribution and site productivity under different climate change scenarios in the Cantabrian Range (North-western Spain). For Ecol Manage. Elsevier; 2019;450:117488.

  68. de Dios RS, Hernández L, Montes F, Sainz-Ollero H, Cañellas I. Tracking the leading edge of Fagus sylvatica in North-Western Iberia: Holocene migration inertia, forest succession and recent global change. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. Elsevier; 2016;20:11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Innangi M, d Alessandro F, Fioretto A, Di Febbraro M. Modeling distribution of Mediterranean beech forests and soil carbon stock under climate change scenarios. Clim Res. 2015;66:25–36.

  70. Stojanović DB, Kržič A, Matović B, Orlović S, Duputie A, Djurdjević V, et al. Prediction of the European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) xeric limit using a regional climate model: an example from southeast Europe. Agric For Meteorol. Elsevier; 2013;176:94–103.

  71. Kramer K, Degen B, Buschbom J, Hickler T, Thuiller W, Sykes MT, et al. Modelling exploration of the future of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) under climate change—range, abundance, genetic diversity and adaptive response. For Ecol Manage. Elsevier; 2010;259:2213–22.

  72. Hanewinkel M, Cullmann DA, Schelhaas M-J, Nabuurs G-J, Zimmermann NE. Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land. Nat Clim Chang. 2013;3:203–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Brandl S, Paul C, Knoke T, Falk W. The influence of climate and management on survival probability for Germany’s most important tree species. For Ecol Manage. 2020;458:117652. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112719316068.

  74. Albert M, Nagel R-V, Sutmöller J, Schmidt M. Quantifying the effect of persistent dryer climates on forest productivity and implications for forest planning: a case study in northern Germany. For Ecosyst. 2018;5:33. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-018-0152-0.

  75. Pretzsch H, del Río M, Ammer C, Avdagic A, Barbeito I, Bielak K, et al. Growth and yield of mixed versus pure stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) analysed along a productivity gradient through Europe. Eur J For Res. 2015;134:927–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Versace S, Garfi V, Dalponte M, Di Febbraro M, Frizzera L, Gianelle D, et al. Species interactions in pure and mixed-species stands of silver fir and European beech in Mediterranean mountains. iForest - Biogeosciences For. SISEF - Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology; 2021;14:1–11.

  77. Versace S, Gianelle D, Garfì V, Battipaglia G, Lombardi F, Marchetti M, et al. Interannual radial growth sensitivity to climatic variations and extreme events in mixed-species and pure forest stands of silver fir and European beech in the Italian Peninsula. Eur J For Res. 2020;139:627–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Heym M, Ruíz-Peinado R, Del Río M, Bielak K, Forrester DI, Dirnberger G, et al. EuMIXFOR empirical forest mensuration and ring width data from pure and mixed stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) through Europe. Ann For Sci. 2017;74:63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-017-0660-z.

  79. Pretzsch H, Bielak K, Block J, Bruchwald A, Dieler J, Ehrhart H-P, et al. Productivity of mixed versus pure stands of oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. and Quercus robur L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) along an ecological gradient. Eur J For Res. 2013;132:263–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Pretzsch H, Hilmers T, Uhl E, Bielak K, Bosela M, del Rio M, et al. European beech stem diameter grows better in mixed than in mono-specific stands at the edge of its distribution in mountain forests. Eur J For Res. 2021;140:127–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. del Río M, Vergarechea M, Hilmers T, Alday JG, Avdagić A, Binderh F, et al. Effects of elevation-dependent climate warming on intra- and inter-specific growth synchrony in mixed mountain forests. For Ecol Manage. 2021;479:118587. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112720313566.

  82. Bolte A, Kampf F, Hilbrig L. Space sequestration below ground in old-growth spruce-beech forests—signs for facilitation? . Front. Plant Sci. . 2013. p. 322.

  83. Gonzalez de Andres E, Seely B, Blanco JA, Imbert JB, Lo Y, Castillo FJ. Increased complementarity in water‐limited environments in Scots pine and European beech mixtures under climate change. Ecohydrology. Wiley Online Library; 2017;10:e1810.

  84. Schwarz JA, Bauhus J. Benefits of mixtures on growth performance of silver fir (Abies alba) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica) increase with tree size without reducing drought tolerance. Front For Glob Chang. 2019. p. 79.

  85. Thurm EA, Uhl E, Pretzsch H. Mixture reduces climate sensitivity of Douglas-fir stem growth. For Ecol Manage. 2016;376:205–20. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112716303176.

  86. Maleki K, Zeller L, Pretzsch H. Oak often needs to be promoted in mixed beech-oak stands-the structural processes behind competition and silvicultural management in mixed stands of European beech and sessile oak. iForest-Biogeosciences For. SISEF-Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology; 2020;13:80.

  87. Rubio-Cuadrado Á, Camarero JJ, Del Rio M, Sánchez-González M, Ruiz-Peinado R, Bravo-Oviedo A, et al. Drought modifies tree competitiveness in an oak-beech temperate forest. For Ecol Manag. Elsevier; 2018;429:7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  88. • Hilmers T, Avdagić A, Bartkowicz L, Bielak K, Binder F, Bončina A, et al. The productivity of mixed mountain forests comprised of Fagus sylvatica, Picea abies, and Abies alba across Europe. For An Int J For Res. Oxford University Press; 2019;92:512–22. This article highlights how European mixed mountain forests have so far been stable in terms of volume growth in relation to climate change. The reduction of volume increment of one species was compensated by higher volume increments of another species; for this reason, the study affirms that mixed forests were recognised as an adaptation strategy to climate change.

  89. Varsamis G, Merou T, Takos I, Malesios C, Manolis A, Papageorgiou AC. Seed adaptive traits of Fagus sylvatica populations in Northeastern Greece. For Sci. 2020;66:403–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Kempf M. Morphological variability of beech leaves from early and late flushing provenances. Balt For. 2018;24:210–7.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Knutzen F, Meier IC, Leuschner C. Does reduced precipitation trigger physiological and morphological drought adaptations in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.)? Comparing provenances across a precipitation gradient. Tree Physiol. Oxford University Press; 2015;35:949–63.

  92. Cuervo-Alarcon L, Arend M, Müller M, Sperisen C, Finkeldey R, Krutovsky KV. Genetic variation and signatures of natural selection in populations of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) along precipitation gradients. Tree Genet Genomes. 2018;14:84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Mishra B, Gupta DK, Pfenninger M, Hickler T, Langer E, Nam B, et al. A reference genome of the European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). Gigascience. 2018;7.

  94. Barna M, Bosela M. Tree species diversity change in natural regeneration of a beech forest under different management. For Ecol Manag. Elsevier; 2015;342:93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Lin N, Bartsch N, Vor T. Long-term effects of gap creation and liming on understory vegetation with a focus on tree regeneration in a European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forest. Ann For Res. 2014;57:233–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Wagner S, Collet C, Madsen P, Nakashizuka T, Nyland RD, Sagheb-Talebi K. Beech regeneration research: from ecological to silvicultural aspects. For Ecol Manag. Elsevier; 2010;259:2172–82.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Fotelli MN, Geßler A, Peuke AD, Rennenberg H. Drought affects the competitive interactions between Fagus sylvatica seedlings and an early successional species, Rubus fruticosus: responses of growth, water status and δ13C composition. New Phytol. Wiley Online Library; 2001;151:427–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Bolte A, Hilbrig L, Grundmann BM, Roloff A. Understory dynamics after disturbance accelerate succession from spruce to beech-dominated forest—the Siggaboda case study. Ann For Sci. Springer; 2014;71:139–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Ascoli D, Castagneri D, Valsecchi C, Conedera M, Bovio G. Post-fire restoration of beech stands in the Southern Alps by natural regeneration. Ecol Eng. Elsevier; 2013;54:210–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Maringer J, Conedera M, Ascoli D, Schmatz DR, Wohlgemuth T. Resilience of European beech forests (Fagus sylvatica L.) after fire in a global change context. Int J Wildl Fire. CSIRO; 2016;25:699–710.

  101. Cutini A, Chianucci F, Giannini T, Manetti MC, Salvati L. Is anticipated seed cutting an effective option to accelerate transition to high forest in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) coppice stands? Ann For Sci. Springer; 2015;72:631–40.

  102. Vacchiano G, Hacket-Pain A, Turco M, Motta R, Maringer J, Conedera M, et al. Spatial patterns and broad-scale weather cues of beech mast seeding in Europe. New Phytol. Wiley Online Library; 2017;215:595–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Vacchiano G, Ascoli D, Berzaghi F, Lucas-Borja ME, Caignard T, Collalti A, et al. Reproducing reproduction: how to simulate mast seeding in forest models. Ecol Modell. 2018;376:40–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Pretzsch H, del Río M, Biber P, Arcangeli C, Bielak K, Brang P, et al. Maintenance of long-term experiments for unique insights into forest growth dynamics and trends: review and perspectives. Eur J For Res. Springer; 2019;138:165–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Pretzsch H. The social drift of trees. Consequence for growth trend detection, stand dynamics, and silviculture. Eur J For Res. 2021;140:703–19. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01351-y.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was realized with the contribution of the LIFE Programme of the European Union — Project AForClimate “Adaptation of FORrest management to CLIMATE variability: an ecological approach” (LIFE15 CCA/IT/000089).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Agricoltura Ambiente ed Alimenti, Università degli Studi del Molise, Via F. de Sanctis, 86100, Campobasso, Italy

    Serena Antonucci, Giovanni Santopuoli & Roberto Tognetti

  2. Dipartimento di Bioscienze e Territorio, Università degli Studi del Molise, C. da Fonte Lappone, 86090, Pesche, IS, Italy

    Marco Marchetti & Vittorio Garfì

  3. CREA, Research Centre for Forestry and Wood, Viale S. Margherita, 80, 52100, Arezzo, Italy

    Ugo Chiavetta

Authors
  1. Serena Antonucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giovanni Santopuoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Marchetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roberto Tognetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ugo Chiavetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vittorio Garfì
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Santopuoli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antonucci, S., Santopuoli, G., Marchetti, M. et al. What Is Known About the Management of European Beech Forests Facing Climate Change? A Review. Curr Forestry Rep 7, 321–333 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-021-00149-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-021-00149-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation