Annals of Forest Science

, Volume 66, Issue 7, pp 701–701 | Cite as

The influences of forest stand management on biotic and abiotic risks of damage

  • Hervé Jactel
  • Bruce C. Nicoll
  • Manuela Branco
  • José Ramon Gonzalez-Olabarria
  • Wojciech Grodzki
  • Bo Långström
  • Francisco Moreira
  • Sigrid Netherer
  • Christophe Orazio
  • Dominique Piou
  • Helena Santos
  • Mart Jan Schelhaas
  • Karl Tojic
  • Floor Vodde
Review Article

Abstract

  • • This article synthesizes and reviews the available information on the effects of forestry practices on the occurrence of biotic and abiotic hazards, as well as on stand susceptibility to these damaging agents, concentrating on mammal herbivores, pest insects, pathogenic fungi, wind and fire.

  • • The management operations examined are site selection, site preparation, stand composition, regeneration method, cleaning and weed control, thinning and pruning, and harvesting. For each of these operations we have examined how they influence the occurrence of biotic and abiotic damaging agents, the susceptibility of European forests, and describe the ecological processes that may explain these influences.

  • • Overall, we find that the silvicultural operations that have the largest influence on both biotic and abiotic risks to European forest stands are closely related to species composition and the structure of the overstorey. Four main processes that drive the causal relationships between stand management and susceptibility have been identified: effect on local microclimate, provision of fuel and resources to biotic and abiotic hazards, enhancement of biological control by natural enemies and changes in individual tree physiology and development.

  • • The review demonstrates an opportunity to develop silvicultural methods that achieve forest management objectives at the same time as minimising biotic and abiotic risks.

Keywords

silviculture stand occurrence susceptibility pest pathogen wind fire 

Influences de la sylviculture sur le risque de dégâts biotiques et abiotiques dans les peuplements forestiers

Résumé

  • • Cette revue bibliographique s’intéresse aux effets de la sylviculture sur la sensibilité des peuplements forestiers aux principaux agents de dégâts biotiques et abiotiques que sont les mammifères herbivores, les insectes ravageurs, les champignons pathogènes, le feu et les vents forts.

  • • Les pratiques forestières analysées sont la sélection et la préparation des sites de reboisement, la définition de la composition en essences et le choix du matériel génétique, les méthodes de régénération et d’entretien, les modalités d’éclaircie et d’élagage, le mode de récolte finale. L’influence de chacune de ces opérations sur l’occurrence des agents de dégâts biotiques et abiotiques et sur la sensibilité des peuplements est examinée ainsi que les processus écologiques sous-jacents.

  • • Les opérations sylvicoles qui se révèlent les plus déterminantes pour la sensibilité des forêts en Europe sont celles qui affectent la composition et la structure de la strate arborée. Quatre principaux processus écologiques semblent expliquer la relation entre sylviculture et sensibilité des peuplements : la modification du micro-climat, l’apport de ressources ou de combustible aux agents de dégâts, l’amélioration du contrôle biologique par les ennemis naturels et l’altération de la physiologie et du développement des arbres.

  • • Cette revue permet donc d’envisager le développement de méthodes de gestion des peuplements forestiers qui permettent d’atteindre les objectifs de production tout en minimisant les risques de dégâts sanitaires.

Mots-clés

sylviculture peuplement occurrence sensibilité herbivores pathogénes vent feu 

References

  1. Agee J.K. and Skinner C.N., 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. For. Ecol. Manage. 211: 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agee J.K., 1993. Fire ecology of pacific northwest forests, Island Press, Washington D.C., 493 p.Google Scholar
  3. Agee J.K., Bahro B., Finney M.A., Omi P.N., Sapsis D.B., Skinner C.N., van Wagtendonk J.W., and Weatherspoon C.P., 2000. The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. For. Ecol. Manage. 127: 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amman G.D., 1973. Population changes of the mountain pine beetle in relation to elevation. Environ. Entomol. 2: 541–547.Google Scholar
  5. Amman G.D., 1989. Why partial cutting in lodgepole pine stands reduce losses to mountain pine beetle, GTR-INT-262, U.S. department of agriculture, forest service, intermountain research station, Ogden UT, 12 p.Google Scholar
  6. Andersen K.F., 1954. Gales and gale damage to forests, with special reference to the effects of the storm of 31st, January 1953, in the northeast of Scotland. Forestry 27: 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anglberger H. and Halmschlager E., 2003. The severity of Sirococcus shoot blight in mature Norway spruce stands with regard to tree nutrition, topography and stand age. For. Ecol. Manage. 177: 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baier P., Pennerstorfer J., and Schopf A., 2007. Phenips — A comprehensive phenology model of Ips typographus (L.) (Col. Scolytidae) as a tool for hazard rating of bark beetle infestation. For. Ecol. Manage. 249: 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baltensweiler W. and Fischlin A., 1988. The larch budmoth in the Alps. Chapter 17. In: Berryman, A.A. (Ed.), Dynamics of forest insect populations: patterns, causes, implications, Plenum, New York, pp. 331–351.Google Scholar
  10. Barbaro L., Couzi L., Bretagnolle V., Nezan J., and Vetillard F., 2007. Multi-scale habitat selection and foraging ecology of the eurasian hoopoe (Upupa epops) in pine plantations, Biodivers. Conserv. (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Barre F., Milsant F., Palasse C., Prigent V., Goussard F., and Geri C., 2002. Preference and performance of the sawfly Diprion pini on host and non-host plants of the genus Pinus. Ent. Exp. App. 102: 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barthod C., 1995. Sylviculture et risques sanitaires dans les forêts tempérées — 2e partie. Rev. For. Fr. 47: 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berthelot A., Bastien C., Villar M., Pinon J., Heois B., Bourlon V., and Menard M., 2005. Le GIS Peuplier, 4 ans après sa création. In: Informations — forêt, Afocel No. 708, 6 p.Google Scholar
  14. Bigger M., 1985. The effect of attack by Amblypelta cocophaga (Hemiptera: Coreidae) on growth of Eucalyptus deglupta in the Solomon Islands. Bull. Ent. Res. 75: 595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Björklund N., Nordlander G., and Bylund H., 2003. Host-plant acceptance on mineral soil and humus by the pine weevil Hylobius abietis (L.). Agric. For. Entomol. 5: 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Black H.C., 1992. Silvicultural approaches to animal damage management in pacific Northwest forests. PNW-GTR-287, U.S. department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific NW Research Station, Portland, Oregon, 439 p.Google Scholar
  17. Blennow K. and Sallnas O., 2002. Risk perception among non-industrial private forest owners. Scand. J. For. Res. 17: 472–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blodgett J.T., Herms D.A., and Bonello P., 2005. Effects of fertilization on red pine defence chemistry and resistance to Sphaeropsis sapinea. For. Ecol. Manage. 208: 373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bond W.J. and Van Wilgen B.W., 1996. Why and how do ecosystems burn? Fire and Plants, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 17–33.Google Scholar
  20. Brandeis T.J., Newton M., and Cole E.C., 2002. Biotic injuries on conifer seedlings planted in forest understory environments. New For. 24: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brandtberg P.O., Johansson M., and Seeger P., 1996. Effects of season and urea treatment on infection of stumps of Picea abies by Heterobasidion annosum in stands on former arable land. Scan. J. For. Res. 11: 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brasier C.M., Beales P.A., Kirk S.A., Denman S., and Rose J., 2005. Phytophthora kernoviae sp. nov., an invasive pathogen causing bleeding stem lesions on forest trees and foliar necrosis of ornamentals in the UK. Mycol. Res. 109: 853–859.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bruhn J.N., Wetteroff J.J., Jr. Mihail J.D., Jensen R.G., and Pickens J.B., 2002. Harvest-associated disturbance in upland Ozark forests of the Missouri Ozark forest ecosystem project. GTR-NC-227, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, pp. 130–146.Google Scholar
  24. Bryndum H., 1986. Influence of silvicultural treatment of crops on the risk of windblow. Minimizing Wind Damage to Coniferous Stands. Proceedings of the workshop organized jointly by the Danish forest experiment station and the commission of the european communities at Løvenholm Castle, Denmark, March 3–7 (ed. Communities, CotE), Løvenholm Castle, Denmark, 35 p.Google Scholar
  25. Caldeira M.C., Fernandez V., Tome J., and Pereira J.S., 2002. Positive effect of drought on longicorn borer larval survival and growth on eucalyptus trunks. Ann. For. Sci. 59: 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cameron A.D., 2002. Importance of early selective thinning in the development of long-term stand stability and improved log quality: a review. Forestry 75: 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Camy C., Dreyer E., Delatour C., and Marcais B., 2003. Responses of the root rot fungus Collybia fusipes to soil waterlogging and oxygen availability. Mycol. Res. 107: 1103–1109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Capecki Z., Grodzki W., and Zwolinski A., 1989. Gradacja wskaźnicy modrzewianeczki Zeiraphera griseana Hb. (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae) w Polsce a latach 1997–1983, Prace Inst. Bad. Leś. 688/690: 95–152.Google Scholar
  29. Carey H. and Schumann M., 2003. Modifying wildfire behaviour — the effectiveness of fuel treatments: the status of our knowledge, national community forestry center, southwest region working paper, 31 p.Google Scholar
  30. Carrow J.R. and Betts R.E., 1973. Effects of different foliar-applied nitrogen fertilisers on balsam woody aphid. Can. J. For. Res. 3: 122–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chou C.K.S. and MacKenzie M., 1988. Effect of pruning intensity and season on Diplodia pinea infection of Pinus radiata stem through pruning wounds. Eur. J. For. Path. 18: 437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Colin, F., Brunet, Y., Vinkler, I., and Dhôte, J.F., 2008. Résistance aux vents forts des peuplements forestiers, et notamment des mélanges d’espèces. Rev. For. Fr. LX: 191–201.Google Scholar
  33. Coutts M.P., Nielsen C.N., and Nicoll B.C., 1999. The development of symmetry, rigidity and anchorage in the structural root system of conifers. Plant Soil 217: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Delb H., 2004. Rindenbrüter an Buche. In: FVA Waldschutzinfo, Vol. 2004, FVA Baden, Württemberg.Google Scholar
  35. Demolin G., 1969. Comportement des adultes de Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff. Dispersion spatiale, importance écologique. Ann. Sci. For. 26: 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Desprez-Loustau M.L. and Wagner K., 1997a. Components of maritime pine susceptibility to twisting rust — A path coefficient analysis. Eur. J. Plant. Pathol. 103: 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Desprez-Loustau M.L. and Wagner K., 1997b. Influence of silvicultural practices on twisting rust infection and damage in maritime pine, as related to growth. For. Ecol. Manage. 98: 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Desprez-Loustau M.L., Marcais B., Nageleisen L.M., Piou D., and Vannini A., 2006. Interactive effects of drought and pathogens in forest trees. Ann. For. Sci. 63: 597–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dhôte J.F., 2005. Implication of forest diversity in resistance to strong winds. In: Scherer-Lorenzen M., Körner C., and Schulze E.D. (Eds), Forest diversity and function — temperate and boreal systems, Springer Verlag. Ecological studies 176: 291–308.Google Scholar
  40. Dickson J.G., 1979. Seasonal population of insectivorous birds in mature bottomland hardwood forest in south Louisiana. In: Dickson J.G., Connor R.N., Fleet R.R., Jackson J.A., and Kroll J.C. (Eds), The role of insectivorous birds in forest ecosystems, Academic Press, New York, pp. 261–269.Google Scholar
  41. Dimitrakopoulos A.P. and Papaioannou K.K., 2001. Flammability assessment of Mediterranean forest fuels. Fire Technol. 37: 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Dini-Papanastasi O., 2008. Effects of clonal selection on biomass production and quality in Robinia pseudoacacia var. monophylla Carr. For. Ecol. Manage. 256: 849–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Dungey H.S., Potes B.M., Carnegie A.J., and Ades P.K., 1997. Mycosphaerella leaf disease: genetic variation in damage to Eucalyptus nitens, Eucalyptus globulus, and their F-1 hybrid. Can. J. For. Res. 27: 750–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Elek J.A., 1997. Assessing the impact of leaf beetles in eucalyptus plantations and exploring options for their management. Tasforests 9: 139–154.Google Scholar
  45. Emmingham W.H., Bondi M., and Hibbs D.E., 1989. Underplanting western hemlock in a red alder thinning: early survival, growth and damage. New For. 3: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Eriksson M., Lilja S., and Roininen H., 2006. Dead wood creation and restoration burning: implications for bark beetles and beetle induced tree deaths. For. Ecol. Manage. 231: 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. FAO, 2007. state of the world’s forests 2007. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 144 p.Google Scholar
  48. Fedorov N.J. and Poleschuk J.M., 1981. Conifer root rot studies in the USSR for the years 1976–1978. Eur. J. For. Pathol. 11: 44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Fernandes P.M. and Rigolot E., 2007. The fire ecology and management of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.). For. Ecol. Manage. 241: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Fettig C.J., Klepzig K.D., Billings R.F., Munson A.S., Nebeker T.E., Negrón J.F., and Nowak J.T., 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. For. Ecol. Manage. 238: 24–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Finke D.L. and Denno, R.F., 2002. Intraguild predation diminished in complex-structured vegetation: implications for prey suppression. Ecology 83: 643–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Finney M.A., 1999. Mechanistic modelling of landscape fire patterns. In: Mladenoff D.J. and Baker W.L. (Eds), Spatial modelling of forest landscape change: approaches and applications, Cambridge University press, Cambridge UK, pp. 186–209.Google Scholar
  53. Frutos R. Rang C., and Royer M., 1999. Managing insect resistance to plants producing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. Crit. Rev. Biot. 19: 227–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Führer E. and Nopp U., 2001. Ursachen, Vorbeugung und Sanierung von Waldschäden, Facultas, Vienna, Austria, 514 p.Google Scholar
  55. Fuller A.K., Harrison D.J., and Lachowski H.J., 2004. Stand scale effects of partial harvesting and clearcutting on small mammals and forest structure. For. Ecol. Manage. 191: 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gara R.I., Millegan D.R., and Gibson K.E., 1999. Integrated pest management of Ips pini (Col., Scolytidae) populations in south-eastern Montana. J. Appl. Entomol. 123: 529–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Gardiner B., Marshall B., Achim A., Belcher R., and Wood C., 2005. The stability of different silvicultural systems: a wind tunnel investigation. Forestry 78, 471–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gardiner B.A. and Quine C.P., 2000. Management of forests to reduce the risk of abiotic damage — a review with particular reference to the effects of strong winds. For. Ecol. Manage. 135: 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Gerlach J.P., Reich P.B., Puettman K., and Baker T., 1997. Species, diversity, and density affect tree seedling mortality from Armillaria root rot. Can. J. For. Res. 27: 1509–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Germishuizen P.J., 1984. Rhizina undulata, a pine seedling pathogen in southern Africa. In: Grey D.C., Schönau A.P.G., Schutz C.J., and Van Laar A. (Eds.), Symposium on site and productivity of fast growing plantations, Pretoria and Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, pp. 753–765.Google Scholar
  61. Gibbs J.N., Greig B.J.W., and Pratt J.E., 2002. Fomes root rot inany given site. Although some of the slightly infected thetford forest, East Anglia: Past, present and future trees in crown condition. Forestry 75: 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. González J.R., Palahí M., Trasobares A., and Pukkala, T., 2006. A fire probability model for forest stands in Catalonia (north-east Spain). Ann. For. Sci. 63: 169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. González J.R. and Pukkala T., 2007. Characterization of wildfire events in Catalonia (north-east Spain). Eur. J. For.Res. 126: 421–429.Google Scholar
  64. González J.R., Kolehmainen O., and Pukkala T., 2007a. Using expert knowledge to model forest stands vulnerability. Comput. Electron. Agric. 55: 1007–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. González J.R., Trasobares A., Palahí M., and Pukkala T., 2007b. Predicting tree survival in burned forests in Catalonia (North-East Spain) for strategic forest planning. Ann. For. Sci. 64: 733–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Grégoire J-C., 1988. The greater European spruce beetle. In: Berryman A.A. (Ed.), Dynamics of forest insect populations: patterns, causes, implications, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 455–478.Google Scholar
  67. Grodzki W., 1997. Pityogenes chalcographus (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) — an indicator of man-made changes in Norway spruce stands, Biológia, Bratislava 52: 217–220.Google Scholar
  68. Grodzki W., Jakuš R., Lajzová E., Sitková Z., Mźczka T., and Skvarenina J., 2006. Effects of intensive versus no management strategies during an outbreak of the bark beetle Ips typographus (L.) (Col.: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) in the Tatra Mts. in Poland and Slovakia. Ann. For. Sci. 63: 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Grodzki W., Kosibowicz M., and Jachym M., 1999. Róznorodność biologiczna ekosystemów a problemy ochrony lasów górskich. Sylwan 143: 21–31.Google Scholar
  70. Gruppe A., Fußede, M., and Schopf R., 1999. Short-rotation plantations of balsam poplar and aspen on former arable land in the Federal Republic of Germany: Defoliation insects and leaf constituents. For. Ecol. Manage. 121: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Guibert B., Maizeret C., Ballon P., and Montes E., 1992. Influence of forest management on roe deer populations in the Landes of Gascony. In: Proceedings of the international symposium “Ongulés/Ungulates 91”, Toulouse, France, September 2–6, 1991, pp. 617–620.Google Scholar
  72. Harfouche A., Baradat P., and Kremer A., 1995. Intraspecific variability in maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) in the south-east of France. II. Heterosis and combination of characters in interracial hybrids. Ann. Sci. For. 52: 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Harju A. and Tahvanainen J., 1997. Palatability of silver birch seedlings to root voles Microtus oeconomus. Ecography 20: 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Harlow R.F., Downing R.L., and van Lear D.H., 1997. Responses of wildlife to clearcutting and associated treatments in the Eastern United States, Technical paper No 19, Department of Forest Resources, Clemson University.Google Scholar
  75. Heimburger C., 1962. Breeding for disease resistance in forest trees. For. Chron. 38: 356–362.Google Scholar
  76. Hély C., Flannigan M., and Bergeron Y., 2003. Modeling Tree Mortality Following Wildfire in the Southeastern Canadian mixed-wood boreal forest. For. Sci. 49: 566–576.Google Scholar
  77. Herms D.A., 2002. Effects of fertilization on insect resistance of effect of nitrogen on disease development and gene expression in woody ornamental plants: reassessing an entrenched paradigm. Environ. Entomol. 31: 923–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Hessburg P.F., Goheen D.J., and Koester H., 2001. Association of black stain root disease with roads, skid trails, and precommercial thinning in Southwest Oregon. Western J. Appl. For. 16: 127–135.Google Scholar
  79. Heybroek H.M., 1982. Monoculture versus mixture: interactions between susceptible and resistant trees in mixed stand. In: Heybroek H.M., Stephan B.R., and von Weissenberg K. (Eds), Resistance to disease and pest in forest trees, Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, pp. 326–341.Google Scholar
  80. Highsmith M.T., Frampton J., O’Malley D., Richmond J., and Webb M., 2001. Susceptibility of parent and interspecific F1 hybrid pine trees to tip moth damage in a coastal North Carolina planting. Can. J. For. Res. 31: 919–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Hlásny T. and Turčání M., 2008. Insect pests as climate change driven disturbances in forest ecosystems, bioclimatology and natural hazards, Springer Verlag (in press).Google Scholar
  82. Holmsgaard E., 1986. Historical development of wind damage in conifers in Denmark. In: minimizing wind Damage to coniferous stands. Proceedings of the workshop organized jointly by the Danish Forest Experiment Station and the Commission of the European Communities at Løvenholm Castle, Denmark, March 3–7 (Ed. Communities, CotE), Løvenholm Castle, Denmark.Google Scholar
  83. Hood I.A., Kimberley M.O., Gardner J.F., and Sandberg C.J., 2002. Armillaria root disease of Pinus radiata in New Zealand. 3: Influence of thinning and pruning. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 32: 116–132.Google Scholar
  84. Hougardy E. and Grégoire J.C., 2000. Spruce stands provide natural food sources to adult hymenopteran parasitoids of bark beetles. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 96: 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Huss J. and Olberg-Kalfass R., 1982. Unerwunschte Wechselwirkungen zwischen Unkrautbekämpfungen und Rehwildshäden in Fichtenkulturen. Allg. Forstz. 37: 1329–1331.Google Scholar
  86. Jactel H. and Brockerhoff E., 2007. Tree diversity reduces herbivory by forest insects. Ecol. Lett. 10: 835–848.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Jactel H., Brockerhoff E., and Duelli P., 2005. A test of the biodiversitystability theory: meta-analysis of tree species diversity effects on insect pest infestations, and re-examination of responsible factors. In: Scherer-Lorenzen M., Körner C., and Schulze E.-D. (Eds), Forest diversity and function — temperate and boreal systems, Springer Verlag. Ecological studies 176: 235–262.Google Scholar
  88. Jactel H., Menassieu P., and Kleinhentz M., 1996. Vigour increases the susceptibility of the maritime pine to attack by Dioryctria sylvestrella. In: Calatayud P.A. and Vercambre B. (Eds.), Insect and plant interactions, papers of the fifth meeting of the working group on insect and plant relations, 26–27 October 1995, Montpellier, France, pp. 82–84.Google Scholar
  89. Jactel H., Menassieu P., Vétillard F., Gaulier A., Samalens J.C., and Brockenhoff E.G., 2006. Tree species diversity reduces the invasibility of maritime pine stands by the bast Matsucoccus feytaudi (Homoptera: Margarodidae). Can. J. For. Res. 36: 314–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Jactel H., Branco M., Gonzalez-Olabarria J.R., Grodzki W., Långström B., Moreira F., Netherer S., Nicoll B.C, Orazio C., Piou D., Santos H., Schelhaas M.J., Tojic K., and Vodde F., 2008. Forest stands management and vulnerability to biotic and abiotic hazards, EFORWOOD report PD 243, 88 p. http://87.192.2.62/Eforwood/ Portals/0/documents/D2.4.3_FINAL_toAK20080707.pdfGoogle Scholar
  91. Johansson M. and Marklund E., 1980. Antagonists of Fomes annosus in the rhizosphere of grey alder (Alnus incana) and Norway spruce (Picea abies). Eur. J. For. Pathol. 10: 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Kalabokidis K.D. and Omi P.N., 1998. Reduction of fire hazard through thinning/residue disposal in the urban interface. Int. J. Wildl. Fire. 8: 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Karlman, M., Hansson P., Witzell J., 1994. Scleroderris canker on Lodgepole pine introduced in Northern Sweden. Can. J. For. Res. 24: 1948–1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Klein E., 1997. Buchenkrebse in Jungwuchsen und Buchen‘T-Krebse’. Forst. Holz 52: 58–61.Google Scholar
  95. Kleinhentz M., Raffin A., and Jactel H., 1998. Genetic parameters and gain expected from direct selection for resistance to Dioryctria sylvestrella Ratz. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Pinus pinaster Ait., using a full diallel mating design. For. Genet. 5: 147–154.Google Scholar
  96. Korhonen K., Delatour C., Greig B.J.W., and Schönhar S., 1998. Silvicultural control. In: Woodward S., Stenlid J., Karjalainen R., and Hüttermann A. (Eds.), Heterobasidion annosum. Biology, ecology, impact and control, CAB International, Cambridge, 589 p.Google Scholar
  97. Kouki J., McCullough D.G., and Marshall L.D., 1997. Effect of forest stand and edge characteristics on the vulnerability of jack pine stands to jack pine budworm (Choristoneura pinus) damage. Can. J. For. Res. 1: 1765–1772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Kraus J.F., 1986. Breeding shortleaf × loblolly pine hybrids for the development of fusiform rust-resistant loblolly pine. South. J. Appl. For. 10: 195–197.Google Scholar
  99. Kron W., 2002. Flood risk = hazard × exposure × vulnerability. In: Wu M. et al. (Eds.), Flood defence, Science Press, New York, pp. 82–97.Google Scholar
  100. Kytö M., 1999. Impact of forest fertilization on the vitality and pest resitance of conifers, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa Research Institute, Research Papers, 742, 40 p.Google Scholar
  101. Kytö M., Niemelä P., and Annila E., 1996a. Vitality and bark beetle resistance of fertilized Norway spruce. For. Ecol. Manage. 84: 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Kytö M., Niemelä P., and Larsson S., 1996b. Insects on trees: population and individual response to fertilization. Oikos 75: 148–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Laiho O., 1987. Metsiköiden alttius tuulituholle Etelä-Suomessa. Susceptibility of forest stands to windthrow in southern Finland, Folia forestalia, Metsaentutkimuslaitos, Helsinki, 706 p.Google Scholar
  104. Landmann G., 1998. Forest health, silviculture and forest management. In: Montoye R. (Ed.), Problemas sanitarios en los sistemas forestales: de los espacios protegidos a los cultivados rapido, Coleccion technica, organismo autonomo parques nacionales, Madrid, pp. 155–183.Google Scholar
  105. Långström B. and Day K.R., 2002. Damage, control and management of weevil pests, especially Hylobius abietis. In: Lieutier F., Day K.R., Battisti A., Grégoire J.C., and Evans H.F. (Eds), Bark and wood boring insects in living trees in Europe, a synthesis, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, Boston, London, pp. 415–444.Google Scholar
  106. Larsson S. and Tenow O., 1984. Areal distribution of a Neodiprion sertifer outbreak on Scots pine as related to stand condition. Holarc. Ecol. 7: 81–90.Google Scholar
  107. Legrand P., Lung-Escarmant B., and Guillaumi J.J., 2005. Lutte contre l’armillaire en forêts: méthodes sylvicoles et culturales. In: Guillaumin J.J. (Ed.), L’armillaire et le pourridié-agaric des végétaux ligneux, synthèses INRA, pp. 349–364.Google Scholar
  108. Lekes V. and Dandul I., 2000. Using airflow modelling and spatial analysis for defining wind damage risk classification (WINDARC). For. Ecol. Manage. 135: 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Linden M. and Vollbrecht G., 2002. Sensitivity of Picea abies to butt rot in pure stands and in mixed stands with Pinus sylvestris in southern Sweden. Silva Fenn. 36: 767–778.Google Scholar
  110. Linder P., Jonsson P., and Niklasson M., 1998. Tree mortality after prescribed burning in an old-growth Scots pine forest in northern Sweden. Silva Fenn. 32: 339–349.Google Scholar
  111. Lof M., Paulsson R., Rydberg D., and Welander N.T., 2005. The influence of different overstory removal on planted spruce and several broadleaved tree species: Survival, growth and pine weevil damage during three years. Ann. For. Sci. 62: 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Lopez-Upton J., White T.L., and Huber D.A., 2000. Species differences in early growth and rust incidence of loblolly and slash pine. For. Ecol. Manage. 132: 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Loreau M., Naeem S., Inchausti P., Bengtsson J., Grime J.P., Hector A., Hooper D.U., Husto, M.A., Raffaelli D., Schmid B., Tilman D., and Wardle D.A., 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294: 804–808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Losekrug R.G., 1988. Befall von Buchenalthölzern durch den Laubnutzholzborkenkäfer. Allg. Forstz. 34: 942–943.Google Scholar
  115. Lung-Escarmant B., Guyon D., Chauvin B., Courrier G., and Germain R., 1997. Spatial and temporal pattern of Armillaria root disease in a Pinus pinaster plantation: Incidence of understorey clearing. In: Ninth international conference on Root and Butt Rots, IUFRO working party S2.06.01, Carcans, France, pp. 439.Google Scholar
  116. Lüpke B. and Spellmann H., 1997. Aspekte der Stabilität und des Wachstums von Mischbestanden aus Fichte und Buche als Grundlage für waldbauliche entscheidungen. Forstarchiv 68: 167–179.Google Scholar
  117. MacDonald A.C., Borralho N.M.G., and Potts B.M., 1997. Genetic variation for growth and wood density in Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus in Tasmania (Australia). Silvae Genet. 46: 236–241.Google Scholar
  118. Major E.J., 1990. Water stress in Sitka Spruce and its effect on the green spruce aphid Elatobium abietinum. In: Watt A.D., Leather S.R., Hunter M.D. and Kidd N.A.C. (Eds.), Population dynamics of forest insects, Intercept Ltd, Andover, pp. 85–94.Google Scholar
  119. Maloney P.E., Lynch S.C., Kane S.F., Jensen C.E., and Rizzo D.M., 2005. Establishment of an emerging generalist pathogen in redwood forest communities. J. Ecol. 93: 899–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Marchisio C., Cescatti A. and Battisti A., 1994. Climate, soils and Cephalcia arvensis outbreaks on Picea abies in the Italian Alps. For. Ecol. Manage. 68: 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Markalas S., 1989. Influence of soil moisture on the mortality, fecundity and diapause of the pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff.). J. Appl. Entomol. 107: 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Mason W.L., 2002. Are irregular stands more windfirm? Forestry 75: 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Mattila U., 2002. The risk of pine twisting rust damage in young Scots pines: a multilevel logit model approach. For. Ecol. Manage. 165: 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Mattila U., 2005. Probability models for pine twisting rust (Melampsora pinitorqua) damage in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) stands in Finland. For. Path. 35: 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Mattson W.J., Kuokkanen K., Niemela P., Julkunen-Tiitto R., Kellomaki S., and Tahvanainen J., 2004. Elevated CO2 alters birch resistance to Lagomorpha herbivores. Glob. Chang. Biol. 10: 1402–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Maugard F., Renaud J.P., Villebonne D.d., and Pinon J., 2000. Principaux résultats de l’enquête nationale sur la rouille du peuplier à Melampsora larici-populina Kleb. In: Les Cahiers du département de la santé des forêts No 1, DGFAR — Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Forêt, France, pp. 40–45.Google Scholar
  127. McCracken, A.R., Dawson, W.M., 1997. Growing clonal mixtures of willow to reduce effect of Melampsora epitea var. epitea source: Eur. J. For. Pathol. 27: 319–329.Google Scholar
  128. MCPFE, 2002. Improved Pan-European indicators for sustainable forest management, as adopted by the MCPFE expert level meeting Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  129. Mermoz M., Kitzberger T., and Veblen T.T., 2005. Landscape influences on occurrence and spread of wildfires in Patagonian forests and shrublands. Ecology 86: 2705–2715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Metzler B., 1997. Quantitative assessment of fungal colonization in Norway spruce after green pruning. Eur. J. For. Pathol. 27: 1–11.Google Scholar
  131. Miller F.D.Jr. and Stephen F.M., 1983. Effects of competing vegetation on Nantucket pine tip moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) populations in loblolly pine plantations in Arkansas. Environ. Entomol. 12: 101–105.Google Scholar
  132. Milne R., 1991. Dynamics of swaying of Picea sitchensis. Tree Physiol. 9: 383–399.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. Miot S., Frey P., and Pinon J., 1999 Varietal mixture of poplar clones: Effects on infection by Melampsora larici-populina and on plant growth Eur. J. For. Pathol. 29: 411–423.Google Scholar
  134. Mitchell S.J., 2003. Effects of mechanical stimulus, shade, and nitrogen fertilization on morphology and bending resistance in Douglas-fir seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 33: 1602–1609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Monthey R.W., 1984. Effects of timber harvesting on ungulates in Northern Maine. J. Wildl. Manage. 48: 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Moreira F., Rego E.C., and Ferreira P.G., 2001. Temporal (1958–1995) pattern of change in a cultural landscape of northwestern Portugal: implications for fire occurrence. Landsc. Ecol. 16: 557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Morrison D.J. and Mallett K., 1996. Silvicultural management of Armillaria root disease in Western Canadian forests. Can. J. Plant. Pathol. 18: 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Mosandl R. and Felbermeier B., 1999. Auf dem Weg zum naturnahen Wald. Towards close-to-nature forest [in Bayern, Germany]. AFZ/Der Wald 54: 910–914.Google Scholar
  139. Mouillot F., Ratte J.P., Joffre R., Moreno J.M., and Rambal S., 2003. Some determinants of the spatio-temporal fire cycle in a Mediterranean landscape (Corsica, France). Landsc. Ecol. 18: 665–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Moykkynen T. and Mina J., 2002. Optimizing the management of a buttrotted Picea abies stand infected by Heterobasidion annosum from the previous rotation. Scand. J. For. Res. 17: 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Murray D.I.L., 1987. Rhizosphere microorganisms from the Jarrah forest of Western Australia and their effects on vegetative growth and sporulation in Phytophthora cinnamomi sands. Aust. J. Bot. 35: 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Muzika R.M. and Liebhold A.M., 2000. A critique of silvicultural approaches to managing defoliating insects in North America. Agric. For. Entomol. 2: 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Nageleisen L.M., Pinon J., Frey P., Marcais B., Frochot H., Ningre F., Wehrlen L., and Renaud J.P., 2002. Végétation accompagnatrice et agresseurs biotiques. Revue For. Fr. LIV: 577–584.Google Scholar
  144. Netherer S. and Führer E., 1999. Assessment of the predisposition of forest sites and stands to epidemics of the Little Spruce Sawfly, Pristiphora abietina (Christ) (Hym. Tenthr.). Allg. Forst. Jagdztg. 170: 53–60.Google Scholar
  145. Netherer S. and Nopp-Mayr U., 2005. Predisposition assessment systems (PAS) as supportive tools in forest management — Rating of site and stand-related hazards of bark beetle infestation in the High Tatra Mountains as an example for system application and verification. For. Ecol. Manage. 207: 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Neuhauser C., Andow D.A., Heimpel G.E., May G., Shaw R.G., and Wagenius S., 2003. Community genetics: expanding the synthesis of ecology and genetics. Ecology 84: 545–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Ni Dhubhain A., Walshe J., Bulfin M., Keane M., and Mills P., 2001. The initial development of a windthrow risk model for Sitka spruce in Ireland. Forestry 74: 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Nicoll B.C. and Ray D., 1996. Adaptive growth of tree root systems in response to wind action and site conditions. Tree Physiol. 16: 891–898.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. Nicoll, B.C., Easton, E.P., Milner, A.D., Walker, C., and Coutts, M.P. 1995. Wind stability factors in tree selection: distribution of biomass within root systems of Sitka spruce clones. In: M.P. Coutts and J. Grace (Eds.), Wind and trees, Cambridge University press, Cambridge, pp. 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Nicoll B.C., Gardiner B.A., Rayner B., and Peace A.J., 2006. Anchorage of coniferous trees in relation to species, soil type and rooting depth. Can. J. For. Res. 36: 1871–1883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Nordlander G., Bylund H., Örlander G., and Wallertz K., 2003. Pine weevil population density and damage to coniferous seedlings in a regeneration area with and without shelterwood. Scand. J. For. Res. 18: 438–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Nowak J.T., Harrington T.B., and Berisford C.W., 2003. Nantucket pine tip moth development and population dynamics: influence of nitrogen fertilization and vegetation control. For. Sci. 49: 731–737.Google Scholar
  153. Offergeld J.P., 1986. The consequences of the tempest of November 1984 on the forest. In: Minimizing wind damage to coniferous stands, Proceedings of the workshop organized jointly by the Danish Forest Experiment Station and the Commission of the European communities at Løvenholm Castle, Denmark, March 3–7 (Ed. Communities, CotE), Lovenholm Castle, Denmark, pp. 21–26.Google Scholar
  154. O’Hanlon-Manners D.L. and Kotanen P.M., 2004. Evidence that fungal pathogens inhibit recruitment of a shade-intolerant tree, white birch (Betula papyrifera), in understory habitats. Oecologia 140: 650–653.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Omi P.N. and Martinson E.J., 2004. Effectiveness of thinning and prescribed fire in reducing wildfire severity. In: Murphy D.D., and Stine P.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada science symposium: Science for Management and Conservation, GTR-PSW-193, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station Albany, California, pp. 87–92.Google Scholar
  156. Örlander G. and Nordlander G., 2003. Effects of field vegetation control on pine weevil (Hylobius abietis) damage to newly planted Norway spruce seedlings. Ann. For. Sci. 60: 667–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Örlander G., Nordlander G., and Wallertz K., 2001. Extra food supply decreases damage by the pine weevil Hylobius abietis. Scand. J. For. Res. 16: 450–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Oxenham R., 1983. A study on the effect of competing vegetation and browsing on early plantation performance. N. S. Dept. of Lands and Forests, Forest Tech. Note No. 5, 6 p.Google Scholar
  159. Pasquier-Barre F., Géri C., Goussard F., Auger-Rozenberg M.A., and Grenier S., 2000. Oviposition preference and larval survival of Diprion pini on Scots pine clones in relation to foliage characteristics. Agric. For. Entomol. 2: 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Pautasso M., Holdenrieder O., and Stenlid J., 2005. Susceptibility to fungal pathogens of forests differing in tree diversity. In: Scherer-Lorenzen M., Körner C. and Schulze E.-D. (Eds.), Forest diversity and function, temperate and boreal systems, ecological studies 176, pp. 263–289.Google Scholar
  161. Peacock L. and Herrick S. 2000. Responses of the willow beetle Phratora vulgatissima to genetically and spatially diverse Salix spp. plantations. J. Appl. Ecol. 37: 821–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Peacock L., Hunter T., Turner H., and Brain P., 2001. Does host geno-type diversity affect the distribution of insect and disease damage in willow cropping systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 1070–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Petercord R., 2005. Gefährden holzbesiedelnde Käfer die Rotbuche? Rheinische Bauernzeitung 49: 16–18.Google Scholar
  164. Peterson D.L., Johnson M.C., Agee J.K., Jain T.B., McKenzie D., and Reinhard E.D., 2005. Forest structure and fire hazard in dry forests of the Western United States. PNW-GTR-628, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, 30 p.Google Scholar
  165. Petersson M., Nordlander G., and Örlander G., 2006. Why vegetation increases pine weevil damage: bridge or shelter? For. Ecol. Manage. 225: 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Pietrzykowski E., McArthur C., Fitzgerald H., and Goodwin A.N., 2003. Influence of patch characteristics on browsing of tree seedlings by mammalian herbivores. J. Appl. Ecol. 40: 458–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Pinkard E.A., Baillie C., Patel V., and Mohammed C.L., 2006. Effects of fertilising with nitrogen and phosphorus on growth and crown condition of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. experiencing insect defoliation. For. Ecol. Manage. 231: 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Pinon J. and Cadic A., 2007. Les ormes résistants à la graphiose. Forêt Entreprise 175: 37–41.Google Scholar
  169. Piri T. and Korhonen K., 2007. Spatial distribution and persistence of Heterobasidion parviporum genets on a Norway spruce site. For. Pathol. 37: 1–8.Google Scholar
  170. Pitkanen A., Tormanen K., Kouki J., Jarvinen E., and Viiri H., 2005. Effects of green tree retention, prescribed burning and soil treatment on pine weevil (Hylobius abietis and Hylobius pinastri) damage to planted Scots pine seedlings. Agric. For. Entomol. 7: 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Poeppel S., 1994. Der Windwurf am 12. Februar 1894. Forst. Holz 49: 190.Google Scholar
  172. Pollet J. and Omi P.N., 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 11: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Pusenius J., Prittinen K., Roininen H., and Rousi, M., 2003. Effects of the availability of herbaceous food on vole attacks on birch seedlings. Ecoscience 10: 155–160.Google Scholar
  174. Pyne S.J., Andrews P.L., and Laven R.D., 1996. Introduction to wildland fire, John Wiley, New York, 769 p.Google Scholar
  175. Quine C.P., Coutts M.P., Gardiner B.A., and Pyatt D.G., 1995. Forests and wind: Management to minimise damage. Forestry Commission Bulletin 114: 1–27.Google Scholar
  176. Ray D. and Nicoll B.C., 1998. The effect of soil water-table depth on root-plate development and stability of Sitka spruce. Forestry 71: 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Redfern D.B., 1984. Factors affecting spread of Heterobasidion annosum in plantations. In: Kyle G.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixth IUFRO Conference on Root and Butt Rots of Forest Trees, Australia, August 1983, CSIRO, Melbourne, pp. 104–114.Google Scholar
  178. Restif O. and Koella J.C., 2004. Concurrent evolution of resistance and tolerance to pathogens. Am. Nat. 164, E90-E102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Rhoades C.C., Brosi S.L., Dattilo A.J., and Vincelli P., 2003. Effect of soil compaction and moisture on incidence of phytophthora root rot on American chestnut (Castanea dentata) seedlings. For. Ecol. Manage. 184: 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Robin C. and Desprez-Loustau M.L., 1998. Testing variability in pathogenicity of Phytophthora cinnamomi. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 104: 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Robinson R.M., 2003. Short-term impact of thinning and fertilizer application on Armillaria root disease in regrowth karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor F. Muell.) in Western Australia. For. Ecol. Manage. 176: 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Rochelle J.A., 1992. Deer and elk. In: Black H.C. (Ed.), Silvicultural approaches to animal damage, management in pacific northwest forests, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-287, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwestern Research Station, Portland, Oregon, pp. 333–350.Google Scholar
  183. Rönnberg J., 2000. Logging operation damage to roots of clear-felled Picea abies and subsequent spore infection by Heterobasidion annosum. Silva Fenn. 34: 29–36.Google Scholar
  184. Rönnberg J., Petrylaite E., Nilsson G., and Pratt J., 2006. Two studies to assess the risk to Pinus sylvestris from Heterobasidion spp. in southern Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 21: 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Root R.B., 1973. Organisation of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica oleracae). Ecol. Monogr. 43: 94–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Ross D.W., Berisford C.W., and Godbee J.F.Jr., 1990. Pine tip moth, Rhyacionia spp., response to herbaceous vegetation control in an intensively site-prepared loblolly pine plantation. For. Sci. 36: 1105–1118.Google Scholar
  187. Ross W.G., Kulhavy D.L., and Sun J.H., 2005. Effects of fertilization and herbicides on growth of young loblolly pine and infestations of Nantucket pine tip moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Insect Sci. 12: 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Roth B.E. and Newton M., 1996. Role of lammas growth in recovery of Douglas-fir seedlings from deer browsing as influenced by weed control, fertilization, and seed source. Can. J. For. Res. 26: 936–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Rothermel R.C. and Philpot C.W., 1973. Predicting changes in chaparral flammability. J. For. 71: 640–643.Google Scholar
  190. Rothermel R.C. and Philpot C.W., 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. GTR-INT-143, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 161 p.Google Scholar
  191. Rousi M., Tahvanainen J., Henttonen H., and Uotila I., 1993. Effects of shading on resistance of winter-dormant birch (Betula pendula) to voles and hares. Ecology 74: 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Ryan K.C. and Reinhardt E.D., 1988. Predicting postfire mortality of seven western conifers. Can. J. For. Res. 18: 1291–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Samalens J.-C., Rossi J.-P., Guyon D., Van Halder I., Menassieu P., Piou D., and Jactel, H., 2007. Adaptive roadside sampling for bark beetle damage assessment. For. Ecol. Manage. 253: 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Savill P., Evans J., Auclair D., and Falck J., 1997. Plantation silviculture in Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 312 p.Google Scholar
  195. Schelhaas M.J., Kramer K., Peltola H., van der Werf D.C., and Wijdeven S.M.J., 2007. Introducing tree interactions in wind damage simulation. Ecol. Model. 207: 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Schelhaas M.J., Nabuurs G.J., and Schuck A., 2003. Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Glob. Change Biol. 9: 1620–1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Schreiner M., Aldinger E., and Bantle P., 1996. Standort und Sturmwurf 1990 — dargestellt am Östlichen Odenwald Nordöstlichen Schwarzwald. Mitt. Ver. Forst. Standortskd. Forstpflanzenztg. 38: 27–36.Google Scholar
  198. Schütz J.-P, Götz M., Schmid W., and Mandallaz D., 2006. Vulnerability of spruce (Picea abies) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest stands to storms and consequences for silviculture. Eur. J. For. Res. 125: 291–302.Google Scholar
  199. Selander J. and Immonen A., 1991. Effect of fertilization on the susceptibility of Scots pine seedlings to the large pine weevil Hylobius abietis. Folia Forestalia 771: 21.Google Scholar
  200. Siemann E., Tilman D., Haarstad J., and Ritchie M., 1998. Experimental tests of the dependence of arthropod diversity on plant diversity. Am. Nat. 152: 738–750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Sierpiński Z., 1972. Effect of stand density on fluctuations in population density of forest insect pests. Sylwan 2: 1–16.Google Scholar
  202. Silen R.R., Olson D.L., and Weber J.C., 1993. Genetic variation in susceptibility to windthrow in young Douglas-fir. For. Ecol. Manage. 61: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Six D.L., Vander Meer M., DeLuca T.H., and Kolb P., 2002. Pine engraver (Ips pini) colonization of logging residues created using alternative slash management systems in Western Montana. West. J. Appl. For. 17: 96–100.Google Scholar
  204. Slodicák M., 1995. Thinning regime in stands of Norway spruce subjected to snow and wind damage. In: Coutts M.P. and Grace J. (Eds.), Wind and trees, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Smirnoff W.A. and Bernier B., 1973. Increased mortality of the Swaine jack-pine sawfly, and foliar nitrogen concentrations after urea fertilization. Can. J. For. Res. 3: 112–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Smit C., Vandenberghe C., den Ouden J., and Muller-Scharer H., 2007. Nurse plants, tree saplings and grazing pressure: changes in facilitation along a biotic environmental gradient. Oecologia 152: 265–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. Speight M.R. and Wainhouse D., 1989. Ecology and management of forest insects, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 374 p.Google Scholar
  208. Stanosz G.R. and Patton R.F., 1987. Armillaria root rot in aspen stands after repeated short rotations. Can. J. For. Res. 17: 1001–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Stiell W.M. and Berry A.B., 1986. Productivity of short-rotation aspen stands. For. Chron. 62: 10–15.Google Scholar
  210. Stokes A., Nicoll B.C., Coutts M.P., and Fitter A.H., 1997. Responses of young Sitka spruce clones to mechanical perturbation and nutrition: effects on biomass allocation, root development, and resistance to bending. Can. J. For. Res. 27: 1049–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. Stone C., 2001. Reducing the impact of insect herbivory in eucalypt plantations through management of extrinsic influences on tree vigour. Austral Ecol. 26: 482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Sun J., Kulhavy D.L., and Yan S., 1998. Prediction models of Nantucket pine tip moth, Rhyacionia frustrana (Comstock) (Lep., Tortricidae) infestation using soil and tree factors. J. Appl. Entomol. 122: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. Sun J.H., Kulhavy D.L., and Roques A., 2000. Effects of fertilizer and herbicide application on Nantucket pine tip moth infestation (Lep., Tortricidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 124: 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Syme P.D., 1975. The effects of flowers on the longevity and fecundity of two native parasites of the European pine shoot moth in Ontario. Environ. Entomol. 4: 337–346.Google Scholar
  215. Tainter F.H. and Baker F.A., 1996. Principles of forest pathology, John Wiley & Sons Ed. New York, 805 p.Google Scholar
  216. Taylor S.P., Alfaro R.I., DeLong C., and Rankin L., 1996. The effects of overstory shading on white pine weevil damage to white spruce and its effects on spruce growth rates. Can. J. For. Res. 26: 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. Thor M. and Stenlid J., 2005. Heterobasidion annosum infection of Picea abies following manual or mechanized stump treatment. Scand. J. For. Res. 20: 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. Toda T., Tajima M., Nishimura K., and Takeuchi H., 1993. Resistance breeding to the pine wood nematode in Kyushu district. Progress of study after selection of the resistant clones. Bulletin of the Forest Tree Breeding Institute 11: 37–87.Google Scholar
  219. Van Mantgem P.J., Stephenson N.L., Mutch L.S., Johnson V.G., Esperanza A.M., and Parsons D.J., 2003. Growth rate predicts mortality of Abies concolor in both burned and unburned stands Can. J. For. Res. 33: 1029–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. Van Nispen tot Sevenaer W.J.C.M., 1975. De gevolgen van de stormrampen voor de bosbouw in Nederland. Nederlands Bosbouw Tijdschrift 47: 41–52.Google Scholar
  221. Van Soest J., 1954. Einheit in der Ertragskunde. Compte Rendus 11e Conférence IUFRO, Firenze, 1953, pp. 856–860.Google Scholar
  222. Vaupel O., Dimitri L., and Vité J.P., 1981. Untersuchungen über den Einsatz von Lockstoffbekoederten Rohrfallen zur Bekämpfung des Buchdruckers (Ips typographus L.), sowie Moglichkeiten der Optimerung von Lockstofierfahren. Allg. Forst. Jagdztg. 152: 102–113.Google Scholar
  223. Vehviläinen H. and Koricheva J., 2006. Moose and vole browsing patterns in experimentally assembled pure and mixed forest stands. Ecography 29: 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. Vélez R., 1990. Mediterranean forest fires: A regional perspective. Unasylva 162: 3–9.Google Scholar
  225. von Sydow F., 1997. Abundance of pine weevils (Hylobius abietis) and damage to conifer seedlings in relation to silvicultural practices. Scand. J. For. Res. 12: 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. Wainhouse D., 2005. Ecological methods in forest pest management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 288 p.Google Scholar
  227. Wainhouse D., Ashburner R., Ward E., and Rose J., 1998. The effect of variation in light and nitrogen on growth and defence in young Sitka Spruce. Funct. Ecol. 12: 561–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. Wainhouse D., Staley J., Johnston J., and Boswell R., 2005. The effect of environmentally induced changes in the bark of young conifers on feeding behaviour and reproductive development of adult Hylobius abietis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 95: 151–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. Wang G.G., 2002. Fire severity in relation to canopy composition within burned boreal mixedwood stands. For. Ecol. Manage. 163: 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. Wargo P.M. and Harrington T.C., 1991. Host Stress and Susceptibility. In: Shaw C.G. and Kile G.A. (Eds.), Armillaria root disease, forest service, United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 691, Washington D.C., pp. 88–101.Google Scholar
  231. Watt A.D., 1992. Insect pest population dynamics: effects of tree species diversity. In: Cannell M.G.R., Malcolm D.C., and Robertson P.A. (Eds.), The ecology of mixed-species stands of trees, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 267–275.Google Scholar
  232. Weatherspoon C.P. and Skinner C.N. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with damage to tree crowns from the 1987 wildfires in Northern California. For. Sci. 41: 430–451Google Scholar
  233. Wellpott, A. 2008. The stability of continuous cover forests. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, 179 p.Google Scholar
  234. Wermelinger B., 2004. Ecology and management of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus — a review of recent research. For. Ecol. Manage. 202: 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. Werner F. and Armann J., 1955. Stormfallningens dynamik — en studie. Svenska SkogsvForen. Tidskr. 53: 311–330.Google Scholar
  236. White J.A. and Whitham T.G., 2000. Associational susceptibility of cottonwood to a box elder herbivore. Ecology 81: 1795–1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  237. Wingfield M.J. and Swart W.J., 1994. Integrated management of forest tree diseases in South Africa. For. Ecol. Manage. 65: 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  238. Winterhoff B., Schönfelder E., and Heiligmann-Brauer G., 1995. Sturmschäden des Frühjahrs 1990 in Hessen — Analyse nach Standorts-Bestandes- und Behandlungsmerkmalen. Forch. Ber. Hess. Landesanst. Forsteinrichtung, Waldforch. und Waldökologie, Hannover, Münden, 20.Google Scholar
  239. Woodward S., Stenlid J., Karjalainen R., and Hüttermann A., 1998. Heterobasidion annosum. Biology, ecology, impact and control, CAB International, Cambridge, 589 p.Google Scholar
  240. Worrell R., 1983. Damage by the spruce bark beetle in south Norway 1970–80: a survey, and factors affecting its occurrence. Medd. Nor. Skogforsoeksves. 38: 1–34.Google Scholar
  241. Wolf, A., Moller, P.F., Bradshaw, R.H.W., and Bigler, J. 2004. Storm damage and long-term mortality in a semi-natural, temperate deciduous forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 188: 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. Xu Y.-J., Rohrig E., and Folster H., 1997. Reaction of root systems of grand fir (Abies grandis Lindl.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) to seasonal waterlogging. For. Ecol. Manage. 93: 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  243. Zas R., Sampedro L., Prada E., Lombardero M.J., and Fernández-López J., 2006. Fertilization increases Hylobius abietis L. damage in Pinus pinaster Ait. seedlings. For. Ecol. Manage. 222: 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  244. Zhang Q.H. and Schlyter F., 2004. Olfactory recognition and behavioural avoidance of angiosperm nonhost volatiles by conifer-inhabiting bark beetles. Agric. For. Entomol. 6: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  245. Zimmermann H., 1985. Zur Begründung von mischbeständen mit fichte und buche auf sturmwurfflächen im öffentlichen Wald Hessens. Allg. Forstz. 49: 1326–1330.Google Scholar
  246. Zolciak A. and Sierota Z., 1997. Zabiegi hodowlane a zagrozenie drzewostanow przez patogeny korzeni. [Sylvicultural treatments and the threat to stands from root pathogens.] Prace Inst. Bad. Leś. B 33: 71–84.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer S+B Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hervé Jactel
    • 1
  • Bruce C. Nicoll
    • 2
  • Manuela Branco
    • 3
  • José Ramon Gonzalez-Olabarria
    • 4
    • 5
  • Wojciech Grodzki
    • 6
  • Bo Långström
    • 7
  • Francisco Moreira
    • 8
  • Sigrid Netherer
    • 9
  • Christophe Orazio
    • 1
    • 10
    • 11
  • Dominique Piou
    • 12
  • Helena Santos
    • 3
  • Mart Jan Schelhaas
    • 13
  • Karl Tojic
    • 14
  • Floor Vodde
    • 1
  1. 1.Biodiversity, Genes and Communities, Laboratory of Forest Entomology and BiodiversityINRA, UMR 1202CestasFrance
  2. 2.Forest Research, Northern Research StationRoslinScotland, UK EH25 9SY, UK
  3. 3.Centro de Estudos Florestais, Instituto Superior AgronomiaUniversidade Técnica de LisboaLisboaPortugal
  4. 4.Centre Tecnològic Forestal de CatalunyaSolsonaSpain
  5. 5.European Forest InstituteMediterranean Regional Office - EFIMEDSpain
  6. 6.Department of Forest Management in Mountain RegionsForest Research InstituteKrakówPoland
  7. 7.Department of EcologyThe Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  8. 8.Centro de Ecologia Aplicada “Prof. Baeta Neves”, Instituto Superior de AgronomiaUniversidade Técnica de LisboaLisboaPortugal
  9. 9.Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, Institute of Forest Entomology, Forest Pathology, and Forest ProtectionUniversity of Natural Resources and Applied Life SciencesViennaAustria
  10. 10.FCBAMoulis en MédocFrance
  11. 11.IEFCCestasFrance
  12. 12.Département de la Santé des ForêtsMinistère de l’Agriculture et de la PêcheCenonFrance
  13. 13.Centre for Ecosystem Studies, Alterra, Wageningen URAA WageningenThe Netherlands
  14. 14.Institute for Forest GrowthAlbert-Ludwigs-University FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations