Abstract
A new forest state assessment methodology to complement existing conservation and forestry data has been developed. The aim is to provide tools for strategic planning including spatial distribution of conservation priorities. The method is point-based using a dense systematic sampling grid and provides more detailed information than vegetation maps or forest subcompartment descriptions, but requires less effort than forest inventories. Indicators include canopy composition and structure, deadwood, herbs, microhabitats, disturbances, shrubs and regeneration. The results can inform managers about the structural and compositional diversity of forest stands in the form of thematic maps and can provide the basis for analysis of habitat suitability for forest-dwelling organisms. A smartphone application has been developed to enable electronic data collection. PostGIS and Python scripts were used in the data flow. In this paper, we outline the development of the assessment protocol, and present the sampling design and the variables recorded. The main advantages of the survey methodology are also shown by case-studies based on data collected during the first field season in 2014. The protocol has been designed for low mountain forests in Hungary, but it can be modified to fit other forest types.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Abbreviations
- CWD:
-
Coarse Woody Debris
- DBH:
-
Diameter at Breast Height
- DCD:
-
Diameter Class Diversity
- FDC:
-
ForestDataCollect App.
- FWD:
-
Fine Woody Debris
- NFD:
-
National Forestry Database
References
Bartha, D., P. Ódor, T. Horváth, G. Tímár, K. Kenderes, T. Standovár, J. Bölöni, F. Szmorad, L. Bodonczi and R. Aszalós. 2006. Relationship of tree stand heterogeneity and forest naturalness. Acta Silv. Lign. Hung. 2: 7–22.
Brambilla, M., M. Gustin and C. Celada. 2011. Defining favourable reference values for bird populations in Italy: setting long-term conservation targets for priority species. Bird Conserv. Int. 21: 107–118.
Cantarello, E. and A. Newton. 2008. Towards cost-effective indicators to maintain Natura 2000 sites in favourable conservation status. Preliminary results from Cansiglio and New Forest. iForest 1: 75–80.
Chirici, G., R.E. McRoberts, S. Winter, R. Bertini, U.-B. Braendli, I. A. Asensio, A. Bastrup-Birk, J. Rondeux, N. Barsoum and M. Marchetti. 2012. National Forest Inventory Contributions to Forest Biodiversity Monitoring. Forest Sci. 58: 257–268.
Chirici, G., S. Winter and R.E. McRoberts (eds.) 2011. National Forest Inventories: Contributions to Forest Biodiversity Assessments: Contributions to Forest Biodiversity Assessments. Springer, New York.
Christensen, M., K. Hahn, E.P. Mountford, P. Ódor, T. Standovár, D. Rozenbergar, J. Diaci, S. Wijdeven, P. Meyer, S. Winter and T. Vrska. 2005. Dead wood in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. Forest Ecol. Manag. 210: 267–282.
EC 2006. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – on an EU Forest Action Plan. COM(2006) 302.
EC 2013. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector. COM(2013) 659.
EEA 2015. State of nature in the EU. Results from reporting under the nature directives 2007–2012. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Evans, D. 2006. The Habitats of the European Union Habitats Directive. Biol. Environ. 106: 167–173.
Fischer, R., O. Granke, G. Chirici, P. Meyer, W. Seidling, S. Stofer, P. Corona, M. Marchetti and D. Travaglini D. 2009. Background, main results and conclusions from a test phase for biodiversity assessments on intensive forest monitoring plots in Europe. iForest 2: 67–74.
Gouix, N., P. Sebek, L. Valladares, H. Brustel and A. Brin. 2015. Habitat requirements of the violet click beetle (Limoniscus violaceus), an endangered umbrella species of basal hollow trees. Insect Conserv. Diver. 8: 418–427.
Grabherr, G., G. Koch and H. Kirchmeir. 1998. Hemerobie österreichischer Waldökosysteme. Ver öff. Österr. MAB-Programm 17: 1–493.
Hernando, A., R. Tejera, J. Velázquez and M. Núñez. 2010. Quantitatively defining the conservation status of Natura 2000 forest habitats and improving management options for enhancing biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 19: 2221–2233.
Hochbichler, E., A. O’Sullivan, A. van Hees and K. Vandekerkhove. 2000. WG2 Recommendations for Data Collection in Forest Reserves, with an Emphasis on Regeneration and Stand Structure. In: J. Pärviainen (ed.), COST Action E4 Forest Reserve Research Network. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. pp. 135–181.
Kangas, A. and M. Maltamo (eds.) 2006. Forest Inventory: Methodology and Applications. Springer, Dordrecht.
Kent, M. 2012. Vegetation Description and Data Analysis: A Practical Approach. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
Kirby, K.J., C.M. Reid, R.C. Thomas and F.B. Goldsmith. 1998. Preliminary Estimates of Fallen Dead Wood and Standing Dead Trees in Managed and Unmanaged Forests in Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 35: 148–155.
Kolozs, L. 2009. Forest Monitoring and Observation System (EMMRE) 1988–2008. MGSZH, Budapest.
Kraus, D. and F. Krumm (eds.) 2013. Integrative Approaches as an Opportunity for the Conservation of Forest Biodiversity. European Forest Institute, Freiburg.
Larrieu, L., A. Cabanettes, P. Gonin, T. Lachat, Y. Paillet, S. Winter, C. Bouget and M. Deconchat. 2014. Deadwood and tree microhabitat dynamics in unharvested temperate mountain mixed forests: A life-cycle approach to biodiversity monitoring. Forest Ecol. Manag. 334: 163–173.
Liira, J. and T. Sepp T. 2009. Indicators of structural and habitat natural quality in boreo-nemoral forests along the management gradient. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 46: 308–325.
Lindenmayer, D.B. and J.F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach. Island Press, Washington DC.
Louette, G., D. Adriaens, D. Paelinckx and M. Hoffmann. 2015. Implementing the Habitats Directive: How science can support decision making. J. Nat. Conserv. 23: 27–34.
McElhinny, C., P. Gibbons, C. Brack and J. Bauhus. 2005. Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: Its definition and measurement. Forest Ecol. Manag. 218: 1–24.
McRoberts, R.E., S. Winter, G. Chirici and E. LaPoint. 2012. Assessing forest naturalness. Forest Sci. 58: 294–309.
Mehtälä, J. and T. Vuorisalo. 2007. Conservation policy and the EU Habitats Directive: favourable conservation status as a measure of conservation success. Eur. Environ. 17: 363–375.
Molnár, Zs., S. Bartha, T. Seregélyes, E. Illyés, Z. Botta-Dukát, G. Tímár, F. Horváth, A. Révész, A. Kun, J. Bölöni, M. Biró, L. Bodonczi, J.Á. Deák, P. Fogarasi, A. Horváth, I. Isépy, L. Karas, F. Kecskés, Cs. Molnár, A. Ortmann-né Ajkai and Sz. Rév. 2007. A grid-based, satellite-image supported, multi-attributed vegetation mapping method (MÉTA). Folia Geobot. 42: 225–247.
Müller, J., and R. Bütler. 2010. A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 129: 981–992.
Ódor, P., J. Heilmann-Clausen, M. Christensen, E. Aude, K. van Dort, A. Piltaver, I. Siller, M.T. Veerkamp, R. Walleyn, T. Standovár, A.F.M. van Hees, J. Kosec, N. Matočec, H. Kraigher and T. Grebenc. 2006. Diversity of dead wood inhabiting fungi and bryophytes in semi-natural beech forests in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 131: 58–71.
Ódor, P. and A.F. van Hees. 2004. Preferences of dead wood inhabiting bryophytes for decay stage, log size and habitat types in Hungarian beech forests. J. Bryol. 26: 79–95.
Paillet, Y., F. Archaux, V. Breton and J. Brun. 2008. A quantitative assessment of the ecological value of sycamore maple habitats in the French Alps. Ann. For. Sci. 65: 713–713.
Parviainen, J., W. Bücking, K. Vandekerkhove, A. Schuck and R. Päivinen. 2000. Strict forest reserves in Europe: efforts to enhance biodiversity and research on forests left for free development in Europe (EU-COST-Action E4). Forestry 73: 107–118.
Tobisch, T. and P. Kottek. 2013. Forestry-related Databases of the Hungarian Forestry Directorate. National Food Chain Safety Office (NFCSO), Budapest
Tomppo, E., J. Heikkinen, H.M. Henttonen, A. Ihalainen, M. Katila, H. Mäkelä, T. Tuomainen and N. Vainikainen. 2011. Designing and Conducting a Forest Inventory - case: 9th National Forest Inventory of Finland. Springer, Dordrecht.
Velázquez, J., R. Tejera, A. Hernando and M.V. Núnez. 2010. Environmental diagnosis: Integrating biodiversity conservation in management of Natura 2000 forest spaces. J. Nature Conserv. 18: 309–317.
Winter, S. 2012. Forest naturalness assessment as a component of biodiversity monitoring and conservation management. Forestry 85: 293–304.
Winter, S., G. Chirici, R.E. McRoberts and E. Hauk. 2008. Possibilities for harmonizing national forest inventory data for use in forest biodiversity assessments. Forestry 81: 33–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited, you give a link to the Creative Commons License, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Standovár, T., Szmorad, F., Kovács, B. et al. A novel forest state assessment methodology to support conservation and forest management planning. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 17, 167–177 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2016.17.2.5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2016.17.2.5