Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prospects for Harmonized Biodiversity Assessments Using National Forest Inventory Data

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
National Forest Inventories: Contributions to Forest Biodiversity Assessments

Part of the book series: Managing Forest Ecosystems ((MAFE,volume 20))

Abstract

Following selection of the 13 biodiversity variables that were evaluated as both important and feasible for assessment by NFIs and grouping them into essential features, additional information was solicited regarding the degree to which the 13 variables are currently assessed by NFIs. The objective was to evaluate the prospects for harmonized estimates of biodiversity indicators based on these variables. The prospects varied considerably depending on the particular variable and essential feature. The evaluations produced positive harmonization possibilities for forest categories and the tree height and diameter variables associated with forest structure. For forest age, possibilities were constrained by lack of common reference definitions. However, possibilities for construction of a common reference definition and bridges to compensate for the differences in estimates resulting from using national and reference definitions were deemed positive. Prospects for regeneration, ground vegetation, and naturalness were less positive because of variability in definitions, assessment methods, measurement thresholds and other factors. Thus, efforts at harmonization for these essential features were constrained to a few variables or a few countries with similar NFI features.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    hemeroby: from the Greek hemeros meaning cultivated, tamed, or refined (Jalas 1955); a measure that integrates the effects of past and present influence on ecosystems (Sukopp et al. 1990, Kowarik 1999).

  2. 2.

    Stands of 0.5–5.0 ha of old trees with dbh ≥ 45 cm at distance of less than 1 km.

  3. 3.

    Standards are trees that generated from seed and that are left in harvested areas to support sustainable production of both timber and non-timber products

References

  • Aamlid, D., Canullo, R., & Starlinger, F. (2007). Manual on methods and criteria for harmonized sampling, assessment, monitoring and analysis of the effects of the effects of air pollution on forest. Part VIII. Assessment of ground vegetation. International co-operative programme on assessment and monitoring of air pollution effects on forests, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. http://www.icp-forests.org/pdf/manual8.pdf. Accessed Mar 2009.

  • Aguilo, M., Aramburu, M. P., Blanco, A., Calatayud, T., Carrasco, R., Castilla, G., Castillo, V., Cenal, M., Cifuentes, P., Diaz, M., Diaz, A., Escribano, R., Escribano, M., Frutos, M., Galiana, F., García, A., Glaria, G., González, S., González, C., Iglesias, E., Martin, A., Martinez, E., Milara, R., Monzon, A., Ortega, C., Otero, I., Pedraza, J., Pinedo, A., Puig, J., Ramos, A., Rodríguez, I., Sanz, M. A., Tevar, G., Torrecilla, I., & Yoldi, L. (1992). Guía para la elaboración de estudios del medio físico: contenido y metodología (p. 809). Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberdi, I., Condes, S., & Martinez-Millán, J. (2010). Review of monitoring and assessing ground vegetation biodiversity in national forest inventories. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 164, 649–676.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, P. R., Parker, G. R., Romero-Severson, J., & Michler, C. H. (2005). Confirmation of oak recruitment failure in Indiana old-growth forest: 75 years of data. Forest Science, 51, 406–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. E. (1991). A conceptual framework for evaluating and quantifying naturalness. Conservation Biology, 5(3), 347–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angermeier, P. L. (2000). The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conservation Biology, 14(2), 373–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angermeier, P. L., & Karr, J. R. (1994). Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. Bioscience, 44(10), 690–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augusto, L., Dupouey, J.-L., & Ranger, R. (2003). Effects of tree species on understory vegetation and environmental conditions in temperate forests. Annals of Forest Science, 60, 823–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avery, T. E., & Burkhardt, H. E. (2002). Forest measurements (5th ed., p. 456). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelsson, A. L., & Fridman, J. (2005). Country report for forest focus- Common project. http://www.resgeom.slu.se/resana/projekt/common/Documents/Country%20reports/Sweden%20country%20report.pdf. Accessed Mar 2009.

  • Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., & Svensson, J. (2007). Natural forest and cultural woodland with continuous tree cover in Sweden: how much remains and how is it managed? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 22, 545–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baier, R., Meyer, J., & Göttlein, A. (2005). Regeneration niches of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) saplings in small canopy gaps in mixed mountain forests of the Bavarian Limestone Alps. European Journal of Forest Research, 126, 11–22. Published online: 6 Dec 2005 Springer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbati, A., Corona, P., & Marchetti, M. (2007). A forest typology for monitoring sustainable forest management: the case of European forest types. Plant Biosystems, 141, 93–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsoum, N. (2002). Relative contributions of sexual and asexual regeneration strategies in Populus nigra and Salix alba during the first years of establishment on a braided gravel bed river. Evolutionary Ecology, 15, 255–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsoum, N., Muller, E., & Skot, L. (2004). Variations in levels of clonality among Populus nigra L. stands of different ages. Evolutionary Ecology, 18, 601–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartha, D., Odor, P., Horvath, T., Timar, G., Kenderes, K., Standovar, T., Bölöni, J., SZmorad, F., Bodonczi, L., & Aszalos, R. (2006). Relationship of tree stand heterogeneity and forest naturalness. Acta Silvatica et Lignaria Hungarica, 2, 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitterlich, W. (1984). The relascope idea. Relative measurements in forestry. Norwich: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Page Bros.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blume, P., & Sukopp, H. (1976). Ökologische Bedeutung anthropogener Bodenveränderungen. Schreiftenreihe Vegetationskunde, 10, 7–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boddy, L. (2001). Fungal community ecology and wood decomposition processes in angiosperms: from standing tree to complete decay of coarse woody debris. Ecological Bulletin, 49, 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhl, J., & Brändli, U.-B. (2007). Deadwood volume assessment in the third Swiss National Forest Inventory: methods and first results. European Journal of Forest Research, 126, 449–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, U., Gollub, G., & Hettwer, C. (2000). Map of the natural vegetation of Europe. Bonn: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonham, C. D. (1989). Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. United States of America: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch, P., & Söderbäck, E. (1997). European environmental state indicators. Project report, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen and Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brändli, U.-B., Bühler, C., & Zangger, A. (2007a). Waldindikatoren zur Artenvielfalt - Erkenntnisse aus LFI und BDM Schweiz. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Forstwesen, 158, 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brändli, U.-B., Bühler, C., & Zangger, A. (2007b). Biodiversität und Waldinventuren. LFI info, 7, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branquart, E., & Latham, J. (2007). Selection criteria for protected forest areas dedicated to biodiversity conservation in Europe. In G. Frank et al. (Eds.), COST Action E27, Protected forest areas in Europe – analysis and harmonization (PROFOR): Results, conclusions, and recommendations. Vienna, Austria: Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape (BFW).

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun-Blanquet, J. (1965). Plant sociology; the study of plant communities. London: Halner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodie, A., Bowering, M., Jaross, W., Reimer, D., & Lu, B. (2007). Combining management goals of wildlife habitat conservation and revenue on Washington State trusts U S forest service Pacific Northwest research station general technical report PNW-GTR Issue: 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buongiorno, J., Dahir, S., Ly, H.-C., & Lin, C.-R. (1994). Tree size diversity and economic returns in uneven-aged forest stands. Forest Science, 40(1), 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burschel, P. (1992). Experiments in mixed mountain forests in Bavaria. In M. J. Kelty, B. C. Larson, & C. D. Oliver (Eds.), The ecology and silviculture of mixed-species forests (pp. 183–215). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chirici, G., Winter, S., Bastrup-Birk, A., Rondeux, J., Bertini, R., McRoberts R.E., Barsoum, N., Alberdi, I., Brändli, U.-B., & Marchetti, M. (submitted). Harmonised estimation of forest biodiversity indicators at the cross-regional scale using data from national forest inventories. Forest Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, M., Hahn, K., Mountford, E., Ódor, P., Rozenberger, D., Diaci, J., Standovar, T., Wijdeven, S., Winter, S., Vrska, T., & Meyer, P. (2005). Dead wood in European beech (Fagus) forest reserves. Forest Ecology and Management, 210, 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciancio, O., Corona, P., Iovino, F., Menguzzato, G., & Scotti, R. (1999). Forest management on a natural basis: the fundamentals and case studies. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 1(2), 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, M. A., & Schulze, M. D. (1999). Fire as a recurrent event in tropical forests of the eastern Amazon: Effects on forest structure, biomass and species composition. Biotropica, 31, 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • COST E43 (2005). Harmonization of National forest inventories in Europe: Techniques for common reporting. Reports and proceedings. http://www.metla.fi/eu/cost/e43. Accessed Mar 2008.

  • Crumpacker, D. W. (1998). Prospects for sustainability of biodiversity based on conservation biology and US Forest Service approaches to ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 40, 47–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, C. E., Moss, D., O. & Hill M. (2004). EUNIS habitat classification revised 2004. http://EUNIS.eea.eu.int/upload/EUNIS_2004_report.pdf. Accessed Mar 2009.

  • Deconchat, M., & Balent, G. (2001). Vegetation and bird community dynamics in fragmented coppice forests. Forestry, 74, 105–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Graaf, R. M., Hestbeck, J. B., & Yamasaki, M. (1998). Associations between breeding bird abundance and stand structure in the White Mountains, New Hampshire and Maine, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 103, 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douhovnikoff, V., Cheng, A. M., & Dodd, R. S. (2004). Incidence, size and spatial structure of clones in second-growth stands of coast redwood, Sequoia semperverins (Cupressaceae). American Journal of Botany, 91, 1140–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duelli, P., & Obrist, M. K. (2003). Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98, 87–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dusan, R., Mikac, S., Anić, I., & Diaci, J. (2007). Gap regeneration patterns in relationship to light heterogeneity in two old-growth beech – fir forest reserves in South East Europe. Forestry, 80(4), 431–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellenberg, H., & Mueller-Dumbois, D. (1967). A key to Raunkiaer plant life forms with revised subdivisions. Berichte des Geobotanisches Institut, Die Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Stiftung Rübel, Zurich:56–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, A. M., Bank, M. S., Clinton, B. D., Colburn, E. A., Elliott, K., Ford, C. R., Foster, D. R., Kloeppel, B. D., Knoepp, J. D., Lovett, G. M., Mohan, J., Orwig, D. A., Rodenhouse, N. L., Sobczak, W. V., Stinson, K. A., Stone, J. K., Swan, C. M., Thompson, J., Von Holle, B., & Webster, J. R. (2005). Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3, 479–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (EEA) (2003). An inventory of biodiversity indicators in Europe, 2002. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Technical report no 92. pp. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (EEA) (2006). European forest types. Categories and types for sustainable forest management and reporting. EEA Technical report no. 9/2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyre, T. J., Kelly, A. L., & Nelder, V. J. (2006). Methodology for the establishment and survey of reference sites for BioCondition. http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/p01993aa.pdf/Methodology_for_the_establishment_and_survey_of_reference_sites_for_BioCondition_version_14.pdf. Accessed Mar 2009.

  • Ferris, R., & Humphrey, J. W. (1999). A review of potential biodiversity indicators for application in British forests. Forestry, 72(4), 312–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flade, M., Möller, G., Schumacher, H., & Winter, S. (2004). Naturschutzstandards für die Bewirtschaftung von Buchenwäldern im nordostdeutschen Tiefland. Der Dauerwald – Zeitschrift für naturgemäße Waldwirtschaft, 29, 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., & Carpenter, S. R. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–574.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2005). Global forest resources assessment update. Terms and definitions (Final version). Working paper 83. Rome 2004. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/ae156e/AE156E00HTM. Accessed December 2010.

  • Frey, D. (1975). Biological integrity of water: An historical perspective. In R. K. Ballentine & L. J. Guarraia (Eds.), The integrity of water (pp. 127–139). Washington, DC: EPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärtner, S., & Reif, A. (2005). The response of ground vegetation to structural change during forest conversion in the southern Black Forest. European Journal of Forest Research, 124, 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilg, O. (2005). Old-growth forests: Characteristics, conservation and monitoring. Technical report no 74 bis. ATEN, Montpellier. 96 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabherr, G., Koch, G., Kirchmeir, H., & Reiter, K. (1998). Hemerobie österreichischer Waldökosysteme (17th ed., p. 493). Innsbruck: Veröffentlichungen des Österreichischen MaB-Programms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granke, O. (2006). Assessment of ground vegetation. ForestBIOTA work report. http://www.forestbiota.org. Accessed Mar 2009.

  • Groombridge, B., & Jenkins, M. D. (1996). Assessing biodiversity status and sustainability (Vol. 5). Cambridge: World Conservation Press, WCMC Biodiversity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, L. (2002). Presence and abundance of red-listed plant species in Swedish forests. Conservation Biology, 16(2), 377–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, L., & Hallingbäck, T. (1988). Bryophyte flora and vegetation of managed and virgin coniferous forests in South-West Sweden. Biological Conservation, 44, 238–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, C. B., & Spies, T. A. (1995). Plant species diversity in natural and managed forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications, 5, 913–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, A. J., Spies, T. A., Swanson, F. J., & Ohmann, J. L. (1991). Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. Bioscience, 41(6), 382–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski, I., & Hammond, P. (1995). Biodiversity in boreal forests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10, 5–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, L. D. (1984). The fragmented forest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms, J. A. (Ed.). (1998). The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda: Society of American Foresters, ISBN 0-939970-73-2. pp. 210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hočevar, M., & Kovač, M. (2004). A short description of the Slovenian NFI, updated 27.10.2004. http://www.gozdis.si/departments/geomatics/nfi_si.pdf. Accessed March 2009.

  • Hoerr, W. (1993). The concept of naturalness in environmental discourse. Natural Areas Journal, 13(1), 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, F. (1991). Comparisons of forestry in Britain and mainland Europe. Forestry, 64(2), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests in co-operation with the European Commission (ICP) (2009). http://www.icp-forests.org. Accessed Mar 2010.

  • Jalas, J. (1955). Hemerobe und hemerochore Pflanzenarten. Ein terminologischer Reformversuch. Acta Societatia Pro Fauna et Flora Fennica, 72, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S., Erika, E., Mudrak, L., & Waller, D. M. (2006). A comparison of sampling methodologies for long-term forest vegetation monitoring in the great lakes network National Parks. http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/GLKN/Veg%20Plot%20Comparison.pdf. Great Lakes Network Report. Accessed Mar 2009.

  • Jonsson, B. G., & Jonsell, M. (1999). Exploring potential biodiversity indicators in boreal forests. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8, 1417–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R. (1991). Biological integrity: a long neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications, 1, 66–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanina, L., Bobrovsky, M., Komarov, A., & Mikhajlov, A. (2007). Modeling dynamics of forest ground vegetation diversity under different forest management regimes. Forest Ecology and Management, 248(1/2), 80–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koop, H., & Hilgen, P. (1987). Forest dynamics and regeneration mosaic shifts in unexploited beech (Fagus sylvatica) stands at Fontainebleau (France). Forest Ecology and Management, 20, 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowarik, I. (1990). Natürlichkeit, Naturnähe und Hemerobie als Bewertungskriterien. In H. Sukopp, S. Hejný, & I. Kowarik (Eds.), Urban ecology. The Hague: SBP Academic Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, G. (1884). Beiträge zur Lehre von den Durchforstungen, Schlagstellungen und Lichtungshieben. Hannover: Klindworth Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuuluvainen, T., Penttinen, A., Leinonen, K., & Nygren, M. (1996). Statistical opportunities for comparing stand structural heterogeneity in managed and primeval forests: an example from boreal spruce forest in southern Finland. Silva Fennica, 30(2/3), 315–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuuluvainen, T., Kimmo, S., & Kalliola, R. (1998). Structure of a pristine Picea abies forest in northeastern Europe. Journal of Vegetation Science, 9, 563–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lähde, E., Laiho, O., & Norokorpi, Y. (1999). Diversity-oriented silviculture in the boreal zone of Europe. Forest Ecology and Management, 118, 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, A., & Tait, J. (1990). Practical conservation woodlands (p. 128). London: Hodder and Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, J. B. (1995). Ecological stability of forests and sustainable silviculture. Forest Ecology and Management, 73, 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, T-B, Svensson, L., Angelstam, P., Balent, G., Barbati, A., & Bijlsma, R.-J., Boncina, A., Bradshaw, R., Bücking, W., Ciancio, O., Corona, P., Diaci, J., Dias, S., Ellenberg, H., Fernandes, F. M., Fernàndez-Gonzalez, F., Ferris, R., Frank, G., Møller, P. F., Giller, P. S., Gustafsson, L., Halbritter, K., Hal, S., Hansson, L., Innes, J., Jactel, H., Keannel Doppertin, M., Klein, M., Marchetti, M., Mohren, F., Niemelä, P., O’Halloran, J., Rametsteiner, E., Rego, F., Scheidegger, C., Scotti, R., Sjöberg, K., Spanos, I., Spanos, K., Standovár, T., Tømmerås, Å., Trakolis, D., Uuttera, J., Walsh, P. M., Vandekerkhove, K., Watt, A. D., VenDenMeersschaut, D. (2001). Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Ecological Bulletins, 50. 236 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibundgut, H. (1956). Empfehlungen für die Baumklassenbildung und Methodik bei Versuchen über die Wirkung von Waldpflegemassahmen. IUFRO Section 23, Report 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liira, J., Sepp, T., & Parrest, O. (2007). The forest structure and ecosystem quality in conditions of anthropogenic disturbance along productivity gradient. Forest Ecology and Management, 250, 34–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer, D. B., & Franklin, J. F. (1997). Managing stand structure as part of ecologically sustainable forest management in Australian mountain ash forests. Conservation Biology, 11(5), 1053–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder, P., Elfving, B., & Zackrisson, O. (1997). Stand structure and successional trends in virgin boreal forest reserves in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 98, 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loiskekoski, M., Mahonen, M., Puranen, R., & Rizk, N. (1993). Sound forestery – sustainabel development. (p. 186). Ministry of Agriculture and Foresty. Helsinki, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machado, A. (2004). An index of naturalness. Journal for Nature Conservation, 12, 95–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMahon, J. A., Schimpf, D. H., Andersen, D. C., Smith, K. G., & Bayn, R. L. (1981). An organism-centered approach to some community and ecosystem concepts. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 88(2), 287–307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maltamo, M., Kangas, A., Uuttera, J., Tornianianen, T., & Saramäki, J. (2000). Forest Ecology and Management, 133, 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComb, W., & Lindenmayer, D. (1999). Dying, dead and down trees. In M. L. Hunter (Ed.), Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComb, W. C., Spies, T. A., & Emmingham, W. H. (1993). Douglas-fir forests: managing for timber and mature-forest habitat. Journal of Forestry, 91(12), 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, G. G., & Kimmerer, R. W. (2002). Forest age and management effects on epiphytic bryophyte communities in Adirondack northern hardwood forests, New York, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 32, 1562–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRoberts, R. E. (2009). A two-step nearest neighbors algorithm using satellite imagery for predicting forest structure within species composition classes. Remote Sensing of Environment, 113, 532–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRoberts, R. E., Tomppo, E. O., Schadauer, K., Vidal, C., Ståhl, G., Chirici, G., Lanz, A., Cienciala, E., Winter, S., & Smith, W. B. (2009). Harmonizing national forest inventories. Journal of Forestry, 107, 179–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • McRoberts, R. E., Winter, S., & Chirici, G. (submitted). Assessing forest naturalness. Forest Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalak, R. (2008). Comparison of the scope, terms, definitions and classifications applied for the FAO global forest resources assessment 2010 and the MCPFE/UNECE/FAO Report on State of Europe’s Forests 2007. Part I definitions and classifications structured according to FRA reporting tables. UNECE/FAO Timber Section. Geneva, August 2008. http://timber.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/meetings/5.1_Formats_and_definitions_1_01.pdf. Accessed Mar 2009.

  • Michel, A., & Winter, S. (2009). Tree microhabitat structures as indicators of biodiversity in Douglas-fir forests of different stand ages and management histories in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 257, 1453–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) (1998). Third ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe. 2–4 June 1998, Lisbon/Portugal. Annex 1 of the Resolution L2. Pan-European Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. http://www.mcpfe.org. Accessed Mar 2009.

  • Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) (2003). Improved Pan-European indicators for sustainable forest management as adopted by the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting 7–8 October 2002, Vienna, Austria. http://www.mcpfe.org. Accessed Oct 2008.

  • Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) (2007). Warsaw declaration. In Proceedings of the fifth ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe. Warsaw, 5–7 November 2007. http://www.mcpfe.org. Accessed Mar 2008.

  • Montes, F., Canellas, I., Alberdi, I., Condes, S., & Villanueva, J. A. (2005) Methodology used in the IFN, other forest inventories al regional scale and other plot nets in Spain for the assessment of the forest biodiversity through the dead wood, epiphytic lichens, stand structure and ground vegetation. Country report for forest focus- ComMon project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montrial Process, M. (1998). Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. Montreal: The Montreal Process.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montréal Process (2006). Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. Montréal Process Liaison Office, International Forestry Cooperation Office, Forestry Agency, Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tokyo, Japan. http://www.mpci.org/rep-pub/1995/santiago_e.html. Accessed Sept 2008.

  • Mountford, E. P. (2002). Fallen dead wood levels in the near-natural beech forest at La Tillaie reserve, Fontainbleau, France. Forestry, 75, 203–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, J., Strätz, C., & Hothorn, T. (2005). Habitat factors for land snails in European beech forests with a special focus on coarse woody debris. European Journal of Forest Research, 124, 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, S. G., Niklasson, M., Hedin, J., Aronsson, G., Gutowski, J. M., Linder, P., Ljunberg, H., Mikusiński, G., & Ranius, T. (2002). Densities of large living and dead trees in old-growth temperate and boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 161, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordén, B., & Appelqvist, T. (2001). Conceptual problems of ecological continuity and its bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10, 779–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, T. W. (1996). Conservation of biological diversity in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 85, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R. F. (1990). Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4, 335–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlson, M., Söderstrom, L., Hörnberg, G., Zackrisson, O., & Hermansson, J. (1997). Habitat qualities versus long-term continuity as determinants of biodiversity in boreal old-growth swamp forests. Biological Conservation, 81, 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosting, H. J. (1956). The study of plant communities: an introduction to plant ecology. San Francisco: WH Freeman and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, S. C. F., Mitchel, R. J., Truscott, A.-M., & Welch, D. (2004). Regeneration failure in Atlantic oakwoods: the roles of ungulate grazing and invertebrates. Forest Ecology and Management, 192, 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterken, G. F. (1996). Natural woodland: ecology and conservation in temperate regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petriccione, B. (2006). Aspects of biological diversity in the CONECOFOR plots. VII. Naturalness and dynamical tendencies in plant communities. Annali dell’Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura, 30(Supplement 2), 93–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkänen, S. (1997). Correlation between stand structure and ground vegetation: an analytical approach. Plant Ecology, 131, 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitkänen, S. (1998). The use of diversity indices to assess the diversity of vegetation in managed boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 112, 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulsen, B. O. (2002). Avian richness and abundance in temperate Danish forests: tree variables important to birds and their conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11, 1551–1566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pukkala, T. (2006). Optimising the semi-continuous cover forestry of Finland. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung, 177(8/9), 141–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambo, T. R., & Muir, P. S. (1998a). Forest floor Bryophytes of Psedotsuga menziesii-Tsuga heterophylla stands in Oregon: influences of substrate and overstory. Bryologist, 101, 116–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambo, T. R., & Muir, P. S. (1998b). Bryophyte species associations with coarse woody debris and stand ages in Oregon. Bryologist, 101, 366–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, P. R., & Peterken, G. F. (1995). The potential for biodiversity in British upland spruce forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 79, 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts-Pichette, P., & Gillespie, L. (1999). Vegetation monitoring protocols working group of the biodiversity science board of Canada for the ecological monitoring and assessment network. EMAN occasional paper series report no. 9.EMAN Coordinating Office. Canada Centre for Inland Waters. P.O. Box 5050. Burlington, Ontario, Canada. L7R 4A6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H. (1990). Biology and philosophy in Yellowstone. Biology and Philosophy, 5, 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondeux, J. (1999). La mesure des arbes et des eeoplemens foresteirs (p. 522). Gembloux: Les Presses agronomiques de Bembloux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rondeux, J., & Sanchez, C. (2009). Review of indicators and field methods for monitoring biodiversity within National forest inventories. Core variable: Deadwood. Environmental monitoring and assessment. doi 10.1007/s10661-009-0917-6. Published online 05 May 2009. http://www.springerlink.com/content/3mt25l2305u35g38/fulltext.pdf. Accessed Dec 2009.

  • Rondeux, J., Bertini, R., Bastrup-Birk, A., Corona, P., McRoberts, R. E., Sanchez, C., Ståhl, G., Winter, S., & Chirici. G. (submitted). Assessing deadwood using harmonised national forest inventory data. Forest Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rondeux, J., Puissant, T., & Sanchez, C. (2005). Methodology used in the southern Belgium’s forest, Inventory for the assessment of ground vegetation, deadwood and stand structure. Country report for forest focus – Common project. http://www.resgeom.slu.se/resana/projekt/common/documents.htm. Accessed Mar 2009.

  • Šaudytė, S., Karazihja, S., & Belova, O. (2005). An approach to assessment of naturalness for forest stands in Lithuania. Baltic Forestry, 11(1), 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherzinger, W. (1966). Naturschutz im Wald (p. 447). Stuttgart: Qualitätsziele einer dynamischen Waldentwicklung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schieler, K., Hauk, E. (2001). Instruktion für die Feldarbeit, Österreichische Waldinventur 2000/2002 Dienstanweisung FBVA, 99–101. http://web.bfw.ac.at/700/pdf/da_ges_neu.pdf. Accessed Mar 2006.

  • Scholes, R. J., & Biggs, R. (2005). A biodiversity intactness index. Nature, 434, 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte, L. A., Mitchell, R. J., Hunter, M. L., Franklin, J. F., McIntyre, R. K., & Palik, B. J. (2006). Evaluating the conceptual tools for forest biodiversity conservation and their implementation in the U.S. Forest Ecology and Management, 232, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, E. D., & Mooney, H. A. (1994). Ecosystem function of biodiversity: a summary. In E. D. Schulze & H. A. Mooney (Eds.), Biodiversity and ecosystem function (pp. 497–510). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, H. (2006). Zum Einfluss forstlicher Bewirtschaftung auf die Avifauna von Rotbuchenwäldern im nordostdeutschen Tiefland. Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siipilehto, J., & Siitonen, J. (2004). Degree of previous cutting in explaining the differences in diameter distributions between mature managed and natural Norway spruce forests. Silva Fennica, 38(4), 425–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siitonen, J. (2001). Forest management, coaose woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forest as an example. Ecological Bulletin, 49, 11–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. G. R., & Theberge, J. B. (1987). Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: Theory and practice. Environmental Management, 11(4), 447–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G., Gittings, T., Wilson, M., French, L., Oxbrough, A., O’Donoghue, S., Pithon, J., O’Donnell, V., McKee, A., Iremonger, S., O’Halloran, J., Kelly, D., Mitchell, F., Giller, P., & Kelly, M. (2005). BIOFOREST. Assessment of biodiversity at different stages of the forest cycle. Final report, Feb 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé, M. E. (1985). What is conservation biology? Bioscience, 35(11), 727–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokland, J. N., Tomter, S. M., & Söderberg, U. (2004). Development of deadwood indicators for biodiversity monitoring: experiences from Scandinavia. In: Monitoring and indicators of forest biodiversity in Europe-From ideas to operationality. European Forest Institute Proceedings, 51, 207–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sukopp, H., Hejný, S., & Kovarik, I. (Eds.). (1990). Urban ecology. Plants and plant communities in urban environments. The Hague: SPB Academic Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tardif, J., & Bergeron, Y. (1999). Population dynamics of Fraxinus nigra in response to flood-level variations in North-western Quebec. Ecological Monographs, 69(1), 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thimonier, A., Keller, W., Dupouey, J. L. (2003). Nitrogen and ground vegetation. http://www.wsl.ch/forest/risks/projects/nitrogen/. Accessed Mar 2008.

  • Trass, H., Vellak, K., & Ingerpuu, N. (1999). Floristical and ecological properties for identifying of primeval forests in Estonia. Annales Botanici Fennici, 36, 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN/ECE-FAO) (2000). Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand: Main report. United Nations Publication GE.00-21547. Geneva, Switzerland. pp. 443.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2001). Indicators and environmental impact assessment: Designing national-level monitoring and indicator programmes, UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/12, Subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice. http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-07/official/sbstta-07-12-en.pdf. Accessed Mar 2009.

  • Uotila, A., Kouki, J., Kontkanen, H., & Pulkkinen, P. (2002). Assessing the naturalness of boreal forests in eastern Fennoscandia. Forest Ecology and Management, 161, 257–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher, M. B. (1986). Wildlife conservation evaluation: attributes, criteria and values. In M. D. Usher (Ed.), Wildlife conservation evaluation: attributes, criteria and values (pp. 1–69). Cambridge: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Oheimb, G., Westphal, C., Tempel, H., & Härdtle, W. (2005). Structural pattern of a near-natural beech forest (Fagus sylvatica) (Serrahn, North-east Germany). Forest Ecology and Management, 212, 253–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, C., Tremer, N., von Oheimb, G., Hansen, J., von Gadow, H., & Härdtle, W. (2006). Is the reverse J-shaped distribution universally applicable in European virgin beech forests? Forest Ecology and Management, 223, 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. M., Pyatt, D. G., Malcolm, D. C., & Connolly, T. (2001). The use of ground vegetation and humus type as indicators of soil nutrient regime for an ecological site classification of British forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 140(2/3), 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. (2006). Naturnähe-Indikatoren für Tiefland-Buchenwälder. Indicators for naturalness of lowland beech forests. Forstarchiv, 77(3), 94–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S., & Möller, G. C. (2008). Microhabitats in lowland beech forests as monitoring tool for nature conservation. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 1251–1261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S., Flade, M., Schumacher, H., Kerstan, E., & Möller, G. (2005). The importance of near-natural stand structures for the biocoenosis of lowland beech forests. Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, 79(1/2), 127–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodley, J., Kay, J., & Francis, G. (Eds.). (1993). Ecological integrity and the management of ecosystems. Delray Beach: St Lucie Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, I., Jinks, R., Gosling, P., & Kerr, G. (2004). Creating new broadleaved woodland by direct seeding. Forestry commission practice guide (p. 32). Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (2004). Deadwood – Living forest. The importance of veteran trees and deadwood to biodiversity. WWF report. Oct 2004. pp. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerbe, S., & Kempa, D. (2005). Waldumbau und Biodiversität. Unterschiedliche forstliche Entwicklungsziele und deren Auswirkungen auf die biologische Vielfalt. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 37(4), 106–114.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forest Inventory and Analysis, Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Washington, USA

    Ronald E. McRoberts

  2. Università degli Studi del Molise, Molise, Italy

    Gherardo Chirici & Marco Marchetti

  3. Department für Ökologie und Studienfakultät für Forstwissenschaft und Ressourcenmanagement, Technische Universität München, München, Germany

    Susanne Winter

  4. Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy

    Anna Barbati & Piermaria Corona

  5. BFW, Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape, Vienna, Austria

    Elmar Hauk

  6. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSW),Schweizerisches Landesforstinventar, Zürich, Switzerland

    Urs-Beat Brändli

  7. IFER, Institute of Forest Ecosystem Research Ltd, Jilové u Prahy, Czech Republic

    Jana Beranova

  8. Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Jacques Rondeux & Christine Sanchez

  9. Università degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze, Italy

    Roberta Bertini

  10. Forest Research, Forestry Commission, Farnham, United Kingdom

    Nadia Barsoum

  11. Departamento Sistemas y Recursos Forestales, Centro de Investigación Forestal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria, Madrid, Spain

    Iciar Alberdi Asensio

  12. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Montes, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Sonia Condés & Santiago Saura

  13. ICAS, Forest Research and Management Institute, Voluntari, Romania

    Stefan Neagu

  14. IFN, French National Forest Inventory, Bordeaux, France

    Catherine Cluzeau & Nabila Hamza

Authors
  1. Ronald E. McRoberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gherardo Chirici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susanne Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna Barbati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Piermaria Corona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marco Marchetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elmar Hauk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Urs-Beat Brändli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jana Beranova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jacques Rondeux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Christine Sanchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Roberta Bertini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Nadia Barsoum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Iciar Alberdi Asensio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Sonia Condés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Santiago Saura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Stefan Neagu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Catherine Cluzeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Nabila Hamza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald E. McRoberts .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie per, Università degli Studi del Molise, Contrada F. te Lappone, Pesche, I-86090, Italy

    Gherardo Chirici

  2. , Ökologie, Technische Universität München, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, Freising, 85354, Germany

    Susanne Winter

  3. Northern Research Station, Forest Inventory & Analysis Unit, US Forest Service, Folwell Avenue 1992, St. Paul, 55108, Minnesota, USA

    Ronald E. McRoberts

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McRoberts, R.E. et al. (2011). Prospects for Harmonized Biodiversity Assessments Using National Forest Inventory Data. In: Chirici, G., Winter, S., McRoberts, R. (eds) National Forest Inventories: Contributions to Forest Biodiversity Assessments. Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0482-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation