Evaluating the effectiveness of retention forestry to enhance biodiversity in production forests of Central Europe using an interdisciplinary, multi‐scale approach

Abstract Retention forestry, which retains a portion of the original stand at the time of harvesting to maintain continuity of structural and compositional diversity, has been originally developed to mitigate the impacts of clear‐cutting. Retention of habitat trees and deadwood has since become common practice also in continuous‐cover forests of Central Europe. While the use of retention in these forests is plausible, the evidence base for its application is lacking, trade‐offs have not been quantified, it is not clear what support it receives from forest owners and other stakeholders and how it is best integrated into forest management practices. The Research Training Group ConFoBi (Conservation of Forest Biodiversity in Multiple‐use Landscapes of Central Europe) focusses on the effectiveness of retention forestry, combining ecological studies on forest biodiversity with social and economic studies of biodiversity conservation across multiple spatial scales. The aim of ConFoBi is to assess whether and how structural retention measures are appropriate for the conservation of forest biodiversity in uneven‐aged and selectively harvested continuous‐cover forests of temperate Europe. The study design is based on a pool of 135 plots (1 ha) distributed along gradients of forest connectivity and structure. The main objectives are (a) to investigate the effects of structural elements and landscape context on multiple taxa, including different trophic and functional groups, to evaluate the effectiveness of retention practices for biodiversity conservation; (b) to analyze how forest biodiversity conservation is perceived and practiced, and what costs and benefits it creates; and (c) to identify how biodiversity conservation can be effectively integrated in multi‐functional forest management. ConFoBi will quantify retention levels required across the landscape, as well as the socio‐economic prerequisites for their implementation by forest owners and managers. ConFoBi's research results will provide an evidence base for integrating biodiversity conservation into forest management in temperate forests.

[1]  M. Hanewinkel,et al.  Socially optimal forest management and biodiversity conservation in temperate forests under climate change , 2020 .

[2]  G. Mikusiński,et al.  Woodpecker cavity establishment in managed forests: relative rather than absolute tree size matters , 2020, Wildlife Biology.

[3]  A. Klein,et al.  Plant composition, not richness, drives occurrence of specialist herbivores , 2019, Ecological Entomology.

[4]  A. Klein,et al.  Optimizing sampling of flying insects using a modified window trap , 2019, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[5]  C. Bouget,et al.  The scale of saproxylic beetles response to landscape structure depends on their habitat stability , 2019, Landscape Ecology.

[6]  J. Müller,et al.  Impacts of dead wood manipulation on the biodiversity of temperate and boreal forests. A systematic review , 2019, Journal of Applied Ecology.

[7]  Barbara Koch,et al.  Same Viewpoint Different Perspectives - A Comparison of Expert Ratings with a TLS Derived Forest Stand Structural Complexity Index , 2019, Remote. Sens..

[8]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Retention as an integrated biodiversity conservation approach for continuous-cover forestry in Europe , 2019, Ambio.

[9]  G. Mikusiński,et al.  Bird guilds show different responses to tree retention levels: a meta-analysis , 2019, Global Ecology and Conservation.

[10]  S. Nielsen,et al.  Can retention harvests help conserve wildlife? Evidence for vertebrates in the boreal forest , 2019, Ecosphere.

[11]  M. Hanewinkel,et al.  Diversification of forest management regimes secures tree microhabitats and bird abundance under climate change. , 2019, The Science of the total environment.

[12]  J. Bauhus,et al.  Predicting abundance and diversity of tree-related microhabitats in Central European montane forests from common forest attributes , 2019, Forest Ecology and Management.

[13]  Unai Pascual,et al.  Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services-ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION , 2019 .

[14]  L. Vítková,et al.  Deadwood management in Central European forests: Key considerations for practical implementation , 2018, Forest Ecology and Management.

[15]  Bettina Joa,et al.  The unknown known – A review of local ecological knowledge in relation to forest biodiversity conservation , 2018, Land Use Policy.

[16]  A. Reif,et al.  Loxospora cristinae Found in Germany , 2018, Herzogia.

[17]  M. Hanewinkel,et al.  Multiple uncertainties require a change of conservation practices for saproxylic beetles in managed temperate forests , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[18]  Marco Heurich,et al.  Biodiversity along temperate forest succession , 2018, Journal of Applied Ecology.

[19]  C. Dormann,et al.  Decaying trees improve nesting opportunities for cavity‐nesting birds in temperate and boreal forests: A meta‐analysis and implications for retention forestry , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[20]  J. Szewczyk,et al.  Deadwood volume in strictly protected, natural, and primeval forests in Poland , 2018, European Journal of Forest Research.

[21]  Barbara Koch,et al.  UAV Photogrammetry of Forests as a Vulnerable Process. A Sensitivity Analysis for a Structure from Motion RGB-Image Pipeline , 2018, Remote. Sens..

[22]  Y. Paillet,et al.  The indicator side of tree microhabitats: A multi-taxon approach based on bats, birds and saproxylic beetles , 2018, Journal of Applied Ecology.

[23]  L. Rodriguez,et al.  Conservation Costs of Retention Forestry and Optimal Habitat Network Selection in Southwestern Germany , 2018, Ecological Economics.

[24]  Y. Bergeron,et al.  Routledge Handbook of Forest Ecology , 2018 .

[25]  Thibault Lachat,et al.  Tree related microhabitats in temperate and Mediterranean European forests: A hierarchical typology for inventory standardization , 2018 .

[26]  Tara L. Teel,et al.  Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation , 2018 .

[27]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Landscape properties affect biodiversity response to retention approaches in forestry , 2017 .

[28]  F. Hartig,et al.  Productivity of Fagus sylvatica under climate change – A Bayesian analysis of risk and uncertainty using the model 3-PG , 2017 .

[29]  G. Winkel,et al.  Implementing nature conservation through integrated forest management: A street-level bureaucracy perspective on the German public forest sector , 2017 .

[30]  D. Hummel,et al.  Halting biodiversity loss: how social–ecological biodiversity research makes a difference , 2017 .

[31]  H. Wittmer,et al.  Science-policy interfaces for biodiversity: dynamic learning environments for successful impact , 2018, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[32]  A. Meiner,et al.  European forest ecosystems - State and trends , 2016 .

[33]  I. Prokofieva,et al.  The contribution of patch-scale conditions is greater than that of macroclimate in explaining local plant diversity in fragmented forests across Europe , 2015 .

[34]  A. Lanz,et al.  State of Europe\'s forests 2015 , 2015 .

[35]  G. Weiss,et al.  The impact of Natura 2000 on forest management: a socio-ecological analysis in the continental region of the European Union , 2014, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[36]  Michael Pregernig.  Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: examples from conservation and environmental policy , 2014, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[37]  Jürgen Bauhus,et al.  An index of forest management intensity based on assessment of harvested tree volume, tree species composition and dead wood origin , 2014 .

[38]  Robert Mavsar,et al.  Assessing impacts of intensified biomass production and biodiversity protection on ecosystem services provided by European forests. , 2014 .

[39]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis , 2014, The Journal of applied ecology.

[40]  G. Brunialti.  Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity , 2014 .

[41]  M. Dieter,et al.  Income losses due to the implementation of the Habitats Directive in forests — Conclusions from a case study in Germany , 2014 .

[42]  B. Muys,et al.  orum novel comparative research platform designed to determine the unctional significance of tree species diversity in European forests , 2013 .

[43]  H. Wehrden,et al.  Multiscale performance of landscape metrics as indicators of species richness of plants, insects and vertebrates , 2013 .

[44]  Y. Paillet,et al.  Habitat trees: key elements for forest biodiversity , 2013 .

[45]  K. Bollmann,et al.  To integrate or to segregate: balancing commodity production and biodiversity conservation in European forests , 2013 .

[46]  R. Didham,et al.  Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes ‐ eight hypotheses , 2012, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[47]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Retention Forestry to Maintain Multifunctional Forests: A World Perspective , 2012 .

[48]  C. Rutte.  The sacred commons: Conflicts and solutions of resource management in sacred natural sites , 2011 .

[49]  Jens Nieschulze,et al.  Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: The Biodiversity Exploratories , 2010 .

[50]  W. Schlesinger.  Translational Ecology , 2010, Science.

[51]  Jörg Müller,et al.  A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests , 2010, European Journal of Forest Research.

[52]  L. Musacchio.  The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: A conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[53]  Jürgen Bauhus,et al.  Silviculture for old-growth attributes , 2009 .

[54]  M. Mönkkönen,et al.  Ecological Efficiency of Voluntary Conservation of Boreal‐Forest Biodiversity , 2009, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[55]  J. Latham,et al.  The ancient woodland concept as a practical conservation tool in Great Britain , 2007 .

[56]  J. Guinan,et al.  Multiscale Terrain Analysis of Multibeam Bathymetry Data for Habitat Mapping on the Continental Slope , 2007 .

[57]  L. Gorenflo,et al.  Key Human Dimensions of Gaps in Global Biodiversity Conservation , 2006 .

[58]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  Targets for maintenance of dead wood for biodiversity conservation based on extinction thresholds , 2006 .

[59]  Richard K. Johnson,et al.  Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe , 2005 .

[60]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology , 2004 .

[61]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive, Multiscaled Approach , 2002 .

[62]  Juha Siitonen,et al.  Coarse woody debris and stand characteristics in mature managed and old-growth boreal mesic forests in southern Finland , 2000 .

[63]  C. E. Van Wagner,et al.  PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE LINE INTERSECT METHOD , 1982 .

[64]  J. A. Schell,et al.  Monitoring vegetation systems in the great plains with ERTS , 1973 .