Search

Aim: Exploring the biotic homogenization and diversity resistance hypotheses by assessing the effect of non‐native black locust canopy on understorey species turnover. Location: Berlin, the Venetian metropolitan area, and Rome. Methods: We modelled the zeta (ζ) expression of diversity to compare the understorey species turnover between the non‐native black locust and native woodland canopies across multiple sites and through predictors of anthropogenic pressure (road and built‐up density) and interior conditions (tree basal area and mean height). Results: In Rome, black locust showed the lowest survivability and cover and did not produce any homogenization of the understorey. In Berlin and in the Venetian metropolitan area, black locust caused understorey homogenization, although with a lower intensity in Berlin. Under black locust canopies, distance between sites and road density was more consistently associated with species turnover, across urban areas and multiple sites. Under native canopies in Berlin, factors prominently associated with species turnover were road and built‐up density and mean tree height, while in the Venetian metropolitan area it was road density. Main conclusions: Evidence in support of the biotic homogenization in contrast to the diversity resistance hypothesis varied across urban areas. Species turnover was influenced by land use patterns more evidently under native tree canopies and where the non‐native tree had higher survivability. Similar analyses in other urban areas may confirm these relationships with other types of landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Primary forests are critical for forest biodiversity and provide key ecosystem services. In Europe, these forests are particularly scarce and it is unclear whether they are sufficiently protected. Here we aim to: (a) understand whether extant primary forests are representative of the range of naturally occurring forest types, (b) identify forest types which host enough primary forest under strict protection to meet conservation targets and (c) highlight areas where restoration is needed and feasible. Location: Europe. Methods: We combined a unique geodatabase of primary forests with maps of forest cover, potential natural vegetation, biogeographic regions and protected areas to quantify the proportion of extant primary forest across Europe's forest types and to identify gaps in protection. Using spatial predictions of primary forest locations to account for underreporting of primary forests, we then highlighted areas where restoration could complement protection. Results: We found a substantial bias in primary forest distribution across forest types. Of the 54 forest types we assessed, six had no primary forest at all, and in two‐thirds of forest types, less than 1% of forest was primary. Even if generally protected, only ten forest types had more than half of their primary forests strictly protected. Protecting all documented primary forests requires expanding the protected area networks by 1,132 km2 (19,194 km2 when including also predicted primary forests). Encouragingly, large areas of non‐primary forest existed inside protected areas for most types, thus presenting restoration opportunities. Main conclusion: Europe's primary forests are in a perilous state, as also acknowledged by EU's "Biodiversity Strategy for 2030." Yet, there are considerable opportunities for ensuring better protection and restoring primary forest structure, composition and functioning, at least partially. We advocate integrated policy reforms that explicitly account for the irreplaceable nature of primary forests and ramp up protection and restoration efforts alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Primary forests have high conservation value but are rare in Europe due to historic land use. Yet many primary forest patches remain unmapped, and it is unclear to what extent they are effectively protected. Our aim was to (1) compile the most comprehensive European‐scale map of currently known primary forests, (2) analyse the spatial determinants characterizing their location and (3) locate areas where so far unmapped primary forests likely occur. Location: Europe. Methods: We aggregated data from a literature review, online questionnaires and 32 datasets of primary forests. We used boosted regression trees to explore which biophysical, socio‐economic and forest‐related variables explain the current distribution of primary forests. Finally, we predicted and mapped the relative likelihood of primary forest occurrence at a 1‐km resolution across Europe. Results: Data on primary forests were frequently incomplete or inconsistent among countries. Known primary forests covered 1.4 Mha in 32 countries (0.7% of Europe's forest area). Most of these forests were protected (89%), but only 46% of them strictly. Primary forests mostly occurred in mountain and boreal areas and were unevenly distributed across countries, biogeographical regions and forest types. Unmapped primary forests likely occur in the least accessible and populated areas, where forests cover a greater share of land, but wood demand historically has been low. Main conclusions: Despite their outstanding conservation value, primary forests are rare and their current distribution is the result of centuries of land use and forest management. The conservation outlook for primary forests is uncertain as many are not strictly protected and most are small and fragmented, making them prone to extinction debt and human disturbance. Predicting where unmapped primary forests likely occur could guide conservation efforts, especially in Eastern Europe where large areas of primary forest still exist but are being lost at an alarming pace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]