Search

A recent paper by Schall et al. (2020) concluded that beech forests managed in even‐aged (EA) rotation systems were more efficient than unmanaged (UNM) forest and forest managed in uneven‐aged (UEA) selective cutting systems in supporting landscape‐scale biodiversity in Germany.The authors based their conclusion on a comprehensive multitaxon survey and a promising resampling model for assessing gamma diversity at landscape scale. Here, we challenge their conclusions and evaluate the importance of UNM forests for conservation of forest biodiversity.The average amount of dead wood reported from EA stands (27.8 m3/ha) was almost 30% higher than reported from UNM stands (21.6 m3/ha) in the study. Averages from long UNM temperate forests in Europe are typically six to seven times higher (131–157 m3/ha). We therefore conclude the UNM studied stands to reflect legacies of former management, and to be poorly representative of UNM forests. Data from our own studies, including long UNM beech stands in Denmark, demonstrate how this shortcoming seriously undermines the general validity of the presented results to conservation of forest biodiversity.Synthesis and applications. Preservation and restoration of intact forest ecosystems remains essential to biodiversity conservation. We show that the findings of Schall et al. (2020) do not contradict this important notion. Schall and colleagues identified UEA management systems as potentially inferior to more traditional EA management systems for conserving forest biodiversity at the landscape scale. The paper also provides insight into the limited short‐term conservation value of simply abandoning forest management in intensively managed landscapes. Based on this, we call for discarding the current orthodox view of non‐intervention when new forest reserves are created in temperate Europe. Active reinforcement of natural disturbance regimes and active habitat creation may lead to faster recovery of natural stand structure and forest biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Mature forests have structural habitat features that can take hundreds of years to develop, and large reserves alone are unlikely to ensure conservation of the species that rely on these features. This paper outlines a proposed new approach to managing mature forest features, the ‘mature habitat management approach’, in areas outside of reserves. The objective was to maintain a network of current and future mature forest habitat distributed across the landscape. The approach is designed to complement the existing reserve network and management actions and is tenure‐blind. Spatial information on the availability of mature forest habitat at the local (1‐km radius) and landscape (5‐km radius) scales is used for decisions on retention within a 1‐km radius of a harvest area, to reach the minimum target of 20% and 30% retention of mature forest at the local and landscape spatial scales, respectively. We believe this approach could contribute to meeting the conservation needs of many species that require mature forest features for refuge and breeding in Tasmania and elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]