Search

[Display omitted] • Forest multi-taxon studies have similar aims but different sampling protocols. • The most sampled taxonomic groups are plants, beetles, lichens, birds, fungi. • Soil, litter and canopy resulted as undersampled forest habitats. • Sampling units and substrates differed widely within and among taxonomic groups. • Sampling methods for stand structure were relatively homogeneous. Forests host most terrestrial biodiversity and their sustainable management is crucial to halt biodiversity loss. Although scientific evidence indicates that sustainable forest management (SFM) should be assessed by monitoring multi-taxon biodiversity, most current SFM criteria and indicators account only for trees or consider indirect biodiversity proxies. Several projects performed multi-taxon sampling to investigate the effects of forest management on biodiversity, but the large variability of their sampling approaches hampers the identification of general trends, and limits broad-scale inference for designing SFM. Here we address the need of common sampling protocols for forest structure and multi-taxon biodiversity to be used at broad spatial scales. We established a network of researchers involved in 41 projects on forest multi-taxon biodiversity across 13 European countries. The network data structure comprised the assessment of at least three taxa, and the measurement of forest stand structure in the same plots or stands. We mapped the sampling approaches to multi-taxon biodiversity, standing trees and deadwood, and used this overview to provide operational answers to two simple, yet crucial, questions: what to sample? How to sample? The most commonly sampled taxonomic groups are vascular plants (83% of datasets), beetles (80%), lichens (66%), birds (66%), fungi (61%), bryophytes (49%). They cover different forest structures and habitats, with a limited focus on soil, litter and forest canopy. Notwithstanding the common goal of assessing forest management effects on biodiversity, sampling approaches differed widely within and among taxonomic groups. Differences derive from sampling units (plots size, use of stand vs. plot scale), and from the focus on different substrates or functional groups of organisms. Sampling methods for standing trees and lying deadwood were relatively homogeneous and focused on volume calculations, but with a great variability in sampling units and diameter thresholds. We developed a handbook of sampling methods (SI 3) aimed at the greatest possible comparability across taxonomic groups and studies as a basis for European-wide biodiversity monitoring programs, robust understanding of biodiversity response to forest structure and management, and the identification of direct indicators of SFM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Palaearctic grasslands are diverse and dynamic ecosystems that are in the focus of ecology, conservation biology and agronomy. This special issue is dedicated to the biodiversity and conservation issues of Palaearctic grasslands and was initiated by the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group members attending the 14th Eurasian Dry Grassland Conference (EDGC) at Sulmona, Italy in 2018. The papers in this special issue cover a wide range of grassland ecosystems from mountain dry grasslands to lowland loess grasslands, feathergrass steppes and wet grasslands, and focus on the biodiversity values and conservation issues of Palaearctic grasslands. We believe that this compilation will contribute to a better understanding of the ecology of grasslands and support their more effective conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policies to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss often assume that protecting carbon‐rich forests provides co‐benefits in terms of biodiversity, due to the spatial congruence of carbon stocks and biodiversity at biogeographic scales. However, it remains unclear whether this holds at the scales relevant for management, and particularly large knowledge gaps exist for temperate forests and for taxa other than trees. We built a comprehensive dataset of Central European temperate forest structure and multi‐taxonomic diversity (beetles, birds, bryophytes, fungi, lichens, and plants) across 352 plots. We used Boosted Regression Trees (BRTs) to assess the relationship between above‐ground live carbon stocks and (a) taxon‐specific richness, (b) a unified multidiversity index. We used Threshold Indicator Taxa ANalysis to explore individual species' responses to changing above‐ground carbon stocks and to detect change‐points in species composition along the carbon‐stock gradient. Our results reveal an overall weak and highly variable relationship between richness and carbon stock at the stand scale, both for individual taxonomic groups and for multidiversity. Similarly, the proportion of win‐win and trade‐off species (i.e., species favored or disadvantaged by increasing carbon stock, respectively) varied substantially across taxa. Win‐win species gradually replaced trade‐off species with increasing carbon, without clear thresholds along the above‐ground carbon gradient, suggesting that community‐level surrogates (e.g., richness) might fail to detect critical changes in biodiversity. Collectively, our analyses highlight that leveraging co‐benefits between carbon and biodiversity in temperate forest may require stand‐scale management that prioritizes either biodiversity or carbon in order to maximize co‐benefits at broader scales. Importantly, this contrasts with tropical forests, where climate and biodiversity objectives can be integrated at the stand scale, thus highlighting the need for context‐specificity when managing for multiple objectives. Accounting for critical change‐points of target taxa can help to deal with this specificity, by defining a safe operating space to manipulate carbon while avoiding biodiversity losses. Can managing forests for storing carbon jointly achieve biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation goals? Global and regional environmental policies often assume co‐benefits between carbon and biodiversity, but it is unclear whether this assumption holds at fine scales relevant for management. By modelling the carbon–biodiversity relationship for a broad range of taxa in temperate forests, we found that biodiversity and carbon stocks are not well‐aligned spatially at stand‐scale, and their relationship varied substantially across taxa. This suggests that forest management aimed at storing carbon may benefit some taxa but harm others, highlighting that broad‐scale co‐benefits may break down at fine scales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]