Search

Schall et al. (2020) assessed how a combination of different forest management systems in managed forest landscapes dominated by European beech may affect the biodiversity (alpha, beta and gamma) of 14 taxonomic groups. Current forest policy and nature conservation often demand for combining uneven‐aged managed and unmanaged, set‐aside for nature conservation, beech forests in order to promote biodiversity. In contrast to this, Schall et al. (2020) found even‐aged shelterwood forests, represented by different developmental phases, to support highest regional (gamma) diversity.By pointing out that unmanaged forests included in our study are not old‐growth forests, Bruun and Heilmann‐Clausen (2021) challenge our conclusion as not providing sound scientific advice to societies. It is true that the studied unmanaged forests are not representing old‐growth forests as defined in the literature. However, we demonstrate the representativeness of our unmanaged forests for current beech forest landscapes of Central Europe, where managed forests were more or less recently set‐aside in order to develop old‐growth structures. We also show that the managed and recently unmanaged forests in our study already differ distinctively in their forest structures.We use this response to stress the role of forest reserves for promoting certain species groups, and to emphasise their importance as valuable research sites today and in the future.Synthesis and applications. We see two main conclusions from our study. First, unmanaged forests still matter. We agree with Bruun and Heilmann‐Clausen (2021) on the general importance of unmanaged, old‐growth or long‐untouched forests, and we do not question the importance of set‐aside forests for biodiversity conservation. However, a complete complementarity to managed systems may only reveal after many decades of natural development. Second, safeguarding biodiversity in largely managed forest landscapes should focus on providing a landscape matrix of different developmental phases with varying environmental conditions rather than on maximising the vertical structure within stands. Such landscapes can partly compensate for structures that are still missing in vital, dense and closed forests recently set‐aside or for unsuitable phases that may occur due to a cyclic synchronisation of forest structures in unmanaged forests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tree regeneration is a key process for long‐term forest dynamics, determining changes in species composition and shaping successional trajectories. While tree regeneration is a highly stochastic process, tree regeneration studies often cover narrow environmental gradients only, focusing on specific forest types or species in distinct regions. Thus, the larger‐scale effects of temperature, water availability, and stand structure on tree regeneration are poorly understood.We investigated these effects in respect of tree recruitment (in‐growth) along wide environmental gradients using forest inventory data from Flanders (Belgium), northwestern Germany, and Switzerland covering more than 40 tree species. We employed generalized linear mixed models to capture the abundance of tree recruitment in response to basal area, stem density, shade casting ability of a forest stand as well as site‐specific degree‐day sum (temperature), water balance, and plant‐available water holding capacity. We grouped tree species to facilitate comparisons between species with different levels of tolerance to shade and drought.Basal area and shade casting ability of the overstory had generally a negative impact on tree recruitment, but the effects differed between levels of shade tolerance of tree recruitment in all study regions. Recruitment rates of very shade‐tolerant species were positively affected by shade casting ability. Stem density and summer warmth (degree‐day sum) had similar effects on all tree species and successional strategies. Water‐related variables revealed a high degree of uncertainty and did not allow for general conclusions. All variables had similar effects independent of the varying diameter thresholds for tree recruitment in the different data sets.Synthesis: Shade tolerance and stand structure are the main drivers of tree recruitment along wide environmental gradients in temperate forests. Higher temperature generally increases tree recruitment rates, but the role of water relations and drought tolerance remains uncertain for tree recruitment on cross‐regional scales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]