Search

This study examines the structural dynamics and species composition of the "Ravna Vala" old-growth forest on Bjelašnica Mountain, focusing on neighborhood effects on tree growth. Data from a permanent 1-hectare plot, measured 2012 and 2023, revealed that silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) constitutes nearly 73% of the total volume, while beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) dominates in tree numbers. The forest displays a reverse J-curve pattern, with significant mortality in smaller diameter classes. Using indices for species intermingling, aggregation, and competition, the study found that diameter at breast height (dbh) and the aggregation index significantly influenced growth, especially for silver fir and beech. Additional factors like the mixing index and competition index were significant for beech growth. These results underscore the complexity of species interactions and the importance of tailored management strategies. Future research should explore factors limiting fir regeneration and the link between disturbances and beech recruitment. Management practices that mimic natural disturbances, such as creating larger gaps, are recommended to enhance species diversity and forest resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]