Search

Over the last decades, the natural disturbance is increasingly putting pressure on European forests. Shifts in disturbance regimes may compromise forest functioning and the continuous provisioning of ecosystem services to society, including their climate change mitigation potential. Although forests are central to many European policies, we lack the long‐term empirical data needed for thoroughly understanding disturbance dynamics, modeling them, and developing adaptive management strategies. Here, we present a unique database of >170,000 records of ground‐based natural disturbance observations in European forests from 1950 to 2019. Reported data confirm a significant increase in forest disturbance in 34 European countries, causing on an average of 43.8 million m3 of disturbed timber volume per year over the 70‐year study period. This value is likely a conservative estimate due to under‐reporting, especially of small‐scale disturbances. We used machine learning techniques for assessing the magnitude of unreported disturbances, which are estimated to be between 8.6 and 18.3 million m3/year. In the last 20 years, disturbances on average accounted for 16% of the mean annual harvest in Europe. Wind was the most important disturbance agent over the study period (46% of total damage), followed by fire (24%) and bark beetles (17%). Bark beetle disturbance doubled its share of the total damage in the last 20 years. Forest disturbances can profoundly impact ecosystem services (e.g., climate change mitigation), affect regional forest resource provisioning and consequently disrupt long‐term management planning objectives and timber markets. We conclude that adaptation to changing disturbance regimes must be placed at the core of the European forest management and policy debate. Furthermore, a coherent and homogeneous monitoring system of natural disturbances is urgently needed in Europe, to better observe and respond to the ongoing changes in forest disturbance regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The nexus between forest-based climate mitigation and health is poorly researched. • This scoping review identified exposure pathways and health co-benefits from forests. • There is potential for synergies between forest management and health benefits. • Interdisciplinary efforts are required for advancement of research and understanding. Climate change is a pressing global challenge with profound implications for human health. Forest-based climate change mitigation strategies, such as afforestation, reforestation, and sustainable forest management, offer promising solutions to mitigate climate change and simultaneously yield substantial co-benefits for human health. The objective of this scoping review was to examine research trends related to the interdisciplinary nexus between forests as carbon sinks and human health co-benefits. We developed a conceptual framework model, supporting the inclusion of exposure pathways, such as recreational opportunities or aesthetic experiences, in the co-benefit context. We used a scoping review methodology to identify the proportion of European research on forest-based mitigation strategies that acknowledge the interconnection between mitigation strategies and human impacts. We also aimed to assess whether synergies and trade-offs between forest-based carbon sink capacity and human co-benefits has been analysed and quantified. From the initial 4,062 records retrieved, 349 reports analysed European forest management principles and factors related to climate change mitigation capacity. Of those, 97 studies acknowledged human co-benefits and 13 studies quantified the impacts on exposure pathways or health co-benefits and were included for full review. Our analysis demonstrates that there is potential for synergies related to optimising carbon sink capacity together with human co-benefits, but there is currently a lack of holistic research approaches assessing these interrelationships. We suggest enhanced interdisciplinary efforts, using for example multideterminant modelling approaches, to advance evidence and understanding of the forest and health nexus in the context of climate change mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Robinia pseudoacacia is one of the most frequent non‐native species in Europe. It is a fast‐growing tree of high economic and cultural importance. On the other hand, it is an invasive species, causing changes in soil chemistry and light regime, and consequently altering the plant communities. Previously published models developed for the potential distribution of R. pseudoacacia concerned 2070, and were based mainly on data from Western and Central Europe; here we extended these findings and included additional data from Eastern Europe. To fill the gap in current knowledge of R. pseudoacacia distribution and improve the reliability of forecasts, we aimed to (i) determine the extent to which the outcome of range modeling will be affected by complementing R. pseudoacacia occurrence data with sites from Central, Southeastern, and Eastern Europe, (ii) identify and quantify the changes in the availability of climate niches for 2050 and 2070, and discuss their impacts on forest management and nature conservation. We showed that the majority of the range changes expected in 2070 will occur as early as 2050. In comparison to previous studies, we demonstrated a greater eastward shift of potential niches of this species and a greater decline of potential niches in Southern Europe. Consequently, future climatic conditions will likely favor the occurrence of R. pseudoacacia in Central and Northeastern Europe where this species is still absent or relatively rare. There, controlling the spread of R. pseudoacacia will require monitoring sources of invasion in the landscape and reducing the occurrence of this species. The expected effects of climate change will likely be observed 20 years earlier than previously forecasted. Hence we highlighted the urgent need for acceleration of policies aimed at climate change mitigation in Europe. Also, our results showed the need for using more complete distribution data to analyze potential niche models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ongoing global climate change is challenging all sectors, forestry notwithstanding. On the one hand, forest ecosystems are exposed to and threatened by climate change, but on the other hand, forests can influence the course of climate change by regulating the water regime, air quality, carbon sequestration, and even reduce climate extremes. Therefore, it is crucial to see climate change not only as a risk causing forest disturbances and economic consequences but also as an opportunity for innovative approaches to forest management, conservation, and silviculture based on the results of long-term research. We reviewed 365 studies evaluating the impact of climate change on European forest ecosystems, all published during the last 30 years (1993–2022). The most significant consequences of climate change include more frequent and destructive large-scale forest disturbances (wildfire, windstorm, drought, flood, bark beetle, root rot), and tree species migration. Species distribution shifts and changes in tree growth rate have substantial effects on ecosystem carbon storage. Diameter/volume increment changed from −1 to +99% in Central and Northern Europe, while it decreased from −12 to −49% in Southern Europe across tree species over the last ca. 50 years. However, it is important to sharply focus on the causes of climate change and subsequently, on adaptive strategies, which can successfully include the creation of species-diverse, spatially and age-wise structured stands (decrease drought stress and increase production), prolongation of the regenerative period, or the use of suitable introduced tree species (e.g., Douglas fir, black pine, and Mediterranean oaks). But the desired changes are based on increasing diversity and the mitigation of climate change, and will require significantly higher initial costs for silviculture practices. In conclusion, the scope and complexity of the topic require further comprehensive and long-term studies focusing on international cooperation. We see a critical gap in the transfer of research results into actual forest practice, which will be the key factor influencing afforestation of forest stands and forest growth in the following decades. What our forests will look like for future generations and what the resulting impact of climate change will be on forestry is in the hands of forest managers, depending on supportive forestry research and climate change policy, including adaptive and mitigation strategies. • We review main factors influencing forest growth processes under climate change (CC). • We concentrate on potential direct and indirect impacts of CC on forest ecosystems. • Consequences of CC include large-scale forest disturbances and tree species migration. • Review is focused on management adaptive strategies and mitigation of CC. • Opportunity and risk of introduced tree species are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• carbon uptake by above-ground biomass is higher in unmanaged beech stands. • thinning does not alter growth-climate sensitivity. • resistance to extreme weather events decreases with increasing tree productivity. • close-to-nature forestry may be preferable at sites with higher incidence of heat and drought events. European beech plays a prominent role in the adaptation of European forests to and mitigation of climate change. Forest management may increase the mitigation potential of beech forests by accelerating carbon accumulation in tree biomass, but little is known about the interaction between the rate of biomass expansion in beech and its sensitivity to climate variation or its resistance to extreme drought episodes. A 60-year thinning experiment in beech forests in Central Europe was used to generate tree-ring width series describing past radial growth of dominant, co-dominant and sub-dominant beech trees. Randomisation applied to daily climate data was used to find the period of the year during which climate best explains beech growth. Results show that carbon uptake by above-ground biomass is higher in unmanaged stands and that thinning does not affect beech growth sensitivity to climate. Further, this study shows that average daily temperature amplitude and precipitation in March-July are the best predictors of radial growth in beech at lower-elevation sites. In a key finding, this research shows that site quality and thinning intensity increase tree size, which in turn lowers their resistance to drought. Using forest management to increase the productivity of European beech may thus increase its vulnerability to climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259–262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most of the additional EU GHG mitigation effort by 2030 is expected to come from emission reductions and only a very small part from forestry, even when forest bioenergy is allowed for. Nevertheless, the inclusion of forest management in climate change mitigation strategies is key to identifying the country-specific optimal mix, in terms of overall GHG balance, between strategies focused on conserving and/or enhancing the sink and strategies focused on using more wood to reduce emissions in other GHG sectors. Then, while acknowledging the importance that biophysical effects have on the climate, especially at the local and seasonal scale, we argue that the net annual biophysical climate impact of forest management in Europe remains more uncertain than the net CO2 impact. This has not been adequately emphasized by Luyssaert et al. (2018), leading to conclusions on the net overall climate impact of forest management that we consider premature and applied to a partially biased perception of European policy towards forestry and climate change. To avoid further confusion in the debate on how forestry may contribute to mitigating climate change, a more constructive dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]