Search

The European biodiversity and forest strategies rely on forest sustainable management (SFM) to conserve forest biodiversity. However, current sustainability assessments hardly account for direct biodiversity indicators. We focused on forest multi-taxon biodiversity to: i) gather and map the existing information; ii) identify knowledge and research gaps; iii) discuss its research potential. We established a research network to fit data on species, standing trees, lying deadwood and sampling unit description from 34 local datasets across 3591 sampling units. A total of 8724 species were represented, with the share of common and rare species varying across taxonomic classes: some included many species with several rare ones (e.g., Insecta); others (e.g., Bryopsida) were represented by few common species. Tree-related structural attributes were sampled in a subset of sampling units (2889; 2356; 2309 and 1388 respectively for diameter, height, deadwood and microhabitats). Overall, multi-taxon studies are biased towards mature forests and may underrepresent the species related to other developmental phases. European forest compositional categories were all represented, but beech forests were over-represented as compared to thermophilous and boreal forests. Most sampling units (94%) were referred to a habitat type of conservation concern. Existing information may support European conservation and SFM strategies in: (i) methodological harmonization and coordinated monitoring; (ii) definition and testing of SFM indicators and thresholds; (iii) data-driven assessment of the effects of environmental and management drivers on multi-taxon forest biological and functional diversity, (iv) multi-scale forest monitoring integrating in-situ and remotely sensed information. • Through a Europe-wide research network we harmonized and merged 34 datasets on forest biodiversity • Multi-taxon biodiversity information is available for studied across 3,591 sampling units • Available data unevenly cover the European forest compositional categories • Knowledge gaps are boreal, Mediterranean, thermophilous and floodplain forests • The available information has the potential to inform conservation and management strategies for European forests [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Primary forests have high conservation value but are rare in Europe due to historic land use. Yet many primary forest patches remain unmapped, and it is unclear to what extent they are effectively protected. Our aim was to (1) compile the most comprehensive European‐scale map of currently known primary forests, (2) analyse the spatial determinants characterizing their location and (3) locate areas where so far unmapped primary forests likely occur. Location: Europe. Methods: We aggregated data from a literature review, online questionnaires and 32 datasets of primary forests. We used boosted regression trees to explore which biophysical, socio‐economic and forest‐related variables explain the current distribution of primary forests. Finally, we predicted and mapped the relative likelihood of primary forest occurrence at a 1‐km resolution across Europe. Results: Data on primary forests were frequently incomplete or inconsistent among countries. Known primary forests covered 1.4 Mha in 32 countries (0.7% of Europe's forest area). Most of these forests were protected (89%), but only 46% of them strictly. Primary forests mostly occurred in mountain and boreal areas and were unevenly distributed across countries, biogeographical regions and forest types. Unmapped primary forests likely occur in the least accessible and populated areas, where forests cover a greater share of land, but wood demand historically has been low. Main conclusions: Despite their outstanding conservation value, primary forests are rare and their current distribution is the result of centuries of land use and forest management. The conservation outlook for primary forests is uncertain as many are not strictly protected and most are small and fragmented, making them prone to extinction debt and human disturbance. Predicting where unmapped primary forests likely occur could guide conservation efforts, especially in Eastern Europe where large areas of primary forest still exist but are being lost at an alarming pace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The extension of forest area is a globally accepted tool to offset CO 2 emissions from deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels. The common assumption is that in addition to the perceived climate benefits increasing forest area will also support biodiversity, thus making afforestation a “win-win scenario”. Based on the existing scientific evidences, we show that joined climate and biodiversity benefits are strongly context-dependent and that the outcome of afforestation is often highly questionable. In Europe, grasslands managed at low intensity contribute substantially to biodiversity conservation and carbon storage. However, many of these grasslands have been lost due to abandonment and subsequent spontaneous succession towards woody vegetation, or due to land use intensification. Moreover, grasslands are the ecosystems most often deliberately afforested in the context of EU carbon-centered policies that may thus counteract biodiversity conservation programmes. By reviewing the main EU policies targeting forests and grasslands, we found a striking ambivalence between policies and funding schemes addressing grassland conservation on the one hand (e.g. Habitats Directive, green payments within the Common Agricultural Policy) and those supporting afforestation on the other (e.g. rural development funds). We suggest three measures towards a better harmonization of the European Union policies that target forest and grassland ecosystems: (1) promoting the alignment of the decisions taken across different policy sectors; (2) focusing on the whole range of ecosystem services and biodiversity issues rather than on carbon management only; (3) valuing systems managed at low-intensity for their multifunctionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forest composition is a faithful indicator of the stressors and disturbances that influence forest ecosystems, and it should be accounted for in Sustainable Forest Management policies. Indeed, the classification of forest ecosystems in forest types is considered as a key tool to improve the assessment and monitoring of forest biological diversity, and for the definition of management guidelines. Accordingly, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe has recognized the need of developing a pan-European forest classification in forest types, and has identified indicators of Sustainable Forest Management that should be applied by forest types. The classification of vegetation has always been among the main aims of the plant sociology. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of plant species composition, performed through the plant sociological approach, condenses compositional and structural information within a hierarchical system, and expresses all historical, sociological and habitat factors that influence the actual and potential vegetation. In a modern perspective the integration of plant sociology and ecological analysis represents a key to a hierarchical land classification and to the understanding of vegetation dynamics; furthermore the long history of plant sociology determined the availability of large datasets of vegetation data throughout Europe. Starting from these considerations, in this paper we briefly describe how plant sociology could represent a tool for the assessment of the indicators of SFM that should be applied by forest types, giving insights on how this discipline could contribute to the assessment of each of these indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Primary forests are critical for forest biodiversity and provide key ecosystem services. In Europe, these forests are particularly scarce and it is unclear whether they are sufficiently protected. Here we aim to: (a) understand whether extant primary forests are representative of the range of naturally occurring forest types, (b) identify forest types which host enough primary forest under strict protection to meet conservation targets and (c) highlight areas where restoration is needed and feasible. Location: Europe. Methods: We combined a unique geodatabase of primary forests with maps of forest cover, potential natural vegetation, biogeographic regions and protected areas to quantify the proportion of extant primary forest across Europe's forest types and to identify gaps in protection. Using spatial predictions of primary forest locations to account for underreporting of primary forests, we then highlighted areas where restoration could complement protection. Results: We found a substantial bias in primary forest distribution across forest types. Of the 54 forest types we assessed, six had no primary forest at all, and in two‐thirds of forest types, less than 1% of forest was primary. Even if generally protected, only ten forest types had more than half of their primary forests strictly protected. Protecting all documented primary forests requires expanding the protected area networks by 1,132 km2 (19,194 km2 when including also predicted primary forests). Encouragingly, large areas of non‐primary forest existed inside protected areas for most types, thus presenting restoration opportunities. Main conclusion: Europe's primary forests are in a perilous state, as also acknowledged by EU's "Biodiversity Strategy for 2030." Yet, there are considerable opportunities for ensuring better protection and restoring primary forest structure, composition and functioning, at least partially. We advocate integrated policy reforms that explicitly account for the irreplaceable nature of primary forests and ramp up protection and restoration efforts alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Questions: What is the functional trait variation of European temperate grasslands and how does this reflect global patterns of plant form and function? Do habitat specialists show trait differentiation across habitat types? Location: Europe. Methods: We compiled 18 regeneration and non‐regeneration traits for a continental species pool consisting of 645 species frequent in five grassland types. These grassland types are widely distributed in Europe but differentiated by altitude, soil bedrock and traditional long‐term management and disturbance regimes. We evaluated the multivariate trait space of this entire species pool and compared multi‐trait variation and mean trait values of habitat specialists grouped by grassland type. Results: The first dimension of the trait space accounted for 23% of variation and reflected a gradient between fast‐growing and slow‐growing plants. Plant height and SLA contributed to both the first and second ordination axes. Regeneration traits mainly contributed to the second and following dimensions to explain 56% of variation across the first five axes. Habitat specialists showed functional differences between grassland types mainly through non‐regeneration traits. Conclusions: The trait spectrum of plants dominating European temperate grasslands is primarily explained by growth strategies which are analogous to the trait variation observed at the global scale, and secondly by regeneration strategies. Functional differentiation of habitat specialists across grassland types is mainly related to environmental filtering linked with altitude and disturbance. This filtering pattern is mainly observed in non‐regeneration traits, while most regeneration traits demonstrate multiple strategies within the same habitat type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]