Managing European Alpine forests with close-to-nature forestry to improve climate change mitigation and multifunctionality.

[Display omitted] • Alpine study sites with a long close-to-nature forestry (CNF) history were studied. • Alternative climate change and CNF management scenarios were simulated. • CNF performs well in ensuring multiple forest ecosystem services and biodiversity. • Climate change requires adaptation of CNF by fostering climate-adapted tree species. • High multifunctionality, including biodiversity, needs diversified management. Close-to-nature forestry (CNF) has a long tradition in European Alpine forest management, playing a crucial role in ensuring the continuous provision of biodiversity and forest ecosystem services, including protection against natural hazards. However, climate change is causing huge uncertainties about the future applicability of CNF in the Alpine region. The question arises as to whether current CNF practices are still suitable for adapting forests to climate change impacts while also meeting the increasing societal demands regarding Alpine forests, including their potential contribution to climate change mitigation. To answer this question, we simulated forest development using the ForClim forest model at two Alpine study sites, together representing a large biogeographic gradient from high-elevation inner Alpine forests (Switzerland) to lower-elevation south-eastern Alpine forests (Slovenia). The simulations considered three climate scenarios (historical climate, SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5) and six alternative management strategies, including both current CNF management practices and climate-adapted versions. Using an indicator based multi-criteria decision analysis framework, we assessed the joint impacts of climate and management on biodiversity and key ecosystem services of the investigated regions, including carbon sequestration (CS) inside and outside the forest ecosystem boundary. The joint effects of climate change and CNF varied, both among and within the study sites along the biogeographical gradient. While CS was more resistant to climate change under current CNF at the south-eastern Alpine site, it was more sensitive at the inner Alpine site, where CS potentials decreased at lower elevations. This adverse effect could be partly mitigated by fostering the use of climate-adapted tree species. However, current CNF and adaptations of it did not meet multiple management objectives equally well: while protection from gravitation hazards and timber production also benefited from this silvicultural practice, biodiversity benefited from CNF variants with low-intensity or no management. In conclusion, CNF has a high potential to continue fulfilling its crucial role in European Alpine forests. A differentiated approach will be needed in the future, however, to identify forest stands where adaptive measures are required, especially at sites particularly vulnerable to climate change. In combination with less intensively managed or unmanaged areas, CNF provides a management portfolio that will help European Alpine forests to meet the demands of future society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]