Pubblicazioni Scientifiche

Filtri di ricerca 4 risultati
Reset
Pubblicazioni per anno
CrowNet: a trail-camera canopy monitoring system
Chianucci , Francesco , Lenzi , Alice , Minari , Emma , Guasti , Matteo , Gisondi , Silvia , Gonnelli , Marco , Innocenti , Simone , Ferrara , Carlotta , Campanaro , Alessandro , Ciampelli , Paola , Cutini , Andrea , Puletti , Nicola
camera trapping canopy cover digital cover photography leaf area index phenology
Mostra abstract
Continuous monitoring of forest canopy structure and phenology is pivotal for the assessment of ecosystem responses to environmental variability and changes. The present study evaluated the use of repeat digital trail cameras as a low-cost, flexible, and accessible in situ monitoring solution for quantifying daily canopy attributes, including effective leaf area index (Le) and canopy cover. A trial camera monitoring network (CrowNet) was established encompassing 20 forest stands in Italy, under different management and environmental conditions, resulting in over 44,000 daily images collected over three years. We demonstrated that taking the mean daily canopy attribute allowed to obtain smooth time series from trail cameras, from which phenological transition dates can be inferred. Daily canopy attributes were validated against manual digital cover photography measurement. To further explore the applicability of this monitoring solution, we performed a comparison between daily Le time series derived from a subset of trail cameras located in beech forests and data collected by multitemporal UAV LiDAR. Results demonstrated the close agreement between the two methods across the entire phenological period (start and end of season). We also illustrated use of continuous trail camera estimates to calibrate a vegetation index (NDVI) to infer leaf area and canopy cover from optical multi-temporal UAV data. We further investigated use of trail camera to detect species-specific differences in tree phenology from time series acquired in a mixed oak-hornbeam forest. We found different canopy structure and phenological transition dates in three broadleaved species (oak, ash, hornbeam), supporting the effectiveness of trail cameras for species-oriented phenology monitoring. We conclude that trail cameras provide a reliable solution for daily canopy monitoring, offering a significant cost-effective and flexible alternative to traditional field methods and providing potential to calibrate, validate or integrate remotely-sensed information. However, camera failures during adverse weather, and the need for more efficient image data quality checking procedures, still represent open challenges. Future improvements, such as weatherproof housing and automated pre-processing screening procedures, are therefore recommended for making trail camera fully operational in ground canopy and phenology monitoring. © 2025 Elsevier B.V.
🔗 Vai alla pubblicazione
2025
Rivista
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Dettagli
Vol. 372
DOI
One to rule them all? Assessing the performance of sustainable forest management indicators against multitaxonomic data for biodiversity conservation
Paillet , Yoan , Zapponi , Livia , Schall , Peter , Monnet , Jean Matthieu , Ammer , Christian , Balducci , Lorenzo , Boch , Steffen , Brazaitis , Gediminas , Campanaro , Alessandro , Chianucci , Francesco , Doerfler , Inken , Fischer , Markus , Gosselin , Marion , Goßner , Martin M. , Heilmann-Clausen , Jacob , Hofmeister , Jeňýk , Hošek , Jan , Jung , Kirsten G. , Kepfer-Rojas , Sebastian , Ódor , Péter , Tinya , Flóra , Trentanovi , Giovanni , Vacchiano , Giorgio , Vandekerkhove , Kris , Weisser , Wolfgang W. , Wohlwend , Michael Rudolf , Burrascano , Sabina
forest structure sustainable forest management multi-taxa diversity taxonomic indicators
Mostra abstract
Several regional initiatives and reporting efforts assess the state of forest biodiversity through broad-scale indicators based on data from national forest inventories. Although valuable, these indicators are essentially indirect and evaluate habitat quantity and quality rather than biodiversity per se. Therefore, their link to biodiversity may be weak, which decreases their usefulness for decision-making. For several decades, Forest Europe indicators assessed the state of European forests, in particular their biodiversity. However, no extensive study has been conducted to date to assess their performance – i.e. the capacity of the indicators to reflect variations in biodiversity – against multitaxonomic data. We hypothesized that no single biodiversity indicator from Forest Europe can represent overall forest biodiversity, but that several indicators would reflect habitat quality for at least some taxa in a comprehensive way. We tested the set of Forest Europe's indicators against the species richness of six taxonomic and functional groups across several hundreds of sampling units over Europe. We showed that, while some indicators perform relatively well across groups (e.g. deadwood volume), no single indicator represented all biodiversity at once, and that a combination of several indicators performed better. Forest Europe indicators were chosen for their availability and ease of understanding for most people. However, we showed that gaps in the monitoring framework persist, and that surveying certain taxa along with stand structure is necessary to support policymaking and tackle forest biodiversity loss at the large scale. Adding context (e.g. forest type) may also contribute to increase the performance of biodiversity indicators. © 2024 Elsevier Ltd
🔗 Vai alla pubblicazione
2024
Rivista
Biological Conservation
Dettagli
Vol. 300
DOI
Where are we now with European forest multi-taxon biodiversity and where can we head to?
Burrascano , Sabina , Chianucci , Francesco , Trentanovi , Giovanni , Kepfer-Rojas , Sebastian , Sitzia , Tommaso , Tinya , Flóra , Doerfler , Inken , Paillet , Yoan , Nagel , Thomas A. , Mitić , Božena , Morillas , Lourdes , Munzi , Silvana , Van Der Sluis , Theo , Alterio , Edoardo , Balducci , Lorenzo , de Andrade , Rafael Barreto , Bouget , Christophe , Giordani , P. , Lachat , Thibault , Matošević , Dinka , Napoleone , Francesca , Nascimbene , Juri , Paniccia , Chiara , Roth , Nicolas , Aszalós , Réka , Brazaitis , Gediminas , Cutini , Andrea , D'Andrea , Ettore , de Smedt , Pallieter , Heilmann-Clausen , Jacob , Janssen , Philippe , Kozák , Daniel , Mårell , Anders , Mikoláš , Martin , Nordén , Björn , Matula , Radim , Schall , Peter , Svoboda , Miroslav , Ujházyová , Mariana , Vandekerkhove , Kris , Wohlwend , Michael Rudolf , Xystrakis , Fotios , Aleffi , Michele , Ammer , Christian , Archaux , Frédéric , Asbeck , Thomas , N Avtzis , Dimitrios N. , Ayasse , Manfred , Bagella , Simonetta , Balestrieri , Rosario , Barbati , Anna , Basile , Marco , Bergamini , Ariel , Bertini , Giada , Biscaccianti , Alessandro Bruno , Boch , Steffen , Bölöni , János , Bombi , Pierluigi , Boscardin , Yves , Brunialti , Giorgio , Bruun , Hans Henrik , Buscot , François , Byriel , David Bille , Campagnaro , Thomas , Campanaro , Alessandro , Chauvat , Matthieu , Ciach , Michał , Čiliak , Marek , Cistrone , Luca , Pereira , Joaò Manuel Cordeiro , Daniel , Rolf , de Cinti , Bruno , de Filippo , Gabriele , Dekoninck , Wouter , Di Salvatore , Umberto , Dumas , Yann , Elek , Zoltán , Ferretti , Fabrizio , Fotakis , Dimitrios G. , Frank , Tamás , Frey , Julian , Giancola , Carmen , Gömöryová , Erika , Gosselin , Marion , Gosselin , Frédéric , Goßner , Martin M. , Götmark , Frank , Haeler , Elena , Hansen , Aslak Kappel , Hertzog , Lionel R. , Hofmeister , Jeňýk , Hošek , Jan , Johannsen , Vivian Kvist , Justensen , Mathias Just , Korboulewsky , Nathalie , Kovács , Bence , Lakatos , Ferenc , Landivar , Carlos Miguel , Lens , Luc , Lingua , Emanuele
forest biodiversity biodiversity conservation forest stand structure multi-taxon sustainable management
Mostra abstract
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. © 2023 The Authors
🔗 Vai alla pubblicazione
2023
Rivista
Biological Conservation
Dettagli
Vol. 284
DOI
Handbook of field sampling for multi-taxon biodiversity studies in European forests
Burrascano , Sabina , Trentanovi , Giovanni , Paillet , Yoan , Heilmann-Clausen , Jacob , Giordani , P. , Bagella , Simonetta , Bravo-Oviedo , Andrés , Campagnaro , Thomas , Campanaro , Alessandro , Chianucci , Francesco , de Smedt , Pallieter , Itziar , García Mijangos , Matošević , Dinka , Sitzia , Tommaso , Aszalós , Réka , Brazaitis , Gediminas , Cutini , Andrea , D'Andrea , Ettore , Doerfler , Inken , Hofmeister , Jeňýk , Hošek , Jan , Janssen , Philippe , Kepfer-Rojas , Sebastian , Korboulewsky , Nathalie , Kozák , Daniel , Lachat , Thibault , Lõhmus , Asko , López , Rosana , Mårell , Anders , Matula , Radim , Mikoláš , Martin , Munzi , Silvana , Nordén , Björn , Pärtel , Meelis , Penner , Johannes , Runnel , Kadri , Schall , Peter , Svoboda , Miroslav , Tinya , Flóra , Ujházyová , Mariana , Vandekerkhove , Kris , Verheyen , Kris , Xystrakis , Fotios , Ódor , Péter
biodiversity forest stand structure multi-taxon field methods indicators sampling protocol
Mostra abstract
Forests host most terrestrial biodiversity and their sustainable management is crucial to halt biodiversity loss. Although scientific evidence indicates that sustainable forest management (SFM) should be assessed by monitoring multi-taxon biodiversity, most current SFM criteria and indicators account only for trees or consider indirect biodiversity proxies. Several projects performed multi-taxon sampling to investigate the effects of forest management on biodiversity, but the large variability of their sampling approaches hampers the identification of general trends, and limits broad-scale inference for designing SFM. Here we address the need of common sampling protocols for forest structure and multi-taxon biodiversity to be used at broad spatial scales. We established a network of researchers involved in 41 projects on forest multi-taxon biodiversity across 13 European countries. The network data structure comprised the assessment of at least three taxa, and the measurement of forest stand structure in the same plots or stands. We mapped the sampling approaches to multi-taxon biodiversity, standing trees and deadwood, and used this overview to provide operational answers to two simple, yet crucial, questions: what to sample? How to sample? The most commonly sampled taxonomic groups are vascular plants (83% of datasets), beetles (80%), lichens (66%), birds (66%), fungi (61%), bryophytes (49%). They cover different forest structures and habitats, with a limited focus on soil, litter and forest canopy. Notwithstanding the common goal of assessing forest management effects on biodiversity, sampling approaches differed widely within and among taxonomic groups. Differences derive from sampling units (plots size, use of stand vs. plot scale), and from the focus on different substrates or functional groups of organisms. Sampling methods for standing trees and lying deadwood were relatively homogeneous and focused on volume calculations, but with a great variability in sampling units and diameter thresholds. We developed a handbook of sampling methods (SI 3) aimed at the greatest possible comparability across taxonomic groups and studies as a basis for European-wide biodiversity monitoring programs, robust understanding of biodiversity response to forest structure and management, and the identification of direct indicators of SFM. © 2021 The Authors
🔗 Vai alla pubblicazione
2021
Rivista
Ecological Indicators
Dettagli
Vol. 132
DOI