Pubblicazioni Scientifiche

Filtri di ricerca 2 risultati
Reset
Pubblicazioni per anno
Words apart: Standardizing forestry terms and definitions across European biodiversity studies
Trentanovi , Giovanni , Campagnaro , Thomas , Sitzia , Tommaso , Chianucci , Francesco , Vacchiano , Giorgio , Ammer , Christian , Ciach , Michał , Nagel , Thomas A. , del Río , Miren , Paillet , Yoan , Munzi , Silvana , Vandekerkhove , Kris , Bravo-Oviedo , Andrés , Cutini , Andrea , D'Andrea , Ettore , de Smedt , Pallieter , Doerfler , Inken , Fotakis , Dimitrios G. , Heilmann-Clausen , Jacob , Hofmeister , Jeňýk , Hošek , Jan , Janssen , Philippe , Kepfer-Rojas , Sebastian , Korboulewsky , Nathalie , Kovács , Bence , Kozák , Daniel , Lachat , Thibault , Mårell , Anders , Matula , Radim , Mikoláš , Martin , Nordén , Björn , Ódor , Péter , Perović , Marko , Pötzelsberger , Elisabeth , Schall , Peter , Svoboda , Miroslav , Tinya , Flóra , Ujházyová , Mariana , Burrascano , Sabina
forest management silviculture multi-taxon data harmonization terminology
Mostra abstract
Forest biodiversity studies conducted across Europe use a multitude of forestry terms, often inconsistently. This hinders the comparability across studies and makes the assessment of the impacts of forest management on biodiversity highly context-dependent. Recent attempts to standardize forestry and stand description terminology mostly used a top-down approach that did not account for the perspectives and approaches of forest biodiversity experts. This work aims to establish common standards for silvicultural and vegetation definitions, creating a shared conceptual framework for a consistent study on the effects of forest management on biodiversity. We have identified both strengths and weaknesses of the silvicultural and vegetation information provided in forest biodiversity studies. While quantitative data on forest biomass and dominant tree species are frequently included, information on silvicultural activities and vegetation composition is often lacking, shallow, or based on broad and heterogeneous classifications. We discuss the existing classifications and their use in European forest biodiversity studies through a novel bottom-up and top-driven review process, and ultimately propose a common framework. This will enhance the comparability of forest biodiversity studies in Europe, and puts the basis for effective implementation and monitoring of sustainable forest management policies. The standards here proposed are potentially adaptable and applicable to other geographical areas and could be extended to other forest interventions. © 2023 The Authors
🔗 Vai alla pubblicazione
2023
Rivista
Forest Ecosystems
Dettagli
Vol. 10
DOI
Testing an expanded set of sustainable forest management indicators in Mediterranean coppice area
Cutini , Andrea , Ferretti , Marco , Bertini , Giada , Brunialti , Giorgio , Bagella , Simonetta , Chianucci , Francesco , Fabbio , Gianfranco , Fratini , Roberto , Riccioli , Francesco , Caddeo , C. , Calderisi , Marco , Ciucchi , B. , Corradini , Stefano , Cristofolini , Fabiana , Cristofori , Antonella , Di Salvatore , Umberto , Ferrara , Carlotta , Frati , Luisa , Landi , Sara , Marchino , Luca , Patteri , Giacomo , Piovosi , Maurizio , Roggero , Pier Paolo , Seddaiu , Giovanna , Gottardini , Elena
silviculture coppice conversion coppice natural evolution coppice system environmental monitoring sfm criteria
Mostra abstract
Although coppice forests represent a significant part of the European forest area, especially across southern Countries, they received little attention within the Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) processes and scenarios, whose guidelines have been mainly designed to high forests and national scale. In order to obtain “tailored” information on the degree of sustainability of coppices on the scale of the stand, we evaluated (i) whether the main coppice management options result in different responses of the SFM indicators, and (ii) the degree to which the considered SFM indicators were appropriate in their application at stand level. The study considered three different management options (Traditional Coppice TC, coppice under Natural Evolution NE, and coppice under Conversion to high forest by means of periodical thinning CO). In each of the 43 plots considered in the study, which covered three different European Forest Types, we applied a set of eighteen “consolidated” SFM indicators, covering all the six SFM Criteria (FOREST EUROPE, 2020) and, additionally, tested other sixteen novel indicators shaped for agamic forests and/or applicable at stand level. Results confirmed that several consolidated indicators related to resources status (Growing stock and Carbon stock), health (Defoliation and Forest damage), and socio-economic functions (Net revenue, Energy and Accessibility) were highly appropriate for evaluating the sustainability of coppice at stand level. In addition, some novel indicators related to resources status (Total above ground tree biomass), health (Stand growth) and protective functions (Overstorey cover and Understorey cover) proved to be highly appropriate and able to support the information obtained by the consolidated ones. As a consequence, a subset of consolidated SFM indicators, complemented with the most appropriate novel ones, may represent a valid option to support the evaluation of coppice sustainability at stand level. An integrated analysis of the SFM indicators showed that NE and CO display significant higher environmental performances as compared with TC. In addition, CO has positive effects also on socio-economic issues, while TC -which is an important cultural heritage and a silvicultural option that may help to keep local communities engaged in forestry – combines high wood harvesting rates with dense understory cover. Overall, each of the three management options showed specific sustainability values; as a consequence, their coexistence at a local scale and in accordance with the specific environmental conditions and the social-economic context, is greatly recommended since it may fulfill a wider array of sustainability issues. © 2021
🔗 Vai alla pubblicazione
2021
Rivista
Ecological Indicators
Dettagli
Vol. 130
DOI