Loading...

Pubblicazioni Scientifiche

Filtri di ricerca 4 risultati
Pubblicazioni per anno
Testing an expanded set of sustainable forest management indicators in Mediterranean coppice area
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
A comparison of ground-based count methods for quantifying seed production in temperate broadleaved tree species
Mostra abstract
• Key message: Litter trap is considered the most effective method to quantify seed production, but it is expensive and time-consuming. Counting fallen seeds using a quadrat placed on the ground yields comparable estimates to the litter traps. Ground quadrat estimates derived from either visual counting in the field or image counting from quadrat photographs are comparable, with the latter being also robust in terms of user sensitivity. • Context: Accurate estimates of forest seed production are central for a wide range of ecological studies. As reference methods such as litter traps (LT) are cost- and time-consuming, there is a need of fast, reliable, and low-cost tools to quantify this variable in the field. • Aims: To test two indirect methods, which consist of counting the seeds fallen in quadrats. • Methods: The trial was performed in three broadleaved (beech, chestnut, and Turkey oak) tree species. Seeds are either manually counted in quadrats placed at the ground (GQ) or from images acquired in the same quadrats (IQ) and then compared against LT measurements. • Results: GQ and IQ provide fast and reliable estimates of seeds in both oak and chestnut. In particular, IQ is robust in terms of user sensitivity and potentially enables automation in the process of seed monitoring. A null-mast year in beech hindered validation of quadrats in beech. • Conclusion: Quadrat counting is a powerful tool to estimate forest seed production. We recommend using quadrats and LT to cross-calibrate the two methods in case of estimating seed biomass. Quadrats could then be used more routinely on account of their faster and simpler procedure to obtain measurements at more spatially extensive scales. © 2021, The Author(s).
Dataset of tree inventory and canopy structure in poplar plantations in Northern Italy
Mostra abstract
The dataset reports data collected in 38 square (50 x 50m) 0.25 ha plots representative of poplar plantations in Lombardy Region (Northern Italy), which were used to calibrate optical information derived from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and satellite (Sentinel-2) sensors. In each plot, the diameter at breast height was measured using a caliper; height, stem and crown volume of each tree were then derived from diameter using allometric equations developed in an independent study. Additional canopy attributes (foliage and crown cover, crown porosity, leaf area index) were derived in each plot from 12-20 optical images collected using digital cover photography (DCP). The collected data allows characterizing the assessment of structure of these plantations, along with their variation over the rotation time. Canopy and crown data also enable the evaluation of optimal rotation and tree spacing, as well as the relationship between stand and canopy structure. The raw datasets consist of 2,591 records (trees) associated with inventory measurements and 616 records (images) associated with optical canopy measurements. An R code was also provided to calculate plot-level attributes from raw data. Dataset and associated metadata are freely available at http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/ycr7w5pvkt.1. © 2021 Centro di Ricerca per la Selvicoltura, Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l'Analisi dell'Economia Agraria. All rights reserved.