Assessing forest naturalness

Forest Science

Volumn 58, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 294-309

  McRoberts, Ronald E ^a   Winter, Susanne ^b   Chirici, Gherardo ^c   la Point, Elizabeth ^a  

^a USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

^b DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MOLISE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Biodiversity indicators; Harmonization; Hemeroby

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; FOREST INVENTORY DATA; HARMONIZATION; HEMEROBY; LITERATURE REVIEWS; MANAGEMENT EFFORTS; MEASUREMENT PROTOCOL; NATIONAL FOREST INVENTORIES; OLD-GROWTH FOREST; SAMPLING DESIGN;

BIODIVERSITY; ECOLOGY; ESTIMATION;

FORESTRY;

BIODIVERSITY; ECOLOGY; ESTIMATION; FORESTRY; INDICATORS;

EID: 84862648348     PISSN: 0015749X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5849/forsci.10-075     Document Type: Review

References (109)

1. Anderson, J.E. 1991. A conceptual framework for evaluating and quantifying naturalness. Conserv. Biol. 5(3):347-352.
2. Angermeier, P.L. 2000. The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conserv. Biol. 14(2):373-381.
3. Angermeier, P.L., and Karr, J.R. 1994. Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. BioScience 44(10):690-697.
4. Bailey, R.G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States (map). US Forest Service, Ogden, UT.
5. Bartha, D., P. Ódor, T. Horváth, G. Tímár, K. Kenderes, T. Standovár, F. Bölöni, F. Szmorad, L. Bodonczi, and R. Aszalós. 2006. Relationship of tree stand heterogeneity and forest naturalness. Acta Silva Ling. Hung. 2:7-22.
6. Bechtold, W.A., and P.L. Patterson (eds.). 2005. The enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis program-National sampling design and estimation procedures. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 85 p.
7. Branquart, E., and Latham, J. 2007. Selection criteria for protected forest areas dedicated to biodiversity conservation in Europe. In Protected forest areas in Europe-Analysis and harmonization (PROFOR): Results, conclusions, and recommendations, Frank, G., J. Parviainen, K. Vanderkerhove, J. Latham, A. Schuck, and D. Little (eds.). Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape (BFW), Vienna, Austria.
8. Buongiorno, J., S. Dahir, H-C. Ly, and C.-R. Lin. 1994. Tree size diversity and economic returns in uneven-aged forest stands. For. Sci. 40(1):83-103.
9. Burschel, P. 1992. Experiments in mixed mountain forests in Bavaria. P. 183-215 in The ecology and silviculture of mixedspecies forests, Kelty, M.J., B.C. Larson, and C.D. Oliver (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
10. Cairns, J. 1977. Quantification of biological integrity. P. 171-187 in The integrity of water, Balletnine, R.K., and L.J. Guarraia (eds.). US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
11. Chirici, G., S. Winter, and R.E. McRoberts (eds.). 2011. National forest inventories: Contributions to forest biodiversity assessment. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. 206 p.
12. Christensen, M., K. Hahn, E. Mountford, P. Ódor, D. Rozenberger, J. Diaci, T. Standovar, S. Wijdeven, S. Winter, T. Vrska, and P. Meyer. 2005. Dead wood in European beech (Fagus) forest reserves. For. Ecol. Manag. 210:267-282.
13. Ciancio, O., F. Iovino, G. Menguzzato, A. Nicolaci, and S. Nocentini. 2006. Structure and growth of a small group selection forest of Calabrian pine in Southern Italy: A hypothesis for continuous cover forestry based on traditional silviculture. For. Ecol. Manag. 224(3):229-234.
14. Cochrane, M.A., and M.D. Schulze. 1999. Fire as a recurrent event in tropical forests of the eastern Amazon: Effects on forest structure, biomass and species composition. Biotropica 31:2-16.
15. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2007. Article 7, identification and monitoring. Available online at www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml; last accessed Dec. 20, 2011.
16. Cost E43. 2007. Harmonisation of national forest inventories in Europe: Techniques for common reporting. Available online at www.metla.fi/eu/cost/e43/index.html; last accessed June 2008.
17. Crumpacker, D.W. 1998. Prospects for sustainability of biodiversity based on conservation biology and US Forest Service approaches to ecosystem management. Landsc. Urban Plann. 40:47-71.
18. Eggleston, S., L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. TANABE (eds.). 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan. Available online at www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or. jp/public/2006gl/index.htm; last accessed Dec. 20, 2011.
19. European Environment Agency. 2006. Categories and types for sustainable management and reporting. European Environment Agency Tech. Rep. 9/2006. 111 pp.
20. Forest Resources Association. 2000. Assessing forest integrity and naturalness in relation to biodiversity: Global forest resources assessment 2000. Available online at www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad654e/ad654e05.htm; last accessed Jan. 2011.
21. Freedman, B. 1989. Environmental ecology: The impacts of pollution and other stresses on ecosystem structure and function. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
22. Frey, D. 1975. Biological integrity of water: An historical perspective. P. 127-139 The integrity of water, Ballentine, R.K., and L.J. Guarraia (eds.). Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
23. Grabherr, G., G. Koch, H. Kirchmeir, and K. Reiter. 1995. Hemerobie österreichischer Waldökosysteme-Vorstellung eines Forschungvorhabens im Rahmen des österreicheschen Beitrages zum MAB-Programm der UNESCO. Z. Ökolog. Natursch. 4:105-110.
24. Gustafsson, L. 2002. Presence and abundance of red-listed plant species in Swedish forests. Conserv. Biol. 16(2):377-388.
25. Gustafsson, L., and T. Hallingbäck. 1988. Bryophyte flora and vegetation of managed and virgin coniferous forests in South-West Sweden. Biol. Conserv. 44:238-300.
26. Hansen, A.J., T.A. Spies, F.J. Swanson, and J.L. Ohmann. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. BioScience 41(6): 382-392.
27. Hardt, R.A., and W.T. Swank. 1997. A comparison of structural and compositional characteristics of southern Appalachian young second-growth, maturing second-growth, and oldgrowth stands. Natural Areas J. 17:42-52.
28. Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL.
29. Hoerr, W. 1993. The concept of naturalness in environmental discourse. Natural Areas J. 13(1):29-32.
30. Husch, B., T.W. Beers, and J.A. Kershaw, Jr. 2002. Forest mensuration, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 456 p.
31. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1997. Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, volume 1, annex 3. Available online at www. ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm; last accessed Dec. 20, 2011.
32. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2003. Good practice guidance for land use, land use change and forestry. In Penman, J., M. Gytarsky, T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, D. Kruger, R. Pipatti, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, N. Ngara, K. Tanabe, and F. Wagner (eds.). IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, Japan. Available online at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf_contents.htm l; last accessed Apr. 2008.
33. Jalas, J. 1955. Hemerobe und hemerochore Pflanzenarten. Ein terminologischer Reformversuch. Acta Soc. Fauna Flora Fenn. 72:1-15.
34. Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol. Applic. 1:66-84.
35. Kim, Y.M., S. Zerbe, and I. Kowarik. 2002. Human impact on flora and habitats in Korean rural settlements. Preslia 74:409-419.
36. Köhl, M., B. Traub, and R. Päivinen. 2000. Harmonisation and standardization in multi-national environmental statistics-Mission impossible? Environ. Monitor. Assess. 63:361-380.
37. Koop, H., and Hilgen, P. 1987. Forest dynamics and regeneration mosaic shifts in unexploited beech (Fagus sylvatica) stands at Fontainebleau (France). For. Ecol. Manag. 20: 135-150.
38. Korpel, S. 1995. Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten [The virgin forests of the West-Carpathians]. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany. 310 p.
39. Kowarik, I. 1990. Natürlichkeit, Naturnähe und Hemerobie als Bewertungskriterien. In Urban ecology, Sukopp, H., S. Hejný, and I, Kowarik (eds.). SBP Academic Publications, The Hague, The Netherlands.
40. Kuuluvainen, T., S. Kimmo, and R. Kalliola. 1998. Structure of a pristine Picea abies forest in northeastern Europe. J. Veg. Sci. 9:563-574.
41. Kuuluvainen, T., A. Penttinen, K. Leinonen, and M. Nygren. 1996. Statistical opportunities for comparing stand structural heterogeneity in managed and primeval forests: An example from boreal spruce forest in southern Finland. Silva Fenn. 30(2-3):315-328.
42. Laarmann, D., H. Korjus, A. Sims, J.A. Stantfurf, A. Kviste, and K. Köster. 2009. Analyses of forest naturalness and tree mortality patterns in Estonia. For. Ecol. Manag. 258S:S187-S195.
43. Lähde, E., O. Laiho, and Y. Norokorpi. 1999. Diversity-oriented silviculture in the boreal zone of Europe. For. Ecol. Manag. 118:223-243.
44. Lane, A., and J. Tait. 1990. Practical conservation woodlands. Hodder and Stoughton, London, UK. 128 p.
45. Larsen, J.B. 1995. Ecological stability of forests and sustainable silviculture. For. Ecol. Manag. 73:85-96.
46. Larsson, T.-B., L. Svensson, P. Angelstam, G. Balent, A. Barbati, R.-J. Bijlsma, A. Boncina, R. Bradshaw, W. Bücking, O. Ciancio, P. Corona, J. Diaci, S. Dias, H. Ellenberg, F.M. Fernandes, F. Fernàndez-Gonzalez, R. Ferris, G. Frank, P.F. Møller, P.S. Giller, L. Gustafsson, K. Halbritter, S. Hall, L. Hansson, J. Innes, H. Jactel, M. Keannel Doppertin, M. Klein, M. Marchetti, F. Mohren, P. Niemelä, J. O'Halloran, E. Rametsteiner, F. Rego, C. Scheidegger, R. Scotti, K. Sjöberg, I. Spanos, K. Spanos, T. Standovár, Å. Tømmerås, D. Trakolis, J. Uuttera, P.M. Walsh, K. Vandekerkhove, A.D. Watt, and D. VenDenMeersschaut. 2001. Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Ecol. Bull. No. 50.
47. Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County almanac. Oxford University Press, New York.
48. Liira, J., T. Sepp, and O. Parrest. 2007. The forest structure and ecosystem quality in conditions of anthropogenic disturbance along productivity gradient. For. Ecol. Manag. 250: 34-36.
49. Lindenmayer, D.B., and J.F. Franklin. 1997. Managing stand structure as part of ecologically sustainable forest management in Australian mountain ash forests. Conserv. Biol. 11(5): 1053-1068.
50. Linder, P., B. Elfving, and O. Zackrisson. 1997. Stand structure and successional trends in virgin boreal forest reserves in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manag. 98:17-33.
51. Loidi, J. 1994. Phytosociology applied to nature conservation and land management. In Applied vegetation ecology, Song, U., H. Dierschke, and X. Want (eds.). East China Normal University Press, Shanghai, China.
52. Loiskekoski, M., M. Mahonen, R. Puranen, and N. Rizk. 1993. Sound forestry-Sustainable development. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki, Finland. 186 p.
53. Machado, A. 2004. An index of naturalness. J. Nat. Conserv. 12:95-110.
54. Maltamo, M., A. Kangas, J. Uuttera, T. Tornianianen, and J. Saramäki. 2000. Comparison of percentile based prediction methods and Weibull distribution in describing diameter distribution of heterogenous Scots Pine stands. For. Ecol. Manag. 133:263-274.
55. McComb, W., and Lindenmayer, D. 1999. Dying, dead and down trees. In Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems, Hunter, M.L. (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
56. McComb, W.C., T.A. Spies, and W.H. Emmingham. 1993. Douglas-fir forests: Managing for timber and mature-forest habitat. J. For. 91(12):31-42.
57. McRoberts, R.E., W.A. Bechtold, P.L. Patterson, C.T. Scott, and G.A. Reams. 2005. The enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis program of the USDA Forest Service: Historical perspective and announcement of statistical documentation. J. For. 103:304-308.
58. McRoberts, R.E., E.O. Tomppo, K. Schadauer, C. Vidal, G. Ståhl, G. Chirici, A. Lanz, E. Cienciala, S. Winter, AND W.B. Smith. 2009. Harmonizing national forest inventories. J. For. 107:179-187.
59. McRoberts, R.E., S. Winter, G. Chirici, E. Hauk, D.R. Pelz, W.K. Moser, and M.A. Hatfield. 2008. Large-scale patterns of forest structural diversity. Can. J. For. Res. 38: 429-438.
60. Meyer, P., V. Tabaku, and B. von Lupke. 2003. Structural characteristics of Albanian beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) virgin forests-Deductions for semi-natural forestry (in German). Forstwissenschaft. Centralbl. 122(1):47-58.
61. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of forests in Europe. 2003. State of Europe's forests, 2003. The MCPFE report on sustainable forest management in Europe. Ministerial Convention on Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit, Vienna, Austria.
62. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of forests in Europe. 2007. State of Europe's forests, 2007. The MCPFE report on sustainable forest management in Europe. Ministerial Convention on Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit, Vienna, Austria.
63. Montréal Process. 2005. The Montréal Process. Available online at www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/; last accessed Dec. 20, 2011.
64. Mountford, E.P. 2002. Fallen dead wood levels in the nearnatural beech forest at La Tillaie reserve, Fontainebleau, France. Forestry 75:203-208.
65. National Oceanic, and Atmospheric Administration. 1974. Climates of the states, volumes 1 and 2. Water Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, NY.
66. Neumann, M., and F. Starlinger. 2001. The significance of different indices for stand structure and diversity in forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 145:91-106.
67. Nilsson, S.G., M. Niklasson, J. Hedin, G. Aronsson, J.M. Gutowski, P. Linder, H. Ljunberg, G. Mikusínski, and T. Ranius. 2002. Densities of large living and dead trees in old-growth temperate and boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 161:189-204.
68. Nordén, B., and T. Appelqvist. 2001. Conceptual problems of ecological continuity and its bioindicators. Biodivers. Conserv. 10:779-791.
69. Norton, T.W. 1996. Conservation of biological diversity in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manag. 85:1-7.
70. Noss, R.F. 1990a. Can we maintain biological and ecological integrity. Conserv. Biol. 4:241-243.
71. Noss, R.F. 1990b. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol. 4:355-364.
72. Nowacki, G.J., and M.D. Abrams. 1997. Radial growth averaging criteria for reconstructing disturbance histories from presettlement-origin oaks. Ecol. Monogr. 67:225-249.
73. Ohlson, M., L. Söderstrom, G. Hörnberg, O. Zackrisson, and J. Hermansson. 1997. Habitat qualities versus long-term continuity as determinants of biodiversity in boreal old-growth swamp forests. Biol. Conserv. 81: 221-231.
74. Önal, H. 1997. Trade-off between structural diversity and economic objectives in forest management. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79:1001-1012.
75. Penna, A.N. 1999. Nature's bounty. M.E. Sharpe, Inc. New York. 320 p.
76. Peterken, G.F. 1996. Natural woodland. Ecology and conservation in temperate regions. University Press, Cambridge, UK.
77. Petriccione, B. 2006. Aspects of biological diversity in the CONECOFOR plots. VII. Naturalness and dynamical tendencies in plant communities. Ann. Ist. Speriment. Selvicolt. 30(Suppl. 2):93-96.
78. Pickett, S.T.A., V.T. Parker, and P.L. Fiedler. 1992. The new paradigm in ecology: Implications for conservation biology above the species level. P. 65-88 in Conservation biology-The theory and practice of nature conservation, preservation and management, Fiedler, P.L., and S.K. Jain (eds.). Chapman and Hall, New York.
79. Pommerening, A. 2002. Approaches to quantifying forest structure. Forestry 75:305-324.
80. Rademacher, C., and S. Winter. 2003. Totholz im Buchen-Urwald: Generische Vorhersagen des Simulationsmodells BEFORE-CWD zur Menge, raümlichen Verteilung und Verfügbarkeit. Forstwissenschaft. Centralblatt. 122: 337-357.
81. Ratcliffe, P.R., and G.F. Peterken. 1995. The potential for biodiversity in British upland spruce forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 79:153-160.
82. Recher, H.F. 1996. Conservation and management of eucalypt forest vertebrates. In The conservation of wildlife diversity in forested landscapes around the globe, DeGraaf, R.M., and R.I. Miller (eds.). Chapman and Hall, London.
83. Rolston, H. 1990. Biology and philosophy in Yellowstone. Biol. Philos. 5:241-258.
84. Šaudytė, S., S. Karazihja, and O. Belova. 2005. An approach to assessment of naturalness for forest stands in Lithuania. Balt. For. 11(1):39-45.
85. Scholes, R.J., and R. Biggs. 2005. A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434:45-49.
86. Shannon, C.E. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. In The mathematical theory of communication, Shannon, C.E., and W. Weaver (eds.). University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
87. Siipilehto, J., and J. Siitonen. 2004. Degree of previous cutting in explaining the differences in diameter distributions between mature managed and natural Norway spruce forests. Silva Fenn. 38(4):425-435.
88. Smith, P.G.R., and J.B. Theberge. 1987. Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: Theory and practice. Environ. Manag. 11(4):447-460.
89. Snedecor, G.W., and W.G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical methods, 6th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
90. Soulé, M.E. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35(11):727-734.
91. Staudhammer, C.L., and V.M. LeMay. 2001. Introduction and evaluation of possible indices of stand structural diversity. Can. J. For. Resources 31(7):1105-1115.
92. Ståhl, G., E. Cienciala, G. Chirici, A. Lanz, C. Vidal, S. Winter, R.E. McRoberts, J. Rondeux, K. Schadauer, and E. Tomppo. 2012. Bridging national and reference definitions for harmonizing forest statistics. For. Sci. 58:214-223.
93. Sukopp, H., S. Hejńy, and I. Kovarik (eds.). 1990. Urban ecology. Plans and plan communities in urban environments. SPB Academic Publications, The Hague, The Netherlands.
94. Tomppo, E., T. Gschwantner, M. Lawrence, and R.E. McRoberts (eds.). 2010. National forest inventories: Pathways for common reporting. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. 607 p.
95. Tomppo, E.O., and K. Schadauer. 2012. Harmonization of national forest inventories in Europe: Advances under COST Action E43. For. Sci. 58:191-200.
96. Trass, H., K. Vellak, and N. Ingerpuu. 1999. Floristical and ecological properties for identifying of primeval forests in Estonia. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 36:67-80.
97. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and food and Agriculture Organization. 2000. Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (industrialized temperate/boreal countries). UNECE/FAO contribution to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Main report. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Papers, 17. United Nations, New York. 445 pp.
98. Uotila, A., J. Kouki, H. Kontkanen, and P. Pulkkinen. 2002. Assessing the naturalness of boreal forests in eastern Fennoscandia. For. Ecol. Manag. 161:257-277.
99. Usher, M.B. 1986. Wildlife conservation evaluation: Attributes, criteria and values. P. 1-69 in Wildlife conservation evaluation: Attributes, criteria and values, Usher, M.D. (ed.). Chapman and Hall, Cambridge, UK.
100. Varga, P., H.Y.H. Chen, and K. Klinka. 2005. Tree-size diversity between single-and mixed-species in three forest types in western Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 35:593-601.
101. von Oheimb, G., C. Westphal, H. Tempel, and W. Härdtle. 2005. Structural pattern of a near-natural beech forest (Fagus sylvatica) (Serrahn, North-east Germany). For. Ecol. Manag. 212:253-263.
102. von Oheimb, G., C. Westphal, and W. Härdtle. 2007. Diversity and spatio-temporal dynamics of dead wood in a temperate near-natural beech forest (Fagus sylvatica). Eur. J. For. Res. 126:359-370.
103. Westphal, C., N. Tremer, G. von Oheim, J. Hansen, H. VON Gadow, and W. Härdtle. 2006. Is the reverse J-shaped distribution universally applicable in European virgin beech forests? For. Ecol. Manag. 223:75-83.
104. Winter, S. 2006. Naturnähe-Indikatoren für Tiefland-Buchenwälder [Indicators for naturalness of lowland beech forests]. Forstarchiv 77(3):Y94-Y101.
105. Winter, S. Forest naturalness assessment as a component of biodiversity monitoring and conservation management. Forestry. In press.
106. Winter, S., and G.C. Möller. 2008. Microhabitats in lowland beech forests as monitoring tool for nature conservation. For. Ecol. Manag. 255:1251-1261.
107. Winter, S., H.S. Fischer, and A. Fischer. 2010. Relative qualitative reference approach on naturalness assessments. For. Ecol. Manag. 259:1624-1632.
108. Winter, S., G. Chirici, R.E. McRoberts, E. Hauk, and E. Tomppo. 2008. Possibilities for harmonizing national forest inventory data for use in biodiversity assessments. Forestry 81(1):33-44.
109. Woodley, J., J. Kay, and G. Francis (eds.). 1993. Ecological integrity and the management of ecosystems. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.