Changing forest values in Europe

Forests in Landscapes: Ecosystem Approaches to Sustainability

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 59-74

  Angelstam, Per ^a   Kapylova, Elena ^a   Korn, Horst ^a   Lazdinis, Marius ^a   Sayer, Jeffrey A ^a   Teplyakov, Victor ^a   Törnblom, Johan ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925700741     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781849771382     Document Type: Chapter

References (84)

1. AG WÂLDER (Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung). 2001. Appell für ein Nationales Waldprogramm Deutschland. Unpublished.
2. Aldhous, J. R. (Ed.) 1995. Our pinewood heritage. Proceedings of a conference at Culloden Academy, Inverness. - Forestry Commission, The Royal Society of the Protection of Birds, Scottish Heritage. Bell and Bain, Glasgow. UK.
3. Angelstam, P. 1998. Maintaining and restoring biodiversity by simulating natural disturbance regimes in European boreal forest. Journal ofVegetation Science9: 593-602.
4. Angelstam, P. 2003. Reconciling the linkages of land management with natural disturbance regimes to maintain forest biodiversity in Europe. In: Bissonette, J. A. and Storch, I. (Eds). Landscape ecology and resource management: linking theory with practice. Island Press, Covelo, CA and Washington, DC, USA.
5. Angelstam, P. and Andersson, L. 2001. Estimates of the needs for forest reserves in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Supplement No. 3: 38-51.
6. Angelstam, P. and Pettersson, B. 1997. Principles of present Swedish forest biodiversity management. Ecol. Bull.46: 191-203.
7. Angelstam, P., Bütler, R., Lazdinis, M., Mitusinski, G. and Roberge, J-M. 2003a. Habitat thresholds for focal species at multiple scales and forest biodiversity conservation - dead wood as an example. Annales Zoologici Fennici40: 473-482.
8. Angelstam, P., Mikusinski, G., Rönnbâck, B.-L., Östman, A., Lazdinis, M., Roberge, J-M., Arnberg, W. and Olsson, J. 2003b. Two-dimensional gap analysis - improving strategic and tactic conservation planning and biodiversity policy implementation. Ambio33: 526-533.
9. Angelstam, P., Dönz-Breuss, M. and Roberge, J-M. (Eds). 2004. Targets and Tools for the Maintenance of Forest Biodiversity. Ecological Bulletin51.
10. Angelstam, P., Roberge, J-M., Ek, T. and Laestadius, L. 2005. Data and Tools for Conservation Management and Restoration of Forest Ecosystems at Multiple Scales. In: Stanturf, J.A. and Madsen, P. (Eds). Restoration ofBoreal and Temperate Forests. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.
11. Anon. 1993b. Swedish Forestry Act 1979. With complementary regulation from 1993; SFS 1979:429 and 1993:553, in Swedish.
12. Anon. 2001. Skogsvardsorganisationens utvârdering av skogspolitikens effekter (SUS 2001). Skogsstyrelsens förlag, Jönköping, in Swedish.
13. Anon. 2003. Consequences on forestry and forest industry from land use restrictions in northern Sweden. Jaakko Pöyry Consulting, Finland.
14. Belaenko, A.P., Borisov, V.A. and Giryaev, D.M. 1998. 200th Anniversary ofthe Forest Department. Vol. 2 (1898-1998). Federal Forest Service of Russia. Moscow, Russian Federation.
15. Benecke, U. 1996: Ecological silviculture: the application of age-old methods. New Zealand Forestry August: 27-33.
16. Bergeron, Y. and Harvey, B. 1997. Basing silviculture on natural ecosystem dynamics: an approach applied to the southern boreal mixed wood forest of Quebec. Forest Ecology and Management92: 235-242.
17. Bihun, Y. 2004. Principles of sustainable forest management in the framework of regional economic development. Unpublished article presented at the Fulbright Seminar –The Pathways of Sustainable Development of the Ukrainian Carpathians— (Lviv-Skole, 2004).
18. Björse, G. and Bradshaw, R. 1998. 2000 years of forest dynamics in southern Sweden: suggestions for forest management. Forest Ecology and Management104: 15-26.
19. Bjornlund, L., Vestergard, M., Johansson, S., Nyborg, M., Steffensen, L. and Christensen, S. 2002. Nematode communities of natural and managed beech forests - a pilot survey. Pedobiologia46(1): 53-62.
20. BMELF (Bundesministerium für ernâhrung, landwirtschaft und forsten). 1998. Waldbericht der Bundesregierung. Bonn, Germany.
21. BMELF. 2000a. Nationales Forstprogramm Deutschland - Ein gesellschaftspolitischer Dialog zur Förderung nachhaltiger Waldbewirtschaftung im Rahmen einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung 1999/2000. Bonn, Germany.
22. BMELF. 2000b. Aufkommen und Verwendung von Nadel- und Laubrohholz in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. AZ Nr. 532-7440 vom 1 1.8.2000. Bonn, Germany.
23. BMELF. 2000c. Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Deutschland: Daten und Fakten. Bonn, Germany.
24. BMVEL (Bundesministerium für verbraucherschutz, ernâhrung und landwirtschaft). 2001. Gesamtwaldbericht der Bundesregierung. Bonn, Germany.
25. Bradshaw, R., Gemmel, P. and Björkman, L. 1994: Development of nature-based silvicultural models in Southern Sweden: The scientific background. Forest and Landscape Research1: 95-110.
26. Bürgi, M. and Schuler, A. 2003. Driving forces of forest management - an analysis of regeneration practices in the forests of the Swiss Central Plateau during the 19th and 20th century. Forest Ecology and Management176: 173-183.
27. Dhubhain, A.N. and Pommerening, A. 2004. Transformation to continuous cover forestry. European Forest Institute News12:2. EFI, Joensuu, Finland.
28. Dolinsek, H, 1993. Forty years of close-to-nature silviculture in Slovenia. In: Proc. 1st European Congress of Pro Silva. Besancon: Centre Regional de la Propriete Forestiere de Franche Comte.
29. Dönz-Breuss, M., Maier, B. and Malin, H. 2004. Managementforforestbiodiversityin Austria-the view of a local forest enterprise. Ecol. Bull.51: 109-115.
30. Dorren, L.K.A., Berger, F., Imeson, A.C., Maier, B. and Rey, F. 2004. Integrity, stability and management of protection forests in the European Alps. Forest Ecology and Management195: 165-176.
31. Duelli, P. and Obrist, M. K. 2003. Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment98: 87-98.
32. Ekelund, H. and Hamilton, G. 2001. Skogspolitisk historia. Rapport 8A, Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping, in Swedish.
33. Emborg, J., Christensen, M. and Heilmann-Clausen, J. 2000. The structural dynamics of Suserup Skov, a near-natural temperate deciduous forest in Denmark. Forest Ecology and Management126: 173-189.
34. Emborg, J., Hahn, K., Larsen, J.B. and Diaci, J. [In press] Principles of nature-based management. In: Mountford, E., Emborg, J. and Standovar, T. (Eds). Beech Forests in Europe: Their history, ecology and nature-based management. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
35. EUROSTAT. 2000. Forststatistik 1992-96. Direktion F. Luxemburg.
36. Fâhser, L. 1995. Nature-oriented forestry in Luebeck. International Journal of Ecoforestry11(7): 7-11.
37. Fries, C., Johansson, O., Pettersson, B. and Simonsson, P. 1997: Silvicultural models to maintain and restore natural stand structures in Swedish boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management94: 89-103.
38. Frivold, L. H. 1992: Ecologically oriented silviculture in the boreal coniferous forest zone. IUFRO Proc. Centennial, Berlin-Eberswalde, Germany, 31 August-4 September.
39. Gamborg, C. and Larsen, J.B. 2003. 'Back to nature' a sustainable future for forestry? Forest Ecology and Management179: 559-571.
40. Gibbs, C.B. 1978: Uneven-aged silviculture and management? Even-aged silviculture and management? Definitions and differences. In: Uneven-aged silviculture and management in the United States. WO-24. USDA Forest Service Timber Management Research, Washington DC, USA.
41. Grundy, D. 2005. From plantation developer to steward of the nation's forests: the UK. In: Garforth, M. and Mayers, J. Plantations, Privatization, Poverty and Power: Changing ownership and management of state forests. Earthscan, London, UK.
42. Hansen, A.J., Garman, S.L., Weigand, J.F., Urban, D.L., McVomb, W.C. and Raphael, M.G. 1999. Alternative silvicultural regimes in the Pacific Northwest: simulations of ecological and economic effects. Ecological Applications5: 535-554.
43. Hâusler, A. and Scherer-Lorenzen, M. 2002. Nachhaltige Forstwirtschaft in Deutschland im Spiegel des ganzheitlichen Ansatzes der Biodiversitâtskonvention.BfN - Skripten 62. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Germany.
44. Haveraaen, O. 1995. Silvicultural systems in the Nordic countries. In: Bamsey, C.R. (Ed.) Innovative silvicultural systems in boreal forests. Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada.
45. Hensiruk, S. 1992. Forests of Ukraine. Naukova dumka, Kiev, Ukraine.
46. Hensiruk S., Furdychko, O. and Bondar V. 1995. The history of forestry in Ukraine. Svit, Lviv, Ukraine.
47. Koch, N.E. and Skovsgaard, J.P. 1999. Sustainable management of planted forests: some comparisons between Central Europe and the United States. New Forests17: 11-22.
48. Kopylova, E. and Teplyakov, V.K. 2004. Recent changes in social welfare of the forest sector of the Russian Federation. In: Proceedings of Human Dimensions of Family, Farm, and Community Forestry International Symposium. Washington State University, Pullman, USA. Washington State University Extension MISC0526.
49. Krâuchi, N., Brang, P. and Schönenberger, W. 2000. Forests of mountainous regions: gaps in knowledge and research needs. Forest Ecology and Management132: 73-82.
50. Kuper, J.H. 1996. Uneven ages in silviculture: instrument or objective? Continuous Cover Forestry Group Newsletter8: 4-5
51. Küster, H. 1998. Geschichte des Waldes. Von der Urzeit bis zur Gegenwart. Verlag C.H. Beck, München, Germany.
52. Lâhde, E., Laiho, O. and Norokorpi, Y. 1998. Diversity-orientated silviculture in the boreal zone of Europe. Forest Ecology and Management118: 223-243.
53. Larsen, J.B. 1995. Ecological stability and sustainable silviculture. Forest Ecology and Management73: 85-96.
54. Larsen, B. Functional Forests in Multi-functional landscapes - restoring the adaptive capacity of landscapes with forests and trees. [In press] Proceedings of the International conference on Forest Landscape Restoration, Hameenlinna, Finland, October 2004. To be published by the European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland.
55. Lazdinis, M. and Angelstam, P. 2004a. Maintenance of forest biodiversity in a post-Soviet political system: conservation needs as perceived by local stakeholders in Lithuania. In: Lazdinis, M. PhD Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden.
56. Lazdinis, M. and Angelstam, P. 2004b. Connecting social and ecological systems: an integrated toolbox for hierarchical evaluation of biodiversity policy implementation. Ecol. Bull.51: 385-400.
57. Löhmus, A., Kohv, K., Palo, A. and Viilma, K. 2004. Loss of old-growth, and the minimum need for strictly protected forests in Estonia. Ecol. Bull.51: 401-411.
58. Maximets, O. 2004. Unpublished dissertation. Section Two: Current Status of Wood Products Markets and Trends for its Development. Ukrainian State University of Forestry and Wood technology. Lviv, Ukraine.
59. Mayer, H. 1984. Wâlder Europas. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany. In German.
60. MCPFE and EFE/PEBLDS Working Group, 2004. Development of the Pan-European understanding of the relation between the Ecosystem Approach and Sustainable Forest Management. MCPFE Secretariat, Krakow, Poland. (Available from MCPFE website).
61. Moss, R. 2001. Second extinction of capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in Scotland? Biological Conservation101: 255-257.
62. Motta, R., Nola, P. and Piussi, P. 1999. Structure and stand development in three subalpine Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst,) stands in Paneveggio (Trento, Italy). Global Ecology and Biogeography8: 455-471.
63. Mohinder S., Wagner, H., Foellmi, H. et al.1997. Russia: Forest Policy during Transition. TheWorld Bank Country Study. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
64. Nabuurs, G.J. and Lioubimov, A.V. 2000: Future development of the Leningrad region forests under nature-oriented forest management. Forest Ecology and Management130: 235-251.
65. Nazarov, N., Cook, H.F. and Woodgate, G. 2001. Environmental issues in the post-communist Ukraine. Journal ofEnvironmental Management63: 71-86.
66. Neet, C. and Bolliger, M. 2004. Biodiversity management in Swiss mountain forests. Ecol. Bull.51: 101-108.
67. Nijnik, M. and van Kooten, G.C. 2000. Forestry in the Ukraine: the road ahead? Forest Policy and Economics1: 139-151.
68. Orazio, C. and Nocentini, S. 1997. The forest and man: the evolution of forestry thought from modern humanism to the culture of complexity. Systemic silviculture and management on natural bases. In: Ciancio, O. (Ed.) The forest and man. Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali, Florence, Italy.
69. Parviainen, J., Schuck, A. and Bückling, W. 1995. A Pan-European system for measuring biodiversity, succession and structure of undisturbed forests and for improving biodiversity-oriented silviculture. In: Bamsey, C.R. (Ed.) Innovative silvicultural systems in boreal forests. Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada.
70. Peterken G.F. 1996. Natural woodland. Ecology and conservation in northern temperate regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
71. Rametsteiner, E. and Yadlapalli, L. 2004. Fostering Innovation and Entrepreneurship. European Forestry Institute News12:2. EFI, Joensuu, Finland.
72. Schmidt, P.A. 1998. Potential natural vegetation as an objective of close-to-natural forest management? Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt117: 193-205.
73. Schulte, B.J. and Buongiorno, J. 1998. Effects of uneven-aged silviculture on the stand structure, species composition, and economic returns of loblolly pine stands. Forest Ecology and Management111: 83-101.
74. Schutz, J-P. 1999. Close-to-nature silviculture: is this concept compatible with species diversity? Forestry72: 359-366.
75. Skovsgaard, J.P. 1995. Challenges for the modelling of growth and yield in mixed stands with a naturally-oriented silviculture, based on experiments in pure even-aged stands and on evidence from non-intervention forest types: The present situation in Denmark. Deutscher Verband Forstlicher Forschungsanstalten, Sektion Ertragskunde (Ed.) Proceedings of 1995 Meeting.
76. Steven, M.M. and Carlisle, A. 1959. The native pinewoods of Scotland. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, UK.
77. Sverdrup, H. and Stjernquist, I. (Eds). 2002. Developing principles and models for sustainable forestry in Sweden. Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
78. Tarp, P., Helles, F., Holten-Andersen, P., Larsen, J.B. and Strange, N. 2000. Modelling near-natural silvicultural regimes for beech - an economic sensitivity analysis. Forest Ecology andManagement130: 187-198.
79. Teplyakov, V.K., Kuzmichev, E.P., Baumgartner, D. and Everett, R.L. 1998. A History of Russian Forestry and its Leaders. Washington State University, Pullman, USA.
80. Vakaluk, P. 1971. Improving of forest seeds and afforestation - the main task of Ukrainian foresters. Forestry, Paper and Woodwork Industry, Kiev, Ukraine.
81. van Zon, H. 2002. Alternative scenarios for Ukraine. Futures34: 401-416.
82. Wohlgemuth, T., Bürgi, M., Scheidegger, C. and Schütz, M. 2002. Dominance reduction of species through disturbance - a proposed management principle for central European forests. Forest Ecology and Management166: 1-15.
83. Zerbe, S. 1997: Can potential natural vegetation (PNV) be a meaningful objective in natural silviculture? Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt116: 1-15.
84. Zibtsev, S., Sviridenko, V., Kremenetski, E. and Tokareva, O. 2004. Monitoring of the structure and phytodiversity of a 160 year-old natural Scots pine forest in the Central Region of Ukraine. Document in preparation for Proceedings from the International Conference and Excursion. Muckachevo, Transcarpathia, Ukraine. Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe - Values of and Utilisation. Swiss Federal Research Institute, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.