Management of oak forests: striking a balance between timber production, biodiversity and cultural services

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management

Volumn 12, Issue 1-2, 2016, Pages 59-73

  Löf, Magnus ^a   Brunet, Jörg ^a   Filyushkina, Anna ^a,b   Lindbladh, Matts ^a   Skovsgaard, Jens Peter ^a   Felton, Adam ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Ecosystem services; multiple use forestry; oak forests; silviculture; Sweden; synergies; trade offs

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; DECIDUOUS FOREST; DECIDUOUS TREE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY PRODUCTION; HABITAT MANAGEMENT; MULTIPLE USE; SILVICULTURE; SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY; SYNERGISM; TRADE-OFF;

SWEDEN;

QUERCUS;

EID: 84949908269     PISSN: 21513732     EISSN: 21513740     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2015.1120780     Document Type: Article

References (125)

1. G.Almgren, T.Ingelög, B.Ehnström, A.Mörtnäs 1984. Ädellövskog – ekologi och skötsel. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen.
2. M.Annerstedt, J.Norman, M.Boman, L.Mattsson, P.Grahn. 2010. Finding stress relief in a forest. Ecol Bull. 53:33–42.
3. C.Axelsson-Lindgren, G.Sorte. 1987. Public response to differences between visually distinguishable forest stands in a recreation area. Landsc Urban Plan. 14:211–217.
4. F.Bakhtiari. 2014. Revealing components of the economic value for environmental goods and services from forest: an application of stated preference methods for forest valuation and conservation [PhD dissertation]. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen; 214 p.
5. E.M.Bennett, G.D.Peterson, L.J.Gordon. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 12:1394–1404.
6. Å.Berg, B.Ehnström, L.Gustafsson, T.Hallingbäck, M.Jonsell, J.Weslien. 1994. Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests - Distribution and habitat associations. Conserv Biol. 8:718–731.
7. U.Bergfors. 1990. Allemansrätten ur rättsekonomisk synpunkt: historia, regelverk och dagsläge. – Arbetsrapport nr 115. Umeå: Inst. för skogsekonomi SLU.
8. J.Bergquist, M.Löf, G.Örlander. 2009. Effects of roe deer browsing and site preparation on performance of planted broadleaved and conifer seedlings when using temporary fences. Scand J For Res. 24:308–317.
9. C.J.Bibby, N.Aston, P.E.Bellamy. 1989. Effects of broadleaved trees on birds of upland conifer plantations in North Wales. Biol Conserv. 49:17–29.
10. A.Bolte, C.Ammer, M.Löf, P.Madsen, G.-J.Nabuurs, P.Schall, P.Spathelf, J.Rock. 2009. Adaptive forest management in central Europe: climate change impacts, strategies and integrative concept. Scand J For Res. 24:473–482.
11. G.Bostedt, L.Mattsson. 1995. The value of forests for tourism in Sweden. Ann Tour Res. 22:671–680.
12. D.E.Bowler, L.M.Buyung-Ali, T.M.Knight, A.S.Pullin. 2010. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health. 10:456.
13. E.G.Brockerhoff, H.Jactel, J.A.Parrotta, C.P.Quine, J.Sayer. 2008. Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity? Biodiv Conserv. 17:925–951.
14. P.H.Brose, D.C.Dey, R.J.Phillips, T.A.Waldrop. 2013. A meta-analysis of the fire-oak hypothesis: does prescribed burning promote oak reproduction in eastern North America? For Sci. 59:322–334.
15. J.Brunet, U.Falkengren-Grerup, Å.Rühling, G.Tyler. 1997. Regional differences in floristic change in south Swedish oak forests as related to soil chemistry and land use. J Veg Sci. 8:329–336.
16. J.Brunet, U.Falkengren-Grerup, G.Tyler. 1996. Herb layer vegetation of south Swedish beech and oak forests - effects of management and soil acidity during one decade. For Ecol Manage. 88:259–272.
17. C.Carbonnier. 1975. Produktionen av kulturbestånd av ek i södra Sverige. Stud For Suec. 125:1–89.
18. A.Carlson, U.Sandström, K.Olsson. 1998. Availability and use of natural tree holes by cavity nesting birds in a Swedish deciduous forest. Ardea. 86:109–119.
19. C.Collet, F.Colin, F.Bernier. 1997. Height growth, shoot elongation and branch development of young Quercus petraea grown under different levels of resource availability. Ann Sci For. 54:65–81.
20. A.Dahlberg, J.N.Stokland. 2004. Vedlevande arters krav på substrat (Rapport nr. 7). Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen.
21. T.C.Daniel, A.Muhar, A.Arnberger, O.Aznar, J.W.Boyd, K.M.Chan, R.Costanza, T.Elmqvist, C.G.Flint, P.H.Gobster, et al. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 109:8812–8819.
22. R.S.De Groot, M.A.Wilson, R.M.J.Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ. 41:393–408.
23. M.Diekmann. 1999. Southern deciduous forests. In: H.Rydin, P.Snoeijs, M.Diekmann, editors. Swedish plant geography. Acta Phytogeogr Suec 84:33–53.
24. P.F.Donald, R.J.Fuller, A.D.Evans, S.J.Gough. 1998. Effects of forest management and grazing on breeding bird communities in plantations of broadleaved and coniferous trees in western England. Biol Conserv. 85:183–197.
25. L.Drössler, G.Attocchi, A.M.Jensen. 2012. Occurence and management of oak in southern Swedish forests. Forstarchiv. 83:163–169.
26. P.S.Duncker, S.M.Barreiro, G.M.Hengeveld, T.Lind, W.L.Mason, S.Ambrozy, H.Spiecker. 2012. Classification of forest management approaches: a new conceptual framework and its applicability to European forestry. Ecol Soc. 17:51.
27. D.M.Edwards, M.Jay, F.S.Jensen, B.Lucas, M.Marzano, C.Montagné, A.Peace, G.Weiss. 2012. Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecol Soc. 17:27.
28. L.Eriksson, A.M.Nordlund, O.Olsson, K.Westin. 2012. Recreation in different forest settings: a scene preference study. Forests. 3:923–943.
29. A.Felton, L.Ellingson, E.Andersson, L.Drössler, K.Blennow. 2010a. Adapting production forests in southern Sweden to climate change – constraints and opportunities for risk spreading. Int J Clim Change Strat Manage. 2:84–97.
30. A.Felton, M.Lindbladh, J.Brunet, Ö.Fritz. 2010b. Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: an assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in northern Europe. For Ecol Manage. 260:939–947.
31. V.Fontana, A.Radtke, V.B.Fedrigotti, U.Tappeiner, E.Tasser, S.Zerbe, T.Buchholz. 2013. Comparing land-use alternatives: using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecol Econ. 93:128–136.
32. N.Franc, F.Götmark. 2008. Openness in management: hands-off vs partial cutting in conservation forests, and the response of beetles. Biol Conserv. 141:2310–2321.
33. N.Franc, F.Götmark, B.Okland, B.Nordén, H.Paltto. 2007. Factors and scales potentially important for saproxylic beetles in temperate mixed oak forest. Biol Conserv. 135:86–98.
34. L.Gamfeldt, T.Snäll, R.Bagchi, M.Jonsson, L.Gustafsson, P.Kjellander, M.C.Ruiz-Jaen, M.Fröberg, J.Stendahl, C.D.Philipson, et al. 2013. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nature Comm. 4:1340.
35. E.S.Gardiner, M.Löf, J.J.O´Brien, J.A.Stanturf, P.Madsen. 2009. Photosynthetic characteristics of Fagus sylvatica and Quercus robur established for stand conversion from Picea abies. For Ecol Manage. 258:868–878.
36. P.Garrido. 2014. Cultural Oak landscapes as green infrastructure for human well-being [Licentiate Thesis]. Skinnskatteberg: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 74 p.
37. M.Gossner, P.Schall, C.Ammer, U.Ammer, K.Engel, H.Schubert, U.Simo, H.Utschick, W.W.Weisser. 2014. Forest management intensity measures as alternative to stand properties for quantifying effects on biodiversity. Ecosphere. 5:113.
38. F.Götmark. 2007. Careful partial harvesting in conservation stands and retention of large oaks favour oak regeneration. Biol Conserv. 140:349–358.
39. F.Götmark. 2009. Conflicts in conservation: woodland key habitats, authorities and private forest owners in Sweden. Scand J For Res. 24:504–514.
40. F.Götmark. 2013. Habitat management alternatives for conservation forests in the temperate zone: review, synthesis, and implications. For Ecol Manage. 306:292–307.
41. F.Götmark, H.Paltto, B.Nordén, E.Götmark. 2005. Evaluating partial cutting in broadleaved temperate forest under strong experimental control: short-term effects on herbaceous plants. For Ecol Manage. 214:124–141.
42. L.A.Gough, T.Birkemoe, A.Sverdrup-Thygeson. 2014. Reactive forest management can also be proactive for wood-living beetles in hollow oak trees. Biol Conserv. 180:75–83.
43. V.S.Gundersen, L.H.Frivold. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland. Urban For Urban Green. 7:241–258.
44. L.Gustafsson, S.C.Baker, J.Bauhus, W.J.Beese, A.Brodie, J.Kouki, D.B.Lindenmayer, A.Lohmus, P.G.Martinez, C.Messier, et al. 2012. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. Bioscience. 62:633–645.
45. L.Gustafsson, A.Felton, A.M.Felton, J.Brunet, A.Caruso, J.Hjälten, M.Lindbladh, T.Ranius, J.-M.Roberge, J.Weslien. 2015. Natural versus national boundaries: the importance of considering biogeographical patterns in forest conservation policy. Conserv Lett. 8:50–57.
46. L.Gustafsson, J.Kouki, A.Sverdrup-Thygeson. 2010. Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: a review of ecological consequences. Scand J For Res. 25:295–308.
47. L.Gustafsson, K.Perhans. 2010. Biodiversity conservation in Swedish forests: ways forward for a 30-year-old multi-scaled approach. Ambio. 39:546–554.
48. L.Hansson. 2001. Traditional management of forests: plant and bird community responses to alternative restoration of oak-hazel woodland in Sweden. Biodiv Conserv. 10:1865–1873.
49. V.H.Hausner, N.G.Yoccoz, K.B.Strann, R.A.Ims. 2002. Changes in bird communities by planting non-native spruce in coastal birch forests of northern Norway. Ecoscience. 9:470–481.
50. N.K.Hermansen. 1956. Fra Bregentveds egeskove. Økonomiske analyser. Dansk Skovforenings Tidsskrift. 41:507–561.
51. H.CMHewson, A.GEAustin, G.SJGough, F.RJFuller. 2011. Species-specific responses of woodland birds to stand-level habitat characteristics: the dual importance of forest structure and floristics. For Ecol Manage. 261:1224–1240.
52. E.Heyman. 2010. Clearance of understorey in urban woodlands: assessing impact on bird abundance and diversity. For Ecol Manage. 260:125–131.
53. E.Heyman. 2012. Analysing recreational values and management effects in an urban forest with the visitor-employed photography method. Urban For Urban Green. 11:267–277.
54. E.Heyman, B.Gunnarsson, M.Stenseke, S.Henningsson, G.Tim. 2011. Openness as a key-variable for analysis of management trade-offs in urban woodlands. Urban For Urban Green. 10:281–293.
55. S.A.Hinsley, R.A.Hill, R.J.Fuller, P.E.Bellamy, P.Rothery. 2009. Bird species distributions across woodland canopy structure gradients. Comm Ecol. 10:99–110.
56. N.E.Holten. 1980. En af Hauchs egekulturer samt egedyrkning og inflation. Dansk Skovforenings Tidsskrift. 65:296–340.
57. N.E.Holten. 1986. Eichenwirtschaft - dargestellt an Beispielen aus dem dänischen Forstamt Bregentved. Forstarchiv. 57:221–227.
58. S.G.Hultman. 1983. Public judgement of forest environments as recreation areas. 2. A national survey. Report No. 28. Uppsala: Section of Environmental Forestry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. (in Swedish, with English summary).
59. M.L.Hunter, G.L.Jacobson, T.Webb. 1988. Paleoecology and the coarse-filter approach to maintaining biological diversity. Conserv Biol. 2:375–385.
60. F.S.Jensen, N.E.Koch. 2000. Measuring forest preferences of the population - a Danish approach. Schweiz Z Forstwes. 151:11–16.
61. F.S.Jensen, J.P.Skovsgaard. 2009. Precommercial thinning of pedunculate oak: recreational preferences of the population of Denmark for different thinning practices in young stands. Scand J For Res. 24:28–36.
62. J.S.Jensen. 1989. Økonomien i vanrisopkapning. Dansk Skovbrugs Tidsskrift. 74:113–124.
63. J.S.Jensen. 1993. Vanris på dansk stilkeg. Forskningsserien. 4:1–105.
64. M.Johansson, M.Gyllin, J.Witzell, M.Küller. 2014. Does biological quality matter? Direct and reflected appraisal of biodiversity in temperate deciduous broad-leaf forest. Urban For Urban Green. 13:28–37.
65. T.Johansson, J.Hjälten, J.De Jong, H.Von Stedingk. 2013. Environmental considerations from legislation and certification in managed forest stands: a review of their importance for biodiversity. For Ecol Manage. 303:98–112.
66. P.S.Johnson, S.R.Shifley, R.Rogers. 2009. The ecology and silviculture of oaks. 2nd ed. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
67. D.Jonason, M.Ibbe, P.Milberg, A.Tunér, L.Westerberg, K.O.Bergman. 2014. Vegetation in clear-cuts depends on previous land use: a century-old grassland legacy. Ecol Evol. 4:4287–4295.
68. E.W.Jones. 1959. Biological flora of the British Isles: Quercus L. J Ecol. 47:169–222.
69. M.Jonsell, J.Hansson, L.Wedmo. 2007. Diversity of saproxylic beetle species in logging residues in Sweden - Comparisons between tree species and diameters. Biol Conserv. 138:89–99.
70. M.Jonsell, J.Weslien, B.Ehnström. 1998. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodivers Conserv. 7:749–764.
71. B.G.Jonsson, N.Kruys, T.Ranius. 2005. Ecology of species living on dead wood - lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fenn. 39:289–309.
72. B.B.Jørgensen, F.S.Jensen, J.P.Skovsgaard. 2009. Underplantning af eg: øger underplantning skovens rekreative værdi? Skoven. 41:203–207.
73. J.H.Jørgensen. 2013. Bregentveds egedyrkning ved en milepæl. Skoven. 45:121–125.
74. R.Kaplan, S.Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75. W.D.Klemperer. 1996. Forest resource economics and finance. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill.
76. T.Kuuluvainen, O.Tahvonen, T.Aakala. 2012. Even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in Boreal Fennoscandia: a review. Ambio. 41:720–737.
77. J.Leonardsson, F.Götmark. 2015. Differential survival and growth of stumps in 14 woody species after conservation thinning in mixed oak-rich temperate forests. Eur J Forest Res. 134:199–209.
78. M.Lindbladh, D.R.Foster. 2010. Dynamics of long-lived foundation species: the history of Quercus in southern Scandinavia. J Ecol. 98:1330–1345.
79. M.Lindén. 2003. Increment and yield in mixed stands with Norway spruce in southern Sweden [Doctoral thesis]. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Silvestria 260.
80. D.B.Lindenmayer, J.F.Franklin. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Washington: Island Press.
81. Lindgren. 1995. Forest aesthetics. In: M.Hytönen, editor. Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic Countries. Metla: Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki Research Centre; p. 279–293.
82. A.Lindhagen, L.Hörnsten. 2000. Forest recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden: changes in public preferences and behaviour. Forestry. 73:143–153.
83. M.Löf, J.Brunet, T.Hickler, M.Birkedal, M.A.Jensen. 2012. Restoring broadleaved forests in southern Sweden as climate changes. In: J.A.Stanturf, P.Madsen, D.Lamb, editors. A goal-oriented approach to forest landscape restoration. Berlin: World Forests XVI, Springer; p. 373–391.
84. A.Lomholt. 2006. Egens økonomiske tomgangsproblem. Skoven. 38:122–125.
85. B.V.Lüpke. 2008. Einfluss unterschiedlicher Hiebsformen auf die Naturverjüngung eines Traubeneichen-Buchen-Mischbestandes (In german). Influence of various cutting types on natural regeneration of a sessile oak-beech mixed stand. Forsarchiv. 79:4–14.
86. E.M.Madsen. 1991. Kan granen lösa tomgångsproblemet? Skog & Forskning. 2:36–41.
87. L.Mattsson, C.Li. 1994. How do different forest management practices affect the non-timber value of forests?—an economic analysis. J Environ Manage. 41:79–88.
88. C.L.McDermott, B.Cashore, P.Kanowski. 2010. Global environmental forest policies: an international comparison. Oxon: Earthscan.
89. P.Milberg. 1995. Soil seed bank after eighteen years of succession from grassland to forest. Oikos. 72:3–13.
90. [MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis [Internet]. World Resources Institute; [cited 2015 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.unep.org/maweb/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf
91. A.B.Nielsen, S.B.Olsen, T.Lundhede. 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc Urban Plan. 80:63–71.
92. S.G.Nilsson, J.Hedin, M.Niklasson. 2001. Biodiversity and its assessment in boreal and nemoral forests. Scand J Forest Res Suppl. 3:10–26.
93. B.Nordén, F.Götmark, M.Ryberg, H.Paltto, J.Allmér. 2008. Partial cutting reduces species richness of fungi on woody debris. Can J For Res. 38:1807–1816.
94. B.Nordén, F.Götmark, M.Tönnberg, M.Ryberg. 2004. Dead wood in semi-natural temperate broadleaved woodland: contribution of coarse and fine dead wood, attached dead wood and stumps. For Ecol Manage. 194:235–248.
95. B.Nordén, Paltto H, Claesson C, Götmark F. 2012. Partial cutting can enhance epiphyte conservation in temperate oak-rich forests. For Ecol Manage. 270:35–44.
96. J.Norman, L.Ellingson, M.Boman, L.Mattsson. 2010. The value of forests for outdoor recreation in southern Sweden: are broadleaved trees important ? Ecol Bull. 53:21–31.
97. M.Nylinder, L.Woxblom, H.Fryk. 2006. Ädellöv – virke och förädling. Uppsala: Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Institutionen för skogens produkter och marknader.
98. H.Paltto, B.Nordén, F.Götmark. 2008. Partial cutting as a conservation alternative for oak (Quercus spp.) forest—Response of bryophytes and lichens on dead wood. For Ecol Manage. 256:536–547.
99. W.C.Parker, D.C.Dey. 2008. Influence of overstory density on ecophysiology of red oak (Quercus rubra) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) seedlings in central Ontario shelterwoods. Tree Physiol. 28:797–804.
100. C.Petucco, J.P.Skovsgaard, F.S.Jensen. 2013. Recreational preferences depending on thinning practice in young even-aged stands of pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.): comparing the opinions of forest and landscape experts and the general population of Denmark. Scan J For Res. 28:668–676.
101. B.O.Poulsen. 2002. Avian richness and abundance in temperate Danish forests: tree variables important to birds and their conservation. Biodiv Conserv. 11:1551–1566.
102. T.Ranius, N.Jansson. 2000. The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy cover and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biol Conserv. 95:85–94.
103. C.Raudsepp-Hearne, G.D.Peterson, E.Bennett. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 107:5242–5247.
104. J.Remm, A.Lõhmus. 2011. Tree cavities in forests–the broad distribution pattern of a keystone structure for biodiversity. For Ecol Manage. 262:579–585.
105. R.G.Ribe. 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us? Environ Manage. 13:55–74.
106. J.M.Roberge, P.Angelstam. 2006. Indicator species among resident forest birds – a cross-regional evaluation in northern Europe. Biol Conserv. 130:134–147.
107. W.S.Schwenk, T.M.Donovan, W.S.Keeton, J.S.Nunery. 2012. Carbon storage, timber production, and biodiversity: comparing ecosystem services with multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecol Appl. 22:1612–1627.
108. P.Simonsson, L.Gustafsson, L.Östlund. 2015. Retention forestry in Sweden: driving forces, debate and implementation 1968-2003. Scand J For Res. 30:154–173.
109. J.P.Skovsgaard. 2004. Produktion af kvalitetstræ i eg: er eventyret bæredygtigt? Skoven. 36:532–535.
110. E.Ståål. 1986. Eken i skogen och landskapet. Växjö: Södra skogsägarna.
111. A.E.Stamps. 1999. Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: a meta-analysis. J Plan Lit. 14:155–175.
112. H.Staun. 1989. Intensiv egedyrkning. Dansk Skovbrugs Tidsskrift. 74:87–112.
113. Swedish Forest Agency. 2014. Statistical yearbook of forestry 2014. Jönköping: Official statistics of Sweden, Swedish Forest Agency.
114. L.Tahvanainen, L.Tyrväinen, M.Ihalainen, N.Vuorela, O.Kolehmainen. 2001. Forest management and public perceptions–visual versus verbal information. Landsc Urban Plan. 53:53–70.
115. I.D.Thompson, K.Okabe, J.M.Tylianakis, P.Kumar, E.G.Brockerhoff, N.A.Schellhorn, J.A.Parrotta, R.Nasi. 2011. Forest biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem goods and services: translating science into policy. Bioscience. 61:972–981.
116. S.Tönnes, E.Karjalainen, I.Löfström, M.Neuvonen. 2004. Scenic impacts of retention trees in clear-cutting areas. Scand J For Res. 19:348–357.
117. G.Tyler. 1989. Interacting effects of soil acidity and canopy cover on the species composition of field-layer vegetation in oak/hornbeam forests. For Ecol Manage. 28:101–114.
118. L.Tyrväinen, H.Silvennoinen, O.Kolehmainen. 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For Urban Green. 1:135–149.
119. K.Vandekerkhove, L.D.Keersmaeker, N.Menke, P.Meyer, P.Verschelde. 2009. When nature takes over from man: dead wood accumulation in previously managed oak and beech woodlands in North-western and Central Europe. For Ecol Manage. 258:425–435.
120. F.W.M.Vera. 2000. Grazing ecology and forest history. UK: Cabi Publishing.
121. G.Von Oheimb, J.Brunet. 2007. Dalby Söderskog revisited: long-term vegetation changes in a south Swedish deciduous forest. Acta Oecol. 31:229–242.
122. M.Werner, L.Rytter, L.-G.Stener. 2000. Förbättrat lövvedutnyttjande för vidareförädling. Redogörelse nr 3. Uppsala: SkogForsk.
123. K.M.Widerberg. 2013. Oak as retention tree in commercial spruce forests [Doctoral thesis No. 2013:66]. Sweden: Faculty of Forest Sciences, SLU.
124. K.M.Widerberg, T.Ranius, I.Drobyshev, U.Nilsson, M.Lindbladh. 2012. Increased openness around retained oaks increases species richness of saproxylic beetles. Biodiv Conserv. 21:3035–3059.
125. G.J.Wilhelm, H.Rieger. 2013. Naturnahe Waldwirtschaft - die QD-Strategie. Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer Verlag.