European Commission European cooperation in the field of scientific and technical research
COST Action E4
Forest Reserves Research Network
EUR XXXX 2 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 3
European Commission European cooperation in the field of scientific and technical research
COST Action E4
Forest Reserves Research Network
Directorate-General Research
2000 EUR XXXX 4 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 5
CONTENTS
PREFACE...... 7 By: Parviainen, J., Chairman of COST Action E4
FINAL REPORT SUMMARY: MISSION, GOALS, OUTPUTS, LINKAGES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND PARTNERS. By: Parviainen, J., Kassioumis, K., Bücking, W., Hochbichler, E., Päivinen, R. & Little, D...... 9
WORKING GROUP 1: “Strict Forest Reserves in Europe and Forests Left to Free Development in Other categories of Protection”...... 39 By: Bücking, W., Al, E., Falcone, P., Latham, J. & Sohlberg, S.
WORKING GROUP 2: “Recommendations for Data Collection in Forest Reserves, with an Emphasis on Regeneration and Stand Structure” ...... 135 By: Hochbichler, E., O’Sullivan, A., van Hees, A. & Vandekerkhove, K.
WORKING GROUP 3: “Forest Reserves Research Network Databank” ...... 183 By: Päivinen, R., Schuck, A. & Mountford, E.
WORKING GROUP 3: “Analysis of the Databank contents”...... 195 By: Schuck, A. & Hytönen, T.
”Annotated Bibliographies: Annotations to Selected Papers on Research in Strict Forest Reserves”……………………………………………………………………………………233 By: Bücking, W. (editor) 6 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 7
PREFACE
This book includes a summary and three Working Group reports, analysis of the Databank contents and annotated bibliographies of the COST Action E4: Forest Reserves Research Network in Europe, which was initiated in 1995 and ended in November 1999. Over 100 scientists and nature conservation administrators from 19 participating COST member countries, in addition to 8 Central and Eastern European countries and Russia participated in the Action. The objectives and tasks outlined in 1995 at the onset of the Action were achieved and in some cases extended and modified as a result of increasing interest from forest policy makers in this Action as it developed. The main outputs of the Action are: (1) the publication of country reports on protected forests and research in natural forests; (2) the analysis of strictly protected forest areas and related categories of protected forests in Europe; (3) a review of the methods and traits used for describing the structure of natural forests and (4) an electronic databank for strict forest reserves.
The importance of nature conservation in forests has increased because of the impact of sustainability and forest certification issues. Strict forest reserves play an important role on two fronts: they are important protection sites in their own right, and they provide the necessary reference data for nature-based silviculture in production forests. The term ‘strict’ reserve is interpreted very differently in the respective countries: in many cases game and fire control, and intervention to remove invading exotic species are permissible. The ideal non- intervention scenario is unrealistic in Europe. Human impact and fragmentation result in some degree of intervention in most cases. It is evident that more research and scientific analysis is needed to clarify and harmonise European protected forest definitions and terminology.
Despite considerable variation between countries in relation to topics studied, goals, methodologies and constraints on scientific research, there is also considerable overlap and similarity in the scientific approach to forest reserves. Transboundary co-operation is also evident, and needs further promotion. For this purpose, an electronic database on strict reserves -which can be consulted through the Internet at www.efi.fi/Database_Gateway/FRRN has been constructed within the framework of the COST Action. Judging from the number of visits to-date, it is apparent that it should prove to be an important tool for future scientific co-operation.
Joensuu, Finland, July 2000
Jari Parviainen
The Finnish Forest Research Institute Chairman of the COST Action E4 8 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On behalf of the COST E4 participants, I would like to thank all the Working Group leaders: Winfried Bücking, Forest Research Institute of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, Eduard Hochbichler, University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna, Austria and Risto Päivinen, European Forest Institute, Finland for their valuable contribution for analyses and summaries. Many thanks also to Henk Koop from the IBN-DLO Institute, Wageringen, the Netherlands, who was acting as WG 2 leader in 1996-1997, and to Mirjam Broekmeyer from the same institute for evaluating and gathering material for WG 2 work. Special thanks also to Lars Laestadius and Pentti Hyttinen for their support as COST scientific secretaries, as well as to Minna Kettunen and Minna Korhonen, European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland, Tarja Salzwedel, Embassy of Finland in Germany, Bonn and Mari Tammi, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu, Finland for acting as general COST E4 secretaries during 1996-1999. For the technical work and support in preparing the documents I would like to express my warmest thanks to Rosemarie Remmert and Karima Kamadan from Forest Research Institute of Baden-Württenberg, Germany for their great efforts with WG1 report and bibliography and Päivi Mäkkeli and Mari Tammi, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu, Finland for the editorial work of this final publication. English speaking members of our COST E4 Action have kindly checked the language: thanks to Declan Little, Coillte Teo., Research & Development, Ireland for the main editorial work, Jim Latham, CCW, United Kingdom for WG1 report, Aileen O’Sullivan, Coillte Teo., Research & Development, Ireland for WG2 report and Ed Mountford, Ecoscope Applied Ecologists, United Kingdom for WG3 report
Jari Parviainen COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 9
COST Action E4
FOREST RESERVES RESEARCH NETWORK
Mission, Goals, Outputs, Linkages, Recommendations and Partners
Final Report Summary
Jari Parviainen, Chairman of the COST Action E4, Finland
Konstantinos Kassioumis, Vice-chairman, Greece Winfried Bücking, Working Group I, Germany Eduard Hochbichler, Working Group II, Austria Risto Päivinen, Working Group III, European Forest Institute Declan Little, Editor, Ireland 10 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
1 What is COST?
COST is a framework for scientific and technical co-operation, allowing the co-ordination of national programmes on a European level. Within this framework, financial support is given for the organisation of meetings, specific co-ordination tasks and for Short Term Scientific Missions. The research to be co-ordinated is funded nationally.
2 Goals of the COST Action E4
The COST Action E4: Forest Reserves Research Network was established by the COST Commission in 1995 in order to promote the research of “natural“ forests. The objectives were to create a European network of forest reserves, to collect ongoing research, to standardise research methodology and to create an accessible central data bank. Results are important for the application of ecologically-oriented silviculture and for forest protection network planning. The duration of the Action was 4 years, ending in November 1999.
Goals of the Action - to survey and analyse current information on forest reserves and research - to compile an overview of the published research reports on natural forests and forest reserves - to develop and harmonise research methodology for monitoring forest structure - to promote the establishment of a permanent sampling plot system - to create a data bank for gathering the information on forest reserves - to achieve a common consensus on terminology and management approach for forest reserves and other categories of forest protection
3 The structure of working
Management Committee * (consisting of country delegates)
Chairman: Jari Parviainen, Finland Vice-chairman: Konstantinos Kassioumis, Greece
Working Group I Working Group II Working Group III Creation of network Research methodology Data bank Winfried Bücking Eduard Hochbichler Risto Päivinen Germany Austria European Forest Institute, Finland
• creation of a common electronic data • definitions and terminology of • parameters for measuring forest base for forest reserves protection areas stands, structure and regeneration • standardisation of data collection • characteristics of existing • design of the sampling plot system reserves in forest reserves • the creation of a bibliography * A list of Management Committee members is presented on the pages 29-32.
Figure 1. The Action is structured around three working groups. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 11
4 COST E4 Management Committee Meetings
• 1st Management Committee meeting (formal initiation) in Brussels, Belgium, 4 March 1996 • 2nd Management Committee and Working Group 1&2 joint meeting in Fountainebleue, France, 12-14 September 1996, with an excursion to the forests and forest reserves of Fountainebleue • 3rd Management Committee and WG 1&2 joint meeting in Pallas-Ounastunturi National Park and Joensuu, Finland 30 July - 3 August 1997, with a scientific excursion to boreal forest reserves in Finnish Lapland and the Carelian Republic of Russia (Vuokkiniemi and Kostamuksha) • 4th Management Committee and WG 1&2 joint meeting in Brussels, Belgium, 24-25 November 1997, with an excursion to Zonienwoud • 5th Management Committee and WG 1&2 joint meeting in Slovenia, 26-28 April 1998, with an excursion to the Rajhenavski Rag virgin forest, Triglav National Park and Littoral Karst regions • 6th Management Committee and WG 1&2 joint meeting in Vienna, Austria, 15-18 October 1998, with an excursion to forest reserve Lange Leitn, Neckenmarkt and forest reserve Schneeberg • 7th Management Committee and WG1&2 joint meeting in Thessaloniki, Greece, 4-8 May 1999, with excursions to Kassandra peninsula and Olympos National Park • 8th Management Committee and WG1&2 joint meeting, the final meeting, in Lisbon, Portugal, 4-7 November 1999, with excursions to Ave Casta, a natural Quercus rotundifolia forest and to a mixed oak forest near Leiria and to the Natural Park of Serra da Arrábida and to the Strict Reserves of Quercus faginea remnants
5 Short Term Scientific Missions
The aim of Short Term Scientific Missions (STSM) was to contribute the realisation of the scientific objectives of this COST Action. The missions strengthened the existing networks by allowing scientists to go to a laboratory or institute in another COST country to get to know different systems on forest reserve classification, to learn a new technique or to make measurements using instruments and/or methods not available in their own country. During years 1997-1999, three calls were opened and 30 scientists travelled from one country to another within the framework of STSM. The home institutions of these people were located in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland and United Kingdom. The missions were carried out to Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.
Each STSM-participant was required to present a written report after his mission. In these reports the STSM-participants stated, that the main objectives of missions included for example discussion on the practical organisation of forest reserves monitoring, identification and copying of relevant data and publications, discussions of methods and results about forest reserves. The main research sub-areas of the missions were natural forest measurement, establishment of forest reserves, management of national parks, composition and structure of ground vegetation, biodiversity of forest reserves, permanent forest plot data analyses, field work techniques and experimental design in natural forests. The participants emphasized the 12 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network importance of STSM in broadening their skills and understanding outside their own countries. Further co-operation and strengthening of contacts were considered in many cases as very important networking aspects.
6 Protected forests and research goals of COST Action E4
What kind of natural forests there are in Europe?
Of all the ”natural forests” in Europe, the most interesting category relevant to this Action is the strictly protected forests. They are left to develop freely in a state which is as original as possible. Because forests left for ”free” development can also be found in other categories of protection COST Action E4 surveyed all the categories: strict forest reserves, nature reserves, national parks, old forest protection areas, wilderness areas etc. In order to compare the structure of natural forests to the structure of production forests, a harmonized permanent sampling plot system for natural forests and strict forest reserves was developed. Comparison between natural and production forests is the base for the development of close to nature silviculture. With a permanent sampling plot system the biodiversity components (like dead wood characteristics), productivity and effects of silvicultural management can be studied on a stand level.
* Unmanaged protection areas: forests allowed to develop freely with minimal or no intervention.
Figure 2. Protected forests analysed for COST Action E4: focus on unmanaged protection areas, which are researched using permanent sampling plot system. The principal protection category containing forests left to develop freely is the ‘strict forest reserve’ but other ‘freely developing natural forests’ are also included in other protection categories. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 13
According to the information contained in the country reports compiled by COST Action E4, there is nearly 3 mill. ha of ”natural” forests (1,6 % of the total forest area) left in strict forest reserves and other protection categories in Europe (i.e. COST participating countries without Russia). Most of these remnants are located in forest reserves, which are protected by law. There are over 3,500 strict forest reserves in European countries. The outlines of the complexity of forest protection categories in selected European countries participating in COST Action E4 are tabulated (WG1 report). The list of forest protection categories highlights the complex situation in forest protection: there is nearly 90 different categories of protected forests ranging from national parks to aesthetic forests.
7 The area of protected forests in COST E4 countries
Table 1 illustrates the total area of forests and other wooded land, the extent of strict forest reserves and strictly protected forest areas and the total area of protected forests in selected European countries in 1998. The data for protected forests includes different categories of protected forests outside of normal forest operations, mainly protected forest areas with rare and vulnerable species of high ecological value, excluding areas managed for landscape or protection, i.e. against avalanches or erosion. Definitions are based on national definitions and the statistics of forest area and other wooded land based mainly on the TBFRA 1990. Source: Parviainen et al. (1999) (partly updated); Diaci (1999); Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (1998). 14 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Table 1. The area of protected forests in some European countries.
1) Austria: The total area of nature protection areas is known, but not the detailed proportion of different categories. Therefore, only the natural parks and strict forest reserves, not other categories of protected forests, are included in this table. 2) Denmark: In the IUCN categories 1-4 (6000 ha in categories 1-2 and 86 000 ha in categories 3-4). 3) Finland: Area and percentage refer to productive forest land (increment > 1m3/ha/year) and forest land with increment 0,1-1,0 m3/ha/year. Numbers in brackets refer to productive forest land. 4) Sweden: Area and percentage refer to productive forest land (increment > 1m3/ha/year). COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 15
Variation in number of protected forests and strict forest reserves
The aims and degree of forest protection vary widely amongst European countries. In the Nordic countries during the last 10-20 years, the primary goal of forest protection has been the preservation of old forest remnants. The aim of forest protection is to maintain flora and fauna, which are not subject to commercial forest operations. In Central Europe, however, forests are protected rather as part of the landscape, as a cultural feature or as specimens of original forests.
The “reservation“ concept used for example in North America, Canada and Russian Siberia, where large continuous areas are left untouched, cannot be applied to the densely populated European continent, where forests have been subjected to human influence for thousands of years. In Southern, Atlantic and Central Europe forests gave way to human settlement, resulting in fragmented and highly altered forest islands by the Middle Ages at the latest.
Due to the continuous use of forests historically, there are few original untouched virgin (natural) forests remaining in Europe. The largest virgin forests can be found on the boreal forest zone on European side of the Russian Federation, in the states of Komi and Archangelsk and in some parts of north-west Carelia near the Finnish border.
Human impact on forests in Northern Europe has also been intensive, although not as intensive as in Southern and Central Europe, lasting for periods of between 300-400 years. Between the 17th and the 19th centuries in Finland, Central-Sweden and Central-Norway, forests were utilised for the production of tar, metallurgy, slash and burn agriculture, hunting and reindeer husbandry.
The common concepts of forest classification and inventory are the basis for international forest resource comparison and measurement and also in the evaluation of forest protection. The present international UN/ECE/FAO forest definition for TBFRA 2000 requires that the crown cover is greater than 10 % and tree height is greater than 5 meters. In the past, TBFRA criteria for 1990 were even stricter: crown cover had to be 20 % or more and tree height at least 7 meters. This change in forest protection terminology causes some difficulty when interpreting forest protection statistics, especially when the old classification system is applied. In Scandinavia, the concept of forest is based on productivity as a result of conventional forest management objectives. The annual growth of timber must be greater than 1m3/ha if an area is to be described as productive forest. For forest land where the mean annual increment of growing stock is typically 0,1-1m3/ha, the term scrubland is used. Forest land where the increment is less than 0.1m3/ha is called wasteland. In layman’s language, the term forest implies productive forest land only.
Other difficulties in the interpretation of forest protection statistics include an array of different forest protection definitions and the composition and location of protected areas. In addition to the definition of forest, definitions of protected forests and forest protection vary widely. The protective functions of forests such as protection against erosion, avalanches, groundwater or shelterwood forests should be distinguished from the ‘protected forests’ which are in contrast to timber production areas. These protected forests are mainly set aside for the maintenance of biodiversity. Objectives and goals of protection, forest protection categories in use and permissible management regimes in forest reserves vary enormously in different European countries. This can be seen in the report of WG I of this Action. Protected areas sometimes include areas other than forest, for example, freshwater or mountain regions 16 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network where forested areas form only part of the total protection area. This may result in the overestimation of the protected forest area if only the total protection area is quoted. The absolute or relative figure of forest protection in a particular country might not be representative for the whole country, where reserves are unevenly concentrated, for example, if most reserves are located in one region. Comparisons on the basis of percentage/area require careful analysis. In Europe, naturalness, fragmentation, human impact and other characteristics of forest cover also vary considerably from country to country. Regional or national networks have to take this into account by adequate representativity design.
Russia was not a participant of COST Action E4. Due to the importance of this vast area some forest statistics for European Russia are included in table 2 for comparison of forest resources between Europe and European Russia. Stocked forest, which is mainly owned by Federal Forest Service, is included in the figures of European Russia. Stocked forestlands comprise natural and man-made (i.e. closed plantations) forests. Non-stocked forest land covers temporarily non-forested areas, i.e. firedamaged forests, clearfells, dead stands, and continuously treeless areas and woodlands gaps: glades, open lands, sparse woodland and ridelines. Table 2 excludes non-stocked forestland in Russia.
Sources: for Europe ‘Forestry Statistics 1992-1996’ and ‘Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry’. For European Russia ‘Chertov et al. 1999’, ‘Cost E4’ and ‘Pisarenko et al. 1999’.
Table 2. Forest and other wooded land area in Europe
mill.ha Area of Strict forest Area of Protected strict forest reserves as protected forests as reserves % of the forests % of the mill. ha total forest mill. ha total forest area area European forest area (excluding Russia) 190 * * * * Forests managed for wood supply (excluding 138 * * * * Russia) Forest area in COST E4 participating countries 161 2.6 1.6 11.7 7.3 Forest area in European Russia 132-141 1.7 1.2-1.3 4.0 3.1-3.3
* No information provided.
8 Main findings
8.1 Strict Forest Reserves in Europe and forests left to free development in other categories of protection
Strict forest reserves, i.e. areas in which no silvicultural operations, or any other human impacts are allowed, where feasible, occur in Europe under very different forms of protection status. Their area and size also tend to vary widely; most occur in the form of small isolated areas and/or core areas within larger protection categories such as national parks, nature parks, or biosphere reserves. The considerable variation existent in Europe in relation to size and selection criteria are clearly linked to local forest history, land use and natural forest dynamics. The total area of strictly protected forest for the 27 countries involved in COST E4 is calculated to be nearly 3 million hectares or approximately 1.6 % of the total forest area. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 17
In addition, in virtually all countries the term ‘strict’ varies in its interpretation according to regional and local traditions. Strict does not always imply complete non-intervention management; it may include activities related to hunting, rare species protection, scientific research, ecotourism, control of unwanted exotic tree/shrub/ground layer species, amelioration of anthropogenic disturbances, restrictions to allow natural disturbances develop freely as a result of reserve size limitations and adjacent landowners rights, etc. The ideal non-intervention concept, i.e. the development of appreciable areas of real virgin forest, is not a realistic scenario in Europe now or in future. There are a number of fundamental conflicts between the ‘wilderness’ concept and its development, scientific objectives and social demands. The impacts of scientific research and of common rights of way are not fully compatible with the protection of wilderness as wilderness implies no human impact whatsoever. On the other hand, management, scientific and social demands are likewise justified and sometimes imperative. Protected areas are important in their own right and should be allowed to develop without interference, where possible, as they support endemic floral and faunal species. However, they are also valuable learning areas for silvicultural training, for experiencing nature and for fundamental basic scientific research as well as satisfying basic social and recreational demands. Management intervention may, in some cases, be required to ensure the continued existence of the woodland ecosystem, i.e. the removal of Rhododendron ponticum in British and Irish forest reserves. Notwithstanding the appreciable diversity of protection categories (as a result of differences in national legislation amongst the 19 European countries participating in this COST Action), forest reserve size, their geographic distribution and alternative management regimes, there are common objectives for all strict forest reserves. These include the protection of natural processes in forests and the species associated with them, and the study of ecological principles processes and natural dynamics. Scientific research is primarily undertaken to elucidate and expand fundamental scientific knowledge and to use these reference areas for the development of nature-based silviculture in production forest areas outside the reserves.
8.2 Recommendations for data collection in forest reserves with an emphasis on regeneration and stand structure (WG II)
The focus of national research programmes, as well as the procedures used for measuring stand structure, differ widely between different countries due to the broad variation in research objectives, size of forest reserves and the availability of financial support. Nonetheless, it increases the effectiveness of research programmes if the data and results can be shared and compared within and between biogeographic regions. This requires that the research methodologies used in different countries are standardised as much as possible. Because of the range of variation in national research programmes, the most practical approach to standardising methods is to focus on a basic inventory, and to recommend the parameters to be measured as a minimum data set in selected reserves.
COST Action E4 drew together researchers with considerable collective experience of research in natural forests, to agree a standard methodology and to recommend a minimum data set. The primary goal of the recommended research methodology, and associated parameters, is to describe the stand structure (including canopy layer, shrub layer, regeneration layer and dead wood) and ground vegetation, in a manner which is repeatable, and which enables us to observe and analyse stand development through time. 18 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
The recommended methodology is based on two distinct examination units, each with different inventory concepts. On the one hand, there is a requirement to make a representative description over the whole natural forest reserve, and on the other hand, to describe a part of the forest in more detail (Core Area). The representative description of the whole forest reserve is achieved through the establishment of a series of permanent plots (Sample Plots) on a systematic grid-network. Grid spacing and plot size depend on the size and heterogeneity of the research area. Core Areas should be established for more detailed measurements and can be up to 2 hectares in size. Recommendations are made by COST Action E4 on what to measure in the Sample Plots and Core Areas, and on how to measure each component of the forest.
It is hoped that by adopting the minimum data set, researchers can establish functional links with research in other countries.
8.3 The forest reserves research network databank (WG III)
The European databank and the web site on strict reserves can become one of the most important tools for facilitating the co-operation in exchange and comparison of data. Both the database and the web site have been constructed by the European Forest Institute (Finland) and are physically located there (URL: http://www.efi.fi/Database_Gateway/FRRN). The server database is working in a network (Internet) environment and can be accessed through an Internet browser. The web site contains besides the database on strict forest reserves extensive information on the COST E 4 Action. Special attention should be drawn to the comprehensive glossary of international terms of natural forests and natural forest research and the terms and definitions concerning the status of protection of forest reserves and natural forests in European countries. These have been compiled by Working Group 1 and added to the Forest Reserves Research Network (FRRN) web site and databank.
Data entry, access and contents
The data is arranged in a relational database structure to meet the requirements of a well designed database. Data-input and update is done by country correspondents who have controlled access for that purpose through individual passwords. EFI monitors the database to ensure the currency and quality of the data. The FRRN databank can be utilised through a search function that is freely accessible for the general public. However, country correspondents may block the accessibility of the data to the general public before the data quality and ownership has been clarified.
The forest reserve is the basic unit of the databank. For every reserve the supplied data covers following issues:
• General data Name, ownership, geographical location, size, status of protection, year of establishment, management history, adjacent land use, altitude • Descriptive data Tree species composition, age structure, developmental phases, disturbances, forest vegetation types, soil types and climatic conditions COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 19
• Monitoring and research activities 1) Methods of monitoring stand structure and methods in conducting research in core areas. 2) Information on other specific research activities as e.g. pollen analysis, soil analysis, herbal layer, moss/lichen, fungi, light measurements, genetic resources, faunistic inventories • Meta-data information 1) Organisation that manages and co-ordinates research, contact person information 2) Short descriptions of research projects performed in the reserve • Meta-data information Organisation that manages and co-ordinates research and short descriptions of research projects performed in the reserve
The use of FRRN databank
The database is constantly receiving new entries of forest reserves, as country correspondents continue the input of data. Data on more than 500 forest reserves from currently 15 different countries have been entered into the databank by November 1999. This represents nearly 20 % of a roughly estimated total of 3000 possible sites in the 19 signatory countries of COST E 4 Action.
Figure 3. Number of forest reserves entered to the FRRN databank by country in the autumn of 1999 as displayed on the bar chart at the FRRN homepage.
The fact that there is a definite need for this kind of forum is clearly illustrated by the number of visits to the web site. The database still provides only a very fragmentary image of the total potential, so up to now limited publicity has been made. Nevertheless, about 3000 hits have been counted to the FRRN home page between June 1998 (opening of the database) and November 1999.
The databank covers a large amount of data, of which most is redundant for researchers interested in specific topics. Therefore, it contains a detailed search engine that allows researchers to pinpoint to information associated with individual forest reserves. The search interface permits, very detailed selections as for example: all forest reserves in the databank 20 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network which are located below an altitude of 600 m, in which Fagus sylvatica is the dominant tree species and where scientific studies are performed on wood-boring insects.
The Forest Reserves Research Network databank: a reference point for research into natural forest dynamics, nature-based forestry and other related topics
In conclusion the FRRN databank has formed an important supplementary output to the COST E 4 Action, alongside the well-received country reports (Parviainen et. al, 1999). It has generated considerable interest amongst members of the COST E 4 Action, researchers and scientists. The databank has brought together a group of leading national experts in the field of forest research, which have devoted time to contributing information on forest reserves used for research purposes to the FRRN databank. The databank as such is unique in its kind. It presently contains a large volume of detailed site-based information on Forest Research Reserves at a European scale. It has the potential to serve as a reference point for research into natural forest dynamics, nature-based forestry and other related topics, and as a focal point to further compile and disseminate information on forest reserves. Feedback has shown that the databank has developed into a useful tool for a range of target groups and it appears to have the potential for widespread use.
The main shortcoming is the completeness of the data. Within individual countries and individual sites there is considerable variation in data completeness. In particular, information on stand development, details of the core reserve area, monitoring activities and ongoing research projects are incomplete or may be absent. This may be because no such detailed monitoring has been undertaken, but could reflect the complexity and time consuming effort to compile the requested data. In addition, there are other European countries beyond the COST E4 Action participants whom it would desirable to include in the databank.
These aspects of the FRRN databank are a major challenge to be addressed in its further development.
8.4 Research in forests left to develop freely
Annotated Bibliography
The countries were asked to select the most relevant and important research reports according to the goals of the action under the following subtitles: - historical perspectives and milestones in the research on natural forests - stand structure research in natural forests - modelling the stand structure - gap dynamics research - successional development, disturbances - biodiversity aspects (dead wood component etc.) related to stand structure - comparisons between natural forest / managed forest applications for silviculture - methods, systems (sampling plot development) for gathering information on natural forests (forest reserves) COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 21
To have a representative choice of the publications 20 to 30 papers per country was proposed. Quotations were made with English title, original title if there is, short abstract and key words. The bibliography includes at the moment the contributions of the countries Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Spain, United Kingdom. The actual number of entries is about 430. This bibliography is available on the Internet: www.efi.fi/ Database_Gateway/ FRRN/
A review on the main research areas in natural forests:
In several countries scientific research is one of the most important goals of forest reserves. Strict forest reserves offer a rare chance to study undisturbed forest ecosystems in future. Most countries participating in COST E4 are determined, not only to establish a representative network of strict forest reserves, but also a detailed research programme, if not already implemented. Such programmes generally include traditional basic monitoring of vegetation and structural development, and in some cases also focus on biodiversity and/or other ecological aspects.
In spite of the large differences in the meaning of strict reserves across the participating countries, research projects already completed are strikingly similar amongst the countries involved; monitoring of change in species composition and in the herbal layer, stand structure (gap size, standing volume, dead wood component, age and diameter classes of the stand), soil sampling, monitoring of birds and wood-living insects are the most common areas of study. Also the constraints limiting the scope of scientific research are similar; acquiring the data is labour intensive, especially where long-term research and monitoring activities are involved. In addition, funds for this type of research are limited, while demands on researchers to provide more practically applicable data are increasing, e.g. on average gap size, standing volume, species composition, dead wood amounts to be left in specific forest types. It is strongly recommended to install EU research programmes in order to profit from synergetic research effects in a transnational and interdisciplinary way.
9 Conclusions and recommendations
Achievements and outputs
In Europe, COST Action E4 was the first systematic attempt to create a network on forest reserves and to collect information on strictly protected forests. Before this Action was approved a workshop on European forest reserves was organised in 1992 in Wageningen, the Netherlands by the IBN-DLO Institute. A review on structure, succession and biodiversity of undisturbed forests and semi-natural forests and woodlands in Europe was subsequently compiled with support from the European Forest Institute in 1994 (Schuck et. al. 1994: EFI Working Paper 3). During the 4-year term of COST Action E4 an analyses of forest reserves in a total of 27 European countries, including the European zone of Russia was carried out, thereby providing a broad overview of their current status.
In virtually all participating countries a programme or a network of strict forest reserves (or corresponding forest protection categories) have been established. However, European countries differ widely in relation to forest protection policy and its implementation. Hence, 22 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network as the Action progressed, it transpired that harmonising and analysing the protected forest categories was much more difficult than originally anticipated at the onset. It is clear that forest protection concepts in Europe have been devised to be more versatile than that used in countries with vast untouched forest areas like Canada, Russia, Brazil or USA. Such widely varying concepts and definitions reflect the inherent variation found throughout Europe reflecting millennia of human impact and settlement.
Within the timeframe of the Action a data bank was created, encompassing more than 20 % of the potential strict forest reserves in Europe relevant for future research. The data bank will be an important tool for future research programmes and scientific co-operation. In addition, country reports from 26 European countries and the European zone of Russia, incorporating discussions on protected forest issues, descriptions of state-of-the-art forest research and methodology, ongoing research projects, a review of the methods and characteristics used for describing the structure of natural forests, protected forests category lists and an outline of forest reserve management systems. All these outputs are relevant and valuable contributions for future research collaboration, forest policy discussion, forest protection network planning and the development of new silvicultural methods.
A new EU forest research project called NAT-MAN (Nature-based Management of beech in Europe) has been approved in the 5th Framework Programme. NAT-MAN is co-ordinated by the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark. This project proposal was initiated on the basis of co-operation between the partners in COST Action E4 and shows an example that COST co-operation is able to create continuation in the form of new projects.
The activities of COST Action E4 has been financed from two sources: the meetings, excursions in connection of the meetings, short term scientific missions, and technical support from COST Secretariat are financed by COST Commission but the national research work as well as the country contribution at European level requires finance from country sources. The co-ordination of the Action was supported by the host institutes of the MC chairmen and WG leaders.
For networking and creating contacts with wide coverage of countries, this structure is an ideal tool. Most of the summarising work and analysis is dependent on the possibilities of the participants and their institutes to carry our the European level work. In order to carry out detailed analysis, overlooks, or special tasks, financial support from European sources could help to set up long-term and more problem-oriented goals. COST Commission has supported financially the establishment and maintaining of forest reserves data bank, and throughout this way the created research and collaboration continues also after the end of this Action.
How to apply findings from “strict forest reserves“?
Amongst all protected forest categories, the “strict forest reserve“ category was singled out for special attention and analyses in COST Action E4. The minimum common criteria for a strict forest reserve is that no silvicultural management is carried out within the area in question. Other forms of intervention may occur and these vary between countries. The variation in definitions and terms, in the permissible management regimes adopted and of other categories of forest protection, was considerable. It was particularly evident that meaningful comparisons between protected forests within European countries requires further clarification and analyses. When comparisons are made with respect to interpretation and COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 23 classification of protected forests with IUCN categories it is especially apparent that there is much confusion and vagueness; further clarification, improvements and adaptations of IUCN classification systems, especially for forest areas is required.
It is generally accepted that natural forests are the basic model for the realisation of nature- oriented silviculture. In strict forest reserves the development cycle of natural forests can be observed, elucidated and understood, and these findings subsequently mimicked in production forests. Management of forests generally should be based on a combination of knowledge derived from research in natural forests and silvicultural experiments carried out in production/conventional forest areas. Substantial resources are required for long term research. Experimental plots should be established to test different silvicultural systems and techniques. Information from these plots and from strict forest reserves would contribute towards the development of guidelines for “close-to-nature“ silviculture.
Locating silvicultural experimental plots close to protected forest areas is seen as a logical, efficient and mutually beneficial strategy. Defining research and management criteria for protected forests (reference areas) in relation to silvicultural experimental plots (managed areas) for the purposes of forest certification and the development of sustainable forest management strategies should also be considered as an objective. It is envisaged that each country will develop different criteria.
Analyses of the country reports indicates that there are many gaps in the protected forest network, especially in the representativity of forest types. The area of forests in strict nature reserves should be increased and the network of strict forest reserves should be officially established and expanded to include all representative European forest types. Some forest types may be under-represented or absent from the reserve networks at present. The result should be a representative strict forest reserve network within each country compatible with a defined European network strategy. In effect, national networks should not be seen in isolation but as part of an overall European forest management and protection strategy.
In developing such a network on an EU scale the following areas need to be addressed: • define all forest areas with regard to their degree of naturalness • forests should be allotted to predetermined categories agreed on the basis of all the potential forest types that should exist (this addresses conservation of protected forest areas irrespective of silviculture) • how to address nature-oriented silviculture using protected forest reference areas for research.
Recommendations for future
Although general material was collected and an overview on strict forest reserves and on other categories of protected forests was provided during this Action, comparisons and evaluations of protected forest areas, in addition to the practical application of research in permanent plots to silvicultural systems was not possible to achieve. This baseline material, the data bank and the network of participants can provide the basis for generating numerous exiting new European scale collaboration projects in future. The continued maintenance, improvement and updating of the ‘Strict Forest Reserves’ database created during this Action - which contains relevant information on research on forest ecosystem dynamics which is/has been carried out - is essential. This could be achieved at the European Forest Institute through 24 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network the provision of an annual financial contribution through the COST Commission for at least two years. The network should contain a target number of 1,000 reserves by the year 2000, and 2,000 reserves by the year 2002. The Action strongly underlines the following recommendations:
Research
1. Strict forest reserves serve as an important basis for close-to-nature silvicultural research and for planning national protected forest networks as well as providing a basis for ‘naturalness’ inventories. Research in strict forest reserves needs clear conditions (minimum size, legal protection, time frame of protection) in order to fulfil long time study requirements.
2. Multidisciplinary research should be promoted to understand natural forest ecosystems and their functions. Results should be integrated into practical forest management through national and international training programmes and workshops. More interaction between interested and relevant stakeholders is required and dissemination research/monitoring results at all levels is needed. Promote the exchange of information between scientists and the public; a forum within each country for the exchange of results should be devised.
3. Monitoring programmes should be established in as many forest reserves as is required to determine changes in ecosystem condition from whatever source. Long-term monitoring and research should be co-ordinated at a national level, with EU and international linkage. Regular reporting on the status of European strict forest reserves is desirable in the future.
4. There are many common linkages with other parallel and related European research projects and further tasks could be developed in collaboration. BEAR and EFERN are both relevant parallel projects to COST E4. BEAR (Indicators for forest biodiversity in Europe) is a European Concerted Action, which aims to develop a system of forest biodiversity indicators and is co-ordinated by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. It is a two-year project involving experts from 26 research organisations representing 18 European countries and the European Forest Institute. The principal achievements of EFERN (European Forest Ecosystem Research Network), which ended in March 1999, were the establishment of a European forest ecology network and a comprehensive report containing current European forest ecosystem research requirements. A new COST Action proposal, namely ‘Ecosystem and Landscape Forestry - Management for Sustainability’, which is a continuation of EFERN was submitted to the EU COST Commission in 1999.
Forest policy discussion and linkages
During COST E4, the political interest in protected forests has increased appreciably. The IFF (Ingovernmental Forest Forum) organised a special expert meeting, hosted by USA and Brazil, in March 1999 in Puerto Rico to discuss protected forest issues. In addition, the Liaison Unit (in Vienna) of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, has also organised several meetings in 1999 (Bad Helenenthal, Vienna, Semmering) to develop closer links between the Work-Programme on the Conservation and Enhancement of Biological and Landscape Diversity in Forests (WP-CEBLDF) and the Ministerial Conference COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 25 on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Objective 2 of WP-CEBLDF provides for the adequate conservation of all forest types in Europe and this objective will be addressed by the Ministerial Conference Process through in the workings of an ad hoc working group called “Biodiversity, Protected Areas and Related Issues“. The Liaison Unit has invited experts from COST Action E4 to present the results, outputs and recommendations for further discussion by the Ministerial Conference Process.
In Europe, COST Action E4 has provided the catalyst towards the first attempt to classify and analyse protected forest areas. On that basis the following future co-operation is recommended:
1. Harmonising the definitions and terms should be continued to have a more objective and refined basis, especially for comparing forest protection status between European countries and to introduce the finalised European approach to the International forum for wider debate on protected forests. It may be worthwhile to start a new COST Action on the development of a special European protected forest classification system.
2. Co-operation between COST E4 experts, TBFRA 2000 national correspondents and IUCN national representatives should be strengthened in order to integrate protected forest data with national forest resource inventory data. This conclusion has been strongly recommended by the ad hoc “Biodiversity, Protected Areas and Related Issues“ group organised meeting in Semmering in June 1999 by the Liaison Unit of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. In addition, work is underway to create a new forest conservation atlas for temperate and boreal forest zones of the world, which is being carried out by the IUCN office in Canada. The data and definitions collected by COST E4 are asked to be integrated to this forest conservation atlas.
3. The ‘Strict Forest Reserve Network’ created by the COST Action E4 should be linked to other European monitoring networks such as NATURA 2000 and it should contribute to nature conservation policy at a Pan-European level.
4. Linkages with other relevant programmes, projects and organisations should be created and the results and outputs of COST E4 should be disseminated to these organisations. Such bodies include:
Environmental Programmes - Natura 2000 - WWF Programmes for Protected Forest Areas - IUCN and WCMC - ICP Programme - Global Terrestrial Observation System (GTOS) Conventions, Protocols and Processes - Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992) - Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) - EU Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979) - EU Forest Strategy - Pan-EU Biological and Landscape Strategy - Intergovernmental Forest Forum (IFF) - Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe Institutes - European Forest Institute (EFI) - European Environment Agency (EEA), i.e. the Topic Centres, e.g. Nature Topic Centre 26 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
- European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) - World Wildlife Fund (WWF) - EU Commission, DG's 6, 11 and 12 - International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO) - Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) - Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) - UN ECE Timber Committee
Dissemination of the results
The Data Bank, which was created during this Action at EFI/Joensuu/Finland (http://www.efi.fi/Database_Gateway/FRRN/) will be the contact point in future for co- operation development, provision of updated site information and dissemination of results. Further financial support has been provided by the COST Commission for the maintenance of the Data Bank. The documents compiled during the Action are available at the EFI and the Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Station. The main publication can also be asked from the Working Group leaders and COST E4 participants.
In order to promote the sustainability and importance of natural forest remnants in Europe, a film entitled “Forces of Wood“ has been produced by a Finnish film team ‘Filmiryhmä Oy’. This film depicts a detailed account on the development of forests in Europe from a historical point of view. It was produced in close collaboration with COST E4. This film will be available for those who are interested in it by writing to: Filmiryhmä Oy, Vyökatu 8, FIN- 00160 Helsinki, Finland, fax. +358 9 662 602, tel. +358 9 171 055.
10 Publications
Principal COST E4 publications
Diaci, J. (editor) 1999. Virgin Forests and Forest Reserves in Central and East European Countries. Proceedings of the invited lecturers’ reports presented at the COST E4 Management Committee and Working Group meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia 25- 28, April 1998. University of Ljubljana. 171 p. (includes country reports on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Switzerland) Mehmet, M. 1999. Protected Areas in Albania. Directorate General of Forestry, Tirana, Albania. Manuscript. Distributed on ad hoc meeting “Biodiversity, Protected Areas and Related Issues“, Semmering, Austria. Liaison Unit of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. 3 p. Parviainen, J., Little, D., Doyle, M., O’Sullivan, A., Kettunen, M. & Korhonen, M. (eds.) 1999. Research in Forest Reserves and Natural Forests in European Countries - Country Reports for the COST Action E4: Forest Reserves Research Network. EFI Proceedings No. 16. European Forest Institute. 304 p. (includes a summary of the reports and separate country reports on Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Russia and United Kingdom) COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 27
Publications based on material gathered during COST E4
Parviainen, J., Schuck, A. & Bücking, 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.). Proceedings: Innovative Silviculture Systems in Boreal Forests, A symposium held in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, October 2-8, 1994. Edmonton. p. 77-82. Bücking, W. 1997. Natural Forests, Strict Forest Reserves, Wilderness Areas in Germany and in Europe. (Naturwald, Naturwaldreservate, Wildnis in Deutschland und Europa) in "Forst und Holz", 1997, Germany. p. 515-522. Bücking, W. 1999. Naturwaldreservate in Deutschland – Urwald von morgen. Rückblick- Ausblick. NUA (Natur- und Umweltschutzakademie Nordhein-Westfalen, Recklinghausen) Seminararbericht 4, 21-31. Bücking, W., Parviainen, J., Schuck, A. 2000. Netwerk Europäische Naturwaldreservate. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift/Der Wald 55: 565-567. Parviainen, J. and Bücking, W. 1997. Strict forest reserves in Europe. Effort to enhance biodiversity and strengthen the research in natural forests in Europe. Programme and abstracts of the Conference "Naturalness and European Forests". Strassbourg, France. 26-29.10.1997. Parviainen, J. 1998. Efforts to enhance biodiversity and research in natural forests in Europe (EU/COST Action E4). AISF-EFI International Conference on Forest Management in Designated Conservation and Recreation Areas. 7-11 October, 1998. Florence, Italy. University of Padua Press. 11-19. Parviainen, J. 1998. Waldbauliche Neuorientierung – Erfahrungen aus den skandinavischen Ländern. Nauchaltigkeit in Europa nicht durch Unterentwicklung waldbaulicher Strategien bedroht. Holz-Zenralblatt 112:1596. Parviainen, J. 1998. How close to nature should silviculture in Europe develop. Nordic symposium on "New stand types in boreal forestry – ecological features and silvicultural consequences". Vaasa, February 10-11, 1998. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 714: 7-20. Parviainen, J., Bücking, W., Vandekerkhove, K., Schuck, A. & Päivinen, R. 2000. Strict Forest Reserves in Europe : efforts to enhance biodiversity and research on forests left for free development in Europe (EU-COST-action E4). Forestry 73 (1): 107-118. Azione COST E 4: Ricerca Nelle Riserva Forestali Protette. (Jari Parviainen) Sherwood n. 46/giugno 1999: 39- 41. Arezzo, Italy.
Other publications related to this Action
Broekmeyer, M.E.A. and Vos, W., 1993: Forest reserves in Europe: A review. In Broekmeyer, M.E.A., Vos W. and Koop, H. (eds.) 1993: European forest reserves. Proceedings of the European forest reserves workshop. PUDOC-DLO, Wageningen, 306 pp. Forestry Statistics 1992-1996. Eurostat. European Communities, Luxembourg, 1998. 148 p. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy, Jyväskylä 1998. 344 p. International Forest Conservation: Protected Areas and beyond 1999. A discussion paper for the Intergovernmental Forum of Forests. Commonwealth of Australia. International Forest Section Environment Australia, Canberra. 52 p. 28 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Protected Areas for a New Millennium. The Implications of IUCN’s Protected Area Categories for Forest Conservation. A joint IUCN and WWF Discussion Paper. Published by WWF and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. January 1998. 15 p. Schuck, A., Parviainen, J. & Bücking, W., 1994. A review of approaches to forestry research on structure, succession and biodiversity of undisturbed and semi-natural forests and woodlands in Europe. Working paper 3. European Forest Institute. 62 p. Parviainen, J., Schuck, A. & Bücking, W. 1994. Forestry research on structure, succession and biodiversity of undisturbed and semi-natural forests and woodlands in Europe. In Paulenka, J. & Paule, L.(editors). Conservation of Forests in Central Europe. Proceedings of the WWF Workshop held in Zvolen, July 7-9, 1994. Autora Publishers: 23-30. Pisarenko, A.I., Strakhov, V.V., Päivinen, R., Kuusela, K., Dyakun, F.A. & Sdobnova, V.V., 1999. Development of Forest Resources in the part of Russian Federation. Russian Federation. European Forest Institute Research Report 11. Brill Academic Publishers. In print. Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. Special Report on the Follow-up on the Implementation of Resolutions H1 and H2 of the Helsinki Ministerial Conference 1998. Follow-up reports on the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Volume II. Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Liaison Unit in Lisbon. 274 p.
Electronic Data bank (Forest reserves network data bank): http://www.efi.fi/Database_Gateway/FRRN. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 29
11 Invited lectures in the meetings
Invited presentations in the meetings of COST E4 activities during 1996-1999
2nd Management Committee Meeting in Fontainebleau, France, 12-14th of September, 1996
- Why research in natural reserves? Nigel Dudley, WWF, Equilibrium, 23 Bath Buildings, Bristol BS6 5PT, United Kingdom, fax. 44 117 942 8674, e-mail: [email protected] - Presentation of the preliminary country reports (18 countries)
WG 1 meeting in Freiburg, Germany, 23-24th of January, 1997
- Contributions to Forest Reserves Research from Long-Term Permanent Plots, Heinrich Spiecker, University of Freiburg, Institute of Forest Yield, Bertoldstrasse 17, D-79085 Freiburg i. Br. Germany, e-mail (organisation): [email protected]
WG 2 meeting in Göttingen, Germany 21-23rd of April, 1997
- Sampling and analysing longterm stand structure datas in Slovakian forest reserves, Stefan Korpel/Milan Saniga, Technical University of Zvolen, Faculty of Forestry, Masarykova 24, 96053 Zvolen, Slovak Republic, e-mail: [email protected] - Forest reserves of Lower Saxony (introduction to the field trips), Fritz Griese, Göttingen, Germany - Silvi Star model, Henk Koop, DLO Institute for Forestry & Nature Research (IBN- DLO), Bosrandweg 20 / PO Box 23, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands, fax: 31 317 424 988, e-mail : [email protected] - Model analysis by FOREST, Alessandro Cescatti, Viote del Monte Bondone, Italy, e- mail: [email protected] - Modelling of tree growth and stand light climate, Jürgen Nagel, Sven Wagner, Göttingen, Germany
3rd Management Committee Meeting and Working Group 1 and 2 joint meeting in Finland, 30th of July-3rd of August, 1997 including a scientific excursion to forest reserves in Finnish Lapland and Russian Karelia
- Successional development of natural forests Boreal zone: Jari Parviainen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Station, P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland, e-mail: [email protected] Temperate zone: Wolfgang Schmidt, University of Göttingen, Institute of Silviculture, Büsgenweg 1, 37077 Göttingen, Germany, e-mail: [email protected] Mediterranean zone: François Romane, CEFE CNRS BP 5051, F-34033 montpellier cedex 1 France, fax. 33 4 67 41 21 38, e-mail: [email protected] - Gap dynamics regeneration Boreal zone: Timo Kuuluvainen, Department of Forest Ecology, P.O. Box 24, FIN- 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland, fax. 358 9 1917605, e-mail: [email protected] 30 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Temperate and Mediterranean zones: Andrej Boncina and Jurij Diaci, Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, P. O. Box 2995, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Dead wood component in natural forest Boreal zone: Pekka Niemelä, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80100 Joensuu, Finland, fax. 358 13 251 4444, e-mail: [email protected] Temperate zone: Winfried Bücking, Forest Research Institute of Baden-Württenberg, Wonnhaldestr. 4, 79100 Freiburg, Germany, fax. 49 761 401 8333, e-mail: [email protected] Mediterranean zone: Angel Fernandez Lopez, Pargues Nationales, Carratera General del Sur 6, 38800 San Sebastian de la Gomera, Spain, e-mail: [email protected]
4th Management Committee and WG 1 and 2 joint meeting in Brussels, 24-25th of November, 1997
- Naturalness and European Forests, a short review of the Conference held in Strassbourg, France 26-29 October 1997. Annik Schnitzler, University of Metz, Faculté de Sciences, ile de Saulcy, 57045 Metx Cedex 01, Strassbourg, France, e-mail: [email protected]
5th Management Committee and WG 1 and 2 joint meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, 26- 28th of May, 1998, including a scientific excursion
Presentation of the country reports from Eastern European Countries (6 countries) - Development of forest reserve concept and the close to nature silviculture in Slovenia, Dusan Mlinsek, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia - Overview and state of the Action, Jari Parviainen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland, e-mail: [email protected]
Forest reserves and their research - Czech Republic, Vladimir Tesar, Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Department of Silviculture, Zedemelska 3, CZ 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic, fax. 420 5 452 114 22 - Romania, Gheorghe Florian Borlea, Forest Research and Management Institute (ICAS), Alsea Padurea Verde, 1900-Timisoara, Bucarest, Romania, tel and fax. 40 56 205 531 - Switzerland, Jean-Francois Matter, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland, fax. 41 1 632 1033, e-mail: [email protected] - Bosnia and Herzegovina, Konrad Pintaric, Edhema Mulabdica 7/III, S-71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina - Croatia, Slavko Matic, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Forestry, Svetosimunska 25, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia, fax. 385 0 1218 616 , e-mail: [email protected] - Poland, Roman Zielony, Agricultural University/SGGW, Poland - Reporting of the mid-term evaluation, Piotr Paschalis, Head of evaluation team, Warsaw Agricultural University, Faculty of Forestry, Poland, e-mail: [email protected]
COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 31
6th Management Committee and WG 1 and 2 joint meeting in Vienna, Austria, 15-18th of October, 1998, including a scientific excursion
- Natural Forest Reserves in Austria - a historical overview of a novel approach, Kurt Zukrigl, Ghelenstrasse 34/4 stg./12, A-1130 Wien, Austria, tel. and fax. 431 803 5981 - Protected Area Management Categories - The IUCN Concept and its Application in Practice, Robert Brunner, Nationalpark, Thauatal, Austria - Hemeroby - A new Method to Assess the Naturalness of Forest-Ecosystems, Gerfried Koch, Federal Forest Research Institute, Haupstrasse 7, 1140 Vienna, Austria, fax. 431 878 38 2250, e-mail: [email protected] - Research on Biodiversity in Natural Forests, Jari Kouki, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80100 Joensuu, Finland, fax. 358 13 251 4444, e-mail: [email protected]
7th Management Committee and WG 1 and 2 joint meeting in Thessaloniki, Greece, 4- 8th of May, 1999, including a scientific excursion
- The NATURA 2000 network in Greece and Cyprus, Panagiotis Dimopoulos, Kyriacos Georghiou, Biology Department, University of Athens, Greece - Forest management and Forest protection in Greece, Nikolaos Efstathiadis, Ministry of Agriculture, Athens, Greece - Nutrients cycles in Greek forest Ecosystems, Dimitrios Alifrangis, Department of Forestry, Aristotle Univ. Thessaloniki, Greece - Dendrological and floristic aspects of the forest reserves in Bulgaria, Peter Zselev, University of Forestry, Sofia, Bulgaria
8th Management Committee and WG 1 and 2 joint meeting (the final meeting) in Lisbon, Portugal, 4-7th November, 1999, including a scientific excursion
- Strict forest reserves and National Protected Areas, Maria de Lurdes Carvalho, Instituto de Conservacao da Natureza, Direccao de Servicos de Conservacaoa da Natureza, R. Ferreira Lapa, 38-40 D, 1169 Lisboa, Portugal - Forest evolution in the South and Center of Portugal in the last 15 000 years, José Mateus, Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Av. da India, 126, 1300-300 Lisboa, Portugal 32 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
12 STSM-participants
1997, 11 missions
Name Place of Origin The Host Institution Vandekerkhove, Kris University of Ghent, B Bavarian State Institute of Forestry, D van den Meersschaut, Insitute of Forestry and Game Management, B Bavarian State Institute of Forestry, D Diego Sievänen, Risto Finnish Forest Research Institute, FIN The Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, D Schuck, Andreas European Forest Institute, FIN Forest Research Institute Baden- Württenberg, D Gondard, Héléne CEFE-CNRS, F EFI, Finnish Forest Research Institute, FIN Standovár, Tibor L. Eötvös University, H Georg-August Institute, D Kölbel, Markus Bavarian State Institute of Forestry, D University of Ljubljana, SI Meyer, Peter Forestry Research Station of Lower Saxony, D Institute of Silviculture, SK Natzke, Ehlert Forest Experimental Station Flechtingen, D Advanced Technologies ltd, UK Unkrig, Hans Wilhelm Forestry Research Station of Lower Saxony, D Several Institutes in S and DK Spyroglou, Gabriel Forest Research Institute, GR Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Forestry, SI
1998, 10 missions
Name Place of Origin The Host Institution Higgins, Therese University of Dublin, Trinity College, IRL Museum National D'Histoire Naturelle, Brunoy and La Tiallaie, F Bücking, Winfried Forest Research Institute Baden-Württenberg, CNRS and CEFE, F/CREAF and Univ. D of Leida, E Weber, Jochen Forest Research Institute Baden-Württenberg, Institute of Statistics and Theory of D Probability, Vienna, A Galanos, Fotios Institute of Mediter. Forest Ecosystems and Federal Forest Research Centre, A Techn. of Forest Prod., GR Albanis, Kosmas Institute of Mediter. Forest Ecosystems and Federal Forest Research Centre, A Techn. of Forest Prod., GR Mountford, Edward Ecoscope Applied Ecologists, UK GEUS and Ministry of Environment and Energy, DK Emborg, Jens Danish Forest and Landscape Research L. Eötvös University, H Institute, DK Mrotzek, Ralf University of Göttingen, D Technical University of Zvolen, SK and L. Eötvös University, H Papageorgioy, Kostas Agricultural Research Station of Ioannina, GR Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and English Nature, UK Lovén, Lasse Finnish Forest Research Institute, FIN National Agricultural Research Foundation, GR COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 33
1999-2000, 9 missions
Name Place of Origin The Host Institution Isomäki, Antti Finnish Forest Research Institute, FIN Institute of Ecol. and Bot. of the Hungarian Acad. of Sciences, H Koch, Gerfried Federal Forest Research Centre, A Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu, FIN Mountford, Ed Ecoscope Applied Ecologists, UK Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, NL Pászty, Gabriella Institute of Ecol. and Bot. of the Hungarian Acad. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa, of Sciences, H FIN Christensen, Morten The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, University of Ljubljana, SI DK Spencer, Jonathan English Nature, UK Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, NL Schuck, Andreas European Forest Institute, FIN Forest Research Institute, Baden- Württenberg, D Little, Declan Coillte Teo, IRL Finnish Forest Research Institute, FIN Fahy, Orla National University of Ireland, Galway, IRL University of Helsinki, FIN
Participants and country delegates
LIST OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS
COUNTRY NAME INSTITUTE FAX E-MAIL Austria G. Frank Federal Forest Research Institute, + 43 1 979 63 84 [email protected]. Hauptstr. 7, at 1140 Vienna
E. Hochbichler Universität für Bodenkultur, + 43 1 369 16 59 [email protected] Institute of Silviculture, Peter- Jordan-Str. 70, 1180 Vienna
Belgium K. Vandekerkhove Institute for Forestry and Game + 32 54 41 08 96 Kris.Vandekerkhove@ Management, Gaverstraat 4, lin.vlaanderen.be 9500 Geraardsbergen
Denmark R. Bradshaw GEUS, Dept Environmental & + 45 38 14 2050 [email protected] Climate History, Thoravej 8 2400 Copenhagen NW
J. Emborg Ministry of Environment and Energy + 45 45 76 32 33 [email protected] Danish Forest and Landscape Res. Inst. Hörsholme Kongevej 11 2970 Hörsholm Finland J. Parviainen The Finnish Forest Research + 358 13 2514111 [email protected] (chairman of the Institute Action) Joensuu Research Station P.O. Box 68 80101 Joensuu
R. Päivinen European Forest Institute + 358 13 124 3 93 [email protected] Torikatu 34 80100 Joensuu R. Väisänen Finnish Forest and Park Service + 358 205 644 350 [email protected] Nature Conservation Department P.O. Box 94 01301 Vantaa 34 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
France P. Falcone Office National des Forêts + 331 40 19 78 03 [email protected] Départment Forêt et Environnement 2, Av. de Saint Mandé 75570 Paris cedex 12
M. Le Théry Office National des Forêts + 331 40 19 59 42 Direction technique et commerciale 2 av. de Saint-Mandé 75012 Paris
Germany W. Bücking FVA Baden-Württenberg + 49 761 401 83 33 [email protected] Wonnhaldestr. 4 freiburg.de 79100 Freiburg
W. Schmidt University of Göttingen + 49 551 39 32 70 [email protected] Institute for Silviculture Büsgenweg 1 37077 Göttingen
Greece G. Chatziphilippidis NAGREF-Nat. Agricultural + 30 31 46 13 41 [email protected] Research Foundation Forest Research Institute 570 06 Vassilika, Thessaloniki
K. Kassioumis NAGREF-Nat. Agricultural + 30 65 19 39 79 [email protected] Research Foundation, Agricultural Research Station of Ioannina P.O. BOX 1124 Ioannina 451 10
Hungary Z. Somogyi Forest Research Institute +36 1 326 16 39 [email protected] Frankel Leó u. 42-44 1023 Budapest
T. Standovár L. Eötvös University + 36 1 333 87 64 [email protected] Dept. of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology Ludovika tér 2 1083 Budapest Iceland A. Sigurgeisson Iceland Forest Research Station +354 515 4501 [email protected] Mogilsa, IS 116 Reykjavik
Ireland A. O’Sullivan Coillte Teo., Research & + 353 1 201 11 99 Development, Newtownmountkennedy, Co. Wicklow D. McAree Forest Service + 353 1 662 31 80 [email protected] Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Leeson Lane Dublin 2 Italy F. Ducci Istituto Sperimentale per la + 39 575 35 3 490 [email protected] Selvicoltura ISSARGEN viale S. Margherita 80 52100 Arezzo V. Tosi ISAFA + 39 0461 381116 [email protected] Piazza G. Nicolini, 6 38050 Villazzano (Trento) The E.J. Al Ministry of Agriculture, + 31 317 474 930 [email protected] Netherlands Nature Mngt. & Fisheries Marijkeweg 24 / P.O. Box 30 6700 AA Wageningen COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 35
A. van Hees IBN-DLO, Institute for Forestry and + 31 317 424 988 [email protected] Nature Research P.O. Box 23 6700 AA Wageningen
Norway B. Tømmerås NINA/Norwegian Inst. for Nature + 47 73 91 54 33 [email protected] Research naniku.no Tungasletta 2 7005 Trondheim Portugal A. Almeida INIA-EFN National Forest Research + 351 1361 0700 [email protected] Station Rua do Borja 2 1350 Lisboa
Slovak M. Saniga Technical University of Zvolen + 42 855 226 54 [email protected] Republic Faculty of Forestry Masarykova 24 96053 Zvolen
Slovenia A. Boncina University of Ljubljana + 386 61 27 11 69 [email protected] Biotechnical Fac., Dept of Forestry Vecna pot 83 / P.O. Box 2995 1000 Ljubljana J. Diaci University of Ljubljana + 386 61 271 169 [email protected] Biotechnical Fac, Dept For. & Renew. F. Resources Vecna pot 83 / P.O. Box 2995 1001 Ljubljana Spain M. Gracia Universitat de Lleida + 34 73 702 500 [email protected] Dept. of Produccio Vegetal c/ Rovira Roure 25198 Lleida
F. Lopez Angel Parques Nationales + 34 22 870 362 [email protected] Carretera General del Sur 6 38800 San Sebastian de la Gomera
Sweden B. Ranneby The Swedish University of + 46 90 141 915 [email protected] Agricultural Science Dept. of Forest Management and Geomatics 90183 Umeå T-B. Larsson Swedish Environmental Protection + 46 86 981 663 [email protected] Agency Blekholmsterrassen 36 10648 Stockholm
S. Sohlberg Swedish Environmental Protection +46 86 981 336 [email protected] Agency Blekholmsterrassen 36 10648 Stockholm UK M. Morecroft Institute of Terrestrial Ecology + 44 1865 202 612 [email protected] Field Laboratory Wytham Oxford, OX2 8QT
K. Kirby English Nature, Northminister House +44 1733 568 834 keith.kirby@english- Peterborough PE1 1UA nature.org.uk 36 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
COST Secretary CEC, DG XII/B/1 + 32 2 296 4289 [email protected]. P. Hyttinen 200 rue de la Loi be SDME 1/43
Observing Observer countries Russia O. Chertov St.-Petersburg State University + 7 812 427 7310 [email protected] Biological Research Institute Oranienbaum Rd. 2, Stary Peterhoff 198904 Peterhoff, St.Petersburg
Switzerland J-F. Matter ETH + 41 1 6321033 [email protected] Institut für Wald- und Holzforschung 8092 Zürich Croatia S. Matic University of Zagreb + 385 1 218 616 [email protected] Faculty of Forestry Svetosimunska 25 HR-10000 Zagreb Bosnia and E. Vojnikovic University of Sarajevo + 387 71611349 Herzegovina Sumarski Fakultet Zagrebacka 20 Sarajevo Romania G. Borlea “Bogresul Silvic“ Filiala + 40 56 205 531 Timisoara Kogalniceanu No. 6 1900 Timisoara
Poland R. Zielony Agricultural University CSGGW Dept of Forest Management and Forest Geodecy Rakowiecka 26/-30 02-528 Warsov
Czech Rep. V. Tesar Institute of Silviculture + 420 545211422 [email protected] Faculty of Forestry Zedelmeská 3 61300 Brno
EVALUATION TEAM
COUNTRY NAME CITY AFF FAX E-MAIL Mid-term evaluation Poland P. Paschalis Warsaw UN +48 22 420 192 [email protected] Slovenia B. Anko Ljubljana UN +386 61 271 169 [email protected] Belgium N. Lust Ghent UN +32 9 2646 240 [email protected] Final evaluation Austria K. Zukrigl Wien +431 803 5981 Poland P. Paschalis Warsaw UN +48 22 420 192 [email protected] Hungary Z. Kovacs Sopron UN +36 99 311 103 [email protected] RI = Research Institute, UN = University, AM = Administration COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 37
Further information and detailed material on COST Action E4:
Jari Parviainen, Chairman of COST Action E4 Finnish Forest Research Institute Joensuu Research Station P.O. Box 68 FIN-80101 Joensuu Finland Tel. +358 13 251 4010 Fax. +358 13 251 4111 e-mail: [email protected]
Forest Reserves Data Bank http://www.efi.fi/Database_Gateway/FRRN
European Forest Institute (EFI) Andreas Schuck, Databank Manager EFI, Torikatu 34 FIN-80100 Joensuu Finland Tel. +358 13 252 0227 Fax. +358 13 124 393 e-mail: [email protected]
Keywords:
Keyword 1: Forest protection areas Keyword 2: Natural forests Keyword 3: Stand structure Keyword 4: Sampling plot system Keyword 5: Forest reserves data bank 38 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 39
COST Action E4
FOREST RESERVES RESEARCH NETWORK
WG1 “Strict Forest Reserves in Europe and Forests Left to Free Development in Other Categories of Protection”
. Definitions and Terminology . Characteristics of Existing Reserves
Winfried Bücking, Chairman of WG I , Germany
Erwin Al, The Netherlands Patrick Falcone, France Jim Latham, United Kingdom Sune Sohlberg, Sweden 40 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
CONTENTS
1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 41 1.1 Background to the Action and the role of WG 1……………..…………………. 41 1.2 Data collection; progress report…………………………………………………. 42 2 Overview of forests left to free development……………………………………… 43 2.1 General concept of the goals in the COST Action…………………………..….. 43 2.2 Virgin forests in European countries…………………………………………….. 48 2.3 Strict Forest Reserves in Europe………………………………………………… 48 2.4 Other protected forest reserves left to develop freely………………………… 54 2.4.1 National Parks……………………………………………………………... 55 2.4.2 Other categories…………………………………………………………… 57 3 Future planning of new strictly protected forest areas………………………….. 57 3.1 National recommendations for the establishment of Strict Forest Reserves…….. 57 3.2 National recommendations for the planning of National Parks…………………. 58 4 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………. 59 4.1 Summary/Overview……………………………………………………………… 59 4.2 Recommendations……………………………………………………………….. 60 References………………………………………………………………………………. 61 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………… 66
Country abbreviations
Austria A Netherlands NL Belgium B Norway N Bosnia-Herzegovina BiH Poland PL Croatia HR Portugal P Denmark DK Romania RO Finland FIN Russia R France F Slovak Republic SK Germany D Slovenia SI Greece GR Spain E Hungary H Sweden S Iceland IS Switzerland CH Ireland IRL United Kingdom UK Italy I COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 41
1 Introduction 1.1 Background to the Action and the role of WG 1 Most forests in Europe are managed, and virtually all are in some way modified by humans. However, some are left to free development or otherwise retain natural structures and processes (broadly called „natural forests“), and may be protected in Strict Forest Reserves. The COST Action E4: Forest Reserves Research Network was established in 1995 by the COST Commission to promote the co-ordination and enhancement of research in natural forests (MOU 1996). Its objectives were: • to create a "virtual" network of existing Strict Forest Reserves in Europe, and to encourage the establishment of new ones to improve the physical network; • to collate ongoing research, which is often a key feature of reserves; • to unify and standardise research methodology, so that valid comparisons of results between countries are possible; • to provide general access to a central data bank on forest reserves (Parviainen 1999, COST E4 “FRRN“ leaflet 1998 &1999). Previous European efforts to coordinate Strict Forest Reserves were focussed in Central Europe. These included the IUFRO working groups “Virgin Forests“ (meetings in Oslo, Vienna, Gmunden/Austria [Mayer 1976, 1982, 1987]) and “Succession“ (meeting in Wageningen/NL [Fanta 1986]), the European Council (Strasburg, Bavarian Forest [Heiss 1987a,b]), IBN-DLO (Wageningen/NL [Broekmeyer et al. 1993]) and the EFI’s feasability study (Schuck et. al.1994). The first European Strict Forest Reserves were established as early as 1838 (Bohemia, now called the Czech Republic) and 1847 (Fontainebleau, France). The Ministerial Follow up Conference of Lisbon considered the creation of protected forest areas among the most important measures to be taken. To help achieve this and to support UN-ECE activities, a Pan-European approach to definitions and classifications of protected forest areas was recently launched. There are countless and often contradictory terms relating to forest types, forest conservation and biodiversity. Those shown in Table 1 (reference: Schuck et. al. 1994, updated in working papers of WG 1) illustrate the range of approaches and concepts current in the field of forest protection. The role of Working Group 1 was to develop a solid understanding of natural forests and Strict Forest Reserves by: • Reviewing the definitions and terminology relating to protected forest areas, with emphasis on those left to develop freely; • Defining the characteristics of existing Strict Forest Reserves; • Creating a bibliography of relevant papers and books on natural forest research in the participating countries. 42 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Table 1: Current terms and protection status for different forest ecosystem types as a function of site history (Based upon Schuck et al. 1994; revision of proposal Freiburg 1997)
Origin of development Continuity of woodland Management status Protection status on the site Virgin forest (wood) Old growth forest Productive forest Nature conservation area Primeval forest (wood) Ancient forest (wood) Unproductive forest Nature reserve Primary forest (wood) Recent forest (wood) Industrial forest Nature forest (Naturwald) Untouched forest (wood) Plantation Strict nature reserve = Sustainable managed forest Strict forest reserve Undisturbed forest Forest management near to National park Original forest nature Unmanaged forest Biosphere reserve Wild forest (wood) Low intensity forest Wilderness area Natural forest (wood) Designed management (Forest with special Other protection forest* Semi-natural forest management regime); Gene reserve forest (wood) managed forest reserves; areas with appreciable Game protection forest Secondary forest (wood) intervention (park) Artificial/plantation Coppice forest Recreation forest (park) forest Coppice with standards SSSI (Site of specific (Spontaneous) Pasture forest scientific interest) Succession forest High forest Minimal intervention Old forest areas (limited) Hunting forest Selection forest * Soil and watershed protection (ITTO: Protection forests on fragile lands); species, habitat, biotope protection (ITTO: Forests set aside for plant and animal species and ecosystem preservation); protection of aesthetic values.
1.2 Data collection; progress report
Information was obtained from the country reports, which were written to provide a general background for the Action, and from a questionnaire, which considered: 1. The legal status of forest areas left to free development 2. The planning of forest reserves network - national concepts The questionnaire was devised by Working Group 1 (WG1) at the Freiburg meeting (1997), and circulated to country delegates in 1997 and 1998 for completion. Its presentation was approved in 1998 (WG1 meeting, Vienna) and updated in 1999. The results are summarised in Appendices 1- 4, and explanatory notes given in Appendix 5. The Management Committee revised the goals of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU 1996) at the Fontainebleau meeting (September 1996). The Action consequently needed restructuring, and its goals were revised at the Ljubljana meeting (1998) with an extension granted until the end of November 1999. An overview of protection categories in forests was written from the questionnaire and country report data. The term „protection“ is ambiguous, as it may be used in the sense of protection for people and property against floods, COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 43 avalanches, atmospheric pollution, etc, as well as nature conservation protection. These functions were not considered further. The Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe stresses that a clear survey of definitions of nature protection categories in European forests is urgently required, and expresses the hope that the national protection regimes can be reassigned to IUCN (1994) categories. The same is true for a synopsis of the aims of protection areas: are the categories mentioned comparable or not? Working Group 3 of COST E4 and EFI will include this ‚Definition survey‘ in the forest reserves database. A problem arose with the enquiries in so far as it was not anticipated that such a huge volume of information would be forthcoming, including the full range of regional or national conditions, variability of legal perspectives, forest history and landuse. All this information had to be included step by step during the course of the Action.
2 Overview of forests left to free development
2.1 General concept of the goals in the COST Action E4
The relationships between nature protection regimes in European forests are shown in Figure 1. The aims of nature protection are different in commercial compared to non-commercial forests, and hence, require alternative management regimes. This Action concentrates on forests where strict protection regimes apply. Forests are classified according to basic management objectives, but it must also be borne in mind that forests in Europe today are multi-functional, with remits including production, conservation, landscape and recreation.
Figure 1. Synopsis of forest protection objectives 44 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Protected forests vary greatly in size: there are small areas up to few hectares; moderately- sized areas up to a few hundred hectares; and large areas up to several thousands of hectares. Small Strict Forest Reserves are dealt with separately as distinct from comparable large areas, or comparable areas integrated in large reserves. Table 2 shows national nature protection categories in forests (protected forests) derived from the country reports (Parviainen et. al. [eds.], 1999). Definitions of the categories are collected in a terminological survey (Appendix 9).
Table 2. National Nature Protection Categories
Austria Iceland Natural Forest Reserve Forest Reserve • Standard Reserve (Reserve of Normal Standard) • Point of Main Effort Reserve (Main Focus Reserve) Ireland • Natural Forest Stand Protected Irish Woodland Landscape Conservation Area • National Park Protected Part of the Landscape/ Protected Green • Nature Reserve Wildlife Park Network Natural Heritage Areas (NHA) and Special Nature Park Areas of Conservation (SAC) National Park Protection ex lege Italy Gene Conservation Forest Strict Reserve (scientific uses only) National Park Belgium Natural Monument Nature Reserve Biotope • recognized State Natural Reserve • official Regional Natural Reserve • State Nature Reserve with Forest Character (Flanders) Regional Natural Park • Forest Reserve (Wallonia) Strict Reserve Core • Strict Nature Reserve/ Integral Reserve Areas of international importance and other natural protected areas • Directed Reserve National Park Nature Park The Netherlands Strict Forest Reserve (National Research Program) Forest Research Reserve Bosnia-Herzegovina* Forest A-Location Virgin Reserves Protected Nature Monument Forest Reserves State Nature Monument Special Reserves National Park Park Forests Private Nature Reserve Natural Park National Park Norway National Park Croatia* Nature Reserve Strict Reserve Forest Reserve Special Reserve Landscape Protected Area Virgin Forest Natural Monument Endangered or Rare Species Protection Nature Park Poland* Significant Landscape Nature Reserve Architectural Park Monument of Nature Monument of Nature Protection of Species Park Forest Area of Protected Landscape National Park Landscape Park Nature Landscape System Czech Republic* Environmental Values (National) Natural Monument Strict Protection National Nature Reserve Partial Protection Protected Landscape Area National Park COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 45
Denmark Portugal Legally Protected Area National Park Private Reserve Natural Park Permanent Management Agreement Natural Reserve State Forest Reserve Natural Monument • Untouched (Strict) Forest Research Reserve Protected Landscape • Traditional Management System Biological Interest Site All Natural State Owned Forest Strict Nature Reserve Biogenetic Reserve (European Council) Finland Ramsar Convention Strict Nature Reserve Biosphere Reserve (UNESCO) National Park Wilderness Area Romania* Other protected areas of the state Natural Reserve • Peatland Protection Area Protected Area • Herb-Rich Forest Preserve Biosphere Reserve Old Growth Forest Preserve National Park Wetland Reserves Russia** Protected Shore Line Area State Nature Reserve Protected Esker National Park Privately Protected Area Natural Park Nature Conservation of Productive Forests State Nature Refugium Ancient Forest Area Nature Monument Undisturbed Forest Dendrological and Biological Garden Natural Forest Slovak Republic France Protection Forest National Park • Virgin Forest Protected Forest • Natural Forest Nature Reserve National Park Bioreserves Protected Landscape Area • Special Forest Reserve Biosphere Reserve • Strict Forest Reserve Regional Nature Park Slovenia Forest Reserve Germany Strict Forest Reserve Large Scale Reserve National Park/ Natural Park • Biosphere Reserve Protection Forest • National Park Forest with Subordinate Productive Functions • Nature Park Ecocell • Landscape Protection Area Strict Forest Reserve (Strict Nature Forest Area) Spain Nature Protection Area Parks Bird Sanctuary Nature Reserve Legally Protected Biotope within Forest Management Areas Natural Monuments Designed Management Forest (Schonwald) National Park (Spatial) Nature Monument Natural Park Protected Landscapes Greece Strict Reserve National Park Partial Nature Reserve Aesthetic Forest Natural Reserve of Wild Fauna Protected Natural Monument Natural Park Hunting Reserve Regional Park Internationally Important Wetland/ Marine Park Protected Natural Area World Heritage Site (Natural and Cultural) Natural Site Protection Forest Hungary National Park Sweden Landscape Protection Area Nature Reserve Protected Forest National Park Strictly Protected Forest OTH (State Forest Reserve and Area bought but not Biosphere Reserve yet legally protected) Forest Reserve Integrated Monitoring Plot Strict Forest Reserve Experimental Forest Remnant Biotope for Flora and Fauna Indicators of biodiversity in the forest landscape Game Research areas 46 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
United Kingdom SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) Designation National Nature Reserve SAC (Special Area of Conservation) Minimum Intervention Wood (Area) No Silvicultural Intervention Area AONB (Area of outstanding Natural Beauty) National Park Tree Preservation Order
* Refer to Diaci 1991 ** Refer to Parviainen et al. 1999
This Action deals with forests that are currently unmanaged and left to free succession and does not necessarily consider their previous management history. The original idea was to locate the last remnants of original forests (virgin forests, old forests) in Europe, which could serve as reference areas for biodiversity and silvicultural research. In many European countries, forest management during previous centuries has resulted in the introduction of tree species from the United States or from other foreign lands. Tree species that were thought to have high potential for wood-production and subject to a corresponding minimal risk of disease were preferred and introduced. However, these species did not occur in Europe before humans had introduced them. Such species are referred to as "exotic tree species". In countries like the Netherlands large amounts of Douglas fir (Pseudodouglas menziesii) and of Japanese larch (Larix decidua) were planted as monocultures. It is unknown how these forests will develop ecologically in future. Will they become native forests eventually or will they develop into a new type of forest? In order to address this question the Netherlands, Germany and France have decided to select forests with a large level of exotic tree species in their forest reserves or programmes. Areas fitting the unmanaged forest definition can be found in several categories: mainly as Strict Forest Reserves (or nature forest reserves e.g. in Scandinavia), but also as unmanaged central or core areas in national parks, Biosphere Reserves, wilderness areas, natural reserves, natural monuments (Greece), nature parks (Table 3). In addition to legally protected areas, a substantial and increasing amount of non-classified protection areas are actually left unmanaged for succession. The legal status of Biosphere Reserves is not clear and interpretations are different in different countries, e.g. there is no legal category in France for Strict Forest Reserves (pas de statut de protection). In other countries (e.g. Germany) they do have a legal status, but in some cases these are additional to other legal categories.
Strict Forest Reserves in Central Europe are usually forest or successional areas within larger forest areas, but they may also be adjacent to agricultural land. They may form part of another protection (protected forest) category, such as National Park, nature park, biosphere reserve, nature reserve or landscape reserve.
For this Action, an important criterion is that the reserves must have a scientific element involved. This is expressed verbally in MOU 1996, Creation of a network of Strict Forest Reserves used for permanent plot research, which states that they must be used, or be suitable for, stand structure research, forest phase succession, biodiversity, etc. A scientific agenda forms an integral part in most of Strict Forest Reserves, though this does not necessarily apply to other protection categories. This Action concentrated on stand structure characteristics of natural forests so that they might be compared with typical production forests. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 47
Table 3. Legally protected forests that may include Strict Forest Reserves: categories other than Strict Forest Reserves and central areas of National Parks
Austria Natural Parks Nature Protection Areas
Belgium Strict Nature Reserve
Finland Wilderness area Peatland reserve Conservation of old grown forests Conservation of richest forest sites Protection forests
France Nature Reserve Bio Reserve in public forest
Germany Biosphere Reserve
Greece Natural Monument
Italy Natural Monument
Netherlands Protected Natural Monument State Natural Monument
Norway Nature Reserve
Portugal Natural Park
Spain Natural Reserve Natural Park
Sweden Nature Reserves (in IUCN I+IV)
UK Site of Specific Scientific Interest / Minimum intervention area
The areas of research and scientific focus relevant to this Action needs to be carefully defined. Research will probably be done at some stage in all reserves. Areas of interest identified during the course of the Action included forest structure, forest succession and forest phase cycling, in addition to biodiversity of biocoenoses co-incident with processes of free development. Several delegates stressed the importance of species diversity in Strict Forest Reserves, e.g. fungi or mosses, since unmanaged forests often provide rare habitats for these ecological groups. Due to time constraints, it was not possible to include these aspects in the methodological analyses of this Action. Research is required for several purposes. It enables the maintenance of forest biodiversity at current levels or as legally required by the Ministerial Conference of Strasburg, the Rio-convention, and the follow-up conferences of Helsinki and Lisbon. It is necessary (1), to completely protect untouched reserves as reference areas and (2), to apply nature-oriented silviculture in production forests. Natural forests are generally accepted as being a good model on which to base nature- oriented silviculture. We need to learn the basics of naturalness and biodiversity, and to assess the impact of forest management (silviculture, forest harvesting, and biomass removal) on forest ecosystems and forest biocoenoses. 48 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
2.2 Virgin forests in European countries
Truly virgin forest remnants are undeniably the most appropriate forests to be left to develop freely. Vigin forests are generally understood to be areas, which have been continually forested since conditions became suitable for tree growth, e.g. in Central and Northern Europe since the end of the Ice Age and in the Mediterranian since the Tertiary Period. Such forests - sometimes called untouched or natural - may be more approprietly be classified as “virgin ancient“ to distinguish them from recent forests that have never been managed. This Action’s results suggest that the proportion of virgin ancient areas – if present at all at a national level – is very small (i.e., non- existent in D, H, NL, UK; 0,001 % of forest area in A, though 3 % if Pinus mugo shrub forests are included; 0,04 in SI; 0,2 % in F; some residual [no exact data] virgin forest left in FIN, GR, N, S - country abbreviations are explained at the beginning of this report). It only appears to certainly exist in the Scandinavian countries, in Karelia, Archangelsk and the Komi republic, and in the Alps and Balkan regions. The examples from Austria and the Scandinavian countries show that appreciable areas of virgin forests occur close to the natural tree line, e.g Pinus mugo stands in Austria and non productive birch forests (annual increase less than 1 m³) in Lapland. However, such areas not suited as a biodiversity model for productive forests at lower elevation. The same holds true for some other types of successional forests in the Mediterranian region. There are important and increasing areas of young (recent) successional forests in Europe, which have developed on land previously used for agriculture. These forests include: (a) primary successional forests; new forests develop on bare ground without human interference, e.g. on floodplains, near rising sea borders, e.g. on northern Baltic coasts, in newly created polders, and after heavy erosion or landslides. These forests represent veritable virgin forests („virgin young„); (b) secondary successional forests; subsequent to agricultural or pastoral land has been abandoned (arable land, peatlands, heathlands):“virgin secondary“. Most Strict Forest Reserves are a subcategory in so far as free development follows forest management, i.e. abandoned existing forests (“ virgin forest of tomorrow“; Dieterich et al. 1970).
2.3 Strict Forest Reserves in Europe
Most countries use the English term "Strict Forest Reserve" for areas that are unmanaged and left to develop freely. However, it is not used in the UK, Greece, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, but may be applicable to some forest areas in these countries.
Legal protection
Legal protection must be provided to assure long-term natural succession. Strict Forest Reserves may be protected by one or more legal mechanisms: - by forest Acts or laws: B, F, D, H, I, NL, SI, UK. - by nature conservation Acts or laws: (A), FIN, F, D, DK, I, (E), N, NL,P, S, UK - by both laws and Acts : (D), UK. - by administrative regulations or ministerial edicts: A, F, D, DK, (I), NL, UK. These include, without further differentiation, private contracts, etc. (e.g. (A), Germany) - no specification as of yet, but afford legal protection: H COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 49
There are also unmanaged areas without legal protection in various ownership categories, but these cannot be regarded as "strictly protected". These unmanaged areas are a potential pool of research sites if their unmanaged state can be mantained indefinitely by whatever means or reasoning. In Germany, as in some other countries, some 60,000 hectares are left to develop freely, in addition to the area of Strict Forest Reserves (about 25,000 ha). This occurs with or without specific legal obligation. In Finland, privately protected unmanaged forest areas account for approximately 50,000 hectares. Overall in Europe, the total area of such forests is difficult to estimate, but it may amount to several hundred thousand hectares. In Sweden, 250,000 hectares of productive forest were converted to nature reserves by the National Forest Enterprise. In the Slovak Republik, about 100,000 ha are protected legally by the State, but according to Korpel (1995) there are even more forests approaching virgin condition and are hence, worthy of protection.
Ownership
The ownership categories of strictly protected forest reserves varies considerably : State authorities probably own the largest amount of Strict Forest Reserves in most countries. Other public bodies - municipalities (except in FIN, NL, SI, S), religious orders and other legal corporations (A, N, E, UK) - are also important in this context. In many countries private forest owners (industrial companies, foundations, etc.) are involved in Strict Forest Reserves programmes (A, B, D, DK, N, E, P, S, and UK). In Finland and Sweden such companies generally own Strict Forest Reserves that are of relatively small size. The areas are contractually bound with respect to management, and, in some cases, the owners receive financial compensation (A, D, DK). One obvious drawback with this system is that the contracts are for a limited period only, and scientific studies require the indefinite removal of management. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) may be involved in nature protection and are classed as private owners (A, E, UK). In some countries (e.g. D, NL) NGOs have been encouraged and financially subsidised for more than a hundred years to buy land for nature protection purposes. The goal to protect forest by doing nothing is, however, a relatively new concept. The protection of natural processes has a political dimension, as strictly unmanaged reference areas are required as models for-close-to-nature management and for certification purposes. This is a topical and controversial issue with certification bodies and NGOs. However, it is debatable whether such reference areas are good for scientific research because of the lack of longevity and spatial representivity.
Managers
State forest administration bodies usually manage reserves and are responsible for their protection. The exceptions are E, N, H, P, S, where State nature conservation bodies are responsible. Responsibility may also vary from one location to the other, or be shared between such bodies as in A, I, NL, UK. Private organisations are often managers as in H, F, NL, UK and NGOs are involved as managers in A, F, NL.
Scientific coordination
Generally research institutes, State forest administration (D, FIN, H.I, UK) or State nature conservation bodies ((A), H, N, S, UK) are responsible for the coordination of long-term scientific research. In some cases (e.g. I, SI) forestry faculties coordinate and organise research programmes. 50 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
In France, a scientific committee encourages and prioritises research: local and State museums, private research institutes and experts from different disciplines are invited to take part in research programmes. In Germany, the State forest research institutes of the federal States are charged with the coordination and documentation involved in the programmes, due to their considerable experience of silvicultural experimental plots (Bücking et al.1993).
Size
Strict Forest Reserves vary enormously in size: from one hectare to thousands of hectares. In Spain a single reserve may be 7,500 ha whereas in Finland it may be up to 71,000 ha. In densely populated countries like the Netherlands they are normally 10 - 20 ha. In Germany, the Federal and State-working group "Strict Forest Reserves" recommends a minimum area of 30 ha in the lowlands and 50 ha in mountain areas (Bücking 1993). Some Federal States have higher figures, e.g. Baden-Württemberg (100-200 ha; Bücking et al. 1993; Bücking 1997). In France, the French forestry board (Office National des Forêts, ONF) recommends a minimum area of 50 ha in the lowlands and 100 ha in mountain areas for publicly-owned Strict Forest Reserves. In Austria, the minimum area depends on the forest community and varies between 20 and 60 hectares minimum area for standard reserves in zonal forest communities.
Strictly protected forest reserve areas (left to free development) as a percentage of the total forest area in European countries
The percentage of forest area dedicated to free development varies between less than 0,1% (Croatia, Switzerland ; Diaci 1999; Parviainen et. al. 2000) and 6,6 % (Finland) of the total forest area. The absolute area of these forests depends on the total forest area of a country; for example it is 1,250 hectares in Belgium/Flanders, and 576,163 hectares (productive forest land) in Sweden. A special inventory of strictly protected forests was carried out in Finland in 1999. This showed that there are 714,274 hectares of protected forest on productive forest land (mean annual increment > 1 m³/ha), i.e. 3,6% of the total, and 1,528,303 hectares of protected forest in total (this includes forests with a mean annual increment between 0,1-1,0 m³/ha), i.e. 6,6% of the total forest area. The total strictly protected forest area for the whole of Europe is estimated at 3 mill. hectares or about 1,7 /2,2 % of the total forest (Parviainen 1999; COST leaflet).
Management and intervention limitations
Though by definition "any intervention is excluded" in strict forest areas, there are in fact exceptions. For example, some German Forest laws, e.g. Baden-Württemberg, forbid "human impacts that can be avoided". Working Group 1 agreed that instead of "any intervention" the basic prerequesite should be that no silvicultural intervention takes place.
Research
The scientific orientation of Strict Forest Reserves means that non-destructive (and occasionally destructive) research is allowed (countries will be listed with respect to this aspect also). The connection with research is more important than the wilderness aspect. In terms of IUCN- COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 51 classification, category Ia equates to Strict Forest Reserves. In Finland and in Sweden the administrating organization must grant permission for any kind of research in Strict Forest Reserves. As described above, France has a scientific committee for each reserve, which decides what research is allowed.
Right of Way and Visitor access
In addition to scientific and educational activities there may often be some "eco" (limited) tourism. Usually rights of way are conceded, meaning that people may use a footpath/trail/way/forest road, but must stay on them. Unhindered access throughout the reserve is not encouraged, although this may be inherent in many forest Acts, e.g. the right of common access in the Nordic countries or in German forest laws (Betretensrecht) and with some exceptions in Austria.
Strict Forest Reserves offer a rare opportunity to observe structures and processes characteristic of virgin forests. These include highly layered structures; small-scale horizontal forest mosaics; permanent regeneration; representation of all age classes; old, deformed, ill, dying, and dead trees. The support of a broad range of visitors is probably good for the long-term protection of strict forest areas. The modern conservation approach in heavily populated countries is to restrict unlimited access and to route visitors’ by carefully designed trails, e.g. Germany. No right of way is conceded in FIN, I, SI, E, P, but is accepted in A, D, DK, H, NL, N, S (SI); they are occasional in B, F, UK. The establishment of visitor trails is promoted in D, (S). Public information boards or visitor centres are provided in (A), D, DK, FIN, F, NL, P, S, SI, E, UK.
Safety measures
In small or easily accessible reserves, it may be necessary to protect people and neighbouring property against damage caused by them, for example by windthrow. Border safety measures are absent in FIN, H, NL, N, P, SI, E, S, are occasional in A, I, P, UK, and are usually present in D, F. In practice, border safety means that strictly protected areas are confined within a buffer zone, about one normal tree length in width from the border. Scientific research plots must be kept away from this zone. Safety measures within the reserve relate to rights of way. If there are visitor trails, potentially hazardous trees and branches may have to be removed. In Germany, it is standard to inform visitors of the personal risks associated with entering Strict Forest Reserves. There are no safety measures in reserves in H, NL, N, P, SI, E, UK; sometimes in FIN, S, A (where necessary), D, F.
Biotic and abiotic disturbances –Introductory remarks
The control of undesirable plants and animals often conflicts with the ideal of strict protection. Typically issues arise because of over-population of game, presence of lifestock, pests and diseases, bark beetle attacks, and invasion of non-native species. Such problems frequently result from the small size of reserves, their location within commercial forests, or proximity to centres of human activity. Biotic and abiotic disturbances are, however, key factors in forest ecology (Table 4), and hence, interventions affecting them have to be carefully considered. 52 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Table 4: Biotic and abiotic processes creating biodiversity / Forest dynamics types
Biotic site factors Abiotic site factors
Age of trees (Physiological life time) Change of site factors (recent / long term) Phase of the Forest Cycle - flooding Diseases / Pests / Plagues - levels of water tables (marine / limnic) Browsing / Grazing (wild animals / domestic - Avalanches / land slides lifestock), - Volcanic phenomenoa Animal life - Fire Stage of succession (primary / secondary succession) - Storm Forestry / Forestry use - Environmental pollution Anthropogenic impacts - Climatic variations - Climatic changes
Natural Conditions
Anthropogenic Changes of natural processes by human influence; increase or decrease of intensity of processes
Game management and the presence of lifestock
Wild ungulates (game species) in European forests include red deer, roe deer, wild boar, elk, reindeer, chamois, and bison. Their populations are frequently managed by humans, and hunting is a traditional forest activity. The factors that would naturally regulate ungulate populations, such as large predators, seasonal variation in food supply, and disease have often been lost or mitigated, and populations can become artificially high if they are not controlled by humans. Over-population of ungulates can seriously affect forest ecosystems, suppressing regeneration, and causing major changes in vegetation structure and composition. However, these animals have co-evolved with, and are part of European forest ecosystems. They naturally influence vegetation structure, composition and tree competition through herbivory, and they have a role in a range of ecological processes such as seed disperal, ground disturbance, and nutrient cycling. The ideal therefore, is for forest reserves to contain „natural“ population densities of ungulates to have fully functioning natural processes, but opinions vary as to what these should be. There is evidence that the Pleistocene mega-fauna occurred at far higher densities than today’s ungulates, and maintained more open, savanna-like landscapes. However, it is debatable this has been the case throughout much of the post-glacial period in Europe (e.g. Bradshaw and Mitchell 1999, Ellenberg 1996).
The way in which ungulate population management is carried out varies greatly, as it depends very much on local social, economic, and ecological factors. Other complicating factors include fragmentation of large forest landscapes, which interfere with animal migration patterns, and supplementary feeding and veterinary interventions. Whether hunting or population control is allowed on reserves may have far reaching consequences. If prohibited in the reserves, they may act as "save havens" with relatively high population densities, leading to a general decline in biological quality. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 53
It is not properly understood how Strict Forest Reserves compare with productive forests as habitats for ungulates. Hunters sometimes complain that reserves hold large populations of animals that are difficult to hunt and control. They may be less disturbed than in productive forests, and more easily concealed due to denser shrub layers. There may also be more food, although the presence of denser shade may suggest otherwise - in eastern Poland grazing animals have been shown to prefer productive areas of forest over strictly protected areas for feeding. Forests in Central Europe (whether reserves or not) often act as islands in agricultural landscapes, offering shelter and cover for roe deer which otherwise graze in the open. The general question of how large herbivores use Strict Forest Reserves may be a valuable future research area. The effect of new Pro Silva types of forest management on the use of forests by ungulates is not clear: the restriction of large clear-cut areas in Pro Silva management means a loss of concentrated food sources, and forage availability in general may be reduced. All this can have quite a surprising impact on the ungulates‘ behaviour. The effects of game management in these various situations cannot be determined easily, but certainly it is not comparable to the original role of large predators. The criteria by which game is selected by a hunter is quite different from the criteria by which a predator selects prey; the effect on populations and on their use of the forests is doubtless different as well. There is a need for systematic methods to assess the impact of wild herbivores. It seems, at least in most middle European countries, that it is impossible to do this by direct observation. Several German countries assess impact by comparing fenced and unfenced areas within reserves, and extensions of this sort of research may prove very valuable (Latham 1999; Reimoser et. al. 1999).
The presence of domestic animals in forests is a major problem in some countries, e.g. UK, IRL and most Mediterranean countries. In Central Europe the problem was largely solved – with the exception of parts of the Alps - in the last century by the segregation of forest and pasture, though locally fenced and limited forest- pastures persist or have been restored again for nature landscape management reasons. In some countries the damage to forest vegetation, spontaneous regeneration, or reforestation by sheep and particularly goats is so complete that natural processes no longer occur. Again, appropriate natural grazing levels are not known. Game management is forbidden in H, I; and allowed in A, D, NL and in some cases in DK, F, FIN, GR, S, N, P, SI, UK. Presence of lifestock is recorded in P, (S), (UK).
Other biotic disturbances
Biological damage from, for example, insects outbreaks, may kill trees and destroy whole stands. These processes do not conflict with the aims of strict reserves, as they are natural processes, even key factors for regeneration, generating biodiversity (Table 4) and promoting succession. They are acceptable within the reserve itself, but as they may also affect nearby commercial forests, they are not tolerated in all cases. In Germany, strict legal requirements for controlling such outbreaks are applied. The problem is particularly contentious in secondary monospecific spruce forests in Central Europe, which mostly replace deciduous or mixed forest types in higher mountainous areas. Pesticide interventions are generally not allowed in: A, DK, F, FIN, GR, H, NL, N, S, SI SK; they may sometimes be considered in D, though mechanical intervention is the rule. In Atlantic and Central Europe regions (F, IRL, UK) there may be management of non-native species to protect native species. Current opinion suggests that natural forest characteristics will be lost by the dynamic impact and spread of the newcomers or competitors. Such exotic species include trees like Robinia pseudacacia, Prunus serotina and Acer negundo, Pseudotsuga menziesii or Picea sitchensis, shrubs like Rhododendron ponticum in the hyperatlantic climate of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and herbs like Impatiens roylei, Reynoutria sps. and Heracleum 54 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network montegazzianum. Elsewhere, endangered species require protection, e.g. Pinus montana in competition with spruce, or even oak versus beech. Such management is most relevant in countries with only small areas of native forest, and where the conservation concern is not so much to protect the natural processes as a particular forest type. Normally such reserves should not be classified as Strict Forest Reserves, but as reserves with management planned for the conservation of particular species or communities. Areas should be selected in which competition of exotic species is low, otherwise competition of exotic species should be accepted as a natural process in the reserve.
Abiotic damage
Abiotic influences also need to be controlled. Countries with dense populations and small forest areas will inevitably have stricter controls and legislation for intervention than highly forested countries. In the northern countries, fire has a natural key role in coniferous forests and initiates the development phase of forest cycles. The removal of the humus layer by burning stimulates tree regeneration, and controlled burning is an approved silvicultural technique. Nevertheless, even in the European Nordic regions, natural fire cannot be tolerated because of the danger of it getting out of control. The problem is even worse in both natural and artificial coniferous forests of the Mediterranean region. In remote mountainous areas it is very difficult to fight fire. Burnt trees must not be removed outside the reserve area. Fire is tolerated to a limited degree in the UK, mainly because it rarely occurs in native woodlands! Fire is not controlled in SI. Windthrow is also a natural process, and windthrown trees are not removed in reserves. There are sometimes arguments over the treatment of windthrown or windbroken stems (especially of spruce), because of the possible promotion of bark beetle epidemic, which may infect commercial stands. Avalanches, landslides and flood erosion must be dealt with case by case. These particularly destructive disturbances can only be fully tolerated in very large reserves where the chance of adjacent land being affected is very small (this alone provides a strong justification for the preference of large reserves). There is little chance in Central Europe for the erosive and transformative power of large rivers like Rhine, Rhone and Danube to create unadulterated ecological conditions in natural riparian forest associations. This means that Strict Forest Reserves of the size found in middle Europe cannot be expected to contain all natural disturbance regimes. Measures are not usually taken in A, FIN, H, I, N, SI, E, S, but occasionally in B, F, D, NL, and UK.
Use of genetic resources
The harvesting of seed, seedlings, saplings or grafts for commercial or regeneration use outside the reserve is generally forbidden. There are exceptions where there is a scientific aim, or in well defined situations where the collection of seeds and diaspores of rare species is permitted to support populations elsewhere [A, (D), (DK), (F), (GR), I, N, (P) (S), SK, (SI), (UK)].
2.4 Other protected forest reserves left to develop freely
It was shown in Chapter 3.1 that, in addition to Strict Forest Reserves, other categories fit the general aim of COST E 4 to preserve actual or potential forest areas for free development while COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 55 conducting silvicultural and biological research. In most cases these categories are compatible with Strict Forest Reserves (see Table 3). However, the specific features of large scale protection areas like National parks or Biospere Reserves require some additional notes.
2.4.1 National Parks
The interpretation of the term „National Park“ is even more confusing than that of Strict Forest Reserves. However, National Parks in the sense of the IUCN generally include large landscape units and, in addition to forests, may include other natural formations or land use categories such as lakes, rivers and marine environments and alpine ecosystems. Therefore the IUCN classification is not always useful for detailed forest classification. Many countries allow some of the ecosystems present in their National Parks to develop as naturally as possible, and therefore provide areas that are unmanaged and, to some degree, available for scientific research. Indeed, some National Parks are dedicated to scientific research, and this category is an important pool of forest areas left to develop freely. Management problems in National Parks are similar to those in Strict Forest Reserves, although are generally less severe because parks are often larger and thus better suited to landscape ecological processes. It is evident, that the category “National Park” generally involves large areas, thereby allowing the strictly protected forest area to be much larger than other categories. It is notable that in some countries National Parks are considered to be of higher quality than Strict Forest Reserves. In IUCN categories (1994; Table 5), however, National Parks are listed as category II instead of I for true strict reserves, because of their additional remit catering for tourism. 56 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Table 5: IUCN Categories - Protected Area Management Categories, based upon the 1994 System
Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN, 1994) Areas managed mainly for: I Strict protection (i.e. strict nature reserve/wilderness area) II Ecosystem conservation and recreation (i.e. national park) III Conservation of natural features (i.e. natural monument) IV Conservation through active management (i.e. habitat/species management area) V Landscape/seascape conservation and recreation (i.e. protected landscape/seascape) VI Sustainable use of natural ecosystems (i.e. managed resource protected area)
Category Ia: Strict nature reserve/wilderness protection area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protection - an area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring. Category Ib: Wilderness area: protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection - large area of unmodified or slightly modified land and/or sea, retaining its natural characteristics and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed to preserve its natural condition. Category II: National park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation - natural area of land and/or sea designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area, and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible. Category III: Natural monument: protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features - area containing specific natural or natural/cultural feature(s) of outstanding or unique value because of their inherent rarity, representativeness or aethetic qualities or cultural significance. Category IV: Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention - area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats to meet the requirements of specific species. Category V: Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation of recreation - area of land, with coast or sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area. Category VI: Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural resources - area containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long-term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while also providing a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs.
Source: IUCN 1994
Central areas in National Parks etc.
Most large scale reserves like National Parks are not dedicated entirely to free development, but include smaller, strictly protected „non intervention“ areas. This is particularly true in the case of Central Europe. Central areas in National parks are effectively Strict Forest Reserves surrounded by managed protection areas, and therefore better suited to realize the goal of free development. This is the case in A, F, FIN, D, GR, I, N, P, SI, E, S. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 57
National Parks are legally protected by nature conservation Acts and managed by State forest or State nature conservation administrations. They are state owned in most countries, but there may be some private owners who, as in Austria, receive compensation for income forgone due to conservation activities. The park’s management structure coordinates the research activities of research institutes, museums, universities, etc., in line with the wilderness goals of the parks. Few interventions are allowed, and silviculture is rarely permitted. Exceptions include provision of rights of way and information to manage visitors, and permission for scientific excursions. Hunting and game management is generally considered necessary, with the exception of F, GR, I, (SI). Non destructive research is allowed, although it is not the primary goal of the parks. Destructive research is not allowed. Safety measures at the borders are allowed. No safety measures are taken inside the central area (with exception of (FIN?), (GR), I, SI). Pesticide treatments are generally excluded, but fire interventions are usually necessary. Other interventions may occur from time to time [(FIN), (GR), (I), (E), and (S)]. Use of seed and other regenerative material is generally not allowed, except in cases where rare populations must be supported [(GR), I, N,(E)]. National Parks in the UK are different to those in other countries. They are effectively landscape designations, and may contain protected conservation areas, active forestry, agriculture and even towns and villages. There may be protected forest areas within them equating to Strict Forest Reserves, but this is not a requirement. Other countries, e.g. Belgium, do not have forested National parks.
2.4.2 Other categories
Large-scale areas left to develop freely may also be integrated into Biosphere Reserves, however, not all countries have Biosphere Reserves. Generally, Biosphere Reserves are comparable to National Parks in size, and may contain different protection zones, i.e. from totally unmanaged areas seperated from areas managed in the past. In contrast to National Parks, past anthropogenic impacts play a decisive role insofar as man-made landscapes can only be maintained by implementation of traditional management practises. Other, previously untouched parts of the reserve are left to develop freely. The close association of man and nature is characteristic of Central European landscapes. Here, Biosphere Reserves preserve models of this close association. Many Biosphere Reserves were established in the Eastern States of Germany after political unification 1989. The wilderness concept contributes to political discussion on forest protection; such areas add to the pool of forest areas left to develop freely. The same is true for privately- owned forests left to develop freely. As shown in Chapter 2.2, there are appreciable amounts of forest that fall into this category in some countries.
3 Future planning of new strictly protected forest areas
3.1 National Recommendations for the establishment of Strict Forest Reserves
There are no specific recommendations in most countries. A few recommend general management and structural rules for the creation of new reserves, such as buffer zone [A, F, H, I, NL, (SI)], minimum size, shape, scientific coordination, management and control. Various recommendations are given for size. In Austria, the minimum size may be 20 - 60 ha depending on the forest community. Other countries fix clear minimum areas, e.g. 30 ha in lowland areas, 50 ha in mountain areas (D [some Länder]); 20 ha (NL); 50 ha lowland areas, 100 ha in mountain areas (F); 100 ha D (some Länder); 5000 ha FIN. 58 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Occasionally, there are only recommendations as to overall proportions of forest to be protected, e.g. 1 % D (some Länder) or N; 3 % B), but in general a representative network is recommended without further specification. In Finland, a special target programme has been initiated to protect old forest areas over the next 20 years (more than 230,000 ha). In Sweden, a target programme has been established to protect 250,000 ha of productive forest in IUCN categories I, II and IV by the end of 2010. A further 530,000 ha are expected to be protected voluntarily by forest owners. Most of the participating countries have no formal policy of increasing the area of Strict Forest Reserves. In COST Action E4 the comparison and distinction between managed and unmanaged areas are important considerations. Some countries stress these too: A, (B), FIN, F, D (some Länder), I, SI, (S), NL. There are general scientific criteria for the selection of forests to be strictly protected, including 1. In most cases a systematic selection and representation of forest types is recommended, to include a defined proportion of the forest resource. Forest types are usually defined by plant associations, but may include anthropogenic types, stand types or forest site types. 2. Strictly protected forests should usually be natural or semi-natural. Siviculturally managed forests have lost their original vegetation structure and composition. Environmental conditions have changed since the original Post-glacial forests and it is often impossible to say what is truly natural for any given site. Such questions can be resolved by leaving stands to develop freely. 3. Forests which have specific natural features, which may possibly be damaged by active management. These include forests which are ancient, contain rare or endangered species, have abundant dead wood, have high diversity of late successional species (e.g. deadwood taxa) or contain characterstics of virgin forest.
Criteria to assess representation are mostly based on vegetation types (Forest vegetation types: A, B(?), F, D, N, SI), but may include site types (D, S) and percentage of forest cover (N). Nature conservation aspects are often considered (F, I, P, S), and old (ancient) forests are particularly preferred (A, F, FIN, (GR), I, S). However, anthropogenic forest types may be included [(B), H (SI), P] and even exotic forest types may be an integrated part of representative reserve programmes [(D, Baden-Württemberg), NL]. Successional forests are generally included.
3.2 National recommendations for the planning of National Parks
There is greater public awareness of National Parks than of Strict Forest Reserves. For them to be recognised as Strict Forest Reserves, ancient forests are usually preferred, although age is not an exclusive criterion. Pure anthropogenic forests, however, are generally not accepted. The few recommendations for minimum sizes are 10,000 ha (FIN), 1,500 ha (GR) and 1,000 ha (N, NL, P, S). Compact shapes are not considered as important as they are for small reserves (although this is suggested in I, N, P, S). In future strictly protected areas (core areas) will be distinguished from surrounding areas, though buffer zones are not explicitely required. Research in National Parks, comparisons between National Parks and production forests and representativity in reserve selection are dealt with in the same way as are other Strict Forest Reserves. In Sweden, new National Parks are created according to a park plan, which includes a criterium providing for the inclusion of 100,000 ha of productive forest by the end of 2010. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 59
4 Conclusions
4.1 Summary/Overview
European Forest Reserves vary greatly in size and protection status. Strict Forest Reserves are usually identified as core areas within larger protected sites, such as National Parks, Nature Parks, or Biosphere Reserves. In the purest sense, Strict Forest Reserves should not allow any management or human impact of any kind within them. However, each country has interpreted the word „strict“ in a slightly different way to accommodate regional or local conditions. Protection can rarely or never be absolutely „strict“, as issues such as hunting, rare species protection, scientific research, ecotourism, control of undesirable (exotic) species, restoration management, limitations imposed on natural processes by forest fragmentation, and the rights of neighbouring land-owners must often be addressed. The ideal goal of strict protection, i.e. new virgin forest, cannot realistically be achieved in Europe. Strict Forest Reserves can best be regarded as „minimum intervention forests“ where the details of intervention are outlined in national legislation and other local requirements. We conclude that the only feasible, common requirement for Strict Forest Reserve status is that no silvicultural intervention takes place. Silvicultural intervention includes planting, felling, thinning, selection, harvesting, or any removal of woody biomass, living or dead. This allows natural forest processes of regeneration, recruitment and decay to take place, and this is acceptable under the concept of „free development“. There are fundamental conflicts between the goals for wilderness, science, and social demands. The impacts of scientific research and public access and recreation are not truly compatible with the protection of wilderness. However, scientific and social demands are important and must be recognised. Protected areas are valuable for silvicultural training, and basic social needs, i.e. the experience of wilderness or virgin forest, spiritual experience, recreation and personal development, as well as for their own intrinsic value. The scale of visitor impact varies across Europe. For example, in the Nordic countries it is very low, and no significant damage is caused; in NL and UK it may be quite high. The problem is not only a European one. Strict Forest Reserves can be placed in the IUCN categories of 1994 (Table 5), where the strictest category concerning science and wilderness, i.e. „strict“ is divided between subgroups Ia and Ib. Strict Forest Reserves mainly fit in category Ia. The distinctions between Strict Forest Reserves and other categories may be hazy in some cases, but the exclusion of silviculture is a requirement common to all Strict Forest Reserves. Despite the multidisciplinary goals of different forest protection types, those common to the this Action can be recognised: the protection of natural processes in forests, e.g. regeneration, presence of over-mature trees, dead wood accumulation, etc, succession (especially following disturbances or gap creation) and the protection of endangered species (especially those associated with untouched forests, late successional or dead wood habitats). Each country preserves and enhances forest biodiversity in a slightly different way to the rest. This Action is able to give generic support by: • encouraging countries to compare their situation with others, and to complete and integrate national Strict Forest Reserves networks within the European network; • contributing to other European nature conservation activities, i.e. Natura 2000 and FFH directives, CORINE programme, etc. Strict Forest Reserves should be established to complete the representation of forest types across Europe. Local, regional and national activities can benefit from cooperative European support. The same is true for scientific methodology, for example, through the promotion of recognised monitoring methodologies for forest development in order to facilitate compatibility of data between countries (WG 2); 60 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
• focussing on strictly protected central areas in National Parks to improve the representivity of forest types in the Strict Forest Reserves network. The criteria required for an area to be designated a National Park restricts the establishment of greater numbers of same, e.g. generally large size, low anthropogenic impact, natural or distinctive landscape features and natural or characteristic vegetation communities. A representative network covering all important forest production sites cannot be established via this route as often, small but important forest areas are excluded. However, close-to-nature silviculture requires silvicultural models, which are geographically relevant and such areas need to be included in an extensive network.
4.2 Recommendations
The overall recommendations of WG 1 are integrated with those for the whole Action in the final report of COST E4. However, a number of very specific recommedations arose, which were discussed in detail by WG1 at the Thessaloniki meeting: • The minimum common criterion for a strict forest reserve is that no silvicultural management may occur. Other interventions may occur, and these vary between countries. Human impact should be minimised and avoided if at all possible • A network of Strict Forest Reserves should be established with complete representation of European forest types. The forest types should follow classification at a European rather than a national scale, and possibly be linked to EU Habitats and Species Directives. • Representative forest reserve networks should be established within each country. No blanket recommendations for minimum area can be given, as historical, sociological and natural differences between countries must be acknowledged and respected, e.g. with regard to forest size, fragmentation, population density, etc. However, an overall increase in the total area of Strict Forest Reserves is required. To qualify for protected status, forests should be adequately large, have minimal border impacts, and adequate buffer zones. • Strict Forest Reserves should have long-term legal protection or adequate long-term contracts based on public law. • Further clarification of terminology and definitions relating to protected forests is required. The Strict forest network should not be seen in isolation, but as an element of overall - national and Pan European - forest management and protection strategies. The link to IUCN-categories is highly recommended. • Interdisciplinary research and long-term monitoring of forest ecosystems should be promoted at a national level with international linkage. Substantial resources are required for this work to be properly carried out and documented, and collaboration between researchers must be promoted. • Regular reporting on the status and condition of European Strict Forest Reserves is recommended. Reports should be integrated within National Forest Reports to the EU Commission. Long-term servicing and updating of the strict forest database established under COST Action E4 is essential if its scientific value is to be maintained. • In future, Strict Forest Reserves should have greater use as reference points for nature-oriented silvicultural management. Scientifically based advice should be provided to practitioners through national and international training programmes, workshops, and dissemination of published material. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 61
References
Bradshaw, R., Mitchell, F.J.G. 1999. The palaeoecological approach to reconstruction former ground-vegetation interactions. Forest Ecology and Management 120: 3-12. Broekmeyer, M.E.A., Vos, W., Koop, H. (eds.) 1993. European Forest Reserves. Proceedings of the European Forest Reserves Workshop, 6th-8th May, 1992, Wageningen, 306 pp., Wageningen (Pudoc Scientific Publishers). Bücking, W. (ed.) 1993. Empfehlungen für die Einrichtung und Betreuung von Naturwaldreservaten in Deutschland. Projektgruppe Naturwaldreservate des Arbeitskreises Standortskartierung in der AG Forsteinrichtung. Forstarchiv 64, 122-129. Bücking, W. 1997. Naturwald, Naturwaldreservate, Wildnis in Deutschland und Europa. Forst u. Holz 52, 515-522. Bücking, W. 1999. Naturwaldreservate in Deutschland – Urwald von morgen. Rückblick – Ausblick. NUA-Seminarbericht Vol. 4: Buchennaturwald-Reservate – unsere Urwälder von morgen, 21-31. Bücking, W., Aldinger, E., Mühlhäußer, G. 1993. Neue Konzeption für Waldschutzgebiete in Baden-Württemberg. AFZ 48, 1356-1358. COST (E4 Action "Forest Reserves Research Network") - leaflet 1998, 1999. Diaci, J. (ed.) 1999. Virgin Forests and Forest Reserves in Central and East European Countries. History, Present Status and Future Development. Proceedings of the invited lecturers' reports presented at the COST E4 Management Committee and Working Groups Meetings in Ljubljana, Slovenia, 25-28 April 1998, 171 pp. Ljubljana. Ellenberg, H. 1996. Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen in ökologischer Sicht. 5th ed., 989 pp. Stuttgart (Ulmer). Fanta, J. (ed.) 1986. Forest Dynamics Research in Western and Central Europe. Proceedings of the workshop held 17-20 Sept. 1985 in Wageningen. IUFRO Subject Group S. 1.01-00 Ecosystems, 320 pp, Wageningen (Pudoc). Heiss, G. 1987a. Situation of natural and ancient, seminatural woodlands within the Council of Europe member States and Finland. Council of Europe. Workshop on the situation and protection of ancient natural and semi-natural woodlands in Europe. Report, recommendations and contributions by participants, 51-64. Strasbourg. Heiss, G. 1987b. Inventory of natural (virgin) and ancient seminatural woodlands within the councils memberstates and Finland. pp. 8-13, 33-37, 451-462. Council of Europe. Steering committee for the conservation and management of the environment and natural habitats (CDPE)/Committee of experts for the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats. PE-VS (87) 3. Strasbourg. IUCN 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Parts I and II, pp 1-12. CNPPA with the assistance of WCMC. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. German Translation: Richtlinien für Management-Kategorien von Schutzgebieten. IUCN Nationalparkkommission mit Unterstützung des World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 23 pp, IUCN 1994 Korpel’,Š. 1995. Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten. 310 p.Gustav Fischer Verlag Stuttgart,Jena,New York. Latham, J. 1999. Interspecific interactions of ungulates in European forests: an overview. Forest Ecology and management 120, 13-21. Mayer, H. 1976. Richtlinien für die Schaffung von Waldreservaten. In Mayer, H. (ed.): Ecosystems, 100-105. IUFRO Division I, Congress Group 1, Oslo. Inst. f. Waldbau, Univ. f. Bodenkultur, Wien. Mayer, H. (ed.) 1982. Urwald-Symposium Wien 1982. 190 S., Wien (Waldbau-Institut der Universität für Bodenkultur). Mayer, H. (ed.) 1987. 2. Österreichisches Urwald-Symposium. Ort-Gmunden. 218 pp, Wien (Waldbau-Institut der Universität für Bodenkultur). MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) 1996. COST Action E4 "FRRN" Forest Reserves Research Network. EU COST, EU Commission. Brussels Parviainen, J. 1999. Strict Forest Reserves in Europe - Efforts to Enhance Biodiversity and Strengthen Research Related to Natural Forests in Europe. In Parviainen et al. (1999), 7-33. Parviainen, J., Little, D., Doyle, M., O’Sullivan, A., Kettunen, M., Korhonen, M. (1999) (eds.): Research in Forest reserves and Natural Forests in European Countries. EFI-proceedings 16, 299 p. Joensuu. Finland. 62 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Parviainen, J., Kassioumis, K., Bücking, W., Hochbichler, E., Päivinen, R., Little, D. 2000. COST E 4: Forest Reserves Research Network. Mission, Goals, Outputs, Linkages, Recommendations and Partners. Final Report. The Finnish Forest Institute. Parviainen, J., Schuck, A., Bücking, W. 1994. Forestry Research on Structure, Succession and Biodiversity of Undisturbed and Semi-Natural Forests and Woodlands in Europe. In: Paulenka, J., Paule, L. (eds.): Conservation of Forests in Central Europe, 23-30. Zvolen (Arbora Publishers). Paulenka, J., Paule, L. (ed.) 1994. Conservation of Forests in Central Europe. Proceedings of the WWF Workshop held in Zvolen, July 7-9, 1994. 143 S. Zvolen (Arbora Publishers). Reimoser, F., Armstrong, H., Suchant, R. 1999. Measuring forest damage of ungulates: what should be considered. Forest Ecology and Management 120: 47-58. Schuck, A., Parviainen, J., Bücking, W. 1994. A Review of Approaches to Forestry Research on Structure, Succession and Biodiversity of Undisturbed and Semi-Natural Forests and Woodlands in Europe. EFI Working Paper 3, 62 pp., Joensuu, Finland. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 63
Working Group 1 Members and Other Contributors
Austria Georg Frank Forstl. Bundesversuchsanstalt Hauptstr. 7 1141 Wien / AUSTRIA tel +43 1 87838/2208 fax +43 1 87838/2250 email [email protected] Gerfried Koch tel +43 1 87838-2204 fax +43 1 87838-2250 email [email protected] Belgium Kris Vandekerkhove Institute for Forestry and Game Management Gaverstraat 4 9500 Geraardsbergen / BELGIUM tel +32 54 437 111 fax +32 54 410 896 email [email protected] Bosnia-Herzegovina Vladimir Beus University of Sarajevo Vojnikovic Sead Faculty of Forestry Forestry Ecology Dept. Phytocenology Sagrebacka 20 Sarajevo / BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA tel +387 71 61 4005 fax +387 71 61 1349 Croatia Slavko Matic Zagreb fax +385 1 218616 email [email protected] Czech Rep. Vladimir Tesar Brno fax +420 54521 1422 email [email protected] Denmark Peter Friis Møller GEUS Thoravej 8 2400 Kopenhagen NV / DENMARK tel +38 14 20 00 fax +38 14 20 50 email [email protected] Finland Jari Parviainen METLA/Finnish Forest Research Institute Joensuu Research Station Yliopistokatu 7, Box 68 80101 Joensuu / FINLAND tel +358 13 251 4010 fax +358 13 251 4111 Martti Varmola email [email protected] Finnish Forest Research Institute P. O. Box 16 96301 Rovaniemi / FINLAND tel +358 16 3364200 fax +358 16 3364640 email [email protected] Rauno Väisänen Finnish Forest and Park Service P. O. Box 94 01301 Vantaa / FINLAND tel +358 205 644386 fax +358 205 644350 email [email protected] France Patrick Falcone Office National des Forêts Direction Technique et Commerciale 2, Avenue de Saint-Mandé F-75570 Paris Cedex 12 / FRANCE tel +33 140 195 977 fax +33 140 195 942 email [email protected] Germany Winfried Bücking Forest Research Institute of Baden -Württemberg Department of Botany and Site-Studies P. O. Box 708 64 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
79007 Freiburg / GERMANY tel +49 761 4018211 fax +49 761 4018333 email [email protected] Greece Dimitrios Trakolis Forest Research Institute 57006 Vassiliko – Thessaloniki / GREECE tel +30 31 46 11 71 fax +30 31 46 13 41 email [email protected] Hungary Peter Czájlik "Vásárhelyi István" Zsófia Maglóczky Nature Conservation Group Kazinczy u. 18. I/5. H-1191 Budapest / HUNGARY tel +36 1 3775 813 fax +36 1 313 94 98 email [email protected] Zoltan Somogyi Budapest / HUNGARY fax +36 1 3261639 email [email protected] Iceland Adalstein Sigurgeisson Reykjavik / ICELAND fax +354 5154501 email [email protected] Ireland Declan Little Coillte Teo., Research & Development Newtownmountkennedy, Co. Wicklow / IRELAND tel +353 1 2011142 fax +353 1 201 1199 email [email protected] Coillte Teo., Research & Development Newtownmountkennedy, Co. Wicklow / IRELAND Aileen O'Sullivan tel +353 1 2011140 fax +353 1 201 1199 email [email protected] Italy Fulvio Ducci Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura Viale S. Margherita 80 I-52100 Arezzo / ITALY tel +39 575 35 3021 fax +39 575 35 3490 email [email protected] Vittorio Tosi ISAFA Piazza Nicolini, 6 38050 Villazzano (Trento) – 1 / ITALY tel +39 461 381116 fax +39 461 381131 email [email protected] Netherlands Erwin Jan Al National Reference Centre for Nature Management Ministry of Agriculture Marijkeweg 24, P. O. Box 30 6700 AA Wageningen / NETHERLANDS tel +31 317 474801 fax +31 317 427930 email [email protected] Mirjam Broekmeyer BG-DLO Bosrandweg 20 Postbus 23 6700 AA Wageningen / NETHERLANDS tel +31 83 70 9 51 11 fax +31 83 70 2 49 88 Norway Björn Age Tommerås NINA (Norwegian Institute for Nature Research) NIKU (Foundation for nature research and cultural heritage research) Tungasletta 2 7005 Trondheim / NORWAY tel +47 73 80 1552 (mob. +47 91 635310) fax +47 73 80 1401 email [email protected] COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 65
Poland Roman Zielony Warszawa / POLAND Portugal Ana Almeida Estaçao Florestal Nacional Tapada das necessidades Rua do Borja 2 1350 Lisboa / PORTUGAL tel+fax +351 1 3637988 email [email protected] Romania Gheorghe Florian Borlea Aleea Padurea-Verde, jud. Timis 1900 Timisoara / ROMANIA tel +4 056 220 085 fax +4 056 205 531 Russia Oleg Chertov Dept. Forestry, St. Petersburg Forest Academy Institutsky 5 St. Petersburg, 194018 / RUSSIA fax +7 812 427 73 10 +7 812 550 08 15 email [email protected] Slovak Republic Milan Saniga Lesnicka Fakulta Technickej Univerzity vo Zvolene (Forstfakultät der Technischen Universität Zvolen) T. G. Masaryka 24 96053 Zvolen / SLOVAKIA email [email protected] Slovenia Andrej Boncina University of Ljubljana Biotechnical Faculty, Dept. of Forestry Vecna pot 83; p.p. 2995 SLO-1001 Ljubljana / SLOVENIA tel +386 61 123 1161 fax +386 61 271 169 email [email protected] Jurij Diaci University of Ljubljana,Biotechnical Faculty Dep. of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources Vecna pot 83, p.p. 2995 1001 Lubljana / SLOVENIA tel +386 61 123 11 61, ext. –583 fax +386 61 271 169 email [email protected] Spain Angel Fernandez Lopez Parque National Garajonay Carretera General del Sur 20 E-38800 San Sebastian de la Gomera -Sta Cruz de Tenerife- / SPAIN tel +34 22 870 105 fax +34 22 870 362 email [email protected] Sweden Sune Sohlberg Swedish Environmental Protection Agency S-106 48 Stockholm / SWEDEN tel +46 8 6981336 fax +46 8 6981662 email [email protected] Switzerland Jean-Francois Matter Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Geobotanisches Institut Gladbachstr. 114 8044 Zürich / SWITZERLAND fax +411 632 1033 email [email protected] United Kingdom Jim Latham C C W Ffordd Penrhos Bangor, Gaynedd LL57 2LQ / UK tel +44 1 248385642 fax +44 1 248 385510 email [email protected] 66 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Appendix 1. Legal status of forest areas left to free development: Strict Forest Reserves and comparable categories COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 67
68 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 69 70 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Appendix 2. Legal status of forest areas left to free development: National Parks Austria Finland France1) Germany Greece Country Categories: National Park National Park National Park National Park National Park Core Area Core Area Core Area Subcategory strict forest reserve National name Nationalpark Kansallispuisto Parc national Nationalpark Kernzone Kernzone Reference date VII/99 VI/99 V/99 X/99 No silvicultural interventionXXXX(X) Hunting, Game Management* X X no X no Lifestock present* (X) no Right of way* X X (X) X X Safeguard at the borders* X no (X) X (X)
Safeguard within the area*) (X) X X (X)
Visitors informationXXXX(X) Non destructive research X X no X X ± Destructive research no no no no Pesticide treatments allowed no no (X) no Fire interventionXXXXX Other interventions*) no (X) (X) Use of genetic resources*) no no (X) Legal protection*)22221 Ownership*) 1,2,3 1 1,2 1 1 Manager*) 1,2 1,5 2 2 1 Scientific coordination*) 1,3 4,2 8 2 2 Actual reserve area (ha) — 687 000 7002) ~20 000 18 127
Size range (ha) *) — 400 – 285 500 12-4 850 Percentage of total forest area — 0,2 0,28 *) See annotations (Appendix 7) Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: France: 1) Metropolitan France 2) 700 ha strictly protected forest reserves: Parc National des Écrins; Réserve intégrale du Lauvitel; 98150 ha forest reserves with a special management plan. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 71
Hungary Italy The Norway Portugal1) Country: Netherlands Categories:NationalNational Park National Park National National Park1) Park Park
National name Nemzeti Park Parco nazionale Nationaal Park Nasjonal- Parque Park parker Nacional Reference date XI/99 X/99 IX/99 No silvicultural intervention (X) (X) (X) Hunting, Game Management (X) X X (X) Lifestock present no (X) (X) Right of way (X) (X) X X X Safeguard at the borders X (X) (X) (X) (roads etc.) Safeguard within the area XX(X)(X) (trails, rivers) Visitors information X X X X X Non destructive research X X X X (X) ± Destructive research no (X) (X) (X) (X) Pesticide treatments allowed no no (X) Fire intervention X X X X X Other interventions*) (X) (X) (X) Use of genetic resources*) (X) (X) (X) X (X) Legal protection*) 1,2 1,2 (3) X Ownership*) 1 1,2 1-5 1-5 1,2,3 Manager*) 1,2 1 1,2 2 Scientific coordination*) 3 2,1,4 (3) 3 Actual reserve area (ha) —2) 1 250 9541) 52 390 10.000 70 290 (forest 24 190) Size range (ha) *) —2) 5 000-192 500 1 320-7 200 Percentage of total forest area —2) 14% (forest) 7% (1) *) See annotations to the questionnaires (Appendix 7)
Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: Hungary: 1) Forested areas only 2) 2003 is the deadline for the application of the IUCN categories for National Parks in Hungary. Organization and establishment of different zones are in progress. Italy: 1) Total area, not only the forested area. Portugal: 1) Continental Portugal 72 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden United Country: Kingdom Categories: National Park National Park National Park National National Park Park
National name Narodny park Narodni park Parque National Park National Reference date IV/99 IV/X/99 III/X/991) No silvicultural intervention (X) (X) (X) X X Hunting, Game Management (X) (X) (X) (X) X Lifestock present (X) (X) Right of way X (X) X2) X Safeguard at the borders Xno (X) (roads etc.) Safeguard within the area XX (X) (trails, rivers) Visitors information X X X X X Non destructive research X X X (X) X ± Destructive research no no Pesticide treatments allowed no (X) no X Fire intervention (X) X X X Other interventions*) (X) (X) (X) X Use of genetic resources*) (X) (X) (X) 1-3 Legal protection*) 2 2 (2) 2 1-5 Ownership*) 1 1, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1 1-4 Manager*) 2 2 2 2 7 Scientific coordination*) 3 (1) 3 1,3,4 3,4 20 000 Actual reserve area (ha) 243 219 19 2071) 132 478 40 0003) 5
Size range (ha) *) 3 750-74 111 1 928 – 50 720 27-25 0003) 1 - >200 Percentage of total forest area 1 1 0,23) *) See annotations (Appendix 7)
Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: Slovenia: 1) Total area of National Parks is 83 807 ha, total area covered by forests is 56 000 ha, 27 000 ha are managed forests. Sweden: 1) Data refer to state of the year 1996 2) Also right of common access 3) Area and percentage refers to productive forest land (yearly increment >1 m³/ha) COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 73
Appendix 3. Planning of forest reserves network - national concepts: Strict forest reserves and comparable categories Country: Austria Belgium 1) Denmark
Categories Strict Reserve of Reserve on Declared Forest Strict forest forest normal the stand research reserve2) reserves reserve standard level size reserve (”untouched (sub-category (sub-category (sub-category forest”) of strict forest of strict forest of strict forest reserve) reserve) reserve) National name Naturwald- Standard- Naturwald- Schwerpunkt- Bosreservaat Urort skov reservat reservat zelle reservat
Reference date VII/99 VII/ 1999 VII/ 1999 VII/ 1999 V/IX/99 Size range of planned 1-10001) 25-1000 1-25 1-1000 No limits No limits reserve area 4-10-100
Minimum: Planned area for the 30002) network (ha) *) 10.000 ha Planned Percentage of total 0,25 ~32) 1,2 (by 2000) forest area of the country 1,4(by 2010)1)
Representativity *) 3 333X(X) Ancient forests only X XXXNo(X) (X) Successional forests (X) (X) (X) (X) Anthropogenic forests No No No No (X) (X) mainly No Buffer zones obligatory No No No No No *) see annotations (Appendix 7) Remarks: Austria: 1) Minimum 30-60 ha, depending on forest community. X yes (X) in some cases Belgium: 1) Data only for Flanders. No no Forest reserves can be both strict or directed reserves. − no answer/ no data 2) For most reserves the decision still has to be made though the majority will be strict reserve
Denmark 1) Of actual forest area. The percentage is depending on the afforestation rate (the goal is to double the Danish forest area within approx. 100 years). 74 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland
Categories Strict Strict forest Strict forest Natural Strict forest Nature nature reserve reserve monument reserve Reserve reserve
National name Luonnon- Réserve Naturwald- Erdörezer- Nature Reserve puistot biologique reservat vatum intégrale Magterület1) Reference date IV/ 99 I/IX/XI/99 X/99 Size range of planned 5000 >50 in plain >30 no no — reserve area >100 in mountain1) Planned area for the 5000 by 15 000 with — network (ha) *) year 2000 buffer zone Planned Percentage of total no 1 — forest area of the country (with buffer zone) Representativity *) 3¾2,3X 3 3,4 Ancient forests only X (X) X (X) no (X) Successional forests (X) X (X) X Anthropogenic forests no no X no (X) no Buffer zones obligatory no (X) no no X no *) See annotations (Appendix 7)
Xyes (X) in some cases No no − no answer/ no data
Remarks: France: 1) It is planned to create 3 or 4 Strict Forest Reserves larger than 1000 ha in public forest, in Metropolitain France (Corsica, Pyrenées or Alps). Hungary: 1) The forest reserve network is under construction, so data may change. Ireland: There is no stated programme for Nature Reserve target areas. Must woodlands in Nature Reserves are State owned and the State continues to acquire woodlands of conservation value as the opportunities arise. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 75
Italy The Nether- Norway Slovak Rep. Slovenia Sweden Country: lands Categories Strict Strict forest Nature Nature Strict forest Nature forest reserve Reserve reserve reserve reserve1) reserve/ Wilderness area
National name Riserva Strict Naturreser- Prirodna Gozdni Naturreservat integrale bosreservaat vater rezervacia rezervat
Reference date V/X/99 IX/99 V/98 IV/99 III/99 Size range of planned —>20(X)10 000- 1-700 no limits reserve area 20 000 Planned area for the 3.340 250 000 network (ha) *) (by 2010) Planned Percentage of total —1 1 5 1,44,8 forest area of the country Representativity *) 4 X 1 4 (2,3,4) 2,4 Ancient forests only no no X X (X) no Successional forests X Anthropogenic forests X (X) (X) X Buffer zones obligatory X 50-100 m no (X) (X) no
United Country: Kingdom Categories SSSI1)- minimum intervention
National name SSSI1) Reference date Size range of planned 1-1000 reserve area Planned area for the network (ha) *) Planned Percentage of total 1 forest area of the country Representativity *) 4 Ancient forests only mainly Successional forests X Anthropogenic forests (X) Buffer zones obligatory *) See annotations (Appendix 7)
Xyes Remarks: (X) in some cases Sweden: 1) In productive forest land (yearly increment > 1m³/ha) No no United Kingdom: 1) Site of Special Scientific Interest − no answer/ no data 76 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Appendix 4. Planning of forest reserves network - national concepts: National Parks
Country Austria Finland Greece Hungary Ireland National National Park National Park National National Categories: Park Park Park Core area Peripheral Zone National name Nationalpark Kansallispuisto Nemzeti National Kernzone Park Park Reference date X/99 X/99 1998 1998 — X/99 Size range of planned no restriction 10 000 >1500 >1500 — reserve area (ha) Planned area for the — 691 330 — network (ha) *) Planned Percentage of —nono— forest area of the whole country Representativity*) 2,4 3 X (X) 4 2,4 Ancient forests only no X (X) no no no Successional forests no X X Anthropogenic forests no no (X) X X Buffer zones obligatory X no X no X no *) See annotations (Appendix 7)
Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: Ireland: Target areas for National Parks exist, but they are primarily related to areas of bog and heathland. In some parts of the country, the National Park target areas include woodlands, but exact figures are not available. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 77
Country Italy The Norway Slovak Sweden United Netherlands Rep. Kingdom National National National National National Categories: 1 Park park park Park ) Park1)
National name Parco Nationaal Nasjonal Narodny National nazionale Park parker park Park Reference date X/99 IX/99 V/98 IV/99 III/X/991) Size range of planned — >1000 >1000 >1000 >10002) >5 reserve area (ha) Planned area for the 80 6691) 100 0002)3) network (ha) *) Planned Percentage of ? 7 1,0 1,0 0,33) 1 forest area of the whole country Representativity*) 2,3,4 ? 2 2,4 2 Ancient forests only no ? X no Successional forests ? X Anthropogenic forests ? (X) X Buffer zones obligatory X (X) X (X) *) See annotations (Appendix 7)
Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: Netherlands: 1) Including non forest areas. Sweden: 1) Data refer to state of year 1999. 2) Area and percentage refer to productive forest land (yearly increment > 1m³/ha). 3) Most of the area in the plan consists of nature reserves included in appendix 4. United Kingdom: 1) Meaning of National Park not comparable to other countries. 78 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Appendix 5. Legal status of forest areas left to free development
Country: AUSTRIA Forest area (ha) 3.924.000/ Forest cover (%) 47 Categories**): Strict forest Reserve of Reserve on Declared Core areas reserve normal stand level size research of National standard (sub-category of reserve Parks (sub-category strict forest (sub-category of of strict forest reserve) strict forest reserve) reserve) National name Naturwald- Standard- Naturwald- Schwerpunkt- Kernzone reservat reservat3) zelle3) reservat Reference date VII/ 1999 VII/ 1999 VII/ 1999 VII/ 1999 VII/ 1999 No silvicultural intervention X X X X X Hunting, Game Management*) X X X X X Right of way*) X X X X X Safeguard at the borders (roads XX X X X etc.)*) Safeguard within the area (trails, XX X X rivers)*) Visitors information1) (X) (X) (X) (X) X Non destructive research X X X X X ± Destructive research no no no no no Pesticide treatments allowed no no no no no Fire intervention X X X X X Other interventions*) no no no no no Use of genetic resources*) 2) (seeds)4) (seeds) (seeds) (seeds) Legal protection*) 3 3 3 3 2 Ownership*) 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1,2,3 Manager*) 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2 Scientific coordination*) 4 4 4 4 1,3 Actual reserve area (ha) 6000 4000 1000 1000 Size range (ha) *) 1 - 1000 25 - 1000 1 - 25 1 - 1000 - Percentage of total forest area 0,15 0,1 0,025 0,025
*) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data Remarks: 1) In most cases the location of the reserves is not known by the public. 2) Seeds, only for scientific purposes. 3) Minimum of research: identifying of forest community, vegetation plots, maps of communities 4) In some cases to maintain threatened species COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 79
Country: BELGIUM (Flanders)2) DENMARK Forest area (ha) 135 000/***) 445 000/ Forest cover (%) 10 11 Categories**): Strict forest Strict nature Strict forest reserve reserve reserve National name Integraal Integraal Urort skov bosreservaat natuurreservaat Reference date V/IX/99 V/IX/99 IV/IX 99 No silvicultural intervention X X X Hunting, game management (X) (X) 1) Lifestock present (X) No Right of way (X) (X) X / (X) Safeguard at the borders (roads etc.) X X X Safeguard within the area (trails, rivers) (X) (X) (X) Visitors information (X) (X) Non destructive research (X) (X) X ± Destructive research (X)3) (X)3) no Pesticide treatments allowed (X) (X) no Fire intervention (X) (X) X 2) Other interventions*) (X) (X) X3) Use of genetic resources*) (X) (X) Legal protection*) 1 2 1-34) Ownership*) 1,2,3 1,2,3 1-5 Manager*) 1 2 1-4 Scientific coordination*) 4 4 (4)/ 7 Actual reserve area (ha) 12002) 50021) 6 085 Size range (ha) *) 4 - 100 3-201) 0,5 – 370 Percentage of total forest area 1 0,5 1,4 *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest ***) Total forest area in Belgium (Flanders + Wallonia) 665.000 ha/22% X - yes; (X) - in some cases; No - no; — - no answer/ no data Remarks: Belgium: Forest Reserves Nature Reserves Legal protection Forest Decree (1991) Decree on Nature Cons. (1997) Ownership State, municipalities, private, ... State, municipalities, private organisations Type of management Strict or Special Management Strict or Special Management Management responsible Forest Administration Nature Cons. Administration Scientific co-ordination Inst. for Forestry and Game Mgmt. Inst. for Nature Conservation 1) Estimation of forest area in strict nature reserves and of size range 2) In Wallonia: 1 strict forest reserve (10 ha) 3) In some reserves research is done on dead-wood and ground-dwelling invertebrates. This means that animals are captured and killed (e.g. eclectors, pitfalls). This can be considered as destructive research though it does not interfere with the vegetation.
Denmark: 1) Hunting is in general allowed for the property owner but not game management (e.g. feeding, artificial stocking etc.) 2) Has not yet occured. 3) Closing of ditches, specific cuttings etc. according to a plan before the date of non-intervention status. 4) On private estates etc. mainly by local, legally-binding agreements, in the state forests by administrative binding decisions (state forest reserves). 80 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: FINLAND Forest area (ha)/ orest 23 000 000/ cover (%) 76 Strict National Wildernes Peatland Protection High Programme for Categories**): nature park s area reserve forest altitudes conservations reserve >300m of old-grown a.s.l. forests National name Luonnon- Kansallis- Erämaa Soiden Suoja- Korkei- Vanhojen puisto puisto suojelu- metsäalue den metsien alue alueiden suojeluohjelma metsät Reference date VI/99 VI/99 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 No silvicultural X X (X) (X) no no X intervention Hunting, Game (X) X X X X X X Management Lifestock present X X X X X X X Right of way no X X X X X (X) Safeguard at the borders no no no no no no no (roads etc.) Safeguard within the area (X) X (X) no no no no (trails, rivers) Visitors information (X) X (X) no no no no Non destructive research X X (X) (X) X X X ± Destructive research no no no no (X) (X) (X) Pesticide treatments no no no no no no no allowed Fire intervention X X X X X X X Other interventions*) no (X) no no X X no Use of genetic resources*) no no no (X) X X no Legal protection*) 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 Ownership*) 1 1 1 1 1-4 1-4 1,3 Manager*) 1,5 1,5 1 1 1,3 1,3 1,3 Scientific coordination*) 4,2 4,2 4,2 4,2 4,2 4,2 1,4 Actual reserve area (ha) 149 000 684 000 1 378 000 411 000 — 440 000 10 000 Size range (ha) *) 63 – 400 – 15 000- 5-52 000 — — — 71 170 285 500 294 000 Percentage of total forest 0,6 3,0 — — — 1,9 — area COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 81
Country: FINLAND Programme for Programme for Wetland Shoreline Areas of Categories**): conservation of conservation of reserve conservation outstanding richest forests eskers programme national beauty sites National name Lehtojensuoje- Harjujen Lintuvesien Rantojen Maisemallisesti lualue suojelualue suojelualue suojelualue arvokas alue Reference date 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 No silvicultural X (X) (X) (X) (X) intervention Hunting, Game XXnoXX Management Lifestock present X X X X X Right of way X X (X) X X Safeguard at the borders no no no no no (roads etc.) Safeguard within the no no no no no area (trails, rivers) Visitors information no (X) (X) no no Non destructive research X X X X X ± destructive research (X) no no (X) (X) Pesticide treatments no no no no no allowed Fire intervention X X X X X Other interventions*) (X) X (X) (X) (X) Use of genetic (X) no (X) X X resources*) Legal protection*) 2 2 2 2 2 Ownership*) 1-4 1-4 1-4 1-4 1-4 Manager*) 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 Scientific coordination*) 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 Actual reserve area (ha) 2 200 94 000 5 900 8 200 — Size range (ha) *) 0,4-151 10-5 300 18-500 — — Percentage of total forest ————— area
*) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data 82 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: FRANCE (metropolitan) FRANCE (overseas)3) Forest area (ha)/ 15 156 000/ 8 800 000 Forest cover (%) 28 Categories**): Strict Forest Reserve National Nature Bio Reserve Natural Park Park Reserve National name Réserve naturelle and Parc national Réserve biologique intégrale Reference date III/99 III/99 III/99 III/99 III/99 No silvicultural intervention X X Hunting, game management (X) no Lifestock present no no Right of way (X) (X) Safeguard at the borders XX (roads etc.) Safeguard within the area X(X) (trails, rivers) Visitors information (X) X Non destructive research X X ± Destructive research (X) no Pesticide treatments allowed no no Fire intervention X X Other interventions*) X(1) Use of genetic resources*) (X) no Legal protection*) 1-3 2 Ownership*) 1-4 1, 2 Manager*) 1-4 2 Scientific coordination*) 8 8 Actual reserve area (ha) ≅ 15 000 700(2) ≅177 000 ≅123 000 17 300 Size range (ha) *) 1 - 500 Percentage of total forest area ≅ 0,1 *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 83
Remarks: 1) Other interventions: fight against natural hazards (vegetal pests) - recreate natural water dynamic (flood plains) 2) National Park: • strictly protected forest reserves: 700 ha (Parc national des Ecrins - "réserve intégrale du Lauvitel"); • forest reserves with a special management plan: 98 150 ha 3) In its overseas départements and territories, France has large tropical forests covering some 8,8000,000 hectares (8,300,000 ha in the French Guyana). The present legal protection status for the natural areas are : • French Guyana ∗ Nature reserves : 2 reserves in forest (176 000 ha : La Trinité - Nouragues) ∗ Bio-reserve : 1 strict forest reserve (110 300 ha : Lucifer Dekou-Dekou) It is planned to create a large National Park to enhance the protection of the amazonian forest. • La Réunion (Indian ocean) ∗ Nature reserve : 1 reserve (68 ha : St. Philippe - Mare longue) ∗ Bio-reserves : 6 reserves (13 900 ha) - strict forest reserves. The main problems in the island are the "vegetal pests" which represent a real danger for the vegetal native species. Fight against the invasive plants is allowed in the strict forest reserves. A program to enlarge the area of legally protected forests (remains of natural forest) is ruled by the Ministry in charge of Environment and the French National forestry board (ONF). • Gadeloupe ∗ National Park : 17 300 ha (Core area) ∗ Nature reserve : 1 reserve with forested area (460 ha - Grand Cul de Sac Marin) • Martinique ∗ Nature reserve : 1 reserve with forested area (210 ha - Presqu'île de la Caravelle). ∗ Bio-reserve : a large reserve on the ancien volcano "Mount Pelé" is studied. 84 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: GERMANY Forest area (ha)/ 10 700 000/ Forest cover (%) 30 Categories**): Strict forest National Biosphere Nature reserve reserve Park core Reserve core areas of areas core areas some reserves National name Naturwald- Nationalpark Biosphären- Naturschutz-gebiet reservat Kernzone reservat Kernzone Naturwald(par)- Kernzone zelle Totalreservat Bannwald1) Reference date X/99 1997 1997 1997 No silvicultural X intervention Hunting, game XXXX management Lifestock present Right of way X X X X Safeguard at the borders X X X X Safeguard within the area X X Visitors information X X X X Non destructive research X X X X ± Destructive research (X) X X Pesticide treatments (X) (X) (X) (X) allowed Fire intervention X X X X Other interventions*) (X) Use of genetic resources*) (X) Legal protection*) 1 2 2 2 Ownership*) 1-3 1 1 1/2/3/4 Manager*) 1 2 2 2 Scientific coordination*) 4 3 3 1/2/3/4/5/6 Actual reserve area (ha) 25 000 <——— 60 000 ———>1) Size range (ha) *) 5 - 276
Percentage of total forest 0,25 <——— 0,6 ———> area *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data Remarks: 1) Most frequent names in the 16 laender of Germany. Other terms: Naturwald, Bestocktes Totalreservat. 2) Rough estimation includes also some areas in other protection categories. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 85
Country: GREECE Forest area (ha)/ 6 513 000/ Forest cover (%) 49 National Park National Park Aesthetic Natural Game Research Categories**): Core Area Peripheral Forest Monument Refuge Plots Zone National name Reference date No silvicultural (X) no no (X) no no intervention Hunting, game no X X (X) no (X) management Lifestock present Right of way X X X X X (X) Safeguard at the borders (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) Safeguard within the area (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) Visitors information (X) X X (X) X (X) Non destructive research X X X X X X ± Destructive research no no no no no (X) Pesticide treatments no no (X) no no (X) allowed Fire intervention X X X X X X Other interventions*) (X) X X (X) X no Use of genetic resources*) (X) X X (X) X (X) Legal protection*) 1 1 1 1 1 3 Ownership*) 1 1,2,3,4 1,2 1 1,2,3,4 1,2 Manager*) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Scientific coordination*) 2 2 2 2 2 1,2,4 Actual reserve area (ha) 18 127 — 146 1 049 — — Size range(ha) *) 12-4 850 >1500 46-100 18-550 — — Percentage of total forest 0,28 — 0,0022 0,016 — — area
*) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data 86 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: HUNGARY IRELAND Forest area (ha)/ 1 738 000/ Forest cover (%) 18 Categories**): Strict forest Buffer zone Almost strictly Nature National reserve protected areas Reserve Park National name Erdörezervatum Erdôrezervátum Fokozottan Nature National Magterület puffer zóna védett terület Reserve Park Reference date IX/99 IX/99 IX/99 XI/99 XI/99 No silvicultural intervention X no (X) X X Hunting, Game Management no X X (X) (X) Lifestock present no no no (X) X Right of way no X no (X) X Safeguard at the borders no no no X (X) Safeguard within the area no no no X X Visitors information no no (X) (X) X Non destructive research X (X) (X) (X) X ± Destructive research no X no no no Pesticide treatments allowed (no) (X) no (X) (X) Fire intervention X X X no (X) Other interventions*) no (X) (X) (X) (X) Use of genetic resources*) no (X) no (X) (X) Legal protection*) 1 1 1 2 3 Ownership*) 1 1 1 1,3 1 Manager*) 2 2 2 2 2 Scientific coordination*) 3 3 3 1,3,7 1,3 Actual reserve area (ha) 3 665 8 100 56 000 2335 2860 Size range (ha) *) 8,4-260 6,7-370 10-600 7-370 10-2500 Percentage of total forest area 0,2 0,55 3,5 0,5 0,5 *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data Remarks: Hungary: The forest reserve network is under construction in Hungary. Exact data will be available after finishing the final review of the reserves. The "Forest Act" (effective 1st Jan., 1997) provides the legal protection of the reserves, which declares the undisturbance of the core area. However, the practical instruction of the act is not yet prepared. Therefore the real situation sometimes may differ from the requirements of the act.
Ireland: 1) In some protected woodlands, chemical sprays are used to control regrowth of invasive shrubs such as Rhododendron ponticum and Prunus laurocerasus. 2) It is general policy to remove exotic conifers and boradleaved tree and shrub species from woodlands in National Parks and Nature Reserves, where they may have been planted in the past. 3) The sizes given for National Parks refer to the area of woodland in the parks, not total area of parks. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 87
Country: ITALY Forest area (ha)/ 8 675 000/ Forest cover (%)*** 29 Categories**): Strict forest National Natural Habitat/ Protected Managed reserve Park Monument Species Landscape resource Wilderness Managemen Protection area t area area National name Riserva Parco Monumento integrale nazionale naturale Reference date V/X/99 X/99 V/99 V/99 V/99 V/99 No silvicultural X (X) X (X) intervention Hunting, Game X(X) Management Lifestock present (X) Right of way (X) X (X) X X Safeguard at the borders (X) (X) X X X X Safeguard within the area X X X X X Visitors information (X) X X X X X Non destructive research X X X X X X ± Destructive research (X) (X) X X X Pesticide treatments no no no allowed Fire intervention X X X X X X Other interventions*) (X) X X X X Use of genetic resources*) X (X) X X X X Legal protection*) 1,2 (3) 1,2 (3) 1,2 (3) 1,2 (3) 1,2 (3) 1,2 (3) Ownership*) 1,2 1,2 1,2,3,4,5 1,2 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 Manager*) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Scientific coordination*) 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,3,4,5,6 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5,6 Actual reserve area (ha) 62 053 1 250 954 — — — — Size range (ha) *) 1-4 000 5 000- ——— 192 500 Percentage of total forest 0,72 141) area *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest ***) Forest area definition (NFI-85): minimum cover 20%, minimum area 2.000 m³, minimum width 20 m. Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data Remarks: 1) This percentage refers to the entire area (not only the forested area) of the National Parks. 88 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: THE NETHERLANDS Forest area (ha)/ 334 000/ Forest cover (%) 10 Categories**): Strict forest Forest A Protected State nature National reserve locality nature monument Park1) monument National name Strikt bos- A-locatie bos Beschermd Staats Natuur- Nationaal Park reservaat Natuur- monument monument Reference date X/99 X/99 X/99 X/99 X/99 No silvicultural intervention X (X) Hunting, game management X (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) Lifestock present (X) Right of way X (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) X Safeguard at the borders (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) Safeguard within the area (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) Visitors information (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) (X)2) Non destructive research X (X)2) XXX ± Destructive research (X) (X)2) (X) (X) (X)2) Pesticide treatments allowed no no no no no Fire interventionXXXXX Other interventions*) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) Use of genetic resources*) (X) Legal protection*) 1,3 1,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,3 Ownership*) 1,5 1,2,3,4,5 2,3,4,5 1 1,2,3,4,5 Manager*) 1,4 1,3,4 2,3,4 1,2 1,3,4 Scientific coordination*) 4 2,3 7 7 7 Actual reserve area (ha) 3 078 19 000 52 390 (forest 24 190) Size range (ha) *) 5-450 1-780 1 320-7 200 Percentage of total forest area 0,9 5,7 7,25
*) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict forest reserve, National park, Biosphere area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes No No (X) in some cases — no answer/no data Remarks: 1) Including non-forest areas 2) Only with the owner's permission. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 89
Country: THE NETHERLANDS Private nature All forests Categories**): reserve National name Particulier bos- Alle bossen reservaat Reference date X/99 X/99 No silvicultural intervention Hunting, game management (X)2) X2) Lifestock present (X)2) (X)2) Right of way (X)2) (X)2) Safeguard at the borders (roads (X)2) (X)2) etc.) Safeguard within the area (trails, (X)2) (X)2) rivers) Visitors information (X)2) (X)2) Non destructive research (X)2) (X)2) ± Destructive research (X)2) (X)2) Pesticide treatments allowed (X)2) (X)2) Fire intervention X X Other interventions*) (X) (X) Use of genetic resources*) Legal protection*) 1,3 1 Ownership*) 2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 Manager*) 3,4 1,2,3,4 Scientific coordination*) 7 7 Actual reserve area (ha) 15 000 334 000 Size range (ha) *) — — Percentage of total forest area 5 100
*) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict forest reserve, National park, Biosphere area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes No No (X) in some cases — no answer/no data
Remarks: 1) Including non-forest areas 2) Only with the owner's permission. 90 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: NORWAY Forest area (ha)/ 11950/ Forest cover (%) 37 Categorie**):NatureNational Protected Natural Reserve1) Park2) Landscape Monument3) National name Reference date No silvicultural (X) (X) intervention Hunting, Game (X) X X Management Lifestock present Right of way X X X Safeguard at the borders Safeguard within the area Visitors information X X (X) X Non destructive research X X X (X) ± Destructive research (X) Pesticide treatments no no (X) no allowed Fire intervention X X X X Other interventions*) Use of genetic resources*) X X X Legal protection*) X X X X Ownership*) 1-5 1-5 1-5 1,3 Manager*) 2 1,2 1,2 2 Scientific coordination*) (3) (3) no (3) Actual reserve area (ha) 50 000 10 000 50 000 - Size range (ha) *) Percentage of total forest 1,0 (1) (0,3) 0 area *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data Remarks: 1) All Forest Reserves are Nature Reserves 2) Forests left to free development and also in National Parks 3) 180 trees/ groups of trees COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 91
Country: PORTUGAL1) Forest area (ha)/ 3 306 000/ Forest cover (%) 37 Categories: Natural Park National Park Strict Reserve National name Parque Natural Parque Reserva Nacional Integral Reference date V/99 V/99 V/99 No silvicultural intervention X X no Hunting, Game Management X X no Lifestock present X X no Right of way X X (X) Safeguard at the borders (X) (X) (X) Safeguard within the area no (X) no Visitors information X X X Non destructive research X X X ± Destructive research (X) (X) no Pesticide treatments allowed (X) (X) no Fire intervention X X X Other interventions*) Use of genetic resources*) (X) (X) (X) Legal protection*) 2 2 2 Ownership*) 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 Manager*) 2 2 2 Scientific coordination*) 3 3 3 Actual reserve area (ha) 177 2650 2827 Size range (ha) *) 37-80 600-1300 37-1300 Percentage of total forest area
*) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) Large scale reserves E.g. National Park, Biosphere area and other national categories including strictly protected areas left to free development Xyes (X) in some cases
Remarks: 1) Continental Portugal 92 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: SLOVAK REP. SLOVENIA Forest area (ha)/ 1 920 000/ 1 090 000/ Forest cover (%) 42 54 Categories**):NatureNational Park Strict forest Forest with National reserve reserve protection role Park ("Schutzwälder") National name Priordna Narodny park Gozdui Varovalni gozd Narodni park rezervacia rezervat Reference date IV/99 IV/99 V/X/99 X/99 IV/X/99 No silvicultural intervention X (X) X (X) (X) Hunting, game management (X) (X) (X) (X) Lifestock present no (X) Right of way (X) X Safeguard at the borders X no no Safeguard within the area X no X Visitors information (X) X (X) X Non destructive research X X X X X ± Destructive research (X) (X) (X) no Pesticide treatments allowed no no no Fire intervention no no (X) Other interventions*) no (X) Use of genetic resources*) X (X) — (X) Legal protection*) 1 2 1 1 2 Ownership*) 1 1 2 (1)(3)(4) Manager*) 1 2 1 1 2 Scientific coordination*) 3 (1) 1 2 3 Actual reserve area (ha) 96 264 243 219 10 890 ~60 000 19 2071) Size range (ha) *) 10-20 000 3 750-74 111 1 - 700 — — Percentage of total forest >1 1 1 5,3 1 area *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: Slovenia: Total area of National Parks is 83.807 ha, total area covered by forests is 56.000 ha, 27.000 ha are managed forests. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 93
Country: SPAIN Forest area (ha)/ 12 511 000/ Forest cover (%) 25 Categories**): Strict reserve Natural Partial nature Natural National Park Reserve reserve reserve of wild fauna National name Reference date No silvicultural X (X) (X) (X) (X) intervention Hunting, Game (X) Management Lifestock present Right of way (X) (X) (X) Safeguard at the boarders Safeguard within the area Visitors information (X) (X) (X) (X) X Non destructive researchXXXXX ± Destructive research Pesticide treatments (X) allowed Fire interventionXXXXX Other interventions*) (X) (X) (X) (X) Use of genetic resources*) (X) (X) (X) (X) Legal protection*) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ownership*) (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) Manager*)22222 Scientific coordination*) 1,3,4 Actual reserve area (ha) 28 417 132 478 Size range (ha) *) < 7 500 1 928 – 50 720 Percentage of total forest area 94 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: SPAIN Natural Regional Protected Protected Natural site Others Categories**): Park Park landscape natural area National name Reference date No silvicultural (X) intervention Hunting, Game XXXXXX Management Lifestock present Right of way (X) X X X X X Safeguard at the boarders Safeguard within the area Visitors information X X X X (X) (X) Non destructive research X X X X X X ± Destructive research (X) X X X X X Pesticide treatments (X)XXXXX allowed Fire intervention X X X X X X Other interventions*) (X) (X) X X X X Use of genetic resources*) X X X X X X Legal protection*) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (2)(3) Ownership*) (1)(2)(3)(4) (1)(2)(3)(4) (1)(2)(3)(4) (1)(2)(3)(4) (1)(2)(3)(4) (1)(2)(3)(4) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) Manager*) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Scientific coordination*) Actual reserve area (ha) 2 086 970 4 629 175 189 896 Size range (ha) *) < 214 300 Percentage of total forest area
*) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 95
Country: SWEDEN Forest area (ha)/ 28 000 000/ Forest cover (%)***) 69***) Categories**): Nature Reserve National Park National name Naturreservat National Park Reference date X/ 991) X/ 991) No silvicultural intervention X X Hunting, game management (X) (X) Lifestock present (X) (X) Right of way X2) X2) Safeguard at the borders (X) (X) Safeguard within the area (X) (X) Visitors information X X Non destructive research (X) (X) ± Destructive research no no Pesticide treatments allowed no no Fire intervention X X Other interventions*) — (X) Use of genetic resources*) (X) (X) Legal protection*) 2 2 Ownership*) 1-3 1 Manager*) 2 2 Scientific coordination*) 3, 4 3, 4 Actual reserve area (ha) 792 3703) 40 0003) Size range (ha) *) 1-60 000 27-25 0003) Percentage of total forest area 3,53) 0,23)
*) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest ***) Forest and other wooded land Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data Remarks: 1) Data refer to state of the year 1996. 2) Also right of common access 3) Area and percentage refers to productive forest land (yearly increment >1m³/ha) 96 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: UNITED KINGDOM Forest area (ha)/ 2 503 000/ Forest cover (%) 10 Categories**): SSSI- National Nature SAC***) National Park (= national name) minimum Reserve intervention Reference date III/99 No silvicultural X(X)(X) intervention Hunting, Game (X) (X) (X) X Management Lifestock present (X) Right of way (X) (X) (X) X Safeguard at the borders X (X) (X) Safeguard within the area X Visitors information X (X) (X) X Non destructive research X (X) (X) X ± Destructive research (X) X Pesticide treatments allowed Fire intervention X (X) (X) X Other interventions*) X1) (X) (X) X Use of genetic resources*) X (X) (X) X Legal protection*) 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3 Ownership*) 1-5 1(2-5) 1-5 1-5 Manager*) 1-4 2 2 1-4 Scientific coordination*) 1-5 3 3 7 Actual reserve area (ha) 10 000 <2 000 <2 000 20 000 Size range (ha) *) 1 - 1000 5 - >2002) 5 - >2002) 5 - >2002) Percentage of total forest <1 <1 <1 1 area 3) *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) ***) Special Area of Conservation Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data Remarks: 1) Vigilence for, and removal of, invasive non-native species 2) >200 Usual max. For max. Size - exceptional sites are bigger 3) % = % of ancient semi-natural forest area COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 97
Appendix 6. Planning of forest reserves network - national concepts
Country: Austria Strict forest Reserve of Reserve on the Declared Core area of Categories**): reserve normal stand level size research National Park standard reserve (sub-category of (sub-category of strict forest (Sub-category strict forest reserve) of strict forest reserve) reserve) National name Naturwald- Standard- Naturwaldzelle Schwerpunkt- Kernzone reservat reservat reservat Reference date VII/99 VII/99 VII/99 VII/99 VII/99 Size range of planned 1-1000 25-1000 1-25 1-1000 — reserve area Planned area for the Minimum: — network (ha) *) 10 000 ha Planned percentage of 0,25 — total forest area of the country *) Representativity*) 3 3 3 3 2,4 Ancient forests only X X X X No Successional forests (X) (X) (X) (X) Anthropogenic forests No No No No Buffer zones obligatory No No No No X
*) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data 98 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: Belgium (Flanders) Denmark Forest reserve Nature reserve Strict forest Reserves with Other types of Categories**): reserves specific legally ("untouched management proteted forest") (e.g.coppicing) reserves National name Bosreservaat Natuurreservaat Urørt skov Gammel Naturfredet driftsform område Reference date V/99 V/99 I/99 I/99 I/99 Size range of planned no real policy 5-300 No limits No limits No limits reserve area Planned area for the 30001) — 5 000 (by 2000) 4 000 Not fixed network (ha) *) 6 000 (by 2010) (by 2000) 1,2 (by 2000) Planned percentage of 3— 1) total forest area of the 1,4 (by 2010) country *) Representativity*) X (X) (X) Ancient forests only No No (X) Successional forests (X) (X) Anthropogenic forests (X) (X) (X) mainly Buffer zones obligatory No No No No No *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: Belgium: 1) 3000 ha of forest reserve is planned. This can be both managed (gericht) and unmanaged (integraal) with majority in unmanaged.
Denmark: 1) Of actual forest area. The percentage is depending on the afforestation rate (the goal is to double the Danish forest area within approx. 100 years). COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 99
Country Finland Strict nature National Park Peatland Programme for conservation Categories**): reserve reserve of old-grown forests National name Luonnonpuisto Kansallispuisto Soiden Vanhojen metsien suojelualue suojeluohjelma Reference date VI/X/99 VI/X99 VI/X/99 VI/X/99 Size range of planned 5000 10 000 1000 1000 reserve area (ha) Planned area for the 149 000 691 330 591 160 344 450 network (ha) *) Planned percentage of total forest area of the country *) Representativity*) 3 3 4 4 Ancient forests only X X No No Successional forests No No No No Anthropogenic forests No No No No Buffer zones obligatory No No No No
Country: Finland Programme for Programme Programme for Shoreline Areas of Categories**: conservation of for conservation of conservation outstanding richest forests conservation of waterways programme national sites eskers essential for beauty birdlife National name Lehtojen Harjujen Lintuvesien Rantojen Maisemalli- suojelualue suojelualue suojelualue suojelualue sesti arvokas alue Reference date VI/X/99 VI/X/99 VI/X/99 VI/X/99 VI/X/99 Size range of planned 100 100 1000 — — reserve area (ha) Planned area for the 5 200 94 000 83 090 145 540 — network (ha) *) Planned percentage of total forest area of the country *) Representativity*) 4 2 4 2 2 Ancient forests only No No No No No Successional forests No No (X) (X) No Anthropogenic forests (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) Buffer zones obligatory No No No No No *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data 100 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: France Strict forest reserve National Park Categories**): National name Réserve biologique intégrale Reference date III/99 Size range of planned reserve >50 in plain area (ha) >100 in mountain Planned area for the network (ha) *) Planned percentage of total forest area of the country *) Representativity***) 3,4 Ancient forests only (X) Successional forests (X) Anthropogenic forests (X) Buffer zones obligatory (X)
*) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: ***) It is planned to create 3 or 4 Strict forest reserves larger than 1000 ha in public forest, in metropolitain France (Corsica, Pyrenées or Alps). COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 101
Country Greece
Categories**): National Park a. Core area b. Peripheral Aesthetic Natural Game Research zone forest monument refuge plot National name Reference date 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 Size range of planned >1500 >1500 No No X reserve area (ha) Planned area for the network (ha) *) Planned percentage of No No No No No total forest area of the country *) Representativity*) X (X) (X) X X X Ancient forests only (X) No No (X) No No Successional forests Anthropogenic forests No (X) (X) No (X) (X) Buffer zones obligatory X No No No No (X)
*) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data 102 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: Hungary Ireland Strict forest Nature Reserve National Park Categories**): reserve National name Erdörezer- Nature Reserve National Park vatum Magterület Reference date I/IX/1999 X/99 X/99 Size range of planned 10-150 — — reserve area (ha) Planned area for the network 14 000 (with —— (ha) *) buffer zone) Planned percentage of total —— — forest area of the country *) Representativity*) 3 3,4 2,4 Ancient forests only No (X) no Successional forests (X) X X Anthropogenic forests (X) no no Buffer zones obligatory X no no *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: Hungary: The forest reserve network is under construction in Hungary, so these data may change. The core area is not managed, and the continous undisturbance of it is declared by the forest act. Therefore the core area might be accepted as a "strict forest reserve". The forest act does not define the shape of the reserve. However, for some practical reason the shape is usually compact. Also the size of the reserve is not defined, the size depends on the area. Buffer zone is required, but sometimes it was impossible to establish it (2 cases out of 63).
Ireland: Target areas for National Parks ad Nature Reserves exist, but they are primarily related to areas of bog and heathland. No current, stated programme exists which is specific to protection of woodlands, although the State continues to acquire woodlands of conservation value as opportunities arise. Target areas for woodlands in NHAs and SACs have not yet been formalised. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 103
Country: Italy Strict forest re- National Natural Habitat/ Protected Managed Categories**): serve/Wilder- Park monument species, landscape resource/ ness area Manage- Protection ment area area National name Riserva Parco Monumento intergrale nazionale naturale Reference date V/99 V/99 V/99 I/99 I/99 I/99 Size range of planned — reserve area (ha) Planned area for the network (ha) *) Planned percentage of total forest area of the country *) Representativity*) 4 2,3,4 3 4 2,3 1,4 Ancient forests only no no Successional forests (X) (X) (X) X Anthropogenic forests Buffer zones obligatory X X X *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: 1) Total area, not only forest area 104 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: The Netherlands Strict forest Forest A- Protected State nature National Park Categories**): reserve locality nature monument monument National name Strikt A-locatie bos Beschermd Staats Natuur- Nationaal Park bosreservat Natuur- monument monument Reference date IX/99 IX/99 IX/99 IX/99 IX/99 Size range of planned >20 >20 >20 >20 >1000 reserve area (ha) Planned area for the 3340 — — — 806691) network (ha) *) Planned percentage of total forest area of the 15-10——— country *) Representativity*) X X Ancient forests only no Successional forests Anthropogenic forests X Buffer zones obligatory 50-100 m 50-100 m Total number of 60 242 ~200 ~125 12[15] localities [in 2000] COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 105
Country: The Netherlands Private forest All forests Categories**): reserve National name Particulier bos- Alle bossen reservaat Reference date IX/99 IX/99 Size range of planned reserve >0,1% area Planned area for the network (ha) *) Planned percentage of total — 23,95 forest area of the country *) Representativity*) +45 Ancient forests only 10,8 (36 100 ha) Successional forests Anthropogenic forests 86,3 (288 200 ha) Buffer zones obligatory (50-100m) *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: 1) Including non-forest areas 106 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: Norway Nature reserve National park1) New/year 2000 Protected Categories**): nature reserve landscape National name Natur-reservater Nasjonal-parker Landskaps vernområbler Reference date V/88 V/88 V/88 V/88 Size range of planned (X) >1000 reserve area (ha) Planned area for the network (ha) *) Planned percentage of 1,0 1,0 0,3 0,3 total forest area of the country *) Representativity*) 1 2 1 2 Ancient forests only X X (X) (X) Successional forests Anthropogenic forests Buffer zones obligatory no (X) no no *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: 1) Forests in national parks are protected against forestry. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 107
Country: Slovak Rep. Slovenia National Park Nature reserve Forest reserve Categories**): National name Narodny park Prirodna Gozdni rezervat rezervacia Reference date IV/99 IV/99 V/9; X/99 Size range of planned >1000 10 000-12 000 1-700 reserve area Planned area for the network 14 330 (ha) *) Planned percentage of total 12,7 5 1,4 forest area of the country *) Representativity*) 2,4 4 (2,3,4) Ancient forests only X X Successional forests (X) (X) Anthropogenic forests (X) (X) Buffer zones obligatory X (X) (X) *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: Slovenia:
1) For most reserves the decision still has to be made between strict or directed forest reserve.
Size range: Number of forest reserves in Slovenia: 190 = 10 890 ha Planned number: 236 = 14 330 ha Size range: from 1 ha to 700 ha Planned percentage...: This topic is under discussion, we have not yet come to final decision. Representativity: Different criteria: natural legacy - nature conservancy aspects, site types - distribution of important forest sites in Slovenia, research goals, untouched forest sites and stands, except by special research goals. 108 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Country: Sweden Nature reserve4) National Park Categories: National name Naturreservat National Park Reference date III/X/991) III/X/991) Size range of planned reserve no limits >1 0002) area Planned area for the network 25 0000 100 0002)3) (ha) *) (by 2010)2) Planned percentage of total 4,82) 0,32) forest area of the country *) Representativity *) 2,4 2,4 Ancient forests only no no Successional forests X X Anthropogenic forests X (X) Buffer zones obligatory no (X) *) See annotations (Appendix 7) Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: 1) Data refer to state of year 1999. 2) Area and percentage refer to productive forest land (yearly increment >1m³/ha). 3) Most of the area in the plan consists of nature reserves included in appendix 4. 4) Include nature reserves IUCN I and IV, that means: a certain management for nature conservation is allowed. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 109
Country: United Kingdom SSSI-minimum National SAC National Park1) Categories**): intervention1) nature reserves (= national name) Reference date III/99 I/99 I/99 I/99 Size range of planned 1 - 1000 5 - >200 5 - >200 >5 reserve area (ha) Planned area for the ——— — network (ha) *) Planned percentage of 1<1<11 total forest area of the country *) Representativity*) 4 4 4 2 Ancient forests only mainly mainly mainly mainly Successional forests X (X) (X) X Anthropogenic forests (X) (X) (X) Buffer zones obligatory *) See annotations (Appendix 7) **) E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest Xyes (X) in some cases No no – no answer/ no data
Remarks: 1) National Park in UK is not comparable to other countries >200 Size range of reserve areas >200 implies that exceptionally sites are bigger than 200 ha. 110 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Appendix 7. Annotations to the questionnaires "Legal status of forest areas left to free development“ and "Planning of forest reserves network - national concepts "
Alphabetic order of key words Ancient forests: Forest with long (ancient) or uninterrupted forest tradition including also rests of virgin forests ("virgin ancient"). Frequently old stands. Anthropogenic forests: Forests consisting mostly of regionally non native or exotic species. Core area (zone)/Central area: Core area, better: core zone or central area, is used for the legally unmanaged central parts of large scale reserves, not in the sense of a small scientific research plot area of WG2. Forest area: Data according to the definition of forest of your country but define it in footnote (e.g. %cover [10, 20, 60?], height of trees [5, 7 m?], annual increase/ha (0,3, 1 m³) Hunting, Game management Includes planned reduction of populations and pleasure (trophy) hunting. Legal protection: (1) forest laws; (2) nature conservation laws; (3) administrative regulations Lifestock present: Presence of grazing domestic animals Manager: (1) forest administration; (2) nature conservation; (3) private staff/organization; (4) NGOs (nature protection associations, societies) Other interventions: e.g. site "management" for example by closing of drainage systems; filling up ditches If marked yes, you may by a remark define type of intervention. Ownership: (1) state; (2) municipalities; (3) private (nature conservation/protection associations/societies); (4) corporations, churches,etc; (5) NGOs Planned area for the national network: Specify time frame (e.g. by 2010...), if possible Planned percentage of forest area: % of total forest area Representativity – oriented to: (1) forest cover ; (2) site and landscape types; (3) forest vegetation units; (4) nature conservation aspects (protection of biocoenoses, species, biotopes and habitats) Residual virgin forest area: % of actual forest area Right of way: You are allowed to enter and to use/to stay on a way. Please specify if only right of way is meant or right of (common) access is included. Safeguard: Measure to secure persons/objects from accident by falling trees/branches etc. at the borders of the reserve (roads, rails etc.) or inside the reserve (e.g. along trails, watercourses) Scientific coordination: (1) universities;( 2) forest administrations; (3) nature conservation administrations; (4) research institutes; (5) museums; (6) private research organizations; (7) no coordination; (8) scientific committee COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 111
Size range (minimum size tomaximum size): Smallest and largest reserve of the country Successional forests: - Primary successional forests (longtime completely new formation of forests: "virgin" forests ["virgin successional"], e.g. in floodplains or near the sea border, in polders, after heavy erosion or landslide - Secondary succession after agrigultural use (arable land, peatlands, heathland) Total forest area: Data according to the forest definition of your country Use of genetic resources: Gathering of seeds, grains, seedlings, saplings, grafts 112 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Appendix 8. Terminological surveys
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Austria
Natural Forest Reserve Naturwaldreservat First purpose is the natural development of forests as a result of immediate stopping of any direct human influence, even if current stand development does not correspond to the development of Natural Forests. The most important precondition of a Natural Forest Reserve is the declaration of intention by the owner, or any other persons authorized to use the respective forest, that no interventions will be made in the future and that the forest area will be part of the reserve network.
• Standard Reserve Standardreservat Standard Reserves must be sufficiently large to (reserve of normal sustainably ensure the complete developmental standard, sub-category cycle (minimum structural group). A basic of Natural Forest monitoring programme, comprising vegetation Reserve) mapping and a network of permanent sample plots, is necessary for long-term monitoring and documentation of the forest development.
• Point of main effort Schwerpunktreservat Thanks to special conditions or specific features reserve (main focus (size, degree of naturalness, etc.) such reserves reserve, sub-category of are particularly well-suited for special-purpose Natural Forest Reserve) research programmes. The category includes also reserves which are suited for information equipment and for measures to re-direct the flow of visitors while simultaneously relieving other reserves.
• Natural Forest Stand, Naturwaldzelle Natural Forest Stands represent a specific form (sub-category of of Natural Forest Reserves. They are too small Natural Forest Reserve) to ensure the sustainable and balanced development of all formation phases and mainly serve as stand specimen of Natural Forest com- munities; moreover, they play an important part in the integration of habitats. Natural Forest Stands must be large enough to allow a community-specific local forest climate. Depending on the potential Natural Forest community, this minimum size is between 0.5 and 1 ha. The maximum size of this specific category is between 20 and 60 ha which is at the same time the minimum area of standard reserves. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 113
Landscape Conservation Areas which stand out for their beauty or which Area are of special importance regarding the recreation of the local population or tourism.
Protected part of the Small parts of landscapes which are landscape; Protected Green characteristic or particularly stimulating for landscapes, villages or towns, or which are of special importance to ecology, local climate, flora and fauna.
Wildlife Park Areas or parts of areas which are already used as nature preserves or Landscape Conservation Areas. Because the purpose of Wildlife Parks is human recreation in managed landscapes rather than the conservation of nature, and because they must be open to the public, the objectives of this category do not correspond to those of Natural Forest Reserves.
National Park Nationalpark The regulations applicable to National Parks are laid down in separate provincial laws. National Parks are conservation areas with characteristic landscapes, animal or plant species which are of outstanding significance for Austria. They serve science and recreation and are in most cases open to the public. Provincial laws distinguish between inner and outer zones of National Parks. In inner zones, any form of utilization is prohibited, whereas in outer zones agricultural and silvicultural uses are in most cases possible without problems.
Protection ex lege More recent provincial laws on nature conservation are providing for opportunities of ex lege protection of ecologically sensitive habitats and can prohibit any intervention in such habitats. This applies mainly to the protection of lakes and rivers, banks, wetlands, and alpine areas. However, legal protection of Natural Forest Reserves through this category is hardly possible because, if at all, it would include but individual swamp forests or riparian gallery forests.
Gene Conservation Forest Conservation of the genetic diversity of forest trees. Apart from the establishment of seed banks and seed orchards, one of the pillars of the project is selective identification of gene reserves and corresponding management of such areas by forest owners. Gene reserves and gene conservation forests can, but need not to be Natural Forest Reserves. 114 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Belgium
Nature Reserve Natuurreservaat/ Nature Reserves are areas protected according Réserve Naturelle to the Law on Nature Conservation of 1973 in Wallonia and the decree on nature conservation of 1997 in Flanders. There are recognized [private] Nature Reserves, owned by environ- mental organizations, for which an official recognition dossier, with management plan was approved by the administration for nature protection. Forest Areas are limited in this category (a few hundreds of ha). [Official] Nature Reserves are owned by the government. A management plan is also made for these. They can be completely, or partly Strict Reserves.
Forest Reserve (Wallonia) Réserve forestière Forest Reserves in Wallonia (about 250 ha) are protected under the National law on nature conservation (1973). They are not strict reserves, but areas with rather normal management but special consideration for nature protection values.
Forest Reserve (Flanders) Bosreservaat Official protected status in Flanders under Flemish Forest decree (1990). Old national legislation on forest reserves, still valid in Wallonia was abolished in Flanders
Strict Forest Reserve Integraal bosreservaat (Part of) a forest reserve which is designated to (Flanders) be left for free development
Directed Forest Reserve Gericht Bosreservaat Special management directed towards a higher (Flanders) ecological value; study of effects of different kinds of management; preservation of rare vegetation types or management regimes.
National Park (Wallonia) Only 1 National Park (Hohes Venn, Peatland site)
Nature Park (Wallonia) Parc naturel A Nature Park is an area where measures are undertaken to conserve the cultural landscape, its fauna and flora, soil, air and water. However continuation of previous land-use is allowed and even stimulated. There are 4-5 nature parks in Wallonia, as cultural aspects are also important. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 115
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Virgin reserves
Forest reserves
Special reserves
Park Forests
Natural Park
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Denmark
Legally Protected Area Naturfredet Public or Private Areas by a formal område preservation claim. Very well protected, claims are very difficult, almost impossible to modify.
Private Reserve Administrativ Reserves established at the private land owners fredning initiative protected by internal (at estate level) management decisions (e.g. non-intervention or grazing forest). Decisions can be changed from day to day, but in practice the areas are well protected in most cases.
Permanent Management Urort skov/ Reserves established on private land with Agreement skovlovaftaler financially supported by national grants. Establishment of non-intervention reserves are based on registered permanent agreements between the state and the land owner. Very well protected, agreements are very difficult, al- most impossible to modify or cancel.
State Forest Reserve Urort skov/ Network of Non-Intervention Reserves in state statsskov forest based ministerial decisions after careful selection of the most relevant and representative sites at national level. Very well protected, presumed a stable political situation (probably only war or similar could change such decisions).
· Untouched (Strict) Urort skov Research programs, long time monitoring Forest Research Reserve
· Traditional Ma- Gammel driftsform Protection of traditional Management Systems nagement System 116 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
· All Natural State Naturskov Protection of natural forest areas against clear- Owned Forest statsskov cut etc. but not against slighter management
· Preserved Forest Fredskov Forest which according to the Forest Act might be managed but shall remain as forest in the long term. Including more than approximately 95 % of the Danish forest area
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Finland
Strict Nature Reserve Luonnonpuisto A Strict Nature Reserve is a state-owned reserve, which, owing to its exceptionally high scientific value, is permanently legally preserved in its natural state and in an undisturbed condition. For this reason, public access, for example, is only allowed with a special permission or restricted to a limited number of trails. The only allowed use is normally research. However, exceptions can be enacted by a degree for the benefit of the local inhabitants in Lapland. Some few Strict Nature Reserves also have valuable biotopes and cultural heritage sites the preservation of which calls for constant management. Scientific Reserve (IUCN category I).
National Park Kansallispuisto A National Park is a reserve owned by the State: it has diversified natural features and landscape and cultural values, or otherwise, in terms of protection, at least national importance. It is preserved in perpetuity free from economic activities, excluding reindeer husbandry affecting nature, and an effort is made to maintain or restore its natural state. It is, at the same time, a site of interest to which the public has a right of access. Public access can be restricted in certain zones in certain seasons (e.g. bird-nesting). National Parks (IUCN category II).
Wilderness Area Erämaa Wilderness Areas have been established on the basis of the Wilderness Act with a view to pre- serve wilderness nature and the Same (Lapp) culture and forms of livelihood, and to develop the diversified use of nature and its prerequisites. Wilderness Areas have a radius of an area without road network of at least 8 km.
Other Protected Areas: Muu luonnonsuojelualue COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 117
Peatland Protection Area Soidensuojelualue Protection of peatland ecosystems, including forested peatland. Some of them include forested aareas, e.g. forested islands.
Herb-Rich Forest Preserve Lehtojensuojelualue Protection of rare lush herb-rich forests
Old Growth Forest Reserve Vanhojen metsien Protection of virgin old growth Forests suojelualue
Protected Esker Harjujensuojelualue Protection of geological formations like eskers and ridges. Protection does not necessarily prevent forest management.
Wetland Reserve Lintuvesien Protection of valuable areas for waterfowl and suojelualue other birds. May include restricted shore-line forests.
Protected Shore-line area Rantojen suojelualue Protection of shores and their landscapes. Prevents construction, but allows restricted forestry.
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
France
National Park Parc National The principle of free exercise of forestry activities is confirmed, respecting the protective goals and measures specific to reach one. The decree for the creation of a National Park gen- erally provides that the forest planning documents must be presented for approval to the National Park Management, for both private and public forests. Any public or private work altering the character of the National Park is prohibited and activities liable to alter the state or appearance of the area are to submit to obligatory prior authorization.
Protected Forest Forêt de protection constitutes the protection of forests threatened by whatever phenomenon. The principle effect of the classification, pronounced Bannwald decree, is to prohibit land clearance, to subject forest management to specific technical rules, to monitor user rights and control public access. The ground for classification, originally limited to fighting erosion, protection against avalanches, and against encroachment by water and sand, were extended in 1976 to the ecological value of forest ecosystems.
Nature Reserve Réserve naturelle Nature Reserves conserve specific or representative features of the natural heritage, 118 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
outstanding ecosystems, landscape and biological areas of great interest, habitats of a particularly rare or endangered species, fossil deposits, and so on. The principle of the free exercise of forestry activities in being progressively supervised by specific management provisions. Bioreserves Réserve biologique Protection of ecosystems, landscapes, „Distinct Areas of Ecological Interest“ in public forests managed by the ONF Bio-Reserves in public forests are aimed either:
· Special Forest Reserve Réserve biologique · at protecting outstanding natural dirigée environments characterized by the presence of rare or endangered species (flora and fauna) or exceptional ecotypes and rare or endangered habitats; human activities are reckoned to be necessary to pursue the target set: Special Forest Reserves
or
· Strict Forest Reserve Réserve Intégrale · to permit scientific observation of forest environments and dynamics where there are no silvicultural operations: Strict Forest Reserves. In public forests: >50 ha in plain, >100 ha in mountain; free of silvicultural operations and harvesting in order to preserve or restore the Natural Forest dynamic; scientific management allowed; maintenance operations allowed with specific restrictions
Regional Nature Park Parc naturel régional On the initiative of the various regions, an area with a rich natural and cultural heritage, and with a specific development project based on the conservancy and improvement of the heritage, may be classified for a period of 10 years and renewable.
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Germany
Large Scale Reserve Großschutzgebiet
· Biosphere Reserve Biosphärenreservat Combined natural and cultural landscapes including core areas, designed management areas, development areas and regeneration areas.
· National Park Nationalpark Big scale natural or near to nature ecosystems, ideally left to free succession. Commercial interests are no longer involved. Designed management is permissible or even essential where natural balance is deeply disturbed and COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 119
should be restricted to buffer zones. Including core areas, developmental areas and designed management areas.
· Nature Park Naturpark Protected ares, natural or cultural, well suited for recreation. Dedicated to recreation and tourism, according to landscape plans.
Landscape Protection Area Landschaftsschutz- Special protection of nature and landscape gebiet a) to preserve and restore the nature balance or the use of natural goods; b) for variety, characteristic features and beauty reasons; c) for their particular implications to recreation.
Strict Forest Reserve (Strict Naturwald, Areas that are from now on unmanaged. They Nature Forest Area) Naturwaldzelle, are reserved for natural processes (natural Naturwaldparzelle, development). Main objectives: Basic scientific Naturwaldreservat, research (fauna, flora, site, stand structure, Totalreservat, ecosystem functioning); applied research Bannwald, (silviculture, landscape, management, biotope Urwald von morgen management); monitoring areas (ecosystem development, biological development, natu- ralness, reference sites for managed or polluted areas); nature protection (rare and endangered species, gene resources) and personal nature experience („Virgin Forest of Tomorrow“)
Nature Protection Area Naturschutzgebiet Special Protection Area of nature or landscape in its entirety or in individual areas a) in order to preserve biocoenoses or biotopes of wild-life and plants; b) for scientific, nature historical or cultural reasons and c) for rarity, specificity, or eminent beauty reasons.
Bird Sanctuary Vogelschutzgebiet Bird Protection Areas according to different EU-guidelines; important bird areas; wet areas; European reserves; Europe Diploma reserves.
In some states: Waldbiotop Small scale protection zone reserved for Legally Protected Biotope Biotopschutzgebiet preservation of rare species, forest types, stand within Forest Management structures by directed management or non- Areas interventions.
Designed Management Schonwald Management in Forests designed for Forest mantenance of special natural values, ancient forest management types, red listed and rare secies protection. Only in Baden-Württemberg.
Spatial Nature Monument Flächenhaftes Small scale protection area (<5 ha), comparable Naturdenkmal to legally protected biotopes in forests or in the open landscape. 120 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Greece
National Park Εθ ικος National Parks are defined as "mainly forested ∆ρυµος areas of special conservation interest on account of flora and fauna, geomorphology, subsoil, atmosphere, waters and generally their natural environment, the protection of which seems necessary; also on account of the need for the conservation and improvement of their constitution, form and natural beauty, to permit aesthetic, psychic and healthy enjoyment and, moreover, they are areas for carrying on special research of any kind. Strictly protected core area (>1500 ha), peripheral zone (>/= core area). Research.
Aesthetic Forest Αισθητικο ∆ασος Aesthetic forests are forested areas or natural landscapes which possess particular aesthetic, hygienic and touristic significance and which have also characteristics that demand the protection of their fauna, flora and natural environment. Protected like the peripheral zones of national parks.
Protected Natural ∆ιατηρητεο Protected Natural Monuments are natural areas Monument Μ ηµειο Φυσης that present a special paleontological, geomorphological, or historical significance; and tree clumps or trees, or rare species of plants presenting special botanical, phytogeographical, aesthetic or historical significance.
Hunting Reserve Θηραµατικο Hunting reserves are wilderness areas where Αποθεµα specific management measures are applied to preserve their natural environment and to multiply game for hunting purposes, outside these areas.
Internationally Important Υγροβιοτοπος Internationally Important Wetlands are Wetland/ Marine Park ∆ιεθ ους wetlands of international importance mainly for Σπουδαιοτητας the support of aquatic species. Θαλασσιο Παρκο
World Heritage Site Περιοχη World Heritage Sites are areas possessing (Natural and Cultural) Παγκοσµιας natural, aesthetic and/or cultural values of Κληρο οµιας worldwide significance. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 121
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Hungary
National Park Nemzeti Park (NP) A National Park (NP) is a large territory, exceptional and unique at the national and/or international scales, a considerable part of which is occupied by natural ecosystems or by areas only minimally affected by human activity. Its main purpose is to preserve the flora, fauna and abiotic components and to serve scientific and educational goals. May include Strictly Protected Areas.
Landscape Protection Area Tájvédelmi Körzet A Landscape Protection Area is a relatively (TK) large area, where natural values and human activities are in harmony creating a characteristic landscape. Its main purpose is to preserve landscape and natural values. May include strictly Protected Areas.
Nature Reserve Természetvédelmi A Nature Reserve is a small contiguous Terület territory of exceptional nature values. Its main (TK) purpose is to preserve certain valuable natural components or the whole ecosystem. May include Strictly Protected Areas.
Forest Reserve Erdörezervátum Forest Reserve Areas belong to one of the above categories (National Park, Landscape Protection Area, Nature Reserve). In 1994 ca. 12500 ha of forest area was designated as Forest Reserve. These areas are assigned for the study of natural dynamic processes, and for "learning" from nature for a more nature-ori- ented silviculture. Forest Reserves are divided into core areas (40 ha) and buffer zones. Core areas are non-intervention areas.
Strict Forest Reserve Erdörezervátum Core areas of Forest Reserves. Non- Magterület intervention/ free development areas. Forest Reserves are parts of National Park, Landscape Protection Areas or Nature Reserves.
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Iceland
Forest Reserve Includes native forests and newly afforested land 122 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Ireland
Protected Irish Woodland · National Park National Park Include High forests, Semi-Natural Forests.
· Nature Reserve Nature Reserve In protected Irish woodlands, it is general policy to implement management practices which are directed at conservation of the native habitat. This is particularly so in cases where survival of the stand is threatened by the direct and indirect pressures resulting from human activities. For this reason, Irish Nature Reserve are assigned Category IV in the IUCN (1990) definitions of Protected Areas.
Network of Natural Control of grazing and exotic plant species ^= Heritage Areas (NHA) and European Habitat Directive. NHA and SAC Special Areas of include all Natural Parks and Nature Reserves Conservation (SAC) and in addition important semi-natural woodlands outside parks and reserves, private or state owned.
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Italy
National Park Parco nazionale IUCN II Terrestrial, fluvial, lake or marine areas, which contain on or more undisturbed ecosystems or also partially little disturbed by human intervention, one or more physical, geological, geomorphological, biological features of interantional relevance for special naturalistic, scientific, aesthetic, cultural, educational and recreational values, and which require the intervention of State for the conservation for present and future generations.
State Natural Reserve Riserva naturale Terrestrial, fluvial, lake or marine areas which Regional Natural Reserve statale e regionale contain one or more relevant species of flora and fauna or which include one or more COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 123
ecosystem important for biodiversity or for genetic resources conservation. These reserves could be state or regional in relation to the relevance of interests represented.
Regional Natural Park Parco naturale Terrestrial, fluvial, lake and eventually sea regionale zones in front of the coast which have a naturalistic and environmental value and which constitutes an homogeneous system characterized by the natural features of sites, by landscape and artistic values and by the cultural tradition of the local people.
Areas of international Zona umida di Areas of international importance and other importance and other importanza natural protected areas in order to improve the natural protected areas internazionale e altre protection of areas regulated by international aree naturali protette agrements (particularly the Ramsar agreement on wetlands) and that of areas relevant on a national level. Other categories could be created.
Strict Reserve (scientific Riserva integrale IUCN I uses only) Zone of a park or natural reserve where the natural environment is integrally protected.
Strict Reserve Core Core areas of Natural Reserves, Regional Parks, Regional Reserves, National parks.
Natural Monument IUCN III
Biotope Different local definitions
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
The Netherlands
Strict Forest Reserve Strikt bosreservaat I. No legal status, often used to refer to Forest Research Reserves. II. also: used by Private or State Forest and Nature Management Organizations to refer to non managed, Natural Forest Areas within their properties.
Forest Reserve Bosreservaat voor I. see: Strict Forest Reserve I onderzoek and II; II. also: Forest Reserves that have been assigned by Private or State Forest and Nature Management Organizations because of the high nature values of the forest area. These forests can be managed in order to maintain these values. 124 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Forest Research Reserve Bosreservaat voor No legal status. Forest areas of 5-150 ha that onderzoek have been assigned by the Minister of Agriculture, Nature management and Fisheries within the National Forest Reserves Network as a representative example of Dutch forests. These forests can be of high natural value or can be examples of formally managed production forests, but all Forest Research Reserves have not been managed since they have been assigned and will not be managed as long as the research programme continues.
Forest A-locality A-locatie bos No legal status. Within the National Forest Policy Plan of 1994 a top 10 set of the best examples of the 33 Natural Forest associations that occur within the Netherlands has been selected by scientists, in totally over 330 locations. Each location has been selected because of its relative natural flora- composition, the lack of human disturbances in the soils and hydrology, the area surface (Minimum Structure Area and bufferzone if possible) and the well developed vegetation structure. Owners of a Forest A-Location can obtain extra subsidies if they will not have clearcuttings of more than 0,5 hectares within the area and as long as they use native tree species of that site. Sometimes extra subsidies are possible if transition management is required to maintain the natural values.
Protected Nature Beschermd Legal status: Law on Nature Protection. Within Monument Natuurmonument this law it is possible to assign areas of high natural importance on private owned land by the Minister of Agriculture, that is legally protected against destructive activities by the owner or by other persons or institutions. After being assigned, a manager can only act as far this is allowed within a management plan that has been approved by the Minister. Within the list of Protected Nature Monuments there has not been made any difference between forests and other nature areas.
State Nature Monument Staats Legal status: Law on Nature Protection. Within Natuurmonument this law it is possible to assign areas of high natural importance on State owned land by the Minister of Agriculture, that is legally protected against destructive activities by any person or institution. After being assigned, a manager can only act as far this is allowed within a management plan that has been approved by the Minister. Within the list of State Nature Monuments there has not been made any difference between forests and other nature areas. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 125
National Park Nationaal park No legal status. Mainly focusing on recreational and educational values of the landscape. No specific protection of nature values.
Private Nature Reserve Particulier No legal status. (Parts of) Forests of Nature natuurreservaat Conservation Organizations or other private owners that are either managed to conserve specific nature values (e.g. biodiversity in coppice-woods or of flower-rich grasslands) or are Strict (Forest) Reserves that are not managed in any way. Sometimes used by policy makers instead of Forest Reserves, when biodiversity values are mainly concentrated outside the forested parts of the area.
Habitat Directive Habitat richtlijn Legal status: habitat quality protection. Most of the Dutch forests have been selected as Habitat Directive Areas. Forest management may not lead to the destruction of specified nature values, mostly connected to habitats of fauna- species.
Forest Bos Legal status: Forest Law. Forests have been defined as all areas outside the built-up area, that are covered with trees, except for gardens, verge or one-row plantation and stands with Italian poplar, lime tree, horse chestnut, weep- ing willow or fruit trees and their wind shield plantations. Harvesting is possible if this has been reported one month in advance at the director of the National Forest Service. He can prohibit any harvesting measures because of existing nature or landscape values. Clearcuttings of more than 1 hectare at one time are usually refused in the Netherlands because of these values.
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Norway
National Park Nasjonalparker In National Parks, large unspoiled or distinctive or beautiful natural areas, the natural environment shall be protected. The landscape with its flora, fauna and natural and cultural monuments shall be protected against development, destruction, pollution and other encroachments.
Nature Reserve Naturreservater Nature Reserve is an area where nature is unspoiled or virtually unspoiled, or which 126 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
consists of distinctive biota and which is of special scientific or pedagogical significance, or which stands out by virtue of its distinctive features. Nature Reserves have the highest level of protection under the Nature Conservation Act.
Forest Reserve Reserves in productive forests. Forest Reserves are classified into three groups. (a) Type Areas, a) Type Area (b) Special Areas and (c) Supplement Areas. b) Special Area Type Areas are the „heart“ of the reserve c) Supplement Area system to conserve the typical conifer mosaic in the different regions of Norway. Special Areas aim to protect the rare and threatened elements while the Supplement Areas try to catch part of the mosaic and thereby extend the Type Area Network.
Landscape Protected Area Landskapsvernom- An area to preserve distinctive or beautiful råder natural or cultural landscapes. In Protected Landscape Areas no activity may be undertaken which can substantially alter the nature or the character of the landscape.
Natural Monument Naturminne A geological, botanical and zoological feature of scientific or historical interest or which are of distinctive character, may be protected as Natural Monuments.
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Portugal Nacional Park Parque National A National Park is intended to protect one or several ecosystems, undisturbed or little disturbed by human intervention, integrating representative samples of natural regions, natural humanized landscapes, flora and fauna and their habitats, having ecological, scientific and educational interest, and preventing exploitation of Natural Resources. Natural Park Parque Natural Natural Parks ensure the adoption of measures to maintain natural or almost natural landscapes of national interest, integrating harmoniously human activities, nature and ecological biodiversity. Natural Reserve Reserva Natural A Natural Reserve provides the necessary conditions to the protection of species, groups of species, biotic communities or physical environment features, when human intervention is needed for their perpetuation. Natural Monument Monumento Natural Natural feature whose singularity, rarity or COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 127
representativity in ecological, aesthetic, scientific or cultural terms demand its conservation and the maintenance of its integrity. Protected Landscape Paisagem Protegida Is defined as an area with natural or seminatural and humanized landscapes, of regional or local interest, with inequivocally great aesthitic or natural value. Biological Interest Site Sítio de Interesse Private protected area by request of the owners, Biológico intending to protect fauna and flora species and their natural habitats. Strict Reserve Reserva integral In Protected Areas, special zones can be established, called Strict Nature Reserves. They are intended to keep natural processes totally undisturbed, leaving them to their natural evolution, therefore preserving ecologically re- presentative examples. Human presence is only allowed for scientific research or environmental monitoring reasons.
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Russia
State Nature Reserve Definition (by law): State Nature Reserve is a nature protection, ecological and educational organization. Its targets are conservation and investigations of natural processes, conservation of the gene fund of plants and animals, and conservation of species and communities from common or unique ecosys- tems. Special protected nature complexes and objects (soil, water, flora and fauna) are excluded from economic use on the reserve territory. They serve as examples with environmental, scientific, ecological, and educational importance and represent the nature environment, common or unique landscapes, or are refuges for gene fund conservation.
National Park A National Park is an ecological, educational and research organization. Its territory includes natural complexes with special environmental, historical and aesthetic values. The territory may be used for nature protection, education, scientific and cultural objectives, and for controlled tourism. The number of Reserves in European Russia is 35. Objectives: - conservation of the nature complexes, and unique and representative natural habitats or objects; - conservation of historic-cultural objects; 128 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
- ecological education of the local population; - support of controlled tourism; - development and use of scientific methods of nature conservation; - ecological monitoring; - restoration of disturbed natural or historic- cultural objects. Natural Park The objectives of the Natural Parks are: - conservation of natural environment, or natural landscapes; - support of the recreation and maintenance for recreation; - development and use of the effective conservation methods and maintenance of ecological equilibrium under recreation stress.
State Nature Refugium The objectives of State Nature Protected Ares are: - conservation and restoration of natural landscapes; - conservation and restoration of dangerous or rare species; - conservation of fossil remmants; - conservation and restoration of valuable water sites or ecosystems; - conservation of geological objects.
Nature Monument
Dendrological and Botanical Garden
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Slovak Republic
Protection Forest (Forest Protection Area, Forest Reserve)
· Virgin Forest Urwald Very well protected original state with no traces of human influence (category IA). Well protected original state with minor human influence (cutting of individual trees) or recently damaged by natural catastrophes (category IB)
· Natural Forest Naturwald Natural Forest which could have been influenced by human activity long ago or with trace of human influence, damaged by larger COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 129
natural catastrophes (category II). Is this IUCN IA, IB, II ?
National Park A large area, usually more than 1,000 hesctares, with ecosystems which are not substantially changed by human activities, or with a unique and natural landscape structure. It should represent supranatural biological centres and the most valuable natural heritage, and nature protection and conservation should be superior to any other activities here.
Protected Landscape Area A large area, usually more than 1,000 hectares, with dispersed ecosystems which are important for the preservation of biological diversity and ecological stability, with a characteristic land- scape aspect or with specific form of the historical settlement.
Biosphere Reserve Biosphere Reserve is an area with terrestrial and littoral or marine ecosystems and their combinations, which have internally been approved within the UNESCO Program Man and Biosphere (MAB).
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations Slovenia Forest Reserve Old (official) definition of Forest Reserve in Slovenia:"Forest Reserve is part of forest or po- tential forest area, which is purposely left to undisturbed natural development. Forest Reserve represents a typical or special forest community with its whole environment. Present tendencies exist to define a broader definition of Forest Reserve (and also interventions), which is not yet official: "Forest Reserve is a part of forest area, which is left to a natural development in order to protect natural and cul- tural legacy or influenced research role." Guidelines for Forest Reserve Network: 1. Future long-term research goals, among others also research of human impact on forest ecosystem and its natural ways of regeneration (succession pathways) 2. Phytogeographical division of Slovenia 3. Distribution of important forest sites in Slovenia 130 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
4. Untouched forest sites and stands, except for special research goals 5. Minimum area of 20 ha Strict Forest Reserve gozdni rezervat Study of undisturbed nature, comparisons with managed forests on the same site National Park/ There is one National Park in Slovenia - The Triglav National Park. All activities, regime and Natural Park conservation are regulated by law since 1981. There are two levels of conservation regime in the park. In the core zone all activities are subordinated to conservation of natural environment. In the edge (buffer) zone of the park which is also populated, the main per- spective is to ensure nature conservation and sustainable (close-to-natural) development. The intention of the Triglav National Park Administration is to enlarge the area(up to 45%) the area of core zone, which corresponds to the second IUCN category. Protection Forest Schuetzwald Protection Forests include: 1) forests which in extreme condition protect themselves, their soils or sires below them (timber line, erosion, avalanches, landslides, other extreme sites) and 2) forests where climatic or biotopic or hydrologic or protection funtion (role) is very important. Forest with subordinate All forests are multiple- used forests. According productive functions to natural conditions and human needs different forest functions have been evaluated. All measurements (silviculture, timber production, street building, etc.) have to be adopted to par- ticular combination of forest functions. All functions are important, but in some places some functions casn be more important than others. Social (recreation, education, natural heritage, etc. and ecological (protection, special habitats, hydrology. etc) function were evaluated on 53% of the total forest area. Ecocell Ecocells are usually special or rare ecosystems and special habitats, which increase biodiversity. Besides, they could be important for conservation of rare species, etc. Ecocells are usuallly mapped as "biotopic forest function". They are inventoried in process of forest management planning and silviculture planning. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 131
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Spain
Parks Parques Parks are natural areas - little transformed by human exploitation - that because of its beauty landscapes, their representativity of ecosystems or their singularity of flora, fauna or geomorphological formations present ecological, aesthetical, educative, scientific values whose conservation merits priority attention. Natural resources utilization can be limited, being forbidden, in any case, the incompatibles with the conservation objects. Access is provided with the necessary limitations to garantee the protection
Nature Reserves Reservas Naturales Nature Reserves are Natural Areas created to protect ecosystems, communities or biological elements that because of their rarity, fragility, importance or singularity deserve special valuation. In Nature Reserves, exploitation of Natural Resources is limited, except in cases of compatibility with the conservation of its values. Collection of biological or geological material is forbidden, except for education or research purposes, in which case a pertinent administrative anthoritation is needed. Can be included in National Parks/ Natural Parks.
Natural Monuments Monumentos Are areas or natural elements basically made by Naturales formations of notorious singularity, rareness or beauty that deserve special protection. It can be considered as Natural Monuments, the geological formations, paleontological deposits and other elements of the gea that are of special interest because of its singularity or importance related with scientific, cultural or landscape values. As it can be seen Natural Monuments do not dealwith protection of Natural Forests.
National Park Parques Nationales Are areas that offer enough values that its conservation is considered to be of general interest for the Nation. They are created as Parks through a State Law. The area must represent one of the main natural ecosystems of the country. Spanish National Park network: Research and monitoring must play a key role in conservation management.
Natural Park Parque Natural
Protected Landscapes Paisajes protegidos Are areas that because of its aesthetics or cultural values, deserve special protection. 132 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Other Categories: • Strict Reserve Reserva Estricta • Partial Nature Reserve Reserva Natural Parcial • Natural Reserve of Wild Reserva Natural de Fauna Fauna Silvestre • Natural Park Parque Natural • Regional Park Parque Regional • Protected Natural Area Area Natural Protegida • Natural Site Area Natural • Protection Forest Bosque Protector
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations
Sweden
Nature Reserve Naturreservat Systematic protection of pristine forest. Left for free development. Fire control. Public has free access, public trails and information spots IUCN I + IV).
National Park National Park >1000 ha comprising several undisturbed ecosystems Scientific research in large areas of pristine nature (IUCN II)
OTH State Forest Reserve and Area bought but not yet legally protected.
Integrated Monitoring Plot Integrated monitoring: Wide spectrum of ecosystem variables. Forest is the major biotope. Located in Nature Reserves or National Parks
Experimental Forest Area for field experiments
Remnant Biotope for flora Basic research focused on single threatened and fauna species. Fragmentation, edge processes, dispersion metapopulation dynamics.
Indicators of biodiversity in Indicators of biodiversity of use for the Forest Landscape environmental monitoring and nature conservation planning.
Game Research Area Game management with regard to forest COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 133
biodiversity
Categories/English terms National Terms Definitions/Annotations United Kingdom SSSI Designations Site of Special Designation of woodland areas as Sites of Scientific Interest Special Scientific Interest which then requires that the land-owners and managers consult and agree management of the woods with the statutory nature conservation agencies (Englisch Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, Countryside Council for Wales). National Nature Reserve National Nature Reserves are a sub-let of the SSSI series managed usually by the conservation agencies themselves SAC Special Area of According to FFH directive Conservation Minimum Intervention - allows expression and study of natural (Area) Wood woodland processes, - potential to develop old growth forest structures and associated species, - potential accumulation of dead wood habitats, - undisturbed soil profiles, - controls against which to measure change in managed woods, - large area, - compact shape, - little recent treatment or unnatural disturbance, - few introduced species and no highly invasive ones, - no major external deleterious factors operating, eg spray drift neighbouring agricultural land, - not noted for rare unusual species that depend on management for their survival on site, - stable ownership, - diversity of age structure. No silvicultural intervention area AONB Areas of outstanding Designation operated by local planning Natural Beauty authorities. National Park National Park Protection category not equivalent to IUCN. Tree Preservation Order Tree Preservation Order which may be imposed on areas of woodland, as well as individual trees, which prevent most felling of trees without prior agreement from the local authority. 134 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 135
COST Action E4
FOREST RESERVES RESEARCH NETWORK
WG2 “Recommendations for Data Collection in Forest Reserves, with an Emphasis on Regeneration and Stand Structure”
Eduard Hochbichler, Chairman of WG2, Austria
Aileen O’Sullivan, Editor, Ireland Ad van Hees, Case Study, The Netherlands Kris Vandekerkhove, Compiler, National Summaries, Belgium 136 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
CONTENTS
1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 137 2 Aims and Principles…………………………………………………………… 138 2.1 Aims………………………………………………………………………... 138 2.2 Principles…………………………………………………………………… 139 2.2.1 Parameters to be measured in Natural Forest Research………………. 139 2.2.2 Planning a National Programme of Research in Natural Forests…….. 140 2.2.3 Summary……………………………………………………………… 140 3 Description of Stand and Vegetation Characteristics in the Natural Forest Reserve (NFR)…………………………………………………………………. 141 3.1 Aims………………………………………………………………………… 141 3.2 General information………………………………………………………… 141 3.3 Inventory design……………………………………………………………. 142 3.4 Minimum data set – Sample Plots………………………………………….. 143 3.4.1 Site characteristics…...……………………………………………..... 145 3.4.2 Standing live trees and standing dead wood…………………………. 145 3.4.3 Shrub layer and regeneration layer……………………………..……. 145 3.4.4 Lying dead wood……...……………………………………………… 146 3.4.5 Ground vegetation………………………………………...………….. 146 3.4.6 Summary of data collection in sample plots….…………………….... 147 4 Data Collection in Selected Core Areas (i.e. Intensive Study Plots)………... 147 4.1 Aims………………………………………………………………………… 147 4.2 Minimum data set – Core Area……………………………………………... 148 4.2.1 Site characteristics…………………………………………………….. 149 4.2.2 Standing live trees and standing dead wood…………………………... 149 4.2.3 Shrub layer…………………………………………………………….. 149 4.2.4 Regeneration layer…………………………………………………….. 150 4.2.5 Lying dead wood……………………………………………………… 150 4.2.6 Ground vegetation…………………………………………………….. 150 4.2.7 Summary of data collection in core area……………………………… 151 5 Case Study: Data Collection in a Forest Reserve in The Netherlands…….. 151 6 Summaries of Data Collected in Different Countries……………...………... 156 7 Broader Recommendations of Working Group II…………………………... 168 8 Appendices……………………………………………………………………... 170 Appendix 1 List of attributes to be assessed in forest reserves research 170 Appendix 2 Guidelines for measurement of attributes in forest reserves research……………………………………………………………… 175 Appendix 3 A list of WG 2 members……………………………………………. 181 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 137
1 Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to present some recommendations on the methods to be used in the establishment and design of stand inventories, as a basis for research in forest reserves. This paper has been compiled as part of the output from COST Action E4: “Forest Reserves Research Network” (COST Action E4, Forest Reserves Research Network: Final Report Summary), and should be viewed in context with the other documents produced by COST Action E4.
Forest reserves encompass a wide range of forest types across Europe, all of which have a varied history in terms of anthropogenic influence and disturbance throughout the past. Truly natural forests are rare in Europe. Thus, there are many instances where forest reserves include degraded forests. Although these are not truly natural or “virgin” forests, they may be the most natural forests remaining in a particular geographic region. This report refers to research in all forests that are left to natural development.
There is much we can learn from observing natural stand development in an objective and scientific manner. The pattern of natural forest dynamics may hold valuable lessons for silviculture and forest management, while an understanding of natural processes is central to the effective conservation and protection of rare forest habitats. The combination of conservation and forestry objectives was a primary feature of COST Action E4, and is reflected in the methodology presented in this report. The principle of mimicking natural processes is at the root of current international moves to encourage sustainable forest management.
In order to achieve the aims of E4, three Working Groups (WG’s) were established. The discussions that took place in these Working Groups highlighted the many difficulties that arise when attempting to create international networks. Each country has its own agenda, or programme, in relation to natural forests, their protection and management. The status and definition of “natural forests” varies widely between countries. It was the job of Working Group I to try to harmonise the terminology used and to facilitate an international understanding of the status of natural forests (COST Action E4: Final Report, Working Group I)1. The task of Working Group II was to standardise the methods used in scientific research in natural forests, in order to facilitate the comparison of data between countries (this report). Working Group III developed a database that provides an international link between research in natural forests (COST E4: Final Report, Working Group III). Data that have been collected according to the standards laid down in this report can therefore now be entered into a database that holds similar data for other European countries. This facilitates sharing of data, and comparison of results across a geographic range.
We would recommend that any group who are embarking on a programme of research in natural forests refer to the other COST Action E4 documents, to fully integrate their programme as much as possible into a European network. This maximises the potential return on an investment in research.
1 NOTE: In this report of WGII, the term natural forest reserve (NFR) is used in a broad sense, to refer to any natural or semi-natural forest which is the focus of research on natural stand development. The actual nomenclature of forest reserves will vary for each country (see WGI Final Report). 138 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
2 Aims and Principles
2.1 Aims
It is very difficult to standardise the aims of research in forest reserves. The discussions that took place within WGII during its various meetings, for example, demonstrated the broad range of objectives that drive research in natural forests (Table 1).
Table 1. Range of Objectives and Applications of Research in Natural Forests Research aims and objectives in forest reserves – some examples • scientific research of natural/ecological processes • long-term monitoring of natural development • ecological inventories and biotope management • assessment and maintenance of biodiversity (including genetic resources) • response of forest dynamics to changing environmental factors
Main applications of research results • conservation and/or restoration of representative or endangered forest ecosystems • development of “close-to-nature” silvicultural management techniques • afforestation (for example, the choice of tree species) and design of new forests • recognise the ecological requirements of tree species and forest biotopes • improved understanding of the processes at work in natural development • observing forest stability in relation to environmental influences
It is recognised that individual research projects are generally aimed at addressing a clearly defined problem, and that the method of study used is largely determined by the research objectives. The aim of this report is to identify a minimum data set which should be collected from forest reserves. Adoption of a minimum, standard data-set will facilitate clearer interpretation of results and comparison of scientific data between different reserves and different countries (Table 2).
Table 2. Advantages of Standardised Data Collection Procedures
• Enables cross-comparisons of research data between reserves • Provides comprehensive regional information • Improves availability of information on: a) distribution of tree species b) growth rates of tree species c) dynamic of forest change under different local or regional conditions d) effects of different environmental influences based on tree species and/or forest communities COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 139
2.2 Principles
2.2.1 Parameters to be Measured in Natural Forests
There are many parameters that could be measured in order to describe the forest ecosystem. As mentioned above, the parameters measured often depend on the specific research objectives. However, of all possible features, the one that best characterises the condition of natural or semi-natural forests is vegetation.
Forest vegetation type determines the physical structure of the forest, and has a critical influence on the energy balance and food chain within the forest ecosystem. The dynamics of the forest ecosystem are driven by the processes of regeneration, competition between individuals, and senescence of tree species. In addition to the tree and shrub flora, the ground vegetation is also an important indicator of forest condition, in that it can indicate degree of human influence and regional patterns of variation. Furthermore, it is recognised that forest stand structure and vegetation are in close interaction with other components of the forest ecosystem (e.g. fauna).
For the reasons outlined above, it was decided among WGII to limit recommendations for forest reserve research to measurement of forest and ground vegetation:
The primary aims of the recommended research methodology are: to describe the forest stand structure (including dead wood), shrub layer, regeneration layer and ground vegetation, in such a way as to be able to repeat the measurements, and therefore to be able to observe, analyse and compare regeneration and stand structure development through time
What is essentially recommended is a forest inventory, focussing on a series of parameters which, in the experience of WGII members, are important in the context of forest development.
Long-term monitoring cannot answer all of the questions regarding forest ecology and development – research necessarily focuses on selected aspects of the forest. Also, the research methodologies in use are constantly being expanded and developed. Thus, the recommendations made here focus on the use of inventory methods which are well tried and readily available.
If it is possible to supplement the basic measurement of forest vegetation with other specific research methodologies, then this can enhance our understanding of natural forests. The following topics, for example, are important in forest reserves research, although specific recommendations on the methodologies to be adopted are beyond the scope of this report: a) measurement of solar radiation b) detailed ground vegetation monitoring (permanent plots, including lower plants) c) measurements of physical and/or chemical parameters of site/soil d) epiphytes (e.g. mosses, liverworts, lichens) e) fauna inventory f) litterfall g) seed production 140 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
2.2.2 Planning a National Programme of Research in Natural Forests
Procedures for stand description vary widely between, and even within, countries. The approach used depends largely on the research objectives, the size of the forest reserve and the availability of funding. It is recognised by WGII that it may not be practical, from the point of view of the costs and labour required, to implement the approach described in this report in every forest reserve in the national network. Rather, the recommended procedures should be considered for implementation in selected “key” forest reserves. For example, it may be advantageous to target a suite of reserves that represent the full range of forest vegetation types which occur in the country.
In many countries, there are already procedures and experimental plots in place, which are focused on long-term monitoring of natural forests and which include stand descriptions. The protocol for existing recording schemes may differ from the recommendations presented in this report. It is not intended that existing experiments be significantly amended or abandoned if they don’t conform to COST E4 recommendations. However, if new experiments are to be established, we would recommend that the COST E4 protocol be followed.
2.2.3 Summary
The principles underlying research in natural forests, as recommended by COST Action E4 are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of Principles of Research in Natural Forests
• Stand description in permanently marked plots in natural and semi-natural forests (see COST Action E4: Final Report, Working Group I) • Data collection using standardised procedures • Comparison of data from within reserves, between reserves and between countries (see COST Action E4: Final Report, Working Group III) • Replication of measurements or observations over time • Establishment of a spatial and temporal network of forest reserves research • Promoting the collection of quantifiable data, using an objective approach • Application of clearer, more understandable methods and/or procedures • Planning of forest reserves research at a practical level, in relation to the amount of work and costs involved
Two different levels of inventory within the forest are suggested. On the one hand is a representative description of the whole natural forest reserve (Section 3), while on the other hand are more detailed descriptions of selected parts of the forest (Section 4). COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 141
3 Description of Stand and Vegetation Characteristics in the Natural Forest Reserve (NFR)
3.1 Aims
A complete inventory of the whole natural forest reserve (NFR), while it would provide the greatest amount of information, is generally not feasible due to constraints of time and cost. Thus, the strategy recommended by COST E4 is: a) to establish a permanent network of Sample Plots over the NFR (see Section 3), and b) to supplement this with a number of larger permanent plots (Core Areas), in which complete inventories are made (see Section 4).
The methodology described here, in Section 3, is aimed at gathering data on site characteristics, forest vegetation and stand structure over the entire natural forest reserve (NFR). The aim is to gather data on the following parameters: • general information (including mapping forest communities): • site characteristics, e.g. topography, soils • stand structure measurements, per hectare, for each species: number of stems; basal area; timber volume; volume of dead wood • shrub structure: tree (shrub) species distribution and height (frequency classes) • regeneration structure: tree (shrub) species distribution and height (frequency classes) • ground vegetation: species lists; cover/abundance values; species distribution
3.2 General Information
As a preliminary step, the range of variation over the Reserve should be assessed by means of a survey to gather general information (Table 4). A general description of the NFR is helpful in choosing the inventory design.
Table 4. Summary of Principles of Research in Natural Forests
General information name and number of the NFR area of forest in NFR protection status date of the initial description of NFR location (e.g. latitude/longitude, geographical region/district, forest area) Site and soils climate, altitude, exposure, slope, aspect, microclimate geomorphology geology soil types Mapping - site characteristics and soil types (Scale 1:5,000/10,000) Forest vegetation community vegetation relevés Mapping – forest communities (Scale 1:5,000/10,000) 142 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
3.3 Inventory Design
Based on data from the general survey, above, decisions can be made regarding the design of the forest inventory, which forms the basis of recommended research in the NFR. The range of topographical variation in the NFR and the distribution of forest vegetation communities are important considerations. The inventory should be designed to ensure that the range of vegetation types present are sampled, while taking into consideration the amount of funding and time available for the research.
The basis of the recommended inventory design is the establishment of a systematic Grid Network, which covers the entire NFR, and which is permanently marked out on the ground. This is a fundamental element of the inventory design, and it ensures repeatability of the research. A series of circular Sample Plots are then located on the Grid Network (Fig. 1). The size and heterogeneity of the NFR will determine the scale and spacing of the grid, as well as the number and size of Sample Plots used. However, it is recommended that grid spacing and Sample Plot size should be chosen so that the total area sampled is 5-10% (preferably 10%) of the total NFR area. A recommended minimum Sample Plot density is 1 plot per hectare (ha), where 1 ha = 100m x 100m = 10,000m2, with a Plot size of 500-1,000m2, or greater. An important factor to consider when deciding Sample Plot size is tree density, i.e. no. trees/ha (Section 3.4.2).
The inventory design should be flexible. For example, the General Description of the NFR (Section 3.2) may reveal that one area within the NFR is relatively heterogeneous, in terms of its topography or of the number of vegetation communities present. The density of sample plots on the grid can be increased within that particular area, in order to sample properly the range of variation. In some cases, it may be necessary to choose smaller plots, for example, 250-300m2 , on a denser grid, if that is what is required to gain representative samples. On the other hand, over a large, homogeneous area, it is possible to locate sample plots on the grid through a process of random selection. Data collection in Sample Plots is described in Section 3.4. In some instances, the establishment of a Grid Network on the ground may be impractical. For example, it may not be feasible to establish a grid in forests on very steep slopes in alpine areas. Accepting practical limitations, the recommended inventory design should be adapted accordingly.
Recommendations by WGII on inventory design are summarised in Table 5.
The Working Group gave a “high priority” rating to the use of a Grid Network with Sample Plots (Table 5). In contrast, “Complete Data Recording” is given “low priority”, since it is viewed as impractical from the point of view of time and funding required. “Core Areas” are areas in which a more intensive study of stand characteristics is made in selected parts of the NFR (see Section 4). In general, “Core Areas”, which are square-shaped, are recommended over elongated “Transects” (Table 5). COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 143
Figure 1. Sample Inventory Design for NFR Research Recommended by COST Action E4 Forest Community B is sampled as a Core Area, which is defined and discussed in Section 4 of this Report
Table 5. Recommended Priorities for Inventory Design in Natural Forest Reserves (+++ = high priority, ++ = medium priority, + = low priority)
total Natural Forest Reserve
grid network +++
core areas ++
transect +
complete data recording +
3.4 Minimum Data Set – Sample Plots
The purpose of Sample Plots is to derive data on forest vegetation and stand structure over the entire NFR. To describe the forest vegetation within each Sample Plot, it is recommended to take a structured approach to describing the woody vegetation, paying attention to all layers comprising the forest structure, i.e. canopy-forming trees; understorey or shrub layer; regeneration layer (i.e. regeneration of woody species); dead wood. These are referred to as “silvicultural parameters”. Other important parameters are: Sample Plot location; soils; 144 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network vegetation. There is much variation in the range of attributes and in the level of detail recorded in different research programmes. Table 6 gives a list of attributes, which should be recorded as part of a minimum data set over the whole NFR.
While some of these parameters can be measured over the whole Sample Plot, this will often not be practical; for example where there are many saplings or shrubs present. For measurement of these, it may be more appropriate to mark out smaller observation areas, or Subplots, within the Sample Plots (Table 7).
Table 6. Systematic Data Collection in Sample Plots in Natural Forest Reserves: Parameters Recommended by COST Action E4 (see also Appendix 1A & 2) * Note: These parameters may not always be required in a minimum data set, e.g. if using the data for modelling forest dynamics, these data will be required
Site Characteristics Location (latitude & longitude) Slope, Aspect, Topography/Relief Soil type, Vegetation Type Stand Characteristics Standing Live Trees (D.B.H. ≥ 5cm) Species D.B.H. Height X,Y (location in Sample Plot) * Height to living crown * Standing Dead Wood (D.B.H. ≥ 5cm) Species D.B.H. Height Stage of decay X,Y (location in Sample Plot) * Shrub Layer (D.B.H. < 5cm; Height > 130cm) Species Number of stems (Classes) Height (Classes) Regeneration Layer (D.B.H. < 5cm; Height 30 - 130cm) Species Number of stems (Classes) Height (Classes) Damage from herbivores Lying Dead Wood (Measure only Stems of Diameter ≥ 10 cm ) Species Component (whole tree/stump/stem/branch) Diameter Length Stage of Decay Ground Vegetation Species Cover/Abundance COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 145
Table 7. Recommended Observation Areas for Parameters measured in Sample Plots (see also Table 6)
Parameters Observation Area ------Site Characteristics Whole Sample Plot Standing Live Trees Whole Sample Plot Standing Dead Wood Whole Sample Plot Shrub Layer Subplot (Shrub Layer Plot) Regeneration Layer Subplot (Regeneration Plot) Lying Dead Wood Whole Sample Plot Ground Vegetation Whole Sample Plot/Subplot (Relevé)
The recommended approach for measuring parameters in Sample Plots or associated Subplots is given in the following Sections. Details are also given in Appendix 1 & 2.
3.4.1 Site characteristics
A description of location, topography and soils in the study area should be made, if there is no detailed map of soils and topographical features already available for the NFR.
3.4.2 Standing Live Trees and Standing Dead Wood
All standing live or dead trees with stems2 which are ≥ 5cm diameter at breast height (D.B.H.) should be recorded over the entire Sample Plot area. (Therefore, it is important to consider tree density when selecting sample plot size – see Section 3.3) For each stem in the Sample Plot, record: species, D.B.H. and height. For standing dead stems, the degree of decay should also be recorded. Depending on the data analysis to be carried out, it may be required to record also the position in the Sample Plot of live and dead standing trees. Also, for live trees, the height to the lowest live branches in the canopy (see Case Study, Section 5). It is of course possible to extend sampling to include stems smaller than 5cm D.B.H. For COST Action E4, 5cm is a recommended cut-off point.
3.4.3 Shrub Layer and Regeneration Layer
The shrub layer includes all stems with D.B.H. < 5cm and height > 130cm. Regeneration layer includes all stems for which: D.B.H. < 5cm and height = 30cm -130cm. Where shrubs or young trees are very abundant, it is recommended to measure both of these in permanently marked Subplots (Table 7), rather than over the entire Sample Plot. An example of a Subplot layout is given in Fig. 2. For each species present in both the shrub layer and the regeneration layer, count the number of stems present in the Subplot – this can be recorded in defined classes (see Appendix 2). Also record the number of stems, grouped into height classes. In
2 Note the emphasis on stems rather than on individuals, e.g. for coppice stems, record each one separately. This applies to the entire inventory procedure, including shrub and regeneration layers. 146 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network some programmes, the D.B.H. of stems <5cm is measured, but 5cm is chosen as a cut-off point in the COST E4 minimum data set.
The influence of herbivores on the regeneration layer is often an important feature of forest stands. The use of a simple damage classification system for each species is recommended.
Subplots (Shrub & Regeneration Layers, Ground Vegetation) Grid Network
Sample Plot (Site Characteristics, Live Trees, Dead Wood)
Figure 2. Sample layout of Sample Plot and supplementary Subplots. The size of Sample Plots and of Subplots depends on stand density. Subplots may be circular plots or transects, in which the Shrub Layer, Regeneration Layer and Ground Vegetation are recorded.
3.4.4 Lying Dead Wood
Lying dead wood should be quantified over the whole Sample Plot. Recording should include all components, i.e. stumps, lying trees, thick branches and stem parts, as well as newly broken trees, which have a diameter of at least 10 cm at their narrowest point. For all pieces of dead wood, record species (if possible) and component (i.e. whether stem, branch, stump, etc), diameter at widest point, length (or height of stump) and the degree of decomposition or decay. It is of course possible to extend sampling to include dead wood components smaller than 10cm diameter. For COST Action E4, 10cm is a recommended cut-off point.
3.4.5 Ground Vegetation
A species inventory (species list) of the higher plants should be made over the entire Sample Plot. Estimates of cover/abundance of each species of higher plant should then be carried out in the Subplots (e.g. Regeneration Plot; Figure 2), and the data can therefore be analysed, if required, as vegetation relevés. Because of the definition of Regeneration Layer (Section 3.4.3), recording the Ground Vegetation here includes seedlings of tree and shrub species, with height <30cm. Efforts should be made to quantify the lower plants present, although identification of individual species may significantly increase the time involved in recording, depending on expertise of the recorder. At the very least, total cover of all bryophytes, all lichens and all fungi can be recorded quickly and easily, and so should be done. Extent or cover of litter layer, bare soil and bare rock in the Subplot should also be recorded. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 147
3.4.6 Summary of Data Collection in Sample Plots
WHOLE FOREST NATURE RESERVE – SAMPLE PLOTS
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the components of the recommended COST E4 inventory. See Section 3.4.2 – 3.4.5 for definitions of forest components.
4 Data Collection in Selected Core Areas (i.e. Intensive Study Plots)
4.1 Aims
A “Core Area” is an area selected within a NFR, in which a complete inventory of stand characteristics is carried out. It is similar to a Sample Plot (Section 3) in that it is permanently marked on the ground, but it is bigger than a Sample Plot. Also, there are more measurements to be made in a Core Area than in a Sample Plot.
There was some debate among members of WGII over the name – “Core Area”. In some countries, plots such as these are already in use and are called “Intensive Study Plots”. Whatever the nomenclature, such plots should form a central part of any research programme aimed at comprehensive monitoring of forest dynamics.
Core Areas should be selected to be representative of particular features of the NFR vegetation, for example, to represent a dominant, characteristic or widespread vegetation type, or alternatively to represent a rare forest vegetation type. On a European scale, it would be worthwhile considering what forest types are under-represented in forestry research, and selecting those types if possible, to make NFR research more comprehensive, on a regional scale.
Research aims in Core Areas can include: • Detection of change in species composition of forest stand, i.e. forest dynamics • Single-tree related research • Vegetation dynamics 148 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
4.2 Minimum Data Set - Core Area The recommended size of a Core Area is 0.25 ha to 1.0 ha (or 2.0ha if possible). [Note: recommended size for a Sample Plot is 0.05 ha to 0.1 ha, see Section 3.3.] It is recommended that Core Areas should be located so that there is a Buffer Zone around them. For example, a Core Area should not be located on the edge of the NFR, where it may be subject to processes operating outside the reserve (e.g. thinning or felling), which would affects ambient conditions (e.g. increased light penetration) within the Core Area. The establishment of a Buffer Zone around the Core Area is recommended. Table 8 lists the parameters that are recommended by WGII for measurement in a Core Area. In comparison with Table 6, which lists the same for Sample Plots, it will be seen that there are many similarities, but that a greater number of parameters is given “high priority” rating in Core Areas, and therefore that the “Minimum Data Set” for the Core Area is larger than that for a Sample Plot.
Table 8. Systematic Data Collection in Core Areas in Natural Forest Reserves: Parameters Recommended by COST Action E4 (see also Appendix 1B & 2) * Note: These parameters may not always be required in a minimum data set. They could be viewed as “low priority” for inclusion in the data set, depending on research objectives.
Site Characteristics Location Slope, Aspect, Topography, Relief Soil Type, Vegetation Type
Stand Characteristics Standing Live Trees (D.B.H. ≥ 5cm) Species D.B.H. Height X,Y (location in Core Area) Height to living crown (see Section 4.2.2) Crown projection (see Section 4.2.2) Stem quality * Vitality * Standing Dead Wood (D.B.H. ≥ 5cm) Species D.B.H. Height X,Y (location in Core Area) Stage of Decay Shrub Layer (D.B.H. < 5cm; Height > 130cm) Species Number of stems (Classes) Height (Classes) Regeneration Layer (D.B.H. < 5cm; Height < 130cm) Species Number of stems (Classes) Height (Classes) Damage from herbivores Lying Dead Wood (Measure only Stems of Diameter ≥ 10 cm) Species Component (whole tree/stump/stem/branch) Diameter Length X,Y (location in Core Area) Stage of Decay Ground Vegetation Species Cover/Abundance COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 149
As in Sample Plots, it is recommended that the Shrub Layer, Regeneration Layer and Ground Vegetation be quantified in smaller subplots rather than over the entire Core Area (Table 9). The subplots should be laid out in a systematic grid system within the Core Area.
Table 9. Recommended Observation Areas for Parameters measured in Core Area (see also Table 8)
Parameters Observation Area ------Standing Live Trees Whole Core Area Standing Dead Wood Whole Core Area Shrub Layer Core Area Subplot (Shrub Layer Plot) Regeneration Layer Core Area Subplot (Regeneration Plot) Lying Dead Wood Whole Core Area Ground Vegetation Core Area Subplot (e.g. Regeneration Plot)
The recommended methodologies for measurement of parameters in Cores Areas and associated Subplots are given below. Details are also given in Appendix 1 & 2.
4.2.1 Site Characteristics
Location of the Core Area (latitude and longitude) should be recorded, along with a description of topography and soils. Also important is the phytosociological name of the vegetation type.
4.2.2 Standing Live Trees and Standing Dead Wood
Measurements of all stems (live and dead) with D.B.H. ≥ 5cm should be carried out on the whole Core Area, exactly as described for Sample Plots (Section 3.4.2). The following should also be recorded: location of stem within the Core Area (using X,Y co-ordinates) and crown length (live trees only). Crown length should be calculated by subtracting {height to lowest live canopy branches} from {height to top of live canopy}. Crown projection should be recorded for live trees, by estimating on the ground the maximum spread of live canopy branches, and measuring this distance. NOTE: There were differences of opinion between WGII members regarding the priority rating of crown length and of crown projection measurements. These measurements should be included if it is intended to use computer programmes to model forest dynamics, e.g. the Silvistar programme that is in use in the Netherlands. Other characteristics such as stem quality and vitality should be recorded for live trees (these two parameters were not rated as high priority by WGII).
4.2.3 Shrub Layer
As in Sample Plots (Section 3.4.3), the shrub layer includes all stems with D.B.H. < 5cm and height > 130cm. Recording the Shrub Layer in the Core Area should be carried out as described for Sample Plots (Section 3.4.3). Depending on the number of shrub stems present in the Core Area, it is often more practical to use partial sample areas (i.e. subplots laid out in a systematic grid system, or sample strips; see Fig. 3) rather than measuring over the whole Core Area. 150 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
4.2.4 Regeneration Layer
The Regeneration Layer in the Core Area is defined as all stems with D.B.H. < 5cm and height < 130cm. NOTE: The definition of the Regeneration Layer is different in the Core Area than in the Sample Plots, where height is 30cm – 130cm (Section 3.4.3). The Core Area definition of Regeneration Layer means that all seedlings of tree and shrub species are to be included in a numerical count, rather than estimated in terms of their cover/abundance.
As with the Shrub Layer, above, it may be practical to measure the Regeneration Layer in partial sample areas (i.e. subplots laid out in a systematic grid system, or sample strips; see Fig. 3). For each species, record the number of stems, grouped according to classes, as well as stem heights (grouped into classes). Record damage from grazers on each stem, using a simple system of damage categories.
Figure 4. Sample layout of Subplots within Core Area. Subplots are used for recording the Shrub Layer, Regeneration Layer and Ground Vegetation in Core Areas. The size of Subplots depends on the density of stems in the Shrub and Regeneration Layers.
4.2.5 Lying Dead Wood
Recording of lying dead wood is exactly as for the Sample Plots (Section 3.4.4), and in addition, the location of dead wood components in the Core Area must also be recorded.
4.2.6 Ground vegetation
Recording of Ground Vegetation is exactly as for the Sample Plots (Section 3.4.5). A species inventory (species list) should be made for the whole Core Area. Estimates of cover/abundance of each species should be carried out in partial areas or Subplots (Fig. 3). COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 151
4.2.7 Summary of Data Collection in Core Area
CORE AREA
Standing Live Shrub Wood Layer Standing Ground Vegetation Dead Wood
1.3m
Regeneration Layer Lying Dead Wood VegetationHeight (m)
5cm 10cm
Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) (cm) Figure 5. Schematic representation of the components to be measured in Core Areas, in the recommended COST E4 inventory of forest reserves. See Section 4.4.2 – 4.2.5 for definitions of forest components.
5 Case Study: Data Collection in A Forest Reserve in The Netherlands
Data collection in forest reserves: an impression of the costs.
A.F.M. van Hees Alterra; Green World Research P.O. Box 47 NL 6700 AA Wageningen The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] 152 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Introduction
Guidelines for data collection in forest reserves have been presented in the previous chapter. Countries that want to start with a study in forest reserves or want to adjust their data collection might find it useful to get an impression of the costs associated with the proposed data collection.
The Netherlands has a fifteen-year history in the study of forest reserves (Broekmeyer, 1999) and their data collection has many similarities with the data collection proposed in this publication (for details on the Dutch data collection see Stuurman & Clement, 1993 and Broekmeyer, 1999). The objective of this chapter is to present a Dutch case study which can act as a reference for estimating the costs of field work (including data storage) in other European countries. The reserve “Vijlnerbos” has been selected for this case study. The structure and composition of this forest reserve is representative for large areas of temperate broad-leaved forests in Europe.
Forest reserve “Vijlnerbos”
The forest reserve Het Vijlnerbos is situated in the most southern part of the Netherlands. The area of this forest reserve is approximately 21 ha. It lies on a northeast-facing slope at an altitude between 220 and 280 m. a.s.l. (i.e. above sea level). The forest reserve represents the Luzulo-Fagetum beech forest on the northern limit of its European distribution. At present the forest reserve primarily consists of a mixed pedunculate oak (Quercus petraea)-silver birch (Betula pendula)-beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest which has been managed as a coppice with standards. In addition, a young mixed plantation of pedunculate oak and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and an old mixed plantation of Japanese larch (Larix decidua) and Norway spruce (Picea abies) are included in the reserve as well. The vegetation is heterogeneous; patches dominated by bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) alternate with patches dominated by wavy hair grass (Deschampsia flexuosa) or patches without herbaceous vegetation. A general characterisation of the tree species composition of the forest reserve is given in Table 1.
Table 1. Tree species composition of the forest reserve Vijlnerbos in 1996.
Mixed broad-leaved Larch-spruce plantation Sycamore-oak forest (17.9 ha) (1.6 ha) plantation (1.6 ha) N a) BAb) Dbhc) N a) BAb) Dbhc) N a) BAb) Dbhc) (m2ha-1) (cm) (m2ha-1) (cm) (m2ha-1) (cm) beech 86 7.7 33.7 40 0.7 14.9 oak 99 8.9 33.8 40 3.4 32.9 421 9.8 17.2 birch 160 9.5 27.5 20 0.8 22.6 60 1.5 17.8 sycamore 561 10.4 15.4 Other 186 3.8 16.1 20 0.2 11.9 120 1.3 11.7 broadleaves J. larch 221 16.6 30.4 N. spruce 10 0.2 16.2 100 6.1 27.8 Other conifers 20 1.6 31.9 all species 542 30.1 26.6 461 28.9 28.3 1162 23.0 15.9 a) number of stems per hectare b) basal area c) mean diameter at breast height COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 153
Monitoring design
In this forest reserve a grid system with circular permanent plots and a rectangular core area has been established (Fig. 1). The spacing of the grid system is 50m by 50m. Eighteen intersections of this grid system were selected randomly as permanent plots. The area of a permanent plot is 500 m2 (radius of 12.6 m). The core area has an area of 0.98 ha (70 by 140 m) and is selected to represent the pedunculate oak – silver birch – beech forest. In total 1.88 ha or 9% of the area is studied in detail (core area and permanent plots). In addition, a vegetation map and a soil and geological map is made for the whole reserve. Recording will take place at intervals of 10 to 15 years. So far, the reserve has been recorded in 1987 and 1996.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the Forest Reserve at Vijlnerbos, The Netherlands. 154 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Field recording
The preparatory work for field recording encompassed the development of a field map (scale 1:5,000), the establishment of a grid system and the selection of the sample plots and the core area. The field map was based on forest maps on which the grid system, the intersections selected to be the centre of the permanent plots and the core area were projected. The researcher in charge selected the permanent plots (behind the desk) and the core area (in the field). A three-person field crew using tapes and a compass established the grid system, the permanent plots and the core area. For the grid system distances between parallel lines were checked regularly. The centres of the permanent plots and the corners of the core area were marked above ground using wooden poles and below ground using electro-magnetic spools.
The following field recording took place: - Whole reserve - Vegetation mapping (scale of 1:5,000) - Soil- and geology mapping (scale of 1:5,000), only in 1987 - Core area - Vegetation mapping (scale 1:500 and transect 2 by 100 m) - Stand structure and composition (only trees and shrubs with a dbh > 5 cm; collected data: species, tree position (x-y co-ordinates), height, dbh, crown position and crown length (x-y-z co-ordinates) and vitality - Coarse woody debris (only for CWD with a minimum diameter of 10 cm at the base; collected data; species, standing/lying, decay stage, position (x-y co-ordinates top and base) - Permanent plots - Vegetation relevés - Soil description (to a depth of 2.2 m), only in 1987 - Stand structure and composition (only trees and shrubs with a dbh > 5 cm; collected data: species, tree position (x-y co-ordinates), height, dbh and vitality - Regeneration (trees and shrubs with a dbh <5 cm and a height> 0.5-m sampled on 36 subplots of 3 by 3 m: species and number per height class)
Vegetation maps and relevés were made by an experienced assistant vegetation scientist with intensive support by a vegetation scientist. An experienced assistant soil scientist made soil descriptions in the permanent plots and made the soil and geological map. The soil descriptions formed the basis for these maps. A well-trained two-person field crew collected data on stand structure and composition and on coarse woody debris. In the core area, positions of trees and their crowns and of coarse woody debris were assessed with tapes in 7 strips of 10 by 140 m (see Stuurman & Clement, 1993). In the permanent plots the position of trees and coarse woody debris was assessed with a compass and a tape; angle and distance to the plot centre were measured.
Costs for data collection and data storage
The data collection in 1987 took significantly more time than the data collection in 1996. Preparatory fieldwork was no longer necessary, and soil data were only collected during the first recording. Furthermore, at the second recording, maps with tree positions of the core area and of the permanent plots were available. So only the position of new trees and new pieces of coarse woody debris had to be measured. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 155
All collected data were written on standard data forms or presented in sketch maps. These data were stored in a specific database, stored as digitized maps or redrawn as a final map. The time necessary for these activities is included in the estimated costs. However, time needed for the development and maintenance of the database is not included. An overview of the time necessary for the fieldwork is given in Table 2.
Table 2. Estimated time (in days) necessary for the recording of the reserve “Vijlnerbos” (21 ha, 1 core area, 18 permanent plots).
field crew research scientist assistant preparatory field work consultation 0.5 development field map 1 selection core area 0.5 establishment grid system – core area – 9 permanent plots (3-person field crew) First recording 1987 stand structure and composition and coarse woody debris (2-person field crew) core area 18 permanent plots 14 data storage 7 vegetation reserve (map) 1.5 1 core area (map & transect) 1.5 permanent plots (relevés) 2 data storage 1.5 soil & geology reserve 1.5 permanent plots 2 data storage 2 Second recording 1996 stand structure and composition and coarse woody debris (2-person field crew) core area 12 permanent plots 12 data storage 5 vegetation reserve (map) 1.5 1 core area (map & transect) 1.5 permanent plots (relevés) 2 data storage 1.5 156 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Experiences in other reserves
A total of 60 forest reserves are included in the Dutch forest reserve program. The size of these reserves ranges from 5 to 450 ha. So far 50 reserves have been recorded for the first time and already 10 of these reserves have been recorded for the second time. Based on our experiences in these reserves “Vijlnerbos” is an ordinary reserve for its size in terms of time needed for the fieldwork. Time-consuming reserves are either difficult to access (low thorny shrubby growth in the dune area, large number of small streams and ditches, large amounts of blown over trees) or have a low transparency (young stands, dense shrub layers). Under these circumstances especially the time needed for the establishment of the grid system might easily double.
Literature
Broekmeyer, M. 1999. The Netherlands. In: Parviainen et al (eds.). Research in Forest Reserves and Natural Forests in European Countries. EFI Proceedings 16: 177- 193. Stuurman, F.J. & J. Clement, 1993. The standardised monitoring programme for forest reserves in The Netherlands. In: Broekmeyer et al. (eds.). European Forest Reserves. p. 99-108. Pudoc Scientific Publishers. Wageningen.
6 Summaries of Data Collected in Different Countries
An overview of existing methodologies for the monitoring of stand dynamics in Strict Forest Reserves
Kris Vanderkerkhove Instutute for Forestry and Game Management Gaverstraat 4 9500 Geraardsbergen Belgium
Introduction
Strict Forest Reserves are important research areas, both for fundamental and applied scientific research. They allow us to study the principles and mechanisms of forest dynamics and are the basic reference tools for nature based silviculture. They provide information on how to manage our forests in a close-to-nature context and act as controls for the evaluation of management impacts on the ecosystem and its faunal and floral components.
Ideally, truly virgin forests best perform these functions; however near-natural or managed forests that have been left unmanaged for long periods provide a modest ‘ersatz’, i.e. the next best alternative (Leibundgut, 1966).
Historical development
The first Strict Forest Reserves were established during the 19th century for ‘aesthetic’ reasons. Very little research was carried out in them. However, the first studies of forest structure and COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 157 dynamics in Strict Forest Reserves date back to the end of the 19thcentury. At that time the first full inventories were made of the last remnants of virgin forests in Central Europe, some of which had, by that time, received protection status.
Shortly after the Second World War, ideas on nature-based silviculture, which dated back to the beginning of the 20thcentury, received considerable interest, especially amongst the forestry universities in Central-Europe. This generated interest in strict reserves and more elaborate research programmes were established, using full inventories and line transects to study distribution and structure of different developmental stages (Leibundgut, 1959, 1981; Mayer, 1966, 1967, Mayer et al., 1988;Mlinsek, 1970; Korpel, 1995; Prusa, 1985)
From the 1970s onward, more attention was paid to the analysis of soil and ground vegetation; until then, measurements focused almost exclusively on trees, stand structure and tree mortality.
During the 1970s, interest in developing forest reserves increased in Germany, not only within forest science disciplines, but also for nature conservation purposes. In the absence of true virgin forests, well-structured managed forests were selected to become ‘natural’ forest reserves. Monitoring programmes applied here were initiated using a different approach, based on circular sampling plots within a grid system and detailed research in core areas (Albrecht, 1990; Bücking, 1990; Althoff et al., 1993). Within the Dutch forest reserves programme this methodology was further developed (Koop, 1989; Broekmeyer, 1995).
Even more recently, Strict Forest Reserves have become more important than ever, not only for their research potential, but also for nature conservation objectives. This is also reflected in modern research programmes. Not only do these programmes receive more attention, but also the scope of research has broadened to include important topics, which affect nature conservation. Inventories and monitoring of populations of fungi, birds, bats, saproxylic invertebrates and red-data book species are increasingly being integrated into monitoring programmes (Bücking, 1996; Rauh, 1993; Köhler, 1996).
In Scandinavian countries and in the British Isles, strict reserves have been established primarily for nature conservation, with nature-based silviculture being only of secondary interest. It is only very recently that there has been sufficient interest in developing forestry- related research in these areas. Nevertheless, there are important long-term studies of natural stand change and dynamics, with some transects in nature reserves dating back to the 1940s- 50s (Peterken and Backmeroff 1988; Mountford et al., 1999).
Principal Results
The actual status and methodologies of monitoring programmes in the different member countries of COST-E4 are elaborated in Table 1 below. This information was largely derived from a questionnaire prepared by COST-E4 Working Group 2 and filled by the country representatives in this working group, combined with information derived from the country reports published in Parviainen et al., (eds.) (1999) and Diaci (ed.) (1999).
The principal findings confirm what might be expected as a result of historical developments in this field, i.e. although most of the countries have initiated monitoring programmes to study forest dynamics in Strict Forest Reserves, there are a wide variety of methodologies and parameters monitored in the different countries. 158 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Methodologies can be split into two main groups : - Many programmes, especially in Central European countries and a number in the UK have utilised long line transects, occasionally combined with mapping of the developmental stages for the whole reserve, based on full inventories or aerial photographs. - Austria, the Netherlands Belgium and most German States have adopted grids of circular sampling plots, - sometimes combined with detailed studies in a core area. Plot designs using clusters of circular plots are applied in Finland.
Moreover, there is considerable variation in plot sizes, plot densities, and parameters measured across Europe. Even for parameters that seem very obvious and clearcut, different recording methods exist : - Dead wood degradation stages are given in most countries, however the number of identifiable stages varies; most countries use four stages, some have five and others only three stages of degradation. - DBH is measured in all countries. However, the minimum threshold varies between 1 to 10 cm DBH.
Discussion
In many countries, monitoring programmes have existed for many decades. One of the basic rules in monitoring programmes that incorporate permanent plot systems is to adhere to the chosen system, design and methodology. Only then can comparable data sets be compiled and subsequently, reliable conclusions elucidated. The more repetitions of parameter measurements that are made, the more interesting and reliable are the results and conclusions. Thus, it would be most unlikely and inadvisable that countries change their existing sampling programmes and methodologies.
The original goal of Working Group 2, namely the development of a common sampling plot technique for all European countries, is almost certainly over ambitious. The Working Group can however, produce a number of suggestions and recommendations for countries where new programmes have yet to be established.
If different countries wish to co-operate and combine their data for analyses - which is strongly advisable - recommendations can be made on how to rationalise national monitoring programmes so that data comparisons can be made.
Conclusions
1. It is possible that general conclusions can be drawn where different methodologies are used. Existing methodologies can certainly be expanded; it is better to have a broad as opposed to a narrow focus, to keep records simple and archive details of the methodology used. 2. A standard approach is unlikely to prove suitable because the aims of forest dynamic studies differ between countries across Europe (dynamics of canopy trees, factors controlling regeneration, influence of soil, etc.). In addition, conditions vary between sites within countries and in different parts of Europe. Recorders may need to introduce new methods or temporarily abandon existing methods as new methods arise superseding existing practices. 3. Advice on the minimum threshold for measuring different parameters (e.g. minimum stem size) is desirable as this enables comparison. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 159
4. Long-term studies are by their nature somewhat open-ended as we cannot foresee what may arise in the future and the influence new factors may have on individual sites.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the country correspondents of WG2 for their valuable additions and corrections to the draft version of this paper. Especial thanks to Ed Mountford, Keith Kirby, and Aileen O’Sullivan and Declan Little for checking the language.
References
This paper was based primarily on a questionnaire on research methodologies used for forest dynamics monitoring produced by H. Koop (former Chairman of WG2) and completed by the COST-E4 WG2 country representatives.
Additional information was gathered from the country reports published in:
Parviainen J., Little D., Doyle M., O’Sullivan A., Kettunen M. & Korhonen M. (eds.) (1999). Research in Forest Reserves in European Countries – Country reports for the COST Action E4: Forest Reserves Research Network EFI Proceedings 16. Diaci J. (ed) (1999). Virgin Forests and Forest Reserves in Central and East European countries. Proceedings of invited lecturers’ reports presented at the COST-E4 meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana
Further references and sources of information used in this paper:
Albrecht L. (1990). Naturwaldreservate in Bayern - Schriftenreihe, Band 1. Grundlagen, Ziele und Methodik der waldökologischen Forschung in Naturwaldreservaten. Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten; 220 pp. Althoff B, Hocke R. & Willig J. (1993). Naturwaldreservate in Hessen no. 2 : Waldkundiche Untersuchungen - Grundlagen und Konzept. Mitteilungen der Hessischen Landesforstverwaltung 25, 170 pp. Balcar P. (in prep.). Aufnahme waldkundlicher Naturwalddaten – Ergebnisse einer 1997/1998 durchgeführten Bundesländerumfrage. Arbeitskreis Naturwalder in der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Forsteinrichtung – Projectgruppe Datenerfassung und – auswertung. Unpublished paper Broekmeyer M.E.A. (1995). Bosreservaten in Nederland. IBN_DLO-rapport 133. Bücking W. (1989). Bericht des Landes Baden-Württemberg über den Stand der Einrichtung, Sicherung, Bestandserfassung und Dauerbeobachtungen von Naturwaldreservaten. Natur und Landschaft 64(12): 550-553. Bücking W. (1996). Faunistische Untersuchungen in Bannwäldern. Agrarforschung in Baden- Württemberg, Band 26, 147-159. (Veröffentlichung der Fachtagung ‘Waldwirtschaft und Ökologie) Kirby, K.J., Thomas, R.C. & Dawkins, H.C. (1996). Monitoring of changes in the tree and shrub layers in Wytham Woods (Oxfordshire), 1974 - 1991. Forestry. 69: 319-334. Köhler F. (1996). Käferfauna in Naturwaldzellen und Wirtschaftswald. Landesanstalt für Ökologie, Bodenordnung und Forsten/ Landesamt für Agrarforschung NRW, LÖBF- Schriftenreihe, Band 6, 283 pp. Koop H. (1989). Forest Dynamics, SILVI-STAR : A comprehensive Monitoring System. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 160 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Korpel’ Š. (1995). Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten. Gustav Fischer Verlag. Leibundgut H. (1959). Über Zweck und Methodik der Struktur- und Zuwachsanalyse von Urwäldern Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 110(3): 111-125 Leibundgut H. (1966). Waldreservate. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwezen 117, 900-907 Leibundgut H. (1981). Europäische Urwälder der Bergstufe. Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern und Stuttgart. 306 pp. Mayer H. (1966). Analyse eines urwaldnahen, subalpinen Lärchen-Fichtenwaldes im Lungau Cbl. ges. Forstwesen 83(3): 129-151. Mayer H. (1967). Das Fichten-Naturwaldreservat Rauterriegel am Eisenhut bei Turrach. Cbl. ges. Forstwesen 84(2-6): 279-307. Mayer, H., Zukrigl, K., Schrempf, W. & Schlager, G. (Eds) (1987). Naturwälder In Österreich. Natural Forests in Austria. Eigenverlag Institut für Waldbau der Universität für Bodenkultur, Wien, 970 pp. Mlinšek D. (1970). Verjüngung und Entwicklung der Dickungen im Tannen-Buchen Urwald ‘Rog’ (Slowenien). IUFRO-W.C. 1970 –proceedings: 436-442 . Møller, P.F. 1987: Overvågning af naturskov i Draved Skov, Sønderjylland. Naturovervågning – rapport fra et symposium i Middelfart. Skov- og Naturstyrelsen. p. 357-362. Møller, P.F. 1988: Metoder i DGU' overvågning af skovs sundhedstilstand. Luftforureningens indflydelse på de danske skove. Skov- og Naturstyrelsen. p. 106-108 Mountford E.P., Peterken G.F., Edwards P.J. & Manners J.G. (1999). Long-term change in growth, mortality and regeneration of trees in Denny Wood, an old-growth wood- pasture in the New Forest (UK). Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 2(2): 223-272. Nielsen, F., Brøgger-Jensen, S., Larsen, J.B. & Møller, P. F (1995) Basisprogram for Naturskovsforskningen. Projektrapport; Kgl. Veterinær- og Landbohøjskole. 106 pp. Peterken, G.F. and Backmeroff, C.E. (1988). Long-term monitoring in unmanaged woodland nature reserves. Research and Survey in Nature Conservation No.9. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. Průša E. (1985). Die böhmische und mährischen Urwälder Vegetace CSSR A 15 – Academia Praha. Rauh J. (1993). Faunistisch-ökologische Bewertung von Naturwaldreservaten anhand repräsentativer Tiergruppen. Naturwaldreservate in Bayern; Schriftenreihe band 2; 200 pp. Sykes, J.M. & Lane A.M.J. (1996). The United Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites. The Stationery Office, London. Thomas, A., Mrotzek, R., Schmidt, W. 1995. Biomonitoring in naturnahen Buchenwäldern. Aufgaben, Methoden und Organisation eines koordinierten Biomonitoringsystems in naturnahen Waldökosystemen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. BFN-Abschluβbericht, Angewandte Landschaftsökologie 6, Bonn-Bad Godesberg. 151 p. Winter,K (coordinator) (1999). Programm zur Untersuchung der Fauna in Naturwäldern. IHW- Verlag. Eching bei München. 61 pp. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 161
Table 1. Overview of research methodology systems for monitoring forest stand dynamics in the participating countries of COST E4.
Country Methodology for monitoring stand dynamics Additional information and research / specification/differentiation Austria Guidelines for the establishment of monitoring plots, including a mandatory, Global information : Name, area, size, short description Standard detailed field manual under the new National Forest Reserve Programme. (height, slope, climate factors, geological substrate, soil monitoring Sampling method : Circular plots (150-100 m²) in grids (50*50 or 100*100) type) programme and/or transects (10(20)*30(50)m or full inventory (small reserves). Regeneration Specific description : forest history (pollen analysis), stand started in in small sub-plots (1-4 m²) structure 1995 Ground-vegetation : 100-500 m² (Braun-Blanquet) resulting in forest Under the National Forest Reserve Programme, which communities – maps (based on relevés), was initiated in 1995,a minimal programme was developed Mapping scale : 1/1000 to 1/10.000 for standard reserves and an ‘enlarged programme’ for key Mapping of developmental stages reserves. The minimal programme includes key parameters The new National Forest Reserves Programme includes a standard monitoring that should be monitored at the very least while the programme based on a permanent grid system, i.e. BITTERLICH sampling plot ‘enlarged programme’ contains extra parameters. Vegetation techniques. All trees <1.3 m are recorded using polar co-ordinates for periodical relevés measured using the Braun Blanquet method, where measurement: species. DBH in mm using girth band, tree height, stem quality and possible, within the grid system. occasionally age. Monitoring frequency: dependant on forest community type. Detailed soil mapping and description, and mapping of forest communities are obligatory. Specific monitoring programmes carried out in key reserves, i.e. burned areas or virgin forest remnants. Remote sensing using aerial photography in key reserves and additional faunistic research at selected sites. Belgium Sampling method : (Flanders) Standard : circular plots in grid (50*50-100*100) + core area (1ha). Standard programme for 30 reserves Nested circular plots : Minimum programme for all others: transects 10*100 m (1 Standard 1000 m² : position, species and DBH of trees (DBH>40cm) transect every 3-4 ha) monitoring 500 m² : position, species and DBH of trees (DBH> 8 cm) Additional faunistic research in selected reserves : programme 100 m² : regeneration / 16*16m square : vegetation relevés - xylobiontic organisms to commence Light measurements and soil sampling - bird inventories in 2000 Core area : full inventory with crown projections. - mosses, lichens and fungi. 162 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Denmark Sampling method : Minor strict reserves were established by the Geological No standard A basic research programme for natural forests was developed in 1995 (Nielsen Survey in 1948 in stands dominated by native species. The monitoring et al., 1995) but has yet to be implemented. It is planned that permanent plots will purpose was to use long term monitoring of forest dynamics programme be established where tree positioning, DBH and tree height will be measured. for in order to obtaining better tools for interpreting pollen to date Biogeochemical and climatic measurements, as well as inventories of flora, fungi diagrams. (Pollen analysis is a major topic of research). and selected groups of insects are envisaged. Approximately 6 to 8 strict reserves Some specific research on structure, dynamics and light- are presently monitored at regular intervals by a number of institutions in conditions is carried out at some reserves Denmark. However, this is not done using a standardised methodology. In Draved skov, 2 stands of 4-6 hectares each, have been monitored intensively since1948, while the geological Survey of Denmark have been monitoring in Eldrup Skov 1 stand of 9 hectares since 1968. Monitoring includes canopy trees (position (mapping), diameter, crown health, etc., for all trees with dbh > 10 cm) on single tree level and understory at grid level (25 m2). Soil and herb vegetation are assessed on a 10*10 meter grid. Pollen deposition is monitored using traps (Møller 1987, 1988). Finland Sampling method : Vegetation relevés, vegetation mapping, fauna, humus soil Monitoring 400-500 permanent sample plots established in strictly protected areas spread and nutrient cycling are optional depending on the programme across all forest types in Finland (some plots in Russia) availability of experts, i.e. optional -not included in the started in Typically a plot consists of 1 central circle (circle size : 900-2500 m² depending standard programme. 1993 on stem number) and 8 satellite circles (circle size: 180-500 m² depending on stem number). All trees (living and dead, DBH>5cm) are recorded in the central plot and 4 of the 8 satellite plots (species location, DBH, understorey, health, shape; (Height and bole length for designated individuals). Small trees (DBH<5cm are recorded in all 9 plots (circle size: 100m²). Monitoring frequency : 10 years France Monitoring and research carried out in Fontainebleau. In 1999, a monitoring programme of Strict Forest Reserves was launched in public forests, based on the No COST - guidelines (e.g. the strict forest reserve of Guebwiller in the "Vosges" systematic mountains, ca. 110 ha). monitoring programme to date COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 163
Germany Sampling method : (based on Balcar (s.d.) In 13 Länder, monitoring programmes are performed. In 4 cases, a grid of In almost all States, ground flora is studied using vegetation Every ‘State’ circular sample plots is used, in 1 State, a core area is used, while in 7 States, a relevés in the sample plots. has its own combination of both is used. Full inventories are only used in the monitoring A great deal of additional research is done on fungi, system. programme of one State. Sample plots vary in size between 0.05 and 0.5 ha xylobiontic beetles, birds, and other ecosystem components. Some (mostly 0.1 ha), while core areas vary between 0.21 to 2 ha (generally 1 ha). Also reserve areas are often compared with managed areas programmes Measurements : located nearby. This research however is, as a rule, limited to initiated as Living trees (DBH >4 –7 cm (in most cases > 7 cm): species, DBH, height (all), case studies, and is not systematically included in the early as x,y co-ordinates (11 out of 13), crown-parameters (5), bole-length (5), IUFRO- monitoring programme. 1975, but classification (8) most were Regeneration : in small subplots, including shrubs < 7 cm DBH initiated Dead wood : considerable variation on minimum diameter for lying dead wood ; between DBH, length, degradation stage (4 classes), species (where possible) 1985 and 1990. Greece Only a few experimental plots designed according to COST guidelines. Vegetation relevés optional No Sampling method : systematic Single circular plots of 500-1000 m². Tree species, position, DBH. monitoring Minimum size DBH = 5 cm programme to date
Hungary An official programme, focussing on ten so-called ‘sample and demonstration Other data is now being collected in the ten study areas reserves’ was initiated in 1997, however the monitoring programme is still being including : First developed. After mapping of developmental stages and forest-types, permanent Geological description, historical data, detailed soil-mapping monitoring/ plots are installed in each of the ten reserves. Until recently, vegetation and soil (1/5000) and soil-profile analysis, meteorological research surveys were generally the norm. observations, microclimatic studies, tree ring analyses on initiated in Sampling method : dead wood, vegetation mapping, mosses, fungi, data 1986; Mainly transects (20*20 m) (also sample plots on a 50*50 m grid; variable size processing of aerial photographs and faunal inventories systematic using relascope monitoring/ Measurements : Tree species, position, DBH, height and crown dimensions research started in 1997 164 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Ireland Isolated monitoring projects with permanent plots since 1975; no standard The sites with longest data sets include those at Killarney and No methodology Glendalough. Roughly ten years of data collected at systematic Sampling method : Brackloon Wood, i.e. forest health, radioisotopes, soil fauna, monitoring sample plots of 25-15000 m² flora (ground and arboreal), bats, birds – all using approved programme Major emphasis on vegetation description and assessment of regeneration – methodology, i.e. UN-ECE and ECN protocols. to date published data on stand structure is scarce Soil research, pollen analyses and site history combined in order to interpret future monitoring data more accurately Italy Sampling method : Dendrochronology No 24 permanent plots, 1-6 ha each (84 ha in total) are left unmanaged and have been systematic studied since 1952. Dendrometric and floristic analysis monitoring programme to date Netherlands Sampling method : Additional research in all monitoring sites : Systematic Combination of circular plots and core areas Soil profiles (every circular plot), geological mapping, aerial monitoring 50-70 circular plots (500m²) stratified randomly selected on a 50*50 m grid. photography started in Living trees : DBH (>5cm), co-ordinates, species; Small trees (DBH>5cm) Mapping of indicator species denoting old-growth forests 1988. counted and height >0.5 m; dead wood (DBH>10 cm) : species, DBH, Additional research on fungi, birds and beetles at some sites degradation phase vegetation relevés (18*18 m, 36 subplots), 1 core-area (70*140 m = 1 ha) : vegetation mapping, living trees (DBH>5cm) : species, DBH, co-ordinates, crown-parameters; dead wood : cfr. Circular plots; vegetation and regeneration studies in central strip (10*140 m) Monitoring frequency : 10 years Norway Some studies and inventories are carried out when reserves are being established. An inventory of red data book species is carried out. No The Norwegian Monitoring Programme for Terrestrial Ecosystems, established in Mapping of indicator species. Integrated studies of chemical systematic 1990, includes research on stand structure, ground vegetation and epiphytic and biological monitoring, including precipitation, soil, monitoring lichens in some protected forest areas. The ground vegetation is monitored in vegetation and faunal parameters. programme permanent plots at different scales, using 0.25*0.25m, 1*1m and 5*10m sample to date plots in selected core areas. Portugal No monitoring programme on protected areas; only plant inventories, vegetation Additional faunistic inventories are performed in places No mapping and phytosociological studies systematic monitoring programme to date COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 165
Slovakia Long-term research : main results published in Korpel (1993) Biogeochemistry Sampling method : Very long Permanent experimental plots of variable size (occasionally whole reserves) : tradition of living trees DBH>8 cm : species, DBH, height, sociological (age) class, stem and monitoring crown quality, degree of sucker formation, damage; necromass (3 degradation in strict phases) reserves Transects : living trees DBH >1cm : species, DBH, height, position, crown parameters, regeneration (using 4 height classes) Monitoring frequency : 5-10 years Slovenia Sampling method : Some reserves have very valuable data sets, i.e. repeated Very long 1882-1950 : full inventory of stand structure in the old-growth forest reserves (up measurements at regular intervals over 100 years. tradition in to 100 ha) Additional research : Phytocoenology, zoology, birds, fungi monitoring 1951-1980 : in 25-30 reserves : additional new network of permanent plots in all Recent developments : emphasis on inter-disciplinary and of strict typical identifiable developmental phases of the woodland : transects mainly of 1- comparative research in reserves and managed areas reserves 2 ha measurements : living trees (>5cm DBH) : species, species co-ordinates, DBH, height, sociological (age) class, stem and crown quality, damage, health condition; necromass : species, level of degradation, co-ordinates; shrub, ground-vegetation and mosses; subplots for regeneration patterns Monitoring frequency : 5-10 years Spain Structural, dynamic and functional studies on natural forests are very scarce, Inventories made for the EU Habitats Directive and for the No permanent plots almost non-existent. A detailed monitoring programme occurs at inventory of National and Natural Parks of Spain. systematic only one location, i.e.: in Garajonay N.P. (Started in 1995) Additional research in Garajonay : hydrology, climatology, monitoring Sampling method : inventories of autochthonous and introduced fauna, programme Global vegetation level : information on structure, growth, regeneration, mortality endangered species, qualitative erosion, fuel accumulation in all forest communities : circular plots of 250-900 m² in a 500*500 grid (62 and aerial photography plots) Living trees DBH>7 cm : species, DBH, height, vitality, regeneration : in subplots; vegetation relevee in 10*10m subplot Gaps and necromass (DBH>10 cm) measured and positioned; Monitoring frequency : 10 years Additional necromass studies in transects (DBH>40 cm) : measured annually Intensive vegetation monitoring : 6 circular plots out of 900-2500 m² Monitoring frequency : 5 years 166 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Sweden Strict reserves are especially selected for protection purposes, not for research Many independent research activities in National parks and No An ‘Integrated environmental monitoring’ programme is performed at 18 reserves, which mainly focus on conservation biology : systematic locations : measurements of a wide range of ecosystem variables in small - inventory of fauna and flora in remnant biotopes monitoring catchment areas - biodiversity indicators in the forest landscape programme - bird and xylobiont beetle inventories United No nationally co-ordinated research programme on forest dynamics, but the Some UK environmental change network sites include forest Kingdom statutory nature conservation body in England (English Nature) is initiating a reserves: integrated monitoring of a wide range of variables, programme in a representative series of semi-natural reserves managed under a including climate, hydrology, air pollution, vegetation, soils No minimum intervention policy. Part of the Environmental Change Network (ECN) and animal populations systematic monitors forest dynamics and there are several existing baselines and some Forest vegetation and tree measurements: Up to 50 square monitoring important long-term studies in unmanaged woodland reserves (Peterken and permanent plots, 10 m*10 m, randomly selected from a grid. programme Backmeroff 1988) In each plot up to 10 trees are marked and recorded for DBH Sampling method : 20 m wide transects (some are up to 1 km long), small plots every three years and for height, every nine years. Ground based on a 50-100m grid system or individual plots: all living trees over 1.3 m vegetation is recorded every nine years in these plots; other height and all stems over 1-5cm DBH: position, species, DBH, crown position (5 plots are used to record ground vegetation every three years classes), crown parameters (in rough classes), crown dieback, trunk damage, (Sykes & Lane, 1996). There are also grid systems description of stem form elsewhere, e.g. at Wytham Woods (established in 1976 – Necromass and canopy gap estimation : line transect method or measurement and Kirby et al., 1996) plotting of large dead wood pieces DBH >10 cm; length > 1m), plotting of gaps onto transect/plot diagrams
Ground vegetation : established coverage of each species per block Monitoring frequency : approximately every 10 years COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 167
Table 2. Differences in criteria measured and monitoring methodologies used in Strict Forest Reserves in fifteen European countries Country based grid transects line area core (ha) circular plot (m2) size ground vegetation mapping scale Tree min. height (cm) DBH min. (cm) wood dead classes Monitoring frequency (yr) Austria 50(100) * 50(100) 10(20) * 30(100) 1-4 BB 100-500 m2 1:1000 / 1:10000 130 - Belgium 50(100) * 50(100) 1 1000 (500) {100} 40 (8) {-} Finland 1*[900-2500] + 8*[180-500] <5 / >5 10 Germany 50(100) * 50(100) 0,2-2,0 500-5000 100-500 4-7 yes / 4 10 Greece 500-1000 5 Hungary Ireland 25-15000 Italy Netherlands 50*50 1 (70*140 m) 500 50 5 yes / 4 10 Norway Slovakia 8 (1) 5-10 Slovenia 1-2 5 Spain 500*500 250-900 (900-2500) 7 10 (5) Sweden UK 168 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
7 Broader Recommendations of Working Group II (7/5/99 – Thessaloniki, Greece)
In addition to the function of WGII (i.e. to make recommendations on design and methodologies for use in research in Natural Forest Reserves), the Group discussed a range of wider recommendations, which are presented below. These recommendations refer to important broader issues that need to be addressed, in order to further the applicability and relevance of research in natural forests.
NOTE: These recommendations are not listed in order of priority
Recommendations to Policy Makers
SECTION 1 - Management of Forests based on knowledge from Forest Reserves and Silvicultural Experiments
1. The area of forests in nature reserves should be increased and there is also a need for research on whether these new reserves should be managed or simply left to nature, for example, some restoration work may be needed.
2. Research and monitoring programmes should be established in as many forest reserves as possible.
3. Research is needed to develop tools with which to evaluate forest management.
4. Experimental plots should be established, in which different silvicultural techniques can be practically tested. This type of research, together with that from forest reserves research, would help in the development of guidelines for “close-to-nature” silviculture.
5. If management of a forest is changed from one management regime to another, there is a need to research the changes, which occur in the stand.
SECTION 2 - Networking in Europe
1. There is a need to expand the network of forest reserves in Europe, to include all of the important forest types. Some forest types may be under-represented or absent from reserves.
2. Promote the exchange of information between scientists and the public. There should be a platform for the exchange of results.
3. Working Group II has produced a common methodology for use in a network of reserves, for the exchange of scientific data. Each State should select key reserves to participate in this network, probably choosing forest types, which also occur in other European countries. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 169
SECTION 3 - Research on Forest Disturbance
1. Establish a network to evaluate the impact of herbivores on forest dynamics.
2. Monitoring of forests after major disturbances is recommended, to observe the post- disturbance succession in the forest.
3. Resource allocation for forest research programmes should reflect the erratic nature of major disturbances, and the consequent need for more intensive research.
SECTION 4 - Ecosystem Approach
1. There should be a multi-disciplinary approach to forest reserves research. We should encourage researchers of many different disciplines to visit and work in the forest reserves, e.g. invertebrates, palynology.
2. Need more integrated co-operation between foresters and ecologists/biologists in developing forest reserves research.
Recommendations to Working Group II and Scientists
1. WGII have recommended a “minimum data set” which should be gathered in forest reserves research. There is a need for researchers now to evaluate this minimum data set, to see how applicable it is.
2. There is a need for research to improve the methodologies for quantifying regeneration and dead wood in monitoring programmes.
3. It should be borne in mind that the approach taken in scientific research is site specific and depends also on the particular questions being addressed. Scientists should be flexible in their use of this methodology (but incorporate the “minimum data set”). 170 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
8 Appendices
Appendix 1. List of attributes to be assessed in forest reserves research
NOTE – Appendix 1 mm = millimetres; cm = centimetres; dm = decimetres (=0.1m) “categories” = you are required to devise categories or incremental classes for these attributes, rather than reporting individual values The Appendix is laid out in four columns: 1. Name of attribute 2. Source of data collection 3. Target of data collection 4. Recording units Attributes in italics are not part of the COST E4 Minimum dataset for forest reserves research
1A List of Attributes to be measured in Sample Plots over whole NFR (see Section 3) SITE CHARACTERISTICS Location field assessment sample plot latitude/longitude Slope field assessment sample plot % Aspect field assessment sample plot o (degrees) Topography/Relief field assessment sample plot categories Soil type field assessment sample plot categories Vegetation type field assessment sample plot categories (phytosociology)
STAND CHARACTERISTICS Standing Live Trees – each measurement to be made for each stem in Sample Plot Species field assessment each stem Latin name Diameter at breast height (D.B.H.) field assessment each stem cm Height (to top of crown) field assessment each stem dm Location field assessment each stem X,Y co-ordinates Height to base of living crown field assessment each stem dm Estimate of Timber Volume functions, tables each stem m³
Standing Dead Trees – each measurement to be made for each stem in Sample Plot Species field assessment each stem Latin name D.B.H. field assessment each stem cm Height (to top of tree) field assessment each stem dm Stage of decay field assessment each stem categories COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 171
Location field assessment each stem X,Y co-ordinates Estimate of Timber Volume functions, tables each stem m³
Shrub Layer – if shrub layer abundant, measurements can be made in subplots within Sample Plot Species field assessment subplot area Latin name Number of stems field assessment subplot area categories Height of stems field assessment subplot area categories
Regeneration Layer - if regeneration layer abundant, measurements can be made in subplots within Sample Plot Species field assessment subplot area Latin name Number of stems field assessment subplot area categories Height of stems field assessment subplot area categories Damage from herbivores field assessment subplot area categories Regeneration origin (seedlings, sprouts, etc.) field assessment subplot area categories
Lying Dead Wood – each measurement to be made for each component in Sample Plot Species field assessment each component Latin name Component field assessmenteach componentcategories (whole tree/stump/stem/branch/etc.) Diameter at Breast Height (D.B.H.) field assessment each component cm Length/Height field assessment each component dm Stage of decay field assessment each component categories Estimate of Timber Volume functions, tables each tree m³
Ground Vegetation Species list (higher plants) field assessment sample plot Latin names Cover/abundance of species (higher plants) field assessment subplot area %, or categories Total Cover of Bryophytes, Lichens, Fungi field assessment subplot area %, or categories 172 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
1B List of Attributes to be measured in Core Areas within NFR (see Section 4) SITE CHARACTERISTICS Location field assessment core area latitude/longitude Slope field assessment core area % Aspect field assessment core area o (degrees) Topography/Relief field assessment core area categories Soil type field assessment core area categories Vegetation type field assessment core area categories (phytosociology)
STAND CHARACTERISTICS Standing Live Trees – each measurement to be made for each stem in Core Area Species field assessment each stem Latin name Diameter at breast height (D.B.H.) field assessment each stem cm Height (to top of crown) field assessment each stem dm Location field assessment each stem X,Y co-ordinates Height to base of living crown field assessment each stem dm Crown Projection field assessment each tree dm Stem Quality field assessment each stem categories
Vitality field assessment each stem categories Estimate of Timber Volume functions, tables each stem m³
Standing Dead Trees – each measurement to be made for each stem in Core Area Species field assessment each stem Latin name D.B.H. field assessment each stem cm Height (to top of tree) field assessment each stem dm Location field assessment each stem X,Y co-ordinates Stage of decay field assessment each stem categories Estimate of Timber Volume functions, tables each stem m³ COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 173
Shrub Layer – if shrub layer abundant, measurements can be made in subplots within Core Area Species field assessment subplot area Latin name Number of stems field assessment subplot area categories Height of stems field assessment subplot area categories
Regeneration Layer - if regeneration layer abundant, measurements can be made in subplots within Core Area Species field assessment subplot area Latin name Number of stems field assessment subplot area categories Height of stems field assessment subplot area categories Damage from herbivores field assessment subplot area categories Regeneration origin (seedlings, sprouts, etc.) field assessment subplot area categories
Lying Dead Wood – each measurement to be made for each component in Sample Plot Species field assessment each component Latin name Component field assessmenteach componentcategories (whole tree/stump/stem/branch/etc.) Diameter at Breast Height (D.B.H.) field assessment each component cm Length/Height field assessment each component dm Location field assessment each component X,Y co-ordinates Stage of decay field assessment each component categories Estimate of Timber Volume functions, tables each tree m³ 174 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Ground Vegetation Species list (higher plants) field assessment sample plot Latin names Cover/abundance of species (higher plants) field assessment subplot area %, or categories Total Cover of Bryophytes, Lichens, Fungi field assessment subplot area %, or categories COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 175
Appendix 2. Guidelines for measurement of attributes in forest reserves research
NOTE – Appendix 2 mm = millimetres; cm = centimetres; dm = decimetres(=0.1m) “categories” = you are required to devise categories or incremental classes for these attributes, rather than reporting individual values Four aspects of each attribute are presented: a) measurement rule – brief definition of attribute b) threshold – smallest measurement to include c) measurement scale – unit of measurement to be used d) data source
Site Characteristics Slope (Gradient) a) Average slope/gradient b) - c) %-classes d) field assessment
Aspect a) The exposure of a slope is the direction in which it faces b) - c) degrees d) field assessment
Relief a) Topography of sample plot area b) - c) categories d) field assessment
Description of Humus Layer a) Name of humus type b) - c) categories d) field assessment
Description of Soil Type a) Name of soil type b) - c) categories d) field assessment
Stand Characteristics
Standing Live Trees Definition: Living, standing trees (incl. shrubs) with a D.B.H. of 5 cm or greater
Position (X,Y) 176 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
D.B.H. a) Measured at 1.3m height above ground; on slope measured from uphill side. One reading, calliper (right leg) pointing to plot centre, on slope calliper pointing downhill. Measured point marked by drawing pin; paint. Or: use a tape measure to measure tree girth at 1.3m above ground, and calculate diameter from girth measurement. b) minimum d.b.h.: 5 cm c) cm d) field assessment
Tree height a) Height of tree from ground level to top of tree. b) minimum d.b.h.: 5cm c) 0.5m d) field assessment
Height to the living crown a) Length of stem from ground level to first living branch of crown b) minimum D.B.H.: 5cm c) 0.5m d) field assessment
Crown projection a) measurement of 8 radii (in the sky direction). By missing crown areas, the whole crown projection is averaged b) minimum DBH: 5cm c) 0.5m d) field assessment
Stem quality a) Stem quality according to given categories b) - categories c) - d) field assessment
Vitality (Needle/Leaf loss extent) a) Needle/Leaf loss extent and type of loss for the whole crown b) Categories c) assessment only on predominant and dominant sample trees d) field assessment Estimate of Timber Volume COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 177 a) Volume of growing stock estimated by functions and/or tables b) minimum d.b.h.: 5cm c) m³ d) calculation
Standing dead trees Definition: Dead, standing trees with a d.b.h. of 5 cm or greater
Position (X,Y)
D.B.H. a) Measured at 1.3m height above ground; on slope measured from uphill side. One reading, calliper (right leg)pointing to plot centre, on slope calliper pointing downhill. Measured point marked by drawing pin. b) minimum d.b.h.: 50 mm c) mm d) field assessment
(Tree) Height a) Height of tree (stem) from ground level to top of tree (stem). b) minimum D.b.h.: 5cm c) dm d) field assessment
Stage of decay a) - b) - c) Level of decay 1) recently dead (1-2) years 2) early phase: Bark loosens, timber is still solid, starting to rot in the middle <1/3 diameter 3) Advanced decomposition: splint soft, timber only partial hard, centre rotten >1/3 diameter 4) Badly decomposed: timber completely soft, surrounding completely loosened d) field assessment
Estimate of Timber Volume a) Volume of standing dead tree estimated by functions and/or tables b) minimum d.b.h.: 5cm c) m³ d) calculation
Stumps Definition: Stumps up to a height of 130cm and a minimum diameter of 10cm
D
Position (X,Y) 178 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Diameter a) Diameter at the break point b) minimum diameter : 10cm c) cm d) field assessment
Height a) b)cm c) cm d) field assessment
Estimate of Timber Volume a) Volume estimated by functions and/or tables b) minimum d.b.h.: 5cm c) m³ d) calculation
Lying dead stems and/or dead thick branches and/or trunk parts Definition: Dead, lying pieces, diameter of at least 10 cm at the lowest end
D1 D2
length
D2 D1
Height/Length
Position (X,Y)
Diameter a) Diameter (D1) at widest point and diameter (D2) at the top/narrowest point or at the sample plot border b) D2 must be ≥10 cm c) cm d) field assessment
Length a) Length between D1 and D2 b) - c) dm d) field assessment COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 179
Estimate of Timber Volume a) Volume estimated by functions and/or tables b) minimum diameter 10 cm c) m³ d) calculation
Stage of decay a) - b) - c) Level of decay 1) Freshly dead (1-2) years 2) Decay starting: Bark loosens, timber is still solid, starting to rot in the middle <1/3 diameter 3) Advanced decomposition: splint soft, timber only partially hard, centre rotten >1/3 diameter 4) Badly decomposed: timber completely soft, surrounding completely loosened d) field assessment
Shrub layer Definition: Living, standing woody plants (trees, shrubs) up to a d.b.h. of 5 cm and higher than 130cm
Number of individuals of each tree and shrub species a) Frequency classes of tree and shrub species in subplot area b) - c) Frequency classes Code n/m² n/ha 000 1 = 1 10.000 2 >1 - 3 10.001-30.000 3> 3≥30.001 d) field assessment
Number of plants per species a) Number of plants counted and recorded per species in regeneration plot (B), divided into height classes b) – c) number d) field assessment
Height of shrub layer a) - b) minimum height = 130cm; max. D.B.H. = 5cm c) height classes 1.3m – 4.0m 4.0m – 6.0m 6.0m – 8.0m ……… d) field assessment
Regeneration Layer Definition: Living young plants (trees, shrubs) higher than 30cm up to a height of 130 cm 180 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Frequency classes of tree and shrub species a) Frequency classes tree and shrub species in subplot area b) - c) Frequency classes Code n/m² n/ha 000 1 = 1 10.000 2 1 -3 10.001 - 30.000 3> 3≥30.001 d) field assessment
Browsing and/or grazing a) Damage class (browsing/grazing) of each tree species b) c) Categories Code Visible Damage 0 none 1 some damage, which does not inhibit further development 2 heavy damage, likely to inhibit further development 3 severe damage, stunted development („bonsai“ like) d) field assessment
Ground Vegetation Definition: Ground vegetation (includes all higher plants, i.e. ferns, grasses, herbs (no mosses))
Species Lists a) Species in subplot area b)- c) categories d) field assessment
Cover/Abundance of Ground Vegetation a) Coverage of ground vegetation on subplot area. Considered are all ferns, grasses, herbs (no mosses) b) - c) %; %-categories Braun-Blanquet Code Definition + very scarce, scattered, very little cover 1 sparse, little cover (less than 5% cover) 2 5-25% cover 3 25-50% cover 4 50-75% cover 5 75-100% cover d) field assessment COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 181
Appendix 3. A list of WG 2 members.
COUNTRY NAME CITY AFF FAX E-MAIL Austria G. Koch Vienna RI +43 1 878 382 250 [email protected] Belgium K. Geraardsbergen RI +32 54 41 0896 [email protected] Vandekerkhove Finland M. Varmola Rovaniemi RI +358 16 336 4640 [email protected] France J-P. Renaud Colmar AM +33 3 8979 7214 Germany W. Schmidt Göttingen UN +49 551 39 32 70 [email protected] Greece K. Kassioumis Ioannina RI +30 65 19 39 79 [email protected] Greece G. Vassilika RI +30 31 46 13 41 [email protected] Chatziphilippidis Hungary T. Standovár Budapest UN +36 1 333 87 64 [email protected] Hungary G. Paszty Vacratot RI +36 28 360 110 [email protected] Hungary Z. Somogyi Budapest RI +36 1 326 16 39 [email protected] Italy F. Ducci Arezzo RI +39 575 35 3 490 [email protected] Italy V. Tosi Trento RI +39 0461 381116 [email protected] The A. van Hees Wageningen RI +31 317 424 988 [email protected] Netherlands Norway B. Tommerås Trondheim RI +47 73 91 54 33 [email protected] Norway P.A. Aarrestad Trondheim RI +47 73 80 14 01 [email protected] Portugal P. Godinho Lisbon RI +351 1 361 0700 [email protected] Slovenia J. Diaci Ljubljana UN +386 61 271 169 [email protected] Spain M. Gracia Lleida UN +34 73 702 500 [email protected] Sweden K. Sjöberg Umeå UN +34 93 581 13 12 [email protected] United M. Morecroft Oxford RI +44 1865 202 612 [email protected] Kingdom
RI = Research Institute, UN = University, AM = Administration 182 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 183
COST Action E4
FOREST RESERVES RESEARCH NETWORK
WG3 “Forest Reserves Research Network Databank”
Risto Päivinen, Chairman of WG3, Finland
Andreas Schuck, Editor, Finland Ed Mountford, Editor, United Kingdom 184 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
CONTENTS
1 Introduction...... 184 2 Achievements...... 185 2.1 FRRN Home Page and Databank...... 185 2.2 Forest reserves in the FRRN Databank ...... 187 2.3 Site information in the FRRN Databank ...... 188 2.4 Evaluation of exercise results...... 189 3 Conclusions on the FRRN Databank ...... 190 4 Recommendations and challenges ...... 190 5 Appendices...... 192 Appendix 1. Forest Reserves Research Network databank poster downloadable from the Internet ...... 192 Appendix 2. An example of data submitted to the FRRN databank...... 193 Appendix 3. A list of WG3 members...... 193
1 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to provide a final, brief overview of the activities of the FRRN databank during the period of the COST Action E4, i.e. from 08.11.95 to 7.11.99. During the course of this Action, a pan-European databank and World Wide Web home page were constructed. These were regarded as important tools to facilitate co-operation, exchange and comparison of data between the countries participating in this Action, associated research organisations, and ongoing international processes.
The database has been constructed and is located at the European Forest Institute (Finland). The server database is working in a network (Internet) environment and can be accessed through the World Wide Web. An Internet browser is the only software required to access the FRRN home page and conduct searches in the FRRN databank. The Internet address for the FRRN home page at the European Forest Institute is: http://www.efi.fi/Database_Gateway/FRRN and the direct link to the FRRN databank may be found under the URL: (http://www.efi.fi/ Database_Gateway/FRRN/frrndbind.phtml). The home page and the databank are accessible for all user groups and is especially targeted at researchers.
The purpose of the FRRN databank is to serve as a tool for co-operation and co-ordination of research in forest reserves. The aim is to describe actual and potential forest areas useful for research across Europe. The potential areas comprise forests that have been left to develop freely in the Cost countries. The databank includes:
• A description of various national reserve types, including forests left to develop freely • A list of forest reserves, including semi-natural forests • A description of the ecological and administrative conditions at each reserve • Details of ongoing monitoring/research programmes in each reserve COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 185
2 Achievements
2.1 FRRN Home Page and Databank
The home page and databank were launched in February 1998 and, over a two year period, an interactive database and web site was developed. The data in the databank is arranged in a relational database, with standard forms to meet the requirements of a well-designed database structure. The home page and databank operate in an Internet environment that allows utilisation of the available information wherever a computer has access to the World Wide Web. The information can be viewed at http://www.efi.fi/Database_Gateway/FRRN/databank.pdf (Appendix 1).
The FRRN homepage includes several features in addition to the actual databank:
• Information on the objectives, activities and recent news concerning Cost Action E4 • A glossary of international terms on natural forests and natural forest research • A table describing the protection status of forest reserves and natural forests in Europe • Information on related actions, initiatives and processes • A communication forum to allow comments to be sent to the FRRN Manager.
The Web Site generated considerable interest and proved increasingly popular over the course of the Action. By November 1999, approximately 3000 hits had been made at the FRRN Home Page and circa 2800 at the databank page. This reflects a constant increase in usage (table 1).
Table 1. Visits to selected FRRN web pages.
Number of hits to selected FRRN web pages Page By 20th July By 14th of By 27th of By 15th 1998 October April 1999 November 1998 1999 FRRN home page 176 608 1791 3000
Databank page 164 854 1858 2830
The databank page automatically graphs the amount of entries to the database, per country, on a bar chart, as illustrated in Figure 1. This provides the user with a quick overview of the number of forest reserves entered by each country on the databank. 186 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Figure 1. The total number of forest reserves entered to the FRRN databank, by country, up to September 1999, as displayed on the bar chart at the FRRN homepage.
The data stored in the databank may be accessed through a search function available at the FRRN website (Figure 2). A sample search form is attached in Appendix 2. The search function is open to researchers and the general public and allows both general and very detailed searches to be carried out, e.g.:
• All forest reserves in the databank • All forest reserves in the country of Austria • All forest reserves in a particular country (or all countries) below 600 m in altitude with Fagus sylvatica as the dominant tree species and in which research on dead wood fauna is conducted.
Figure 2. The forest reserves research search page.
COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 187
2.2 Forest reserves in the FRRN Databank
By the end of the Action, the databank had become an important reference point for forest reserves research and related topics. Invitations and country level passwords were distributed to national correspondents in 18 European countries. Advice on how to enter and update reserves was given via the web page. By June 1998, input activities had begun and, during the period of the Action, information on Forest Reserves suitable for research was progressively added. By the end of November 1999, about 540 forest reserves from 15 countries had been entered, having progressed from 92 reserves in July 1998 and 390 in April 1999 (Table 2). The total number of reserves entered probably represents approximately 25 % of all the Strict Forest Reserves in the participating countries.
Table 2. Number of reserves in the FRRN databank.
Country Number of Reserves
By 20th of By 14th of By 27th of By November July 1998 October 1998 April 1999 1999
Austria 4 68 84 136 Belgium 8 17 16 17 Denmark 2 3 3 8
Finland 2 18 62 64
France 0 0 22 26
Germany 75 79 83 156
Greece 0 0 16 16
Ireland 1 1 1 4
Italy 0 0 5 5
Netherlands 0 3 24 24
Norway 0 0 0 1
Portugal 0 0 1 6
Slovenia 0 24 24 24
Sweden 0 0 20 19
United Kingdom 0 11 29 38
TOTAL 92 225 390 544
188 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
2.3 Site information in the FRRN Databank
Detailed information is contained in the databank and covers general, descriptive, research and meta-data information. The forest reserve is the basic unit of the databank. For each reserve the data covers the research/monitoring areas presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Data submitted by COST E4 participants in the Forest Reserves Research Network Reserves questionnaire entry form.
General data Descriptive data Monitoring and research Meta-data activities information Name, ownership, Tree species 1) Methods of 1) Organisation that geographical location, composition, age monitoring stand manages and co- size, status of structure, structure and methods in ordinates research, protection, year of developmental conducting research in contact person establishment, phases, core areas. information management history, disturbances, forest adjacent land use, vegetation type, 2) Information on other 2) Short altitude soil types, climatic specific research descriptions of conditions activities as e.g. pollen research projects analysis, soil analysis, performed in the herbal layer, reserve moss/lichen, fungi, light measurements, genetic resources, faunal inventories
The information for individual reserves is not always complete. This may be because some data is confidential, unavailable, or difficult or time-consuming to compile. In particular, there is a need to improve both the quality and the amount of available information on research projects; only a small number of entries have been made related to ongoing research projects in specific reserves (Table 4).
COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 189
Table 4. Number of Strict Forest Reserves and ongoing research projects from countries, which had entered information to the FRRN databank up to November 1999.
Country Actual number of strict Number of Number of reserves forest reserves reserves entered where research (Parviainen et al. 2000) into the databank projects are listed
Austria 191 136 124 Belgium 36 17 9 Denmark ~300 8 2
Finland 311 64 0
France 30 26 0
Germany 679 156 9
Greece 39 16 0
Ireland 34 4 4
Italy 119 5 0
Netherlands 60 24 0
Norway 160 1 0
Portugal 6 6 0
Slovenia 186 24 22
Sweden 849 19 0
UK 81 38 38
Total 3081 544 208
2.4 Evaluation of exercise results
A request was made at the end of the Action for each participating country to undertake an evaluation exercise to test the functionality of the databank and suggest areas for improvement. The main results of this exercise were the following:
• Language usage needs to be revised and spelling errors corrected • Due to the necessity to enter the organisation name repeatedly, spelling mistakes occurred. In some cases this led to a variety of names representing the same organisation. It was suggested that a pre-selected menu of alternative institutions be made available to chose from, in the individual countries. A similar approach was suggested for information on personnel. • It was suggested that incorrect or incomplete records be corrected by the country correspondents • Effective cut and paste facilities within the data entry form are required • An additional data field entitled ‘Data entrant’, i.e. containing the name of the person who entered the data, should be associated with each site record to facilitate further 190 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
queries and updates
A more detailed assessment of the databank would have more fully identified its shortcomings and how they might be minimised or eliminated. However, such an analysis would have required considerate of time and resources, which was beyond the scope and capacity of the Action.
3 Conclusions on the FRRN Databank
A major success of the Cost Action E4 has been the creation of the FRRN databank. It is an additional, supplementary output to the Action, in addition to the widely acclaimed country reports publication (EFI Proceedings Series No. 16 Jari Parviainen, Declan Little, Marie Doyle, Aileen O'Sullivan, Minna Kettunen and Minna Korhonen (editors): Research in Forest Reserves and Natural Forests in European Countries - Country Reports for the Cost Action E4: Forest Reserves Research Network). The databank has generated considerable interest amongst member countrries of the Cost Action E4, researchers and scientists, and other on-going relevant international process. It has brought together a group of leading national experts in the field of forest research and facilitates future co-operation. In addition, it has close links with other European research projects, including:
• Indicators for Forest Biodiversity in Europe, BEAR (http://www.algonet.se/~bear/) • The European Forest Ecosystem Research Network, EFERN (http://ifff.boku.ac.at/efern/)
The databank is unique as it contains a large volume of detailed site-based information on Forest Research Reserves at a European scale. It has the potential to serve as a reference focal point for research into natural forest dynamics, nature-based forestry and other related topics, and as a basis for further compilation and dissemination of information on forest reserves.
It should also be acknowledged that the host institution has managed the databank well. The Internet web site interface has been a popular means of communication, and has made data entry and access convenient. The search functions have made it possible to access summary information and customised queries.
On the whole there has been considerable enthusiasm to enter data into the FRRN databank using the standardised questionnaire. This questionnaire was devised by the Action members and allows comparative statistics to be elucidated between different countries. Feedback has shown that the databank has developed into a useful tool for a range of target groups and it appears to have the potential for widespread use. The momentum that has been generated during the initial phase should be fostered in developing the databank further.
4 Recommendations and challenges
Further development of the databank is required to improve it as a relevant and accessible source of information, and, importantly, to meet the demands of potential funding sources. The main weaknesses of the database are the lack of complete data sets and specific aspects of the databanks functionality. Within individual countries and individual sites there is considerable variation in data completeness because the questionnaire was not completed. In particular, information on stand development, details of the core reserve area, monitoring activities and ongoing research projects are incomplete or absent. This may be because no detailed COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 191 monitoring has been undertaken, but more than likely reflects the complexity and time consuming effort to compile the requested data. In addition, there are other European countries outside the Cost Action E4 participating countries that should be included in the databank (Table 5). The major challenge with respect to further databank development must address these issues.
Table 5. Strict Forest Reserves in countries that have not been entered into the FRRN databank (Parviainen et al., 2000).
Country Number of Strict Forest Reserves Bosnia-Herzegovina 27 Bulgaria Not available Croatia 32 Czech Republic 103 Hungary 63 Poland 106 Romania 55 Russia (Eur) Not available Slovakia 76 Spain 87 Switzerland 39 Total 588
There are other in which the databank could be developed. Firstly, it could form the basis of an information gathering system or network on ‘Protected Areas’ across Europe. Although this is considered to be quite plausible and an area of major interest within the European political system, it would require the establishment of a relevant network of experts, the co-operation of appropriate national departments, and alternative approaches to information gathering.
Another area would be to develop the FRRN databank as a reference focal point for research into Forest Ecosystem Dynamics. This is considered to be the most suitable course of action and should commence immedietly. It is a logical subsequent development as it would build on the existing meta-data based information system on Strict Forest Reserves developed to date, in addition to the creation of the specialist network of brought together during the term of Cost E4. Thus, the aim would be “To Construct a databank of Research into Forest Ecosystem Dynamics in Strict Forest Reserves across Europe”.
The most realistic avenue to achieve financing for further development of the databank in this manner is via the EU 5th Framework Programme. One of its objectives concerns “supporting the creation of thematic networks to stimulate infrastructure operators to co-operate and pool resources amongst themselves, including databases on Forest Ecosystem Dynamics”.
References
Parviainen, J., Kassioumis, K., Bücking, W., Hochbichler, E., Päivinen, R. and Little, D. 2000. Mission, Goals, Outputs, Linkages, Recommendations and Partners. Final Report. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network in Europe. The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Station. 27 p. 192 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
5 APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Forest Reserves Research Network databank poster which can be downloaded from the Internet COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 193
Appendix 2. An example of data submitted to the FRRN databank
Appendix 3. A list of WG3 members.
COUNTRY NAME CITY AFF FAX E-MAIL Finland R. Päivinen Joensuu RI +358 13 124 393 [email protected] (chairman of the WG 3) Finland C. Lin Joensuu RI +358 13 124 393 [email protected] Finland A. Schuck Joensuu RI +358 13 124 393 [email protected] Belgium K. Geraardsbergen RI +32 54 41 0896 [email protected] Vanderkerkhove Denmark J. Emborg Hörsholm AM +45 45 763233 [email protected] United E. Mountford Wem RI [email protected] Kingdom
RI = Research Institute, UN = University, AM = Administration 194 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 195
COST Action E4
FOREST RESERVES RESEARCH NETWORK
WG 3 “Forest Reserves Research Network Databank”
Analysis of the Databank contents
Andreas Schuck, Editor, Finland Tuomo Hytönen, Editor, Finland 196 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
CONTENTS
1 Introduction ...... 197 1.1 Cost Action E4 “Forest Reserves Research Network”...... 197 1.2 Aim of the “Forest Reserves Research Databank” technical report...... 198 2 Countries participating in FRRN database ...... 199 3 General description - Administrative data ...... 200 3.1 Ownership ...... 200 3.2 Geographical location ...... 201 3.3 Reserve size/area...... 202 3.4 Surrounding area ...... 203 3.5 Altitude (range) ...... 203 3.6 Status of protection...... 204 3.7 Designation of 'Strict Reserve' status ...... 206 3.8 Management history...... 206 4 Special descriptions...... 207 4.1 Tree species composition ...... 207 4.1.1 Dominant and other tree species...... 207 4.1.2 Measurement used to describe the percentage of the dominant species ...... 210 4.2 Area covered by even-aged stands...... 211 4.3 Area covered by uneven-aged stands...... 212 4.4 Disturbances in Strict Forest Reserves...... 212 4.5 Forest vegetation type ...... 214 4.6 'Other' and 'local' forest vegetation types ...... 216 4.7 Soil types...... 216 4.8 Mean temperature...... 217 4.9 Annual precipitation...... 218 5 Monitoring activities in Strict Forest Reserves ...... 218 5.1 Stand description...... 218 5.1.1 Inventory methodology ...... 218 5.2 More detailed description of the core area...... 219 5.2.1 Inventory method...... 219 5.3 'Other' research activities...... 220 5.4 Fauna inventory...... 222 6 Information on administrative and scientific monitoring/ research co-ordination in forest reserves ...... 222 7 Projects conducted in forest reserve...... 224 8 Conclusions ...... 226 8.1 The FRRN databank...... 226 8.2 Shortcomings...... 226 8.3 Future activities...... 227 9 References ...... 227 Appendices ...... 228 Annex 1. All plan species reported in the FRRN databank ...... 228 Annex 2. Species listed in Tables 9, 10, 11, 12 as “other species” ...... 229 Annex 3. Projects listed in the FRRN databank...... 230 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 197
1 Introduction
1.1 Cost Action E4 “Forest Reserves Research Network”
In 1995 the COST Commission (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) launched COST Action E4 “Forest Reserves Research Network” in order to promote research in “natural” forests. The objectives were to create a European network of forest reserves, to collect ongoing research, to standardise research methodology and to create an accessible central databank. The results are important for the application of nature-oriented silviculture, strict forest protection and forest reserve network planning. The duration of the action was 4 years, ending in November 1999. The goals of the Action were:
to survey and analyse current information on forest reserves and research to compile an overview of the published research reports on natural forests and forest reserves to develop and harmonise research methodology for monitoring forest structure to promote the establishment of a permanent sampling plot system to create a data bank for the compilation of information on forest reserves to work towards a common consensus on terminology and management approach for forest reserves and other categories of forest protection
During the course of Cost Action E4 one of three Working Groups, i.e. Working Group 3 (WG 3) was responsible for creating the “Forest Reserves Research Network” Databank (FRRN Databank). Its output is a pan-European databank and World Wide Web home page, which was constructed to assist the Action generally. The databank is seen as an important tool to facilitate co-operation, exchange and comparison of data between the Action members, associated research organisations, and relevant ongoing international programmes and processes.
The database has been constructed and is physically located at the European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland. The server database is on the Internet and can be accessed through the World Wide Web. An Internet browser is the only software required to access the FRRN home page and conduct searches on the FRRN databank. The data submitted is the responsibility of delegated country representatives participating in the Action. These delegates are thus responsible for collating the information on forest reserves. Data is submitted directly to the FRRN Databank using a customised, on-line questionnaire and may be updated continually. The Internet address for the FRRN home page at the European Forest Institute is: http://www.efi.fi/Database_Gateway/FRRN. The direct link to the FRRN databank may be found under the URL: http://www.efi.fi/Database_Gateway/FRRN/frrndbind.phtml.
The home page and the databank are accessible to all user groups and is especially directed at researchers. The databank provides information on actual and potential forest areas relevant to research in Europe. It focuses mainly on forests that have been left to develop freely within the Cost countries. The databank includes:
A description of the various national reserve classes, including forests left for free development A list of forest reserves including near-natural forests A description of the ecological and administrative conditions at each reserve 198 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Details of on-going research programmes in each reserve
1.2 Aim of the “Forest Reserves Research Databank” technical report
The final output from the COST Action E4 are the three working group reports and a final summary report (see ‘References’). In the Working Group 3 report it was stated that:
“the databank is unique. It contains a large volume of detailed, site-based information on forest reserves research at a European scale.
In order to supplement the final reports, and specifically the WG 3 report, the COST Action members recommended that a technical paper on the contents of the FRRN Databank be produced. An in-depth analyses facilitates presentation of the level of information detail that the 19 countries provided on their forest reserves. The evaluation was implemented at a very detailed level on a site-by-site basis. This information formed the basis for the following detailed analyses. For example, it is possible to ascertain all reported tree species from every country and reserve. The amount of information and level of detail exceeds the scope of this report and hence, summary tables have been provided. However, more detailed information is available from the European Forest Institute upon request.
The analyses also targets the weaknesses of the FRRN databank, especially pinpointing areas where there is a lack of information.
This technical report was compiled by the European Forest Institute and financially supported by COST. It will supplement the information base on forest reserves in European countries, which has been produced by COST Action E4 to-date.
Country abbreviations
Austria AT Belgium BE Denmark DK Finland FI France FR Germany DE Greece GR Ireland IE Italy IT Netherlands NL Portugal PT Slovenia SI Sweden SE United Kingdom UK COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 199
2 Countries participating in the FRRN database
The COST Action E4 countries that have submitted information to the FRRN Databank are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
The minimum criteria for submission of forest reserve data to the FRRN Databank is to enter the country, province/state or region and the name of the reserve. If these data are not provided, the information from that particular reserve is rejected.
According to Parviainen (1999) and Parviainen et al. (2000) there are over 3,300 strict forest reserves in the 19 participating COST E4 countries, of which 544 have been entered into FRRN databank.
All data in the FRRN databank submitted by Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom is available to the general public. As of now, Hungary, Iceland, Slovakia and Spain have not entered any reserve data into the databank. In Iceland there are no strict forest reserves presently existing.
Some countries have restricted access to information on their reserves as the information is not yet ready for general release. This may be due to incomplete data sets or for other reasons, such as legal constraints that require clarification before allowing data to be publicly available.
Table 1. The number of Strict Forest Reserves in each of the 19 participating countries.
Country Actual number of strict Number entered Blocked Reserves forest reserves into the entries accessible to the (Parviainen et al., 2000) databank general public Austria 191 136 2 134 Belgium 36 17 - 17 Denmark ~300 8 3 5 Finland 311 64 - 64 France 30 26 - 26 Germany 679 156 1 155 Greece 39 16 2 14 Hungary 63 - - - Iceland 0 - - - Ireland 34 4 - 4 Italy 119 5 - 5 Netherlands 60 24 22 2 Norway 160 1 1 - Portugal 6 6 - 6 Slovakia 76 - - - Slovenia 186 24 - 24 Spain 87 - - - Sweden 849 19 - 19 United 81 38 - 38 Kingdom Total 3307 544 31 513 200 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Of the 544 reserves, the data for 31 are “restricted”, leaving 513 reserves accessible to users of the FRRN databank. “Restricted entries” may mean new forest reserves, which have not yet been opened to the general public. They may also be updates/changes performed to already existing forest reserves but that in formation has not yet been accessible to the general public. The restricted entries can be released only by the responsible country delegates. In the following analyses, the “total number” of 513 refers to those reserves in the Databank that are publicly accessible. Again it should be noted that the number of strict forest reserves in the Databank is subject to change. The country delegates may add new strict forest reserves, update or make changes to existing reserves. They may also close presently publicly accessible reserves if required.
3 General description - Administrative data 3.1 Ownership
There are 8 ownership category options to choose from on a dropdown menu list when entering data, namely, publicly-owned, publicly-owned by State, publicly-owned by others, privately- owned, privately-owned by forest industries, privately-owned by other institutional, privately- owned by farmers and privately-owned by others. Multiple selections are also possible. Ownership was reported in 509 of the 513 reserves.
Most Strict Forest Reserves are publicly-owned. However, in Austria more than 60% of reserves are privately-owned, whilst in the United Kingdom this figure is approximately 50%. In Austria and the United Kingdom there is also the greatest variety of ownership types, ranging from ‘publicly-owned by State’ to ‘privately-owned by farmers and others’. In Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden there is only 1 ownership category is reported, i.e. all are State-owned public reserves. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 201
Table 2. Ownership categories for strict forest reserves submitted to the FRRN (See Annex 1 for country abbreviations).
AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT NL PT SI SE UK Total Number of reserves 132 17 5 64 26 154 14 4 5 2 6 23 19 38 509 Publicly-owned 10 - - - 2 18 1 - 3 - 2 11 - - 47 Publicly-owned by 19 16 2 64 24 140 13 4 - 2 1 20 19 20 344 State Publicly-owned by 1712-----2-2--4 28 others Total public 46 17 4 64 26 158 14 4 5 2 5 31 19 24 419 Privately-owned 59 - - - - 1 - - - - 2 4 - 8 74 Privately-owned by ------0 forest industries Privately-owned by 18-1------2 21 other institutional Privately-owned by 8------1 9 farms Privately-owned by 2------7 9 others Total private 87 - 1 - - 1 - - - - 2 4 - 18 113 Number of 1 131 17 5 64 26 149 14 4 5 2 5 11 19 35 487 ownership types 21----5----112-2 21 /reserve 3------1 1 Number of different ownership type / 72312321214316 2,7 country
3.2 Geographical location
Geographical coordinates (approximate centre of the reserve) is possible to report in two ways: the traditional method (latitude and longitude in degree, minute, second), or by UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator grid) coordinates (x (easting) and y (northing)) Latitude and longitude is reported in 118 of the 513 reserves, i.e. in all reserves submitted by the United Kingdom (38 of 38 reserves), Sweden (19 of 19 reserves) and Belgium (17 of 17 reserves). In contrast, latitude and longitude were not reported for reserves in Austria, France and the Netherlands. UTM coordinates are reported in 78 reserves, especially those in Germany (45 of 155 reserves) and Belgium (17 of 17 reserves).They are not reported for reserves in Austria, France, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Belgium is only country where both coordinates types are reported for all reserves. 202 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Table 3. Geographical location of the strict forest reserves in 12 of the participating Cost E4 countries.
Country Latitude & longitude UTM (x, y) coordinates BE 17 17 DK 3 5 FI 9 3 DE 4 45 GR 13 - IE 1 1 IT 3 5 NL - 2 PT 6 - SI 5 - SE 19 - UK 38 - Total 118 78
3.3 Reserve size/area
Of the 513 reserves submitted, the total area is reported for 497. An adjacent buffer zone area has been entered for 69 reserves. The size of the forest reserves vary from 0.7 ha to 285,484 ha, however most reserves (269 of 497) are less than 40 ha. The largest reserves, i.e. over 1,000 ha, are found mainly in Finland and Sweden.
Table 4. Reserve areas and size categories from 14 participating Cost E4 countries.
Number Reserve size categories (ha) Buffer Total of 0- 10- 20- 40- 60- 80- 100- 200- 500- 1000- zone: area reserves 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 500 1000 AT 132 45 6375 39 37 26 8 6 3 6 4 3 - BE 17 5 798 1 4 5 2 1 3 1 - - - DK3 4 27911-----1- - FI 64 - 891872 - 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 5 43 FR 26 2 1292 8 3 4 3 3 - 4 1 - - DE 153 - 6938 18 49 32 18 10 7 15 4 - - GR 14 5 9077 3 2 1 1 - - 4 - 1 2 IE 4 - 1574 - - - - - 1 - - 3 - IT 5 4 2153 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 NL 2 2 92 - - 1 1 ------PT 6 - 2827 - - 1 - 1 1 - - 2 1 SI 24 2 2808 4 6 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 - SE 9 - 63502 - - 2 1 - - - 2 - 4 UK 38 - 9700 5 4 5 3 3 - 10 6 - 2 Total 497 69 999287 80 107 82 43 28 19 45 24 16 53
Austria submitted data for more than 100 reserves, most of which are of small size, i.e. 57% are smaller than 20 ha. Similarily, most reserves in Belgium, France, Germany and Slovenia are also small. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 203
3.4 Surrounding area
Description choice of the area surrounding the reserve may be selected from 6 options in a drop-down menu. The choices include, natural forest, semi-natural forest, artificial forest, agriculture land (pasture, arable), urban area and water body. Multiple selections are also possible. The ‘surrounding area’ is reported for 355 of the 513 reserves. Portugal have not provided this information. In most reserves, the surrounding area is either semi-natural forest (251), artificial forest (90) or agricultural land (70).
Table 5. Descriptions of the surrounding area adjacent Strict Forest Reserves in 13 participating Cost E4 countries.
Country Number Natural Semi- Artificial Agriculture Urban Water Number of area of forest natural forest (pasture, area body types/reserve reserves forest arable) land 1234 AT 106 7 49 59 7 2 4 104 1 1 - BE 17 - 13 3 13 1 1 7 7 2 1 DK 5 - 2 2 4 - 2 - 5 - - FI 64 5 58 - 1 1 18 47 15 2 - FR 22 - 22 1 - - - 21 1 - - DE 57 6 51 - - - - 57 - - - GR 13 12 11 5 8 - 1 2 4 1 6 IE 4 - 2 1 4 - 1 - 4 - - IT 5 2 3 - - - - 5 - - - NL 2 - 2 - 2 - - - 2 - - SI 22 8 13 5 10 - 2 12 5 4 1 SE 2 2 - - - - - 2 - - - UK 36 - 25 14 28 2 4 10 15 11 - Total 355 42 251 90 77 6 33 267 59 21 8
3.5 Altitude (range)
There are three main groupings of altitude range: lowest (reported for 397 of 513 reserves), highest (available for 395 reserves) and average (available for 284 reserves). In Greece, altitude varies from between 0 and 2,917 metres; in Austria from 115 to 2,300 metres; in the Netherlands from 13 to 18 metres and in Denmark from 7,5 to 60 metres. 204 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Table 6. Altitude ranges in 14 participating Cost E4 countries.
Reserves reported (number) Altitude range (meters) From To Average Lowest Highest AT 123 123 95 115,0 2300,0 BE 17 17 - 5,0 130,0 DK4447,560,0 FI 11 11 11 0,0 1000,0 FR 22 22 2 89,0 1913,0 DE 129 128 111 5,0 2047,0 GR 14 14 14 0,0 2917,0 IE 4 4 1 0,0 300,0 IT 5 5 - 1200,0 2300,0 NL 1 1 2 13,0 18,0 PT 3 3 3 380,0 1438,0 SI 23 22 20 168,0 1929,0 SE 18 18 1 42,0 1034,0 UK 23 23 20 10,0 500,0 Total 397 395 284 0,0 2917,0
3.6 Status of protection
The protection status of Strict Forest Reserves is reported in 398 of the 513 reserves (78 %) submitted. No drop-down menu is available due to the considerable variation that occurs with respect to this criteria. This information must be typed in manually. Working Group 1 produced terminology on protection areas entitled “Creation of Network” which was compiled for the participating countries. The country correspondents dealing responsible for data entry of the to the databank are encouraged to consult this list if there is any doubt about protection status. This list may be found at the URL http://www.efi.fi/Database_Gateway/FRRN/news.html. To date, 31 different protection status’ can be distinguished from the entries submitted to the FRRN Databank. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 205
4 Virgin forest, forest reserve 1 Strict forest reserve, core area of national park 7 National nature reserve, SSSI 1 Naturwaldzelle 1 SSSI, Special protection act 8 SSSI, minimum intervention area 2 SSSI 20 National nature reserve, SSSI, minimum intervention area 2 Experimental forest 4 Virgin forest reserve 1 Virgin forest, forest reserve, natural forest 2 Virgin forest 1 None, SAC & NHA status pending 1 Strict forest reserve-biosphere reserve 1 Aesthetic forest 7 Natural monument 1 National park (core area) 1 Nature protection area 1 Part of national park Bergchtesgaden 1 Landscape protection area 20 Nature reserve Strict forest 2 Strict natural forest reserve reserve according to 76 forest law of Baden- 3 Other protected area, protected herb-rich forests Wuerttemberg 18 Strict nature reserve 6 Other protected area, protected old-growth forests 3 Other protected area 64 Strict forest reserve 10 Natural forest reserve Strict natural 71 forest reserve 35 National park 9 Strict reserve 44 Forest reserve number of 010203040 50 60 70 80 reserves
Figure 1. Protection status as reported by Cost E4 participating country delegates. 206 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
3.7 Designation of ‘Strict Reserve’ status
The year in which ‘Strict Reserve’ status was designated is reported in 477 of the 513 reserves reported (93 %).
Table 7. Designation of ‘Strict Forest Reserve’ status in 14 participating Cost E4 ountries.
Number of reserves Oldest (yr) Latest (yr) AT 134 1995 1999 BE 17 1995 1997 DK 4 1854 1969 FI 60 1938 1998 FR 22 1972 1998 DE 153 1911 1999 GR 14 1938 1986 IE 4 1970 1996 IT 5 1967 1988 NL 2 1983 1983 PT 6 1976 1979 SI 16 1885 1981 SE 3 1909 1923 UK 37 1877 1995 Total 477 1854 1999
The oldest strictly protected forest reserves are reported from Denmark (1854), Slovenia (1877) and the United Kingdom (1877).
3.8 Management history
The management history entry form is available as a drop-down menu. It was decided during the course of this Action that 8 options would be most appropriate. However, only one selection is possible. The management history was reported for 397 out of the 513 reserves submitted, i.e. 77 % of the total.
The most commonly selected ‘management history’ options for the submitted forest reserves was:
“signs or records of previous exploitation, species composition altered” (154 reserves), “Signs or records of previous exploitation, natural species composition” (in 84 reserves), “Primary forest, no indications of human interference” (in 75 reserves) or “No record or signs of forest exploitation, but grazing or hunting and accidental tree harvesting possible” (in 69 reserves).
The greatest variety of management history options is reported for Slovenia, for which 7 of the 8 options are selected. In Portugal, all reserves have the same management history, i.e. Primary forest, no indications of human interference. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 207
Table 8. Management history in Strict Forest Reserves from 14 participating Cost E4 countries.
AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT NL PT SI SE UK Total Primary forest, no indications of human interference 19- 1141114- - - 6 118- 75 No record or signs of forest exploitation, but grazing or hunting and 5--441115-3----- 69 accidental tree harvesting possible Signs or records of previous exploitation, natural species 16 1 2 2 10 36 - 1 2 - - 13 - 1 84 composition Signs or records of previous exploitation, species composition 62 11 2 2 1 37 - 3 - - - 2 - 34 154 altered Signs or records of previous exploitation, species composition 11---1-----3-3 9 artificial Natural afforestation: spontaneous succession on deforested lands (heath, -2-1------1-- 4 moorland, arable land...) Afforestation by planting: natural species composition ("woodland -2------1-1-- 4 restoration") Afforestation by planting: plantation ---1-----1-1-- 3 Total 103 17 5 64 23 86 9 4 5 2 6 22 18 38 402
4 Special descriptions 4.1 Tree species composition 4.1.1 Dominant and other tree species
There is no drop-down menu available for entering ‘tree species’ names. This information must be typed in manually. National correspondents are asked to provide the scientific names of all tree species submitted. In addition, they are asked to provide information on the main dominant, second and third dominant tree species. In an open text box they are able to add other species of special interest. Multiple entries are possible. A list of the scientific names of all tree species submitted are included in Annex 2.
To date, the main tree species have been reported for 323 reserves. A rough estimate of the percentage of dominance in any particular reserve is only provided for 117 reserves. Table 10 shows the results of the analysis of the second dominant tree species. Species names are provided for 301 of the reserves and the percentage of coverage is indicated in 111 of the 513 reserves. The third dominant tree species is reported for 271 forest reserves (% reported for 93 reserves).
The tree species most commonly reported are: Picea abies, Fagus sylvatica, Pinus sylvestris, Quercus robur and Quercus petraea.
In total, other tree species have been reported in 209 reserves. The number of trees reported for individual reserves varies between 1 and 11 tree species. In general, 1 to 3 is the norm. The main species groups listed are: Acer (in 105 of the 209 of reserves), Sorbus (73), Fraxinus (53), Ulmus (39), Pinus (38), Quercus (38), Betula (37), Alnus (35), Larix (32), Tilia (29), Abies (28), Fagus (25), Prunus (25), Salix (22), Carpinus (21) and Picea (21). 208 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
The analyses indicates that the greatest amount of information entered is for the main dominant species. It is surprising to note how often the open text box is used for entering tree species.
Table 9. The main, dominant tree species in forest reserves of participating COST E4 countries. AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT NL PT SI SE UK Total Number of 132 17 4 11 21 36 14 4 5 2 6 14 19 38 323 reserves Abies sp. 2---122-1--1-- 9 Alnus sp. 32--11------7 Betula sp. -2-311-----12212 Carpinus sp. 5------5 Fagus sp. 49 7 2 - 4 12 3 - - - - 7 1 11 96 Fraxinus sp. 7---1-1-----1616 Juniperus sp. ------1------1 Larix sp. 6----1-----1-- 8 Picea sp. 29 - - 5 1 10 1 - 3 - - 1 14 - 64 Pinus sp. 121-3233-11--1330 Quercus sp. 17 5 2 - 9 5 1 4 - 1 6 2 - 15 67 Salix sp. 1------1 Other species* - - - - 1 1 2 ------1 5 Number of species 10 5 2 3 9 9 8 1 3 2 1 6 5 6 13 groups:
*See Annex 3 for species not listed in tables 9, 10, 11, 12
Table 10. The second dominant tree species in forest reserves of participating COST E4 countries. AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT NL PT SI SE UK Total Number of 127 17 3 9 16 32 12 4 3 2 6 14 19 37 301 reserves Abies sp. 11- - -11 2 --- - 3- - 18 Acer sp. 6---1------2-211 Alnus sp. 51------11210 Betula sp. - 211--- 4----31425 Carpinus sp. 16- - -- 1 - --- - 1- 1 19 Fagus sp. 162- -38 2 ------2 33 Fraxinus sp. 11--33------210 Ilex sp. ------11 Juniperus sp. ------1------1 Larix sp. 91------2--1--13 Picea sp. 26 1 - 2 - 12 - - 1 - - 4 2 - 48 Pinus sp. 14 1 - 5 2 3 2 - - 1 - 1 11 - 40 Populus sp. 21------3 Quercus sp. 1562 -33 2 --121- 7 42 Salix sp. ------1-1 Sorbus sp. - ----1------34 Tilia sp. 3---1------4 Ulmus sp. 2---1-1-----1-5 Other species* 1 1 - 1 1 - 2 - - - 4 - - 3 13 Number of species 14 10 2 4 9 8 7 1 2 2 2 8 6 10 19 groups: COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 209
Table 11. The third dominant tree species in forest reserves of participating COST E4 countries.
AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT NL PT SI SE UK Total Number of 121 17 2 7 13 26 11 2 3 - 6 12 18 33 271 reserves Abies sp. 16- - -16 1 -1-- - - - 25 Acer sp. 101- -33 - --- - 3- 1 21 Alnus sp. 4----1------117 Betula sp. 2 6- 5- 3 - --- 1- 12332 Carpinus sp. 81--131----1-116 Fagus sp. 142- -- 2 1 -1-1411 27 Fraxinus sp. 1312 -11 ------7 25 Ilex sp. ------1--1--35 Larix sp. 5----1- ----1--7 Picea sp. 13--1-1-----2--17 Pinus sp. 101-1123 -1-- 12- 22 Populus sp. 32---1------6 Quercus sp. 132- -3- 2 --- 1- 15 27 Salix sp. 1-----1-----1-3 Sorbus sp. 31----- 1-----510 Tilia sp. 5------27 Ulmus sp. - ---1------1 Other species* 1 - - - 2 2 2 - - - 2 - - 4 13 Number of species169 1 38 127 23- 5 6 6 1118 groups: 210 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Table 12. Occurrence of other tree species in forest reserves of participating COST E4 countries.
AT BE DK FI FR GE GR IE IT NL PT SI SE UK Total Number of reserves10816310257422619-27211 Abies sp. 19----1-----8-129 Acer sp. 80411-2-----11-7106 Alnus sp. 16424-- - 3-----635 Betula sp. 15716-- - - - 221- 438 Carpinus sp. 146------2--22 Fagus sp. 721- 21---1-8-426 Fraxinus sp. 296---111--26-854 Ilex sp. --1----3-12--815 Juniperus sp. ------11--24 Larix sp. 271-1-1--1--2--33 Picea sp. 14--1-----2-4--21 Pinus sp. 214---13-1-35-139 Populus sp. 33-6------2-317 Prunus sp. 14--3------34-226 Quercus sp. 1612-1--2----4-338 Salix sp. 9--6---4---1-222 Sorbus sp. 405-5- 2- 4- 1110-775 Tilia sp. 2112------5--29 Ulmus sp. 2311-1-1----9-339 Other species*5541-- 134- 11214-19114 Number of species 1814810285627817-1620 groups:
4.1.2 Measurement used to describe the percentage of the dominant species
The measurement used to asses the relative percentages of dominant tree species is reported in 301 of the 513 reserves. A drop-down menu is available with four options to choose from and multiple selections are possible. Land area is the option most frequently selected (104) followed by volume (93), stem/ha (82) and basal area (22). However, this information was not submitted by Greece and Portugal. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 211
Table 13. The measurements used to describe the relative percentage of dominant tree species in participating COST E4 countries.
Country Reporte land stem/ha volume Basal d area area Austria 114 63 48 - 3 Belgium 17 6 - 8 3 Denmark 5 3 1 - 1 Finland 11 8 - 3 - France 1 1 - - - Germany782175- Ireland 1 - 1 - - Italy 5 - 3 2 - Netherlands 2 - - - 2 Slovenia 13 - 11 2 - Sweden 18 - 14 3 1 United 38 22 4 - 12 Kingdom Total 301 104 82 93 22
4.2 Area covered by even-aged stands
The total area covered by even-aged stands is only reported for 50 reserves. For each reserve, the area covered by 5 alternative age-classes is available in the drop down menu (0-50, 50-100, 100-150, 150-200 and over 200 years). The total area reported by all countries amounts to 26,286 ha. Belgium provided detailed information on the area covered by even aged stands, i.e. 16 of the 17 reserves reported. Information provided by other countries on this subject is very limited and many countries submitted none at all.
Table 14. The area of strict forest reserves covered by even-aged stands in participating COST E4 countries.
AT BE DK FI DE IE IT NL PT SE Total Reported 6 1616 4 1526350 Total area Total area (ha) 118,2 505,3 9,7 23339,0 32,4 30 2048 92 0 111 26285,6 Reported 11215 1--1--21 0-50 years Total area (ha) 17,5 164,3 0,7 259,0 10,7 - - 3 - - 455,2 Reported 36- 9 2-32-227 50-100 years Total area (ha) 38,0 175,0 - 1222,0 12 - 1308 83 - 76 2914,0 Reported 2 6 - 8 4 111- 124 100-150 years Total area (ha) 24,7 106,0 - 2285,0 25,7 10 701 6 - 25 3183,4 Reported - 117 11----11 150-200 years Total area (ha) - 30,0 9,0 14171,0 80 20 - - - - 14310,0 Reported 11- 4 1-----7 Over 200 years Total area (ha) 70 30,0 - 20505,0 33 - - - - - 20638,0 212 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
4.3 Area covered by uneven-aged stands
The area covered by uneven-aged stands is reported in 168 reserves and amounts to 13,411 ha in total. It is possible to report on three distinct developmental phases for uneven aged forests, namely regeneration, mature and decaying. However, these options were rarely used: Regeneration phase: 33 reserves in 9 countries Mature phase: 38 reserves in 8 countries Decaying phase: 21 reserves in 5 countries. None of above information has been provided by the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom.
Table 15. The area of uneven-aged stands in Strict Forest Reserves of participating Cost E4 countries.
Total area Regeneration Mature phase Decaying phase phase Country Number of total area, Number of Total area, Number of total area, Number of total area, reserves ha reserves ha reserves ha reserves ha AT 94 4253,5 1 26,0 1 26,8 - - BE 14 278,0 7 132,0 8 143,0 1 3,0 DK 2 19,3 1 5,0 1 13,0 1 1,0 FI 7 2120,0 2 15,0 5 12144,0 3 20850,0 FR 19 1181,6 ------DE 8 379,0 8 111,0 8 192,0 8 76,0 GR 11 4220,0 3 25,0 3 89,0 - - IE 1 43,0 1 43,0 - - - - IT 2 112,0 ------SI - - 9 63,6 9 608,2 9 43,1 SE 11 813,0 2 30,0 4 58,0 - - Total 169 13419 34 451 39 13274 22 20973
4.4 Disturbance in Strict Forest Reserves
In order to specify the most common disturbances in forest reserves a drop down menu has been provided, which facilitates a number of options including, storm/wind, fire, snow, fungi, pests/diseases and herbivores. The list also allows for multiple selections. Disturbance is reported in 258 of the publicly-owned forest reserves that have been submitted. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 213
Table 16. The most common disturbances in forest reserves reported by Cost E4 participating countries.
Number Number of disturbances / Storm / Pests / Country of Fire Snow Fungi Herbivores reserve Wind Diseases reserves 12345 AT 60 39 21 - - - 53 1 24 1 - 2 BE 17 9 8 - - - 17 1 - - 7 - DK4 112- - 3 - - 2 2 2 FI 60 6 15 14 23 2 54 23 22 43 38 - FR 4 4 - - - - 2 2 - - - - DE 11 10 1 - - - 6 - 1 1 3 1 GR 14 1 7 4 1 1 10 11 6 3 1 5 IE44------4 IT52-3--3-3- - 5 NL 2 2 - - - - 2 - - - - - PT 6 3 3 - - - - 6 - - - 3 SI 16 7 6 3 - - 11 3 7 1 - 4 SE 18 11 6 1 - - 15 2 8 - 1 - UK 37 7 21 6 3 - 32 3 4 - 4 34 Total 258 106 89 33 27 3 208 52 75 51 56 60
Of the 258 forest reserves, storm/wind is mentioned in 208, fire 52, snow 75, fungi 51, pests/diseases 56 and herbivores 60. From the data submitted to the databank, it can be seen that, in general, storm/wind is the most frequently reported disturbance factor in European forest reserves (Fig. 2). The relative proportion of other disturbances are rather similar to one another. Wind damage may include small-scale disturbances as well as major events in specified reserves.
Herbivore 12 %
Pests / Diseases 11 % Storm / Wind 42 %
Fungi 10 %
Snow 15 % Fire 10 %
Figure 2. The relative proportions of most common disturbances encountered in European forest reserves. 214 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
The questionnaire also allows country correspondents to submit information in an open text box on other disturbances, which occur in forest reserves. Information on other disturbances, which require manual typing, is only provided in 36 cases. No data has been submitted by Belgium, France, Greece, Netherlands and Portugal. There is, in some cases, an overlap in the information supplied in the drop-down list because of greater detail of the information reported. For example, “fungi” is sometimes described in the open text box as “Dutch elm disease”. Other entries were synonyms of terms available in the drop down menu, i.e. swift, sudden weather change. The most common ‘other disturbances’ are caused by human impact. They are usually caused by land use practises occurring adjacent to the reserves such as agriculture, grazing, golf courses and roads. Other impacts include tourism, drainage and invasive exotic plants.
Table 17. Other disturbances reported in European Strict Forest Reserves.
AT DK FI DE IE IT SI SE UK Total Number of reserves 4 1 2 4 3 1 10 6 5 36 Human impact 2 - - - - 1 9 3 - 15 Avalanche ------3 - - 3 Drought ------2 5 7 Fungi - 1 1 ------2 Invasive exotic plants 1 - - - 3 - - - - 4 Pests - - 1 3 - - - 1 - 5 Storm/wind related 1 - 2 - - - 2 - - 5 Sudden climatic pertubation------3--3 Waterlevel fluctuation - - - 1 - - - - - 1 Total entries 4 1 4 4 3 1 17 6 5 45
4.5 Forest vegetation type
The forest vegetation type is reported for 340 reserves. A drop-down menu of 44 different vegetation types is available. The menu adopted by the Cost participants allows for multiple selections. The forest vegetation type menu is based on the map legend “Map of natural vegetation” (1996) compiled by ‘The federal Agency of Nature Conservation’, Bonn Germany and the ‘Botanical Institute’, St. Petersburg, Russia. 31 of the vegetation types available have been selected at least once.
The most common vegetation communities in the databank are ‘Beech and mixed beech forest’, ‘Mixed oak-hornbeam forests’, ‘Mixed oak-hornbeam forests’, ‘Subalpine vegetation in the nemoral and Mediterranean zone’, ‘Montane to altimontane partly submortane fir and spruce forests in the nemoral zone’ and ‘Hygro-thermophilous mixed deciduous forests’.
COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 215
Table 18. Forest vegetation types reported in 14 of the Cost E4 participating countries.
Vegetation type AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT NL PT SI SE UK Total C1 ---2------2 C2 ---3------3-6 C3 26-----2-3--17--48 D1 ---5--1-----14-20 D2 ---17------1-18 D3 ---15------15 D4 ------1-1 D8 3--1------1--5 D9 18---26------26 D10 ---24------125 D11 2------13 D12 4------149 F1 15 9 1 - 2 - - 4 - 2 - - - 12 45 F2 131-1------1016 F3 25 6 1 - 1 ------3 36 F4 4-1------27 F5 77 5 3 - 5 8 - - - - - 7 - 15 120 G1 3------1--4 G2 ------1--1 G3 ------3---3 H 17------17 J2 ----2------2 J4 ------3---3 K1 13------13 K2 3---1------4 K3 ----1------1 K4 6------6 T 241-4------11 U1 32--31- ----3-214
C1 Subarctic woodland C2 West boreal and nemoral montane birch forest, partly with pine forests C3 Subalpine vegetation in the nemoral and mediterranean zone D1 West boreal spruce forests, partly with pine, birch - North boreal types D2 West boreal spruce forests, partly with pine, birch - Middle boreal types D3 West boreal spruce forests, partly with pine, birch - South boreal types D4 East boreal pine-spruce and fir-spruce forests, partly with birch, larch - North boreal type D8 Hemiboreal spruce and fir-spruce forests with broad-leaved trees D9 Montane to altimontane, partly submortane fir and spruce forests in the nemoral zone D10 Northboreal pine forests D11 Middle and south to hemiboreal pine forests D12 Hemiboreal and nemoral pine forests, partly with broad-leaved trees F1 Oak and mixed oak forests, poor in species F2 Mixed oak-ash forests F3 Mixed oak-hornbeam forests F4 Mixed lime-oak forests F5 Beech and mixed beech forests G1 Subcontinental mixed oak and maple oak forests G2 Subcontinental-submediterranean and supramediterranean mixed sessile oak, bitter oak and Balkan oak forests G3 Submediterranean and supramediterranean mixed oak forests H Hygro-thermophilous mixed deciduous forests J2 Meso- and supramediterranean and relictic sclerophyllous forests - Holm oak forests J4 Meso- and supramediterranean and relictic sclerophyllous forests - Kermes oak forests and scrub K1 Nemoral, sub- and oromediterranean pine forests K2 Meso- to thermomediterranean pine forests K3 Meso- and supramediterranean fir forests K4 Juniper and cypress forests and scrub T Swamp and fen forests U1 Flood-plain vegetation and alluvial forests 216 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
4.6 ‘Other’ and ‘local’ forest vegetation types
Aside from the options available in the drop-down menu, a number of ‘other’ vegetation types have been reported (manually typed) for 113 reserves in 8 countries. This choice is provided in order to allow country correspondents to specify a vegetation type, which is not covered by the official natural vegetation menu. No information has been supplied by Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia. It is also possible to specify ‘local’ vegetation types. In many cases, these are used to accurately describe the vegetation type in reserves in a particular country. These local vegetation types vary considerably from one country to another and are reported for 262 reserves located in 9 countries. This information must also be typed in manually. No local vegetation types have been reported for Denmark, Finland, France, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Table 19. ‘Other - and ‘local forest vegetation types’ reported for forest reserves in the FRRN databank.
Number of reserves Other Local AT 16 132 BE - 17 FI 1 - FR 5 - DE 74 70 GR - 7 IE 1 1 IT 2 - NL - 2 PT - 6 SI - 23 SE 13 4 UK 1 - Total 113 262
4.7 Soil type
There are only a limited number of entries on soil type. During this Cost Action no consensus on a common soil type menu was agreed. It was then arranged to have an open text box for the common soil types encountered in each individual country. This explains the rather low response to this item in the databank, i.e. 178 entries from 10 countries. There has been no information provided by Austria, France, Greece and the Netherlands. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 217
Table 20. The total number of participating COST E4 countries that submitted soil type data to the FRRN databank
Country Number of reserves BE 17 DK 1 FI 2 DE 70 IE 1 IT 2 PT 6 SI 23 SE 19 UK 38 Total 178
4.8 Mean temperature
The mean temperature in January is reported for 114 reserves in 11 countries. Slightly more entries are reported for the mean temperature in July (118 reserves from 11 countries). Most information is provided for the mean annual temperature, i.e. 164 reserves in 11 countries. Austria and the United Kingdom have not supplied any temperature data, Belgium only provided the mean annual temperature, while Greece reported the January and July mean temperatures. In general, a higher response to this parameter would have been expected as such information is considered to be very basic.
Table 21. Mean annual temperature and average January and July temperatures for 12 participating COST E4 countries.
Country Average temperature (°C) In January In July Mean Annual BE--9,0 DK 0,5 16,0 8,4 FI -5,8 14,9 3,0 FR 1,5 19,3 8,1 DE -0,6 16,7 7,6 GR 0,9 21,4 - IE 5,5 14,5 10,1 IT -7,0 12,5 3,0 NL 1,8 16,0 8,8 PT 10,3 22,1 15,0 SI 3,7 13,8 11,9 SE -4,4 14,8 3,7 218 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
4.9 Annual precipitation
The mean annual precipitation is reported for 170 reserves in 12 countries (out of a total of 513 assessed). No information has been supplied by Austria or the United Kingdom. As with temperature, a greater response would have been expected.
Table 22. Average annual precipitation values for 12 participating COST E4 countries.
Average precipitation (mm/yr) BE 900,0 DK 721,3 FI 512,7 FR 1260,3 DE 1057,9 GR 1096,3 IE 1500,0 IT 1229,6 NL 793,0 PT 1827,6 SI 1298,2 SE 738,0
5 Monitoring activities in Strict Forest Reserves
5.1 Stand description
5.1.1 Inventory methodology
The various inventory methods used to describe stand characteristics are reported for 224 of the 513 reserves whose data is accessible in the FRRN databank. 11 countries responded to the drop-down menu that allows for multiple selections. Belgium, Greece and Portugal did not provide information on inventory methodology. It is worth mentioning that the sampling intensity in designated sections of the reserve is reported for only 74 reserves. Often, reserves have core monitoring areas which are sampled much more intensively and this information is probably of most value. The average sampling intensity varies generally between 1 and 3 % of the total area and was reported by only 7 of the 15 countries that submitted information to the FRRN databank. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 219
Table 23. Reported inventory methods used in forest reserves by COST E4 participating countries.
Number of Inventory method inventory methods used/reserve Number of Full Line Sampling Remote Country 12 reserves inventory transects plots sensing Austria 112 94 18 31 - 98 1 Denmark 4 2 2 4 - 2 - Finland 12 4 8 11 - 8 1 France 13 11 2 13 - 2 - Germany 2 2 - - - 2 - Ireland 4 4 - - - 4 - Italy 3 3 - 2 - 1 - Netherlands 2 - 2 - - 2 2 Slovenia 17 12 5 4 - 16 2 Sweden 17 1 16 - 17 16 - United 38 35 3 1 22 18 - Kingdom Total 224 168 56 66 39 167 6
5.2 More detailed description of the core area
5.2.1 Inventory method
Core areas for scientific investigations have been established in a number of countries. 139 entries have been submitted with respect to this criteria. A drop-down menu is available with 4 alternative options namely, full inventory (56 entries), line transects (4), sampling plots (116) and remote sensing (2). Multiple selections are also possible. In 6 countries only one method is reported, representing 102 reserves, two inventory methods were selected for 35 reserves and three methods for two forest reserves (Table 24).
The size of the core area has been entered for 99 reserves. Most of this information is provided by Austria (69 forest reserves). In only 7 out of 69 cases the core area within the reserve differs from the total area of the forest reserve. In 22 reserves the size is under 10 ha, whilst in 8 reserves it is over 100 ha. In Sweden, the size of core area is reported for 19 reserves, i.e. 0,16 ha each. In Germany, the core area size is reported for 7 reserves (5 reserves 1ha or less, in 2 reserves over 10 ha).
The sampling intensity of the core area is detailed for only 47 forest reserves from four countries, i.e. Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden. The average intensity varies between 2% in Sweden to 33% in Germany to 100 % in the Netherlands. 220 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Table 24. Inventory methods utilised in core areas of European Strict Forest Reserves.
Number of Inventory method inventory methods used/reserve Number of Full Line Sampling Remote Country 12 reserves inventory transects plots sensing Austria 112 94 18 31 - 98 1 Denmark 4 2 2 4 - 2 - Finland 12 4 8 11 - 8 1 France 13 11 2 13 - 2 - Germany 2 2 - - - 2 - Ireland 4 4 - - - 4 - Italy 3 3 - 2 - 1 - Netherlands 2 - 2 - - 2 2 Slovenia 17 12 5 4 - 16 2 Sweden 17 1 16 - 17 16 - United 38 35 3 1 22 18 - Kingdom Total 224 168 56 66 39 167 6
5.3 ‘Other’ research activities
‘Other’ additional research activities are reported in 464 of the 513 forest reserves. Check boxes are available to allow selection from 8 alternative options: (1) review of historical data, (2) pollen analyses, (3) genetic resources, (4) site and soil sampling, (5) inventory of the ground flora, (6) inventory of mosses/lichens, (7) inventory of fungi, and (8) light measurements. Multiple selections are also possible. Most countries indicate 2 or 3 alternative research activities ongoing in their forest reserves (Table 25). Very few indicate more than 4 other ongoing research activities. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 221
Table 25. Number of other research activities ongoing in a selection of European Strict Forest Reserves
Number of other research activities / reserve Country Number of reserves 1 2 345678 AT134 52352531- - - BE17 5363-- - - DK 4 - - - 1 - 2 1 - FI64 117141668 - 2 FR 26 2 13 9 - 2 - - - DE 117 19 85 11 2 - - - - GR14 ---7-7-- IE4 ----11-2 IT5 -23----- NL 2 - - 1 - 1 - - - PT6 -6------SI19 733411- - SE 19 - 2 16 - 1 - - - UK 33 - 32 - 1 - - - - Total 464 39 186 115 87 13 19 1 4
The most commonly selected ‘other’ research activities are; (1) inventory of the ground flora, (2) inventory of moss and lichens, and (3) light measurements. Other important activities mentioned are (a) review of historical data (Germany and Finland) and (b) site and soil sampling (Austria).
Table 26. Breakdown of ‘other research activities’, in Strict Forest Reserves in 14 participating Cost E4 countries.
Country Review of Pollen Genetic Site & Inventory Inventory Inventory Light historical analysis resources soil of of moss / of fungi measurements data sampling ground lichen flora Austria 3 - - 56 111 127 - 127 Belgium 3 - 1 - 15 11 - 11 Denmark 3 3 - 4 4 4 1 4 Finland 29 4 3 11 43 63 19 63 France 5 - - 5 9 24 - 22 Germany 47 3 - 21 15 73 1 70 Greece 14 - 11 9 - 14 8 14 Ireland 4 3 2 4 4 4 2 4 Italy - - - - 3 5 - 5 Netherlands - - - 2 2 1 2 1 Portugal----- 6 - 6 Slovenia 10 2 1 6 11 6 7 6 Sweden 18 - - 18 19 1 - 1 United ---1133- 33 Kingdom Total 136 15 18 137 237 372 40 367 222 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
5.4 Fauna inventory
The inventory of fauna has been submitted for 119 forest reserves from 12 countries. A drop- down menu allows multiple selection from 8 predefined options: (1) mammals, (2) birds, (3) reptiles/amphibians, (4) butterflies/moths, (5) dead wood fauna, (6) ground-dwelling invertebrates, (7) flying invertebrates and (8) other. The inventories principally focus on mammals and birds (Table 27). Very detailed information on fauna has been provided by Finland (56 reserves) and Greece (13). The relatively low entry rate from other countries may be due to a lack of fauna inventories in forest reserves generally, or the information is not, or cannot be made available as of now.
Table 27. Breakdown of the fauna inventories within forest reserves in 14 participating Cost E4 countries.
AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT NL PT SI SE UK Total Number of reserves 3 11 1 56 2 10 13 1 3 - - 3 15 1 119 Mammals - - - 32 - - 13 1 3 - - 3 8 1 61 Birds 1 3 1 50 1 8 13 1 3 - - 2 11 1 95 Reptiles/ ------7-3----- 10 amphibians Butterflies/ Moths - - - 18 - 1 5 ------1 25 Dead wood fauna 2 1 - 21 1 7 3 ------35 Ground-dwelling -11-12-9-1---1-1 35 invertebrates Flying invertebrates - 2 - 16 - 1 5 ------24 Other ------2- 2
6 Information on administration and scientific monitoring/ research co- ordination in forest reserves
In the questionnaire, an option is available to enter information on the organisation responsible for management of the forest reserve. As requested by the Cost Action E4 participants, a second entry form specifying the organisation co-ordinating research in the reserve is also provided (Table 28).
In a number of countries, different organisations are responsible for management and the implementation of scientific research. In Austria, for example, only one organisation deals with management and scientific co-ordination. In Germany, management of the reserves is the responsibility of the Forestry Commission in each individual State (Länder). Scientific co- ordination is, in general, carried out under the auspices of the forest research institutions within each State. Other countries have one umbrella organisation and a number of sub-units responsible for different operations, e.g. as in France.
Organisations managing forest reserves are reported for 12 countries. Information is provided in 424 of the 513 publicly-owned forest reserves reported in the FRRN databank. Portugal and Sweden have not provided information on this criteria. Information on organisations that co- ordinate research in forest reserves is provided for 451 forest reserves. Greece and Portugal have not entered data under this section of the questionnaire. Tables 28 and 29 outline the activities related to data entry on administrative and scientific responsibilities. This information has been completed by Austria and Belgium. The columns ‘contact person’, ‘address’, etc. are COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 223 available to all countries/reserves.
Table 28. Organisations in charge of managing forest reserves in 12 participating COST E4 countries.
Country Number of Number Internet Contact Address Phone Fax e-mail organisations of address person reserves Austria 1 131 113 131 131 131 131 131 Belgium1 10- 1010101010 Denmark5 5 3 5 5 524 Finland 2 63 63 51 3 3 3 46 France 9 23 - 1 22 22 22 1 Germany261251 5039393915 Greece 1 1 1 - - - - - Ireland 2 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 Italy2 5 - 5 5 555 Netherla 12-22--2 nds Slovenia 6 24 ------U.K. 7 37 - 31 30 21 - 21 Total 63 424 182 290 251 240 213 238
In Austria and Belgium, responsibility for forest reserves rests with one organisation only. Hence, the contact person and contact address is identical for all forest reserves reported. In other countries, such as Finland, the responsibility for forest reserves lies with different scientists within the same institution. In Germany, responsibility for management and co- ordination differs from on State to another (multiple contact persons/addresses occur for each reserve).
The data on contact information has, in general, not been fully provided. Internet and email addresses are often unreported. This may be due to the fact that not all relevant institutions have Internet web sites or email address. It is surprising, however, that in some cases, information on contact persons and the postal address/phone/fax of the responsible organisations is incomplete. This may be because there are difficulties with the Internet questionnaire entry form and/or some confusion in distinguishing management and research co- ordination within some forest reserves. 224 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Table 29. Organisations involved in research co-ordination in European forest reserves.
Country Number of Number of Internet Contact Address Phone Fax e-mail organisations reserves address person Austria 1 123 109 123 123 123 123 123 Belgium 1 17 - 17 17 17 17 17 Denmark 4 5 4 4 4 4 1 4 Finland 2 62 61 61 15 15 15 60 France 1 22 - - 22 22 22 - Germany 4 149 102 149 149 149 149 149 Ireland 2 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 Italy 2 5 - 5 5 5 5 5 Netherlands 1 1 - 1 1 - - 1 Slovenia 1 24 14 - - - - - Sweden 1 2 - 2 2 2 2 2 U.K. 5 37 - 33 33 25 1 25 Total 25 451 291 397 375 366 336 388
7 Projects conducted in forest reserves
There is an option in the entry form, which allows country correspondents to enter data on past - or ongoing research activities within forest reserves. This section was given high priority by the Cost Action E4 participants as it facilitates a detailed overview of scientific research in these areas. It is possible to enter a multiple number of projects for the same forest reserve. Analyses of data entered to-date indicates that only a limited number of projects have been entered. 7 countries reported 90 different projects that have been carried out or are ongoing in 249 reserves. Besides the project title and summary, additional information is requested (Table 30). To-date this data is also, in most cases, rather incomplete. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 225
Table 30. Number of accessible projects in the FRRN databank submitted by 7 participating COST E4 countries.
Project summary (number of individual projects) AT BE DK DE IE SI UK Total Projects (total)63132334290 Executive summary431-294261 Starting year6322134259 Ending year1311- 272255 Project home page3---1--4 Comments 3 - - - 2 5 42 52 Contact person53132264080 Address 53122- 3245 Phone 53121- 3042 Fax 52121- 314 e-mail 53122- 2740
In the UK, a large number of projects have been reported that relate to reserve-specific research activities. In Austria, 6 projects have been entered to-date. These research programmes have been applied and implemented in many Austrian forest reserves (133). Slovenia has not provided project descriptions but has made research accessible via the publication of references. No projects have been reported from France, Finland, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal or Sweden.
Table 31. Number of forest reserves in 7 participating COST E4 countries, where one or more research/monitoring projects have been or are being carried out.
Project summary (number of reserves) AT BE DK DE IE SI UK Total (Projects in) 133 16 2 10 4 41 43 249 number of reserves Executive summary 122 16 2 - 4 11 43 198 Starting year13316291343207 Ending year 1 16 2 6 - 39 23 87 Project home page 68 - - - 1 - - 69 Comments 121 - - - 4 8 43 176 Contact person 133 16 2 10 4 28 41 234 Address 133 16 2 9 4 - 33 197 Phone 133 16 2 9 1 - 31 192 Fax 133 15 2 9 1 - 3 163 e-mail 133 16 2 9 4 - 28 192
Annex 4 contains the complete list of the accessible projects in the FRRN databank. The poor entry rate may be due to difficulties in compiling the required information on projects and the time involved in entering same. 226 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
8 Conclusions
8.1 The FRRN databank
The FRRN databank and its accompanying Website are proving to be an important supplementary output of the COST E4 Action. The databank allows country correspondents to provide information on forest reserves in their countries through an Internet based questionnaire. Data entered on forest reserves via the pre-prepared questionnaire is saved in the FRRN databank at the European Forest Institute in Joensuu, Finland. The databank is accessible to the public and detailed information on research in each reserve may be accessed, subsequent to permission being granted. All that is required is access to the Internet and the availability of an Internet browser.
The interest in the FRRN databank has been considerable, details of which are outlined in Working Group 3 report. The FRRN databank has increased interest amongst the Cost E4 Action participants, researchers and scientists, as well as on-going international processes such as the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of forests in Europe (Ad-hoc Working Group on “Biodiversity, Protected Areas and Related Issues”). The databank has also assisted in building an extensive network of national experts in the field of forest reserve research.
Currently, the databank contains a large amount of information on forest reserves from 15 European countries. It provides detailed site-based information on research in forest reserves, which may be retrieved using the pre-designed search facilities. The search facilities in the databank allows one to perform detailed queries upon request.
In summary, the databank has been generally accepted and approved by the country correspondents, the Cost Action E4 participants and other user groups. The Internet web site interface has proven to be a popular means of communication and has made data entry possible from in house facilities.
8.2 Shortcomings
One of the main shortcomings is the occurrence of incomplete data sets for individual forest reserves. Detailed analyses of the databank contents confirms that there is considerable variation in data completeness within individual sites and countries. In particular, information on stand development stages (Tables 14, 15), details on monitoring activities and ongoing research projects (Tables 30 & 31) are incomplete or are not available. Also the information on the responsible administrative and scientific organisations in forest reserves is incomplete (Tables 29).
The principal reasons for this lack of information may be due to: no detailed monitoring has been undertaken in many forest reserves the time required to prepare the data is excessive the data entry form - which is available in English only - may not be clear enough, or data entry procedures may be too complicated
It is likely that a combination of the above factors are responsible for the shortcomings COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 227 encountered. However, subsequent to a survey of data providers, it is apparent that the complexity and time involved in compiling the required data is the most limiting factor to ensuring that complete datasets are provided. These shortcomings are compounded as a result of data entry being performed on a voluntary basis. Taking these factors into consideration, it is apparent that results to-date are most acceptable, especially since the FRRN databank is the first of its kind for forest reserves in Europe.
8.3 Future activities
One important objective should be to continuously encourage the responsible researchers in participating countries to continue their efforts with regard to the submitting of data on forest reserves to the FRRN databank. Emphasis will be placed upon allowing other countries - present as observers during this Action - to receive their own individual country passwords. This will allow them to provide information on their forests reserves. Already, there have been numerous enquiries from a number of countries with observant status, who are willing to contribute data to the FRRN databank. Other important issues will be the further development of the databank to make it more user-friendly, both for data entry and retrieval. Also, the website needs to be enhanced in order to serve as a relevant and accessible source of information on forest reserves in Europe, and, most importantly, to meet the demands of potential funding agencies. The FRRN databank and Website have the potential to serve as a reference point for research into natural forest dynamics, nature-based forestry/silviculture and other related topics, and as a focal point to further compile and disseminate information on forest reserves.
9 References
Parviainen J. 1999. Strict forest reserves in Europe – efforts to enhance biodiversity and strengthen research related to natural forests in Europe. In Research in forest reserves and natural forests in European countries – Country reports for the Cost Action E4: Forest Reserves Research Network. Parviainen, J., Little D., Doyle M., O’Sullivan A., Kettunen M. and Korhonen M. (eds.) EFI Proceedings 16, 7-33. Parviainen, J., Kassioumis, K., Bücking, W., Hochbichler, E., Päivinen, R. and Little, D. 2000. Mission, Goals, Outputs, Linkages, Recommendations and Partners. Final Report. COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network. The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Station. 27 p.
Authors’ contact information:
Andreas Schuck / Tuomo Hytönen European Forest Institute Torikatu 34 FIN-80100 Joensuu Finland Tel. +358 13 252 020 Fax. +358 13 124 393 e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 228 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Appendices Annex 1: All plant species reported in the FRRN databank Abies alba Erica arborea Pinus cembra Abies borisii-regis Erica carnea Pinus halepensis ssp. brutia Abies cephalonica Erica herbacea Pinus heldreichii Acer campestre Fagus moesiaca Pinus mugo Acer obtusatum Fagus sylvatica Pinus nigra Acer platanoides Frangula alnus Pinus nigra ssp. laricio Acer pseudoplatanus Fraxinus angustifolia Pinus peuce Alnus glutinosa Fraxinus excelsior Pinus pinaster Alnus incana Fraxinus ornus Pinus silvestris Alnus viridis Ilex aquifolium Pinus uncinata Anemone trifolia Juglans regia Pistacia lentiscus Arbutus unedo Juniperus communis Populus alba Avenella flexuosa Juniperus excelsa Populus canadensis Berberis vulgaris Juniperus foetidissima Populus canescens Betula czerepanovii Juniperus turbinata Populus nigra Betula pendula Laburnum alpinum Populus tremula Betula pubescens Laburnum anagyroides Populus x canadensis Betula pubescens ssp. Larix decidua Prunus avium celtiberica Larix leptolepis Prunus lusitanica Betula pubescens ssp. tortuosa Larix sibirica Prunus padus Buxus sempervirens Laurus nobilis Pseudotsuga menziesii Calamagrostis varia Liquidambar orientalis Pyrus pyraster Calamagrostis villosa Luzula albida Quercus cerris Calluna vulgaris Malus sylvestris Quercus coccifera Carex alba Olea europaea var. sylvestris Quercus faginea Carpinus betulus Ostrya carpinifolia Quercus ilex Carpinus orientalis Oxalis acetosella Quercus macrolepis Castanea sativa Phillyrea latifolia Quercus petraea Cornus sanguinea Picea abies Quercus pubescens Corylus avellana Picea excelsa Quercus pyrenaica Crataegus laevigata Picea sitchensis Quercus robur Crataegus monogyna Salix eleagnos Quercus rubra Cupressus sempervirens Salix fragilis Quercus trojana Rhamnus alpinus ssp. fallax Salix x rubens Rhododendron ferrugineum Sambucus racemosa Rhododendron hirsutum Sorbus aria Robinia pseudoacacia Sorbus aucuparia Rosa canina Sorbus torminalis Salix alba Taxus baccata Salix atrocinerea Tilia cordata Salix caprea Tilia platyphyllos Salix cinerea Ulmus campestris Ulmus glabra Ulmus laevis Ulmus minor Vaccinium myrtillus Vaccinium vitis-ideae COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 229
Annex 2. Species listed in Tables 9, 10, 11, 12 as “other species”
Austria Anemone trifolia Juglans regia Avenella flexuosa Laburnum alpinum Calamagrostis varia Luzula albida Calamagrostis villosa Ostrya carpinifolia Calluna vulgaris Oxalis acetosella Carex alba Pyrus pyraster Castanea sativa Rhododendron ferrugineum Cornus sanguinea Rhododendron hirsutum Crataegus laevigata Robinia pseudoacacia Crataegus monogyna Taxus baccata Cupressus sempervirens Vaccinium myrtillus Erica carnea Vaccinium vitis-ideae Erica herbacea Belgium Castanea sativa Corylus avellana Denmark Buxus sempervirens Finland Corylus avellana Germany Pseudotsuga menziesii Corylus avellana Greece Arbutus unedo Phillyrea media Buxus sempervirens Laurus nobilis Cupressus sempervirens Liquidampar orientalis Olea europea ssp. oleaster Ireland Arbutus unedo Taxus baccata Corylus avellana Netherlands Pseudotsuga menziesii Portugal Arbutus unedo Pistacia lentiscus Erica arborea Taxus baccata Frangula alnus Olea europea ssp. sylvestris Phillyrea latifolia Slovenia Berberis vulgaris Ostrya carpinifolia Corylus avellana Rhamnus fallax Laburnum anagyroides United Kingdom Crataegus (unspecified) Corylus avellana Crataegus monogyna Frangula alnus Castanea sativa Taxus baccata 230 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
Annex 3. Projects listed in the FRRN databank
Austria
• Austrian Strict Natural Forest Reserves Programme • Austrian Strict Natural Forest Reserves Programme Standard Investigation • Austrian Strict Forest Reserves Programme Minimum Investigation • Austrian Strict Forest Reserves Programme Structural Dynamic Investigation • Microbially mediated nutrient fluxes in soils of natural forests • Succession studies after fire
Belgium
• Basic inventory of the forest reserves • Forest Soil Classification by means of Soil Fauna • Preliminary inventory of xylobionts in forest reserves
Denmark
• SPY-NAT-FORCE (Structures, processes and dynamics of natural forest - a reference for nature-based forestry)
Germany
• Sukzession after storm • Fauna Project • Matter budgets in forest stands
Ireland
• Intensive Monitoring and Research of an Oakwood Ecosystem in Western Ireland • Forest dynamics
Slovenia
• Lebez, L., 1985. Forest Reserves of Slovenia. Forest reserves: Motvarjevci, Ginjevec, Zgornje Kobilje.- Ljubljana, Strokovna in znanstvena dela 86, Univerza EK, BF odd. za gozdarstvo, 52 pp • Mrakic J., Vomer B., 1990. History, primary state of the reserve, silvicultural problems, social and recreational function of the reserve • Mrakic J., Vomer B.,1985. Forest Reserves os Slovenia. Reserve Lovrenška jezera.- Ljubljana, Strokovna in znanstvena dela 83, Univerza EK, BF odd. za gozdarstvo, 81 pp. • Mocivnik, M. 1991. Forest reserve Olseva.- Diploma work, Ljubljana • Forest Reserve Polsek COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network 231
• Diaci J., 1989. Silvicultural research successional development, speed of successional changes of vegetation in extreme conditions • Diaci J., 1988. Analysis of the Reserve Pozganija (comprison 1981-1988) • Kranjc V., 1981. Silvicultural analysis of Pozganija • Diaci, J., 1994. Developmental happenings in Forest Reserve Mozirska Pozganija in 4th decade after fire. - Ljubljana, ZGL 45, pp. 5-54 • Diaci, J., 1996. Untersuchungen in slowenischen Totalwaldreservaten am Beispiel des Reservates "Pozganija" (Brandflaeche) in den Savinja Alpen. - Zürich, SZF, 2, pp. 83-97 • Preloznik, V., 1989. The Forest Reserve Robanov kot.- Diploma work, Ljubljana • Zupancic,M.,1979. Increase in growing of spruce in high karst forst depression of Smrekova draga. - Ljubljana, ZGL 17, 2, pp. 467-482 • Wraber, A., 1991. The Forest Reserve Smrekova draga - Golaki.- Diploma work, Ljubljana. • Piskernik, M.,Hocevar, S.,Batic, F.,Martincic, A.,1980. Microflora, vegetation and ecology of Virgin Forests in Slovenia: Secondary lowland Virgin Forest Krakovo in Krakovo Forest; Frost Depression Virgin Forest Prelesnikova Koliševka; Panonnia Virgin Forest • Accetto, M., 1975. Natural Reforestation and development of Quercus robur and Carpinus betulus in Virgin Forest Reserve "Krakovo". - Ljubljana, GozdV , 2, pp. 67-85 • Mlinšek, D. 1967: Rejuveniling and developing of characteristics of Beech and fir juvenile trees; • Development Dynamics of Virgin Forest • Debeljak M.,1995. Description of trees and reaction capability of beech trees • Debeljak, M., 1995. Analysis of juvenile face • Debeljak, M. 1996. Measurements of dead bio-substance • Mlinšek, D. 1967: One year growth of top springs in beech forest • Anko B., 1965: Dynamics of height growth of beech and fir in Virgin Forest Pecka.- Ljubljana, GozdV 3, 4, pp. 65-74 • Debeljak, M. 1997. Abies alba in juvenile Face of Virgin Forest Pecka in last 30 years. 1997, Zbornik gozdarstva in lesarstva, 53, 1997, pp. 29 - 48. • New Forest Reserves in Slovenia • Analysis of damage of young trees caused by wild animals • Forest Reserves of Slovenia. Virgin Forest Rajhenavski Rog • Mlinšek, D., 1967. Regeneration and some developmental characteristics beech and fir juvenile face in Virgin Forest of Rog. - Ljubljana, Zbornik BF XV, pp. 7-32 • Lebez, J., 1985. Forest Reserves of Slovenia. Virgin Forest Ravna gora • Kordiš, F.,1985. Forest Reserves Of Slovenia. Virgin Forest Bukov vrh. - Ljubljana, Strokovna in znanstvena dela 87, Univerza EK, BF odd. za gozdarstvo, 71 pp. • Hocevar S., Batic F., Piskernik M., Martincic A., 1995. Fungi in the Virgin Forest Reserves in Slovenia. - Ljubljana, Professional and scientific publications 117, Slovenian Forestry Institute, 320 pp. • Piskernik, M.,Hocevar, S., 1981. Ecological interesting things in frost depression Virgin Forest Prelesnikova Koliševka in Rog. - Ljubljana, GozdV 39, 5, pp. 234-241 • Cencic, L., 1989. Forest Reserves of Slovenia. Virgin Forest Sumik • Janezic, V.,1985. Forest Reserves of Slovenia. Forest Reserve Zdrocle. - Ljubljana, Strokovna in znanstvena dela 85, Univerza EK, BF Gozd, 69 pp. 232 COST Action E4 Forest Reserves Research Network
United Kingdom
• Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Ariundle • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Beinn Eighe • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Bix Bottom • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at the Black Wood of Rannoch • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Buckholt Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Clairinsh • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Colt Park Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Craigellachie • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Dendles Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Denny Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Dinnet Oakwood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Eagleshead Copse • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Ebernoe Common • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Glasdrum Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Glen Tanar • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Ham Street Woods • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Lady Park Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Langley Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Marline Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Monks Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change in the New Forest • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Noar Hill • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Parsonage Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Rassal Ashwood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Saltridge Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Scord's Wood (Toy's Hill) • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Shellem Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Taynish Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at The Mens • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change in Welsh oakwoods • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Westfield Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Wistman's Wood • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Wytham Woods • Long-term monitoring of vegetation change at Yarner Wood