the reindeer section

Transcrição

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
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
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
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 nonintervention 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
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
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
9
10
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
Creation of network
Winfried Bücking
Germany
Working Group II
Research methodology
Eduard Hochbichler
Austria
• definitions and terminology of
protection areas
• characteristics of existing
reserves
• the creation of a bibliography
• parameters for measuring forest
stands, structure and regeneration
• design of the sampling plot system
in forest reserves
Working Group III
Data bank
Risto Päivinen
European Forest Institute, Finland
• creation of a common electronic data
base for forest reserves
• standardisation of data collection
* A list of Management Committee members is presented on the pages 29-32.
Figure 1. The Action is structured around three working groups.
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
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.
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
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).
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
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
European forest area (excluding Russia)
Forests managed for wood supply (excluding
Russia)
Forest area in COST E4 participating countries
Forest area in European Russia
Area of
strict forest
reserves
mill. ha
190 *
138 *
161
132-141
Area of
protected
forests
mill. ha
Strict forest
reserves as
% of the
total forest
area
**
**
2.6
1.7
1.6
1.2-1.3
11.7
4.0
Protected
forests as
% of the
total forest
area
*
*
7.3
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.
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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 natureoriented 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
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
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
- 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 cooperation 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, FIN00160 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)
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. RückblickAusblick. 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
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.
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 (IBNDLO), 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, email: [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, FIN00014 University of Helsinki, Finland, fax. 358 9 1917605,
30
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, 2628th 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]
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,
7th Management Committee and WG 1 and 2 joint meeting in Thessaloniki, Greece, 48th 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
12 STSM-participants
1997, 11 missions
Name
Vandekerkhove, Kris
van den Meersschaut,
Diego
Sievänen, Risto
Place of Origin
The Host Institution
University of Ghent, B
Bavarian State Institute of Forestry, D
Insitute of Forestry and Game Management, B Bavarian State Institute of Forestry, D
Finnish Forest Research Institute, FIN
The Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact
Research, D
Schuck, Andreas
European Forest Institute, FIN
Forest Research Institute BadenWürttenberg, 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
Higgins, Therese
Bücking, Winfried
Weber, Jochen
Galanos, Fotios
Albanis, Kosmas
Mountford, Edward
Emborg, Jens
Mrotzek, Ralf
Papageorgioy, Kostas
Lovén, Lasse
Place of Origin
University of Dublin, Trinity College, IRL
Museum National D'Histoire Naturelle,
Brunoy and La Tiallaie, F
Forest Research Institute Baden-Württenberg, CNRS and CEFE, F/CREAF and Univ.
D
of Leida, E
Forest Research Institute Baden-Württenberg, Institute of Statistics and Theory of
D
Probability, Vienna, A
Institute of Mediter. Forest Ecosystems and
Federal Forest Research Centre, A
Techn. of Forest Prod., GR
Institute of Mediter. Forest Ecosystems and
Techn. of Forest Prod., GR
Ecoscope Applied Ecologists, UK
GEUS and Ministry of Environment and
Energy, DK
Danish Forest and Landscape Research
Institute, DK
University of Göttingen, D
Technical University of Zvolen, SK and
Agricultural Research Station of Ioannina, GR Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and
English Nature, UK
National Agricultural Research
Foundation, GR
33
1999-2000, 9 missions
Name
Place of Origin
Isomäki, Antti
Koch, Gerfried
Mountford, Ed
Pászty, Gabriella
Christensen, Morten
Spencer, Jonathan
Schuck, Andreas
Little, Declan
Fahy, Orla
Institute of Ecol. and Bot. of the Hungarian
Acad. of Sciences, H
Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu,
FIN
Ecoscope Applied Ecologists, UK
Institute for Forestry and Nature Research,
NL
Institute of Ecol. and Bot. of the Hungarian Acad. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa,
of Sciences, H
FIN
The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, University of Ljubljana, SI
DK
English Nature, UK
Institute for Forestry and Nature Research,
NL
European Forest Institute, FIN
Forest Research Institute, BadenWürttenberg, D
Coillte Teo, IRL
National University of Ireland, Galway, IRL
University of Helsinki, FIN
Participants and country delegates
LIST OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS
COUNTRY NAME
Austria
G. Frank
INSTITUTE
Federal Forest Research Institute,
Hauptstr. 7,
1140 Vienna
FAX
+ 43 1 979 63 84
E-MAIL
[email protected].
at
E. Hochbichler
Universität für Bodenkultur,
Institute of Silviculture, PeterJordan-Str. 70, 1180 Vienna
+ 43 1 369 16 59
[email protected]
Belgium
K. Vandekerkhove
Institute for Forestry and Game
Management, Gaverstraat 4,
9500 Geraardsbergen
+ 32 54 41 08 96
Kris.Vandekerkhove@
lin.vlaanderen.be
Denmark
R. Bradshaw
GEUS, Dept Environmental &
Climate History, Thoravej 8
2400 Copenhagen NW
+ 45 38 14 2050
[email protected]
J. Emborg
Ministry of Environment and Energy + 45 45 76 32 33
Danish Forest and Landscape Res.
Inst.
Hörsholme Kongevej 11
2970 Hörsholm
The Finnish Forest Research
+ 358 13 2514111
Institute
Joensuu Research Station
P.O. Box 68
80101 Joensuu
[email protected]
European Forest Institute
Torikatu 34
80100 Joensuu
Finnish Forest and Park Service
Nature Conservation Department
P.O. Box 94
01301 Vantaa
+ 358 13 124 3 93
[email protected]
+ 358 205 644 350
[email protected]
Finland
J. Parviainen
(chairman of the
Action)
R. Päivinen
R. Väisänen
[email protected]
34
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
P. Falcone
Office National des Forêts
Départment Forêt et Environnement
2, Av. de Saint Mandé
75570 Paris cedex 12
+ 331 40 19 78 03
M. Le Théry
Direction technique et commerciale
2 av. de Saint-Mandé
75012 Paris
+ 331 40 19 59 42
W. Bücking
FVA Baden-Württenberg
Wonnhaldestr. 4
79100 Freiburg
+ 49 761 401 83 33 [email protected]
W. Schmidt
University of Göttingen
Institute for Silviculture
Büsgenweg 1
37077 Göttingen
+ 49 551 39 32 70
[email protected]
G. Chatziphilippidis NAGREF-Nat. Agricultural
Research Foundation
Forest Research Institute
570 06 Vassilika, Thessaloniki
+ 30 31 46 13 41
[email protected]
K. Kassioumis
NAGREF-Nat. Agricultural
Research Foundation, Agricultural
Research Station of Ioannina
P.O. BOX 1124
Ioannina 451 10
+ 30 65 19 39 79
[email protected]
Z. Somogyi
Frankel Leó u. 42-44
1023 Budapest
+36 1 326 16 39
[email protected]
T. Standovár
L. Eötvös University
Dept. of Plant Taxonomy and
Ecology
Ludovika tér 2
1083 Budapest
Iceland Forest Research Station
Mogilsa, IS 116
Reykjavik
+ 36 1 333 87 64
[email protected]
+354 515 4501
[email protected]
Iceland
A. Sigurgeisson
Ireland
A. O’Sullivan
D. McAree
Italy
F. Ducci
V. Tosi
The
Netherlands
E.J. Al
Coillte Teo., Research &
Development,
Newtownmountkennedy, Co.
Wicklow
Forest Service
Dept. of Agriculture, Food and
Forestry
Leeson Lane
Dublin 2
Istituto Sperimentale per la
Selvicoltura
ISSARGEN
viale S. Margherita 80
52100 Arezzo
ISAFA
Piazza G. Nicolini, 6
38050 Villazzano (Trento)
Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature Mngt. & Fisheries
Marijkeweg 24 / P.O. Box 30
6700 AA Wageningen
[email protected]
+ 353 1 201 11 99
+ 353 1 662 31 80
[email protected]
+ 39 575 35 3 490
[email protected]
+ 39 0461 381116
[email protected]
+ 31 317 474 930
[email protected]
35
A. van Hees
IBN-DLO, Institute for Forestry and
Nature Research
P.O. Box 23
6700 AA Wageningen
+ 31 317 424 988
[email protected]
Norway
B. Tømmerås
+ 47 73 91 54 33
[email protected]
naniku.no
Portugal
A. Almeida
NINA/Norwegian Inst. for Nature
Research
Tungasletta 2
7005 Trondheim
INIA-EFN National Forest Research
Station
Rua do Borja 2
1350 Lisboa
+ 351 1361 0700
[email protected]
Slovak
Republic
M. Saniga
Technical University of Zvolen
Faculty of Forestry
Masarykova 24
96053 Zvolen
+ 42 855 226 54
[email protected]
Slovenia
A. Boncina
University of Ljubljana
Biotechnical Fac., Dept of Forestry
Vecna pot 83 / P.O. Box 2995
1000 Ljubljana
Biotechnical Fac, Dept For. &
Renew. F. Resources
Vecna pot 83 / P.O. Box 2995
1001 Ljubljana
Universitat de Lleida
Dept. of Produccio Vegetal
c/ Rovira Roure
25198 Lleida
+ 386 61 27 11 69
[email protected]
+ 386 61 271 169
[email protected]
+ 34 73 702 500
[email protected]
F. Lopez Angel
Parques Nationales
Carretera General del Sur 6
38800 San Sebastian de la Gomera
+ 34 22 870 362
[email protected]
B. Ranneby
The Swedish University of
Agricultural Science
Dept. of Forest Management and
Geomatics
90183 Umeå
Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency
Blekholmsterrassen 36
10648 Stockholm
+ 46 90 141 915
[email protected]
+ 46 86 981 663
[email protected]
Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency
Blekholmsterrassen 36
10648 Stockholm
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology
Field Laboratory
Wytham
Oxford, OX2 8QT
+46 86 981 336
[email protected]
+ 44 1865 202 612
[email protected]
J. Diaci
Spain
Sweden
M. Gracia
T-B. Larsson
S. Sohlberg
UK
M. Morecroft
K. Kirby
English Nature, Northminister House +44 1733 568 834
Peterborough PE1 1UA
[email protected]
36
CEC, DG XII/B/1
200 rue de la Loi
SDME 1/43
+ 32 2 296 4289
[email protected].
be
O. Chertov
St.-Petersburg State University
Biological Research Institute
Oranienbaum Rd. 2, Stary
Peterhoff
198904 Peterhoff, St.Petersburg
+ 7 812 427 7310
[email protected]
Switzerland
J-F. Matter
+ 41 1 6321033
[email protected]
Croatia
S. Matic
+ 385 1 218 616
[email protected]
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
E. Vojnikovic
Romania
G. Borlea
ETH
Institut für Wald- und
Holzforschung
8092 Zürich
University of Zagreb
Faculty of Forestry
Svetosimunska 25
HR-10000 Zagreb
University of Sarajevo
Sumarski Fakultet
Zagrebacka 20
Sarajevo
“Bogresul Silvic“ Filiala
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
Faculty of Forestry
Zedelmeská 3
61300 Brno
COST
Secretary
P. Hyttinen
Observing
countries
Russia
Observer
+ 387 71611349
+ 40 56 205 531
+ 420 545211422
[email protected]
EVALUATION TEAM
COUNTRY
Mid-term
evaluation
Poland
Slovenia
Belgium
Final
evaluation
Austria
Poland
NAME
CITY
AFF
FAX
E-MAIL
P. Paschalis
B. Anko
N. Lust
Warsaw
Ljubljana
Ghent
UN
UN
UN
+48 22 420 192
+386 61 271 169
+32 9 2646 240
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
K. Zukrigl
P. Paschalis
Wien
Warsaw
UN
+431 803 5981
+48 22 420 192
[email protected]
Hungary
Z. Kovacs
Sopron
UN
+36 99 311 103
RI = Research Institute, UN = University, AM = Administration
[email protected]
Further information and detailed material on COST Action E4:
Jari Parviainen, Chairman of COST Action E4
Finnish Forest Research Institute
P.O. Box 68
FIN-80101 Joensuu
Finland
Tel. +358 13 251 4010
Fax. +358 13 251 4111
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
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
37
38
COST Action E4
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
39
40
CONTENTS
1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………
1.1 Background to the Action and the role of WG 1……………..………………….
1.2 Data collection; progress report………………………………………………….
2 Overview of forests left to free development………………………………………
2.1 General concept of the goals in the COST Action…………………………..…..
2.2 Virgin forests in European countries……………………………………………..
2.3 Strict Forest Reserves in Europe…………………………………………………
2.4 Other protected forest reserves left to develop freely…………………………
2.4.1 National Parks……………………………………………………………...
2.4.2 Other categories……………………………………………………………
3 Future planning of new strictly protected forest areas…………………………..
3.1 National recommendations for the establishment of Strict Forest Reserves……..
3.2 National recommendations for the planning of National Parks………………….
4 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………….
4.1 Summary/Overview………………………………………………………………
4.2 Recommendations………………………………………………………………..
References……………………………………………………………………………….
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………
Country abbreviations
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Croatia
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
A
B
BiH
HR
DK
FIN
F
D
GR
H
IS
IRL
I
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
NL
N
PL
P
RO
R
SK
SI
E
S
CH
UK
41
41
42
43
43
48
48
54
55
57
57
57
58
59
59
60
61
66
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
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
Virgin forest (wood)
Continuity of woodland
on the site
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)
Plantation
Strict nature reserve
Strict forest reserve
Artificial/plantation
Sustainable managed forest
Forest management near to
nature
Unmanaged forest
Low intensity forest
Designed management
(Forest with special
management regime);
managed forest reserves;
areas with appreciable
intervention
Coppice forest
forest
Coppice with standards
(Spontaneous)
Pasture forest
Succession forest
High forest
Untouched forest (wood)
=
Undisturbed forest
Original forest
Wild forest (wood)
Natural forest (wood)
Semi-natural forest
(wood)
Secondary forest (wood)
Management status
Old forest
Protection status
National park
Biosphere reserve
Wilderness area
Other protection forest*
Gene reserve forest
Game protection forest
(park)
Recreation forest (park)
SSSI (Site of specific
scientific interest)
Minimal intervention
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,
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
Protected forests vary greatly in size: there are small areas up to few hectares; moderatelysized 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
A us t r i a
Natural Forest Reserve
• Standard Reserve (Reserve of Normal Standard)
• Point of Main Effort Reserve (Main Focus Reserve)
• Natural Forest Stand
Landscape Conservation Area
Protected Part of the Landscape/ Protected Green
Wildlife Park
Nature Park
National Park
Protection ex lege
Gene Conservation Forest
Belgium
Nature Reserve
• recognized
• official
• State Nature Reserve with Forest Character (Flanders)
• Forest Reserve (Wallonia)
• Strict Nature Reserve/ Integral Reserve
• Directed Reserve
National Park
Nature Park
B o s ni a - H e r z e g o vi n a*
Virgin Reserves
Forest Reserves
Special Reserves
Park Forests
Natural Park
National Park
Croatia*
Strict Reserve
Special Reserve
Virgin Forest
Endangered or Rare Species Protection
Nature Park
Significant Landscape
Architectural Park
Monument of Nature
Park Forest
National Park
Czech Republic*
(National) Natural Monument
National Nature Reserve
Protected Landscape Area
National Park
Iceland
Forest Reserve
Ireland
Protected Irish Woodland
• National Park
• Nature Reserve
Network Natural Heritage Areas (NHA) and Special
Areas of Conservation (SAC)
Italy
Strict Reserve (scientific uses only)
National Park
Natural Monument
Biotope
State Natural Reserve
Regional Natural Reserve
Regional Natural Park
Strict Reserve Core
Areas of international importance and other natural
protected areas
T h e N e t he r l a n ds
Strict Forest Reserve (National Research Program)
Forest Research Reserve
Forest A-Location
Protected Nature Monument
State Nature Monument
National Park
Private Nature Reserve
Norway
National Park
Nature Reserve
Forest Reserve
Landscape Protected Area
Natural Monument
Poland*
Nature Reserve
Monument of Nature
Protection of Species
Area of Protected Landscape
Landscape Park
Nature Landscape System
Environmental Values
Strict Protection
Partial Protection
45
Denmark
Legally Protected Area
Private Reserve
Permanent Management Agreement
State Forest Reserve
• Untouched (Strict) Forest Research Reserve
• Traditional Management System
All Natural State Owned Forest
Finland
Strict Nature Reserve
National Park
Wilderness Area
Other protected areas of the state
• Peatland Protection Area
• Herb-Rich Forest Preserve
Old Growth Forest Preserve
Wetland Reserves
Protected Shore Line Area
Protected Esker
Privately Protected Area
Nature Conservation of Productive Forests
Ancient Forest Area
Undisturbed Forest
Natural Forest
F r a nc e
National Park
Protected Forest
Nature Reserve
Bioreserves
• Special Forest Reserve
• Strict Forest Reserve
Regional Nature Park
G e r ma ny
Large Scale Reserve
• Biosphere Reserve
• National Park
• Nature Park
• Landscape Protection Area
Strict Forest Reserve (Strict Nature Forest Area)
Nature Protection Area
Bird Sanctuary
Legally Protected Biotope within Forest Management Areas
Designed Management Forest (Schonwald)
(Spatial) Nature Monument
Greece
National Park
Aesthetic Forest
Protected Natural Monument
Hunting Reserve
Internationally Important Wetland/ Marine Park
World Heritage Site (Natural and Cultural)
H u ng a r y
National Park
Landscape Protection Area
Protected Forest
Strictly Protected Forest
Biosphere Reserve
Forest Reserve
Strict Forest Reserve
P o r t ug a l
National Park
Natural Park
Natural Reserve
Natural Monument
Protected Landscape
Biological Interest Site
Biogenetic Reserve (European Council)
Ramsar Convention
Biosphere Reserve (UNESCO)
R o ma n i a *
Natural Reserve
Protected Area
Biosphere Reserve
National Park
R us s i a * *
State Nature Reserve
National Park
Natural Park
State Nature Refugium
Nature Monument
Dendrological and Biological Garden
S l o v a k R e p u bl i c
Protection Forest
• Virgin Forest
• Natural Forest
National Park
Biosphere Reserve
S l o v e ni a
Forest Reserve
National Park/ Natural Park
Protection Forest
Forest with Subordinate Productive Functions
Ecocell
Spain
Parks
Nature Reserve
Natural Monuments
National Park
Natural Park
Protected Landscapes
Strict Reserve
Partial Nature Reserve
Natural Reserve of Wild Fauna
Natural Park
Regional Park
Protected Natural Area
Natural Site
Protection Forest
S w e de n
Nature Reserve
National Park
OTH (State Forest Reserve and Area bought but not
yet legally protected)
Integrated Monitoring Plot
Experimental Forest
Remnant Biotope for Flora and Fauna
Indicators of biodiversity in the forest landscape
Game Research areas
46
U ni t e d K i ng do m
SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) Designation
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.
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
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 natureoriented 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
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., nonexistent 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
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
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-
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
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
lifestock),
Animal life
- Avalanches / land slides
Stage of succession (primary / secondary succession)
Forestry / Forestry use
Anthropogenic impacts
- Volcanic phenomenoa
- Fire
- Storm
- Environmental pollution
- 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.
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
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
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
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.
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 privatelyowned 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
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.
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
•
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.
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
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.
Working Group 1 Members and Other Contributors
Austria
Georg Frank
Gerfried Koch
Belgium
Kris Vandekerkhove
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Vladimir Beus
Vojnikovic Sead
Croatia
Slavko Matic
Czech Rep.
Vladimir Tesar
Denmark
Peter Friis Møller
Finland
Jari Parviainen
Martti Varmola
Rauno Väisänen
France
Patrick Falcone
Germany
Winfried Bücking
Forstl. Bundesversuchsanstalt
Hauptstr. 7
1141 Wien / AUSTRIA
tel +43 1 87838/2208
fax +43 1 87838/2250
email [email protected]
tel +43 1 87838-2204
fax +43 1 87838-2250
Institute for Forestry and Game Management
Gaverstraat 4
9500 Geraardsbergen / BELGIUM
tel +32 54 437 111
fax +32 54 410 896
University of Sarajevo
Faculty of Forestry
Forestry Ecology Dept. Phytocenology
Sagrebacka 20
Sarajevo / BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
tel +387 71 61 4005
fax +387 71 61 1349
Zagreb
fax +385 1 218616
Brno
fax +420 54521 1422
GEUS
Thoravej 8
2400 Kopenhagen NV / DENMARK
tel +38 14 20 00
fax +38 14 20 50
METLA/Finnish Forest Research Institute
Yliopistokatu 7, Box 68
80101 Joensuu / FINLAND
tel +358 13 251 4010
fax +358 13 251 4111
Finnish Forest Research Institute
P. O. Box 16
96301 Rovaniemi / FINLAND
tel +358 16 3364200
fax +358 16 3364640
Finnish Forest and Park Service
P. O. Box 94
01301 Vantaa / FINLAND
tel +358 205 644386
fax +358 205 644350
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
Forest Research Institute of Baden -Württemberg
Department of Botany and Site-Studies
P. O. Box 708
63
64
79007 Freiburg / GERMANY
tel +49 761 4018211
fax +49 761 4018333
Greece
Dimitrios Trakolis
Hungary
Peter Czájlik
Zsófia Maglóczky
Zoltan Somogyi
Iceland
Adalstein Sigurgeisson
Ireland
Declan Little
Aileen O'Sullivan
Italy
Fulvio Ducci
Vittorio Tosi
Netherlands
Erwin Jan Al
Mirjam Broekmeyer
Norway
Björn Age Tommerås
57006 Vassiliko – Thessaloniki / GREECE
tel +30 31 46 11 71
fax +30 31 46 13 41
"Vásárhelyi István"
Nature Conservation Group
Kazinczy u. 18. I/5.
H-1191 Budapest / HUNGARY
tel +36 1 3775 813
fax +36 1 313 94 98
Budapest / HUNGARY
fax +36 1 3261639
Reykjavik / ICELAND
fax +354 5154501
Coillte Teo., Research & Development
Wicklow / IRELAND
tel +353 1 2011142
fax +353 1 201 1199
Coillte Teo., Research & Development
Wicklow / IRELAND
tel +353 1 2011140
fax +353 1 201 1199
Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura
Viale S. Margherita 80
I-52100 Arezzo / ITALY
tel +39 575 35 3021
fax +39 575 35 3490
ISAFA
Piazza Nicolini, 6
38050 Villazzano (Trento) – 1 / ITALY
tel +39 461 381116
fax +39 461 381131
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
BG-DLO
Bosrandweg 20
Postbus 23
6700 AA Wageningen / NETHERLANDS
tel +31 83 70 9 51 11
fax +31 83 70 2 49 88
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
Poland
Portugal
Roman Zielony
Ana Almeida
Romania
Gheorghe Florian Borlea
Russia
Oleg Chertov
Slovak Republic
Milan Saniga
Slovenia
Andrej Boncina
Jurij Diaci
Spain
Angel Fernandez Lopez
Sweden
Sune Sohlberg
Switzerland
Jean-Francois Matter
United Kingdom
Jim Latham
Warszawa / POLAND
Estaçao Florestal Nacional
Tapada das necessidades
Rua do Borja 2
1350 Lisboa / PORTUGAL
tel+fax +351 1 3637988
Aleea Padurea-Verde, jud. Timis
1900 Timisoara / ROMANIA
tel +4 056 220 085
fax +4 056 205 531
Dept. Forestry, St. Petersburg Forest Academy
Institutsky 5
St. Petersburg, 194018 / RUSSIA
fax +7 812 427 73 10
+7 812 550 08 15
Lesnicka Fakulta
Technickej Univerzity vo Zvolene
(Forstfakultät der Technischen Universität Zvolen)
T. G. Masaryka 24
96053 Zvolen / SLOVAKIA
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
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
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
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
S-106 48 Stockholm / SWEDEN
tel +46 8 6981336
fax +46 8 6981662
Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule
Geobotanisches Institut
Gladbachstr. 114
8044 Zürich / SWITZERLAND
fax +411 632 1033
CCW
Ffordd Penrhos
Bangor, Gaynedd LL57 2LQ / UK
tel +44 1 248385642
fax +44 1 248 385510
65
66
Appendix 1. Legal status of forest areas left to free development: Strict Forest
Reserves and comparable categories
67
68
69
70
Appendix 2. Legal status of forest areas left to free development: National Parks
Austria
Finland
France1)
Germany
Greece
National Park
Core Area
Subcategory
strict forest
reserve
National Park
National Park
National Park
Core Area
National Park
Core Area
National name
Nationalpark
Kernzone
Kansallispuisto
Parc national
Nationalpark
Kernzone
Reference date
VII/99
VI/99
V/99
No silvicultural intervention
X
X
X
X
(X)
Hunting, Game Management*
X
X
no
X
no
Country
Categories:
Lifestock present*
(X)
X/99
no
Right of way*
X
X
(X)
X
X
Safeguard at the borders*
X
no
(X)
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
Visitors information
X
X
X
X
(X)
Non destructive research
X
X
no
X
X
± Destructive research
no
no
no
Pesticide treatments allowed
no
no
Fire intervention
X
X
Other interventions*)
no
(X)
Safeguard within the area*)
Use of genetic resources*)
(X)
X
no
(X)
no
X
X
(X)
no
no
2
2
2
2
1
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
~20 000
18 127
Legal protection*)
Ownership*)
Actual reserve area (ha)
—
687 000
Size range (ha) *)
—
400 – 285 500
Percentage of total forest area
—
*)
X
(X)
No
–
700
2)
(X)
12-4 850
0,2
0,28
See annotations (Appendix 7)
yes
in some cases
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.
71
Country:
Categories:
Hungary
Italy
National
Park1)
National Park
The
Netherlands
National Park
Portugal1)
National
Park
National
Park
Nasjonalparker
Parque
Nacional
National name
Nemzeti Park
Park
Reference date
XI/99
X/99
(X)
(X)
Hunting, Game Management
(X)
Lifestock present
no
(X)
(X)
Right of way
(X)
(X)
X
Safeguard at the borders
(roads etc.)
Safeguard within the area
(trails, rivers)
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
no
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
no
no
(X)
Fire intervention
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
(X)
Legal protection*)
1,2
1,2 (3)
1
1,2
1,2
1
3
2,1,4
Ownership*)
Manager*)
Parco nazionale Nationaal Park
Norway
IX/99
(X)
X
1-5
—
Size range (ha) *)
—2)
5 000-192 500
1 320-7 200
—2)
14%
(forest) 7%
1 250 954
*)
See annotations to the questionnaires (Appendix 7)
X
(X)
No
–
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
(X)
X
X
X
2)
X
1)
52 390
(forest 24 190)
1-5
1,2,3
1,2
2
(3)
3
10.000
70 290
(1)
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
United
Kingdom
National
Park
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Categories:
National Park
National Park
National Park
National
Park
National name
Narodny park
Narodni park
Parque
National
National Park
Reference date
IV/99
IV/X/99
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
Country:
Lifestock present
III/X/991)
(X)
Right of way
(X)
X
(X)
X2)
X
(roads etc.)
(trails, rivers)
X
no
(X)
X
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
no
no
no
(X)
no
X
Fire intervention
(X)
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
(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
3 (1)
3
1,3,4
3,4
Size range (ha) *)
243 219
19 207
3 750-74 111
*)
X
(X)
No
–
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
1
1
1)
20 000
3)
132 478
40 000
1 928 – 50 720
27-25 0003)
5
1 - >200
0,23)
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)
73
Appendix 3. Planning of forest reserves network - national concepts: Strict forest
reserves and comparable categories
Country:
Categories
Austria
Strict
forest
reserve
Declared
Reserve on
Reserve of
research
the stand
normal
reserve
level size
standard
(sub-category (sub-category (sub-category
of strict forest of strict forest of strict forest
reserve)
reserve)
reserve)
StandardNaturwald- Schwerpunktreservat
zelle
reservat
Belgium 1)
Denmark
Forest
reserve2)
Strict forest
reserves
(”untouched
forest”)
Bosreservaat
Urort skov
National name
Naturwaldreservat
Reference date
VII/99
VII/ 1999
VII/ 1999
VII/ 1999
V/IX/99
1-10001)
25-1000
1-25
1-1000
No limits
4-10-100
Size range of planned
reserve area
Planned area for the
network (ha) *)
No limits
Minimum:
10.000 ha
30002)
0,25
~32)
1,2 (by 2000)
1,4(by 2010)1)
Planned Percentage of total
forest area of the country
Representativity *)
3
3
3
3
X
(X)
Ancient forests only
X
X
X
X
No
(X)
Successional forests
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
Anthropogenic forests
No
No
No
No
(X)
(X) mainly
Buffer zones obligatory
No
No
No
No
No
No
*) see annotations (Appendix 7)
X
(X)
No
−
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
Remarks:
Austria:
1) Minimum 30-60 ha, depending on forest community.
Belgium:
1)
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).
Data only for Flanders.
Forest reserves can be both strict or directed reserves.
2) For most reserves the decision still has to be made
though the majority will be strict reserve
74
Country:
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Categories
Strict
nature
reserve
Strict forest
reserve
Strict forest
reserve
Natural
monument
Strict forest
reserve
Nature
Reserve
Réserve
biologique
intégrale
Naturwaldreservat
Erdörezervatum
Magterület1)
Nature Reserve
IV/ 99
I/IX/XI/99
X/99
no
—
15 000 with
buffer zone
—
no
1
(with buffer
zone)
—
National name
Luonnonpuistot
Reference date
reserve area
5000
network (ha) *)
>50 in plain
>100 in
mountain1)
5000 by
year 2000
>30
no
Representativity *)
3
¾
2,3
X
3
3,4
X
(X)
X
(X)
no
(X)
(X)
X
(X)
X
no
no
X
no
(X)
no
no
(X)
no
no
X
no
*)
X
(X)
No
−
yes
in some cases
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.
75
Italy
Country:
Categories
Strict
forest
reserve/
Wilderness
area
The Netherlands
Strict forest
reserve
Norway
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Sweden
Nature
Reserve
Nature
reserve
Strict forest
reserve
Nature
reserve1)
Gozdni
rezervat
Naturreservat
National name
Riserva
integrale
Strict
bosreservaat
Naturreservater
Prirodna
rezervacia
Reference date
V/X/99
IX/99
V/98
IV/99
—
>20
(X)
10 00020 000
reserve area
network (ha) *)
III/99
1-700
3.340
no limits
250 000
(by 2010)
—
1
1
5
1,4
4,8
Representativity *)
4
X
1
4
(2,3,4)
2,4
no
no
X
X
(X)
no
X
Country:
Categories
National name
X
X
50-100 m
no
(X)
(X)
X
(X)
(X)
no
United
Kingdom
SSSI1)minimum
intervention
SSSI1)
Reference date
reserve area
1-1000
network (ha) *)
1
Representativity *)
4
mainly
X
(X)
*)
X
(X)
No
−
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
Remarks:
1
Sweden:
) In productive forest land (yearly increment > 1m³/ha)
United Kingdom: 1) Site of Special Scientific Interest
76
Appendix 4. Planning of forest reserves network - national concepts: National Parks
Country
Austria
Finland
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Categories:
National
Park
National Park
National Park
National
Park
National
Park
Nemzeti
Park
National
Park
X/99
Core area
National name
Reference date
Peripheral
Zone
Nationalpark Kansallispuisto
Kernzone
X/99
X/99
1998
1998
—
no restriction
10 000
>1500
>1500
—
network (ha) *)
—
691 330
Planned Percentage of
forest area of the whole
country
—
Representativity*)
2,4
no
reserve area (ha)
—
no
no
—
3
X
(X)
4
2,4
X
(X)
no
no
no
X
X
no
no
no
(X)
X
X
no
X
no
X
no
X
*)
X
(X)
No
–
yes
in some cases
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.
77
Italy
Country
The
Netherlands
National
Park
Categories:
Norway
Slovak
Rep.
Sweden
United
Kingdom
National
park
National
park
National
Park 1)
National
Park1)
National name
Parco
nazionale
Nationaal
Park
Nasjonal
parker
Narodny
park
National
Park
Reference date
X/99
IX/99
V/98
IV/99
III/X/991)
—
>1000
>1000
>1000
>10002)
reserve area (ha)
80 6691)
network (ha) *)
Planned Percentage of
forest area of the whole
country
Representativity*)
100 0002)3)
0,33)
1
2
2,4
2
X
no
?
7
1,0
2,3,4
?
no
?
1,0
?
X
?
(X)
*)
X
(X)
No
–
X
>5
(X)
X
yes
in some cases
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.
(X)
X
78
Appendix 5. Legal status of forest areas left to free development
AUSTRIA
Country:
Forest area (ha)
Forest cover (%)
Categories**):
3.924.000/
47
Strict forest
reserve
Reserve of
normal
standard
(sub-category
of strict forest
reserve)
Reserve on
stand level size
(sub-category of
strict forest
reserve)
Declared
research
reserve
Core areas
of National
Parks
(sub-category of
strict forest
reserve)
National name
Naturwaldreservat
Standardreservat3)
Naturwaldzelle3)
Schwerpunktreservat
Kernzone
Reference date
VII/ 1999
VII/ 1999
VII/ 1999
VII/ 1999
VII/ 1999
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
etc.)*)
X
X
X
X
X
Safeguard within the area (trails,
rivers)*)
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Fire intervention
X
X
X
X
X
no
no
no
no
no
(seeds)4)
(seeds)
(seeds)
(seeds)
3
3
3
3
2
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1,2,3
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2
4
4
4
4
1,3
6000
4000
1000
1000
1 - 1000
25 - 1000
1 - 25
1 - 1000
0,15
0,1
0,025
0,025
Visitors information1)
Use of genetic resources*) 2)
Legal protection*)
Ownership*)
Manager*)
Size range (ha) *)
*)
**)
X
(X)
No
–
Remarks:
1)
2)
3)
4)
E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories,
Site of Special Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
In most cases the location of the reserves is not known by the public.
Seeds, only for scientific purposes.
Minimum of research: identifying of forest community, vegetation plots, maps of communities
In some cases to maintain threatened species
-
79
Country:
Forest area (ha)
Forest cover (%)
Categories**):
National name
Reference date
Hunting, game management
Lifestock present
Right of way
Safeguard at the borders (roads etc.)
Safeguard within the area (trails, rivers)
Fire intervention
Legal protection*)
Ownership*)
Manager*)
Size range (ha) *)
BELGIUM (Flanders)2)
DENMARK
135 000/***)
10
Strict forest
Strict nature
reserve
reserve
Integraal
Integraal
bosreservaat
natuurreservaat
445 000/
11
Strict forest
reserve
Urort skov
V/IX/99
V/IX/99
IV/IX 99
X
(X)
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
(X)
X
(X)
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)3)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
1
1,2,3
1
4
12002)
4 - 100
1
(X)
(X)3)
(X)
(X)
(X)
2
1,2,3
2
4
50021)
3-201)
0,5
1)
No
X / (X)
X
(X)
(X)
X
no
no
X 2)
X3)
(X)
1-34)
1-5
1-4
(4)/ 7
6 085
0,5 – 370
1,4
*)
**)
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:
Legal protection
Ownership
Forest Reserves
Forest Decree (1991)
State, municipalities, private, ...
Type of management
Management responsible
Scientific co-ordination
Strict or Special Management
Forest Administration
Inst. for Forestry and Game Mgmt.
Nature Reserves
Decree on Nature Cons. (1997)
State, municipalities, private
organisations
Strict or Special Management
Nature Cons. Administration
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)
2)
3)
4)
Hunting is in general allowed for the property owner but not game management (e.g. feeding, artificial stocking etc.)
Has not yet occured.
Closing of ditches, specific cuttings etc. according to a plan before the date of non-intervention status.
On private estates etc. mainly by local, legally-binding agreements, in the state forests by administrative binding decisions
(state forest reserves).
80
FINLAND
Country:
Forest area (ha)/ orest
cover (%)
Categories**):
National name
23 000 000/
76
Strict
nature
reserve
National
park
Luonnon- Kansallispuisto
puisto
Wildernes
s area
Peatland Protection
High
Programme for
reserve
forest
altitudes conservations
>300m
of old-grown
a.s.l.
forests
Erämaa
Soiden
suojelualue
Suojametsäalue
Korkeiden
alueiden
metsät
Vanhojen
metsien
suojeluohjelma
Reference date
VI/99
VI/99
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
No silvicultural
intervention
X
X
(X)
(X)
no
no
X
Hunting, Game
Management
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lifestock present
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Right of way
no
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
(roads etc.)
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
(trails, rivers)
(X)
X
(X)
no
no
no
no
(X)
X
(X)
no
no
no
no
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
no
no
no
no
(X)
(X)
(X)
Pesticide treatments
allowed
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Fire intervention
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
no
(X)
no
no
X
X
no
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
4,2
4,2
4,2
4,2
4,2
4,2
1,4
149 000
684 000
1 378 000
411 000
—
440 000
10 000
Size range (ha) *)
63 –
71 170
400 –
285 500
15 000294 000
5-52 000
—
—
—
0,6
3,0
—
—
—
1,9
—
Percentage of total forest
area
81
Country:
FINLAND
Programme for Programme for
conservation of conservation of
richest forests
eskers
sites
Categories**):
Wetland
reserve
Shoreline
conservation
programme
Areas of
outstanding
national beauty
National name
Lehtojensuojelualue
Harjujen
suojelualue
Lintuvesien
suojelualue
Rantojen
suojelualue
Maisemallisesti
arvokas alue
Reference date
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
No silvicultural
intervention
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
Hunting, Game
Management
X
X
no
X
X
Lifestock present
X
X
X
X
X
Right of way
X
X
(X)
X
X
(roads etc.)
no
no
no
no
no
Safeguard within the
area (trails, rivers)
no
no
no
no
no
no
(X)
(X)
no
no
X
X
X
X
X
± destructive research
(X)
no
no
(X)
(X)
allowed
no
no
no
no
no
Fire intervention
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
Use of genetic
resources*)
(X)
no
(X)
X
X
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
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
2 200
94 000
5 900
8 200
—
0,4-151
10-5 300
18-500
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Legal protection*)
Size range (ha) *)
area
*)
**)
X
(X)
No
–
E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
82
Country:
FRANCE (metropolitan)
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)
Categories**):
15 156 000/
28
National name
Réserve naturelle and
Réserve biologique
intégrale
Parc national
Reference date
III/99
III/99
X
X
(X)
no
Lifestock present
no
no
Right of way
(X)
(X)
(roads etc.)
X
X
(trails, rivers)
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
(X)
no
no
no
Fire intervention
X
X
8 800 000
National
Park
X
(X)
no
Legal protection*)
1-3
2
Ownership*)
1-4
1, 2
Manager*)
1-4
2
8
8
≅ 15 000
700(2)
*)
**)
X
(X)
No
–
Nature
Reserve
Bio Reserve
Natural Park
III/99
III/99
III/99
≅177 000
≅123 000
17 300
(1)
Size range (ha) *)
FRANCE (overseas)3)
1 - 500
≅ 0,1
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
83
Remarks:
1)
2)
3)
Other interventions: fight against natural hazards (vegetal pests) - recreate natural water dynamic (flood plains)
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
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
Country:
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)
Categories**):
GERMANY
Strict forest
reserve
National name
Naturwaldreservat
Naturwald(par)zelle
Totalreservat
Bannwald1)
Reference date
X/99
No silvicultural
intervention
10 700 000/
30
Biosphere
National
Reserve
Park core
core areas
areas
Nationalpark BiosphärenKernzone
reservat
Kernzone
1997
Nature reserve
core areas of
some reserves
Naturschutz-gebiet
Kernzone
1997
1997
X
Hunting, game
management
X
X
X
X
Right of way
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lifestock present
X
(X)
allowed
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
1
2
2
2
1-3
1
1
1/2/3/4
Manager*)
1
2
2
2
4
3
3
1/2/3/4/5/6
25 000
Size range (ha) *)
5 - 276
Fire intervention
(X)
(X)
Legal protection*)
Ownership*)
area
*)
**)
X
(X)
No
–
0,25
<——— 60 000 ———>1)
<——— 0,6 ———>
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
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.
85
GREECE
Country:
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)
6 513 000/
49
National Park
Core Area
National Park
Peripheral
Zone
Aesthetic
Forest
Natural
Monument
Game
Refuge
Research
Plots
No silvicultural
intervention
(X)
no
no
(X)
no
no
Hunting, game
management
no
X
X
(X)
no
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
(X)
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
no
no
no
no
no
(X)
allowed
no
no
(X)
no
no
(X)
Fire intervention
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
X
(X)
X
no
(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
2
2
2
2
2
1,2,4
18 127
—
146
1 049
—
—
12-4 850
>1500
46-100
18-550
—
—
0,28
—
0,0022
0,016
—
—
Categories**):
National name
Reference date
Lifestock present
Right of way
Size range(ha) *)
area
*)
**)
X
(X)
No
–
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
86
Country:
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)
Categories**):
HUNGARY
Strict forest
reserve
1 738 000/
18
Buffer zone
IRELAND
Almost strictly
protected areas
Nature
Reserve
National
Park
National name
Erdörezervatum
Magterület
Erdôrezervátum
puffer zóna
Fokozottan
védett terület
Nature
Reserve
National
Park
Reference date
IX/99
IX/99
IX/99
XI/99
XI/99
X
no
(X)
X
X
no
X
X
(X)
(X)
Lifestock present
no
no
no
(X)
X
Right of way
no
X
no
(X)
X
no
no
no
X
(X)
no
no
no
X
X
no
no
(X)
(X)
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
no
X
no
no
no
(no)
(X)
no
(X)
(X)
Fire intervention
X
X
X
no
(X)
no
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
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
3
3
3
1,3,7
1,3
3 665
8 100
56 000
2335
2860
8,4-260
6,7-370
10-600
7-370
10-2500
0,2
0,55
3,5
0,5
0,5
Size range (ha) *)
*)
**)
X
(X)
No
–
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
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.
87
Country:
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)***
Categories**):
ITALY
Strict forest
reserve
Wilderness
area
Riserva
integrale
Parco
nazionale
Reference date
V/X/99
X/99
V/99
V/99
No silvicultural
intervention
X
(X)
X
(X)
National name
National
Park
8 675 000/
29
Natural
Habitat/
Monument
Species
Managemen
t area
Monumento
naturale
Hunting, Game
Management
Protected
Landscape
Managed
resource
Protection
area
V/99
V/99
X
(X)
Lifestock present
(X)
Right of way
(X)
X
(X)
X
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
(X)
allowed
no
no
no
Fire intervention
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
1,2 (3)
1,2 (3)
1,2 (3)
1,2 (3)
1,2 (3)
1,2 (3)
1,2
1,2
1,2,3,4,5
1,2
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1
1
1
1
1
1
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
62 053
1 250 954
—
—
—
—
Size range (ha) *)
1-4 000
5 000192 500
—
—
—
0,72
141)
Legal protection*)
Ownership*)
Manager*)
area
*)
**)
***)
X
(X)
No
–
Scientific Interest
Forest area definition (NFI-85): minimum cover 20%, minimum area 2.000 m³, minimum width 20 m.
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
Remarks:
1)
This percentage refers to the entire area (not only the forested area) of the National Parks.
88
THE NETHERLANDS
Country:
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)
Categories**):
334 000/
10
Protected
nature
monument
Beschermd
Natuurmonument
Strict forest
reserve
Forest A
locality
National name
Strikt bosreservaat
A-locatie bos
Reference date
X/99
X/99
(X)
2)
X
(X)
2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
X
(X)2)
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)2)
State nature
monument
National
Park1)
Staats Natuurmonument
Nationaal Park
X/99
X/99
X/99
(X)
2)
(X)
2)
(X)
2)
(X)
2)
X
X
(X)
Lifestock present
Right of way
(X)2)
(X)
2)
X
(X)
(X)
no
no
no
no
no
Fire intervention
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(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
4
2,3
7
7
7
3 078
19 000
52 390 (forest
24 190)
Size range (ha) *)
5-450
1-780
1 320-7 200
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
X yes
No No
(X) in some cases
— no answer/no data
Remarks:
1) Including non-forest areas
2) Only with the owner's permission.
89
Country:
THE NETHERLANDS
Categories**):
Private nature
reserve
All forests
National name
Particulier bosreservaat
Alle bossen
Reference date
X/99
X/99
(X)2)
X2)
Lifestock present
(X)2)
(X)2)
Right of way
(X)2)
(X)2)
Safeguard at the borders (roads
etc.)
(X)2)
(X)2)
Safeguard within the area (trails,
rivers)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
(X)2)
X
X
(X)
(X)
1,3
1
2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
3,4
1,2,3,4
7
7
15 000
334 000
Size range (ha) *)
—
—
5
100
Fire intervention
Legal protection*)
Ownership*)
Manager*)
**) E.g. Strict forest reserve, National park, Biosphere area and other national categories, Site of Special
Scientific Interest
X yes
No No
(X) in some cases
— no answer/no data
Remarks:
1) Including non-forest areas
2) Only with the owner's permission.
90
NORWAY
Country:
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)
Categorie**):
11950/
37
Nature
Reserve1)
National
Park2)
Protected
Landscape
Natural
Monument3)
No silvicultural
intervention
(X)
(X)
Hunting, Game
Management
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
(X)
National name
Reference date
Lifestock present
Right of way
(X)
allowed
no
no
(X)
no
Fire intervention
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Legal protection*)
X
X
X
X
1-5
1-5
1-5
1,3
2
1,2
1,2
2
(3)
(3)
no
(3)
50 000
10 000
50 000
-
1,0
(1)
(0,3)
0
Ownership*)
Manager*)
Size range (ha) *)
area
*)
**)
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
X
(X)
No
–
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
91
PORTUGAL1)
Country:
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)
Categories:
Natural Park
National name
Parque Natural
Parque
Nacional
Strict
Reserve
Reserva
Integral
Reference date
V/99
V/99
V/99
X
X
no
X
X
no
Lifestock present
X
X
no
Right of way
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
no
(X)
no
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
no
(X)
(X)
no
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
2
2
2
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
Manager*)
2
2
2
3
3
3
177
2650
2827
37-80
600-1300
37-1300
Fire intervention
3 306 000/
37
National Park
Legal protection*)
Ownership*)
Size range (ha) *)
**) Large scale reserves
E.g. National Park, Biosphere area and other national categories including strictly protected areas left to free
development
X yes
(X) in some cases
Remarks:
1) Continental Portugal
92
Country:
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)
Categories**):
SLOVENIA
SLOVAK REP.
1 920 000/
42
Nature
National Park
reserve
Strict forest
reserve
1 090 000/
54
Forest with
protection role
("Schutzwälder")
Varovalni gozd
Narodni park
National
Park
National name
Priordna
rezervacia
Narodny park
Gozdui
rezervat
Reference date
IV/99
IV/99
V/X/99
X/99
IV/X/99
X
(X)
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
Lifestock present
no
(X)
Right of way
(X)
X
X
no
no
X
no
X
(X)
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
no
(X)
(X)
no
no
no
Fire intervention
no
no
(X)
no
(X)
X
(X)
—
(X)
Legal protection*)
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
(1)(3)(4)
2
1
1
2
3 (1)
1
2
3
96 264
243 219
10 890
~60 000
19 2071)
10-20 000
3 750-74 111
1 - 700
—
—
>1
1
1
5,3
1
Ownership*)
Manager*)
1
Size range (ha) *)
area
*)
**)
X
(X)
No
–
E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
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.
93
SPAIN
Country:
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)
Categories**):
Strict reserve
Natural
Reserve
12 511 000/
25
Partial nature
reserve
X
(X)
(X)
Natural
reserve of wild
fauna
National Park
(X)
(X)
National name
Reference date
No silvicultural
intervention
Hunting, Game
Management
(X)
Lifestock present
Right of way
(X)
(X)
(X)
Safeguard at the boarders
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
allowed
Fire intervention
(X)
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(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)
2
2
2
2
2
Legal protection*)
Ownership*)
Manager*)
X
1,3,4
Size range (ha) *)
area
28 417
< 7 500
132 478
1 928 – 50 720
94
Country:
SPAIN
Natural
Park
Categories**):
Regional
Park
Protected
landscape
Protected
Natural site
natural area
Others
National name
Reference date
No silvicultural
intervention
(X)
Hunting, Game
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
allowed
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Legal protection*)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(2)(3)
(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)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(5)
2
2
2
2
2
2
4 629
175 189
896
Lifestock present
Right of way
Safeguard at the boarders
Fire intervention
Ownership*)
Manager*)
2 086 970
Size range (ha) *)
< 214 300
area
*)
**)
X
(X)
No
–
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
95
SWEDEN
Country:
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)***)
Categories**):
National name
28 000 000/
69***)
Nature Reserve
National Park
Naturreservat
National Park
X/ 991)
X/ 991)
X
X
(X)
(X)
Lifestock present
(X)
(X)
Right of way
X2)
X2)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
(X)
(X)
no
no
no
no
Fire intervention
X
X
—
(X)
(X)
(X)
2
2
1-3
1
2
2
3, 4
3, 4
792 3703)
40 0003)
Size range (ha) *)
1-60 000
27-25 0003)
3,53)
0,23)
Reference date
Legal protection*)
Ownership*)
Manager*)
*)
**)
E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site
of Special Scientific Interest
Forest and other wooded land
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
***)
X
(X)
No
–
Remarks:
1)
2)
3)
Data refer to state of the year 1996.
Also right of common access
Area and percentage refers to productive forest land (yearly increment >1m³/ha)
96
UNITED KINGDOM
Country:
Forest area (ha)/
Forest cover (%)
Categories**):
2 503 000/
10
National Nature
SAC***)
Reserve
(= national name)
SSSIminimum
intervention
Reference date
III/99
No silvicultural
intervention
X
(X)
(X)
Hunting, Game
Management
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
Lifestock present
(X)
Right of way
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
(X)
National Park
X
allowed
Fire intervention
X
(X)
(X)
X
X1)
(X)
(X)
X
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
1-5
3
3
7
10 000
<2 000
<2 000
20 000
1 - 1000
5 - >2002)
5 - >2002)
5 - >2002)
<1
<1
<1
1
Size range (ha) *)
area 3)
*)
**)
Scientific Interest (SSSI)
Special Area of Conservation
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
***)
X
(X)
No
–
Remarks:
1)
2)
3)
Vigilence for, and removal of, invasive non-native species
>200 Usual max. For max. Size - exceptional sites are bigger
% = % of ancient semi-natural forest area
97
Appendix 6. Planning of forest reserves network - national concepts
Country:
Austria
Strict forest
reserve
Categories**):
Reserve of
normal
standard
(sub-category of
strict forest
reserve)
Reserve on the
stand level size
(sub-category of
strict forest
reserve)
Declared
research
reserve
Core area of
National Park
(Sub-category
of strict forest
reserve)
National name
Naturwaldreservat
Standardreservat
Naturwaldzelle
Schwerpunktreservat
Kernzone
Reference date
VII/99
VII/99
VII/99
VII/99
VII/99
reserve area
1-1000
25-1000
1-25
1-1000
—
network (ha) *)
Planned percentage of
total forest area of the
country *)
Minimum:
10 000 ha
—
0,25
—
Representativity*)
3
3
3
3
2,4
X
X
X
X
No
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
*)
**)
X
X
(X)
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
No
–
no
no answer/ no data
98
Country:
Belgium (Flanders)
Denmark
Forest reserve
Nature reserve
Strict forest
reserves
("untouched
forest")
National name
Bosreservaat
Natuurreservaat
Urørt skov
Gammel
driftsform
Naturfredet
område
Reference date
V/99
V/99
I/99
I/99
I/99
no real policy
5-300
No limits
No limits
No limits
30001)
—
5 000 (by 2000)
6 000 (by 2010)
4 000
(by 2000)
Not fixed
country *)
3
—
1,2 (by 2000)
1,4 (by 2010)1)
Representativity*)
X
(X)
(X)
No
No
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X) mainly
No
No
No
No
No
Categories**):
reserve area
network (ha) *)
*)
**)
Reserves with Other types of
specific
legally
management
proteted
(e.g.coppicing)
reserves
X
(X)
Scientific Interest
yes
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).
99
Finland
Country
Categories**):
Strict nature
reserve
National Park
Peatland
reserve
Programme for conservation
of old-grown forests
National name
Luonnonpuisto
Kansallispuisto
Soiden
suojelualue
Vanhojen metsien
suojeluohjelma
Reference date
VI/X/99
VI/X99
VI/X/99
VI/X/99
5000
10 000
1000
1000
149 000
691 330
591 160
344 450
Representativity*)
3
3
4
4
X
X
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
reserve area (ha)
network (ha) *)
country *)
Finland
Country:
Programme for
Programme
Programme for
conservation of
for
conservation of
richest forests conservation of
waterways
sites
eskers
essential for
birdlife
Categories**:
Shoreline
conservation
programme
Areas of
outstanding
national
beauty
National name
Lehtojen
suojelualue
Harjujen
suojelualue
Lintuvesien
suojelualue
Rantojen
suojelualue
Maisemallisesti arvokas
alue
Reference date
VI/X/99
VI/X/99
VI/X/99
VI/X/99
VI/X/99
100
100
1000
—
—
5 200
94 000
83 090
145 540
—
4
2
4
2
2
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
(X)
(X)
No
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
No
No
No
No
No
reserve area (ha)
network (ha) *)
country *)
Representativity*)
*)
**)
X
(X)
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
No
–
no
no answer/ no data
100
Country:
France
Strict forest reserve
Categories**):
National name
Réserve biologique
intégrale
Reference date
III/99
Size range of planned reserve
area (ha)
National Park
>50 in plain
>100 in mountain
Planned area for the network
(ha) *)
Planned percentage of total
forest area of the country *)
Representativity***)
3,4
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
*)
**)
X
(X)
Scientific Interest
yes
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).
101
Country
Greece
Categories**):
National Park
a. Core area
b. Peripheral
zone
Aesthetic
forest
Natural
monument
Game
refuge
Research
plot
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
>1500
>1500
No
No
X
country *)
No
No
No
No
No
Representativity*)
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
(X)
No
No
(X)
No
No
No
(X)
(X)
No
(X)
(X)
X
No
No
No
No
(X)
National name
Reference date
reserve area (ha)
network (ha) *)
*)
**)
X
(X)
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
No
–
no
no answer/ no data
102
Country:
Hungary
Categories**):
Strict forest
reserve
Nature Reserve
National Park
National name
Erdörezervatum
Magterület
Nature Reserve
National Park
Reference date
I/IX/1999
X/99
X/99
10-150
—
—
(ha) *)
14 000 (with
buffer zone)
—
—
—
—
—
Representativity*)
3
3,4
2,4
No
(X)
no
(X)
X
X
(X)
no
no
X
no
no
reserve area (ha)
*)
**)
Ireland
X
(X)
Scientific Interest
yes
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.
103
Italy
Country:
Strict forest reserve/Wilderness area
National
Park
Natural
monument
National name
Riserva
intergrale
Parco
nazionale
Monumento
naturale
Reference date
V/99
V/99
Categories**):
reserve area (ha)
Habitat/
species,
Management area
Protected
landscape
Managed
resource/
Protection
area
V/99
I/99
I/99
I/99
3
4
2,3
1,4
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
—
network (ha) *)
country *)
Representativity*)
4
2,3,4
no
no
*)
**)
X
(X)
No
–
X
E.g. Strict Forest Reserve, National Park, Biosphere Area and other national categories, Site of Special Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
Remarks:
1) Total area, not only forest area
104
Country:
The Netherlands
Strict forest
reserve
Forest Alocality
Protected
nature
monument
State nature
monument
National Park
National name
Strikt
bosreservat
A-locatie bos
Beschermd
Natuurmonument
Staats Natuurmonument
Nationaal Park
Reference date
IX/99
IX/99
IX/99
IX/99
IX/99
reserve area (ha)
>20
>20
>20
>20
>1000
network (ha) *)
3340
—
—
—
806691)
country *)
1
5-10
—
—
—
Representativity*)
X
X
no
~200
~125
12[15]
Categories**):
Total number of
localities [in 2000]
X
50-100 m
50-100 m
60
242
105
Country:
The Netherlands
Private forest
reserve
All forests
National name
Particulier bosreservaat
Alle bossen
Reference date
IX/99
IX/99
Categories**):
area
>0,1%
(ha) *)
—
Representativity*)
23,95
+45
10,8
(36 100 ha)
*)
**)
86,3
(288 200 ha)
(50-100m)
X
(X)
No
–
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
Remarks:
1)
Including non-forest areas
106
Country:
Norway
Categories**):
Nature reserve National park1) New/year 2000
nature reserve
National name
Natur-reservater Nasjonal-parker
Reference date
V/88
V/88
reserve area (ha)
(X)
>1000
1,0
Representativity*)
Protected
landscape
Landskaps
vernområbler
V/88
V/88
1,0
0,3
0,3
1
2
1
2
X
X
(X)
(X)
no
(X)
no
no
network (ha) *)
country *)
*)
**)
X
(X)
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
No
–
no
no answer/ no data
Remarks:
1) Forests in national parks are protected against forestry.
107
Country:
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
National Park
Nature reserve
Forest reserve
National name
Narodny park
Prirodna
rezervacia
Gozdni rezervat
Reference date
IV/99
IV/99
V/9; X/99
reserve area
>1000
10 000-12 000
1-700
Categories**):
(ha) *)
14 330
12,7
5
1,4
Representativity*)
2,4
4
(2,3,4)
X
X
(X)
*)
**)
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
X
(X)
No
–
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
Sweden
Country:
Categories:
National name
Nature reserve4)
National Park
Naturreservat
National Park
1)
III/X/991)
Reference date
III/X/99
area
no limits
>1 0002)
(ha) *)
25 0000
(by 2010)2)
100 0002)3)
4,82)
0,32)
Representativity *)
2,4
2,4
no
no
X
X
X
(X)
no
(X)
*)
X
(X)
No
–
yes
in some cases
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.
109
Country:
United Kingdom
SSSI-minimum
National
intervention1) nature reserves
Categories**):
(= national name)
Reference date
SAC
National Park1)
III/99
I/99
I/99
I/99
1 - 1000
5 - >200
5 - >200
>5
network (ha) *)
—
—
—
—
country *)
1
<1
<1
1
Representativity*)
4
4
4
2
mainly
mainly
mainly
mainly
X
(X)
(X)
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
reserve area (ha)
*)
**)
Scientific Interest
yes
in some cases
no
no answer/ no data
X
(X)
No
–
Remarks:
1)
>200
National Park in UK is not comparable to other countries
Size range of reserve areas >200 implies that exceptionally sites are bigger than 200 ha.
110
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:
Anthropogenic forests:
Core area (zone)/Central area:
Forest area:
Hunting, Game management
Legal protection:
Lifestock present:
Manager:
Other interventions:
Ownership:
Planned area for the national network:
Planned percentage of forest area:
Representativity – oriented to:
Residual virgin forest area:
Right of way:
Safeguard:
Scientific coordination:
Forest with long (ancient) or uninterrupted forest
tradition including also rests of virgin forests ("virgin
ancient"). Frequently old stands.
Forests consisting mostly of regionally non native or
exotic species.
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.
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)
Includes planned reduction of populations and pleasure
(trophy) hunting.
(1) forest laws; (2) nature conservation laws; (3)
administrative regulations
Presence of grazing domestic animals
(1) forest administration; (2) nature conservation; (3)
private staff/organization; (4) NGOs (nature protection
associations, societies)
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.
(1) state; (2) municipalities; (3) private (nature
conservation/protection associations/societies); (4)
corporations, churches,etc; (5) NGOs
Specify time frame (e.g. by 2010...), if possible
% of total forest area
(1) forest cover ; (2) site and landscape types; (3) forest
vegetation units; (4) nature conservation aspects
(protection of biocoenoses, species, biotopes and
habitats)
% of actual forest area
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.
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)
(1) universities;( 2) forest administrations; (3) nature
conservation administrations; (4) research institutes; (5)
museums; (6) private research organizations; (7) no
coordination; (8) scientific committee
Size range (minimum size tomaximum size):
Successional forests:
Total forest area:
Use of genetic resources:
111
Smallest and largest reserve of the country
- 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)
Data according to the forest definition of your
country
Gathering of seeds, grains, seedlings, saplings, grafts
112
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
(reserve of normal
standard, sub-category
of Natural Forest
Reserve)
Standardreservat
Standard Reserves must be sufficiently large to
sustainably ensure the complete developmental
cycle (minimum structural group). A basic
monitoring programme, comprising vegetation
mapping and a network of permanent sample
plots, is necessary for long-term monitoring and
documentation of the forest development.
•
Schwerpunktreservat
Point of main effort
reserve (main focus
reserve, sub-category of
Natural Forest Reserve)
Thanks to special conditions or specific features
(size, degree of naturalness, etc.) such reserves
are particularly well-suited for special-purpose
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.
•
Naturwaldzelle
Natural Forest Stand,
(sub-category of
Natural Forest Reserve)
Natural Forest Stands represent a specific form
of Natural Forest Reserves. They are too small
to ensure the sustainable and balanced
development of all formation phases and mainly
serve as stand specimen of Natural Forest communities; 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.
113
Landscape Conservation
Area
Areas which stand out for their beauty or which
are of special importance regarding the
recreation of the local population or tourism.
Protected part of the
landscape; Protected Green
Small parts of landscapes which are
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
National Terms
Belgium
Nature Reserve
Natuurreservaat/
Réserve Naturelle
Nature Reserves are areas protected according
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 environmental 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.
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
(Flanders)
Integraal bosreservaat (Part of) a forest reserve which is designated to
be left for free development
Directed Forest Reserve
(Flanders)
Gericht Bosreservaat
Forest Reserve (Wallonia)
National Park (Wallonia)
Nature Park (Wallonia)
Special management directed towards a higher
ecological value; study of effects of different
kinds of management; preservation of rare
vegetation types or management regimes.
Only 1 National Park (Hohes Venn, Peatland
site)
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.
115
National Terms
National Terms
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Virgin reserves
Forest reserves
Special reserves
Park Forests
Natural Park
Denmark
Legally Protected Area
Naturfredet
område
Public or Private Areas by a formal
preservation claim. Very well protected, claims
are very difficult, almost impossible to modify.
Private Reserve
Administrativ
fredning
Reserves established at the private land owners
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
Agreement
Urort skov/
skovlovaftaler
Reserves established on private land with
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, almost impossible to modify or cancel.
State Forest Reserve
Urort skov/
statsskov
Network of Non-Intervention Reserves in state
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)
Forest Research
Reserve
Urort skov
Research programs, long time monitoring
·
Traditional Management System
Gammel driftsform
Protection of traditional Management Systems
116
·
All Natural State
Owned Forest
· Preserved Forest
Naturskov
statsskov
Protection of natural forest areas against clearcut etc. but not against slighter management
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
National Terms
Finland
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 preserve 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
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
suojelualue
Protection of virgin old growth Forests
Protected Esker
Harjujensuojelualue
Protection of geological formations like eskers
and ridges. Protection does not necessarily
prevent forest management.
Wetland Reserve
Lintuvesien
suojelualue
Protection of valuable areas for waterfowl and
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.
National Terms
France
National Park
Protected Forest
Nature Reserve
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 generally 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.
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.
Réserve naturelle
Nature Reserves conserve specific or
representative features of the natural heritage,
118
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
· Special Forest Reserve
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:
Réserve biologique
dirigée
·
at
protecting
outstanding
natural
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
Regional Nature Park
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
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.
National Terms
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
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.
Landschaftsschutzgebiet
Special protection of nature and landscape
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,
Nature Forest Area)
Naturwaldzelle,
Naturwaldparzelle,
Naturwaldreservat,
Totalreservat,
Bannwald,
Urwald von morgen
Areas that are from now on unmanaged. They
are reserved for natural processes (natural
development). Main objectives: Basic scientific
research (fauna, flora, site, stand structure,
ecosystem functioning); applied research
(silviculture, landscape, management, biotope
management); monitoring areas (ecosystem
development, biological development, naturalness, 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:
Legally Protected Biotope
within Forest Management
Areas
Waldbiotop
Biotopschutzgebiet
Small scale protection zone reserved for
preservation of rare species, forest types, stand
structures by directed management or noninterventions.
Designed Management
Forest
Schonwald
Management in Forests designed for
mantenance of special natural values, ancient
forest management types, red listed and rare
secies protection. Only in Baden-Württemberg.
Spatial Nature Monument
Flächenhaftes
Naturdenkmal
Small scale protection area (<5 ha), comparable
to legally protected biotopes in forests or in the
open landscape.
120
National Terms
Greece
National Park
Εθ ικος
∆ρυµος
National Parks are defined as "mainly forested
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
Monument
∆ιατηρητεο
Μ ηµειο Φυσης
Protected Natural Monuments are natural areas
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
Αποθεµα
Hunting reserves are wilderness areas where
specific management measures are applied to
preserve their natural environment and to
multiply game for hunting purposes, outside
these areas.
Internationally Important
Wetland/ Marine Park
Υγροβιοτοπος
∆ιεθ ους
Σπουδαιοτητας
Θαλασσιο Παρκο
Internationally Important Wetlands
are
wetlands of international importance mainly for
the support of aquatic species.
World Heritage Site
(Natural and Cultural)
Περιοχη
Παγκοσµιας
Κληρο οµιας
World Heritage Sites are areas possessing
natural, aesthetic and/or cultural values of
worldwide significance.
121
National Terms
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.
Tájvédelmi Körzet
(TK)
A Landscape Protection Area is a relatively
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
Terület
(TK)
A Nature Reserve is a small contiguous
territory of exceptional nature values. Its main
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-oriented silviculture. Forest Reserves are divided
into core areas (40 ha) and buffer zones. Core
areas are non-intervention areas.
Erdörezervátum
Magterület
Core areas of Forest Reserves. Nonintervention/ free development areas. Forest
Reserves are parts of National Park, Landscape
Protection Areas or Nature Reserves.
National Terms
Iceland
Forest Reserve
Includes native forests and newly afforested
land
122
National Terms
Ireland
Protected Irish Woodland
· National Park
· Nature Reserve
National Park
Include High forests, Semi-Natural Forests.
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
Heritage Areas (NHA) and
Special Areas of
Conservation (SAC)
Control of grazing and exotic plant species ^=
European Habitat Directive. NHA and SAC
include all Natural Parks and Nature Reserves
and in addition important semi-natural
woodlands outside parks and reserves, private
or state owned.
National Terms
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
Regional Natural Reserve
Riserva naturale
statale e regionale
Terrestrial, fluvial, lake or marine areas which
contain one or more relevant species of flora
and fauna or which include one or more
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
regionale
Terrestrial, fluvial, lake and eventually sea
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
importance and other
natural protected areas
Zona umida di
importanza
internazionale e altre
aree naturali protette
Areas of international importance and other
natural protected areas in order to improve the
protection of areas regulated by international
agrements (particularly the Ramsar agreement
on wetlands) and that of areas relevant on a
national level. Other categories could be
created.
Strict Reserve (scientific
uses only)
Riserva integrale
IUCN I
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
National Terms
The Netherlands
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
onderzoek
I. see: Strict Forest Reserve I
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
Forest Research Reserve
Bosreservaat voor
onderzoek
No legal status. Forest areas of 5-150 ha that
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 floracomposition, 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
Monument
Beschermd
Natuurmonument
Legal status: Law on Nature Protection. Within
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
Natuurmonument
Legal status: Law on Nature Protection. Within
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.
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
natuurreservaat
No legal status. (Parts of) Forests of Nature
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 faunaspecies.
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, weeping 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.
National Terms
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
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,
(b) Special Areas and (c) Supplement Areas.
Type Areas are the „heart“ of the reserve
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.
a) Type Area
b) Special Area
c) Supplement Area
Landscape Protected Area
Landskapsvernområder
An area to preserve distinctive or beautiful
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.
National Terms
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
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
Biológico
Private protected area by request of the owners,
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 representative examples. Human presence is only
allowed for scientific research or environmental
monitoring reasons.
National Terms
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 ecosystems. 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
- 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 historiccultural 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
National Terms
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
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.
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 landscape 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).
National Terms
Slovenia
Forest Reserve
Old (official) definition of Forest Reserve in
Slovenia:"Forest Reserve is part of forest or potential 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 cultural 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
4. Untouched forest sites and stands, except for
special research goals
5. Minimum area of 20 ha
gozdni rezervat
National Park/
There is one National Park in Slovenia - The
Triglav National Park. All activities, regime and
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 perspective 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.
Natural Park
Protection Forest
Study of undisturbed nature, comparisons with
managed forests on the same site
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
productive functions
All forests are multiple- used forests. According
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 particular 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.
131
National Terms
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
Naturales
Are areas or natural elements basically made by
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
Other Categories:
• Strict Reserve
Reserva Estricta
• Partial Nature Reserve
Reserva Natural
Parcial
• Natural Reserve of Wild
Fauna
Reserva Natural de
Fauna Silvestre
• Natural Park
Parque Natural
• Regional Park
Parque Regional
• Protected Natural Area
Area Natural
Protegida
• Natural Site
Area Natural
• Protection Forest
Bosque Protector
National Terms
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
and fauna
Basic research focused on single threatened
species. Fragmentation, edge processes,
dispersion metapopulation dynamics.
Indicators of biodiversity in
the Forest Landscape
Indicators of biodiversity
environmental
monitoring
conservation planning.
Game Research Area
Game management with regard to forest
of use for
and
nature
133
biodiversity
National Terms
United Kingdom
SSSI Designations
Site of Special
Scientific Interest
SAC
Special Area of
Conservation
Minimum Intervention
(Area) Wood
No silvicultural
intervention area
AONB
National Park
Tree Preservation Order
Designation of woodland areas as Sites of
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 Reserves are a sub-let of the
SSSI series managed usually by the
conservation agencies themselves
According to FFH directive
- allows expression and study of natural
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.
Areas of outstanding
Natural Beauty
National Park
Designation operated by local planning
authorities.
Protection category not equivalent to IUCN.
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
135
COST Action E4
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
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
170
Appendix 1 List of attributes to be assessed in forest reserves research
Appendix 2 Guidelines for measurement of attributes in forest reserves
research……………………………………………………………… 175
Appendix 3 A list of WG 2 members……………………………………………. 181
1
137
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
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
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
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).
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
Location
Slope, Aspect, Topography, Relief
Soil Type, Vegetation Type
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
Stage of Decay
Shrub Layer (D.B.H. < 5cm; Height > 130cm)
Species
Height (Classes)
Regeneration Layer (D.B.H. < 5cm; Height < 130cm)
Species
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
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
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).
151
4.2.7 Summary of Data Collection in Core Area
CORE AREA
Standing Live
Wood
Vegetation Height (m)
Shrub
Layer
Standing
Dead Wood
Ground Vegetation
1.3m
Regeneration
Layer
Lying Dead
Wood
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
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.
beech
oak
birch
sycamore
Other
broadleaves
J. larch
N. spruce
Other conifers
all species
a)
Mixed broad-leaved
forest (17.9 ha)
N a)
BAb)
Dbhc)
2
-1
(m ha ) (cm)
86
7.7
33.7
99
8.9
33.8
160
9.5
27.5
Larch-spruce plantation
(1.6 ha)
BAb)
N a)
Dbhc)
2 -1
(m ha ) (cm)
40
0.7
14.9
40
3.4
32.9
20
0.8
22.6
186
3.8
16.1
20
0.2
10
0.2
16.2
542
30.1
26.6
221
100
20
461
16.6
6.1
1.6
28.9
number of stems per hectare
b)
basal area
c)
mean diameter at breast height
Sycamore-oak
plantation (1.6 ha)
BAb)
N a)
(m2ha-1)
Dbhc)
(cm)
11.9
421
60
561
120
9.8
1.5
10.4
1.3
17.2
17.8
15.4
11.7
30.4
27.8
31.9
28.3
1162
23.0
15.9
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
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.
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
preparatory field work
consultation
development field map
selection core area
establishment grid system – core area –
permanent plots (3-person field crew)
First recording 1987
stand structure and composition and
coarse woody debris (2-person field
crew)
core area
permanent plots
data storage
vegetation
reserve (map)
research
assistant
scientist
0.5
1
0.5
9
18
14
7
1.5
1
core area (map & transect)
permanent plots (relevés)
data storage
soil & geology
reserve
permanent plots
data storage
Second recording 1996
stand structure and composition and
coarse woody debris (2-person field
crew)
core area
permanent plots
data storage
vegetation
reserve (map)
1.5
2
1.5
1.5
2
2
12
12
5
1.5
1
core area (map & transect)
permanent plots (relevés)
data storage
1.5
2
1.5
156
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
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 forestryrelated 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 1940s50s (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
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.
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 BadenWürttemberg, 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, LÖBFSchriftenreihe, Band 6, 283 pp.
Koop H. (1989). Forest Dynamics, SILVI-STAR : A comprehensive Monitoring System.
Springer Verlag, Berlin,
160
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 woodpasture 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. IHWVerlag. Eching bei München. 61 pp.
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
Austria
Standard
monitoring
programme
started in
1995
Guidelines for the establishment of monitoring plots, including a mandatory,
detailed field manual under the new National Forest Reserve Programme.
Sampling method : Circular plots (150-100 m²) in grids (50*50 or 100*100)
and/or transects (10(20)*30(50)m or full inventory (small reserves). Regeneration
in small sub-plots (1-4 m²)
Ground-vegetation : 100-500 m² (Braun-Blanquet) resulting in forest
communities – maps (based on relevés),
Mapping scale : 1/1000 to 1/10.000
Mapping of developmental stages
The new National Forest Reserves Programme includes a standard monitoring
programme based on a permanent grid system, i.e. BITTERLICH sampling plot
techniques. All trees <1.3 m are recorded using polar co-ordinates for periodical
measurement: species. DBH in mm using girth band, tree height, stem quality and
occasionally age. Monitoring frequency: dependant on forest community type.
Sampling method :
Standard : circular plots in grid (50*50-100*100) + core area (1ha).
Nested circular plots :
1000 m² : position, species and DBH of trees (DBH>40cm)
Standard
500 m² : position, species and DBH of trees (DBH> 8 cm)
monitoring
100 m² : regeneration / 16*16m square : vegetation relevés
programme
to commence Light measurements and soil sampling
Core area : full inventory with crown projections.
in 2000
Belgium
(Flanders)
Additional information and
research / specification/differentiation
Global information : Name, area, size, short description
(height, slope, climate factors, geological substrate, soil
type)
Specific description : forest history (pollen analysis), stand
structure
Under the National Forest Reserve Programme, which
was initiated in 1995,a minimal programme was developed
for standard reserves and an ‘enlarged programme’ for key
reserves. The minimal programme includes key parameters
that should be monitored at the very least while the
‘enlarged programme’ contains extra parameters. Vegetation
relevés measured using the Braun Blanquet method, where
possible, within the grid system.
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.
Standard programme for 30 reserves
Minimum programme for all others: transects 10*100 m (1
transect every 3-4 ha)
Additional faunistic research in selected reserves :
- xylobiontic organisms
- bird inventories
- mosses, lichens and fungi.
162
Denmark
No standard
monitoring
programme
to date
Finland
Monitoring
programme
started in
1993
France
No
systematic
monitoring
programme
to date
Minor strict reserves were established by the Geological
Survey in 1948 in stands dominated by native species. The
purpose was to use long term monitoring of forest dynamics
for in order to obtaining better tools for interpreting pollen
diagrams. (Pollen analysis is a major topic of research).
Some specific research on structure, dynamics and lightconditions is carried out at some reserves
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).
Vegetation relevés, vegetation mapping, fauna, humus soil
Sampling method :
400-500 permanent sample plots established in strictly protected areas spread and nutrient cycling are optional depending on the
across all forest types in Finland (some plots in Russia)
availability of experts, i.e. optional -not included in the
Typically a plot consists of 1 central circle (circle size : 900-2500 m² depending standard programme.
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
Monitoring and research carried out in Fontainebleau. In 1999, a monitoring
programme of Strict Forest Reserves was launched in public forests, based on the
COST - guidelines (e.g. the strict forest reserve of Guebwiller in the "Vosges"
mountains, ca. 110 ha).
Sampling method :
A basic research programme for natural forests was developed in 1995 (Nielsen
et al., 1995) but has yet to be implemented. It is planned that permanent plots will
be established where tree positioning, DBH and tree height will be measured.
Biogeochemical and climatic measurements, as well as inventories of flora, fungi
and selected groups of insects are envisaged. Approximately 6 to 8 strict reserves
are presently monitored at regular intervals by a number of institutions in
Denmark. However, this is not done using a standardised methodology.
163
Germany
Sampling method : (based on Balcar (s.d.)
In 13 Länder, monitoring programmes are performed. In 4 cases, a grid of
Every ‘State’ circular sample plots is used, in 1 State, a core area is used, while in 7 States, a
has its own combination of both is used. Full inventories are only used in the monitoring
system.
programme of one State. Sample plots vary in size between 0.05 and 0.5 ha
Some
(mostly 0.1 ha), while core areas vary between 0.21 to 2 ha (generally 1 ha).
programmes Measurements :
initiated as
Living trees (DBH >4 –7 cm (in most cases > 7 cm): species, DBH, height (all),
early as
x,y co-ordinates (11 out of 13), crown-parameters (5), bole-length (5), IUFRO1975, 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.
Only a few experimental plots designed according to COST guidelines.
Greece
No
Sampling method :
Single circular plots of 500-1000 m². Tree species, position, DBH.
systematic
Minimum size DBH = 5 cm
monitoring
programme
to date
Hungary
First
monitoring/
research
initiated in
1986;
systematic
monitoring/
research
started in
1997
An official programme, focussing on ten so-called ‘sample and demonstration
reserves’ was initiated in 1997, however the monitoring programme is still being
developed. After mapping of developmental stages and forest-types, permanent
plots are installed in each of the ten reserves. Until recently, vegetation and soil
surveys were generally the norm.
Sampling method :
Mainly transects (20*20 m) (also sample plots on a 50*50 m grid; variable size
using relascope
Measurements : Tree species, position, DBH, height and crown dimensions
In almost all States, ground flora is studied using vegetation
relevés in the sample plots.
A great deal of additional research is done on fungi,
xylobiontic beetles, birds, and other ecosystem components.
Also reserve areas are often compared with managed areas
located nearby. This research however is, as a rule, limited to
case studies, and is not systematically included in the
monitoring programme.
Vegetation relevés optional
Other data is now being collected in the ten study areas
including :
Geological description, historical data, detailed soil-mapping
(1/5000) and soil-profile analysis, meteorological
observations, microclimatic studies, tree ring analyses on
dead wood, vegetation mapping, mosses, fungi, data
processing of aerial photographs and faunal inventories
164
Ireland
No
systematic
monitoring
programme
to date
Isolated monitoring projects with permanent plots since 1975; no standard
methodology
Sampling method :
sample plots of 25-15000 m²
Major emphasis on vegetation description and assessment of regeneration –
published data on stand structure is scarce
Italy
No
systematic
monitoring
programme
to date
Netherlands
Systematic
monitoring
started in
1988.
Sampling method :
24 permanent plots, 1-6 ha each (84 ha in total) are left unmanaged and have been
studied since 1952. Dendrometric and floristic analysis
Norway
No
systematic
monitoring
programme
to date
Portugal
No
systematic
monitoring
programme
to date
Sampling method :
Combination of circular plots and core areas
50-70 circular plots (500m²) stratified randomly selected on a 50*50 m grid.
Living trees : DBH (>5cm), co-ordinates, species; Small trees (DBH>5cm)
counted and height >0.5 m; dead wood (DBH>10 cm) : species, DBH,
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)
Some studies and inventories are carried out when reserves are being established.
The Norwegian Monitoring Programme for Terrestrial Ecosystems, established in
1990, includes research on stand structure, ground vegetation and epiphytic
lichens in some protected forest areas. The ground vegetation is monitored in
permanent plots at different scales, using 0.25*0.25m, 1*1m and 5*10m sample
plots in selected core areas.
No monitoring programme on protected areas; only plant inventories, vegetation
mapping and phytosociological studies
The sites with longest data sets include those at Killarney and
Glendalough. Roughly ten years of data collected at
Brackloon Wood, i.e. forest health, radioisotopes, soil fauna,
flora (ground and arboreal), bats, birds – all using approved
methodology, i.e. UN-ECE and ECN protocols.
Soil research, pollen analyses and site history combined in
order to interpret future monitoring data more accurately
Dendrochronology
Additional research in all monitoring sites :
Soil profiles (every circular plot), geological mapping, aerial
photography
Mapping of indicator species denoting old-growth forests
Additional research on fungi, birds and beetles at some sites
An inventory of red data book species is carried out.
Mapping of indicator species. Integrated studies of chemical
and biological monitoring, including precipitation, soil,
vegetation and faunal parameters.
Additional faunistic inventories are performed in places
Slovakia
Very long
tradition of
monitoring
in strict
reserves
Slovenia
Very long
tradition in
monitoring
of strict
reserves
Spain
No
systematic
monitoring
programme
165
Long-term research : main results published in Korpel (1993)
Sampling method :
Permanent experimental plots of variable size (occasionally whole reserves) :
living trees DBH>8 cm : species, DBH, height, sociological (age) class, stem and
crown quality, degree of sucker formation, damage; necromass (3 degradation
phases)
Transects : living trees DBH >1cm : species, DBH, height, position, crown
parameters, regeneration (using 4 height classes)
Monitoring frequency : 5-10 years
Sampling method :
1882-1950 : full inventory of stand structure in the old-growth forest reserves (up
to 100 ha)
1951-1980 : in 25-30 reserves : additional new network of permanent plots in all
typical identifiable developmental phases of the woodland : transects mainly of 12 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
Structural, dynamic and functional studies on natural forests are very scarce,
permanent plots almost non-existent. A detailed monitoring programme occurs at
only one location, i.e.: in Garajonay N.P. (Started in 1995)
Sampling method :
Global vegetation level : information on structure, growth, regeneration, mortality
in all forest communities : circular plots of 250-900 m² in a 500*500 grid (62
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;
Additional necromass studies in transects (DBH>40 cm) : measured annually
Intensive vegetation monitoring : 6 circular plots out of 900-2500 m²
Biogeochemistry
Some reserves have very valuable data sets, i.e. repeated
measurements at regular intervals over 100 years.
Additional research : Phytocoenology, zoology, birds, fungi
Recent developments : emphasis on inter-disciplinary and
comparative research in reserves and managed areas
Inventories made for the EU Habitats Directive and for the
inventory of National and Natural Parks of Spain.
Additional research in Garajonay : hydrology, climatology,
inventories of autochthonous and introduced fauna,
endangered species, qualitative erosion, fuel accumulation
and aerial photography
166
Sweden
No
systematic
monitoring
programme
United
Kingdom
No
systematic
monitoring
programme
Strict reserves are especially selected for protection purposes, not for research
An ‘Integrated environmental monitoring’ programme is performed at 18
locations : measurements of a wide range of ecosystem variables in small
catchment areas
No nationally co-ordinated research programme on forest dynamics, but the
statutory nature conservation body in England (English Nature) is initiating a
programme in a representative series of semi-natural reserves managed under a
minimum intervention policy. Part of the Environmental Change Network (ECN)
monitors forest dynamics and there are several existing baselines and some
important long-term studies in unmanaged woodland reserves (Peterken and
Backmeroff 1988)
Sampling method : 20 m wide transects (some are up to 1 km long), small plots
based on a 50-100m grid system or individual plots: all living trees over 1.3 m
height and all stems over 1-5cm DBH: position, species, DBH, crown position (5
classes), crown parameters (in rough classes), crown dieback, trunk damage,
description of stem form
Necromass and canopy gap estimation : line transect method or measurement and
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
Many independent research activities in National parks and
reserves, which mainly focus on conservation biology :
- inventory of fauna and flora in remnant biotopes
- biodiversity indicators in the forest landscape
- bird and xylobiont beetle inventories
Some UK environmental change network sites include forest
reserves: integrated monitoring of a wide range of variables,
including climate, hydrology, air pollution, vegetation, soils
and animal populations
Forest vegetation and tree measurements: Up to 50 square
permanent plots, 10 m*10 m, randomly selected from a grid.
In each plot up to 10 trees are marked and recorded for DBH
every three years and for height, every nine years. Ground
vegetation is recorded every nine years in these plots; other
plots are used to record ground vegetation every three years
(Sykes & Lane, 1996). There are also grid systems
elsewhere, e.g. at Wytham Woods (established in 1976 –
Kirby et al., 1996)
167
min. Tree
height (cm)
min.
(cm)
-
1
1000 (500) {100}
50(100) * 50(100)
0,2-2,0
500-5000
core
(ha)
50(100) * 50(100)
Finland
Germany
yes / 4
10
yes / 4
10
40 (8) {-}
1*[900-2500] + 8*[180-500]
Greece
Monitoring
frequency
(yr)
mapping
scale
130
50(100) * 50(100) 10(20) * 30(100)
Belgium
dead wood
classes
ground
vegetation
1:1000 / 1:10000
Austria
DBH
circular plot
size (m2)
area
BB 100-500 m2
grid based
1-4
Country
line transects
Table 2. Differences in criteria measured and monitoring methodologies used in Strict Forest Reserves in fifteen European countries
<5 / >5
100-500
4-7
500-1000
10
5
Hungary
Ireland
25-15000
Italy
Netherlands
50*50
1 (70*140 m)
500
50
5
Norway
Slovakia
8 (1)
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
UK
1-2
500*500
5-10
5
250-900 (900-2500)
7
10 (5)
168
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.
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 postdisturbance 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
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
Slope
field assessment
Aspect
field assessment
Topography/Relief
field assessment
Soil type
field assessment
Vegetation type
field assessment
sample plot
sample plot
sample plot
sample plot
sample plot
sample plot
latitude/longitude
%
o
(degrees)
categories
categories
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
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
171
Location
Estimate of Timber
Volume
field assessment
each stem
X,Y co-ordinates
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
Regeneration Layer - if regeneration layer abundant, measurements can be made in subplots
within Sample Plot
Species
field assessment
Number of stems
field assessment
Height of stems
field assessment
Damage from herbivores field assessment
Regeneration origin
(seedlings, sprouts, etc.) field assessment
Lying Dead Wood – each measurement to be made for each component in Sample Plot
Species
field assessment
each component
Latin name
Component
field assessment
each component
categories
(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
Cover/abundance of
species (higher plants)
field assessment
Total Cover of Bryophytes,
Lichens, Fungi
field assessment
sample plot Latin names
subplot area %, or categories
172
1B List of Attributes to be measured in Core Areas within NFR (see Section 4)
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Location
field assessment
Slope
field assessment
Aspect
field assessment
Topography/Relief
field assessment
Soil type
field assessment
Vegetation type
field assessment
core area
core area
core area
core area
core area
core area
latitude/longitude
%
o
(degrees)
categories
categories
categories (phytosociology)
STAND CHARACTERISTICS
Standing Live Trees – each measurement to be made for each stem in Core Area
Species
field assessment
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
Height to base of
living crown
field assessment
each stem dm
Crown Projection
field assessment
each tree
dm
Stem Quality
field assessment
Vitality
Estimate of Timber
Volume
field assessment
each stem
categories
functions, tables
each stem
m³
Standing Dead Trees – each measurement to be made for each stem in Core Area
Species
field assessment
D.B.H.
field assessment
each stem cm
Height (to top of tree)
field assessment
each stem dm
Location
field assessment
Stage of decay
field assessment
Estimate of Timber
Volume
functions, tables
each stem m³
173
Shrub Layer – if shrub layer abundant, measurements can be made in subplots within Core
Area
Species
field assessment
Number of stems
field assessment
Height of stems
field assessment
Regeneration Layer - if regeneration layer abundant, measurements can be made in subplots
within Core Area
Species
field assessment
Number of stems
field assessment
Height of stems
field assessment
Damage from herbivores field assessment
Regeneration origin
(seedlings, sprouts, etc.) field assessment
Lying Dead Wood – each measurement to be made for each component in Sample Plot
Species
field assessment
each component
Latin name
Component
field assessment
each component
categories
(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
Ground Vegetation
Species list
(higher plants)
field assessment
Cover/abundance of
species (higher plants)
field assessment
Total Cover of Bryophytes,
Lichens, Fungi
field assessment
sample plot Latin names
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)
b)
c)
d)
measurement rule – brief definition of attribute
threshold – smallest measurement to include
measurement scale – unit of measurement to be used
data source
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
Standing Live Trees
Definition: Living, standing trees (incl. shrubs) with a D.B.H. of 5 cm or greater
Position (X,Y)
176
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
a)
b)
c)
d)
177
Volume of growing stock estimated by functions and/or tables
minimum d.b.h.: 5cm
m³
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
a) Volume of standing dead tree estimated by functions and/or tables
c) m³
d) calculation
Stumps
Definition: Stumps up to a height of 130cm and a minimum diameter of 10cm
D
Position (X,Y)
178
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
a) Volume estimated by functions and/or tables
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
D2
D1
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
179
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
0
0
0
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
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
0
0
0
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
181
Appendix 3. A list of WG 2 members.
COUNTRY
Austria
Belgium
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Greece
Hungary
Hungary
Hungary
Italy
Italy
The
Netherlands
Norway
Norway
Portugal
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
NAME
G. Koch
K.
Vandekerkhove
M. Varmola
J-P. Renaud
W. Schmidt
K. Kassioumis
G.
Chatziphilippidis
T. Standovár
G. Paszty
Z. Somogyi
F. Ducci
V. Tosi
A. van Hees
CITY
AFF FAX
E-MAIL
Vienna
RI +43 1 878 382 250 [email protected]
Geraardsbergen RI +32 54 41 0896
[email protected]
Rovaniemi
Colmar
Göttingen
Ioannina
Vassilika
RI
AM
UN
RI
RI
+358 16 336 4640
+33 3 8979 7214
+49 551 39 32 70
+30 65 19 39 79
+30 31 46 13 41
[email protected]
Budapest
Vacratot
Budapest
Arezzo
Trento
Wageningen
UN
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
+36 1 333 87 64
+36 28 360 110
+36 1 326 16 39
+39 575 35 3 490
+39 0461 381116
+31 317 424 988
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
B. Tommerås
P.A. Aarrestad
P. Godinho
J. Diaci
M. Gracia
K. Sjöberg
M. Morecroft
Trondheim
Trondheim
Lisbon
Ljubljana
Lleida
Umeå
Oxford
RI
RI
RI
UN
UN
UN
RI
+47 73 91 54 33
+47 73 80 14 01
+351 1 361 0700
+386 61 271 169
+34 73 702 500
+34 93 581 13 12
+44 1865 202 612
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
182
183
COST Action E4
WG3 “Forest Reserves Research Network
Databank”
Risto Päivinen, Chairman of WG3, Finland
Andreas Schuck, Editor, Finland
Ed Mountford, Editor, United Kingdom
184
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
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
FRRN home page
176
By 14th of
October
1998
608
Databank page
164
854
Page
By 20th July
1998
By 27th of
April 1999
1791
By 15th
November
1999
3000
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
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.
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
July 1998
By 14th of
October 1998
By 27th of
April 1999
By November
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
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
activities
Meta-data
information
Name, ownership,
geographical location,
size, status of
protection, year of
establishment,
management history,
adjacent land use,
altitude
Tree species
composition, age
structure,
developmental
phases,
disturbances, forest
vegetation type,
soil types, climatic
conditions
1) Methods of
monitoring stand
structure and methods in
conducting research in
core areas.
1) Organisation that
manages and coordinates research,
contact person
information
2) Information on other
specific research
activities as e.g. pollen
analysis, soil analysis,
herbal layer,
moss/lichen, fungi, light
measurements, genetic
resources, faunal
inventories
2) Short
descriptions of
research projects
performed in the
reserve
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).
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
forest reserves
(Parviainen et al. 2000)
Number of
reserves entered
into the databank
Number of reserves
where research
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
3081
544
208
Total
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
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
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
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Russia (Eur)
Slovakia
Spain
Switzerland
Total
Number of Strict Forest Reserves
27
Not available
32
103
63
106
55
Not available
76
87
39
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
5 APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Forest Reserves Research Network databank poster which can be
downloaded from the Internet
193
Appendix 2. An example of data submitted to the FRRN databank
Appendix 3. A list of WG3 members.
COUNTRY
Finland
(chairman of
the WG 3)
Finland
Finland
Belgium
Denmark
United
Kingdom
NAME
R. Päivinen
CITY
Joensuu
C. Lin
A. Schuck
K.
Vanderkerkhove
J. Emborg
E. Mountford
Joensuu
RI
Joensuu
RI
Geraardsbergen RI
Hörsholm
Wem
AFF FAX
RI +358 13 124 393
+358 13 124 393
+358 13 124 393
+32 54 41 0896
AM +45 45 763233
RI
E-MAIL
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
194
195
COST Action E4
WG 3 “Forest Reserves Research Network Databank”
Analysis of the Databank contents
Andreas Schuck, Editor, Finland
Tuomo Hytönen, Editor, Finland
196
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
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
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
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Slovenia
Sweden
United Kingdom
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
DE
GR
IE
IT
NL
PT
SI
SE
UK
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
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Total
Actual number of strict Number entered
forest reserves
into the
(Parviainen et al., 2000)
databank
191
136
36
17
~300
8
311
64
30
26
679
156
39
16
63
0
34
4
119
5
60
24
160
1
6
6
76
186
24
87
849
19
81
38
3307
544
Blocked
entries
2
3
1
2
22
1
-
Reserves
accessible to the
general public
134
17
5
64
26
155
14
4
5
2
6
24
19
38
31
513
200
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, privatelyowned, privately-owned by forest industries, privately-owned by other institutional, privatelyowned 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.
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
132 17 5 64 26 154 14 4
10 2 18 1
19 16 2 64 24 140 13 4
Number of reserves
Publicly-owned
Publicly-owned by
State
Publicly-owned by
17 1
others
Total public
46 17
Privately-owned
59 Privately-owned by
forest industries
Privately-owned by 18 other institutional
Privately-owned by
8
farms
Privately-owned by
2
others
Total private
87 Number of
1 131 17
ownership types 2 1
/reserve
3 Number of different
7
2
ownership type /
country
2
-
-
-
4
-
64
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
5
-
64
-
3
1
-
IT NL PT SI
5
2
6 23
3
2 11
2
1 20
SE UK Total
19 38
509
47
19 20
344
-
2
-
2
-
-
4
28
4
-
5
-
2
-
5
2
-
31
4
-
19
-
24
8
-
419
74
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
21
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
9
1
26 149 14
5
-
4
-
5
-
2
-
2
5
1
-
4
11
12
-
19
-
18
35
2
1
113
487
21
1
2
1
2
1
4
3
1
6
2,7
26 158 14
1
-
3
2
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
Table 3. Geographical location of the strict forest reserves in 12 of the participating Cost
E4 countries.
Country
BE
DK
FI
DE
GR
IE
IT
NL
PT
SI
SE
UK
Total
Latitude & longitude
17
3
9
4
13
1
3
6
5
19
38
118
UTM (x, y) coordinates
17
5
3
45
1
5
2
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
Buffer Total
of
0- 10zone: area
reserves
10 20
AT
132
45
6375 39 37
BE
17
5
798 1 4
DK
3
4
279 1 1
FI
64
891872 1
FR
26
2
1292 8 3
DE
153
6938 18 49
GR
14
5
9077 3 2
IE
4
1574 IT
5
4
2153 1
NL
2
2
92 PT
6
2827 SI
24
2
2808 4 6
SE
9
63502 UK
38
9700 5 4
Total
497
69
999287 80 107
2040
26
5
3
4
32
1
1
1
2
2
5
82
Reserve size categories (ha)
40- 60- 80- 100- 200- 500- 100060 80 100 200 500 1000
8
6
3
6
4
3
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
5
43
3
3
4
1
18 10
7
15
4
1
4
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
4
3
3
10
6
2
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.
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
of
forest natural forest
(pasture,
area
body
reserves
forest
arable) land
AT
106
7
49
59
7
2
4
BE
17
13
3
13
1
1
DK
5
2
2
4
2
FI
64
5
58
1
1
18
FR
22
22
1
DE
57
6
51
GR
13
12
11
5
8
1
IE
4
2
1
4
1
IT
5
2
3
NL
2
2
2
SI
22
8
13
5
10
2
SE
2
2
UK
36
25
14
28
2
4
Total
355
42
251
90
77
6
33
Number of area
types/reserve
1 2 3 4
104 1 1 7 7 2 1
5 47 15 2 21 1 57 - 2 4 1 6
4 5
- 2 12 5 4 1
2
- 10 15 11 267 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
Table 6. Altitude ranges in 14 participating Cost E4 countries.
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
DE
GR
IE
IT
NL
PT
SI
SE
UK
Total
Reserves reported (number)
From
To
Average
Altitude range (meters)
Lowest
Highest
123
17
4
11
22
129
14
4
5
1
3
23
18
23
397
115,0
5,0
7,5
0,0
89,0
5,0
0,0
0,0
1200,0
13,0
380,0
168,0
42,0
10,0
0,0
123
17
4
11
22
128
14
4
5
1
3
22
18
23
395
95
4
11
2
111
14
1
2
3
20
1
20
284
2300,0
130,0
60,0
1000,0
1913,0
2047,0
2917,0
300,0
2300,0
18,0
1438,0
1929,0
1034,0
500,0
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.
205
4 Virgin forest, forest reserve
1
Strict forest reserve, core area of national park
1
Naturwaldzelle
1
SSSI, Special protection act
National nature reserve, SSSI
7
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
2
Nature reserve
Strict natural forest reserve
76
3 Other protected area, protected herb-rich forests
6
Strict forest
reserve according to
forest law of BadenWuerttemberg
18 Strict nature reserve
Other protected area, protected old-growth forests
3 Other protected area
64 Strict forest reserve
10 Natural forest reserve
71
35
National park
Strict natural
forest reserve
9 Strict reserve
44
0
10
20
30
40
Forest reserve
50
60
70
Figure 1. Protection status as reported by Cost E4 participating country delegates.
80
number of
reserves
206
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.
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
DE
GR
IE
IT
NL
PT
SI
SE
UK
Total
Number of reserves Oldest (yr)
134
1995
17
1995
4
1854
60
1938
22
1972
153
1911
14
1938
4
1970
5
1967
2
1983
6
1976
16
1885
3
1909
37
1877
477
1854
Latest (yr)
1999
1997
1969
1998
1998
1999
1986
1996
1988
1983
1979
1981
1923
1995
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.
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
No record or signs of forest
exploitation, but grazing or hunting and
accidental tree harvesting possible
Signs or records of previous
exploitation, natural species
composition
exploitation, species composition
altered
exploitation, species composition
artificial
Natural afforestation: spontaneous
succession on deforested lands (heath,
moorland, arable land...)
Afforestation by planting: natural
species composition ("woodland
restoration")
Afforestation by planting: plantation
Total
19
-
1 14 1 11 4
-
-
-
6
1 18
-
75
5
-
-
44 11 1
5
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
69
16 1
2
2 10 36
-
1
2
-
-
13
-
1
84
62 11 2
2
1 37
-
3
-
-
-
2
-
34 154
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
3
9
-
2
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
4
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
-
4
- - - 1 - - 103 17 5 64 23 86 9
4
5
1
2
- 1 - 3
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
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.
Number of
132 17 4 11 21 36 14 4
reserves
Abies sp.
2
- 1 2
2 Alnus sp.
3
2
- 1 1
Betula sp.
2
- 3 1 1
Carpinus sp.
5
Fagus sp.
49 7 2 - 4 12 3 Fraxinus sp.
7
- 1
1 Juniperus sp.
1 Larix sp.
6
1
Picea sp.
29 - 5 1 10 1 Pinus sp.
12 1
- 3 2 3
3 Quercus sp.
17 5 2 - 9 5
1 4
Salix sp.
1
Other species*
- 1 1
2 Number of species 10 5 2 3 9 9
8 1
groups:
IT NL PT SI SE UK Total
5
2
6
14 19 38
323
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
6
1
1
1
7
1
1
2
6
9
7
12
5
96
16
1
8
64
30
67
1
5
13
2 2
1 11
1 6
14 1 3
- 15
1
5 6
*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.
Number of
reserves
Abies sp.
Acer sp.
Alnus sp.
Betula sp.
Carpinus sp.
Fagus sp.
Fraxinus sp.
Ilex sp.
Juniperus sp.
Larix sp.
Picea sp.
Pinus sp.
Populus sp.
Quercus sp.
Salix sp.
Sorbus sp.
Tilia sp.
Ulmus sp.
Other species*
Number of species
groups:
127 17 3
9
16 32 12
4
3
2
6
14 19 37 301
11
6
5
16
16
1
9
26
14
2
15
3
2
1
14
1
2
5
1
4
1
1
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
9
4
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
4
2
3
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
8
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
10
1
2
2
1
1
8
3
12
3
3
1
8
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
7
1
3
2
11
1
1
6
2
2
14
1
2
2
1
7
3
3
10
18
11
10
25
19
33
10
1
1
13
48
40
3
42
1
4
4
5
13
19
209
Table 11. The third dominant tree species in forest reserves of participating COST
E4 countries.
Number of
121
reserves
Abies sp.
16
Acer sp.
10
Alnus sp.
4
Betula sp.
2
Carpinus sp.
8
Fagus sp.
14
Fraxinus sp.
13
Ilex sp.
Larix sp.
5
Picea sp.
13
Pinus sp.
10
Populus sp.
3
Quercus sp.
13
Salix sp.
1
Sorbus sp.
3
Tilia sp.
5
Ulmus sp.
Other species*
1
Number of species16
groups:
17 2
7 13 26 11 2 3 -
6
12 18 33 271
1
6
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
9
5
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
5
3
1
4
1
2
1
6
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
2
8
6
3
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
12
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
7
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
-
1
12
1
2
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
7
3
5
5
2
4
11
25
21
7
32
16
27
25
5
7
17
22
6
27
3
10
7
1
13
18
210
Table 12. Occurrence of other tree species in forest reserves of participating COST E4
countries.
AT BE
Number of reserves 108 16
Abies sp.
19 Acer sp.
80 4
Alnus sp.
16 4
Betula sp.
15 7
Carpinus sp.
14 6
Fagus sp.
7 2
Fraxinus sp.
29 6
Ilex sp.
Juniperus sp.
Larix sp.
27 1
Picea sp.
14 Pinus sp.
21 4
Populus sp.
3 3
Prunus sp.
14 Quercus sp.
16 12
Salix sp.
9 Sorbus sp.
40 5
Tilia sp.
21 1
Ulmus sp.
23 1
Other species*
55 4
Number of species 18 14
groups:
DK
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
8
FI
10
1
4
6
1
1
6
3
1
6
5
10
FR
2
2
1
2
GE
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
8
GR
7
1
3
2
1
3
5
IE
4
3
1
3
4
4
4
6
IT
2
1
1
2
NL
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
7
PT
6
2
2
2
1
3
3
1
12
8
SI
19
8
11
1
2
8
6
2
4
5
2
4
4
1
10
5
9
14
17
SE
-
UK
27
1
7
6
4
4
8
8
2
1
3
2
3
2
7
3
19
16
Total
211
29
106
35
38
22
26
54
15
4
33
21
39
17
26
38
22
75
29
39
114
20
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.
211
Table 13. The measurements used to describe the relative percentage of dominant tree
species in participating COST E4 countries.
Country
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Slovenia
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Total
Reporte
d
114
17
5
11
1
78
1
5
2
13
18
38
land
area
63
6
3
8
1
2
22
301
104
stem/ha volume
48
1
1
1
3
11
14
4
8
3
75
2
2
3
-
Basal
area
3
3
1
2
1
12
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.
Total area
Reported
Total area (ha)
0-50 years
Reported
Total area (ha)
Reported
50-100 years Total area (ha)
Reported
Reported
Reported
Over 200 years Total area (ha)
AT
BE
DK FI
DE IE
IT
NL PT SE Total
6
118,2
1
17,5
3
38,0
2
24,7
1
70
16
505,3
12
164,3
6
175,0
6
106,0
1
30,0
1
30,0
1
9,7
1
0,7
1
9,0
-
4
32,4
1
10,7
2
12
4
25,7
1
80
1
33
5
2048
3
1308
1
701
-
2
92
1
3
2
83
1
6
-
6
23339,0
5
259,0
9
1222,0
8
2285,0
7
14171,0
4
20505,0
1
30
1
10
1
20
-
6
0
-
3
111
2
76
1
25
-
50
26285,6
21
455,2
27
2914,0
24
3183,4
11
14310,0
7
20638,0
212
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
Country
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
DE
GR
IE
IT
SI
SE
Total
Regeneration
phase
Mature phase
Decaying
phase
Number of total area, Number of Total area, Number of total area, Number of total area,
reserves
ha
reserves
ha
reserves
ha
reserves
ha
94
14
2
7
19
8
11
1
2
11
169
4253,5
278,0
19,3
2120,0
1181,6
379,0
4220,0
43,0
112,0
813,0
13419
1
7
1
2
8
3
1
9
2
34
26,0
132,0
5,0
15,0
111,0
25,0
43,0
63,6
30,0
451
1
8
1
5
8
3
9
4
39
26,8
143,0
13,0
12144,0
192,0
89,0
608,2
58,0
13274
1
1
3
8
9
22
3,0
1,0
20850,0
76,0
43,1
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.
213
Table 16. The most common disturbances in forest reserves reported by Cost E4
participating countries.
Country
Number
of
reserves
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
DE
GR
IE
IT
NL
PT
SI
SE
UK
Total
60
17
4
60
4
11
14
4
5
2
6
16
18
37
258
Number of disturbances /
reserve
1
2
3
4
5
39
9
1
6
4
10
1
4
2
2
3
7
11
7
106
21
8
1
15
1
7
3
6
6
21
89
2
14
4
3
3
1
6
33
23
1
3
27
2
1
3
Storm /
Wind
Fire
Snow
Fungi
53
17
3
54
2
6
10
3
2
11
15
32
208
1
1
23
2
11
6
3
2
3
52
24
22
1
6
3
7
8
4
75
1
2
43
1
3
1
51
Pests /
Herbivores
Diseases
7
2
38
3
1
1
4
56
2
2
1
5
4
5
3
4
34
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
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
Number of reserves
4
Human impact
2
Avalanche
Drought
Fungi
Invasive exotic plants
1
Pests
Storm/wind related
1
Sudden climatic pertubationWaterlevel fluctuation
Total entries
4
DK
1
1
1
FI
2
1
1
2
4
DE
4
3
1
4
IE
3
3
3
IT
1
1
1
SI
10
9
3
2
3
17
SE
6
3
2
1
6
UK
5
5
5
Total
36
15
3
7
2
4
5
5
3
1
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’.
215
Table 18. Forest vegetation types reported in 14 of the Cost E4 participating countries.
Vegetation type AT
C1
C2
C3
26
D1
D2
D3
D4
D8
3
D9
18
D10
D11
2
D12
4
F1
15
F2
1
F3
25
F4
4
F5
77
G1
3
G2
G3
H
17
J2
J4
K1
13
K2
3
K3
K4
6
T
2
U1
3
C1
C2
C3
D1
D2
D3
D4
D8
D9
D10
D11
D12
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
G1
G2
G3
H
J2
J4
K1
K2
K3
K4
T
U1
BE
9
3
6
5
4
2
DK
1
1
1
1
3
1
-
FI
2
3
5
17
15
1
24
-
FR
2
2
1
1
5
2
1
1
4
3
DE
6
8
1
GR
2
1
-
IE
4
-
IT
3
-
NL
2
-
PT
3
3
-
SI
17
1
7
1
1
3
SE
3
14
1
1
1
-
UK
1
1
4
12
10
3
2
15
2
Total
2
6
48
20
18
15
1
5
26
25
3
9
45
16
36
7
120
4
1
3
17
2
3
13
4
1
6
11
14
Subarctic woodland
West boreal and nemoral montane birch forest, partly with pine forests
Subalpine vegetation in the nemoral and mediterranean zone
West boreal spruce forests, partly with pine, birch - North boreal types
West boreal spruce forests, partly with pine, birch - Middle boreal types
West boreal spruce forests, partly with pine, birch - South boreal types
East boreal pine-spruce and fir-spruce forests, partly with birch, larch - North boreal type
Hemiboreal spruce and fir-spruce forests with broad-leaved trees
Montane to altimontane, partly submortane fir and spruce forests in the nemoral zone
Northboreal pine forests
Middle and south to hemiboreal pine forests
Hemiboreal and nemoral pine forests, partly with broad-leaved trees
Oak and mixed oak forests, poor in species
Mixed oak-ash forests
Mixed oak-hornbeam forests
Mixed lime-oak forests
Beech and mixed beech forests
Subcontinental mixed oak and maple oak forests
Subcontinental-submediterranean and supramediterranean mixed sessile oak, bitter oak and Balkan oak forests
Submediterranean and supramediterranean mixed oak forests
Hygro-thermophilous mixed deciduous forests
Meso- and supramediterranean and relictic sclerophyllous forests - Holm oak forests
Meso- and supramediterranean and relictic sclerophyllous forests - Kermes oak forests and scrub
Nemoral, sub- and oromediterranean pine forests
Meso- to thermomediterranean pine forests
Meso- and supramediterranean fir forests
Juniper and cypress forests and scrub
Swamp and fen forests
Flood-plain vegetation and alluvial forests
216
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.
AT
BE
FI
FR
DE
GR
IE
IT
NL
PT
SI
SE
UK
Total
Number of reserves
Other
Local
16
132
17
1
5
74
70
7
1
1
2
2
6
23
13
4
1
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.
217
Table 20. The total number of participating COST E4 countries that submitted soil type
data to the FRRN databank
Country
BE
DK
FI
DE
IE
IT
PT
SI
SE
UK
Total
Number of reserves
17
1
2
70
1
2
6
23
19
38
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
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.
BE
DK
FI
FR
DE
GR
IE
IT
NL
PT
SI
SE
Average precipitation (mm/yr)
900,0
721,3
512,7
1260,3
1057,9
1096,3
1500,0
1229,6
793,0
1827,6
1298,2
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.
219
Table 23. Reported inventory methods used in forest reserves by COST E4 participating
countries.
Number of
inventory methods
used/reserve
Country
Austria
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Slovenia
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Total
Number of
reserves
112
4
12
13
2
4
3
2
17
17
38
1
2
94
2
4
11
2
4
3
12
1
35
18
2
8
2
2
5
16
3
224
168
56
Inventory method
Full
Line Sampling Remote
inventory transects plots sensing
31
98
1
4
2
11
8
1
13
2
2
4
2
1
2
2
4
16
2
17
16
1
22
18
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
Table 24. Inventory methods utilised in core areas of European Strict Forest Reserves.
Number of
inventory methods
used/reserve
Country
Austria
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Slovenia
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Total
Number of
reserves
112
4
12
13
2
4
3
2
17
17
38
1
2
94
2
4
11
2
4
3
12
1
35
18
2
8
2
2
5
16
3
224
168
56
Inventory method
Full
Line Sampling Remote
inventory transects plots sensing
31
98
1
4
2
11
8
1
13
2
2
4
2
1
2
2
4
16
2
17
16
1
22
18
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.
221
Table 25. Number of other research activities ongoing in a selection of European Strict
Forest Reserves
Country
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
DE
GR
IE
IT
NL
PT
SI
SE
UK
Total
Number of other research activities / reserve
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
5 23 52
53
1
5 3
6
3
1
2
1
1 17 14
16
6
8
2 13 9
2
19 85 11
2
7
7
1
1
2
3
1
1
6
7 3
3
4
1
1
2
16
1
32 1
39 186 115
87
13
19
1
Number of reserves
134
17
4
64
26
117
14
4
5
2
6
19
19
33
464
8
2
2
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
historical
data
Pollen
Genetic
analysis resources
Site &
Inventory
soil
of
sampling ground
flora
Inventory
of moss /
lichen
Inventory
of fungi
Light
measurements
Austria
3
-
-
56
111
127
-
127
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Slovenia
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Total
3
3
29
5
47
14
4
10
18
-
3
4
3
3
2
-
1
3
11
2
1
-
4
11
5
21
9
4
2
6
18
1
15
4
43
9
15
4
3
2
11
19
1
11
4
63
24
73
14
4
5
1
6
6
1
33
1
19
1
8
2
2
7
-
11
4
63
22
70
14
4
5
1
6
6
1
33
136
15
18
137
237
372
40
367
222
5.4 Fauna inventory
The inventory of fauna has been submitted for 119 forest reserves from 12 countries. A dropdown 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.
Number of reserves
Mammals
Birds
Reptiles/
amphibians
Butterflies/ Moths
Dead wood fauna
Ground-dwelling
invertebrates
Flying invertebrates
Other
3 11 1 56 2 10 13 1
- 32 - 13 1
1 3 1 50 1 8 13 1
-
-
-
2
1
-
-
IT NL PT SI SE
3 - 3 15
3 - 3 8
3 - 2 11
UK Total
1
119
1
61
1
95
-
-
7
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
10
-
18 21 1
1
7
5
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
25
35
11
-
12
-
9
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
1
35
2
-
-
16
-
-
1
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
24
2
6 Information on administration and scientific monitoring/ research coordination 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 coordination 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 coordinate 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
223
available to all countries/reserves.
Table 28. Organisations in charge of managing forest reserves in 12 participating COST
E4 countries.
Country
Number of
organisations
Number
of
reserves
Internet
address
Contact
person
Address
Phone
Fax
e-mail
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherla
nds
Slovenia
U.K.
Total
1
1
5
2
9
26
1
2
2
1
131
10
5
63
23
125
1
4
5
2
113
3
63
1
1
1
-
131
10
5
51
1
50
4
5
2
131
10
5
3
22
39
4
5
2
131
10
5
3
22
39
4
5
-
131
10
2
3
22
39
1
5
-
131
10
4
46
1
15
4
5
2
6
7
63
24
37
424
182
31
290
30
251
21
240
213
21
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 coordination 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 coordination within some forest reserves.
224
Table 29. Organisations involved in research co-ordination in European forest
reserves.
Country
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Slovenia
Sweden
U.K.
Total
Number of
organisations
1
1
4
2
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
5
25
Number of
reserves
123
17
5
62
22
149
4
5
1
24
2
37
451
Internet
address
109
4
61
102
1
14
291
Contact
person
123
17
4
61
149
4
5
1
2
33
397
Address
Phone
Fax
e-mail
123
17
4
15
22
149
4
5
1
2
33
375
123
17
4
15
22
149
4
5
2
25
366
123
17
1
15
22
149
1
5
2
1
336
123
17
4
60
149
4
5
1
2
25
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.
225
Table 30. Number of accessible projects in the FRRN databank submitted by 7
participating COST E4 countries.
Project summary (number of individual projects)
Projects (total)
Executive summary
Starting year
Ending year
Project home page
Comments
Contact person
Address
Phone
Fax
e-mail
AT
6
4
6
1
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
BE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
DK
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
DE
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
IE
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
SI
33
9
3
27
5
26
-
UK
42
42
42
22
42
40
32
30
3
27
Total
90
61
59
55
4
52
80
45
42
14
40
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)
(Projects in)
number of reserves
Executive summary
Starting year
Ending year
Project home page
Comments
Contact person
Address
Phone
Fax
AT
133
BE
16
DK
2
DE
10
IE
4
SI
41
UK Total
43
249
122
133
1
68
121
133
133
133
133
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
6
10
9
9
9
4
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
11
3
39
8
28
-
43
43
23
43
41
33
31
3
198
207
87
69
176
234
197
192
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
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
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
Appendices
Annex 1: All plant species reported in the FRRN databank
Abies alba
Abies borisii-regis
Abies cephalonica
Acer campestre
Acer obtusatum
Acer platanoides
Acer pseudoplatanus
Alnus glutinosa
Alnus incana
Alnus viridis
Anemone trifolia
Arbutus unedo
Avenella flexuosa
Berberis vulgaris
Betula czerepanovii
Betula pendula
Betula pubescens
Betula pubescens ssp.
celtiberica
Betula pubescens ssp. tortuosa
Buxus sempervirens
Calamagrostis varia
Calamagrostis villosa
Calluna vulgaris
Carex alba
Carpinus betulus
Carpinus orientalis
Castanea sativa
Cornus sanguinea
Corylus avellana
Crataegus laevigata
Crataegus monogyna
Cupressus sempervirens
Rhamnus alpinus ssp. fallax
Rhododendron ferrugineum
Rhododendron hirsutum
Robinia pseudoacacia
Rosa canina
Salix alba
Salix atrocinerea
Salix caprea
Salix cinerea
Erica arborea
Erica carnea
Erica herbacea
Fagus moesiaca
Fagus sylvatica
Frangula alnus
Fraxinus angustifolia
Fraxinus excelsior
Fraxinus ornus
Ilex aquifolium
Juglans regia
Juniperus communis
Juniperus excelsa
Juniperus foetidissima
Juniperus turbinata
Laburnum alpinum
Laburnum anagyroides
Larix decidua
Larix leptolepis
Larix sibirica
Laurus nobilis
Liquidambar orientalis
Luzula albida
Malus sylvestris
Olea europaea var. sylvestris
Ostrya carpinifolia
Oxalis acetosella
Phillyrea latifolia
Picea abies
Picea excelsa
Picea sitchensis
Salix eleagnos
Salix fragilis
Salix x rubens
Sambucus racemosa
Sorbus aria
Sorbus aucuparia
Sorbus torminalis
Taxus baccata
Tilia cordata
Tilia platyphyllos
Ulmus campestris
Ulmus glabra
Ulmus laevis
Ulmus minor
Vaccinium myrtillus
Vaccinium vitis-ideae
Pinus cembra
Pinus halepensis ssp. brutia
Pinus heldreichii
Pinus mugo
Pinus nigra
Pinus nigra ssp. laricio
Pinus peuce
Pinus pinaster
Pinus silvestris
Pinus uncinata
Pistacia lentiscus
Populus alba
Populus canadensis
Populus canescens
Populus nigra
Populus tremula
Populus x canadensis
Prunus avium
Prunus lusitanica
Prunus padus
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Pyrus pyraster
Quercus cerris
Quercus coccifera
Quercus faginea
Quercus ilex
Quercus macrolepis
Quercus petraea
Quercus pubescens
Quercus pyrenaica
Quercus robur
Quercus rubra
Quercus trojana
Annex 2. Species listed in Tables 9, 10, 11, 12 as “other species”
Austria
Anemone trifolia
Avenella flexuosa
Calamagrostis varia
Calamagrostis villosa
Calluna vulgaris
Carex alba
Castanea sativa
Cornus sanguinea
Crataegus laevigata
Crataegus monogyna
Erica carnea
Erica herbacea
Belgium
Castanea sativa
Denmark
Buxus sempervirens
Finland
Corylus avellana
Germany
Juglans regia
Laburnum alpinum
Luzula albida
Ostrya carpinifolia
Oxalis acetosella
Pyrus pyraster
Rhododendron ferrugineum
Rhododendron hirsutum
Robinia pseudoacacia
Taxus baccata
Vaccinium myrtillus
Vaccinium vitis-ideae
Corylus avellana
Corylus avellana
Greece
Arbutus unedo
Buxus sempervirens
Olea europea ssp. oleaster
Ireland
Arbutus unedo
Corylus avellana
Netherlands
Portugal
Arbutus unedo
Erica arborea
Frangula alnus
Phillyrea latifolia
Slovenia
Berberis vulgaris
Corylus avellana
Laburnum anagyroides
United Kingdom
Crataegus (unspecified)
Crataegus monogyna
Castanea sativa
Phillyrea media
Laurus nobilis
Liquidampar orientalis
Taxus baccata
Pistacia lentiscus
Taxus baccata
Olea europea ssp. sylvestris
Ostrya carpinifolia
Rhamnus fallax
Corylus avellana
Frangula alnus
Taxus baccata
229
230
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
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
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

the reindeer section

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

The Brazilian Forest Service and Brazilian Forests

The potential importance of road deaths as a cause of mortality for

Microsoft PowerPoint - 02 Vis\343o da CI, Alexandre Prado

Jaguar persistence in fragments of the Atlantic Coastal Forest

Uso de Biossólido em Plantios Florestais.

75ms - CloudConf

Averting Biodiversity Collapse in Tropical Forest

Forest Research Centre (CEF) | Instituto Superior de Agronomia

Atlantic Forest, Cerrado or Caatinga? The influence of each biome

- Wiley Online Library