Comparison of selected structural elements of managed and unmanaged forest to guide integrated forest management

Traditional clear-cutting of even-aged plantations has become less desirable, with forestry shifting towards more diverse, multi-purpose integrated forest management. This study compared easily selected forest structures in managed forests and forest reserves to guide integrated forest management. The study area includes six managed forest areas and six forest reserves, with management types compared over approximately 50 years. The evaluated areas are part of the university forests of Mendel University in Brno, covering approximately 30 km² of natural deciduous temperate forests , predominantly composed of sessile oak and European beech. A total of 599 inventory plots were surveyed, assessing the presence or absence of selected forest structures in six categories. Twelve logistic generalized mixed models were developed to estimate the probability of occurrence of the observed forest structures based on their management status. Significant differences were found in the categories of dead standing and lying wood, microhabitat trees, and non-native tree species, with all variables showing a higher probability in forest reserves compared to managed forests. The results support the shift towards integrative management by incorporating elements of retention forestry. However, certain variables, such as natural regeneration and species diversity , showed little variation between management types, suggesting that some forest attributes are resilient to management practices. • Easy and quick set of forest structures to compare managed and unmanaged forests. • Differences in a short period (50 years) since management abandonment. • Big differences in dead wood, microhabitat trees, non-native trees between management types. • No differences in natural regeneration and species diversity between management types.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Forest Ecology and Management
Published
2024-11-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2024.122405
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.54

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of selected structural elements of managed and unmanaged forest to guide integrated forest management

Michal Kneifl, Jan Kadavý, Barbora Uherková
1 citations
Forest Ecology and Management
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
0.54
article

Comparison of selected structural elements of managed and unmanaged forest to guide integrated forest management

Michal Kneifl, Jan Kadavý, Barbora Uherková
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Traditional clear-cutting of even-aged plantations has become less desirable, with forestry shifting towards more diverse, multi-purpose integrated forest management. This study compared easily selected forest structures in managed forests and forest reserves to guide integrated forest management. The study area includes six managed forest areas and six forest reserves, with management types compared over approximately 50 years. The evaluated areas are part of the university forests of Mendel University in Brno, covering approximately 30 km² of natural deciduous temperate forests , predominantly composed of sessile oak and European beech. A total of 599 inventory plots were surveyed, assessing the presence or absence of selected forest structures in six categories. Twelve logistic generalized mixed models were developed to estimate the probability of occurrence of the observed forest structures based on their management status. Significant differences were found in the categories of dead standing and lying wood, microhabitat trees, and non-native tree species, with all variables showing a higher probability in forest reserves compared to managed forests. The results support the shift towards integrative management by incorporating elements of retention forestry. However, certain variables, such as natural regeneration and species diversity , showed little variation between management types, suggesting that some forest attributes are resilient to management practices. • Easy and quick set of forest structures to compare managed and unmanaged forests. • Differences in a short period (50 years) since management abandonment. • Big differences in dead wood, microhabitat trees, non-native trees between management types. • No differences in natural regeneration and species diversity between management types.

Forest Ecology and ManagementVol. 576
Mendel University in Brno (CZ)
Ministerstvo Zemědělství
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
0.54
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.