Can triad forestry reconcile Europe’s biodiversity and forestry strategies? A critical evaluation of forest zoning

Balancing increasing demand for wood products while also maintaining forest biodiversity is a paramount challenge. Europe's Biodiversity and Forest Strategies for 2030 attempt to address this challenge. Together, they call for strict protection of 10% of land area, including all primary and old growth forests, increasing use of ecological forestry, and less reliance on monocultural plantations. Using data on country wide silvicultural practices and a new database on strict forest reserves across Europe, we assess how triad forest zoning could help meet these goals. Our analysis reveals that zoning in Europe is overwhelmingly focused on wood production, while there has been little concomitant protection of forests in strict reserves. Moreover, most strict forest reserves are < 50 ha in size, likely too small to capture the minimum dynamic area necessary to sustain many taxa. We outline research priorities to meet future demands for timber while minimizing the impact on native biodiversity.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AMBIO
Published
2024-12-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02116-2
Citations
19
Primary Topic
Forest Management and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.37

Funders

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

Can triad forestry reconcile Europe’s biodiversity and forestry strategies? A critical evaluation of forest zoning

Yaşar Selman Gültekin, Zbigniew Borowski, Konstantin Gregor, Sabina Burrascano et al.
19 citations
AMBIO
Forest Management and Policy
5.37
article

Can triad forestry reconcile Europe’s biodiversity and forestry strategies? A critical evaluation of forest zoning

Yaşar Selman Gültekin, Zbigniew Borowski, Konstantin Gregor, Sabina Burrascano, Diāna Jansone, Admir Avdagić, Milic Čurović, Gediminas Brazaitis, Yoan Paillet, T. van der Sluis, G.M.J. Mohren, Cătălin-Constantin Roibu, Inken Doerfler, Péter Ódor, Thomas Campagnaro, Jacob Heilmann‐Clausen, Asko Lõhmus, Momchil Panayotov, Michał Ciach, Katharina Lapin, Michael Manton, Tuomas Aakala, Janine Oettel, Giovanni Trentanovi, Thomas A. Nagel, Andrés Bravo‐Oviedo, Dimitrios Fotakis, Giorgio Vacchiano, Zoran Govedar, Thibault Lachat, Stjepan Mikac, Tommaso Sitzia, Āris Jansons, Sebastian Kepfer‐Rojas, Miroslav Svoboda, Eszter Tanács, Jeňýk Hofmeister, Björn Nordén, Martin Mikoláš, Tzvetan Zlatanov, Per Angelstam, J. Hoffmann, Mariano Rodríguez‐Recio
article en
19 citations

Abstract

Balancing increasing demand for wood products while also maintaining forest biodiversity is a paramount challenge. Europe's Biodiversity and Forest Strategies for 2030 attempt to address this challenge. Together, they call for strict protection of 10% of land area, including all primary and old growth forests, increasing use of ecological forestry, and less reliance on monocultural plantations. Using data on country wide silvicultural practices and a new database on strict forest reserves across Europe, we assess how triad forest zoning could help meet these goals. Our analysis reveals that zoning in Europe is overwhelmingly focused on wood production, while there has been little concomitant protection of forests in strict reserves. Moreover, most strict forest reserves are < 50 ha in size, likely too small to capture the minimum dynamic area necessary to sustain many taxa. We outline research priorities to meet future demands for timber while minimizing the impact on native biodiversity.

AMBIOVol. 54(4)
University of Sarajevo (BA), Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava (RO), Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES), University of Copenhagen (DK), Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (DE), Bern University of Applied Sciences (CH), University of Padua (IT), University of Ljubljana (SI), University of Forestry (BG), University of Banja Luka (BA), University of Eastern Finland (FI), University of Zagreb (HR), Vytautas Magnus University (LT), University of Milan (IT), Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CZ), Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (BG), Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (CH), University of Agriculture in Krakow (PL), Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR), Institute of Ecology and Botany (HU), Slovenian Forestry Institute (SI), Institute of Ecosystem Study (IT), University of Inland Norway (NO), Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (ES), Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research (BG), HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research (HU), Latvian State Forest Research Institute "Silava" (LV), Instytut Badawczy Leśnictwa (PL), Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NO), Austrian Research Centre for Forests (AT), National Research Council (IT), Düzce Üniversitesi (TR), University of Tartu (EE), University of Montenegro (ME), Technical University of Munich (DE), University of Sopron (HU), Sapienza University of Rome (IT), Université Grenoble Alpes (FR), University of Palermo (IT), Wageningen University & Research (NL)
European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Grantová Agentura České Republiky, Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Forest Management and Policy
5.37
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
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.