Coppice and Coppice-with-Standard Stands Systems: Implications for Forest Management and Biodiversity

Examining forest stand structures is crucial for effective forest management, as it provides essential insights into current conditions and informs future strategies. Coppice systems, a historic forest management practice with centuries of documented use across various regions, play a vital role in supporting unique flora and fauna, making them integral to conservation efforts. This study has two primary objectives: (i) to evaluate how various forest management approaches impact species composition and structural characteristics of forest stands, and (ii) to assess and compare diversity within these stands using a range of indices. In this research, two management systems in Iran’s Arasbaran forests were compared: the traditional coppice system and the coppice-with-standard (CWS) stands system. Fieldwork was conducted in 24 sample plots for each management system, where quantitative indicators and biodiversity indices were employed to evaluate and compare stand characteristics. The findings revealed that the CWS system exhibited higher mean values for tree height, diameter at the breast height (DBH), and basal area compared to the coppice system. Coppice stands had a sprout clump density of 546 per hectare, primarily composed of Quercus macranthera, while the CWS stands had a combined tree and sprout clump density of 421 per hectare. Diversity assessments showed that species diversity, as measured by Pielou’s index, was higher in the coppice system (1.42) than in the CWS system (1.01). However, species richness, represented by the Menhinik index, was lower in both systems, with values of 0.31 for the coppice system and 0.19 for the CWS system. These results suggest that the CWS system is more effective in promoting growth and stand development, whereas the coppice system may better support biodiversity. The findings have practical implications for forest managers and policymakers in Iran and other regions with similar forest ecosystems. For instance, if the objective is to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, the coppice system—with its higher diversity indices—may be the preferred choice. On the other hand, if the aim is to boost timber production while maintaining a baseline level of biodiversity, the CWS system could be more suitable.