Setting aside areas for conservation does not increase disturbances in temperate forests

Abstract Forest disturbances are increasing in many parts of the globe, posing a considerable challenge for forest management. Simultaneously, setting aside forests for conservation is considered an important approach to halt ongoing biodiversity loss. While the potential for increasing disturbances is often invoked as an argument against creating forest reserves within the matrix of managed forest landscapes, quantitative evidence for the impact of conservation areas on forest disturbance regimes remains scarce. Here, we contrasted forest disturbance regimes in actively managed and set‐aside areas throughout Germany. We made use of a network of strict forest reserves protected for at least 35 years (i.e. set‐aside areas) and identified comparable managed forests by controlling for differences in species composition, climate and topography ( n = 314 pairs of managed and set‐aside areas with 20 ha in size). A remote‐sensing‐based forest disturbance map with annual disturbance records for the years 1986 to 2020 was used to quantify disturbance regimes. Within the context of the coupled human and natural disturbance regimes of Central Europe, we here focused on canopy openings initiated by naturally occurring agents like wind‐throw, drought and bark beetle infestations. Our main objective was to identify the impact of setting aside forests on disturbance rate, frequency, patch density, patch size and severity. We found that set‐aside areas had, on average, a 22% lower disturbance rate and a 32% lower disturbance severity compared with actively managed forests, with no significant differences detected for disturbance patch size, patch density and frequency. Lower disturbance activity in set‐aside areas was particularly pronounced in mixed and broadleaved forest types. The dampening effect of strict forest reserves strengthened in pulse disturbance years, that is years with very high disturbance activity caused by extreme storm or drought events. Synthesis and applications : We found no evidence that setting aside forests for biodiversity conservation amplifies disturbances in temperate forests of Central Europe. Conversely, we found that strict forest reserves had lower disturbance activity, particularly in years affected by severe climatic extremes. We conclude that considerations of disturbance should not limit the incorporation of reserves into landscape management in temperate forests.