4.1 Article

Biodiversity conservation and wood production in a Natura 2000 Mediterranean forest. A trade-off evaluation focused on the occurrence of microhabitats

Journal

IFOREST-BIOGEOSCIENCES AND FORESTRY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages 76-84

Publisher

SISEF-SOC ITALIANA SELVICOLTURA ECOL FORESTALE
DOI: 10.3832/ifor2617-011

Keywords

Biodiversity Conservation; Sustainable Forest Management; Microhabitats; Habitat Tree; Marteloscope; Timber Production; Precision Forestry

Categories

Funding

  1. LIFE program
  2. Italian Academy of Forest Sciences [LIFE14 ENV/IT/000414]
  3. German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) through the Integrate+ project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The most significant European forest-related strategies highlight the importance of multifunctional forests for human wellbeing, due to the provision of a wide range of goods and services. However, managing competing aims, such as timber production, economic drivers and biodiversity conservation is often difficult for practitioners. In order to assess the loss and gain of ecosystem services caused by forestry, trade-off evaluation has been increasingly used to aid decision-making. In this study, four silvicultural scenarios are simulated using the Marteloscope approach to evaluate the trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and timber production. Tree-related Microhabitats (TreMs) are used as a proxy to evaluate forest habitat value, while timber production is assessed by the number of harvested trees, biomass removal and economic income. This study takes an innovative approach by investigating TreMs using the Marteloscope in mixed Mediterranean forest. The main findings from this paper confirm that tree-related microhabitats can be considered ecological indicators effective in identifying important habitat trees, to assess forest habitat value and support tree marking for thinning operations and management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available