4.7 Article

Forest health status in the Carpahian Mountains over the period 1997-2001

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 93-98

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2003.10.024

Keywords

Carpathians; forest monitoring; health status; air pollution

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The results of forest health status assessments in the Carpathian Mountains from the monitoring networks developed by the European Union Scheme on the Protection of Forest Against Atmospheric Pollution (EU Scheme) and International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests (ICP-Forests), have led to a better understanding of the impact of air pollution and other stressors on forests at the regional scale. During the period 1997-2001, forests in the Carpathian Mountains were severely affected by air pollution and natural stresses with 29.7-34.9% of the trees included in defoliation classes 2-4. The broadleaves were slightly healthier than the conifers, and European beech (Fagus sylvatica) was the least affected species. Norway spruce (Picea abies) has poor health status, with 42.9-46.6% of the trees damaged (2-4% defoliation classes). Silver fir (Abies alba) damage was also high, with 46.0-50.9% in defoliation classes 2-4. Pines (primarily Pinus sylvestris) were the least affected of the conifers, with 24.9-33.8% in defoliation classes 2-4. The results from the transnational networks (16 x 16 km) show that the Carpathian forests are slightly more damaged than the average for the entire Europe. The correlative studies performed in individual European countries show the relationships between air pollution stressors with trends in defoliation and a possible effect of natural stresses at each site. More specific, effects of tree age, drought, ozone and acid deposition critical level exceedances were demonstrated to affect crown condition. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available