Handbook of field sampling for multi-taxon biodiversity studies in European forests

Ecological Indicators

Peter Schall¹  Giovanni Trentanovi²  Philippe Janssen³  Dinka Matošević⁴  Radim Matula⁵  Jeňýk Hofmeister⁶  Pallieter De Smedt⁷  Inken Doerfler⁸  Francesco Chianucci⁹  Paolo Giordani^1,10  Andrea Cutini^1,11  Péter Ódor^1,11  Kadri Runnel^1,12  Rosana Lopez^1,13  Johannes Penner^1,13  Meelis Pärtel^1,13  Sebastian Kepfer Rojas^1,13  Fotios Xystrakis^1,13  Silvana Munzi^1,14  Réka Aszalós^1,15  Thomas Campagnaro^1,16  Andrés Bravo-Oviedo^1,17  Thibault Lachat^1,18  Yoan Paillet^1,19  Gediminas Brazaitis^1,19  Alessandro Campanaro^1,19  Simonetta Bagella^2,20  Tommaso Sitzia^2,21  Nathalie Korboulewsky^2,22  Itziar García-Mijangos^2,23  Anders Mårell^2,24  Jan Hošek^2,25  Flóra Tinya^2,26  Martin Mikoláš^2,27  Kris Vandekerkhove^2,27  Ettore D'Andrea^2,28  Miroslav Svoboda^2,29  Sabina Burrascano^3,30  Kris Verheyen^3,31  Björn Nordén^3,32  Asko Lõhmus^3,32  Jacob Heilmann-Clausen^3,33  Mariana Ujházyová^3,34  Daniel Kozák^3,35 

[1] Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal;Corresponding author.;Nature Conservation, University of Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstraße 114-118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany;Nature Lab, Department of Environment, Ghent University, Geraardsbergsesteenweg 267, 9090 Gontrode, Belgium;Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland;CNR – Institute for Agriculture and Forestry Systems in the Mediterranean, Portici, NA, Italy;CREA – Research Centre for Forestry and Wood, Arezzo, Italy;CREA – Research Centre for Forestry and Wood, Viale Santa Margherita 80, 52100 Arezzo, Italy;CREA – Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification, Firenze, Italy;Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark;Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany, H-2163 Vácrátót, Alkotmány u. 2-4, Hungary;Centro Interuniversitário de História das Ciências e da Tecnologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal;Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Kamýcká 129, Praha 6, Suchdol 16521, Czech Republic;Departamento de Sistemas y Recursos Naturales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, C/ Ramiro de Maeztu, 28040 Madrid, Spain;Department for Forest Protection and Game Management, Croatian Forest Research Institute, Jastrebarsko, Croatia;Department of Biogeography and Global Change, National Museum of Natural Sciences-CSIC, C/ Serrano 115bis, 28006 Madrid, Spain;Department of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Sassari, Via Piandanna 4, 007100 Sassari, Italy;Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark;Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, Università degli Studi di Padova, Via dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy;Department of Pharmacy, University of Genova, Viale Cembrano 4, 16148 Genova, Italy;Department of Plant Biology and Ecology, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain;Ecological Services, Kotopecká 1589, Hořovice 268 01, Czech Republic;;Forest &Forest Sciences, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food, Sciences HAFL, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland;;Institute of Biology and Environmental Science, Vegetation Science &Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Lai 40, EE-51005 Tartu, Estonia;Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46, EE-51015 Tartu, Estonia;Institute of Forest Biology and Silviculture, Vytautas Magnus University Studentų, str. 11 Akademijos mstl. Kaunas dist., LT-53361, Lithuania;Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Sognsveien 68, 0855 Oslo, Norge;Sapienza University of Rome, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy;Silviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate Zones, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany;UR EFNO, INRAE, FR-45290, Nogent-sur-Vernisson, France;Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, Lessem, 2 rue de la Papeterie, BP76, 38400 Saint Martin d’Hères, France;University of Freiburg, RTG ConFoBi, Chair of Wildlife Ecology and Management, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany;Université Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, LESSEM, Saint-Martin-d’Hères, France;

关键词: Biodiversity;    Field methods;    Multi-taxon;    Indicators;    Sampling protocol;    Forest stand structure;   

DOI  :  

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Forests host most terrestrial biodiversity and their sustainable management is crucial to halt biodiversity loss. Although scientific evidence indicates that sustainable forest management (SFM) should be assessed by monitoring multi-taxon biodiversity, most current SFM criteria and indicators account only for trees or consider indirect biodiversity proxies. Several projects performed multi-taxon sampling to investigate the effects of forest management on biodiversity, but the large variability of their sampling approaches hampers the identification of general trends, and limits broad-scale inference for designing SFM. Here we address the need of common sampling protocols for forest structure and multi-taxon biodiversity to be used at broad spatial scales. We established a network of researchers involved in 41 projects on forest multi-taxon biodiversity across 13 European countries. The network data structure comprised the assessment of at least three taxa, and the measurement of forest stand structure in the same plots or stands. We mapped the sampling approaches to multi-taxon biodiversity, standing trees and deadwood, and used this overview to provide operational answers to two simple, yet crucial, questions: what to sample? How to sample? The most commonly sampled taxonomic groups are vascular plants (83% of datasets), beetles (80%), lichens (66%), birds (66%), fungi (61%), bryophytes (49%). They cover different forest structures and habitats, with a limited focus on soil, litter and forest canopy. Notwithstanding the common goal of assessing forest management effects on biodiversity, sampling approaches differed widely within and among taxonomic groups. Differences derive from sampling units (plots size, use of stand vs. plot scale), and from the focus on different substrates or functional groups of organisms. Sampling methods for standing trees and lying deadwood were relatively homogeneous and focused on volume calculations, but with a great variability in sampling units and diameter thresholds. We developed a handbook of sampling methods (SI 3) aimed at the greatest possible comparability across taxonomic groups and studies as a basis for European-wide biodiversity monitoring programs, robust understanding of biodiversity response to forest structure and management, and the identification of direct indicators of SFM.

【 授权许可】

Unknown