Coppice restoration and conservation: a European perspective

Buckley, Peter

doi:10.1080/13416979.2020.1763554

Cited by 50 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results indicated that bare soil, created by topsoil removal, is important also to some dung‐inhabiting beetles. Hence, measures ensuring the presence of insolated patches of bare soil would benefit a wide array of specialized organisms and should be considered as a conservation measure for sustainable forest management (Borchard et al ., 2014; Buckley, 2020). For practical applications further studies are needed to evaluate different patch sizes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The more heterogenous habitat could be created by the simultaneous presence of legacies from the original forest, such as solitary standing trees, and the exposition of bare soil e.g ., due to logging operations. This assumption is supported by higher beta‐diversity in coppices, observed for plants (Kopecký et al ., 2013; Bartha et al ., 2020), birds (Battisti & Fanelli, 2011; Mentil et al ., 2018), butterflies, amphibians, reptiles and small mammals (Buckley, 2020). More heterogenous habitats, i.e ., more niches, in coppice and topsoil‐removed plots may also support a higher functional diversity of rove beetles (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coppices showed significantly higher abundances of species of high conservation value, such as E. paracoenosus and marginally significant also S. schaefferi . Those species, together with other protected or rare invertebrates, birds and plants related to coppices (Benes et al ., 2006; Spitzer et al ., 2008; Buckley, 2020), justify continuous coppicing. By contrast, the abandonment of coppicing or coppice conversion to high forest might lead to local disappearance of light‐demanding organisms (Kopecký et al ., 2013; Buckley, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Those species, together with other protected or rare invertebrates, birds and plants related to coppices (Benes et al ., 2006; Spitzer et al ., 2008; Buckley, 2020), justify continuous coppicing. By contrast, the abandonment of coppicing or coppice conversion to high forest might lead to local disappearance of light‐demanding organisms (Kopecký et al ., 2013; Buckley, 2020). Shade‐tolerant species would remain largely unaffected since their required habitat remains available in currently most preferred closed‐canopy high‐stand forests (Buckley, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Coppicing and topsoil removal promote diversity of dung‐inhabiting beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Geotrupidae, Staphylinidae) in forests

Ambrožová

Finnberg²,

Feldmann³

et al. 2021

Agri and Forest Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central European forests experience a substantial loss of open‐forest organisms due to forest management and increasing nitrogen deposition. However, management strategies, removing different levels of nitrogen, have been rarely evaluated simultaneously. We tested the additive effects of coppicing and topsoil removal on communities of dung‐inhabiting beetles compared to closed forests. We sampled 57 021 beetles, using baited pitfall traps exposed on 27 plots. Experimental treatments resulted in significantly different communities by promoting open‐habitat species. While alpha diversity did not differ among treatments, gamma diversity of Geotrupidae and Scarabaeidae and beta diversity of Staphylinidae were higher in coppice than in forest. Functional diversity of rove beetles was higher in both, coppice and topsoil‐removed plots, compared to control plots. This was likely driven by higher habitat heterogeneity in established forest openings. Five dung beetle species and four rove beetle species benefitted from coppicing, one red‐listed dung beetle and two rove beetle species benefitted from topsoil removal. Our results demonstrate that dung‐inhabiting beetles related to open forest patches can be promoted by both, coppicing and additional topsoil removal. A mosaic of coppice and bare‐soil‐rich patches can hence promote landscape‐level gamma diversity of dung and rove beetles within forests.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Coppicing and topsoil removal promote diversity of dung‐inhabiting beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Geotrupidae, Staphylinidae) in forests

Ambrožová

Finnberg²,

Feldmann³

et al. 2021

Agri and Forest Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Against the combined background of the implementation challenges of Natura 2000, the long-term development timeframe of forest ecosystems (Flensted et al 2016;Janssen et al 2017), and the requirement of some habitats for active conservation measures (Dolek et al 2018;Mölder et al 2019;Buckley 2020), there is a great need to examine the objectives, management activities, and perceptions of forest owners. Private forest owners are particularly important in this context, and among them, the owners of small-scale private forests are very widespread.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small-scale private forest owners and the European Natura 2000 conservation network: perceived ecosystem services, management practices, and nature conservation attitudes

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The systematic designation of protected areas is a key strategy in modern biodiversity conservation. As for now, the Natura 2000 system of the European Union (EU) is the largest coordinated network of conservation areas worldwide. Since this scheme has a focus on forests, its effectiveness substantially depends on small-scale private forest owners who represent the largest forest ownership group in Europe. We conducted a quantitative survey (n = 1671) in Northwest Germany focusing on the perceived importance of ecosystem services, the performance of management practices, nature conservation attitudes, as well as stand characteristics of small-scale private forest owners with and without Natura 2000 sites. Forest owners perceived regulating and cultural services as more important than provisioning ecosystem services while having a multifunctional perspective on their forest. Owners with Natura 2000 sites had a stronger focus on resource use and, with the exception of habitat-tree protection, did not perform conservation measures more frequently than those without. Moreover, we found more negative nature conservation attitudes among this ownership group. In conclusion, the Natura 2000 scheme needs to be more strongly adapted to the demands of small-scale private forest owners, for example by increasing profound participation and establishing a results-based incentive scheme for conservation measures. The perspectives of small-scale private forest owners have to be considered comprehensively to ensure the effective and sustainable implementation of the Natura 2000 conservation network.

show abstract

A Century of Practice and Experiences of the Restoration of Land-Use Types and Ecosystems

Zerbe

2022

Landscape Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coppice restoration and conservation: a European perspective

Cited by 50 publications

References 85 publications

Coppicing and topsoil removal promote diversity of dung‐inhabiting beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Geotrupidae, Staphylinidae) in forests

Coppicing and topsoil removal promote diversity of dung‐inhabiting beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Geotrupidae, Staphylinidae) in forests

Small-scale private forest owners and the European Natura 2000 conservation network: perceived ecosystem services, management practices, and nature conservation attitudes

A Century of Practice and Experiences of the Restoration of Land-Use Types and Ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About