2020
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-020-01363-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Forest Dieback, a Tangible Proof of Climate Change? A Cross-Comparison of Forest Stakeholders’ Perceptions and Strategies in the Mountain Forests of Europe and China

Abstract: Forest dieback due to climate change poses a risk to mountain forests throughout the world, and has severe consequences in terms of lost ecosystem services for forest stakeholders. This contribution aims to analyze how forest stakeholders perceive forest dieback, and the way in which they adapt to it. We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews in three midmountain case study areas in France, Germany and China, enabling a cross-comparison of different settings affected by forest dieback. Results show that for… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although globally the spread of pests and diseases is driven by climate change, many stakeholders react to environmental changes locally. Furthermore, even across the same geographic region, stakeholders can have highly diverse reactions to these changes (Deuffic et al 2020). The outcome of this study clearly supports a recommendation that forest management measures require a threat-specific response to lower the risk of large-scale outbreaks and related threats.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…Although globally the spread of pests and diseases is driven by climate change, many stakeholders react to environmental changes locally. Furthermore, even across the same geographic region, stakeholders can have highly diverse reactions to these changes (Deuffic et al 2020). The outcome of this study clearly supports a recommendation that forest management measures require a threat-specific response to lower the risk of large-scale outbreaks and related threats.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…In our sample, and aligning with existing analysis (e.g. Sousa-Silva et al, 2018;Deuffic et al, 2020), forest managers are cognizant of the interactions between climate change and forest health. They are alert to the threats posed by climate change (and associated problems such as drought and the lack of adaptive capacity of species such as oak), and are aware of their forests' interlinked vulnerability to pests and diseases.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…These possible actions should be undertaken considering uncertainties about climate change impacts on forests and their reactions (Lindner et al 2014). The potential silvicultural disturbance-prevention measures include (1) the use of more climate-adapted tree species or their genotypes (Kauppi et al 2018;Thurm et al 2018), the introduction of economic alternatives to main species (Deuffic et al 2020), management to facilitate the establishment of species outside of historical natural ranges and genomics-based assisted migration in reforestation (transformation) (Hagerman and Pelai 2018); (2) application of more diversified species composition of forests (mixtures of conifers with broadleaves, shade-tolerant with intolerant species, more drought-resistant with less-resistant species) involving also conversion from single-species to multispecies stands where site conditions permit (Kerr et al 2010;Jactel et al 2017), this allows to distribute silvicultural risk to many tree species in a stand; (3) managing for and/or increasing resilience (Hagerman and Pelai 2018); (4) more frequent and intensive thinnings (selective or differentiation) and shorter and/or diversified rotation length (Jactel et al 2009;Silva et al 2018;Deuffic et al 2020); (5) shaping the diversified age structure of forests (uneven-aged/selection structure) (Schütz 2002;O'Hara 2014;Deuffic et al 2020); (6) increasing stand stability and decreasing stand density (Knoke et al 2008;Deuffic et al 2020); (7) fire-smart landscape management techniques (Kauppi et al 2018;Lindner et al 2020). In addition, the realization of the concepts of close-to-nature silviculture (Schütz 1999;Brang et al 2014;O'Hara 2014) and/or continuous cover forestry (Mason et al 1999;Pukkala and Gadov 2012) seems to enhance adaptation to climate change and, to some extent, mitigate its effects on forests (Fig.…”
Section: Forest Damagesmentioning
confidence: 99%