2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120041
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Forest management, site characteristics and climate change affect multiple biotic threats in riparian forests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most respondents expected an increase of biotic and abiotic damage, of non-native species, and of tree dieback in future. This matches the estimation that non-native species belong to the most pertinent threats to the environment (e.g., Simberloff, 2005;de Groot et al, 2022).…”
Section: Experiences Expectations and Forest Management Adaptationsupporting
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Most respondents expected an increase of biotic and abiotic damage, of non-native species, and of tree dieback in future. This matches the estimation that non-native species belong to the most pertinent threats to the environment (e.g., Simberloff, 2005;de Groot et al, 2022).…”
Section: Experiences Expectations and Forest Management Adaptationsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The respondents in our study estimated that the conditions of forests are deteriorating, especially after observing changes themselves. 10.3389/ffgc.2023.1160166 This corresponds to ecological studies in the area (de Groot et al, 2022;Sallmannshofer et al, 2021a;Tadić et al, 2022). Nearly 80% of the survey respondents expected further changes, which was significantly correlated with having observed past changes.…”
Section: Experiences Expectations and Forest Management Adaptationmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…The number of sample sites per country was proportional to the area of TBR in the respective country. GIS orthophoto and river edge analysis in QGIS (v. 2.18.16) from Bing satellite images was used to randomly determine 47 forest transects (Austria: 7, Slovenia: 6, Hungary: 11, Croatia: 13, Serbia:10) with their axes orthogonal to the respective river, with a minimum width of 20 m and a minimum length of 300 m (de Groot et al 2022). If the criteria were not met, transects were re-located up-or down-stream to the closest position meeting the defined criteria.…”
Section: Study Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, extended transects were planned in each of the five countries in order to allow sampling in forests more distant to the rivers. Therefore, eleven of the largest forest complexes extending beyond TBR borders were selected and transects extended for an additional 300 m into these forests to include potential historic riparian forests that may have been cut off from streams over time (de Groot et al 2022). Sample plots were set up every 75 m along all transects, resulting in 322 sample plots covering a gradient of forest communities which were summarized into softwood, transition and hardwood forests.…”
Section: Study Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation