Moving beyond the concept of “primary forest” as a metric of forest environment quality

Bernier, Pierre Y.; Paré, David; Stinson, G.; Bridge, S. R. J.; Kishchuk, Barbara E.; Lemprière, Tony C.; Thiffault, Évelyne; Titus, Brian; Vasbinder, W.

doi:10.1002/eap.1477

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The area of primary forest we mapped for Finland is three times larger than previous estimates (FOREST EUROPE, ). It possibly depends on the fact that we considered as primary forests not only old‐growth stands older than 160–200 years (as in FOREST EUROPE, ), but also those primary forests composed of a mosaic of successional phases occurring in the extreme north of Finland (Bernier et al., ; Kuuluvainen & Aakala, ; Potapov et al., ). On the contrary, the amount of primary forest area mapped for Sweden and the Carpathians is far lower than current estimates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Variability may derive from a different interpretation of FAO definition of primary forests. Although authoritative and widely accepted internationally, FAO definition is conceptual, rather than operational, which may result in inconsistencies in reporting among countries (Bernier et al., ). For many countries, no complete inventory exists, and data derive from the knowledge of local experts or from partial inventories with relatively narrow breadth, focussing on either forest inside (e.g., France, Italy and Finland) or outside protected areas (e.g., Norway) or specific regions (e.g., the Transcarpathian region of Ukraine, the French Pyrenees).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Where are Europe’s last primary forests?

Sabatini

Burrascano

Keeton

et al. 2018

Diversity and Distributions

332

260

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Primary forests have high conservation value but are rare in Europe due to historic land use. Yet many primary forest patches remain unmapped, and it is unclear to what extent they are effectively protected. Our aim was to (1) compile the most comprehensive European‐scale map of currently known primary forests, (2) analyse the spatial determinants characterizing their location and (3) locate areas where so far unmapped primary forests likely occur. Location Europe. Methods We aggregated data from a literature review, online questionnaires and 32 datasets of primary forests. We used boosted regression trees to explore which biophysical, socio‐economic and forest‐related variables explain the current distribution of primary forests. Finally, we predicted and mapped the relative likelihood of primary forest occurrence at a 1‐km resolution across Europe. Results Data on primary forests were frequently incomplete or inconsistent among countries. Known primary forests covered 1.4 Mha in 32 countries (0.7% of Europe’s forest area). Most of these forests were protected (89%), but only 46% of them strictly. Primary forests mostly occurred in mountain and boreal areas and were unevenly distributed across countries, biogeographical regions and forest types. Unmapped primary forests likely occur in the least accessible and populated areas, where forests cover a greater share of land, but wood demand historically has been low. Main conclusions Despite their outstanding conservation value, primary forests are rare and their current distribution is the result of centuries of land use and forest management. The conservation outlook for primary forests is uncertain as many are not strictly protected and most are small and fragmented, making them prone to extinction debt and human disturbance. Predicting where unmapped primary forests likely occur could guide conservation efforts, especially in Eastern Europe where large areas of primary forest still exist but are being lost at an alarming pace.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where are Europe’s last primary forests?

Sabatini

Burrascano

Keeton

et al. 2018

Diversity and Distributions

332

260

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reducing forest degradation is a major challenge given the rapid need to reduce carbon emissions to the atmosphere, conserve biodiversity, limit soil erosion and regulate the water cycle [16]. Forest monitoring based on the forest/non-forest approach used to quantify deforestation is not relevant for providing information on the forest status [17,18]. The biomass value of a forest is a relevant indicator to quantify the intensity of degradation [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the remaining forested lands are degraded due to the accumulation over time and space of severe degradation processes mainly triggered by anthropogenic impacts through unsustainable logging practices, fire, shifting cultivation and charcoal production [14,15].Reducing forest degradation is a major challenge given the rapid need to reduce carbon emissions to the atmosphere, conserve biodiversity, limit soil erosion and regulate the water cycle [16]. Forest monitoring based on the forest/non-forest approach used to quantify deforestation is not relevant for providing information on the forest status [17,18]. The biomass value of a forest is a relevant indicator to quantify the intensity of degradation [19].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential of Multisource Remote Sensing for Mapping the Biomass of a Degraded Amazonian Forest

Bourgoin

Blanc

Bailly

et al. 2018

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the agricultural frontiers of Brazil, the distinction between forested and deforested lands traditionally used to map the state of the Amazon does not reflect the reality of the forest situation. A whole gradient exists for these forests, spanning from well conserved to severely degraded. For decision makers, there is an urgent need to better characterize the status of the forest resource at the regional scale. Until now, few studies have been carried out on the potential of multisource, freely accessible remote sensing for modelling and mapping degraded forest structural parameters such as aboveground biomass (AGB). The aim of this article is to address that gap and to evaluate the potential of optical (Landsat, MODIS) and radar (ALOS-1 PALSAR, Sentinel-1) remote sensing sources in modelling and mapping forest AGB in the old pioneer front of Paragominas municipality (Para state). We derived a wide range of vegetation and textural indices and combined them with in situ collected AGB data into a random forest regression model to predict AGB at a resolution of 20 m. The model explained 28% of the variance with a root mean square error of 97.1 Mg·ha −1 and captured all spatial variability. We identified Landsat spectral unmixing and mid-infrared indicators to be the most robust indicators with the highest explanatory power. AGB mapping reveals that 87% of forest is degraded, with illegal logging activities, impacted forest edges and other spatial distribution of AGB that are not captured with pantropical datasets. We validated this map with a field-based forest degradation typology built on canopy height and structure observations. We conclude that the modelling framework developed here combined with high-resolution vegetation status indicators can help improve the management of degraded forests at the regional scale. IntroductionDeforestation and forest degradation are major sources of greenhouse gas emissions [1,2], contributing to forest carbon losses [3], global climate change, affecting biodiversity [4] and the entire forest ecosystem. While deforestation refers to the rapid conversion from forest to non-forest areas, degradation implies changes in the forest structure with no change in land use [5,6]. In Amazonia, over the last decades, deforestation and forest degradation have shaped the rural landscape, resulting in a complex mosaic of fragmented forests associated with agricultural lands [7]. A total area of 766,448.5 km 2 was cleared in 2015 [8], representing 20% of Amazonia [9,10].Since 2005, deforestation in Brazil has drastically decreased thanks to coercive measures taken by the Brazilian government associated with private initiatives (soy and beef moratoria), among other factors [11]. However, these measures are not effective for reducing forest degradation [12,13]. Most of the remaining forested lands are degraded due to the accumulation over time and space of severe degradation processes mainly triggered by anthropogenic impacts through unsustainable logging practices, fire, shifting cultivation ...

show abstract

“…In 2005, the term "primary forest" was adopted. Since 2005, FAO has reported on the global area of primary forest but the use of primary forest as a metric of forest conservation is complicated by the need to convert the FAO definition to an operational definition (Bernier et al 2016).…”

Section: R a F Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the intact forest landscape concept in the Canadian boreal forest: its history, value, and measurement

Venier

Walton

Thompson³

et al. 2018

Environ. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loss of global forest, and in particular forest that has little human disturbance, is a standard against which we measure progress to conserve Earth’s forests. The value of intact forest landscapes has taken hold in the global psyche. We provide a brief history of the intact forest landscape concept and discuss how this has moved to an operational definition used as a global and regional metric of forest conservation. We distinguish between a conceptual intact forest landscape and an operational definition. For the purposes of this paper we will use the term IFL to mean the operational definition and intact forest landscapes to mean the conceptual idea. We provide an overview of the science that supports the value of intact forest landscapes in a Canadian boreal context and analyse issues with using a standard operationalized IFL definition to both measure and promote conservation of forests at global and regional scales. We found many arguments for protecting large, intact forest landscapes that are relevant to the Canadian boreal forest, including conservation of biodiversity, ecological processes and ecosystem services, existence values, application of the precautionary principle, and the need for scientific benchmarks. But it is clear that the standard operational IFL size threshold of 50 000 ha in the boreal forest is inadequate to meet these broad conservation objectives. However, the concept of intact forest being large enough to allow for all natural processes and biodiversity is likely not logistically feasible in Canada’s managed boreal forest. The scale at which the most extensive processes (e.g., fire and insects) occur and species (e.g., woodland caribou) function is likely too large. Management options incorporating local knowledge of conservation needs and the specifics of ecosystem function and composition are more likely to be effective in conservation than rigid IFL requirements. A standardized approach is useful for global tracking of IFLs but it is not the best approach to meet more regional forest conservation goals. Intact forest landscapes have exceptional value but should be managed in the context of integrated land use planning that includes protected areas, sustainable forest management, species at risk management, and ecosystem restoration.

show abstract

Moving beyond the concept of “primary forest” as a metric of forest environment quality

Cited by 23 publications

References 21 publications

Where are Europe’s last primary forests?

Where are Europe’s last primary forests?

The Potential of Multisource Remote Sensing for Mapping the Biomass of a Degraded Amazonian Forest

A review of the intact forest landscape concept in the Canadian boreal forest: its history, value, and measurement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About