Next Article in Journal
Temporal Dynamics of Root Reinforcement in European Spruce Forests
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanical Mastication Reduces Fuel Structure and Modelled Fire Behaviour in Australian Shrub Encroached Ecosystems
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effectiveness of the Ecological Forest Rangers Policy in Southwest China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/f12060814
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

How to Increase Biodiversity of Saproxylic Beetles in Commercial Stands through Integrated Forest Management in Central Europe

by
Václav Zumr
1,
Jiří Remeš
1,* and
Karel Pulkrab
2
1
Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha, Czech Republic
2
Department of Forestry and Wood Economics, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2021, 12(6), 814; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060814
Submission received: 17 May 2021 / Revised: 17 June 2021 / Accepted: 18 June 2021 / Published: 21 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Economics, Policies, and Management of Production Forests in Time of Global Change)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Due to traditional forest management, the primary goal of which is the production of raw wood material, commercial forest stands are characterized by low biodiversity. At the same time, commercial forests make up the majority of forests in the Central European region, which means a significant impact on the biodiversity of the entire large region. Saproxylic species of organisms are a frequently used criterion of biodiversity in forests. Based upon the analysis of 155 scientific works, this paper defines the fundamental attributes of the active management supporting biodiversity as well as the preservation of the production function. Using these attributes, a model management proposal was created for three tree species, which takes into account the results of research carried out in the territory of the University Forest Enterprise of the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, since 2019. The optimum constant volume of deadwood in commercial stands was set at 40–60 m3/ha, 20% of which should be standing deadwood. The time framework is scheduled for an average rotation period of the model tree species, while the location of deadwood and frequency of enrichment must comply with the rate of decomposition, the requirement for the bulkiest dimensions of deadwood possible, and the planned time of tending and regeneration operations in accordance with the models used in the Czech Republic. The goal of active management is to maintain the continuity of suitable habitats for sensitive and endangered species. The estimates of the value of retained wood for decomposition can be as high as 45–70 EUR/ha/year for spruce and beech, and about 30 EUR /ha/year for oak.

1. Introduction

The importance of deadwood for the biodiversity of saproxylic species of insects and fungi, as well as for the natural functioning of forest ecosystems, has long been the subject of research. Over the last 20 years, this topic has become the focus of attention for commercial forests too, as deadwood is no longer seen as a product of poor forest management. However, this issue has not been comprehensively settled in order to be a tangible and acceptable forestry practice. To date, there have been isolated research studies [1,2,3] or various original experiments, e.g., [4,5,6,7,8]. Saproxylic organisms are dependent on deadwood at all stages of their development, and throughout any stage of wood decomposition [1,9,10,11]. The largest groups bound to deadwood are fungi and insects [12,13]. Fungi are the most important factor in the decomposition process [14,15], especially the division Basidiomycetes [16], and insects are the most important vector with active wood-seeking movement, while their way of life helps to spread fungi to more distant places [17,18,19]. Saproxylic beetles are very popular because they provide reliable data on the preservation of the environment and are often used as indicators of forest biodiversity [2,9,13,20,21,22]. Nature reserves are one of the options to preserve and create conditions for many specific species of animals. A forest area excluded from management, however, may not always be the most advantageous environment for saproxylic beetles. In this respect, suitable habitats for a non-intervention regime are found especially at higher and middle altitudes in stands predominantly consisting of three main tree species—Norway spruce, European beech, and silver fir [23]. The non-intervention regime is also suitable for extreme positions, steep slopes, and drying sites where the canopy is not fully closed, and the stands remain strongly differentiated [24]. Nevertheless, a conservation (non-intervention) strategy is inappropriate for lowland forests where local species depend on sunny habitats, e.g., oak forests [25,26]. The absence of management would lead to the homogenization of species composition, the closure of the canopy, and a strong reduction of species richness of saproxylic beetles [24,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. In addition, there are a number of typical attributes of the natural forest in the reserves, towards which the development spontaneously leads. In particular, we are talking about large volumes of coarse woody debris (CWD), spatial heterogeneity, and the limited use of tree species, among other factors [1]. Societally, these facets are mostly considered as beneficial, but the owners to some extent view them as negative [1]. It is the wood production function that the owners perceive as positive, while it is excluded in nature reserves. Therefore, a compromise is sought between wood biomass production, and the expansion of the typical characteristics of natural forests, as high volumes of deadwood are problematic for the economy of forest enterprises [34]. One way to combine the production functions of forests and high biodiversity is functionally integrated forest management, with an emphasis on active enrichment of stands with deadwood [6], or retention management, which is preferred in Scandinavia, e.g., [35]. The implementation of different methods of management depends on several factors: socio-cultural, economic, and political [36]. In contrast to nature reserves, the goal of silvicultural interventions in functionally integrated forest management is the gradual increase in stand volumes and the improvement of production quality, accompanied by active enrichment with wood necromass [37]. Active enrichment with wood necromass may be in fact faster than the natural increase of deadwood volumes in newly established reserves [4,5,6,7]. While conventional forest management reduces the amount of deadwood, the number of microhabitats and the diameter differentiation of trees [37], functionally integrated management seeks to take into account all of these attributes [4]. However, it must be remembered that in commercial forests, it is still necessary to observe the basic principles of forest protection and the struggle against pests with special regard to climate change, reflected in rising temperatures and the uneven distribution of precipitation—including periods of intense drought, which has manifested itself over the last years in Central Europe. These factors induce long-term stress on forest stands, reducing the natural resistance of forest tree species, and conversely, increasing the risk of an outbreak of insect pests, e.g., [38,39,40,41].
The application of scientific findings on the importance of deadwood in the management of production forests, which form the main share of woodlands in Central Europe, is essential for the biological diversity in the wider region of forests. Based on a thorough analysis of scientific findings, this work aims to define the attributes of functionally integrated forest management supporting the biological diversity of the saproxylic beetle species. The goal is to propose appropriate management measures in the context of common forestry practice in the Central Europe region. This paper is focused on commercial forests and does not discuss other types of management, such as game parks, grazing forests, pheasantries, orchard meadows, and other agroforestry systems, or similar entities in the category of special-purpose or protection forests. Although these are undoubtedly the most important areas for saproxylic insects in general, their share in Europe is very low [42,43]. It is necessary to find out how much deadwood there is in natural forests, where it is, and what its time dynamics are, in order to apply the findings for forest management [1]. For long-term sustainability, it is necessary to take into account the spatial and temporal relativity of deadwood habitats [44]. It is also necessary to determine production loss estimations for forest owners, and thus quantify the compensation associated with the application of the specific deadwood-enrichment management [45]. In the analytical part, the work aims to answer questions related to the deadwood management with an exclusive focus on creating suitable conditions for saproxylic beetles:
  • What is the optimal volume of deadwood?
  • What provides effective enrichment?
  • How to maintain the continuity of deadwood?
  • Where is the best place to start enrichment?
In the synthetic section of the paper, an active management model was proposed to increase biodiversity for three important tree species in Central Europe.

2. Analysis

2.1. What Is the Optimal Constant Volume of Deadwood?

Discussions are often held on the amount of deadwood left to decompose, which is needed to comprehensively fulfill all its functions, while at the same time balance the reproductive offer for the widest possible range of saproxylic beetles. This question is important for the planning of wood-necromass management, as the number of saproxylic beetles are known to increase with the amount of deadwood [6,46,47,48,49,50,51,52] and wood-inhabiting fungi [23,53,54]. The number of large logs in the late stage of decay, and the constant volume per hectare are the variables that best explain the species richness of this group of beetles [55,56,57] and fungi [54]. With each m3 of deadwood per hectare, the number of saproxylic beetle and fungal species increases on average by an additional 1.2 species [5]. To some extent, even the exact optimal volume is relative, as it encounters acceptable economic loss and other risks associated with deadwood [1]. In some published studies, we can find a specified universal volume of deadwood for increasing and maintaining the biological diversity of saproxylic beetles in commercial forests. This volume most often fluctuates between 20 and 60 m3/ha [34,44,47,58,59].
These values correlate to the diversity of wood-decaying fungi, for which the optimal volume of deadwood might exceed 100 m3/ha, and only from 20 m3/ha do the first endangered species begin to appear [60]. Wood-decaying fungi generally require high volumes of necromass, sometimes exceeding 300 m3/ha [23]. Many saproxylic beetles are linked to wood-decaying fungi [7,17,61,62]. The solar influence is essential for the abundance and diversity of saproxylic beetles [28,63,64], and at the same time, sun exposure can compensate for the amount of deadwood [23]. A greater amount of insolation in sunny stands reduces the required volume of deadwood for saproxylic beetles, and vice versa in shady cold stands [47,65,66]. The strength of the effect of sun exposure on species richness of saproxylic beetles is more likely related to the local climate—the importance of sun exposure diminishes and may not become a limiting factor in warmer climatic conditions. By contrast, wood-decaying fungi react negatively to changed or opened canopy [23]. Humid and warmer environments are very important factors for many fungal decomposers [53,67,68]. Thus, in the case of high volumes of deadwood, sun exposure may be a limiting factor for biodiversity [48]. At the same time, several large logs cannot be replaced by a larger number of thin logs or even smallwood [69]. Logs are more valuable than branches [49], as numerous species cannot live on small dimensions of dead biomass and have a set minimum threshold diameter [49,70]. Similarly, the number of saproxylic beetle species increases with biomass diameter [71,72].
If we compare these recommended volumes of deadwood in managed stands to the current state of forests in 19 European countries, where there is an average of 15.6 m3/ha of deadwood, we find significant differences [73]. More precise volumes of deadwood identified in commercial forests are given in Table 1. The small volume of deadwood is the main reason why commercial stands are very poor in saproxylic beetles [44,74,75]. The same applies to the most endangered species in forest ecosystems, where these volumes are well below the limits at which they begin to appear [44], e.g., typically over 60 m3/ha [34,48,65].
Up to three times higher volumes of deadwood were detected in commercial stands in mountain areas [81]. However, even this condition strongly limits the biodiversity of saproxylic beetles because in such cold locations, a higher volume of deadwood is required compared to warm ecosystems [47,65]. The diversity of deadwood is also important [66]. Increased volumes of deadwood—and consequently, the saproxylic beetles’ diversity—are highly correlated with the diversity of other taxonomic saproxylic groups, which leads to an increase in the overall multidiversity of saproxylics [74]. This is due to the inhabitation of the same or similar types of deadwood microhabitats, e.g. by fungi, lichens, and mosses [34,54,82], also the group of Diptera [83]. This is also confirmed by the proven causality in the number of nesting birds in tree snags only when robustly colonized by saproxylic beetles [84].

2.2. How to Effectively Enrich the Stands

It is simple to enrich the stands just by leaving the felled logs, felling residues, and fallen wood in place [1]. The enrichment of forest stands with only small fractions of wood biomass is insufficient in terms of increasing biodiversity [3]. It is necessary to focus on bulky specimens of deadwood, as this type of wood is certainly missing in the commercial stands [85]. Therefore, thick wood fractions need to be applied [2,86]. The minimum diameter is 15 cm [87,88], but at the same time, the increasing diameter of deadwood increases the possibility to host bigger species of beetles [49] and a larger number of saproxylic beetles [72] and fungi [54]. Also, Grossner et al. [34] recommend preserving deadwood of larger dimensions in the stands, with a diameter of 50 cm and more, as much as possible. Primeval forest relics, which are species that depend upon forest habitats without interrupting the continuity of the forest with large amounts of bulky (>40 cm) deadwood [11,89,90,91,92,93].
Diameters over 70 cm of veteran trees have a demonstrably positive effect on all saproxylic beetles [48]. Sizeable deadwood deposits can host more saproxylic species, both endangered and common, simultaneously [94]. However, such large fractions are very scarce in forests [95], while they are essential for highly endangered and rare saproxylic beetle species [11,34,59,86,92,93]. Although smaller wood necromass also hosts many saproxylic beetles [72,96], these are mainly groups of common species [59,96]. However, some studies still favor smaller deadwood mass over large fractions [97]. The difference is probably due to the greater abundance of early species of saproxylic beetles rather than the later species, which are dependent upon the later stages of wood decomposition.
Active enrichment brings about a more complicated issue—standing deadwood, the so-called snags, or microhabitat trees [4,5]. Good results in terms of biodiversity are provided by so-called ring-barked trees [98] or stumps of up to 4 m high (Figure 1), often used and studied in Scandinavian countries [35,99,100,101]. High stumps are parts of the trees that remain in the stand after they have been felled at a greater height. Normally, trees are felled at a height just above the ground utilizing the lower part of the trunk to produce wood products. The importance of standing deadwood and its greater impact on biodiversity than that of lying logs, especially in endangered species, is illustrated in many cases [56,69,87,102,103]. They carry the highest number of microhabitats per unit area [104]. For this reason, it is necessary to focus on standing deadwood. The simplest, safest, and at the same time the most economically viable way seems to be the formation of high stumps, when at this height, we can then talk about the equivalent of snags. Nevertheless, leaving live trees in the stands is the most frequently recommended method [1], even though there is a far greater safety risk due to the unpredictable fall of a dying tree [3]. Leaving live coniferous species in commercial stands does not develop high-quality microhabitats for saproxylic organisms even after an extended period of time. It is much more convenient to leave deciduous tree species to die naturally in the stands [105] due to their high potential for microhabitat formation [3,106].
In high stumps, it will take longer for the wood to become attractive to saproxylic species of the later stages of the decomposition process, because the decomposition of higher stumps takes longer [68]. In some cases, decomposition took up to 3 times longer, and was due to substantially lower moisture of the snag’s wood [76,107,108,109]. The point of the attractiveness to beetles was confirmed by Jonsell and Weslien [99]. It was found that even man-made stumps that are several years old match the species richness of natural stumps [100]. For species of the early stages of deadwood decomposition, insolation is more important than the diameter of the stump [101]. As the decomposition phase of deadwood progresses, the species dependent on these stages of deadwood decomposition will also occur [17]. With larger dimensions, however, deadwood in the form of trunk torsos and high stumps can host more microhabitats such as cavities, and thus be a hotspot for saproxylic beetles as well as nesting birds and bats. The larger the diameter of the tree, the more species of common and endangered beetles [110,111,112], as well as Picidae birds are found [84]. By contrast, fungi prefer lying deadwood [54].
It has been confirmed that the volume of lying wood has effectively increased since the introduction of integrated management, but special support for standing deadwood is still a necessity. Even after the introduction of integrated management, the number of torsos has not increased, while habitat trees have even decreased [4]. The share of standing deadwood is 20–30% (mode) of the total volume of deadwood, exceeding 100 m3/ha. This share was found in natural forests and old reserves [78,104,108,113,114,115]. Too many snags on the local level (e.g., in one stand) can reduce the occupancy of individual snags, as resource availability would be greater than the ability of beetle communities to colonize these habitats [98]. At the same time, keeping in mind that isolation is negative, it is important to maintain the connection between these habitats [111], preferably in groups [2]. Functionally, the trunk torsos and veteran trees are also suitable for biological forest protection due to their great host potential. They often host large numbers of predatory, parasitoid insects, birds, and bats, and the synergistic effect of these groups can inhibit the growing number of pests to some extent. Deadwood itself is the host of many pest antagonists [87]. The enrichment strategy and the subsequent change over several years were evaluated by Doerfler et al. [5], who found that deadwood mass in production forests increased from 8 m3 (set 1) and 18.9 m3 (set 2) to 13.6 m3 and 67.9 m3 (set 1 ≥ 20 cm, set 2 ≥ 12 cm of deadwood for timber inventory). In standard production management, the annual increase in the average level of deadwood is only 0.18 m3/h [76]. As a result of active enrichment, saproxylic species respond positively to the increased amounts of deadwood in stands [5,6,7,116] and simultaneously increase multidiversity, including non-saproxylic insect species [5]. It has even been found that the biodiversity of the saproxylics in production stands has exceeded recent reserves [8], or at least equalized them [7]. This can be proof of how suitable integrated forest management is for supporting an abundance of insects without the need for permanent and strict conservation activities that exclude the production function of forests. A positive effect of close-to-nature integrated management on saproxylic beetles is also confirmed by Jacobsen et al. [117].

2.3. Maintaining Constant Volume Continuity

The continuity of deadwood over time is essential for the maintenance of biodiversity, so that the supply of microhabitats for invertebrates is constantly evolving and emerging [50,118,119]. If a species does not find their particular type of microhabitat to establish in the landscape, they will persist in their current location, and upon losing it, they will completely disappear and become regionally extinct [120]. Therefore, it is necessary to supply deadwood more often than only once during the entire production period (rotation), as the decomposition process of wood is relatively short in some cases. The metadata assessment shows that wood of European beech (Fagus sylvatica, L.) decomposes fastest, in 20–60 years. The wood of Norway spruce (Picea abies, L. H. Karst) decomposes within 50–100 years on average, and wood of silver fir (Abies alba, Mill.) within 70–110 years, depending on the conditions and dimensions [67,68,108,109,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128]. By contrast, oak (Quercus sp.) is rather stable, and its wood standardly decomposes for at least 90 years in all circumstances [129].
For this reason, it is necessary to carry out the enrichment at least three times within the European beech rotation period, two times in the case of Norway spruce, and once is sufficient for the average oak rotation period, which is 115 years in the Czech Republic (Information on Forest and Forestry 2019). Similarly, enrichment in the range of 25–40 years is recommended by Přívětivý et al. [67]. Alternatively, it is recommended to keep standing trees in the stand to decay naturally, to bridge the period when deadwood is not left purposely in place after regeneration felling [1,3]. In order to create a practical methodology for forest owners—in connection with financial compensation—it will be necessary to calculate in more detail the necessary enrichment phases according to the site conditions and their original rotation periods.

2.4. Where to Enrich the Stands?

To select appropriate deadwood management, it is necessary to consider the mobility of species [81]. Generally, beetles disperse poorly due to their seasonal development, and because the stage of the active adult is relatively short [119]. Thus, saproxylic insects have a low ability for dispersion, decreasing with the rarity of individual species [130]. It also weakens the mobility of endangered and primeval forest relics [9,50,131]. It has been found that the continuity of microhabitats and large pieces of deadwood in forest stands perhaps play a more important role for saproxylic beetles, fungi, and lichens than the amount of wood necromass alone [119,131], or at least the continuity has an additive effect [50,57]. In production forests, however, the continuity of deadwood has disappeared, and so the implementation of integration principles based on increasing necromass begins at “square one” (Figure 2 and Figure 3). For this reason, it is advantageous to start enriching the stands with deadwood in production stands near natural forests, old reserves, and other forest refugia of rare saproxylic beetle species. The distance must be as close as possible to the boundaries of these locations because the mobility and dispersal space capacity of saproxylic beetles, fungi, and lichens were found to be very low. The extent of dispersion activities is reported for 100–150 m [118,132], 20–200 m [82,133], and 100–400 m2 [59,134]. Cavity-living species only occur in close proximity to the cavities, some of them not leaving them at all, e.g., [135,136].
Regardless of location, however, it has been documented that the very enrichment in shelterwood and selection-managed production beech stands has led to an increase in saproxylic insects [5,7], as beetles respond very positively to an increase in deadwood in all area scales [82]. Integrated management with an emphasis on deadwood accelerates high biodiversity and reinforces ecosystem services in production stands, whose fulfillment of these attributes so far has been rather problematic, e.g., [7]. At present, it is forest reserves—often former production forests that have been taken out of management—which serve as biodiversity hotspots. However, in newly established forest reserves, biodiversity does not significantly increase until at least 40 years of development [74]. If close-to-nature integrated management is applied on a larger scale, forest reserves can be used to spread endangered saproxylic organisms that necessarily need specific types of deadwood microhabitats. At the same time, the reserves will be used to monitor the natural dynamics of the development of forest stands left to natural influences. Even after the widespread use of integrated principles in production forests, it is not intended nor economically feasible to increase deadwood to 130 m3/ha, as is the average in beech forest reserves—hence the unfailing importance of reserves [78], Table 2. Such high volumes of deadwood are necessary for the life of many species of primeval forest relics.
Deadwood is one of the features typical of natural forests [1]. From this point of view, even commercial stands with rather substantial amounts of deadwood cannot fully substitute natural forests with all their attributes [141]. On the other hand, the artificial enrichment of stands with deadwood increases biodiversity relatively quickly compared to newly established reserves, while maintaining the important wood production function of the forest [5,6,7]. Larrieu et al. [114] found that in lowland oak-beech stands left to spontaneously develop for over 10–50 years, the volume of deadwood increased by 40 m3/ha, yet after 65 years of development, the incidence of larger pieces of deadwood (diameter > 30 cm) was very scarce. Fallen logs are mostly small in size ≤10 cm [95]. This low number of thick dead logs, even after such a long period of spontaneous development, is a problem for primeval forest relics and other highly endangered saproxylic beetles that are dependent on large fractions of wood necromass. Within integrated management, it is possible to intentionally enrich with deadwood, even those with large dimensions, quickly and easily, but on the other hand, it significantly increases the economic loss for the forest owner, even though the stands will perform this ecosystem function for a very long time.

3. Synthesis—A Case Study of Active Management

The attributes of forest management supporting biodiversity were derived from the above-mentioned extensive analysis of published scientific findings. The attributes of active forest management were defined for three important tree species in the commercial forests of the Czech Republic and wider Central Europe: Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] H. Karst.); European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.); and oaks (Quercus sp., including Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea [Matt.] Liebl.). These are the conditions of a temperate forest at the altitudes of 100–1200 m a.s.l., which correspond to the average annual temperature: 3–10 °C, and the annual total precipitation of 450–1300 mm. Active management is designed to create the best possible conditions in terms of biodiversity, which means leaving a significant volume of deadwood in the stands. However, its practical application may be less extensive, depending on the potential and motivation of the forest owner. Management measures are designed for all three tree species groups within the whole range of site conditions. The model is developed for three site indexes (SI): 34 (30), 28 (24), and 18 (14, 16), which represent the best, average, and least favorable growth conditions of the model species. The SI number stands for an average height of the tree species at 100 years of age. The time scheme of active management aimed at increasing the diversity of saproxylic beetle species is designed for one average rotation period of commercial stands (100 years for beech and spruce/fir, 130 years for oak), which is based on Decree No. 298/2018 Coll. (Ministry of Agriculture 2018). The enrichment of forest stands with necromass is planned for the scheduled period of tending and regeneration interventions in accordance with the used models of tending and regeneration of commercial stands in the Czech Republic [142,143,144]. Potential yields of forest production, corresponding to the volume of wood left in forest stands under active management, were calculated on the basis of the yield tables [145,146]. The design of active management is shown in the diagram (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The visualization respects the different rates of decomposition and the need to maintain the overlap of decomposition stages during the enrichment with wood at the age of thinning (pole stage), and at the time of regeneration felling (stemwood stage). The quantification of enrichment is given for the particular tree species in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. The calculations also reflect the different production conditions of the sites, SI: 34 (30), 28 (24), and 18 (14, 16). The model does not expect deviations from the usual silvicultural practice applied for the particular tree species; the difference compared to the standard management lies in leaving a certain amount of wood in the stands to decompose.

3.1. Norway Spruce

A necromass enrichment model was designed for this tree species in accordance with the expected decomposition time, which corresponds to approximately half of the rotation period. With the planned continuous volume of 50 m3/ha, it means leaving 100 m3/ha in the stands for the entire rotation. The first stage of enrichment with deadwood occurs during the major harvest, when 60 m3/ha of wood is left to decay. This is about 7% of the mature stand volume in the SI 34, 10% in the SI 28, and 20% in the SI 16. Another enrichment with deadwood begins at the age of 55 (20 m3/ha) and then at the age of 70 (75) (again, 20 m3/ha), when thinning is carried out (Figure 4, Table 3). Preferably, sterile snags and trees of low economic value are left to decompose. If there is a risk of bark pest infestation, it is necessary to debark the wood mass, which significantly increases the costs. In terms of forest protection, Norway spruce is the most delicate tree species in deadwood enrichment. For this reason, active enrichment with standing spruce deadwood is not computed.

3.2. European Beech

Due to the fact that beech wood decomposes rather quickly, it is necessary to supply it quite often to ensure the planned continuous volume and to leave about 150 m3/ha during the rotation period, which is the largest volume among the examined tree species. The first phase of enrichment with deadwood occurs during the major harvest, when 60 m3/ha of wood is left to decay. This is about 9.3% of the mature stand volume in the SI 34 and 12.6% in the SI 28. In the worst sites represented by ASI 18, it was necessary to increase the enrichment at the time of the major harvest to 93 m3/ha (39.7% of the mature stand volume), because the available volume of wood from standard thinning would not be enough to provide the necessary amount of wood to decay. At the time of the major harvest, approx. 15 m3/ha of the planned volume of trees would be left standing to die naturally and then decompose, which represents approximately 3–5 trees. Standing trees can be combined with at least 4 m high stumps. Another enrichment with deadwood would begin at the age of 35, 45, and 55 years (always 20 m3/ha) and then at 70 years (30 m3/ha), at the time of standard thinning (Figure 4, Table 4). In the poorest sites, further enrichment would be limited to thinning at the age of 50, 65, and 80, every time leaving approx. 20 m3/ha to decay. During the last enrichment, about 15 m3/ha of the planned volume would be left standing to die naturally. Trees with low economic value (trees with cavities and visible rot, crooked, forked, and damaged trees) would preferably be left to decay.

3.3. Oak

Unlike spruce—and especially beech—oak wood decomposes relatively slowly. For this reason, it is sufficient to enrich the oak stands with the smallest volume of deadwood, which is equal to the recommended amount of 50 m3/ha during the rotation period. The first stage of enrichment with deadwood takes place during the major harvest, when 30 m3/ha of wood is left to decay. This is about 5% of the mature stand volume in the SI 30 and 7% in the SI 24. In the poorest sites, represented by SI 14, it was necessary to increase the enrichment during the major harvest to 33 m3/ha (18% of the mature stand), because the available volume of wood from the standard thinning would not be sufficient to ensure the necessary amount of wood to decompose. At the time of major harvest, approx. 10 m3/ha of the intended volume of trees would be left standing to die naturally and then to rot, which represents approximately 1–3 trees. Standing trees can be combined with at least 4 m high stumps. Further enrichment with deadwood should take place at the age of 65 (70), and 80 (85) years (always 10 m3/ha) in accordance with the tending models (Figure 4, Table 5). In the poorest sites, further enrichment might be limited to thinning at the age of 55 and 75, leaving 11 m3/ha and 5 m3/ha. Trees with low economic value (trees with cavities and visible rot, crooked, forked, and damaged trees) would preferably be left to decay.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The proposed management model suggests a relatively rapid enrichment of stands with deadwood, which is a key factor in increasing the diversity of saproxylic organisms. At the same time, the production function of forest stands—and thus the use of wood—is not suppressed. Management is designed to be applicable to current standard forest management models. However, it is obvious that alternative, close-to-nature silvicultural methods are also important for increasing biodiversity in commercial forests. Changing silviculture systems are creating different conditions for many invertebrate communities [128,147] and the landscape is regionally heterogeneous [148]. Based on an analysis of scientific findings, the volume of wood mass actively left to decay, which is supposed to be continuously present in forest stands, was calculated at 40–60 m3/ha. This is a volume attempting to balance a wide range of requirements for saproxylic beetles, other ecosystem functions and economic considerations. This volume will ensure the survival of many endangered species, with the exception of critically endangered primeval forest relics, for which this volume may be insufficient, but is already approaching a stage where they are likely to occur [44,65]. Compared to actual volumes in Europe, there is at least 3 times less dead biomass on average in commercial stands [149]. The actual enrichment process is assessed in relation to the rate of decomposition of the examined tree species deadwood, and on the models of tending and regeneration silviculture measures. The most intensive management model is designed for beech stands (150 m3/ha per rotation period), while the least intensive enrichment is designed for oak stands (50 m3/ha per rotation period). Enrichment during the stand development is shifted to more advanced stages, when it is possible to leave wood of larger dimensions in the stand, which is especially important for increasing the diversity and abundance of rare species of saproxylic beetles. Deadwood over 15 cm of diameter has the best properties. These larger fractions maintain suitable conditions for extended periods of time. Standing deadwood should be kept in groups, with at least a few individuals representing a share of 20–30% of the total volume of deadwood. High stumps are available and safe standing deadwood. Due to economic aspects, labor intensity, and the effect on biodiversity, it is clear that creating such high stumps should be performed on trees with diameter at breast height (DBH) >35 cm. When created by harvester technology, even occupational safety precautions are met. In terms of the diversity of dead biomass, it is necessary to naturally preserve dead trees and their parts, as they are often damaged and contain important microhabitats—provided that there is no threat to forest stands by pests. This type of deadwood can be expected in the longer term from the trees that will be left standing to die naturally in the stand. Advantageously, a tree left in the stand gains space and time to grow to large dimensions, thus increasing the number of microhabitats [106,150,151]. A future veteran tree growing outside the closed stands will be preferable to saproxylic species, as evidenced by many studies, e.g., [27,32,112], while numerous rare species live only on these veteran trees. Considering the significant decline of old trees in the landscape [152,153], it is also possible to slightly reverse the unfavorable situation. However, the forest manager will find it difficult to select convenient places where these unique trees can be left to die naturally. Suitable sites include places where a substantial loss of the stand-growing area does not pose a problem, and where no significant crown projection is an obstacle to the growth of the new forest. From a safety perspective, it is necessary to avoid places frequently visited by people.
A continuity of nutrient/residence stability is undoubtedly a key issue. To maintain stability, it is necessary to enrich several times during the rotation period, depending on the type of species. It is three times for F. sylvatica, two times for P. abies, and once for Quercus sp. during their rotation period. In terms of standing wood, the production of high stumps in regeneration felling will be combined with leaving several live trees in place to die naturally. To conserve rare early-successional species, it is necessary to ensure a continuous input of dying trees by prolonging rotation times in mature forests [154] and other rare species [92]. The starting point of functionally integrated management is not tied to specific sites or conditions. This management concept can be used almost wherever the diversity of the landscape is observed. However, from the point of view of saproxylic beetles with rather limited mobility, it is appropriate to start enrichment in the immediate vicinity of forest reserves or other important refugia of endangered beetles. This will create a backbone network in the sense of a green corridor to more distant localities for easier dispersal of these species into the landscape. As a matter of fact, reserves are not a complex solution in the landscape where an area several times larger is occupied by commercial stands.
The proposed management for increasing the biodiversity of saproxylic species reduces timber production. Nevertheless, our concept of active forest management can be classified as Medium-Combined Objective Forestry in the sense of the Duncker et al. [155] classification, as it attempts to combine the fulfilment of multiple functions and needs in a single stand. The absolute amount of loss is influenced by the proposed management parameters, which reflect the tree species. The lowest production loss is in oak because the proposed volume of wood to be left in the stand is the smallest (50 m3/ha for 130 years). In contrast, the highest loss is recorded for beech (150 m3/ha for 100 years). The relative amount of loss in relation to the total volume production is significantly affected by the quality of the site. It varies between 6.3% (oak, SI 34) and 47.3% (beech, SI 18). An approximate estimate of the financial damage for the given tree species and the circumstances of the Czech Republic can be made using the study by Pulkrab [156], who calculated the economic effect of the timber-production function for all main tree species and habitat types. If we assume that the level of monetization will be the same, then the potential economic loss would be in the range of ca 20 EUR/ha.year (oak) to 45 EUR/ha.year (spruce). However, when applying the recommended methods in the management proposal, a reduction of this loss can be expected due to the preferential leaving of low-value trees to decay. While the economic loss in the application of the proposed model is comparable between sites, the share of this loss in total profit varies considerably, from ca. 10% (SI 30, oak) to ca. 100% (ASI 28, beech). This financial loss is somewhat less than reported by Doerfler et al. [5] and Roth et al. [7], who documented a loss of 80–90 EUR/ha·year in Germany. In our case, however, we calculated the actual potential loss by subtracting the estimated costs of harvesting and transporting the wood to the customer from the value of the deadwood left. If we considered only the value of the left wood, we get an amount of 45–70 EUR/ha.year for spruce and beech, and about 30 EUR/ha.year for oak. Moreover, in the poorest beech and oak habitats (SI 14, 18), standard management is unprofitable, so the application of the proposed management in payments for ecosystem services could mean a positive economic outcome and therefore a high incentive for forest owners. These values correspond to the potential ecosystem function of these stands and could be used to derive payments for this service to the forest owner. By comparison, these amounts are equivalent to 20–30% of the flat rate payment in 2020 for agricultural land in the Czech Republic, or 15–25% of the subsidy for organic farming. When applied generally to all commercial forests in the Czech Republic, this would mean an annual payment of approximately 1.9 billion CZK, which corresponds to about 76 million EUR. Still, these financial values are only indicative ones; it is necessary to provide a more precise analysis in a separate economic study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.Z. and J.R.; methodology, V.Z. and J.R; analysis, J.R. and K.P.; investigation, V.Z. and J.R.; resources, V.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, V.Z. and J.R.; visualization, V.Z. and J.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, No. 43120/1312/3106 and with the support of The Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, NAZV No. QK1910292.

Data Availability Statement

The study (review) was based on the data provided in the publications cited in the paper.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Jitka Šišáková and native speaker Richard Lee Manore (USA), who checked the English language.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bauhus, J.; Puettmann, K.; Messier, C. Silviculture for old-growth attributes. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Bače, R.; Svoboda, M. Management Mrtvého Dřeva v Hospodářských Lesích; Certifikovaná metodika; VÚLHM: Strnady, Czechia, 2016; 44p. [Google Scholar]
  3. Vítková, L.; Bače, R.; Kjučukov, P.; Svoboda, M. Deadwood management in Central European forests: Key considerations for practical implementation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 429, 394–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Doerfler, I.; Müller, J.; Gossner, M.M.; Hofner, B.; Weisser, W. Success of a deadwood enrichment strategy in production forests depends on stand type and management intensity. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 400, 607–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Doerfler, I.; Gossner, M.M.; Müller, J.; Seibold, S.; Weisser, W. Deadwood enrichment combining integrative and segregative conservation elements enhances biodiversity of multiple taxa in managed forests. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 228, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Doerfler, I.; Cadotte, M.W.; Weisser, W.W.; Müller, J.; Gossner, M.M.; Heibl, C.; Bässler, C.; Thorn, S.; Seibold, S. Restoration-oriented forest management affects community assembly patterns of deadwood-dependent organisms. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 2429–2440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Roth, N.; Doerfler, I.; Bässler, C.; Blaschke, M.; Bussler, H.; Gossner, M.M.; Heideroth, A.; Thorn, S.; Weisser, W.W.; Müller, J. Decadal effects of landscape-wide enrichment of dead wood on saproxylic organisms in beech forests of different historic management intensity. Divers. Distribut. 2019, 25, 430–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Leidinger, J.; Weisser, W.W.; Kienlein, S.; Blaschke, M.; Jung, K.; Kozak, J.; Fischer, A.; Mosandl, R.; Michler, B.; Ehrhardt, M.; et al. Formerly managed forest reserves complement integrative management for biodiversity conservation in temperate European forests. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 242, 108437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Speight, M. Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Council of Europe. Nat. Environ. Ser. 1989, 42, 79p. [Google Scholar]
  10. Alexander, K.N.A. Tree biology and saproxylic coleoptera: Issues of definitions, and conservation language. Revue d´Écologie la Terre et la vie 2008, 63 (Suppl. 10), 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  11. Jaworski, T.; Plewa, R.; Tarwacki, G.; Sućko, K.; Hilszczański, J.; Horák, J. Ecologically similar saproxylic beetles depend on diversified deadwood resources: From habitat requirements to management implications. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 449, 117462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Stokland, J.N.; Tomter, S.M.; Söderberg, U. Development of dead wood indicators for biodiversity monitoring: Experiences from Scandinavia. Monit. Indic. For. Biodivers. Eur. Ideas Oper. 2004, 51, 207–226. [Google Scholar]
  13. Davies, Z.G.; Tyler, C.; Stewart, G.; Pullin, A. Are current management recommendations for saproxylic invertebrates effective? A systematic review. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 209–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Boddy, L.; Watkinson, S.C. Wood decomposition, higher fungi, and their role in nutrient redistribution. Can. J. Botan. 1995, 73, 1377–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Janovský, L.; Vágner, A.; Apltauer, J. The decomposition of wood mass under conditions of climax spruce stands and related mycoflora in the Krkonoše Mountains. J. For. Sci. 2002, 48, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Baldrian, P.; Valášková, V. Degradation of cellulose by basidiomycetous fungi. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2008, 32, 501–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Weslien, J.; Djupström, L.; Schroeder, M.; Widenfalk, O. Long-term priority effects among insects and fungi colonizing decaying wood. J. Anim. Ecol. 2011, 80, 1155–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Hofstetter, R.; Dinkins-Bookwalter, J.; Davis, T.S.; Klepzig, K.D. Symbiotic Associations of Bark Beetles. In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 209–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vogel, S.; Alvarez, B.; Bässler, C.; Müller, J.; Thorn, S. The Red-belted Bracket (Fomitopsis pinicola) colonizes spruce trees early after bark beetle attack and persists. Fungal Ecol. 2017, 27, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Horák, J. Ochrana saproxylického hmyzu: Chceme řešit příčiny nebo pouze následky? In Brouci Vázaní na Dřeviny—Beetles Associated with Trees; Sborník referátů; Horák, J., Ed.; Česká Lesnická Společnost: Pardubice, Czech Republic, 2008; pp. 14–17. [Google Scholar]
  21. Nieto, A.; Alexander, K.N.A. European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2010; 45p. [Google Scholar]
  22. Parisi, F.; Frate, L.; Lombardi, F.; Tognetti, R.; Campanaro, A.; Biscaccianti, A.B.; Marchetti, M. Diversity Patterns Of Coleoptera and Saproxylic Communities in Unmanaged Forests of Mediterranean Mountains. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Horák, J.; Kout, J.; Vodka, Š.; Donato, D. Dead wood dependent organisms in one of the oldest protected forests of Europe: Investigating the contrasting effects of within-stand variation in a highly diversified environment. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 363, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Krása, A. Ochrana Saproxylického Hmyzu a Opatření na Jeho Podporu; Metodika AOPK ČR; vyd. –Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny České republiky: Praha, Czechia, 2015; 156p, ISBN 978-80-88076-15-5. [Google Scholar]
  25. Vodka, S.; Konvicka, M.; Cizek, L. Habitat preferences of oak-feeding xylophagous beetles in a temperate woodland: Implications for forest history and management. J. Insect Conserv. 2009, 13, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vogel, S.; Bussler, H.; Finnberg, S.; Müller, J.; Stengel, E.; Thorn, S. Diversity and conservation of saproxylic beetles in 42 European tree species: An experimental approach using early successional stages of branches. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2021, 14, 132–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ranius, T.; Jansson, N. The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy cover and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biol. Conser. 2000, 95, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Widerberg, M.K.; Ranius, T.; Drobyshev, I.; Nilsson, U.; Lindbladh, M. Increased openness around retained oaks increases species richness of saproxylic beetles. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21, 3035–3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Horák, J.; Rébl, K. The species richness of click beetles in ancient pasture woodland benefits from a high level of sun exposure. J. Insect Conserv. 2013, 17, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sebek, P.; Vodka, S.; Bogusch, P.; Pech, P.; Tropek, R.; Weiss, M.; Zimova, K.; Cizek, L. Open-grown trees as key habitats for arthropods in temperate woodlands: The diversity, composition, and conservation value of associated communities. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 380, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mertlik, J. Review of the saproxylic click-beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae) in Eastern Bohemia (Czech Republic), with special emphasis on species of the oak forests. Elateridarium 2017, 11, 17–110. [Google Scholar]
  32. Horak, J.; Vodka, S.; Kout, J.; Halda, J.P.; Bogusch, P.; Pech, P. Biodiversity of most dead wood-dependent organisms in thermophilic temperate oak woodlands thrives on diversity of open landscape structures. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 315, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Horák, J.; Pavliček, J.; Kout, J.; Halda, J. Winners and losers in the wilderness: Response of biodiversity to the abandonment of ancient forest pastures. Biodivers. Conserv. 2018, 27, 3019–3029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gossner, M.M.; Lachat, T.; Brunet, J.; Isacsson, G.; Bouget, C.; Brustel, H.; Brandl, R.; Weisser, W.W.; Müller, J. Current Near-to-Nature Forest Management Effects on Functional Trait Composition of Saproxylic Beetles in Beech Forests. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 605–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Gustafsson, L.; Hannerz, M.; Koivula, M.; Shorohova, E.; Vanha-Majamaa, I.; Weslien, J. Research on retention forestry in Northern Europe. Ecol. Proces. 2020, 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aggestam, F.; Konczal, A.; Sotirov, M.; Wallin, I.; Paillet, Y.; Spinelli, R.; Lindner, M.; Derks, J.; Hanewinkel, M.; Winkel, G. Can nature conservation and wood production be reconciled in managed forests? A review of driving factors for integrated forest management in Europe. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 268, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Dieler, J.; Uhl, E.; Biber, P.; Müller, J.; Rötzer, T.; Pretzsch, H. Effect of forest stand management on species composition, structural diversity, and productivity in the temperate zoneof Europe. Eur. J. For. Res. 2017, 136, 739–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stadelmann, G.; Bugmann, H.; Wermelinger, B.; Meier, F.; Bigler, C. A predictive framework to assess spatio-temporal variability of infestations by the European spruce bark beetle. Ecography 2013, 36, 1208–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Netherer, S.; Matthews, B.; Katzensteiner, K.; Blackwell, E.; Henschke, P.; Hietz, P.; Pennerstorfer, J.; Rosner, S.; Kikuta, S.; Schume, H.; et al. Do water-limiting conditions predispose Norway spruce to bark beetle attack? New Phytol. 2015, 205, 1128–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Marini, L.; Økland, B.; Jönsson, A.M.; Bentz, B.J.; Carroll, A.; Forster, B.; Grégoire, J.-C.; Hurling, R.; Nageleisen, L.M.; Netherer, S.; et al. Climate drivers of bark beetle outbreak dynamics in Norway spruce Forests. Ecography 2017, 40, 1426–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Matthews, B.; Netherer, S.; Katzensteiner, K.; Pennerstorfer, J.; Blackwell, E.; Henschke, P.; Hietz, P.; Rosner, S.; Jansson, P.-E.; Schume, H.; et al. Transpiration deficits increase host susceptibility to bark beetle attack: Experimental observations and practical outcomes for Ips typographus hazard assessment. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 263, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Plieninger, T.; Hartel, T.; Martin-Lopez, B.; Beaufoy, G.; Bergmeier, E.; Kirby, K.; Montero, M.J.; Moreno, G.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Van Uytvanck, J. Wood-pastures of Europe: Geographic coverage, social–ecological values, conservation management, and policy implications. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 190, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Plieninger, T.; Levers, C.; Mantel, M.; Costa, A.; Schaich, H.; Kuemmerle, T. Patterns and Drivers of Scattered Tree Loss in Agricultural Landscapes: Orchard Meadows in Germany (1968–2009). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Müller, J.; Bütler, R. A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: A baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 2010, 129, 981–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Thorn, S.; Seibold, S.; Leverkus, A.B.; Michler, T.; Müller, J.; Noss, R.F.; Stork, N.; Vogel, S.; Lindenmayer, D.B. The living dead: Acknowledging life after tree death to stop forest degradation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 18, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ranius, T.; Fahrig, L. Targets for maintenance of dead wood for biodiversity conservation based on extinction thresholds. Scand. J. For. Res. 2006, 21, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Müller, J.; Brustel, H.; Brin, A.; Bussler, H.; Bouget, C.; Obermaier, E.; Heidinger, I.M.M.; Lachat, T.; Förster, B.; Horak, J.; et al. Increasing temperature may compensate for lower amounts of dead wood in driving richness of saproxylic beetles. Ecography 2015, 38, 499–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lachat, T.; Chumak, M.; Chumak, V.; Jakoby, O.; Müller, J.; Tanadini, M.; Wermelinger, B.; Didham, R.; Jonsell, M. Influence of canopy gaps on saproxylic beetles in primeval beech forests: A case study from the Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh forest, Ukraine. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2016, 9, 559–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brin, A.; Bouget, C.; Brustel, H.; Jactel, H. Diameter of downed woody debris does matter for saproxylic beetle assemblages in temperate oak and pine forests. J. Insect Conserv. 2011, 15, 653–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Brin, A.; Valladares, L.; Ladet, S.; Bouget, C. Effects of forest continuity on flying saproxylic beetle assemblages in small woodlots embedded in agricultural landscapes. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016, 25, 587–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sandström, J.; Bernes, C.; Junninen, K.; Lõhmus, A.; Macdonald, E.; Müller, J.; Jonsson, B.G.; Mukul, S. Impacts of dead wood manipulation on the biodiversity of temperate and boreal forests. A systematic review. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 56, 1770–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Cours, J.; Larrieu, L.; Lopez-Vaamonde, C.; Müller, J.; Parmain, G.; Thorn, S.; Bouget, C. Contrasting responses of habitat conditions and insect biodiversity to pest—Or climate-induced dieback in coniferous mountain forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Müller, J.; Engel, H.; Blaschke, M. Assemblages of woodinhabiting fungi related to silvicultural management intensity in beech forests in southern Germany. Eur. J. For. Res. 2007, 126, 513–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Atrena, A.; Banelytė, G.G.; Læssøe, T.; Riis-Hansen, R.; Bruun, H.H.; Rahbek, C.; Heilmann-Clausen, J. Quality of substrate and forest structure determine macrofungal richness along a gradient of management intensity in beech forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 478, 118512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Økland, B.; Bakke, A.; Hagvar, S.; Kvamme, T. What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multi scaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodivers. Conserv. 1996, 5, 75–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. Can ‘continuity indicator species’ predict species richness or red-listed species of saproxylic beetles? Biodivers. Conserv. 2001, 10, 815–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Janssen, P.; Fuhr, M.; Cateau, E.; Nusillard, B.; Bouget, C. Forest continuity acts congruently with stand maturity in structuring the functional composition of saproxylic beetles. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 205, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Haase, V.; Topp, W.; Zach, P. Eichen-Totholz im Wirtschaftswald als Lebensraum fur xylobionte Insekten. Z. Okologie Nat. 1998, 7, 137–153. [Google Scholar]
  59. Procházka, J.; Schlaghamerský, J. Does dead wood volume affect saproxylic beetles in montane beechfir forests of Central Europe? J. Insect Conserv. 2019, 23, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Penttilä, R.; Siitonen, J.; Kuusinen, M. Polypore diversity in managed and old-growth boreal Picea abies forests in southern Finland. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 117, 271283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Müller, J.; Bußler, H.; Kneib, T. Saproxylic beetle assemblages related to silvicultural management intensity and stand structures in a beech forest in Southern Germany. J. Insect Conserv. 2008, 12, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Friess, N.; Müller, J.C.; Aramendi, P.; Bässler, C.; Brändle, M.; Bouget, C.; Brin, A.; Bussler, H.; Georgiev, K.B.; Gil, R.; et al. Arthropod communities in fungal fruitbodies are weakly structured by climate and biogeography across European beech forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 25, 783–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Müller, J.; Ulyshen, M.; Seibold, S.; Cadotte, M.; Chao, A.; Bässler, C.; Vogel, S.; Hagge, J.; Weiß, I.; Baldrian, P.; et al. Primary Determinants Of Communities In Deadwood Vary Among Taxa But Are Regionally Consistent. Oikos 2020, 129, 1579–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Vogel, S.; Gossner, M.M.; Mergner, U.; Müller, J.; Thorn, S.; Cheng, L. Optimizing Enrichment Of Deadwood For Biodiversity By Varying Sun Exposure And Tree Species: An Experimental Approach. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 2075–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lachat, T.; Wermelinger, B.; Gossner, M.M.; Bussler, H.; Isacsson, G.; Müller, J. Saproxylic Beetles As Indicator Species For Dead-Wood Amount And Temperature In European Beech Forests. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 23, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Seibold, S.; Bässler, C.; Brandl, R.; Büche, B.; Szallies, A.; Thorn, S.; Ulyshen, M.D.; Müller, J.; Baraloto, C. Microclimate and Habitat Heterogeneity As The Major Drivers of Beetle Diversity In Dead Wood. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 934–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Přívětivý, T.; Adam, D.; Vrška, T. Decay Dynamics of Abies Alba And Picea Abies Deadwood in Relation to Environmental Conditions. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 427, 250–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hararuk, O.; Kurz, W.A.; Didion, M. Dynamics of Dead Wood Decay In Swiss Forests. For. Ecosyst. 2020, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bouget, C.; Larrieu, L.; Brin, A. Key Features For Saproxylic Beetle Diversity Derived From Rapid Habitat Assessment In Temperate Forests. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 656–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kraus, D.; Krumm, F. Integrative Approaches as an Opportunity for the Conservation of Forest Biodiversity; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland, 2013; 284p. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lassauce, A.; Lieutier, F.; Bouget, C. Woodfuel Harvesting And Biodiversity Conservation in Temperate Forests: Effects of Logging Residue Characteristics On Saproxylic Beetle Assemblages. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 147, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Macagno, A.L.M.; Hardersen, S.; Nardi, G.; Lo Giudice, G.; Mason, F. Measuring Saproxylic Beetle Diversity In Small And Medium Diameter Dead Wood: The "Grab-And-Go" Method. Eur. J. Èntomol. 2015, 112, 510–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Puletti, N.; Canullo, R.; Mattioli, W.; Gawryś, R.; Corona, P.; Czerepko, J. A Dataset Of Forest Volume Deadwood Estimates For Europe. Ann. For. Sci. 2019, 76, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Paillet, Y.; Bergès, L.; Hjältén, J.; Ódor, P.; Avon, C.; Bernhardt-Römermann, M.; Bijlsma, R.-J.; De Bruyn, L.; Fuhr, M.; Grandin, U.; et al. Biodiversity Differences between Managed and Unmanaged Forests: Meta-Analysis of Species Richness in Europe. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Thorn, S.; Bässler, C.; Brandl, R.; Burton, P.J.; Cahall, R.; Campbell, J.L.; Castro, J.; Choi, C.-Y.; Cobb, T.; Donato, D.C.; et al. Impacts of salvage logging on biodiversity: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fridman, J.; Walheim, M. Amount, structure, and dynamics of dead wood on managed forestland in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 131, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Siitonen, I. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol. Bull. 2001, 49, 11–41. [Google Scholar]
  78. Christensen, M.; Hahn, K.; Mountford, E.P.; Ódor, P.; Standovár, T.; Rozenbergar, D.; Diaci, J.; Wijdeven, S.; Meyer, P.; Winter, S.; et al. Dead wood in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 210, 267–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Vašíček, J. (Ed.) Národní Inventarizace Lesů v České Republice 2001–2004; ÚHUL: Brandýs nad Labem, Czech Republic, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  80. Kučera, M.; Adolt, R. (Eds.) Národní inventarizace lesů v České republice—výsledky druhého cyklu 2011–2015 [online]. Vydání první. Brandýs nad Labem: Ústav pro hospodářskou úpravu lesů Brandýs nad Labem. 2019. Available online: http://nil.uhul.cz/downloads/kniha_nil2_web.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
  81. Bujoczek, L.; Bujoczek, M.; Zięba, S. How much, why and where? Deadwood in forest ecosystems: The case of Poland. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 107027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Haeler, E.; Bergamini, A.; Blaser, S.; Ginzler, C.; Hindenlang, K.; Keller, C.; Kiebacher, T.; Kormann, U.G.; Scheidegger, C.; Schmidt, R.; et al. Saproxylic species are linked to the amount and isolation of dead wood across spatial scales in a beech forest. Landsc. Ecol. 2021, 36, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jonsell, M.; Widenfalk, L.; Hellqvist, S. Substrate specificity among Diptera in decaying bioenergy wood: Can they be conserved by the same measures as are currently applied to beetles? Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 2623–2662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ettwein, A.; Korner, P.; Lanz, M.; Lachat, T.; Kokko, H.; Pasinelli, G. Habitat selection of an old-growth forest specialist in managed forests. Anim. Conserv. 2020, 23, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Dudley, N.; Vallauri, D. Restoration of Deadwood as a Critical Microhabitat in Forest Landscapes. For. Restor. Landsc. 2006, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Seibold, S.; Brandl, R.; Buse, J.; Hothorn, T.; Schmidl, J.; Thorn, S.; Müller, J. Association of extinction risk of saproxylic beetles with ecological degradation of forests in Europe. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kappes, H.; Topp, W. Coleoptera from dead wood in a managed broadleaved forest in Central Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13, 1905–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Brin, A.; Brustel, H.; Jactel, H. Species variables or environmental variables as indicators of forest biodiversity: A case study using saproxylic beetles in Maritime pine plantations. Ann. For. Sci. 2009, 66, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Müller, J.; Bußler, H.; Bense, U.; Brustel, H.; Flechtner, G.; Fowles, A.; Kahlen, M.; Möller, G.; Mühle, H.; Schmidl, J.; et al. Urwald relict species—Saproxylic beetles indicating structural qualities and habitat tradition. Wald. Online 2005, 2, 106–113. [Google Scholar]
  90. Buse, J.; Ranius, T.; Assmann, T. An Endangered Longhorn Beetle Associated with Old Oaks and Its Possible Role as an Ecosystem Engineer. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Cizek, L.; Schlaghamerský, J.; Bořucký, J.; Hauck, D.; Helešic, J. Range expansion of an endangered beetle: Alpine Longhorn Rosalia alpina (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) spreads to the lowlands of Central Europe. EÈntomol. Fenn. 2009, 20, 200–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Eckelt, A.; Müller, J.; Bense, U.; Brustel, H.; Bußler, H.; Chittaro, Y.; Cizek, L.; Frei, A.; Holzer, E.; Kadej, M.; et al. “Primeval forest relict beetles” of Central Europe: A set of 168 umbrella species for the protection of primeval forest remnants. J. Insect Conserv. 2017, 22, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kostanjsek, F.; Sebek, P.; Baranova, B.; Jelaska, L.S.; Riedl, V.; Cizek, L. Size matters! Habitat preferences of the wrinkled bark beetle, Rhysodes sulcatus, the relict species of European primeval forests. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2018, 11, 545–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lonsdale, D.; Pautasso, M.; Holdenrieder, O. Wood-decaying fungi in the forest: Conservation needs and management options. Eur. J. For. Res. 2007, 127, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kirby, K.; Reid, C.; Thomas, R.; Goldsmith, F. Preliminary estimates of fallen dead wood and standing dead trees in managed and unmanaged forests in Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 1998, 35, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Hardersen, S.; Macagno, A.L.M.; Chiari, S.; Audisio, P.; Gasparini, P.; Giudice, G.L.; Nardi, G.; Mason, F. Forest management, canopy cover and geographical distance affect saproxylic beetle communities of small-diameter beech deadwood. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 467, 118152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Schiegg, K. Saproxylic insect diversity of beech: Limbs are richer than trunks. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 149, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Dufour-Pelletier, S.; Tremblay, J.A.; Hébert, C.; Lachat, T.; Ibarzabal, J. Testing the Effect of Snag and Cavity Supply on Deadwood-Associated Species in a Managed Boreal Forest. Forests 2020, 11, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Jonsell, M.; Weslien, J. Felled or standing retained wood—it makes a difference for saproxylic beetles. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 175, 425–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Jonsell, M.; Nittérus, K.; Stighäll, K. Saproxylic beetles in natural and man-made deciduous high stumps retained for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 118, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lindhe, A.; Lindelöw, Å.; Åsenblad, N. Saproxylic Beetles in Standing Dead Wood Density in Relation to Substrate Sun-exposure and Diameter. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 3033–3053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Berg, A.; Ehnström, B.; Gustafsson, L.; Hallingbäck, T.; Jonsell, M.; Weslien, J. Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests—Distribution andhabitat associations. Conserv. Biol. 1994, 8, 718–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bouget, C.; Nusillard, B.; Pineau, X.; Ricou, C. Effect of deadwood position on saproxylic beetles in temperate forests and conservation interest of oak snags. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2011, 5, 264–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Paillet, Y.; Archaux, F.; Boulanger, V.; Debaive, N.; Fuhr, M.; Gilg, O.; Gosselin, F.; Guilbert, E. Snags and large trees drive higher tree microhabitat densities in strict forest reserves. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 389, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Rosenvald, R.; Lõhmus, P.; Rannap, R.; Remm, L.; Rosenvald, K.; Runnel, K.; Lõhmus, A. Assessing long-term effectiveness of green-tree retention. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 448, 543–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Vuidot, A.; Paillet, Y.; Archaux, F.; Gosselin, F. Influence of tree characteristics and forest management on tree microhabitats. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 441–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Taylor, S.L.; MacLean, D.A. Dead wood dynamics in declining balsam fir and spruce stands in New Brunswick, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 2007, 37, 750–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Vacek, S.; Vacek, Z.; Bílek, L.; Hejcmanová, P.; Štícha, V.; Remeš, J. The dynamics and structure of dead wood in natural spruce-beech forest stand—A 40 year case study in the Krkonoše National Park. Dendrobiol. 2015, 73, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Harmon, M.E.; Fasth, B.G.; Yatskov, M.; Kastendick, D.; Rock, J.; Woodall, C.W. Release of coarse woody detritus-related carbon: A synthesis across forest biomes. Carbon Balance Manag. 2020, 15, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Sverdrup-Thygeson, A.; Skarpaas, O.; Ødegaard, F. Hollow oaks and beetle conservation: The significance of the surroundings. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 19, 837–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Pilskog, H.E.; Birkemoe, T.; Framstad, E.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. Effect of Habitat Size, Quality, and Isolation on Functional Groups of Beetles in Hollow Oaks. J. Insect Sci. 2016, 16, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Parmain, G.; Bouget, C. Large solitary oaks as keystone structures for saproxylic beetles in European agricultural landscapes. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2018, 11, 100–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Hort, L.; Vrška, T. Podíl odumřelého dřeva v pralesovitých útvarech ČR. In Význam a Funkce Odumřelého Dřeva v Lesních Porostech: Česká Lesnická Společnost Pobočka Pro Silva Bohemica; VRŠKA, T., Ed.; Vydala Správa Národního parku Podyjí: Znojmo, Czechia, 1999; pp. 75–87. ISBN 80-238-4739-2. [Google Scholar]
  114. Larrieu, L.; Cabanettes, A.; Gouix, N.; Burnel, L.; Bouget, C.; Deconchat, M. Post-harvesting dynamics of the deadwood profile: The case of lowland beech-oak coppice-with-standards set-aside stands in France. Eur. J. For. Res. 2019, 138, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Oettel, J.; Lapin, K.; Kindermann, G.; Steiner, H.; Schweinzer, K.-M.; Frank, G.; Essl, F. Patterns and drivers of deadwood volume and composition in different forest types of the Austrian natural forest reserves. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 463, 118016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Floren, A.; Müller, T.; Dittrich, M.; Weiss, M.; Linsenmair, K.E. The influence of tree species, stratum and forest management on beetle assemblages responding to deadwood enrichment. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 323, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Jacobsen, R.M.; Burner, R.C.; Olsen, S.L.; Skarpaas, O.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. Near-natural forests harbor richer saproxylic beetle communities than those in intensively managed forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 466, 118124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Schiegg, K. Effects of dead wood volume and connectivity on saproxylic insect species diversity. Écoscience 2000, 7, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Schiegg, K. Are the saproxylic beetle species characteristic of high dead wood connectivity? Ecography 2000, 23, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Škorpík, M. Odumřelé dřevo jako mikrobiotop významných druhů hmyzu. In Význam a Funkce Odumřelého Dřeva v Lesních Porostech: Česká Lesnická Společnost Pobočka Pro Silva Bohemica; VRŠKA, T., Ed.; Vydala Správa Národního parku Podyjí: Znojmo, Czechia, 1999; pp. 107–119. ISBN 80-238-4739-2. [Google Scholar]
  121. Kraigher, H.; Jurc, D.; Kalan, P.; Kutnar, L.; Levanič, T.; Rupel, M.; Smolej, I. Beech coarse woody debris characteristics in two virgin forest reserves in southern Slovenia. Zb. Gozdarstva Lesar. 2002, 69, 91–134. [Google Scholar]
  122. Storaunet, K.O.; Rolstad, J. Time since death and fall of Norway spruce logs in old-growth and selectively cut boreal forest. Can. J. For. Res. 2002, 32, 1801–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Zielonka, T. When does dead wood turn into a substrate for spruce replacement? J. Veg. Sci. 2006, 17, 739–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Lombardi, F.; Cherubini, P.; Lasserre, B.; Tognetti, R.; Marchetti, M. Tree rings used to assess time since death of deadwood of different decay classes in beech and silver fir forests in the central Apennines (Molise, Italy). Can. J. For. Res. 2008, 38, 821–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Šamonil, P.; Antolík, L.; Svoboda, M.; Adam, D. Dynamics of windthrow events in a natural fir-beech forest in the Carpathian mountains. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257, 1148–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Šebková, B.; Šamonil, P.; Janík, D.; Adam, D.; Král, K.; Vrška, T.; Hort, L.; Unar, P. Spatial and volume patterns of an unmanaged submontane mixed forest in Central Europe: 160 years of spontaneous dynamics. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 262, 873–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Herrmann, S.; Kahl, T.; Bauhus, J. Decomposition dynamics of coarse woody debris of three important central European tree species. For. Ecosyst. 2015, 2, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Zumr, V.; Remeš, J. Saproxylic beetles as an indicator of forest biodiversity and the influence of forest management on their crucial life attributes: Review. Rep. For. Res. 2020, 65, 242–257. [Google Scholar]
  129. Míchal, I. Ponechávání odumřelého dřeva z hlediska péče o biologickou rozmanitost. In Význam a Funkce Odumřelého Dřeva v Lesních Porostech: Česká Lesnická Společnost Pobočka Pro Silva Bohemica; VRŠKA, T., Ed.; Vydala Správa Národního parku Podyjí: Znojmo, Czechia, 1999; pp. 9–19. ISBN 80-238-4739-2. [Google Scholar]
  130. Irmler, U.; Arp, H.; Nötzold, R. Species richness of saproxylic beetles in woodlands is affected by dispersion ability of species, age and stand size. J. Insect Conserv. 2009, 14, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Ódor, P.; Heilmann-Clausen, J.; Christensen, M.; Aude, E.; van Dort, K.; Piltaver, A.; Siller, I.; Veerkamp, M.; Walleyn, R.; Standovár, T.; et al. Diversity of dead wood inhabiting fungi and bryophytes in semi-natural beech forests in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 131, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Brunet, J.; Isacsson, G. Restoration of beech forest for saproxylic beetles—Effects of habitat fragmentation and substrate density on species diversity and distribution. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18, 2387–2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Parisi, F.; Lombardi, F.; Sciarretta, A.; Tognetti, R.; Campanaro, A.; Marchetti, M.; Trematerra, P. Spatial patterns of saproxylic beetles in a relic silver fir forest (Central Italy), relationships with forest structure and biodiversity indicators. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 381, 217–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Bouget, C.; Larrieu, L.; Nusillard, B.; Parmain, G. In search of the best local habitat drivers for saproxylic beetle diversity in temperate deciduous forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 2111–2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Mertlik, J. Faunistics of Crepidophorus mutilatus (Coleoptera: Elateridae) in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Elateridarium 2014, 8, 36–56, ISSN 1802-4858. [Google Scholar]
  136. Mertlik, J. Faunistics of Ischnodes sanguinicollis (Coleoptera: Elateridae) in the Czechia and Slovakia. Elateridarium 2019, 13, 49–74, ISSN 1802-4858. [Google Scholar]
  137. Bílek, L.; Remes, J.; Zahradnik, D. Managed vs. unmanaged. Structure of beech forest stands (Fagus sylvatica L.) after 50 years of development, Central Bohemia. For. Syst. 2011, 20, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Motta, R.; Berretti, R.; Castagneri, D.; Dukić, V.; Garbarino, M.; Govedar, Z.; Lingua, E.; Maunaga, Z.; Meloni, F. Toward a definition of the range of variability of central European mixed Fagus–Abies–Picea forests: The nearly steady-state forest of Lom (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Can. J. For. Res. 2011, 41, 1871–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Motta, R.; Garbarino, M.; Berretti, R.; Meloni, F.; Nosenzo, A.; Vacchiano, G. Development of old-growth characteristics in uneven-aged forests of the Italian Alps. Eur. J. For. Res. 2015, 134, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Saniga, M.; Pittner, J.; Kucbel, S.; Filípek, M.; Jaloviar, P.; Sedmáková, D.; Vencurik, J. Dynamické Zmeny Štruktury, Regeneračné procesy a Zmena Objemu Mŕtveho Dreva v Rámci Vývojového Cyklu Bukového Pralesa NPR Stužica (Časová Študia); Technická univerzita vo Zvolene: Zvolen, Slovakia, 2019; 61p. [Google Scholar]
  141. Kraut, A.; Liira, J.; Lõhmus, A. Beyond a minimum substrate supply: Sustaining saproxylic beetles in semi-natural forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 360, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Slodičák, M.; Novák, J. Growth, Structure and Static Stability of Norway Spruce Stands with Different Thinning Regimes. Kostelec nad Černými Lesy; Lesnická práce; Folia Forestalia Bohemica: Brno, Czechia, 2007; 128p, ISBN 978-80-86386-91-1. [Google Scholar]
  143. Remeš, J.; Novák, J.; Štefančík, I.; Dušek, D.; Slodičák, M.; Bílek, L.; Pulkrab, K. Methods of Thinning for Silvicultural, Ecological and Economic Optimum of Beech Forest Stands in Forest Management Units 43 And 45; VÚLHM: Strnady, Czechia, 2016; ISBN 978-80-7417-123-9. [Google Scholar]
  144. Remeš, J.; Novák, J.; Štefančík, I.; Dušek, D.; Slodičák, M.; Bílek, L.; Pulkrab, K. Methods of Thinning for Silvicultural, Ecological and Economic Optimum of Spruce Forest Stands in Forest Management Units 43 And 45; VÚLHM: Strnady, Czechia, 2016; ISBN 978-80-7417-124-6. [Google Scholar]
  145. Černý, M.; Pařez, J.; Malík, Z. Yield and Mensurational Tables of the Principal Tree Species of the Czech Republic (Norway Spruce, Scots Pine, European Beech, Oak); Ústav pro Výzkum Lesních Ekosystémů, s.r.o.: Jílové u Prahy, Czech Republic, 1996; 245p. [Google Scholar]
  146. Černý, M.; Pařez, J.; Malík, Z. Yield and Mensurational Tables of Tree Species of the Czech Republic, Ústav pro Hospodářskou Úpravu lesů, Brandýs nad LABEM; Ústav pro Výzkum Lesních Ekosystémů, s.r.o.: Jílové u Prahy, Czech Republic, 1996; 156p. [Google Scholar]
  147. Weiss, M.; Kozel, P.; Zapletal, M.; Hauck, D.; Prochazka, J.; Benes, J.; Cizek, L.; Sebek, P. The Effect Of Coppicing On Insect Biodiversity. Small-Scale Mosaics Of Successional Stages Drive Community Turnover. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Schall, P.; Gossner, M.M.; Heinrichs, S.; Fischer, M.; Boch, S.; Prati, D.; Jung, K.; Baumgartner, V.; Blaser, S.; Böhm, S.; et al. The impact of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 55, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Müller, J.; Noss, R.F.; Bussler, H.; Brandl, R. Learning from a “benign neglect strategy” in a national park: Response of saproxylic beetles to dead wood accumulation. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 2559–2569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Fay, N. Environmental Arboriculture, Tree Ecology And Veteran Tree Management. Arboric. J. 2002, 26, 213–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Winter, S.; Möller, G.C. Microhabitats in lowland beech forests as monitoring tool for nature conservation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 255, 1251–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Laurance, W.F.; Franklin, J.F. Global Decline in Large Old Trees. Science 2012, 338, 1305–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Pilskog, H.E.; Birkemoe, T.; Evju, M.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. Species composition of beetles grouped by host association in hollow oaks reveals management-relevant patterns. J. Insect Conserv. 2020, 24, 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Laaksonen, M.; Punttila, P.; Siitonen, J. Early-successional saproxylic beetles inhabiting a common host-tree type can be sensitive to the spatiotemporal continuity of their substrate. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 2883–2900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Duncker, P.S.; Barreiro, S.M.; Hengeveld, G.M.; Lind, T.; Mason, W.L.; Ambrozy, S.; Spiecker, H. Classification of Forest Management Approaches: A New Conceptual Framework and Its Applicability to European Forestry. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Pulkrab, K. Economic effectiveness of sustainable forest management. J. For. Sci. 2012, 52, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Forests 12 00814 g001 550
Figure 1. Development of a veteran tree. (a) Solitary tree, which is slowly approaching the limit of physical age and creates a variety of microhabitats. (b) The snags are very valuable for saproxylic beetles. (c) The man-made snags (high stumps) are a suitable substitute in places where trees cannot be left to develop spontaneously. (d) Very advanced stage of decomposition process of the snags.
Figure 1. Development of a veteran tree. (a) Solitary tree, which is slowly approaching the limit of physical age and creates a variety of microhabitats. (b) The snags are very valuable for saproxylic beetles. (c) The man-made snags (high stumps) are a suitable substitute in places where trees cannot be left to develop spontaneously. (d) Very advanced stage of decomposition process of the snags.
Forests 12 00814 g001
Forests 12 00814 g002 550
Figure 2. Development of the natural accumulation of deadwood in unmanaged stands within 70 years of abandonment in the University Forest Enterprise of the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague.
Figure 2. Development of the natural accumulation of deadwood in unmanaged stands within 70 years of abandonment in the University Forest Enterprise of the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague.
Forests 12 00814 g002
Forests 12 00814 g003 550
Figure 3. Stages of enrichment: (0) A stand with no deadwood. (a) The first leaving of the wood to disintegrate. (b) A medium-intensity decomposition degree at about 2/3 of the time period of the enrichment. (c) A barely visible, highly decomposed log and the following phase of the purposeful leaving of the deadwood in the site. The arrow above the picture indicates the decomposition process, the lighter the shade, the more decomposed the wood.
Figure 3. Stages of enrichment: (0) A stand with no deadwood. (a) The first leaving of the wood to disintegrate. (b) A medium-intensity decomposition degree at about 2/3 of the time period of the enrichment. (c) A barely visible, highly decomposed log and the following phase of the purposeful leaving of the deadwood in the site. The arrow above the picture indicates the decomposition process, the lighter the shade, the more decomposed the wood.
Forests 12 00814 g003
Forests 12 00814 g004 550
Figure 4. Simplified visualization of dendromass enrichment phases (green color) and necromass (brown color) according to tree species.
Figure 4. Simplified visualization of dendromass enrichment phases (green color) and necromass (brown color) according to tree species.
Forests 12 00814 g004
Table
Table 1. Volume of deadwood in managed stands (m3/ha).
Table 1. Volume of deadwood in managed stands (m3/ha).
Volume (m3/ha)Tree SpeciesCountry
Fridman and Walheim (2000) [76]6.1ConiferousSweden
Siitonen (2001) [77]14ConiferousFinland
Christensen et al. (2005) [78]10BeechEurope
Vašíček (2007) [79]5.5–9MixCzech Republic
Vítková et al. (2018) [3]9.1MixCzech Republic
Puletti et al. (2019) [73]9.8MixCzech Republic
Roth et al. (2019) [7]18.9BeechGermany
Kučera and Adolt (2019) [80]6.7–13.8MixCzech Republic
Leidinger et al. (2020) [8]19.3Beech-oakGermany
Bujoczek et al. (2021) [81]4.1–15MixPoland
Tree species—the main tree species occurring in studied forest stands. Mix: forest stands with coniferous and deciduous tree species combined.
Table
Table 2. Volume of deadwood in the forest reserve.
Table 2. Volume of deadwood in the forest reserve.
Volume (m3/ha)Tree SpeciesCountry
Christensen et al. (2005) [78]100 *–220BeechEurope
Dudley and Vallauri (2005) [85]40–200BroadleavedEurope
Bílek et al. (2011) [137]48 *BeechCzech Republic
Motta et al. (2011, 2015) [138,139]327MixBosnia & Herzegovina, Italy
Vacek et al. (2015) [108]170–242 *MixCzech Republic
Saniga et al. (2019) [140]105–160BeechSlovakia
Oettel et al. (2020) [115]109MixAustria
Tree species—the main tree species occurring in studied forest stands. Mix: forest stands with coniferous and deciduous tree species combined, * recent reserve.
Table
Table 3. Design of active deadwood (DW) management for Norway spruce/silver fir.
Table 3. Design of active deadwood (DW) management for Norway spruce/silver fir.
SIAgeVolume DW m3/haStanding DW m3/haMean DBH cmVolume Stock m3/haTotal Volume Production m3/haLoss in Volume Production %
34100/060 38
5520 25
7520 33
Σ100 82710469.6
28100/060 32
5520 20
7020 25
Σ100 62073713.6
16100/064 24
5020 14
7016 20
Σ100 32436027.8
Table
Table 4. Design of active deadwood (DW) management for European beech.
Table 4. Design of active deadwood (DW) management for European beech.
ASIAgeVolume DW m3/haStanding DW m3/haMean DBH cmVolume Stock m3/haTotal Volume Production m3/haLoss in Volume Production %
34100/0601526
3520 13
4520 19
5520 22
70301528
Σ15030 64887417.1
28100/0601532
3520 10
4520 14
5520 17
70301518
Σ150 47859625.2
18100/0931524
5018 12
6519 17
80201522
Σ15030 26031747.3
Table
Table 5. Design of active deadwood (DW) management for oak.
Table 5. Design of active deadwood (DW) management for oak.
ASIAgeVolume DW m3/haStanding DW m3/haMean DBH cmVolume Stock m3/haTotal Volume Production m3/haLoss in Volume Production %
30130/0301041
6510 20
8010 25
Σ5010 6227896.3
24130/0301052
7010 27
8510 32
Σ5010 4245169.7
14130/0341023
5511 12
755 17
Σ5010 18220124.9
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zumr, V.; Remeš, J.; Pulkrab, K. How to Increase Biodiversity of Saproxylic Beetles in Commercial Stands through Integrated Forest Management in Central Europe. Forests 2021, 12, 814. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060814

AMA Style

Zumr V, Remeš J, Pulkrab K. How to Increase Biodiversity of Saproxylic Beetles in Commercial Stands through Integrated Forest Management in Central Europe. Forests. 2021; 12(6):814. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060814

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zumr, Václav, Jiří Remeš, and Karel Pulkrab. 2021. "How to Increase Biodiversity of Saproxylic Beetles in Commercial Stands through Integrated Forest Management in Central Europe" Forests 12, no. 6: 814. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060814

APA Style

Zumr, V., Remeš, J., & Pulkrab, K. (2021). How to Increase Biodiversity of Saproxylic Beetles in Commercial Stands through Integrated Forest Management in Central Europe. Forests, 12(6), 814. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060814

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop