Can triad forestry reconcile Europe's biodiversity and forestry strategies? A critical evaluation of forest zoning

dc.authoridMikolas, Martin/0000-0002-3637-3074
dc.authoridKepfer Rojas, Sebastian/0000-0002-1681-2877
dc.authoridRoibu, Catalin-Constantin/0000-0002-2317-0585
dc.authoridBorowski, Zbigniew/0000-0003-4109-5205
dc.authoridVacchiano, Giorgio/0000-0001-8100-0659
dc.authoridLachat, Thibault/0000-0003-3952-7443
dc.authoridCurovic, Milic/0000-0002-5033-758X
dc.contributor.authorNagel, Thomas A.
dc.contributor.authorRodriguez-Recio, Mariano
dc.contributor.authorAakala, Tuomas
dc.contributor.authorAngelstam, Per
dc.contributor.authorAvdagic, Admir
dc.contributor.authorBorowski, Zbigniew
dc.contributor.authorBravo-Oviedo, Andres
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-11T20:48:39Z
dc.date.available2025-10-11T20:48:39Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.departmentDüzce Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractBalancing increasing demand for wood products while also maintaining forest biodiversity is a paramount challenge. Europe's Biodiversity and Forest Strategies for 2030 attempt to address this challenge. Together, they call for strict protection of 10% of land area, including all primary and old growth forests, increasing use of ecological forestry, and less reliance on monocultural plantations. Using data on country wide silvicultural practices and a new database on strict forest reserves across Europe, we assess how triad forest zoning could help meet these goals. Our analysis reveals that zoning in Europe is overwhelmingly focused on wood production, while there has been little concomitant protection of forests in strict reserves. Moreover, most strict forest reserves are < 50 ha in size, likely too small to capture the minimum dynamic area necessary to sustain many taxa. We outline research priorities to meet future demands for timber while minimizing the impact on native biodiversity.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipCOST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) [CA18207]en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSlovenian Research and Innovation Agency core funding (ARiS) [P4-0059]en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipPahernik foundationen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipCzech Science Foundation [GACR 22-31322S]en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was based upon work from COST Action CA18207, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). T. Nagel received additional support from the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency core funding (ARiS, P4-0059) and the Pahernik foundation. M. Mikolas and J. Hofmeister were supported by the Czech Science Foundation (grant GACR 22-31322S). We thank Claudia Steinacker and Falko Engel for compiling data and providing explanations of strict forest reserves in Germany. We also thank A. Balmford, M. Betts, and G.R. Cerullo for comments on a previous version of the manuscript.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s13280-024-02116-2
dc.identifier.endpage641en_US
dc.identifier.issn0044-7447
dc.identifier.issn1654-7209
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid39699610en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85212507881en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage632en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02116-2
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12684/22040
dc.identifier.volume54en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001381175200001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofAmbioen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryDiğeren_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250911
dc.subjectBiodiversity conservationen_US
dc.subjectDisturbanceen_US
dc.subjectForest managementen_US
dc.subjectForest reserveen_US
dc.subjectLand sharing/sparingen_US
dc.subjectWood productionen_US
dc.titleCan triad forestry reconcile Europe's biodiversity and forestry strategies? A critical evaluation of forest zoningen_US
dc.typeEditorialen_US

Dosyalar