Virgin and natural forests in the temperate zone of Europe
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
For. Snow Landsc. Res. 79, 1/2: 9–18 (2005) 9 Virgin and natural forests in the temperate zone of Europe Jari Parviainen Finnish Forest Research Institute, Yliopistokatu 6, P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland. jari.parviainen@metla.fi Abstract Virgin forests are rare in the European temperate zone due to the continuous use of forests historically and to high population densities. Such forests are those whose structure and dynamics developed untouched by humans under natural conditions. Natural forests have developed and regenerated with natural succession, but can show anthropogenic influences from the past. Scattered relics of virgin forest still exist in remote areas, in mountainous areas and wetlands, especially in the Balkans, Alps and Carpathians. The latest estimates show that there are about 0.3 million ha of virgin forest (0.4 % of the total forest area) left in strict forest reserves and other protection areas in the temperate zone of Europe. The countries with the highest proportion of strictly protected areas are the Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Albania, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. Both protected forests networks and close-to-nature silviculture are needed to main- tain forest biodiversity. Rare and vulnerable remnants of virgin forests can only be protected by medium or large reserves. Keywords: virgin forest, natural forest, strict protection, protection networks, biodiversity 1 Introduction Temperate forests in Europe cover a large bioclimatological spectrum, ranging from oceanic to continental forests, from floodplain to mountain forests up to the alpine timberline. The Atlantic climate in the west turns into a continental climate with decreasing humidity and wider temperature variation in the eastern part of Europe. The natural composition of tree species is governed by competition with other species, the history of migration modified by mountain barriers, edaphic factors and insects, climatic conditions such as drought periods in summer, frost dryness and late frost, as well as the herbivorous population density (SCHMIDT-VOGT 1987). Currently about 26 % of the total area in the temperate zone is covered with often fragmented forests. Virgin forests are rare in the European temperate zone due to the continuous use of forests historically for thousands of years and to the high population densities. The develop- ment of human settlements has directly affected forests in central Europe. Even in the Alps people had already settled high altitude regions in the Bronze Age (2500–900 B.C.). They obtained food by creating and using alpine meadows for grazing cattle (KRAL 1979). Generally, forests decreased by approximately one third of their original area in central Europe over only a few centuries during the Middle Ages. In the alpine region extensive deforestation occurred in waves between the 8th and 14th century. During the Middle Ages the upper altitudinal line for cereal growing and cattle breeding was higher than today because of the favourable climate. The human-induced lowering of the upper timberline in combination with heavy browsing and damage from fires is what has had the most severe impact on natural forest succession (KRAL 1971, 1979).
10 Jari Parviainen
High altitude permanent settlements were abandoned in the 16th century as the climate
conditions became unfavourable. As a consequence, the use of alpine meadows decreased
rapidly. At the same time, there was an increasing demand for wood, firstly for salt pro-
duction, later on for charcoal production for the expanding iron industry and finally for
construction and firewood in the expanding settlements and towns. This led to a marked
intensification of harvesting. During the peak of the mining industry in the 15th, 16th and 17th
centuries, large-scale clear cuttings coupled with uncontrolled natural regeneration led to a
further decrease in forested area. Spruce was favoured as an economically important species
and was also regenerated by planting. Pollen analysis and archive material show an impover-
ishment of the natural forests during this period. Scattered relics of native forests, however,
have survived in mountainous areas and wetlands, especially in the Balkan, Alpine and
Carpathian biogeographic regions (DIACI and FRANK 2001; PARVIAINEN and FRANK 2003;
SPIECKER 2003).
At present in some countries of the temperate zone, such as in Denmark, the United
Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands, forest cover is only about 10 % of the total area,
while in Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Slovakia and Slovenia forest cover exceeds
40 %. In Austria, Ireland, Poland and the United Kingdom more than 60 % of the forest area
is dominated by conifers while in Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Hungary, Luxembourg,
Romania and the Republic of Moldova more than 60 % of the forest area is dominated by
broadleaved trees. High forest, which are generally of seed or seedling origin and normally
develop a high closed canopy, is the most common silvicultural structure category, although
in Bulgaria, France, Liechtenstein, the Republic of Moldova and the Ukraine coppice forests
and coppice with standards contribute to more than 40 % of the forest area. High forests are
mainly even aged. In a few countries, namely Croatia, Germany, Liechtenstein, Slovakia,
Slovenia and Switzerland, the area of uneven-aged forest amounts to 15 % or more of the
total forest area (Forest resources of Europe, … 2000; PUUMALAINEN 2001; PUUMALAINEN
et al. 2003).
2 What kind of natural forests are there in the temperate zone
of Europe?
2.1 Basic definitions of natural forests
In order to find a common basis for discussions on natural forests, the terms and definitions
must be described in an international context. The different historical development of
forests, forest utilization, settlements, and management regions and the variation in forest
ecosystems means that national classifications vary. For international comparison it is help-
ful to categorize the terms according to whether they focus on origin and development or on
human influence and the management of forests (see Ministerial Conference 1994; SCHUCK
et al. 1994).
The concept of “naturalness” refers to how natural a forest is. The naturalness of a forest
ecosystem or of the vegetation can be defined as the extent to which the species composition
of the existing vegetation corresponds to that of the potential natural vegetation on the
same site (Naturnähe Österreichischer Wälder 1997). The term “hemeroby” is often used for
the purpose of defining the degree of human influence on forests. Hemeroby includes all
anthropogenic influences such as the effects of management, the impact of cattle grazing,
game browsing, tourism and other kinds of human impact. The degree of naturalness canFor. Snow Landsc. Res. 79, 1/2 (2005) 11 vary from “virgin forest” (extremely high degree of naturalness) to man-made plantations of exotic tree species (very low degree of naturalness). Austria was the first country in Europe to carry out an inventory during the early 1990’s on the naturalness of its entire forest (GRABHERR et al. 1998). From the current and historical data and records on forest struc- tures, it is clear that the majority of forests in Central and Eastern Europe have been altered or modified by humans (PETERKEN 1993, 1997). “Virgin forest” can be defined as follows: it is original in its structure and has developed untouched by humans under natural conditions. Virgin forest is not limited only to the climax stage, although the majority of virgin forests are old-growth forests. The terms “primeval forest”, “primary forest” or “pristine forest” are often used interchangeably with the term “virgin forest” (SCHUCK et al. 1994). The term “forest undisturbed by man” has been recommended, especially by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO (Forest resources of Europe, … 2000), and the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe MCPFE (1993), and this term is seen often as a synonym for virgin forest. The definition of undis- turbed is, however, less strict than the definition of virgin forest. “Forest undisturbed by man” is subject to natural forest dynamics, and the area is large enough to maintain its natu- ral characteristics. Moreover there has been no known significant human intervention or the last human intervention was long enough ago to have allowed the natural species and processes to become re-established. “Natural forests” develop and regenerate with natural succession, but can show anthro- pogenic influences from the past (see SCHUCK et al. 1994). Natural forests always originate from the original forest cover, e.g. the forests are reproduced naturally or regenerate nat- urally (they are not modified by sowing or planting). The difference between “virgin” and “natural” forests has to do with past human influence. The term natural forest is more relevant in practice, as some kinds of human influence can nearly always be found in European forests. “Ancient forest” and “semi-natural forests” are the terms most commonly used in Great Britain, and are sometimes found in the scientific literature in other European countries. “Ancient forest” refers to sites which have been continuously covered by forests for several hundred years or at least since the time when reliable maps were first made. Some may be remnants of prehistorical woodlands whilst others arise as secondary woodland on ground cleared at some time in the past (PETERKEN 1993; Forestry Commission 1994). “Semi-nat- ural forests” are affected by human influence, but neither the stand composition nor the structure has been directly or indirectly modified. Stands are composed predominantly of native trees of local origin. They are the result of natural regeneration or selective thinning or also, in some cases, of supportive planting (SCHUCK et al. 1994; Forestry Commission 1994). Some examples of non-fragmented virgin forest communities in Central, East and South-East Europe are (SCHMIDT-VOGT 1991; LEIBUNDGUT 1982, 1993; KORPEL 1989, 1995; DIACI 1999; PARVIAINEN et al. 1999): – The spruce-fir-beech forest, “Perucica”, in National Park Sutjeska, Bosnia-Herzegovina – The spruce-fir-beech forest, “Slatiora” in Suceava, Romania – The fir-beech forest, “Rajhenavski Rog” in Koãevje Rog, Slovenia – The spruce-fir-beech forest, “Kubany” in Boubin, Nature Reserve, Czech Republic – The spruce forest, “Scatlé/Brigels”, Graubünden, Switzerland – The spruce-fir-beech forest, “Dobroc”, Slovakia – The beech forest, “Uholka” in the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, Ukraine – The basswood forests in the Bialowieza National Park, Poland
12 Jari Parviainen
2.2 Minimum size for non-fragmented natural forest
An important aspect for defining a non-fragmented, individual virgin/natural forest stand is
the minimum size. Often virgin or natural forest stands are protected in core areas of large,
previously managed, but now protected forests, while continuous untouched forest areas
cannot be found because of the long-term utilization of the forests. Human influence has
also resulted in the fragmentation of forests into islands amongst other land-use categories
and in the decline of naturalness.
The natural phase cycle is the main guideline for defining the minimum structure area,
e.g. the smallest area which is needed to allow, in the long term, all forest development
phases to occur. Studies of minimum areas have been published for natural forests in e.g. the
Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, based on gap dynamics. The frequency of gap forma-
tion and the statistical gap-distribution during long periods was used to calculate a minimum
structure area of about 40 ha for the Carpathian beech forest (HOLEKSA 1993). This is similar
to a result obtained in modelling the structure and dynamics of beech forests (KOOP 1989).
Phase mosaic gaps can be as small as 50 m in diameter (see BÜCKING 1997, 2003; KOOP
1989). A further important factor which determines the size and stadial age of the phases
and therefore also the minimum area is the growth potential of the forest site. The larger and
more homogeneously the trees grow, the larger the single patches and, consequently, the
larger the minimum area. This means that on poor sites the minimum area is much smaller
than on rich sites. From the financial point of view, the consequence is that representative
reserves on poor or dry sites are much less expensive than reserves on rich sites when only
forest structure is considered. This is one of the reasons why very productive forest types are
poorly represented in strict forest reserve networks (BÜCKING 1997, 2003).
One open question is, however, how to deal with large-scale disturbance events, i.e. with
abiotic disturbances like wind throw, avalanches, land-slides, erosion or fire, or with biotic
events like beetle calamities, diseases and pests. In order to buffer such events, the minimum
structure area must be increased by at least a factor of five to ten, though many of these
large-scale processes can only be protected in the form of national parks. Similarly, concerns
for animal faunas and the need of some species for larger blocks of unfragmented forest can
also multiply tremendousely the size of needed reserves. As can be seen from Table 1, the
Table 1. Minimum areas of strict forest reserves in the temperate zone of Europe based on research
results for forest site and development cycle mosaics (data as extract from BÜCKING 2003).
Based on forest structure studies Minimum area, hectares
Extreme sites 5–20 ha
Mixed forests 10 ha
Beech-oak forests
Beech forests 50 ha
Beech-fir forests
Mixed mountain forests
70–100 ha
Mixed alpine forests
Based on faunistic and site studies
Micro- + Mesofauna (p.p. Macrofauna) 50–100 ha
Large mammals/birds >>>100 ha
Typical site mosaic or landscape fraction 100 haFor. Snow Landsc. Res. 79, 1/2 (2005) 13
minimum areas are comparatively small in multi-tree species, mixed forests with oak or
valuable broadleaves. The areas are large in forests with just a few species such as mountain
beech, beech-fir, or mixed mountain beech-fir-spruce forests (see the compilation by
BÜCKING 2003; ZUKRIGL et al. 1963; MAYER and NEUMANN 1981; SCHUCK et al. 1994,
ELLENBERG 1999).
3 The size and distribution of natural/virgin forests in the temperate
zone
The objectives and the degree of forest protection vary widely amongst European countries
due to the wide range of different vegetation zones, tree species composition and human
impact on forests. The terms “protected”, “unprotected” and “protection” tend to be inter-
preted inexactly without consistency by different countries and organisations.
Of all the protected forests in Europe, the most interesting category is the strictly protected
forests. In strictly protected forest reserves, the forests are left to develop freely in a state
which is as original as possible. Forests are left to develop “freely” in various categories of
protected areas: strict reserves, nature reserves, core areas in national parks, old forest pro-
tection areas, wilderness areas, cultural monument areas, etc.
The COST (European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research)
Action E4 “Forest Research Network”, carried out in 1995 to 1999, was the first systematic
analysis of the strictly protected forest areas in Europe. Over 100 scientists and nature
conservation administrators from 19 participating COST member countries, in addition to
8 Central and Eastern European countries and Russia, participated in the Action
(BROEKMAYER et al. 1993; PAULENKA and PAULE 1994; PARVIAINEN et al. 1999, 2000a,
2000b; DIACI 1999; European Commission 2000).
Scattered relics of original forest cover still exist in remote areas, in mountainous areas
and wetlands, especially in the Balkan, Alpine and Carpathian biogeographic regions. The
newest estimates show that there are about 0.3 million ha virgin forests (0.4 % of the total
forest area) left in strict forest reserves and other categories of protection in the temperate
zone of Europe (Fig. 1). The majority of these forests are mixed fir-beech, or fir-spruce-
beech forests. There are over 2500 strict forest reserves. The average size is about 100 ha.
The size typically varies between 40 and 100 ha (DIACI 1999; PARVIAINEN et al. 1999;
PARVIAINEN and FRANK 2003).
The countries with the highest proportion of strictly protected areas with no active inter-
vention in relation to their overall forest area are the Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Albania,
Slovenia and the Czech Republic. In Austria the nation-wide inventory in the 1990’s showed
that 3 % of the Austrian forests are in their natural condition, but they are not always located
in protected areas (GRABHERR et al. 1998).
Difficulties interpreting protected forest statistics arise because of the array of different
definitions and the composition and location of protected forest areas. In many cases, game
control, fire control, free access to the reserves and the removal of invading exotic species
is allowed. The only common nominator for a strict reserve is that there is no silvicultural
management (PARVIAINEN et al. 2000a).
During the last five years, political interest in protected forests has increased appreciably
on both the international and national level. The analysis of the category “strict forest
reserves” in COST E4 was one starting point for further analysis and for the harmonization
of protected forests within Europe (PARVIAINEN and FRANK 2003).14 Jari Parviainen
2
Strictly protected forest areas to be found in strict reserves,
nature reserves, core areas of national parks or other categories
of protected forests (COST E4)
in % of total forest area
1
0
Belgium (Fland.)
Bosnia-Herzeg.
Slovenia
Switzerland
UK
Poland
Croatia
Germany
France
Romania
Albania
Slovak
Ireland
Hungary
Czech
The Nether.
Bulgaria
Austria
5
MCPFE classification for protected
forests: no human intervention
4
in % of total forest area
3
2
1
0
Bosnia-Herzeg.
Romania
Switzerland
Poland
Slovak
UK
France
Denmark
Croatia
Belgium
Czech
Germany
Slovenia
Albania
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Austria
Netherlands
Bulgaria
Fig. 1. Virgin and natural forests in the temperate zone of Europe according to the data on strictly
protected forests (COST E4 Action 1995–1999) and the MCPFE classification categories of “no human
intervention” in 2003.For. Snow Landsc. Res. 79, 1/2 (2005) 15
A working group established by the Liaison Unit of the Ministerial Conference on the
Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) has developed a new classification system for
forest protection in Europe (Vienna Declaration and Vienna Resolutions 2003). The classifi-
cation of the World Conservation Union IUCN, the TBFRA (Temperate and Boreal Forest
Resources Assessment) data collection procedure, the EEA (European Environmental
Agency) classification for CDDA (Common Database for Designated Areas) and the
findings of COST E4 were used as a basis for this new classification. The classification
consists of three categories: protected forests with the management objective “biodiversity”,
“protection of landscapes” and of specific natural elements, and “protective functions” (soil,
water, natural hazards). This classification has been used for comparisons and discussions in
the 4th Ministerial Conference organized in 2003 in Vienna, Austria. The results of the
MCPFE classification with the category biodiversity, “no human or minimum intervention”
were quite similar to those with the category “natural forests” in the temperate zone of
Europe in the COST E4 survey (State of Europe’s Forests 2003, Fig. 1).
4 Conclusions
Virgin and natural forests are important remnants of valuable and rare forest ecosystems.
They provide a basis for close-to-nature silvicultural research and applications, for planning
national protected forest networks and for providing a reference for naturalness inventories
of “normal multifunctional” forests. It is generally accepted that natural forests are the basic
model for the realisation of close-to-nature silviculture. In strict forest reserves, the devel-
opment cycle of natural forests can be observed, elucidated and analysed, and the findings
subsequently mimicked in multifunctional forests. Forest management is generally based on
a combination of knowledge derived from research on natural forests and silvicultural
experiments in conventional forest areas (see SCHÜTZ and MATTER 1992; PARVIAINEN et al.
2000b).
Complementing the available networks of protected forests is one of the main goals of
current forest policy. However, there is no single, uniform or internationally agreed target
with respect to the proportion (e.g. 5 or 10 %) of the country’s forest which should be strictly
protected. Rare and vulnerable forests, especially remnants of virgin forests, can only be pro-
tected by medium or large reserves. The focus of debate in Europe appears to be shifting
from “total” large-scale protection in segregated areas to “precision protection” and to
restoration of available protected areas, and to combining protection and timber production
in integrated forest management.
Taking a static approach and protecting only old forests will limit our efforts to just one
important segment of the forests and may increase the risk of outbreaks of insects, or of fire
and storm calamities in the forest and surroundings. To guarantee a variety of habitats and
development stages of protected forests it is necessary to preserve young valuable forests as
well. Protecting or generally maintaining biodiversity should be seen as a dynamic process in
order to ensure the dynamic evolution of different species and ecosystems parallel to the
forest development cycle.16 Jari Parviainen Maintaining biodiversity in forested areas can be achieved by having an adequate network of protected areas and by implementing large-scale close-to-nature silvicultural management which integrates conservation, production and non-production functions (see Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe 1993). Multifunctional forests have the greatest value for preserving living organisms, as they represent 80 to 90 % of the forested area in most European countries. Close-to-nature silviculture produces wood economically and efficiently and, at the same time, provides large-scale protection and conservation by enriching biodiversity at all spatial levels. 5 References BROEKMEYER, M.E.A.; VOS, W.; KOOP, H. (eds), 1993: European Forest Reserves. Proceedings of the European Forest Reserves Workshop, 6th–8th May, 1992. Wageningen, Pudoc Scientific Publishers. 306 pp. BÜCKING, W., 1997: Naturwald, Naturwaldreservate, Wildnis in Deutschland und Europa. Forst Holz 52: 515–522. BÜCKING, W., 2003: Are there threshold numbers for protected forests? J. Environ. Manage. 67, 1: 37–45 DIACI, J. (ed), 1999: Virgin Forests and Forest Reserves in Central and East European Countries. Proceedings of the Invited Lecturers’ reports presented at the COST E4 Management Committee and Working Group meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia 25–28, April 1998. University of Ljubljana [includes country reports on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Switzerland]. 171 pp. DIACI, J.; FRANK, G., 2001: Urwälder in den Alpen: Schützen und Beobachten, Lernen und Nachahmen. In: Internationale Alpenschutzkommission CIPRA (ed) Alpenreport, vol. 2. Stuttgart, Paul Haupt. 253–256. ELLENBERG, H., 1999: Wie gross ist gross genug? – Über Flächenvorstellungen für Prozessschutz- gebiete. In: Umweltstiftung WWF-Deutschland (ed) Chaos Natur? Prozessschutz in Gross- schutzgebieten. Tagungsbericht, Potsdam. 30–35. European Commission, 2000: EUR 19550. COST Action E4, Forest Reserves Research Network. Luxembourg. 377 pp. Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (industrial- ized temperate/boreal countries). UN/ECE/FAO Contribution to the Global Forest Resources Assessment, 2000: Main Report. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Papers, No. 17. United Nations Publication, New York and Geneva. 445 pp. Forestry Commission, 1994: Lowland acid beech and oak woods. The management of semi-natural woodland. Forestry Commission, Forest Practice Guide1; (ed) Forest Practice Division, The Forest Authority, Edinburgh. 49 pp. GRABHERR, G.; KOCH, G.; KIRCHMEIR, H.; REITER, K., 1998: Hemerobie österreichischer Wald- ökosysteme. Bad Vöslau, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Veröffentlichungen des österreichischen MaB-Programms. Band 17: 493 pp. HOLEKSA, J., 1993: Gap size differentation and the area of forest reserve. In: BROEKMEYER, M.E.A.; VOS, W.; KOOP, H. (eds) European Forest Reserves, Proceedings of the European Forest Reserves Workshop, 6–8 May 1992. Wageningen. 159–165. KORPEL, S., 1989: Prelesy Slovenska (Die Urwälder der Slowakei). Bratislava, Veda. 329 pp. KORPEL, S., 1995: Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten. Stuttgart, Fischer. 310 pp. KOOP, H., 1989: Forest Dynamics. Silvi Star, A Comprehensive Monitoring System. Berlin, Springer. 230 pp.
For. Snow Landsc. Res. 79, 1/2 (2005) 17 KRAL, F., 1971: Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen zur Waldgeschichte des Dachsteinmassives. Rekonstruktionsversuch der Waldgrenzdynamik. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Waldbau der Universität für Bodenkultur. Wien. KRAL, F., 1979: Spät- und postglaziale Waldgeschichte der Alpen auf Grund der bisherigen Pollenanalysen. Veröffentlichungen des Institutes für Waldbau an der Universität für Bodenkultur. Wien, Österr. Agrarverlag. LEIBUNDGUT, H., 1982: Europäische Urwälder der Bergstufe. Bern, Stuttgart, Haupt. 308 pp. LEIBUNDGUT, H., 1993: Europäische Urwälder. Wegweiser zur naturnahen Waldwirtschaft. Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart. 260 pp. MAYER, H.; NEUMANN, M., 1981: Struktureller und entwicklungsdynamischer Vergleich der Fichten-Tannen-Buchen-Urwälder Rothwald/Niederösterreich und Corkova Uvala/Kroatien. Forstwiss. Cent.bl. 100: 111–132. MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, 16–17 June 1993) Documents. 1993. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland. Helsinki. 56 pp. MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, 16–17 June 1993), 1994. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forestry. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland. Helsinki. 20 pp. Naturnähe Österreichischer Wälder. Bildatlas. 1997: Wien, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft. 39 pp. PARVIAINEN, J.; LITTLE, D.; DOYLE, M.; O’SULLIVAN, A.; KETTUNEN, M.; KORHONEN, M. (eds), 1999: Research in Forest Reserves and Natural Forests in European Countries – Country Reports for the COST Action E4: Forest Reserves Research Network. EFI Proceedings No. 16. European Forest Institute [includes a summary of the reports and separate country reports on Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Russia and United Kingdom]. 304 pp. PARVIAINEN, J.; BÜCKING, W.; VANDEKERKHOVE, K.; SCHUCK, A.; PÄIVINEN, R., 2000a: Strict Forest Reserves in Europe: efforts to enhance biodiversity and research on forests left for free development in Europe (EU-COST-Action E4). Forestry 73, 1: 107–118. PARVIAINEN, J.; KASSIOUMIS, K.; BÜCKING, W.; HOCHBICHLER, W.; PÄIVINEN, R.; LITTLE, D., 2000b: COST Action E4: Forest Reserves Research Network. Mission, Goals, Linkages, Recommendations and Partners. Final Report. Joensuu, Finland. 28 pp. PARVIAINEN, J.; FRANK, G., 2003: Protected forests in Europe – approaches harmonising the defi- nitions for international comparison and forest policy making. J. Environ. Manage. 67, 1: 27–36. PAULENKA, J.; PAULE, L. (eds), 1994: Proceedings of the WWF Workshop held in Zvolen, July 7–9, 1994. Zvolen, Arbora Publishers. 143 pp. PETERKEN, G.F., 1993: Long-term studies in forest nature reserves. In: BROEKMEYER, M.E.A.; VOS, W.; KOOP, H. (eds) European forest reserves. Proceedings of the Euroopean forest reserves workshop. Wageningen, PUDOC-DLO. 306 pp. PETERKEN, G. F., 1997: “Concepts of naturalness”. Programme and Abstracts of the Conference: Naturalness and European Forests in Strasbourg, France. 26.–29.10.1997. 112. PUUMALAINEN, J., 2001: Structural, compositional and functional aspects of forest biodiversity in Europe. Joint FAO/UNECE and JCR Paper. Geneva Timber and Forest Discussion Papers. United Nations. New York and Geneva. ECE/TIM/DP22. 87 pp. PUUMALAINEN, J.; KENNEDY, P.; FOLVING, S., 2003: Monitoring forest biodiversity: a European perspective with reference to temperate and boreal forest zone. J. Environ. Manage. 67, 1: 5–14. SCHMIDT-VOGT, H., 1987: Die Fichte, Band I, 2. Aufl. Hamburg-Berlin, Parey. 647 pp. SCHMIDT-VOGT, H., 1991: Die Fichte II/3. Hamburg-Berlin, Parey. 804 pp. SCHUCK, A.; PARVIAINEN, J.; BÜCKING, W., 1994: A review of approaches to forestry research on structure, succession and biodiversity of undisturbed and semi-natural forests and woodlands in Europe. Working paper 3. Joensuu, European Forest Institute. 62 pp. SCHÜTZ, J.-PH.; MATTER, J.F., 1992: Bedeutung der Totalreservate für die waldbauliche Forschung. Sihlwaldnachrichten, ETH Zürich. Nr. 5: 3–9. SPIECKER, H., 2003: Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe-temperate zone. J. Environ. Manage. 67, 1: 55–65.
18 Jari Parviainen
State of Europe’s Forests 2003. The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management in
Europe. Jointly prepared by the MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna and UNECE/FAO, 2003:
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Liaison Unit Vienna. 126 pp.
Vienna Declaration and Vienna Resolutions. Adopted at the Fourth Ministerial Conference on
the Protection of Forests in Europe, 28–30 April 2003, Vienna, Austria, 2003: Ministerial
Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Liaison Unit Vienna. 32 pp.
ZUKRIGL, K.; ECKHARDT, G.; NATHER, J., 1963: Standortskundliche und waldbauliche
Untersuchungen in Urwaldresten der niederösterreichischen Kalkalpen. Mitt. Forstl. Bundes-
Vers.anst. Wien 62.
Accepted February 21, 2005You can also read
