Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Ecol Lett. 2018 Jan;21(1):31-42. doi: 10.1111/ele.12868. Epub 2017 Nov 15.

Continental mapping of forest ecosystem functions reveals a high but unrealised potential for forest multifunctionality.

Author information

1
Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Altenbergrain 21, 3013, Bern, Switzerland.
2
Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Senckenberganlage 25, 60325, Frankfurt, Germany.
3
Department of Systematic Botany and Functional Biodiversity, University of Leipzig, Johannisallee 21-23, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
4
Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, FK9 4LA, Stirling, UK.
5
Grupo de Ecología y Restauración Forestal, Departamento de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad de Alcalá, Edificio de Ciencias, Campus Universitario, 28805, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.
6
Faculty of Biology, Geobotany, University of Freiburg, Schänzlestr. 1, 79104, Freiburg, Germany.
7
Forest & Nature Lab, Ghent University, Geraardsbergsesteenweg 267, B-9090, Melle-Gontrode, Belgium.
8
German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Deutscher Platz 5E, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
9
BIOGECO, INRA, Univ. Bordeaux, 33610, Cestas, France.
10
Dynafor, INPT-EI Purpan, INRA, Univ. Toulouse, 31320, Auzeville, France.
11
MNCN-CSIC, Serrano, 115 bis 28006, Madrid, Spain.
12
Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, Chair of Silviculture, University of Freiburg, Fahnenbergplatz, 79085, Freiburg, Germany.
13
INRA, UMR EEF, 54280, Champenoux, France.
14
Faculty of Forestry, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Universitatii Street 13, Suceava, 720229, Romania.
15
Institute of Biology/Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Am Kirchtor, 1, 06108, Halle (Saale), Germany.
16
Department of Agrifood Production and Environmental Sciences, Laboratory of Applied and Environmental Botany, University of Firenze, P.le Cascine 28, 50144, Firenze, Italy.
17
Laboratory of Plant and Microbial Ecology, University of Liege, Botany B22, Chemin de la Vallee 4, 4000, Liege, Belgium.
18
Systems Ecology, Department of Ecological Science, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
19
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skogsmarksgränd, 90183, Umeå, Sweden.
20
Bialowieza Geobotanical Station, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, 17-230, Białowieża, Poland.
21
Department of Biology, Botanical Laboratories, University of Firenze, Via G. La Pira 4, 50121, Firenze, Italy.
22
Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
23
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E Box 2411, BE-3001, Leuven, Belgium.
24
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Yliopistokatu 6, FI-80100, Joensuu, Finland.
25
Forest Research Institute of Thessaloniki, Greek Agricultural Organization-Dimitra, 57006, Vassilika, Thessaloniki, Greece.
26
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Research Unit Forest Dynamics, Zuercherstr, 111, 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
27
Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 87545, USA.
28
Institute for Terrestrial Ecosystems, Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, Universitaetsstrasse 16, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland.
29
Centre of Evolutionary and Functional Ecology (CEFE UMR 5175, CNRS - University of Montpellier - University Paul-Valery Montpellier - EPHE), 1919 route de Mende, 34293, Montpellier, France.
30
Forest Ecology and Conservation, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EA, UK.
31
Department Community Ecology, UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, 06120, Halle (Saale), Germany.
32
Forest Research Institute Baden-Wurttemberg, Wonnhaldestrase 4, 79100, Freiburg, Germany.
33
Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Hans-Knöll-Straβe 10, 07745, Jena, Germany.
34
School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.
35
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Irstea, UR EMGR, Centre de Grenoble, 2 rue de la Papeterie-BP 76, F-38402, Saint-Martin-d'Hères, France.
36
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Jokiniemenkuja 1, FI-01370, Vantaa, Finland.
37
Department of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7026, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
38
Centre for Forest Research (CFR), Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
39
CREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08913, Catalonia, Spain.
40
CSIC, Global Ecology Unit, CREAF-CSIC-UB-UAB, Bellaterra, 08913, Catalonia, Spain.
41
Democritus University of Thrace (DUTH), Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Pantazidou 193, 68200, Nea Orestiada, Greece.
42
Department of Marine Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Carl Skottsbergs gata 22B, 41319, Göteborg, Sweden.
43
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Institute of Silviculture, Vienna, Austria.
44
Bormstraat 204 bus 3, 1880, Kapelle-op-den-Bos, Belgium.

Abstract

Humans require multiple services from ecosystems, but it is largely unknown whether trade-offs between ecosystem functions prevent the realisation of high ecosystem multifunctionality across spatial scales. Here, we combined a comprehensive dataset (28 ecosystem functions measured on 209 forest plots) with a forest inventory dataset (105,316 plots) to extrapolate and map relationships between various ecosystem multifunctionality measures across Europe. These multifunctionality measures reflected different management objectives, related to timber production, climate regulation and biodiversity conservation/recreation. We found that trade-offs among them were rare across Europe, at both local and continental scales. This suggests a high potential for 'win-win' forest management strategies, where overall multifunctionality is maximised. However, across sites, multifunctionality was on average 45.8-49.8% below maximum levels and not necessarily highest in protected areas. Therefore, using one of the most comprehensive assessments so far, our study suggests a high but largely unrealised potential for management to promote multifunctional forests.

KEYWORDS:

Biodiversity; FunDivEUROPE; climate; ecosystem multifunctionality; ecosystem services; forest; large-scale; phylogenetic diversity; tree communities; upscaling

PMID:
29143494
DOI:
10.1111/ele.12868

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center