Favourable conservation status

1
Favourable conservation status forest habitats

• State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak republic
• Forest research institute
• Forest managment planing institute
• EFRA

2
Approach chosen
Basic data on forest habitat for the respective site Basic data on forest habitat for the respective site
Area Present area of forest habitat for the respective site in SR Potential area of forest habitat (based on site type units upon the transformation of site types into habitat units)
Range range of forest habitat according to biogeographical region in SR
3
Criteria (FCS) Indicators (FCS)
a Typical habitat species Tree species composition (degree of approximation to the model and occurrence of invasive tree species) Herb shrub species
b Forest habitat structure Age structure (developmental stages of natural forests or even-aged forests) Natural regeneration Spatial structure (vertical, horizontal, structural pattern) large-diameter and biodiversity valuable trees large-diameter deadwood
c Negative influences Negative factors / agents Forest health (as a result of negative factors impact) Broader environment
4
Definitions

• Clear definitions are needed for
• Terms employed (tree layer, growth class, natural
  regeneration, etc.)
• Quantifiers, measurement units
• Form of record (e.g. using mathematical symbols,
  description, etc.)

5
Tree species composition

• Degree of approximation to the model () given
  for each particular habitat, e.g. 9410 spruce
  50100, sycamore maple 010, sorbus aucuparia
  050
• Occurrence of invasive tree species
• the least controversial indicator
• sufficient knowledge on the natural tree species
  composition
• complicated unclear system
• weak argumentation on the approximation degrees
  required (e.g. "what is the relevance of 30 ?")
• inability to assess gene pool naturalness
• inability to identify the tree species behind the
  change

6
Herb shrub species

• presence of a larger number of species, more
  complicated field assessment
• extreme difficultness of exact investigation
• Solution
• Herb layer composition is determined by the tree
  layer
• Most significant changes are onset of invasive
  or expansive species, indicators of acidification
  and eutrophication, ruderal species, etc.
• simple list of herbs on sites with cover by
  Tansley scale

7
Herb shrub species

• Simple assessment
• Reflection of most distinct changes only
• Inability to reflect reduction of biodiversity
  provided natural species are not replaced by the
  aforementioned species
• One-sided decision on the naturalness of certain
  species (e.g. Urtica dioica)

8
Structure

• Ambiguity of the term "structure" (arrangement
  of components / parts or interactions /processes
  within any higher hierarchical unit)
• Our approach structure limited to spatial
  structure of forest habitats and their groups
  only (age structure, structural pattern)
• Unclear importance of spatial structure for the
  assessment of FCS

9
Spatial structure of forest habitats and / or
their groups

• Horizontal structure (size and distribution of
  structural units)
• vertical structure (multi-layeredness of forest
  stands) function of tree age gt age structure
• Close affinity of both structures.
• Vertical diversity of natural forests has in
  managed forests been to a certain degree replaced
  by the mosaic of even-aged stands.

10
Other indicators of structure criterion

• natural regeneration (principal precondition of
  forest stand sustainability possible listing
  within the forest habitat species structure)
• large-diameter and biodiversity valuable trees
  (for some type of habitats it is a good indicator
  of structure, if we do not have other structure
  indicators need to assess them separately
  biodiversity valuable)
• deadwood (biodiversity valuable in spatial
  structure serves only aesthetic purposes)

11
Key issues related to structure definition

• Quantification of minimal limit values for the
  assessment of growth class, developmental stage,
  tree layer... 10
• Quantification of the area limit for the layer
  unit and even-aged forest unit (0,30 ha)
• Quantification of the minimal stocking level of
  the respective unit (0,3)

12

• Relation between natural regeneration and
  developmental stage of forest stand
• Conditions for natural regeneration match the
  developmental stage of particular forest stands
  and / or seedlings and saplings cover 61 100
  of the area expected to be covered.
• Conditions for natural regeneration dont match
  the developmental stage of particular forest
  stands completely (gaps in a canopy, lowered
  density of stands) and / or seedlings and
  saplings cover 11 60 of the area expected to
  be covered (including premature canopy gaps).
• Conditions for natural regeneration dont match
  the developmental stage of particular forest
  stands completely (gaps in a canopy, lowered
  density of stands) and / or seedlings and
  saplings cover 1 10 of the area expected to
  be covered (including premature canopy gaps).
• Conditions for natural regeneration are not
  expected (site is covered only by overmature
  stands) or there are conditions for natural
  regeneration, but for some reason the trees are
  not fertile.

13

• Large-diameter and biodiversity valuable trees
• Quantification of the minimal diameter and number
  of trees
• absolute diameter (gt... cm) vs. relative (one
  generation older, ?? cm larger than main / final
  crop)
• prime difficulty determination of a reasonable
  value of the above mentioned
• objective to ensure certain proportion of larger
  trees also in younger even-aged forest stands
• Deadwood
• Quantification of the minimal diameter, length
  and number of trunks
• diameter has to be an absolute value

14

• Negative influences
• negative agents / factors list only, no impact
  on the overall FSC
• forest health result of the combined influence
  of negative factors indirect assessment based on
  visible tree damage
• broader environment impact
• size and isolation / fragmentation of the site
• total length of border with "negative areas"

15

• Forest health
• Mild damage with no impact on tree physiological
  processes
• Medium damage with short-term impact on tree
  physiological processes
• Significant damage with long-term impact on tree
  physiological processes
• Fatal damage resulting in dieback or causing
  dieback within 10 years
• Due consideration for damage significance
• One-sided assessment
• No distinction between acute and chronic damage

16

• Size and isolation of the site
• Minimal size of intact site or minimal total area
  of the site group
• Lack of objective criteria for the area
  quantification
• Contact with "negative areas" such as
• Intensively managed agricultural land
• Active surface quarries
• Growing areas of windfalls and other damaged
  sites
• Ignorance of the interrelation between the sites
  size and the length of border with negative areas

17
Assessment tables of particular habitats

• Is it necessary to have a separated table for
  each particular habitat?
• What is the purpose of the tables?
• Tool for field officers?
• Tool for software developers?
• Is the requirement for tables to be "readable" or
  utmost brief?

18
Differences between habitats

• Large-scale vs. small-scale habitats
• possible problem while comparing countries
• natural vs. seminatural habitats
• also among forest habitats we can find
  non-climax ones (for example 91N0)
• planar vs. linear habitats (9130 or 91E0)
• unique habitats vs. habitats similar to
  neighbouring ones (for example in SR 91MO vs
  91G0)
• special case dwarf pine (which is non forest
  habitat, but we assess dwarf pine as forest)

19
Unforeseen problem what does habitat include?

• Commonly valid unfavourable habitat status
  different habitat (9130 9110)
• Indicators assessed depend on the site assessed.
• Solution habitat excludes
• Clearcuts or windfalls larger than 3 ha
• Spruce, larch, etc. monocultures larger than 0,5
  ha
• ...

20
Criteria / Indicator Criteria / Indicator Favourable status Favourable status Unfavourable status Unfavourable status
Criteria / Indicator Criteria / Indicator A B C D
Criteria / Indicator Criteria / Indicator excelent good reduced degraded
Typicalspecies of habitat Tree species composition 3. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Quercus petraea agg., Carpinus betulus, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos, Cerasus avium 4. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Abies alba, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos, Cerasus avium 5. and 6. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Abies alba, Picea abies, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Ulmus glabra, Fraxinus excelsior, Sorbus aucuparia, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos 3. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Quercus petraea agg., Carpinus betulus, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos, Cerasus avium 4. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Abies alba, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos, Cerasus avium 5. and 6. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Abies alba, Picea abies, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Ulmus glabra, Fraxinus excelsior, Sorbus aucuparia, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos 3. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Quercus petraea agg., Carpinus betulus, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos, Cerasus avium 4. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Abies alba, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos, Cerasus avium 5. and 6. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Abies alba, Picea abies, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Ulmus glabra, Fraxinus excelsior, Sorbus aucuparia, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos 3. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Quercus petraea agg., Carpinus betulus, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos, Cerasus avium 4. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Abies alba, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos, Cerasus avium 5. and 6. v.d. Fagus sylvatica, Abies alba, Picea abies, Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Ulmus glabra, Fraxinus excelsior, Sorbus aucuparia, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphylos
Typicalspecies of habitat approximation to the model - - occurence of invasive tree species - 100 - 85 and 0 84 - 70 and lt1 69 -55 and/or 1-20 54 - 40 and/or 20 - 40
Typicalspecies of habitat Herb species and shrubs indicators - invasive species lt 5 0 (5 25gt lt 5 (25 50) (5 25) 50 25
Typicalspecies of habitat Indicators of eutrofization Urtica dioica, Chelidonium majus, Sambucus nigra Urtica dioica, Chelidonium majus, Sambucus nigra Urtica dioica, Chelidonium majus, Sambucus nigra Urtica dioica, Chelidonium majus, Sambucus nigra
Typicalspecies of habitat Accidic indicators Avenella flexuosa, Vaccinium myrtillus, acidic machy Pozn. dominantný výskyt týchto druhov mení zaradenie lokality do biotopu Avenella flexuosa, Vaccinium myrtillus, acidic machy Pozn. dominantný výskyt týchto druhov mení zaradenie lokality do biotopu Avenella flexuosa, Vaccinium myrtillus, acidic machy Pozn. dominantný výskyt týchto druhov mení zaradenie lokality do biotopu Avenella flexuosa, Vaccinium myrtillus, acidic machy Pozn. dominantný výskyt týchto druhov mení zaradenie lokality do biotopu
21
Habitat structure Age structure (developmental stages of natural forests or even-aged forests) V polygóne prevažujú pralesy a prírodné lesy V polygóne prevažujú 5. ARS1 a 4. ARS alebo 5. ARS tvorí aspon 1/3 ak sa jedná mozaiku aspon dvoch ARS 1 ARS agregovaný rastový stupen (pozri Definície indikátorov FCS) V polygóne prevažujú 3. ARS, 2. ARS a , 1. ARS, pricom 5. ARS nesmie presahovat 1/3. V prípade, že prevažuje 1.ARS, musí byt prítomný ešte aspon jeden další ARS Prítomnost len 1. ARS na celej ploche polygónu
Habitat structure Natural regeneration of the tree species 1 2 3 4
Habitat structure Spatial structure (vertical, horizontal, structural pattern) 50 lokality je tvorených dvoj- a viacvrstvovými porastmi 50 lokality je tvorených mozaikou jednovrstvových porastov, v ktorej výmera jedného štrukturálneho prvku je prevažne do 5 ha 50 lokality je tvorených mozaikou jednovrstvových porastov, v ktorej výmera štrukturálneho prvku a je prevažne 5,01 - 50 ha 50 lokality je tvorených mozaikou jednovrstvových porastov, v ktorej výmera štrukturálneho prvku a je prevažne 5,01 - 50 ha
22
Large-diameter and  valuable trees 5 ks / ha evenly 1 4 ks / ha evenly 3 9 ks / 10 ha lt 3 ks / 10 ha
Large-diameter deadwood 4 ks / ha evenly, diferent degree decomposition 2 3 ks / ha evenly, diferent degree decomposition 1 ks / ha lt 1 ks / ha
Negative influences Negative factors imissions, nekrózy buka, pastures, zver (odhryz, obhryz), dry soil conditions, mechanical disturbance imissions, nekrózy buka, pastures, zver (odhryz, obhryz), dry soil conditions, mechanical disturbance imissions, nekrózy buka, pastures, zver (odhryz, obhryz), dry soil conditions, mechanical disturbance imissions, nekrózy buka, pastures, zver (odhryz, obhryz), dry soil conditions, mechanical disturbance
Negative influences Health status 0 - 5 nad prirodzený výskyt 6 10 nad prirodzený výskyt 11 a viac nad prirodzený výskyt bez obmedzenia
Negative influences Broader environment coverage of habitat in site of disturb boarder 50,00 ha and 0 30, 00 49,99 ha and 1 30 5,00 29, 99 ha and/or 31 - 60 lt 5,00 ha and/or lt 60
23
Overall assessment of FCS

• method of "the weakest link in the chain" vs.
  method "weighted average"
• our solution rather complicated weighted average
  with variable weights for each indicator and
  "state"
• The weights have not been tested in practice yet.

24
Criterion Weight of a criterion Indicator Weight of an indicator State of habitat State of habitat State of habitat State of habitat
Criterion Weight of a criterion Indicator Weight of an indicator A B C D
        Q 4 Q 3 Q 2 Q 1
Typical habitat species 0.45 Tree species composition 0.4 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4
Typical habitat species 0.45 Herbs shrubs 0.05 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05
Forest habitat structure 0.35 Age structure 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Forest habitat structure 0.35 Regeneration 0.05 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05
Forest habitat structure 0.35 Spatial structure 0.05 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05
Forest habitat structure 0.35 Large-diameter trees 0.05 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05
Forest habitat structure 0.35 deadwood 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Negative influences 0.1 Health 0.05 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05
Negative influences 0.1 BEI 0.05 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05
25

• traditionalism
• pluses and minuses can compensate one another
• pluses and minuses can compensate one another ?
• algorithm is difficult to understand or even to
  compare with other countries
• usage of triple weights" two "official" weights
  and limits used in each particular indicator gt
  certain unclearness
• difficult calculation and reasoning of weights