Development and harmonization of a Forest Status Indicator (FSI)

CORPO FORESTALE DELLO STATO
ITALIAN NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE
ISPETTORATO GENERALE
Servizio II - Divisione VI - Ufficio CONECOFOR
____________________
SEBI2010 special ad hoc project
Development and harmonization of a
Forest Status Indicator (FSI)
EEA Contract no. 3603/B2006/EEA.52678 (06/10/2006)
Technical report
prepared by:
Bruno Petriccione, Claudia Cindolo, Cristiana Cocciufa, Silvia Ferlazzo, Giuseppe Parisi
Italian Forest Service, CONECOFOR Board
Via G. Carducci 5, Roma (Italy)
conecofor@corpoforestale.it
Revised version – Roma, 01/10/2007
INDEX
INDEX.............................................................................................................................................. 2
Executive summary......................................................................................................................... 3
Presentation of the Project............................................................................................................... 4
1. Collection of meta-data ............................................................................................................... 4
1.1 National Forest Inventories ............................................................................................ 5
1.2 ICP-Forests Network ..................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 ICP Forests -Level I .................................................................................................... 5
1.2.2 BioSoil pilot project .................................................................................................... 5
1.2.3 ICP Forests -Level II................................................................................................... 6
1.2.4 ForestBIOTA Forest Biodiversity Test-phase Assessment .......................................... 6
1.3 ICP Integrated Monitoring Network............................................................................... 6
1.4 LTER Europe ................................................................................................................ 7
1.5 Synthesis of all Networks .............................................................................................. 8
1.6 Meta-data collected...................................................................................................... 13
1.6.1 Structure ................................................................................................................... 13
1.6.2 Deadwood................................................................................................................. 15
1.6.3 Tree condition........................................................................................................... 16
1.6.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 17
1.6.5 Naturalness ............................................................................................................... 17
1.6.6 Favorable conservation status of Natura2000 sites including forest habitats .............. 21
2. Coordination with EG6 ............................................................................................................. 28
3. Methodology............................................................................................................................. 28
3.1 Elaboration of a specific reporting system for FSI........................................................ 29
3.2 Structure...................................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Deadwood ................................................................................................................... 31
3.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 32
3.5 Tree condition.............................................................................................................. 32
3.6 Naturalness .................................................................................................................. 33
3.7 Data synthesis.............................................................................................................. 34
4. Pilot study for testing the developed methodology..................................................................... 44
5. Combination with the headline indicator Trend in extent and composition of selected ecosystems
..................................................................................................................................................... 48
6. References ................................................................................................................................ 48
2
Executive summary
The present report aims at the implementation of a new indicator of the status of European
forest biodiversity (Forest Status Indicator, FSI), as an elaboration and synthesis of current metadata
and methodologies at European level. In particular, the work has been performed through a detailed
collection of meta-data and harmonized methods available in European Networks (EU Forest
Focus & UN/ECE CLRTAP ICPs, National Forest Inventories, Natura2000, LTER-Europe). The
following step has been based on SEBI2010 (EG6) sub-indicators, in progressive development at
the moment of this study (naturalness, deadwood, tree condition, structure, vegetation) and their use
as parameters of forest biodiversity in FSI.
The last phase of the elaboration is a synthesis and interpretation of FSI parameters, which is
expressed through “radar” graphs. Finally a simulation for a graphic representation of FSI as
concerns two metadata collections has been designed: one for Italy and one for Slovakia, Spain and
Germany.
FSI is based on qualitative attributes of the forest ecosystem, essential to evaluate the
quantitative results of other biodiversity indicators, e.g. giving the correct significance to the
observed trends in forest types cover. Nowadays, FSI is ready to be included and combined into the
SEBI2010 headline macro-indicator Trend in extent and composition of selected ecosystems.
3
Presentation of the Project
In order to draft a Forest Status Indicator, a preliminary study of the most relevant
ecological Networks in Europe has been performed. Going in deep in the metadata availability
among these Networks, some parameters have been selected depending on two aspects: ecological
significance and length of time series. Finally, five parameters have been chosen: naturalness,
deadwood, tree condition, structure and vegetation. Data from 2005 have been especially selected
along ecological series, due to the availability of complete contributions by four European countries
(Slovakia, Spain, Germany and Italy), chosen as study cases. The selected data have been
elaborated according to the following methodology: average values have been compared to target
values (based on relevant scientific references) and then normalized (see Paragraph 3, Materials and
Methods). A “radar” graph was regarded as the most suitable graphic representation to show the gap
between real values of the parameters and the target one and so to provide synthesis of the status of
biodiversity for the considered set of features (regions, time intervals and species).
1. Collection of meta-data
The main task of the present work is to provide a synthesis from surrogate measures
(parameters) for biodiversity (tree condition, deadwood amount and type, plant species
composition, etc.) per forest type in Europe, with the aim to evaluate results provided by the
SEBI2010 Forest Area Indicator, taking into account concepts like quality, functionality and
integrity of forest ecosystems. It is based on sub-indicators identified at pan-European level (4th
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, MCPFE) and implemented at panEuropean (EU Forest Focus & UN/ECE ICP Forests) and National level (NFIs), as follows:
(1) EU Forest Focus & UN/ECE ICP Forests Level I: tree condition data on ca. 3000 points, since
1985 (continuously for 20 years); forest structure, deadwood and plant species composition on ca.
6000 points, since 2007 (pilot project BioSoil);
(2) EU Forest Focus & UN/ECE ICP Forests Level II: tree condition data on ca. 700 plots and plant
species composition on ca. 500 plots, since 1995 (continuously for 10 years); deadwood data on ca.
100 plots, since 2006 (pilot project ForestBIOTA);
(3) National Forest Inventories: forest structure, tree species composition and deadwood data from a
number of NFIs all over Europe;
(4) Natura 2000 Network: “favorable conservation status” of sites including forests all over Europe.
A detailed collection of available meta-data and harmonized methods has been carried out
by means of responsible bodies of EU Forest Focus & UN/ECE ICPs, National Forest Inventories,
Natura 2000 National Reports, etc., through ad hoc meetings and e-contacts with Program Coordination Centres of UN-ECE ICP Forests and ICP Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems, chairs of
relevant Expert Panels, ICP Forests National Focal Centres and National Authorities responsible for
Forest Inventories.
Meta-data have been organized at four scales/levels of investigation:
 National Forest Inventories (statistically representative of the whole forest area);
 UE/UN-ECE ICP Forests Lev. I plots (extensive and systematic Network);
 UE/UN-ECE ICP Forests Level II plots and ICP IM sites (intensive Networks of casestudies);
 LTER Europe (very intensive case-study sites, including also not forested areas).
4
1.1 National Forest Inventories
National Forest Inventories (NFI), that have been established in many Countries, provide
extensive data on the status of European forests and also on some key features of biodiversity, as
listed by MCPFE, CBD (Rosendal, 2000), the Montréal Process (McRoberts et al., 2004), European
scientific groups (Larsson et al., 2001), to give responses on this important issue at pan-European
level.
Unfortunately, data that have been collected haven’t been assessed with harmonized field
methodologies, even if some efforts to harmonize those surveys at pan-European level are currently
ongoing.
27 European countries and the United States of America (USA) are participating in COST
(European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) Action E43
“Harmonization of National Forest Inventories in Europe: Techniques for Common Reporting”.
Within COST Action E43, three Working Groups have been established and focus, respectively, on
harmonizing definitions and measuring practices, harmonizing estimation procedures for carbon
pools, and harmonizing indicators and estimation procedures for assessing forest biodiversity
(Chirici and Winter, 2007).
The main results of COST Action E43-WG3 are included into a draft Report (Chirici &
Winter, 2007), that has been the base of the present report.
1.2 ICP-Forests Network
ICP Forests was launched in 1985 under the Convention on Long-range Trans-boundary Air
Pollution of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE), due to the growing
public awareness of possible adverse effects of air pollution on forests. ICP Forests monitors the
forest condition in Europe, in cooperation with the European Union using two different monitoring
intensity levels. The first network (called Level I) is based on around 6000 observation plots on a
systematic trans-national grid of 16 x 16 km throughout Europe. The intensive monitoring level
comprises around 800 Level II plots in selected forest ecosystems in Europe. Currently 40 countries
participate in the ICP Forests (http://www.icp-forests.org).
1.2.1 ICP Forests -Level I
Level I monitoring provides an annual overview on forest condition based on a 16x16 km
trans-national grid covering around 6000 plots in Europe. In addition, soil and foliar analyses are
carried out. In Italy the Level I forest condition monitoring started in 1989, following Regulation
EC n. 3528/86, in the framework of the ICP Forests and the EU Scheme for Forests Protection
against Atmospheric Pollution.
1.2.2 BioSoil pilot project
BioSoil pilot project, launched in 2006 under the EC Reg. 2152/2003 Forest Focus, is based
on the Level I Network of ICP-Forests. The Level I survey is a systematic Network based on a
16km x 16km trans-national grid of sample plots and as such represents a statistically unbiased
sampling tool for European forests. The BioSoil initiative represents a unique opportunity to
5
examine selected parameters of biological interest in forests at the European level to assess and
demonstrate the efficacy of the Level I Network, as a representative tool of European forests and to
address other issues of relevance to European forestry such as forest biodiversity with the addition
of a few assessment variables. (Neville, Bastrup-Birk et al., 2006). 21 Countries are involved in the
demonstration project with 4234 total plots (http://forest.jrc.it/ForestFocus/Pres1106.html).
1.2.3 ICP Forests -Level II
The Intensive Monitoring Programme of ICP Forests, started in 1994 with EC Regulation
No. 1091/1994. Level II plots have been installed in the most important forest ecosystems of 28
participating countries. Intensive monitoring is the key for providing insight into causes affecting
the condition of forest ecosystems and into effects of different stress factors. The ICP Forests
intensive monitoring is established on around 800 plots, so major forest types of Europe are
represented and the integrating evaluation of different surveys offers the possibility to understand
complex ecosystem processes.
1.2.4 ForestBIOTA Forest Biodiversity Test-phase Assessment
ForestBIOTA is a project proposal developed and funded under Regulation (EC) No
2152/2003 Forest Focus for the development of forest biodiversity monitoring (Art 6(2) monitoring
test phase). ForestBIOTA aims at the further development of forest condition monitoring activities
by conducting a monitoring test phase under Art 6(2) of the Forest Focus Regulation. Its objectives
are (i) test wise development and implementation of additional assessments and (ii) correlative
studies for compositional, structural and functional key factors of forest biodiversity based on
existing Intensive Monitoring (Level II) plots and (iii) recommendations for forest biodiversity
indicators that can be applied in the context of existing national forest inventories (collaboration
with ENFIN – European Forest Inventory Network) (http://www.forestbiota.org ).
Ended in 2005 under the EC Reg. 2152/2003, the pilot Project aims at the further
development of monitoring methods for some aspects of forest biodiversity as well as towards
correlative studies between some compositional, structural and functional indices of forest
biodiversity. The 14 participant countries have been involved in the project with a selection of
Level II plots. The total number of intensive monitoring plots is 124, where harmonized methods
for the assessment of stand structure, deadwood, epiphytic lichens, ground vegetation and forest
classification have been applied.
1.3 ICP Integrated Monitoring Network
The overall aim of integrated monitoring was originally to determine and predict the state
and change of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in a long-term perspective with respect to the
impact of air pollutants, especially nitrogen and sulphur (web site: http://www.environment.fi/).
This Programme has been launched with UNECE Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air
Pollution to provide one basis for decisions on emission controls and assessment of the ecological
impact, in fact it has an ecosystem approach. Two different types of field-work are undertaken at
the IM sites: site description (geographical situation, climate, land use history and distribution of
soil types, plant communities and tree stands) and monitoring.
6
1.4 LTER Europe
LTER (Long Term Ecological Research) sites consist of various monitoring and research
facilities setting a Network across the world, which data can be profitably used to accomplish
research questions on several environmental topics.
LTER is the acronym for Long Term Ecological Research; the concept implies:
-Long data series
-Data on ecosystem traits and processes
-A shift from monitoring activities, performed on a regular basis, to research
activities
The International Long Term Ecological Research Network (ILTER) was founded in 1993
starting from the United States’ Long Term Ecological Research (U.S. LTER), in order to meet a
growing need for communication and collaboration among long-term ecological researchers and
provide a scientific forum to work at local, regional and national level to share data, cooperate on
global projects, integrate findings and deliver sound, peer-reviewed research to decision-makers and
the public. As 2006, 34 countries have established formal LTER Programs and joined the ILTER
Network. European LTER (LTER Europe), up to 2006, includes: Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Austria, France, Italy, Germany,
Switzerland, United Kingdom. The following research trends are relevant according to ILTER
strategy (Kaufmann and Anderson 2006): climate change, sustainable development and biodiversity
loss. Moreover, given the Network structure provided at the moment, biodiversity research topics
are strongly addressed at European level. Nevertheless, at the moment, no public and shared official
meta-database on LTER Europe on-going monitoring or research activities is available; so it is very
difficult to find out what kind of monitoring or research topics each LTER Europe country is
carrying out, unless national contact and/or responsible people are directly consulted
(http://www.lter-europe.ceh.ac.uk/index.htm ).
Great effort of integration among European LTER National Networks is being performed by
ALTER-Net Project (“A Long-term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness Research Network” http://www.alter-net.info/ ).
ALTER-Net within its Integration Objective I3 (A Network of Long Term multi-functional,
inter-disciplinary ecosystem research sites) has the main goal of integrating long-term ecosystem
research capacities at national level, in order to get to the ambitious aim of extending the borders of
formal LTER members. A restructuring of the existing LTER Europe web site is in the testing
phase, which will make available a summary meta-database regarding long-term research sites.
Within ALTER-Net RA2 Work Package, and in cooperation with I3, a specific targeted
working group for “Biodiversity assessment in LTER sites” has been established (Task Group 2,
TG2), whose work has the aim of a description of research and monitoring activities carried out in
LTER facilities across Europe, that could contribute to implement the EU biodiversity Headline
Indicators. (Communication from the Commission – Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and
beyond – Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being - COM(2006)216 final, Brussels
22.5.2006).
In this regard, TG2 circulated among European LTER Networks the following two
“Questions”:
1) Are there biodiversity monitoring/research variables available in LTER sites in your
country Network that would be suitable for the implementation of EU Headline Indicators?
2) Are National LTER sites in your country suitable for biodiversity monitoring?
42 e-mail messages were sent out to European LTER Networks relevant persons, 13
feedbacks were collected out of 15 countries interviewed. A score between 0 and 2 was attributed to
each Indicator per each country, based on the responses received (0 = no relevance of the Indicator
for LTER sites; 1 = the Indicator is suitable only in some cases, in some sites or under certain
conditions; 2 = high suitability of the Indicator in the frame of the LTER site).
7
In this way, TG2 initiative got a “picture” of biodiversity monitoring/research LTER
facilities across Europe, even if specifically focused mainly on parameters relevant to CBD
Headline Indicators.
Table n°1 shows votes collected by Headline Indicator n° 4 “Trends in extent of selected
ecosystems in Europe” in the frame of which Forest Status Indicator is being developed.
EU Headline
Indicator
Indicator proposed
for inclusion
UK
.............................................
……………………….
.............
4. Trends in extent of
Trends in extent of selected ecosystems in
1
selected biomes,
Europe
ecosystems and
5. Change in status of
habitats
1
habitats of European
interest
.............................................
……………………….
.............
CZ
IT
RO SLO HU PO SK DE FR
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
LV AU CH
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
Table 1 - Preliminary results of TG2 (as in May 2007): votes given by interviewed countries to Headline Indicators n.4.
TG2 work is still in progress (Cocciufa & Petriccione, 2007); a summary table is available
yet, showing which Headline Indicators are more suitable at the moment for implementation in
LTER sites (among European countries that replied to the survey). Headline Indicator n° 4 “Trends
in extent of selected ecosystems in Europe”:
 was considered LTER relevant by all countries involved;
 has been located at the third position of the final ranking of all Headline Indicators (having a
total of 16 scores out of a maximum score of 19 got by one of the Indicators);
 was regarded important for assessing “quality” aspects of ecosystems, as LTER sites are
not useful for looking at trends in extent of habitats but can often be used to assess changes
in the quality of habitats in relation to pressures (comments by United Kingdom and Italy);
 was considered relevant by Romania in that Rumanian LT(S)ER sites have a proper scale to
assess the trends in extent of some ecosystem types, eg. wetlands, agro-ecosystems.
1.5 Synthesis of all Networks
A synthesis of all information available on the selected biodiversity parameters in the
considered Networks is reported in Tab.2
Graph from 1 to 4 show the situation as concerns the number of plots per parameter (forest
structure, deadwood, vegetation, tree condition), according to each considered Network.
Number of plots from different Networks
Indicator
Forest structure
Deadwood
Vegetation
Tree condition
NFIs
287346
287346
289430
204346
EU/ICP Forests EU/ICP Forests Liv.II
Liv.I (+ BioSoil)
(+ ForestBIOTA)
0 (4234)
714 (124)
0 (4234)
0 (124)
0 (4234)
679 (124)
7365
806 (124)
Table 2 - Total number of plots considered for the four biodiversity parameters.
8
ICPIM
2
2
32
32
NFIs
N. of Plots
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
Structure
Deadwood
Vegetation
Tree condition
Figure 1 - Total number of plots considered for the four biodiversity parameters in National Forest Inventories.
EU/ICP Forests Lev.I (+BioSoil)
N. of Plots
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Structure
Vegetation
Deadwood
Tree condition
Figure 2 -Total number of plots considered for the four biodiversity parameters in EU/ICP Forests Level I Network
(including BioSoil activities).
9
EU/ICP Forests Lev.II (+ForestBIOTA)
N. of Plots
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Structure
Deadwood
Vegetation
Tree condition
Figure 3 -Total number of plots considered for the four biodiversity parameters in EU/ICP Forests Level II Network
(including ForestBIOTA activities).
ICP - IM
N. of Plots
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Structure
Vegetation
Deadwood
Tree condition
Figure 4 - Total number of plots considered for the four biodiversity parameters in ICP-IM sites.
Approximately since the beginning of the current century, 7-10 years ago, a clear attempt
for integration and coordination of all Networks has been performed at National level, even in the
10
same EU Countries. Table 3 gives a first overview of the present situation, according to preliminary
information. As concerns the extensive Networks, a full overlap occurs in 7 Countries, whereas in
other 7 Countries a link between NFIs and Level I Networks is going to be established in the
coming 1-3 years (Fischer, 2007, Fig. 5).
A partial overlap in at least two intensive Networks occurs in at least 11 Countries, with a
full latitude coverage across Europe (Fig. 6).
NETWORKS
Country
Albania
Andorra
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Moldova
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
TOTAL
NFI
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
ICP Forests ICP Forests
Lev. I
Lev. II
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
21
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
PARTLY OVERLAPPING
ICP IM
LTER
NFI/Lev. I
YES
YES
YES
YES
Lev. II
Lev. II
/IM/LTER
/IM
IM/LTER
Lev II /
LTER
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
(YES)
YES
YES
YES
YES
(YES)
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
35
31
21
16
YES
Table 3 - Networks activated in all CoE Countries and overlaps in each Country.
11
(YES)
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
7
4
5
5
6
Figure 6 - Partly overlapping of intensive Networks at Country level.
Figure 5 - Partly overlapping of extensive Networks at Country level (current situation and expected scenario for 20082010, as concerns Lev. I and NFI).
12
1.6 Meta-data collected
For the selection of parameters the following criteria have been adopted: amount of
available metadata at pan-European level, historical series, importance of key factors and their
relative assessment. The parameters accomplishing this ratio are: Structure, Deadwood, Vegetation,
Tree Condition and Naturalness.
In many studies and projects, the structure of forest stands (Structure) is considered as one
of the main parameter related to biological diversity. Stand structure is easy to assess and provides
many information on horizontal and vertical structure of forest, density, dynamics of forest, tree
species diversity. It is by now universally recognized as basic key factor in monitoring project of
forest ecosystems. It has been assessed in ICP Forests Network (Lev. II plots) since 1994-95, in
ICP-IM, in National Forest Inventories of all countries considered: so plenty of data and historical
series are available in related databases.
Deadwood plays a key role in forest ecosystems and their biodiversity and has become more
and more relevant as indicator in the assessment of biodiversity and naturalness of forest systems
(Travaglini & Chirici, 2006).
The assessment of deadwood started in the ICP Forests Network with the Test Phase of
ForestBIOTA project in Level II plots and it is currently ongoing with BioSoil pilot project within
Level I Network. In many countries, this parameter has been measured within the forest inventories
plots already.
The other important key-parameter for biodiversity is Ground Vegetation (Vegetation), that
expresses directly the species richness, habitat characteristic, dynamics and, by derived indices,
gives further ecological information. It has been assessed within the ICP Forests Network during
the Test Phase of ForestBIOTA project in Level II plots and now the assessment is going on in
BioSoil pilot project within Level I Network. Also in NFIs this parameter is often taken into
account to give response about biological diversity.
The assessment of Crown Condition (Tree Condition) started at European level in 1995 for
Level II plots while in the Level I began in 1992 with harmonized methodologies. So we have full
information for a long period concerning almost all countries considered.
Naturalness is defined like the degree of self-functioning of the natural processes and the
intensity of human interventions on the function and structure of ecosystems and is a very important
criterion for maintenance, conservation and enhancement of biological diversity in forest
ecosystems. A new original methodology for a rapid assessment of naturalness at stand level, based
on vascular species, has been tested on 9 selected Italian Level II plots (Petriccione, 2006).
For all considered parameters, the most recent and validated metadata available are from
2005, except for the BioSoil Network case that started in 2006 and is still on going (end in 2007).
1.6.1 Structure
Some field manuals exist for the assessment of this indicator, even if methodologies don’t
distinguish between each other very much.
In ICP Forests Lev. II Network, forest structure matches with Tree growth assessment.
This survey consists of the assessment of basic dendrometric variables of tree species
composition and of individual social rank. The ICP Forests manual defines “Increment” as “the
periodic growth of trees (shoots in coppice forests) and stands, including basal area, height and
volume”.
The minimum Level II plot size is 0.25 ha, expressed on a horizontal plane, as currently
specified in Part I of the ICP Forest Manual.
13
Measurements of dbh on all trees (shoots in coppice forests) and tree height and height to
crown base on a sub-sample of trees (shoots in coppice forests) in the plot in order to compute stand
mean height and dominant height are mandatory and are repeated every five (5) years.
Measurements of other indices (see Annex 1) on the plot or sub-plots are optional. It should
also be reported if a tree has died, fallen or disappeared.
All trees with at least 5 cm diameter over bark (stools and shoot in coppice forests) must
be individually identifiable by numbering.
The harmonized methodologies follow the ICP Forest field manual for Estimation of Growth and
Yield (http://www.icp-forests.org/pdf/Chapt5_compl2004.pdf).
The ForestBIOTA Manual settles that the plot has to be entirely contained within the Level
II plot and the area of the plot must always be continuous and of 0.25 ha size. A division to
disjunctive parts is not foreseen. The plot is centered as far as possible in correspondence with the
geometric canter of the Level II plot. The plot should be shaped as far as possible as a square, with a
side length of 50m. Otherwise, it may be shaped as a moderate rectangle, preferably with a
minimum width of 40 m (or a maximum length of 62.5 m). One side of the plot is oriented to the
magnetic North if possible.
Manual also settles that four-subplots have to be entirely contained within the plot. The four
subplots are centered as far as possible in correspondence with the geometric center of the plot and
that nine cross points are placed within the plot. (see Figure 7)
Figure 7 – ForestBiota, structure sampling unit configuration
Each subplot within the cluster is a circle with the radius of 7 m.
For Structure, tree coordinates, tree species, tree number, DBH, x and y coordinates of the
tree center, structural group of four, simple estimates, qualitative features are assessed in the
ForestBiota plot. http://www.forestbiota.org/docs/cccstruct1_revMay06.pdf
The BioSoil project is a pilot study, which aims to carry out an inventory of soil chemical
characteristics and forest biodiversity at the Level 1 plots and represents the opportunity to assess
and demonstrate the efficacy of the Level 1 Network in the forest monitoring and conservation.
The location of BioSoil plot is related to the location of the crown condition survey and to
the soil pit of the soil survey of the project.
The BioSoil plot is circular and divided in three circular subplots: an outer plot with a radius
of 25.24 m (2000 m2) and including 2 circular subplots with fixed radii of 3.09 m (30 m2) and
11.28 m. Optionally for specific surveys within the BioSoil plot such as ground vegetation and
14
forest deadwood 4 randomly selected squares of 10 m x 10 m (so called random sampling units A,
B, C and D) may be established within the 2000 m2 plot.
All trees are callipered (standing and lying, living and dead) at DBH (130 cm) as follows:
 Subplot 1: DBH > 0 cm and taller than 130 cm
 Subplot 2:DBH > 10 cm and taller than 130 cm
 Subplot 3:DBH > 50 cm and taller than 130 cm
Tree species is recorded for all measured living and dead trees according to the species list.
Tree status is recorded as well: (condition code 1= standing living, 2= standing dead, 3=
lying dead). Other inventoried attributes:
o Tree top height and height of base of the canopy layer are measured on 3 to 5 trees
with the greatest DBH across the entire BioSoil sampling subplots 1, 2, and 3 and
regardless the tree species.
o Canopy closure
o Canopy layering
(Neville et al., 2006).
As far as ICP-IM Network is concerned, measurements are performed on plots, preferably
circular of 10 m radius, on or near those established for sub-Programme VS, i.e. in a quadratic
Network.
Trees, logs and stumps (clearly not connected with logs) may be performed at two levels of
ambition. The higher level includes measuring the position of each individual tree on the plot while
at the lower level this is not done.
-Diameter at breast height of all living trees on the plot above a minimum dbh and determine
the species. 5 or 10 cm are recommended for tall forest.
-Measure the heights of living sample trees objectively selected from each diameter class
-Measure the height to the lower crown limit and the crown diameter of the sample tree
- vitality of all trees
(http://www.environment.fi/ )
The National Forest Inventories are very extensive and provide a large number of data in
many countries of Europe. Although the countries share their primary objectives of describing stand
structure for silvicultural purposes and also for sustainable conservation of forest, the
methodologies of assessments and record of data aren’t harmonized. The purpose of the COST
(European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) Action E43
“Harmonization of National Forest Inventories in Europe: Techniques for Common Reporting” is to
fill up this lack of harmonization.
The sources of data here reported is the Draft Report of COST Action E43- Working Group
3 (Chirici & Winter, 2007).
The mostly frequent assessed parameters in Europe are:
o DBH and tree height;
o Number of trees per hectare;
o Spatial tree distribution ;
o Number of layers vertical architecture of the stand;
o Abundance/dominance of species per layer.
1.6.2 Deadwood
Here are reported the field methodologies for the assessment of this key factor that has been
assessed in ICP-Forest with two demonstration projects ForestBIOTA and BioSoil, in ICP-IM sites
and in many of National Forest Inventories.
The assessment of deadwood in the ForestBiota Project is done in both survey units: the plot
and the subplot.
15
In the plot:
-Standing deadwood (minimum DBH ≥ 5 cm): a dead tree or a snag is inventoried if its
DBH is ≥ 5 cm..
Inventoried attributes: DBH (with or without bark); height (highest part); species; decay level;
for snags, also snag height (the height of stem truncation) and stem diameter at half snag
height (only in the case of snag height ≤ 4 m).
transformed in m3ha-1 by an expansion factor of 4.
-Dead downed trees (minimum DBH ≥ 5 cm): a downed tree recognizable as a single tree.
Inventoried attributes: DBH (with or without bark); total length; species; decay level.
Coordinates of all trees with DBH > 5 cm are measured.
In the subplot:
-Other lying deadwood pieces (diameter at thicker end ≥ 5 cm): a lying wood pieceI
Inventoried attributes: total length of the piece from the thicker end until the point where the
diameter drops below a diameter ≤ 3cm; median diameter (diameter at half length); species;
decay level.
-Stumps (diameter at the level of cut ≥ 10 cm, height < 1.3m):
Inventoried attributes: diameter of the stump (with or without bark) at the level where the
tree
was cut; stump height; species; decay level (www.forestbiota.org).
In the ICP Integrated Monitoring site, concerning deadwood, inventoried attributes are:
-Dead trees, logs and stumps.
-Measure dbh of dead standing trees and diameter at 1.3 m from the base on logs (wind throws).
-Apply the same minimum diameter as for living trees.
-Stage of decomposition of wood may be classified in 5 classes.
In ICP Forest Level I-BioSoil demonstration project inventoried attributes are:
Mandatory: lying dead trees, coarse woody debris (CWD), snags, and stumps .
• Diameter (in cm) of coarse woody debris and length (in m)
• Species of the coarse woody debris if possible (see species list)
• Diameter of stump (cm) less than 130 cm in height with a diameter at normal cut height greater
than 10 cm
• Species of stump if possible (see species list)
• Estimated diameter of snag (cm) and snag height (in m)
• Species of snag if possible (see species list)
• Decay state (5 classes) of all deadwood
Optional: Fine woody debris
• Diameter (in cm) of fine woody debris and length (in m).
• Species of fine woody debris species if possible (see species list)
The diameter and length of fine woody debris is measured when the diameter of the CWD
piece is less than 10 cm but greater than 5 cm (Neville et al., 2006)
1.6.3 Tree condition
Crown condition at Level I has proven to be a valuable tool for detecting status and trends of
tree condition in Europe. It is assessed annually at the European level on all 16 * 16 km Level I
points. The survey is based on a visual assessment of 30 trees for plot, each tree being scored
according to a series of aspects: defoliation (percentage of leaf or needle loss), discoloration and
damages visible on the trees. The same methodology is used for Level II plots and ICP-IM
Network. In all cases the frequency of the assessments is annual. The harmonized monitoring
methods for crown condition in the field are regulated by a specific Manual of the ICP Forests.
(http://www.icp-forests.org/ ). The assessment of tree condition in National Forest Inventories is
16
often included but performed according to very different methodology. In Italy for example the data
collected are about general damages on the whole trees.
1.6.4 Vegetation
Plant species diversity of European forests is a main issue of ground vegetation assessment
(Vegetation in FSI) of ICP Forests Level II monitoring program. Plant species richness variations
have been usually related to environmental gradients. (Soriano et al., 2005)
The two main objectives of the vegetation assessment are:
· characterization of the current state of the forest ecosystems on the basis of their composition;
· monitoring of the vegetation changes due to natural and anthropogenic environmental factors.
The characterization will allow plots to be positioned within identifiable vegetation types.
The aims of studies of vegetation dynamics are to describe, explain and model succession,
by an analysis of pathways, causes and mechanisms of vegetation changes.
Two different sampling designs may be used, which either lead to a more qualitative or to a
more quantitative characterization:
· in the first case, the dynamics are assessed by monitoring changes in the species composition of a
large number of species over a large area, utilizing sampling units greater than 100 m2, with a low
to medium accuracy in estimates of changes in cover for each of these species;
· in the second case, the study concentrates on population dynamics (expansion or regression) on a
smaller area. Small sampling units (in general under 10 m2) are used for a more accurate estimation
of species cover.
Vegetation studies must be undertaken at least every 5 years, but it is recommended that it is
undertaken yearly ( http://www.icp-forests.org/ ).
A similar frequency of observation (1-5 years) is expected in ICP-IM sites. According to the
Manual, one or two permanent intensive plots about 40x40 m (preferably between 20x20 and 50x50
m) have to be established in a homogeneous part of one or two plant communities representative of
the monitoring site and preferably also widespread in the region. Then, a sufficient number of
sample plots, e.g. 50x50 cm, have to be sect on the intensive plot. 20-40 plots are considered
sufficient, depending on the variability of the vegetation and the size chosen of the sample plots
(http://www.environment.fi/).
As concerns NFI Networks, the situation is better, with 11 Countries collecting data just for
this purpose (Chirici & Winter, 2007): 5 out of 11 follow an approach based fundamentally on signs
of human disturbance, 4 apply a comparison with the potential vegetation of the sites and the rest
(2) have elaborated other mixed methods.
As concerns NFI Networks, 15 Countries collecting data on vegetation regularly (Chirici &
Winter, 2007), mostly on a sample area of 200m2 : all assess tree species, 11 out of 15 assess also
herbs and only 9 also lichens.
1.6.5 Naturalness
The level of naturalness, defined like the degree of self-functioning of the natural processes
and the intensity of human interventions on the function and structure of ecosystems, is a very
important criterion for maintenance, conservation and enhancement of biological diversity in forest
ecosystems (MCPFE, 2002). A high level of naturalness in forest ecosystems is considered (1) a
baseline for high qualitative biodiversity, under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity
(UNEP, 1992), and (2) a potential for mitigation of climate changes and for a better conservation of
water resources, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN, 1992). In a wide
17
context, naturalness can be considered equivalent to the concept of environmental quality (Ploeg &
Vlijm, 1978, Margules & Usher, 1981, Greco and Petriccione 1991) and measured by specific
indicators based on vegetation composition and structure (Petriccione 1994). Naturalness has been
evaluated, following a new original methodology for a rapid assessment at stand level (Petriccione,
2005) based on vascular species, tested on 9 selected Lev. II plots in Italy for the first time, by
direct observation in the field: (1) comparing real and potential vegetation types, (2) assuming like
“reference” the nearest comparable undisturbed (or less disturbed) stand and (3) comparing values
of six specific indices measured in the sample plots and in their “reference” stands (Petriccione
1992, 1994, vegetation disturbance, chorotypes coherence, site-original species, species richness
and diversity, evenness or dominance).
The applied method is a stepwise-type: (1) the tree layer species provides the basis for a
preliminary comparison of real and potential vegetation types; (2a) if the real type are different
from the potential one, the naturalness value is 0,0, in the case of a plantation by not native species,
and 0,2 in the case of a plantation or a secondary community with native (but not-original) species;
(2b) if the real type corresponds to the potential one (site-original species in the tree layer), the
naturalness value can be range between 0,2 and 5,0 (maximum value). In the last case, the
naturalness value is calculated by a simple average of the values of the following six indices,
obtained by a comparison with the “reference” stands (values arranged into 5 classes, according to
the ratio of coincidence with the indices values measured in the “reference” plots): (1) VD –
vegetation disturbance – total coverage of potential-like vegetation type, taking in account the
secondary substitute micro-communities; (2) CC – chorotypes coherence – total sum of species with
local chorological types vs. alien and large-distribution types; (3) SS – site-original species – no. of
site-original species vs. non site-original and alien species; (4) SR – species richness – total no. of
vascular species; (5) SD – species diversity – Shannon index calculated on phytosociological tables,
taking in account the coverage values of each species; (6) EV – evenness – evenness index
calculated on phytosociological tables, taking in account the coverage values of each species.
Despite of his potential usefulness, naturalness is explicitly assessed only in Italy, in EU/ICP
Forests and ICP IM intensive and extensive Networks (Petriccione, 2006), following the mentioned
methodology. As concerns NFI Networks, the situation is better, with 11 Countries collecting data
just for this purpose (Chirici & Winter, 2007): 5 out of 11 follow an approach based fundamentally
on signs of human disturbance, 4 apply a comparison with the potential vegetation of the sites and
the rest (2) have elaborated other mixed methods.
Figure 8 - Naturalness: meta-data availability in the CoE Countries (NFI Networks).
18
Figure 9 - Tree condition: meta-data availability in the CoE Countries
(EU/ICP Forests Lev. II).
Figure 10 - Tree condition: meta-data availability in the CoE Countries
(EU/ICP Forests Lev. I).
Figure 11 - Vegetation: meta-data availability in the CoE Countries
(EU/ICP Forests Lev. II and ICP IM).
19
Figure 12 - Structure: meta-data availability in the CoE Countries (EU/ICP Forests Lev. II).
Figure 13 - Deadwood: meta-data availability in the CoE Countries (EU/ICP Forests Lev. I and II).
As concerns the Forest Status Indicator, as specified above, Deadwood kept the same name
identification as in the original survey. Measurement of tree growth has been considered as key
indicator “Structure” (see the comparison of the Manuals), Plant Species and Ground Vegetation are
considered as “Vegetation” simply, Crown Condition as “Tree Condition”.
All collected meta-data are included into Annex 1. Tables and Figs. 8-13 show the
availability of meta-data concerning the assessment of FSI parameters in the CoE Countries within
the Networks considered: ICP Forests Level I and II, ICP-IM, NFIs. In order to collect this metadata 25 e-mail messages were sent out to National Focal Centers of participant Countries and others
were sent to PCC of ICP Forests and to JRC.
-
-
-
The information considered in the tables (Annex 1) for each parameter are:
Time series: the period considered is 1995-2005 (in some Level 1 case the time series begins
in 1992). The parameters have been assessed in Lev. II plots since year 1994-95, the
beginning of the project, when most of countries started the measurements. Latest year
considered is 2005 because the validation of 2006 data is already on going;
Number of plots of the latest year: plots where the parameters have been assessed and with
data available. The latest year considered is 2005. References: ICP Forests Technical report
2006, PCC of ICP Forests, NFCs;
Minimum and maximum number of plots: in the period 1995-2005, the number of plots has
changed because of different causes; in some cases plots have been substituted for others, so
20
-
time series may be interrupted; this cases are reported in the table (references: ICP Forests
Technical report 2006, PCC of ICP Forests, NFCs);
Frequency of research: shows how often the assessments are performed;
References and notes.
1.6.6 Favorable conservation status of Natura2000 sites including forest habitats
For investigation of suitability to implement the concept of “favorable conservation status”
of Natura2000 sites including forest habitats, a specific study has been conducted.
The deterioration of natural habitats and the threats posed to certain species are one of the
main concerns of European Union environment policy. The “Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21
May 1992 on the conservation of wild fauna and flora”, known as the “Habitat” Directive, is
intended to help maintain biodiversity in the Member States by defining a common framework for
the conservation of wild plants and animals and habitats of Community interest. An ecological
Network of special protected areas, known as "Natura 2000", has been set up for this purpose. The
Network comprises "special areas of conservation" designated by Member States in accordance
with the provisions of the Directive, and special protection areas classified pursuant to Directive
79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. The Network is given coherence by other activities
involving monitoring and surveillance, reintroduction of native species, introduction of non-native
species, research and education.
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/habitats_directi
ve/index_en.htm)
The main aim of this work is the assessment of the state of the art in the implementation of
“Favorable Conservation Status” (FCS) of habitats and species of Community interest in Europe, as
requested by the Directive 92/43/EEC (“Habitat” Directive).
In fact, the FCS of habitats and species should be based on thresholds, levels and ranges and
contribute as a qualifying indicator of the conservation status of forest habitats and species in
Natura 2000 sites across Europe. For this reason FCS was, since the beginning, included in the core
set of parameters for the implementation of Forest Status Indicator, together with tree condition,
deadwood, naturalness, plant species composition and forest structure. Unfortunately, the present
survey has found poor suitable meta-data or data referred to FCS that could contribute to FSI and it
has been realized that mainly, with a totally reverse approach, parameters studied and meta-data
collected for FSI could contribute to FCS for those Countries involved in the reporting
commitments.
The following is the list of actions performed:
a) What is FCS? Study of the Directive
b) Search on the Internet for national Reports about Natura 2000 and “Habitat” Directive
c) Study of the Document “Report from the Commission on the implementation of Directive
92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora” (Brussels, le
31/07/2003 – COM2003xxx).
d) Research on the Internet for Natura 2000 websites for each Member State;
www.natura.org/about.html shows a list of
- Natura 2000 web sources from EC
- Natura 2000 web sources from Member States (MS)
e) An analysis of all materials and information collected has been conducted and reported in
the “Conclusions” section.
a) What is FCS? A study of the Directive
A concept for “conservation” referred to natural habitats and species listed in the Habitat
Directive Annexes is presented in Article 1, where a definition for “favorable” conservation status
of habitats and species can also be found (letter (e) and (i) of the same article). Article 2 of the
21
Directive declares the objective of FCS as a minimum target for habitats and species of Community
interest. Article 6 of the Directive concerns the establishment of conservation measures needed to
preserve habitats or species from deterioration, so it seems to suggest the inclusion of the concept of
FCS into the Natura 2000 sites management plans. In other words, Article 6 requires that
conservation measures positively affect the FCS.
See Table 4 for details.
............................
Article 1
For the purpose of this Directive:
(a) conservation means a series of measures required to maintain or restore the natural habitats and the populations of
species of wild fauna and flora at a favorable status as defined in (e) and (i);
.............................
(e) conservation status of a natural habitat means the sum of the influences acting on a natural habitat and its typical
species that may affect its long-term natural distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term survival of its
typical species within the territory referred to in Article 2.
The conservative status of a natural habitat will be taken as 'favorable' when:
its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and
the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to
exist for the foreseeable future, and
the conservation status of its typical species is favorable as defined in (i);
..............................
(i) conservation status of a species means the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the
long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within the territory referred to in Article 2;
The conservation status will be taken as 'favorable' when:
population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable
component of its natural habitats, and
the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and
there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis;
.................................
Article 2
1. The aim of this Directive shall be to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies.
2. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designated to maintain or restore, at favorable conservation status,
natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest.
...............................
Article 6
1. For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if
need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans,
and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the
natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites.
2. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural
habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in
so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.
Table 4 - Abstract from “Habitat” Directive
Several problems seem to come out for a lack of precision in the definition of “favorable
conservation status” of habitat and species in the “Habitat” Directive, as well as of consensus of
opinion on the description of individual habitat types: no clear definition of “range”, “specific
structures and functions” of habitats is provided, as well as “population dynamics” and “natural
range of species” are not clearly explained, leaving directly to the MS the choose of the variables
useful to assess FCS and so producing a need of integration among MSs and a lack of comparability
of data among partners. A more specific scientific constraint has to be stressed: the loss or
disappearance of a habitat could also be due to a natural secondary succession, but no guideline is
provided on how to avoid the negative effect of natural succession on FCS assessment. (Pihl et al.,
2001)
(http://www2.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_fagrapporter/rapporter/FR365_del%201.pdf ).
Moreover no targets or thresholds are provided and the “scale” issue is not studied in depth
(site, local, national level).
22
Other problems about FCS:
 Data are usually handled by different Institutes
 Total coverage of forest habitat types is mostly based on expert judgment because about
some habitat types there is no data in forest databases (Kuris M., Ruskele A. - Baltic
Environmental Forum, 2006)
b) Search on the Internet for national Reports about Natura 2000 and “Habitat” Directive
The “old” Member States (EU-15) have submitted the first report on implementation of the
Habitats Directive already in 2001 but this did not include yet assessment of conservation status of
habitats and species. The second report for the period 2001-2006 should include also evaluation of
the status of species and habitats and should be submitted by all Member States by June 2007. This
report will set the baseline for assessment at the next reporting period for 2007-2013, when Member
States will have to report on first monitoring results according to Article 11 (Kuris M., Ruskele A.,
2006).
A search on the Internet for National Reports about Natura 2000 implementation in Europe
has given poor results. General information about Natura 2000 can be found in the “Natura 2000
Newsletter” at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/news/natura/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/habitats_directiv
e/index_en.htm
www.natura.org/about.html
Denmark: a case study
The Danish authorities asked the Danish Environmental Research Institute to establish the
basis for conservation targets for Natura 2000 areas. Their report – ‘Habitats and Species
Covered by the EEC Habitats Directive’ (Pihl et al., 2001) attempts to define ecological and
biological features, which specifically characterize a favorable conservation status.
The scale of conservation status (favorable, uncertain, unfavorable, unknown and
disappeared) is defined on a local and national level.
In this report, the conservation status has been classified in four categories: 'favorable',
'uncertain', 'unfavorable', and 'unknown'. The categories 'favorable' and 'unfavorable' have been
reserved for localities and natural habitat types unequivocally falling within one of the two
categories. The category 'uncertain' is applied to sites and natural habitat types where conditions
suggest that the status is or might be 'unfavorable' but where this status can not be definitely verified
on the basis of existing data. The category 'unknown' is applied to occurrences and natural habitat
types where the data available are insufficient to make an assessment of the conservation status.
Given that, it seems that FCS of habitat types in Denmark has been based on best expert
judgment.
Table 5 shows the classification developed for the assessment of FCS in Denmark.
23
Table 5 – Scale for a summary assessment of conservation status of population of flora and fauna species at locality level.
c) Report from the Commission on the implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora” (Brussels, le 31/07/2003 – COM2003xxx)
Part I of the document deals with overall progress achieved at 2003. The document reports a
list of EU Member States and their level of implementation of “Habitat” Directive according to
several articles of the Directive itself. Paragraph 1.2.3 for each country is entitled “Effects of Article
6 conservation measures on Favorable Conservation Status (FCS)”: here some information on the
development of FCS in 2003 for each listed country have been found, showing that few countries
across Europe have developed guidelines or classification frameworks for FCS and anyway this
work has been done according to different approaches. See Table 6 for details.
24
Report from the Commission on the implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora” (Brussels, le 31/07/2003 – COM2003xxx).
Countries
listed
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
FCS reporting at 2003
A federal working group has been set up to provide guidance on
‘favorable conservation status’ (FCS). This group works in
cooperation with all Länder authorities and is supported by the
Federal Environment Agency. There are, however, no targets set for
habitat or species conservation. There is consequently also no
formal assessment of the effects of Article 6 measures on FCS.
The status of habitats and species in the region was described in the
1999 Nature Report of Flanders. On the basis of the notes
developed for each listed habitat and species occurring in Flanders,
a site specific FCS is being developed. This FCS will be reflected in
the Nature Objective Plans.
The Danish authorities asked the Danish Environmental Research
Institute to establish the basis for conservation targets for Natura
2000 areas. Their report – ‘Habitats and Species Covered by the
EEC Habitats Directive’ - attempts to define ecological and biological
features, which specifically characterize a favorable conservation
status.
Finland
No indication of the effect measures on FCS.
France
No attempt to define Favorable Conservation Status
Germany
No reference has been made to FCS
Greece
No reference has been made to FCS
Ireland
FCS is not defined
Italy
No reference has been made to FCS
Luxemburg No attempt has been made to define FCS in relation to Natura 2000
The
The report makes no reference to FCS
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
The concept of FCS is not discussed and no targets are referred to
Not reported
There is no assessment of the effects of Article 6 on FCS
The report does not mention any particular targets for habitats and
species conservation
Approach
National
Site level
level
not
known
not
known
yes
____
____
yes
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
not
known
Table 6 - Abstract from paragraph 1.2.3 of “Report from the Commission on the implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora” (Brussels, le 31/07/2003 – COM2003xxx).
d) Research on the Internet for Natura 2000 websites for each member State
The website www.natura.org/about.html shows a list of
- Natura 2000 web sources from Member States (MS)
- Natura 2000 web sources from European Commission
Based on the Natura 2000 web sources from MS, a mailing list of national Natura 2000 email contacts has been prepared and a formal request for up-to-date information about the
implementation of FCS has been sent to each of them.
15 e-mails requests; 2 responses (Austria and Belgium);
Based on the Natura 2000 web sources from EC, a question on FCS implementation at a
general European level has been submitted to the EC Documentation Centre, in the framework of
the Nature/Biodiversity object.
25
1 e-mail request; 1 response (by EC DG Environment) – Guidelines for reporting
on Art. 17 by 2007
In 2007 there will be the first reporting on the conservation status of habitat and species of
Community importance. DG Environment guidelines settle 2007 reporting will be mostly based on
existing information, gained from Natura 2000 inventories carried out during site selection process,
data from previous biodiversity monitoring programs and national forestry databases. In absence of
other data the best expert judgments will be accepted.
Currently the MS are dealing with development of new monitoring systems and
methodologies or adaptation of old ones according to the needs of the Directive. As far as habitats
are concerned, the reporting forms request evaluation of valuable parameters in topic issues like
area and natural range of the habitats within the whole Country, specific structure and functions of
the habitats as well as future prospects to maintain the FCS.
Area and natural range mainly refer to size of habitats, so they represent quantity of habitats.
Specific structure and functions clearly refer to quality of habitats.
Future prospects aim at giving trends of habitat health.
FSI can’t give a contribution for the assessment of quantity aspects of FCS of habitat, but
being based on qualitative parameters could be involved in the implementation of quality figures of
FCS.
Boreal Countries’ case study.
The project “Favorable Conservation Status of Boreal Forest – Experience Exchange among
Baltic and Nordic Experts” was meant to bring together forests experts from six countries sharing
the boreal region in Europe (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden and Norway) to find a
common understanding on favorable conservation status of boreal forest habitats and to develop
indicators for assessing the conservation status of forest habitats (Baltic Environmental Forum,
2006).
In the Table below (Table 7), specific indicators developed within qualitative aspects
(structure and functions) for FCS considered by the project are taken into account and compared
with suitable parameters of FSI, as an example of how FSI can contribute to the calculation of FCS.
26
Qualitative parameter
Specific Indicator
FSI parameter
Mean habitat size
Change of the mean habitat size
------------------
Edge characteristics
Change in length of edge
Naturalness ?
Tree species composition
Tree or tree-mixture distribution
Plant species composition
Age class distribution
Stand structure
Uneven stage stand distribution
Stand structure
Standing biologically old normal size
(living/dead) trees
Stand structure/ deadwood
Standing biologically old small, slowly
grown (living/dead) trees
Stand structure/ deadwood
Amount of deadwood
Deadwood
Fallen trees: with/without bark and d>25
cm /d<25 cm
Deadwood
Age class distribution
Tree stand structural
complexity
Natural snags (d>15 cm)
Deadwood
Hollow trees
Stand structure
Laying deadwood in first/middle/end stage
of decomposition
Living trees with fire scars
Typical species
Natural disturbances
Deadwood
------------------
Species reacting rapidly to changes in the Naturalness ?/ Plant species
habitat
composition
Natural disturbances in forests
Naturalness
Table 7 - Comparison between qualitative parameters for FCS in boreal forests and related parameters of
Parameters for conservation
status
Habitat
Range
Area covered by habitat type within
range
Specific structures and functions
including typical species
Future prospects
Species
Range
Population
Habitat for the species
Future prospects
1) How FCS can
contribute to FSI
Two approaches
2) How FSI's variables can be useful to the
definition and calculation of FCS
1)
2)
NO
NO
YES
(Naturalness)
YES
(Naturalness)
YES
(Naturalness)
YES (Structure)
1)
2)
NO
NO
YES
(Naturalness)
YES
(Naturalness)
YES
(Naturalness)
Table 8 – Proposal for a double approach for metadata flow between FCS and FSI.
27
NO
YES (Structure)
YES (Structure and vegetation)
YES (Vegetation)
YES (Naturalness)
Parameters for conservation status
Species &
Habitat
Range
Population
Habitat for the
species
Future
prospects
Range
Surface concept (not
useful for FSI)
/
/
Area covered by habitat
type within range
Naturalness
Structure
Vegetation
Naturalness
/
/
Structure
naturalness
Structure
naturalness
Naturalness
Structure
naturalness
Structure
naturalness
Naturalness
Specific structures and
functions
Future prospects
/
/
Table 9 – Connections between functional aspects of FCS and FSI parameters.
The overall output is a very comprehensive view of the European frame about biodiversity
parameters assessment, in that for this study it has been collected a great amount of metadata. The
recruitment of metadata has been performed by national Reports consultations firstly and secondly
by e-mail contacts. As concerns metadata related to National Forest Inventories Networks, the Draft
Report by Working Group 3 of Cost Action E43 (Chirici & Winter, 2007) has been very helpful .
The BioSoil metadata have been provided by JRC gently, while Manual vers. 1.0/1.1 have
illustrated the field assessment methodology.
2. Coordination with EG6
Co-ordination of FSI sub-indicators with similar sub-indicators in progressive development
under the coordination of SEBI2010 EG6 (Sustainable use: naturalness, deadwood, forest health,
etc.) has been accomplished during the plenary SEBI2010 workshop (Copenhagen, November
2006). The main relevant decision was to skip out from the Forest Status Indicator the sub-indicator
“Protected Forest Areas”, as it is a responses indicator and not a status one. See main results in the
minutes of the above-mentioned workshop and from Jan. 2007 SEBI2010 Coordination Team
meeting, available on the web
(http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995/fol208355;
http://biodiversitychm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995/F1101800700/fol341646).
3. Methodology
According to nomenclature used in this study, “parameters” are intended as row data, while
“indicators” are proper elaborated data.
Parameters have been selected depending on two aspects: ecological significance and length
of time series. Five parameters have been chosen: naturalness, deadwood, tree condition, structure
and vegetation. Data from 2005 have been especially selected firstly for an Italian case study and
secondly for three European ecological regions (Alpine, Continental and Mediterranean Regions).
The selected data have been elaborated according to the following methodology: average
values have been compared to target values (based on relevant scientific references) and then
28
normalized (see Paragraph 3, Materials and Methods). A “radar” graph was regarded as the most
suitable graphic solution to show the gap between the real values of the parameter and the target
one and so to represent a synthesis of the status of biodiversity for the considered set of features
(regions, time intervals and species).
3.1 Elaboration of a specific reporting system for FSI
A comparison among six case-studies grouped by forest type (Picea abies mountain forests,
Fagus sylvatica mountain forests, Quercus ilex evergreen Mediterranean forests), including relevant
parameters (surrogate measures) has been carried out, on the basis of data from EU/ICP Forests
Deadwood
Structure
Naturalness
Tree condition
Vegetation - tree
Vegetation
Volume and decay state of dead downed trees, lying coars and fine wood
pieces, stumps and standing deadwood
Values of indices of structural diversity (grouped in Horizontal, vertical, size
and complexity types)
Level, as distance between current and potential level (reference stand)
% of trees considered as damaged (damage classes 2-4)
Total no. of tree species (stand level)
Total no. of vascular plant species (community level) an related biodiversity
indices
Table 10 - Definitions of the selected key parameters.
Lev. II plots and ICP IM sites in Italy (Tab. 17, Figure 14). The six case-studies have been
selected on the basis of availability of values for six key parameters in the reference year 2005
(Table 10).
29
Figure 14 – Italian Level II plots (ABR1, CAL1, FRI2, SAR1, TOS1 and TRE1 selected for this pilot study).
Raw data (current values, directly measured in the field, reference year 2005) have been
transformed (1) into “indicators”, taking into account the “direction” of trend towards an increase of
naturalness and then (2) normalized according to a scale between 0 (worst status) and 10 (best
status).
For each forest type, an elaboration and a cross-comparison of different interpretation,
synthesis and reporting systems have been drafted, including comparison with target values for five
key parameters. Target values have been proposed according to expert judgments and available
literature reference (forest structure: Fabbio, 2006; deadwood: Peterken, 1996, Mason, in verbis;
vegetation: Petriccione, Canullo, in verbis; tree condition: ICP Forests Technical Report 2006;
naturalness: Petriccione, 2006). Finally, a specific and original reporting system is proposed, on the
basis of an evaluation scoring system.
For testing the suitability of the Forest Status Indicator, the Italian National database has
been utilized, as concerns five parameter: structure, deadwood, tree condition, vegetation and
naturalness (Ferretti et al., 2006).
30
3.2 Structure
PMP
Management
system
Structural type
n
SH
St. dev.
CV
Cox
Pielou
VEN
VEG
A
SH/U
SH/I
SH/L
ΣSHL
SH
E
SI
HC
FRI2
high forest
one-storied
2
2.75
9.5
27.6
0.4
0.7
0.96
0.84
0.61
0
0
0.64
0.64
0.21
0.21
0.06
18.34
LOM1
high forest
stratified
9
3.03
13.6
77.8
1.9
1.3
0.98
0.37
2.33
1.9
2.19
1.7
5.79
2.01
0.63
0.66
98.56
TRE1
high forest
one-storied
2
3.32
14.5
36.9
0.4
0.6
0.94
0.65
0.78
0
0.23
0
0.23
0.08
0.08
0.02
12.91
VAL1
high forest
irregular
2
3.19
11.8
44.1
0.9
1.0
0.77
0.3
1.46
0.85
0
0
0.85
0.7
0.7
0.31
18.46
ABR1
high forest
one-storied
1
2.96
12.2
59.9
2.3
1.3
0.92
0.55
1.08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.87
CAL1
high forest
one-storied
2
3.65
19.3
56.8
1.0
1.2
0.99
0.75
1.06
0
0
0.37
0.37
0.17
0.17
0.05
7.59
CAM1
high forest
one-storied
2
3.12
13.2
26.5
0.5
1.1
0.69
0.57
0.18
0
0
0
0
0.13
0.13
0.04
6.08
PUG1
high forest
one-storied
7
3.22
12.2
57.6
3.4
1.5
0.96
0.9
1.53
0.25
0.51
1.54
2.3
1.08
0.39
0.35
79.21
VEN1
high forest
one-storied
1
2.89
9.1
25.3
0.9
1.0
0.72
0.67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.01
EMI2
stored coppice
two-storied
2
2.48
4.9
56.2
5.6
4.0
0.96
0.86
1.02
0.07
0.03
0
0.1
0.03
0.03
0.01
50.99
PIE1
trans. crop
one-storied
4
2.43
7.3
46.2
2.1
1.3
0.82
0.77
0.97
0.39
0.28
1.64
2.31
0.5
0.25
0.15
28.08
BAS1
trans. crop
two-storied
3
3.07
11.9
57.5
n.a.
n.a.
0.99
0.81
1.19
0.28
0.18
0.38
0.84
0.3
0.19
0.09
22.7
SIC1
trans. crop
one-storied
3
1.79
3.9
20.4
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.68
0.73
0.19
0.23
0.23
0.65
0.22
0.14
0.06
39.75
UMB1
trans. crop
one-storied
8
2.5
9
40.1
1.1
0.9
0.97
0.72
1.22
0.1
0.4
2.07
2.57
0.94
0.31
0.27
21.43
code
Tree
species
richness
Tree size diversity
(dbh)
Tree
horiz.distrib.
pattern
Tree diversity in the stand profile
Tree species
diversity
Complexity
LAZ1
stored coppice
one-storied
2
2.43
4
30.5
0.8
0.7
0.89
0.8
0.71
0
0.04
0
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.01
13.11
MAR1
stored coppice
one-storied
11
2.76
5.7
66.2
1.8
1.7
0.98
0.79
2.03
0.31
1.94
2.3
4.55
2.23
0.64
0.71
217.26
EMI1
stored coppice
one-storied
6
3.04
7.8
78.3
2.7
2.4
0.97
0.58
1.48
0.95
1.69
0.24
2.88
1.51
0.59
0.58
60.55
FRI1
trans. crop
one-storied
6
3.04
7.6
52
1.5
1.3
0.99
0.82
2.07
1.91
0.77
1.71
4.39
1.73
0.67
0.57
36.41
SAR1
stored coppice
one-storied
5
3.44
9.4
64.1
n.a.
n.a.
0.98
0.81
1.68
0
0.63
1.76
2.39
1.13
0.49
0.37
57.88
TOS1
stored coppice
two-storied
13
3.17
7.3
71.3
2.6
1.0
0.77
0.99
2.21
1.62
2.19
1.96
5.77
2.15
0.58
0.7
124.88
Table 11 – Structural biodiversity indices in the Italian Lev. II plots.
Structure studies started in 1997. According to Ferretti et al. (2006) it was decided to use the
A Index” – Species Profile Index (Pretzesche), which seemed relevant as is is based on the number
of tree species, the number of height layers and the relative abundance of the species in each layer.
3.3 Deadwood
Deadwood 2005
PLOTS
m3/ha
FRI2
2,84
LOM1
20,19
TRE1
20,29
BOL1
15,1
ABR1
4,21
CAL1
2,43
SAR1
15,83
TOS1
16,39
TOS2
27,41
Table 12 – Deadwood in 9 Italian Level II plots.
Deadwood survey has been carried out in Italy only in 2005, taking into account m3 of wood
for ha; 9 Level II plots out of 31 were surveyed.
31
3.4 Vegetation
Since 1996, experts involved in CONECOFOR research activities have been studying
species richness in Level II plots; data collected are referred to different surfaces (50cm*50cm,
10m*10m); for the purpose of this study, it was decided to use the data referred to the whole plot
surface. In 2005, 20 Level II plots were surveyed.
Vegetation
PLOT 1996
1997
1998
1999
FRI2
42
44
108
LOM1
34
37
68
TRE1
15
18
26
VAL1
22
27
73
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
86
67
65
75
75
72
73
26
80
75
68
68
64
62
LOM2
53
BOL1
95
ABR1
15
13
32
33
35
28
27
26
28
CAL1
26
24
41
53
52
42
39
43
54
CAM1
19
19
48
60
61
51
50
58
61
EMI2
13
14
44
35
42
PIE1
7
6
24
20
21
PUG1
20
21
40
35
50
VEN1
21
26
38
49
48
47
46
47
47
LOM3
66
TOS3
27
LIG1
29
SAR1
17
19
26
TOS1
20
30
44
26
48
46
43
21
39
44
46
LAZ2
24
TOS2
24
Table 13 – Data for 10 years of vegetation assessment in Italy (Lev. II plots).
3.5 Tree condition
Tree condition is one of the most traditional Italian surveys; it is possible to rely on the
complete monitoring dataset from all Level II plots referred to 2005. The complete Level I survey
began in 1996.
32
Tree Condition
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1
ABR1
22.2 22.3 22.2 21.5 23.0 26.5 27.2 21.8 14.0 14,7
2
BAS1
23.7 21.4 23.5 23.2 22.1 15.9 20.5 28,5
3
CAL1
29.0 31.0 43.0 38.3 37.2 36.2 31.3 31.3 25.5 23,5
4
CAM1
30.8 32.8 23.8 20.5 23.0 26.5 23.0 22.0 19.7 18,5
5
EMI1
28.8 30.9 31.4 22.6 30.0 28.2 27.3 48.8 52.5 48,4
EMI1
11.7 11.7
6
EMI2
17.5 21.8 24.2 24.5 24.0 27.8 26.5 32.4 24.5
7
FRI1
11.9 17.9 23.9 24.0 16.0 20.9 18.3 17.4 15,7
8
FRI2
15.5 15.9 22.0 20.2 19.5 18.2 16.8 16.3 14.0 14,2
9
LAZ1
14.8 19.5 14.5 15.7 18.5 23.0 26.2 27.7 18.8 13,2
10
LOM1
18.6 20.0 21.7 15.5 18.3 20.3 23.6 26.1 25.6 24,2
11
MAR1
21.3 21.5 27.7 17.6 25.6 22.1 18.0 15.8 11.8
12
PIE1
23.3 39.2 28.2 24.0 20.7 20.1 23.5 23.5 24.0 22,5
13
PUG1
25.5 17.0 14.8 17.0 20.3 20.0 21.6 20.5 18,7
14
SAR1
23.0 21.7 19.0 20.2 31.3 16.9 20.4 16.2 13.1 11,4
15
SIC1
22.0 22.4 10.0 10.0 12.8
16
TOS1
32.6 38.0 38.5 31.0 24.3 26.3 21.3 22.0 20.5 21,3
17
TRE1
12.7 16.7 14.1 14.0 13.2 11,5
8.9
20.5 17.2 15.5 16.1 13.9 18.3 19,4
8.2
8.0
6,8
9,4
12.0 13.1 13,2
21
11.5 13.6 13.5 14.8
UMB1 21.1 28.2 23.0 23.2
VAL1 20.2 24.2 25.8 25.7
VEN1 6.3 8.7 18.8 29.3
ABR2
22
LAZ2
16.0 16.9 14.6 10,6
23
LOM2
15.2 14.8 15.9 15.4 14.8 18.2 16,8
24
LOM3
28.3 31.8 30.2 26.7 28.5 26.0 19,3
25
TOS2
34.7 32.2 31.5 34.7 31.3 22.8 26,3
26
TOS3
25.0 21.0 20.3 23.2 36.3 28.3 25,7
27
BOL1
22.0 22.0 15.0 14.4 16.9 14,6
28
LIG1
21.8 17.7 12.7 21,3
29
PIE2
32,9
30
PIE3
5,3
31
VEN2
20,3
18
19
20
22.3 21.4 15.7 17.1 16.8 22,7
23.7 20.3 20.8 21.8 23.2 18,2
16.0 14.8 19.3 18.2 14.3 17,1
12.0 16,1
Table 14 – Data for 10 years of tree condition assessment in Italy (Lev. II plots).
3.6 Naturalness
The naturalness values were surveyed on 10 Level II plots in 2005 with a range of values
from 0 to 5.
33
Naturalness
FRI2
LOM1
TRE1
BOL1
ABR1
SAR1
TOS1
LAZ2
TOS2
ABR2
0,2
0,2
4,7
2,8
4,6
5
3,3
4
5
4,8
Table 15 – Naturalness results in 10 Italian Lev. II plots.
3.7 Data synthesis
Only 2005 data can be compared (Table 16) for all the 5 parameters used, to build up the
example of the Italian FSI. Based on this comparability, 7 Level II plots showed all the suitable
data; nevertheless, we considered relevant for this work only 6 plots (Table 17) out of them:
according to the adopted codes, FRI2 and TRE1 (Picea abies), CAL1 and ABR1 (Fagus sylvatica),
SAR1 and TOS1 (Quercus ilex), as shown in Fig. 14.
Real values for 2005
2005
FRI2
Vegetation
Dead wood
Tree condition Naturalness Structure
86
2,84
14,2
0,2
0,61
LOM1
73
20,19
24,2
0,2
2,33
TRE1
26
20,29
11,5
4,7
0,78
VAL1
62
18,2
LOM2
53
16,8
BOL1
95
15,1
14,6
2,8
ABR1
28
4,21
14,7
4,6
1,08
CAL1
54
2,43
23,5
4,3
1,06
CAM1
61
18,5
0,18
EMI2
42
6,8
1,02
PIE1
21
22,5
0,97
PUG1
50
18,7
1,53
VEN1
47
17,1
0
LOM3
66
19,3
TOS3
27
25,7
LIG1
29
21,3
SAR1
21
15,83
11,4
5
1,68
TOS1
46
16,39
21,3
3,3
2,21
LAZ2
24
10,6
4
TOS2
24
26,3
5
27,41
Table 16 – Summary of available data for 2005 in Italy.
34
1,46
Considered values for 2005
2005
Vegetation
Deadwood
Tree condition
Naturalness
Structure
FRI2
86
2,84
14,2
0,2
0,61
TRE1
26
20,29
11,5
4,7
0,78
CAL1
54
2,43
23,5
4,3
1,06
ABR1
28
4,21
14,7
4,6
1,08
SAR1
21
15,83
11,4
5
1,68
TOS1
46
16,39
21,3
3,3
2,21
Table 17 – Suitable plots for FSI in Italy.
The average values table shows one value for each forest type (Tab.18).
Average values
2005
Vegetation
Deadwood
56
11,57
12,85
2,45
0,695
Fagus sylvatica
41,00
3,32
19,10
4,45
1,07
Quercus ilex
33,50
16,11
16,35
4,15
1,95
Picea abies
Tree condition Naturalness
Structure
Table 18 – Average representative values for each forest type.
As concerns tree condition and vegetation parameters, both values and target values have
been adjusted, inverting the average values (1/x), to ensure their compliance with increasing level of
biodiversity (tabb. 19, 20 and 21).
Adjusted values
2005
Vegetation
Deadwood Tree condition Naturalness
Structure
Picea abies
0,017857143
11,57
0,078
2,45
0,695
Fagus sylvatica
0,024390244
3,32
0,052
4,45
1,07
Quercus ilex
0,029850746
16,11
0,061
4,15
1,95
Table 19 – Adjusted values.
Target values
Vegetation Deadwood Tree condition Naturalness Structure
Picea abies
30
70
0-25 %
5,0
1,34
Fagus sylvatica
30
100
0-25 %
5,0
1,34
Quercus ilex
20
100
0-25 %
5,0
2,03
Table 20 – Target values.
35
Adjusted target values
Vegetation Deadwood Tree condition Naturalness Structure
Picea abies
0,03
70
0,04
5,0
1,34
Fagus sylvatica
0,03
100
0,04
5,0
1,34
Quercus ilex
0,05
100
0,04
5,0
2,03
Table 21 – Adjusted target values.
To have a better graphic presentation, all different data have been normalized in one scale of
value (0-10), obtained with a simple proportion.
Normalized values
Vegetation Deadwood Tree condition Naturalness Structure
Picea abies
5,357
1,653
19,45
4,9
5,172
Fagus sylvatica
7,317
0,332
13,08
8,9
7,962
Quercus ilex
5,970
1,611
15,29
8,3
9,594
Table 22 – Normalized values.
For Tree Condition, a range of target value 0-25% is available, going further in 5% scaling.
So, in order to give a better graph presentation, it was decided to consider the average values higher
than the considered range 0-25% equivalent to 10 value (target value normalized).
Final obtained values
Vegetation
Deadwood Tree condition Naturalness
Structure
Pecceta finale
5,357
1,653
10
4,9
5,2
Faggeta finale
7,317
0,332
10
8,9
7,96
Lecceta finale
5,97
1,611
10
8,3
9,600
Table 23 – Final obtained values.
The simulation of the Italian FSI produced ten different graph outputs. We evaluated the
graphs according to three characteristics: appealing, scientific soundness and easy reading.
36
Italy - Quercus ilex
Vegetation
1
10
8
6
Structure
Deadwood
4
5
2
2
0
4
3
Naturalness
Tree Condition
Target Value
Current Value
Figure 15 - Example “A”
Italy - Quercus ilex
Vege1tation
10
8
6
4
Structure 5
2 Deadwood
2
0
4
Naturalness
3
Tree Condition
Current Value
Target Value
Figure 16 - Example “B”
37
Italy - Quercus ilex
Ve getation
1
10
8
6
Structure
4
5
2
De adwood
2
0
4
3
Naturalness
Tree Condition
Current Value
Target Value
Figure 17 - Example “C”
Italy - Quercus ilex
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
V
Target Value
2
DW
T3C
CurrentValue
CurrentValue
4
Na
Target Value
Figure 18 - Example “D”
38
5
St
Italy - Quercus ilex
12
10
St
TC
8
Na
6
V
4
2
DW
0
1
2
3
4
Currentl Value
Target Value
Figure 19 - Example “E”
Italy - Quercus ilex
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
V1
DW
2
T3C
Current Value
4
Na
Target Value
Figure 20 - Example “F”
39
5
St
5
Italy - Quercus ilex
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Target Value
1 V
2
DW
Current Value
T 3C
4
Na
St5
Current Value
Target Value
Figure 21 - Example “G”
Structure
10
9.600
Naturalness
10
8.3
Tree Condition
10
10
Deadwood
10
1.611
Vegetation
10
5.97
Figure 22 - Example “H”
40
Target Value
Current Value
Italy - Quercus ilex
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
V
1
DW
2
T3C
Na
4
Current Value
5
St
Target Value
Figure 23 - Example “I”
Italy - Quercus ilex
12
10
TC
St
8
Na
6
V
4
2
DW
0
0
1
2
3
Current Value
4
Target Value
Figure 24 - Example “L”
41
5
6
Graph
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
L
Appealing Scientific soundness
2,67
2,67
3
2
2,33
2,33
2,33
2
1
1
1,67
1,67
1,67
1,67
2,33
2,33
1,67
1,67
1
1,33
Easy reading
2,33
2
2,33
3
1,33
2,33
1,67
2.66
2,33
1,33
Table 24 - Results of graph evaluation.
The outputs of the performed elaboration were expressed by means of different kinds of
graphs: radar, area, lines, points and bar charts. These graphs were submitted to cross evaluation of
the authors. Table 24 shows the final chart compiled: some of these graphs seemed suitable for one
or two of the parameters considered, but graph A seems to be the best to show the situation of the
FSI. In fact, according to this chart, graph A got the total higher value for appealing, scientific
soundness and easy reading. Assuming that the considered dataset is sound and suitable (for
example based on sufficient number of plots, including all requested and on-going research
activities, covering all forest types etc.), the resulting graphs would represent the difference between
the real status of the ecosystem and best potential status for biodiversity in a very easy reading and
fast way.
Italy - Quercus ilex
Vegetation
1
10
8
6
Structure
Deadwood
4
5
2
2
0
4
3
Naturalness
Target Value
Tree Condition
Current Value
Figure 25 - Final FSI graph (Quercus ilex forest).
42
Italy - Picea abies
Vegetation
10
8
6
Deadwood
4
Structure
2
0
Naturalness
Tree Condition
Current value
Target value
Figure 26 - Final FSI graph (Picea abies forest)
Italy - Fagus sylvatica
Vegetation
1
10
8
6
Structure
4
5
2 Deadwood
2
0
4
3
Tree Condition
Naturalness
Target Value
Figure 27 - Final FSI graph (Fagus sylvatica forest).
43
Current Value
On the basis of the above three graphs (Figs. 25, 26 and 27), it results that as far as the
Italian situation is concerned:
 Quercus ilex forests have a good biodiversity status regarding Tree Condition,
Naturalness and Structure, sufficient for Vegetation and bad for Deadwood (orange
area);
 Fagus sylvatica forests show a similar level of biodiversity (green area) compared to
Quercus ilex;
 Picea abies forests have a good score in the Tree condition case, sufficient for
Vegetation, Naturalness and Structure, while deadwood has a low value.
These outputs could be a suitable and valuable basis for ecological inferences; nevertheless
the study was performed on a limited number of plots so it must be considered a simulation.
In fact, this Report has the mission to design and propose an innovative methodology given
that original data are suitable and sufficient.
4. Pilot study for testing the developed methodology
Testing of the developed methodology has been done on the mentioned three key forest types,
across three bio-geographical Regions (data from EU/ICP Forests Lev. II plots participating to the
pilot project ForestBIOTA):
 Alpine Region (Picea abies forest): data from Germany and Slovakia;
 Continental Region (Fagus sylvatica forest): data from Germany;
 Mediterranean Region (Quercus ilex forest): data from Spain.
Figure 28 – Countries included into FSI simulation.
PCC of ICP Forests provided data related to some relevant plots for the three selected forest
type (Quercus ilex, Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies), with the permission of NFCs of Germany,
Spain and Slovak Republic. A check of available raw data allowed the choice of 2 Spanish Quercus
ilex plots, 5 German Fagus sylvatica plots, 1 German and 1 Slovak Picea abies plots: those plots
actually were the most complete ones of the surveys necessary for FSI implementation (naturalness,
44
not available, was excluded). The reference target values, pointed out only for reference, are the
same adopted for the Italian ones.
Plot
Vegetation
Deadwood
Tree condition
Structure
ES- 6
65
0
22.1
0.43
ES- 26
121
0.1
27.3
0.64
Average values
93.00
0.05
24.70
0.54
Adjusted values
0.0108
0.05
0.0405
0.54
Adjusted Target v.
0.05
100
0.04
0.68
Normalized values
2.151
0.005
10.121
8
Final obtained values
2.151
0.005
10
8
Table 25 - Mediterranean Region.
Table 25 shows the data and the elaboration based on 2 Spanish plots (ES-6 and ES-26):
main species in the plots is Quercus ilex; those plots have been taken as Mediterranean forest type
representatives. The applied methodology is the same adopted for the Italian case (only the target
value for structure was selected on the basis of the real data collected from the European countries
involved in this studies). The Mediterranean situation is explained by means of a radar graph
representation (Figure 29).
Mediterranean Region
Vegetation
1
10
8
6
4
2
Structure 4
0
2 Deadwood
Target Value
Tree Condition
3
Figure 29 – FSI Mediterranean Region (Quercus ilex forest).
45
Real Value
Plot
Vegetation
Deadwood
Tree condition
Structure
DE-101
15
2.11
30
0.45
DE-703
8
16.84
29
1.07
DE-704
15
25.01
34.3
0.7
DE-903
32
6.9
35.5
0.75
DE-919
22
4.95
61.1
1.05
Average values
18.40
11.16
37.98
0.80
Adjusted values
0.054
11.16
0.026
0.8
Adjusted Target v.
0.033
100
0.04
0.86
Normalized values
16.460
1.116
6.582
9.302
10
1.116
6.582
9.302
Final obtained values
Table 26 – FSI Continental Region.
Table 26 as far as the Continental Region is concerned, five German Fagus sylvatica plots
were taken into account (DE-101, 703, 704, 903 and 919). The output is shown in Fig. 30 below.
Continental Region
Vegetation
1
10
8
6
4
2
Structure
4
2Deadwood
0
Target Value
Real Value
3
Tree Condition
Figure 30 – FSI Continental Region (Fagus sylvatica forest).
46
Plot
Vegetation
Deadwood
Tree condition
Structure
SK-207
69*
47.3
47.4
1.31
DE-305
25
225
30.2
0.12
Average values
47.00
136.15
38.80
0.72
Adjusted values
0.0213
136.15
0.026
0.72
Adjusted Target v.
0.033
70
0.04
1.118
Normalized values
6.383
19.45
6.443
6.101
Final obtained values
6.383
10
6.443
6.101
Table 27 - Alpine Region (*values for 400 m2)
Table 27 concerns the last case of study: Alpine Region. The data have been granted by one
Slovak plot (SK 207) and one German plot (DE 305); dominant species is Picea abies. The
resulting output is shown in Fig. 31 below.
Alpine Region
RegionRegion
Vegetation
1
10
8
6
4
2
Structure4
2Deadwood
0
Target Value
Real Value
3
Tree Condition
Figure 31- FSI Alpine Region (Picea abies forest).
On the basis of the above three Figs. 29, 30 and 31, it results that as far as the European
situation, related with Italian reference target values, is concerned:
 Mediterranean forest have a good biodiversity status regarding Tree Condition and
Structure, but not sufficient for Vegetation and Deadwood (orange area);
 Continental forest show a good biodiversity status regarding Structure and
Vegetation, sufficient Tree condition and very bad for Deadwood (green area);
47

Alpine forest seems to have an excellent score in the Deadwood case and sufficient
for Vegetation, Tree Condition and Structure.
5. Combination with the headline indicator Trend in extent and
composition of selected ecosystems
Combination of FSI with headline indicator Trend in extent and composition of selected
ecosystems could be carried out as a joint work together with the SEBI2010 relevant experts, with
the aim of including it into the macro-indicator (the FSI indicator is based on qualitative attributes
of the forest ecosystem, useful to evaluate the quantitative results of the other indicators, giving the
correct significance to the observed trends in forest types cover).
With the submission of this final report, FSI documentation form (Annex 2) is ready to be
included and combined into the headline macro-indicator Trend in extent and composition of
selected ecosystems.
6. References
Allavena S., Isopi R., Petriccione B., Pompei E. Secondo Rapporto 2000 – Programma Nazionale
Integrato per il Controllo degli Ecosistemi Forestali.
Chirici G. and Winter S., 2007 – COST Action E43 Harmonisation of National Forest Inventories
in Europe: Techniques for Common Reporting Working Group 3, Harmonised indicators and
estimation procedures for assessing components of biodiversity with NFI data - Draft Report.
Cocciufa C. & Petriccione B., 2007 – Biodiversity Assessment in LTER Europe sites. ALTER-Net
RA2 TG2 Interim Report. Unpublished.
Expert Panel on Forest Growth, 2004 – Manual on method and criteria for harmonized sampling,
assessment, monitoring and analysis of the effect of air pollution on forests. Estimation Of Growth
and Yield.
Fabbio G., Manetti M.C. & Bertini G., 2006 – Aspects of biological diversity in the CONECOFOR
plots. I. Structural and species diversity of tree community. In: Ferretti M., Petriccione B., Fabbio
G. & Bussotti F. (eds.). Aspects of biodiversity in selected forest ecosystems in Italy: status and
changs over the period 1996-2003. Third report of the Task Force on Integrated and Combined
(I&C) evaluation of the CONECOFOR programme. Annali Istituto Sperimentale per la
Selvicoltura, Special Issue (Arezzo), 30, Suppl. 2: 17-28.
Ferretti M., Petriccione B., Fabbio G. & Bussotti F. (eds.)., 2006. Aspects of biodiversity in selected
forest ecosystems in Italy: status and changes over the period 1996–2003. Third report of the Task
Force on Integrates and Combined (I&C) evaluation of the CONECOFOR programme. Annali
Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura, Special Issue, Volume 30 – Supplemento 2 – 2006: 112 p.
Fischer R., 2007 – Results of an enquiry among National Focal Centres of the ICP Forests.
Unpublished.
Fischer R. & Pommerening A., 2003 – ForestBIOTA Project: Stand Structure Assessment Including
Deadwood within the EU/ICP Forests Biodiversity Test-Phase. Methodology for stand structure
assessments in the biodiversity test phase 2003-2005 of EU/ICP Forests. Unpublished.
Chirici G., Corona P. & Marchetti M., 2003 – Proposal of Deadwood Monitoring Protocol in
ForestBIOTA. Unpublished; Meyer P. 2004. ForestBIOTA: Work package 1.1. Proposal for the
assessments of stand structure. Unpublished.
48
Greco, S. and Petriccione, B. 1991 – Environmental quality evaluation in a disturbed ecosystem, on
the basis of floristic and vegetational data. In: Ravera, O. (ed.). Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems:
perturbation and recovery. Ellis Horwood Ltd.: 101-108.
IM Programme Centre Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland, 1998 – ICP IM Manual
7.18 Optional sub-programme BI: Tree bioelements and tree indication.
Kaufman H. and Anderson M., 2006 – ILTER Strategic Plan and Operations Plan.
Kuris M., Ruskele A., 2006 – Baltic Environmental Forum; on the Internet for Natura 2000
websites for each member State” ahead.
Margules, C. and Usher, M.B. 1981 – Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a
review. Biological Conservation 21: 79-109.
MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe) 2002 – Pan-European
indicators for sustainable forest management. http://www.minconf-forests.net.
Neville P., Bastrup-Birk A. et al., 2006 – The BioSoil Forest Biodiversity Field Manual, VERS.
1.0/1.1.
Peterken G.F., 1996 – Natural woodland. Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate
Regions. Cambridge Univ. Press, 522 pp.
Petriccione, B. 1992 – Diversità e qualità ambientale: osservazioni sulle comunità vegetali dell'Italia
Centrale. Atti S.It.E. 14: 63-68.
Petriccione, B. 1994 – Flora, fauna e vegetazione. In: Zavatti, A. (ed.). Il controllo dell'ambiente:
sintesi delle tecniche di monitoraggio ambientale. Pitagora Editrice (Bologna): 465-495.
Petriccione, B. 2004 – First results of the ICP Forests biodiversity test-phase in Italy. In: Marchetti,
M. (ed.). Monitoring and Indicators of Forest Biodiversity in Europe. From Ideas to Operationality.
EFI Proceedings, 51: 445-453.
Petriccione, B. 2005 – Biodiversity state and monitoring of some protected forests in Italy (Forest
Ecosystem Monitoring Programme CONECOFOR). Environmental Encounters Series, 57, Council
of Europe Publ.: 81-84.
Petriccione B., 2006 – Aspects of biological diversity in the CONECOFOR plots. VII. Naturalness
and dynamical tendencies in plant communities. In: Ferretti M., Petriccione B., Fabbio G. &
Bussotti F. (eds.). Aspects of biodiversity in selected forest ecosystems in Italy: status and changs
over the period 1996-2003. Third report of the Task Force on Integrated and Combined (I&C)
evaluation of the CONECOFOR programme. Annali Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura,
Special Issue (Arezzo), 30, Suppl. 2: 93-96.
Petriccione B., 2007 – Towards the development of a pan-European Forest Status Indicator, for
contributing to the 2010 goal to halt the loss of biodiversity. Schriften aus der Forstlichen Fakultat
der Universitat Gottingen, 142: 2151-253.
Pihl, S., et al., 2001 – Habitats and Species Covered by the EEC Habitats Directive. A Preliminary
Assessment of Distribution and Conservation Status in Denmark. National Environmental Research
Institute. - NERI Technical Report 365: 121 pp.
Ploeg Van Der, S.W.F. and Vlijm, L., 1978 – Ecological evaluation, nature conservation and land
use planning with particular reference to methods used in The Netherlands. Biological Conservation
14: 197-221.
Soriano, C., A. Gaston & P. Bariego, 2005 – Diversidad florística en las parcelas españolas de Nivel
II de la Red Europea de Seguimiento Intensivo y Continuo de Ecosistemas Forestales. Actas del IV
Congreso Forestal Español. Sociedad Española de Ciencias Forestales.
Travaglini D. & Chirici G., 2006 – ForestBIOTA Project: Forest Biodiversity Test-phase
assessment. Deadwood assessment, Work Report. Website: http://www.icp-forests.org/
49
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to Annemarie Bastrup-Birk (JRC, Ispra, Italy), for BioSoil data, Gherardo Chirici
(University of Molise, Italy), for NFIs data and suggestions, Richard Fischer (PCC of ICP Forests,
Hamburg, Germany), all EU/ICP Forests NFCs (in particular, Germany, Slovak Republic and
Spain), for meta-data providing.
50