de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
Deutsch
 
Hilfe Wegweiser Impressum Kontakt Einloggen
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT

Freigegeben

Zeitschriftenartikel

Identification of forest management types from ground-based and remotely sensed variables and the effects of forest management on forest structure and composition

MPG-Autoren
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons62409

Hessenmöller,  D.
Emeritus Group, Prof. E.-D. Schulze, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons62499

Nieschulze,  J.
Emeritus Group, Prof. E.-D. Schulze, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons62549

Schulze,  E.-D.
Emeritus Group, Prof. E.-D. Schulze, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

Externe Ressourcen
Es sind keine Externen Ressourcen verfügbar
Volltexte (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Volltexte verfügbar
Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Ergänzenden Materialien verfügbar
Zitation

Hessenmöller, D., Nieschulze, J., Von Lüpke, N., & Schulze, E.-D. (2011). Identification of forest management types from ground-based and remotely sensed variables and the effects of forest management on forest structure and composition. Forstarchiv, 82, 171-183. doi:10.4432/0300-4112-82-171.


Zitierlink: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000E-DBCB-F
Zusammenfassung
Eleven types of forest management were investigated (coniferous and deciduous age-class forest at pole-, young- and old timber stage, continuous cover forest management, selectively cut forest management, farmers’ forest, coppice, coppicewith- standards and unmanaged forest) with respect to ground-based measurements (diameter at breast height, stand density, tree height, wood volume, tree species composition, coarse woody debris, regeneration, deer browsing) and remotely sensed variables by LiDAR (e. g. canopy height, canopy surface area, canopy depth). Wood volume ranged between 320 m3 ha-1 in continuous cover forest and 730 m3 ha-1 in farmers’ forest. Basal area was between 25 m2 ha-1 in deciduous age-class forest and 49 m2 ha-1 in farmers’ forest. Coarse woody debris ranged between 11 m3 ha-1 in selectively cut forest and 39 m3 ha-1 in unmanaged forest. Number of tree species was lowest in the selectively cut forest (1 to 2 tree species per ha) and highest in coppice forest (up to 8 tree species per ha). Density of regeneration was independent of management, but damage due to deer browsing was highest in unmanaged forest reserves and in selectively cut forest, leading to a decline of admixed species. We found that a classification according to management types as based on management plans is not appropriate for scientific studies of relations between forest structure, biodiversity, and management at plot scale. In reality, some management types, such as continuous cover forest, were not sufficiently distinct. The most consistent separation was between longrotation, short-rotation and uneven-aged forests. The remotely sensed variables distinguished forest structures more clearly than ground-based measurements. Nevertheless, structural variables might be rather similar between unrelated management systems and rather dissimilar even within the same management type at plot scales between 500 m2 and 0,64 ha. This study compares forest inventory between management types and documents the importance of including forest-management and forest structure in the evaluation of the climate mitigation potential of forests and of strategies for preservation of biodiversity.