the concept and test of sustainable forest management using the … · 2020-05-20 · tourism...

The concept and test of

sustainable forest

management using the

ecosystem services

approach

Deliverable D.T.3.1.3

Concept and test of sustainable forest management using the ecosystem services approach

Caring for Soils – Where Our Roots Grow 1

IMPRINT

Project and funding

Links4Soils (ASP399); EU Interreg Alpine Space

WP, Task and Deliverable

WPT3 (D.T. 3.1.3)

Lead

Slovenia Forest Service, Večna pot 2, 1000 Ljubljana

Office of the Tyrolean Government, Forest Planning Department, Bürgerstrasse 36, 6020 Innsbruck,

Austria

Editors

Dr. Tina Simončič, Elena Cocuzza

Authors

PART I: dr. Tina Simončič1, dr. Aleš Poljanec1, dr. Andreja Nève Repe1

PART II: Elena Cocuzza2 , Elisabeth Schaber3, Alois Simon2

1Slovenia Forest Service 2 Office of the Tyrolean Provincial Government, 3 University of Innsbruck

Date

March 2020


2 Caring for Soils – Where Our Roots Grow

SUMMARY

This deliverable provides a comprehensive overview of the concept and test of sustainable forest

management using the ecosystem services approach. It is divided into two parts, which present

individual closed chapters.

Part I is a theoretical overview of the two concepts and provides a theoretical framework of how

ecosystem services are integrated into sustainable forest management. It uses the example of regional

forest management plans in Slovenia to characterise how ecosystem services can be provided by

forest management in everyday practice.

Part II is a case study showing the results of the Soil Function Assessment and the Soil Forest

Management categorisation for the selected soil pits investigated in the Tyrolean Case Study in the

forest area of Prägraten. The results show how different soil types contribute to the provision of

ecosystem services and in doing so provide valuable and easily understandable information on how

to implement sustainable forest management.



TABLE OF CONTENT

Imprint ________________________________________________________________________________________ 1

Summary ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2

PART I _________________________________________________________________________________________ 4

Summary ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5

1 INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________________________________________ 6

1.1 Concept of sustainable forest management _____________________________________________ 6

1.2 Concept of ecosystem services ___________________________________________________________ 6

2 The INTEGRATION of ECOSYSTEM SERVICES in sustainable FOREST MANAGEMENT 8

2.1 General framework _______________________________________________________________________ 8

2.2 Integrating ecosystem services in sustainable forest management: example from regional forest

management plans, Slovenia _________________________________________________________________ 10

3 ConclusionS ______________________________________________________________________________ 24

4 References ________________________________________________________________________________ 24

5 List of FIGURES ___________________________________________________________________________ 26

6 List of TABLES ____________________________________________________________________________ 26

PART II _______________________________________________________________________________________ 27

7 References ________________________________________________________________________________ 45

8 List of tables ______________________________________________________________________________ 45

9 List of figures ____________________________________________________________________________ 46

About the Links4Soils project ______________________________________________________________ 47



PART I



SUMMARY

According to FAO, the concept of sustainable forest management means managing forests

sustainably by optimising their benefits including timber and contributions to food security, to meet

society’s needs in a way that conserves and maintains forest ecosystems for the benefit of present

and future generations. The sustainable forest management concept recognises the need for a

provision of multiple ecosystem services from forests using different tools such as the definition of

multiple management objectives (which is the main task of multi-objective forest management),

setting standards of forest management, defining allocations for different ES and measures to achieve

them. How these services are actually considered in forest management is difficult to assess. The

concept of ecosystem services may act as a tool to test whether and in what way forest management

practices consider and provide the services desired by the society. We used the example of the

regional forest management plans in Slovenia to assess 1) which ecosystem services (ES) are taken

into consideration in SFM, 2) which criteria are used to define the allocations with important ES, 3)

which measures are used to provide them and 4) which indicators are used to assess the

successfulness of FM in providing desired ES.



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The concept of sustainable forest management

According to FAO, the concept of sustainable forest management (SFM) means managing forests in

a sustainable manner by optimising their benefits including timber and contributions to food security,

to meet the needs of society in a way that conserves and maintains forest ecosystems for the benefit

of present and future generations. It is "the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way,

and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their

potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local,

national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems." (MCPFE, 1993).

One of the main visions of SFM is to provide the ecological, societal and economic functions of the

forests to the society. In more detail, it considers and includes several criteria such as forest biological

diversity, forest health and vitality, protective functions of forest resources, productive

functions of forests, socio-economic functions, legal, policy and institutional frameworks and

extent of forest resources (FAO, 2003).

1.2 The concept of ecosystem services

The ecosystem services (ES) are the products of functioning ecosystems that benefit people. The

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) classifies ES as provisioning, regulating, cultural

and supporting. Provisioning ES include food, fresh water, timber and fibre for direct human use.

Regulating ES provide benefits such as flood and disease control, water purification, climate

stabilisation and crop pollination. Cultural ES include recreational, spiritual, aesthetic and social values.

Supporting ES are the underlying processes that maintain the conditions for life and include nutrient

cycling, soil formation and primary production.

FAO provides even more detailed classification of ES (Table 1).



Table 1: FAO Classification of Ecosystem Services and the list of ES addressed in forest management

plans

Group of ES Type of ES** ES explicitly addressed in FMP**

Provisioning

services

Food Timber production

Raw materials Non-timber products

Fresh water Game

Medicinal resources Provision of drinking water

Regulating services Local climate air quality Climate regulation

Carbon sequestration and storage Protection against natural hazards

Moderation of extreme events Protection of forest soil and sites

Waste-water treatment

Erosion prevention and maintenance of soil

fertility

Pollination

Biological control

Regulation of water flow

Supporting services Habitat for species Preservation of biotic diversity Maintenance of genetic diversity

Cultural services Recreation and mental and physical health Recreation

Tourism Tourism

Aesthetics, inspiration for culture, art and design Aesthetics

Spiritual experience and a sense of place Education

Research, Hygienic-health

Protection of cultural heritage

Protection of natural heritage

Defence

* http://www.fao.org/ecosystem-services-biodiversity/background/en/

**example of classification of forest functions in Slovenia, source ZG, 1993; Regulations…, 2010;



2 THE INTEGRATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT

2.1 General framework

In Europe, a general framework to secure the provision of multiple services from forest ecosystems in

the context of SFM was defined by Forest Europe, formerly the Ministerial Conference for the

Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE, 2002). Sustainable forest management has been a basic

principle for forest management in a variety of European countries. It is legally accepted in national

legislations (forestry acts) and further developed in forest programmes and forest plans.

SFM concept recognises the need for a provision of multiple ecosystem services from forests using

different tools; the definition of multiple management objectives (which is the main task of multi-

objective forest management, a stewardship concept of the SFP approach), setting standards of forest

management, defining allocations for different ES and measures to achieve them (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The concept of sustainable and multi-objective forest management and ecosystem services

(see also Bončina et al., 2019 for the detailed illustration of the integration of forest functions/

ecosystem services into forest management)

General forest

management

standards

supporting ES

Conditioned by

soil type/

vulnerability, site

type etc.

Sustainable forest

management

Forest management

objectives:

TIMBER PRODUCTION

CLIMATE REGULATION

HABITAT PROTECTION

SOIL PROTECTION

RECREATION

EDUCATION

Additional

management

measures

supporting ES

Spatially defined –

allocations for ES:

Recreational areas

Habitat protection areas

Watershed areas

Protection forests

Etc.

Indicators of

success



The general standards to support ES vary greatly among the European countries. In some countries,

clear-cutting is still one of the ways to practice silviculture and to regenerate forests, providing

completely different set of ES compared to countries where close-to-nature forest management is

practised (Simončič et al., 2015). In Slovenia, general standards to support ES include uneven-aged

silvicultural systems, promotion of mixed forests, promotion of native species and species adaptable

to emission, promotion of natural regeneration, prompt salvage cutting after damage/disturbances,

management of forest edges, stability of forest stands (vertical and horizontal diversity), and

prohibition of clear-cutting (ZG, 1993).

The definition of management objectives is the basis for including different kinds of ES into the

planning stages. Types of management objectives define which ecosystem services are important and

will be integrated into sustainable forest management by a set of guidelines, directions and measures

(Bončina et al., 2019). Management objectives may include (Forest management plan for Forest

management unit Pokljuka, 2005):

- Production of wood for market

- Protection of water sources and drinking water

- Nature conservation

- Recreation

- Sport and competition

- Tourism

- Employment

- Protection of forest sites and stands

- Production of non-wood forest products

- A place for education and research

- Aesthetic appearance of landscape

- Hunting as an economic and recreational activity

- Forest biomass for energetic purposes

Spatially defined allocations for ES. Areas with special importance for selected ES are determined

by forest planning procedures or by other legal regulations (Simončič et al., 2013). Common

allocations in a variety of European countries include protection forests, areas for production

functions, areas for nature conservation including forests within protected areas, areas for recreation

such as urban and peri-urban forests and similar (Simončič et al., 2015). These allocations are a binding

framework for defining forest development objectives and guidelines and should be considered when

setting detailed measures at the level of operational planning (Bončina et al., 2019).

Allocations for certain ES are defined in national legislations for each country. Detailed criteria that

define on which forest area certain ES are to be promoted (see example in Table 2) are prescribed.

Additional measures. A general standard in many European countries already provides multiple ES.

However, in many cases management regime must be adopted which means additional measures that



are not carried out in other forest lands are applied (e.g. Wagner et al., 2013). Table 2 provides a

comprehensive overview of guidelines / measures that support certain ES on the example of regional

forest management plans in Slovenia.

2.2 Integrating ecosystem services in sustainable forest

management: example from regional forest management plans,

Slovenia

Multiple ES are included in the Slovenian forestry legislation (Table 1), but they are termed forest

functions instead of ES. Forest management plans explicitly address 17 forest functions. Among them,

we selected six main forest functions representing all four groups of ES.

1. Provisioning services: timber production, provision of drinking water

Timber production is one of the main ES considered in sustainable FM. The average production

capacity of Slovenian forests is 7-8 m3 ha-1 year-1, and this ES is particularly important on 59.6 % of

the entire forest land (Poljanec et al., 2012) (Figure 2).



1

Figure 2: Highly productive forests on the Pokljuka plateau (photo by Andreja Nève Repe, SFS)

Among the provisioning ES, the provision of drinking water is also very important. This function means

mechanical and biological treatment of water flow from forest surfaces and regulation of the water

regime by retaining rapid surface runoff (by slope and deep under the soil), slower melting of snow,

water conservation in forest soils and plants and delayed permeation of water from forest soil during

drying periods (Manual…, 2012). Forests with important hydrological function are mainly those in

flood, water conservation and potential water protection areas, determined in accordance with the

water regulations. Hydrological function is extremely important on 5.1 % of the entire forest area in

Slovenia (Figure 3).



Figure 3: The great importance of forests for the provision of drinking water and regulation of water

regime (photo by mag. Matjaž Guček, SFS)



3

Table 2: How the main provisioning ES are considered in SFM

ES Criteria Guidelines / measures Indicators

Production

of timber

The potential of high long-

term yield:

1. level: the forests where it

is possible to harvest more

than 5m3 of gross wood

mass per hectare;


is possible to harvest 2 to

5m3 of gross wood mass

per hectare;


is possible to harvest up to

2m3 of gross wood mass

per hectare;

Increase natural

regeneration using different

techniques (larger

openings, taking into

account the seed years,

artificial regeneration if

urgent)

Increase thinning intensity

in young stages in order to

improve quality of wood

Selection of silvicultural

systems: e.g., stripwise

shelterwood approaches

and irregular shelterwood

systems, single stem

selection systems, plenter

systems depending on the

composition of natural

species and current state of

forests

Participation and

collaboration with forest

owners, stimulation of

active management

Open closed areas with

forest infrastructure

(skidding tracks, roads)

Actual cut vs.

maximum allowable

cut

Comparing actual

composition of tree

species to the goal

composition

Comparing actual

diameter distribution

to goal diameter

distribution

Comparing stand

structure to the goal

structure

Comparing planned

and actually performed

tending works in

young stages

The prevailing

regeneration method

(natural, mixed,

artificial)

Drinking

water

supply

Areas declared by decree

from water legislation

Other watershed areas

Potential water

conservation areas

Forests above the karst pit

or underground water

stream

The area surrounding the

water stream or pumping

station

Water stream or small

standing water body

Create forest stands of such

structure and composition

that they will allow the

greatest extent of water

supply (use scientific

guidelines)

Ensure continuous forest

cover and regeneration

under the closed canopy,

no large stand openings,

small-scale uneven-aged

stand structure

Preservation of lowland

riparian forests as high

water inhibiters

Construction of forest roads

under strict conditions:

The state of water

protection zones

The state of forests in

water protection zones

(vitality, damages, tree

species composition)

The soil stability

around water streams

and in other protected

zones

Amount of deadwood

Forest structure (e.g.

the proportion of

developmental phases)

Etc.



mandatory use of

biodegradable oils for

lubrication of motor saws

and in hydraulic systems of

machinery used in the

forest; use mainly existing

roads and only occasionally

build new ones under strict

conditions; no building of

forest infrastructure directly

by the streams etc.

Informing the public about

the importance of forests

for the supply of drinking

water

In the narrower catchment

area, the protection regime

set out in the regulations

on the water protection

must be respected (usually

in the narrowest water

protection zone

management is very

limited, and the narrowest

area is also fenced)

Insist on the immediate

removal of potential illegal

waste. It is also essential to

avoid the use of any

chemicals

The natural streams with all

the tree and shrub

vegetation should be

maintained

Selective harvesting along

the streams to remove old

and unstable trees

Selection of appropriate

tree species: along the

streams, choose the tree

species with strong root

system (silver fir, noble

broadleaves, European

beech, common hornbeam)

etc.



5

2. Regulating services: protection of forest soil and sites, protection against natural

hazards

Among regulating ES, protection of forest soil and sites is the main ES provided by forests. This

function means protection of the site and its surroundings from the consequences of all types of

erosion processes, in particular the provision (preservation) of soil resistance to erosion phenomena

caused by cold, snow, water and wind; prevention of the development (occurrence) of landslides,

rockfalls and avalanches; preventing the deepening of the slopes; preventing the movement of debris;

conservation of forest soil fertility. Forests have an important protective function on the upper

timberline, in erosion, avalanching areas determined in accordance with the water regulations, on very

steep slopes, dry sites, shallow rocky or stone soils. Due to vulnerability and extreme characteristics of

forest sites, the protection of forest soil and sites is extremely important on the 15.4 % of the forest

area of Slovenia. Due to high importance of these sites, most of them are protected and placed in a

special category “protection forest” (Decree…, 2005; Figure 4).

Figure 4: The area and distribution of protection forests in Slovenia (source: SFS)

Another very important regulating ES is the protection against natural hazards, which can also be

called direct protection. It is a function of forests that protects traffic infrastructure, settlements and

other objects against natural phenomena, such as falling rocks, avalanches, landslides or side winds,



and ensures the safety of settlements and transport (Manual, 2012). In particular the forests on steep

slopes above the roads or railways and below them have an important protective function (Table 3).

The direct protection function is extremely important on 2.3 % of the entire forest area in Slovenia,

especially on extreme slopes near the existing infrastructure (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Forests important for protecting settlements against natural hazards (photo: mag. Matjaž

Guček, SFS)



7

Table 3: How the main regulating ES are considered in SFM

Objectives Criteria Guidelines/ measures Indicators

Protection of

forest soil

and sites –

indirect

protection

forests

Sites at timberline

Slopes above 35

degrees on hard

bedrock and above

25 degrees on

potential erodible

sites

Shallow soils (up to

10 cm), over 70% of

rocks

Natural hazards (e.g.

water erosion,

landslides,

avalanches, floods)

Dry sites with

xerophytic vegetation

Continuous forest cover

Uneven-aged small-scale stand

structure, stable, diverse forest structure

Tree species composition, adapted to

forest sites, with deep root systems

(Pinus mugo, Pinus silvestris, Larix

decidua)

Permanent maintenance of pioneer

species (Salix, Pinus mugo, Alnus incana)

at the edge area of the active avalanches

Avalanches: leaving high tree hives, high

proportion of conifers

Prompt sanitation of damaged sites, also

with artificial regeneration, if needed

Leaving dead trees as retainers of water,

biomass and soil

Lower growing stock on steep slopes

due to stability of stands

Harvest of heavy trees on steep slopes

with shallow soil

Harmonisation of forest-ungulate

relations

Limiting harvest in areas with high

protection importance to sanitary cut

and tending young stands only

Leaving all harvest biomass on the karst

floor due to slow formation of soil from

the bedrock,

Lower density of roads on erodible

background

Grassy forest skidding tracks

Tractor, wire crane, manual and animal

skidding

Prohibition of logging and harvesting on

potentially erodible areas when the soil

is soaked

Drainage on flysch bedrock

Prevent stronger erosion by building

adequate protection facilities – drainage

and retaining walls

Growing stock

Density of

trees per ha

Tree species

composition of

forest

regeneration

and of mature

stand

Horizontal

stand structure

Proportion of

developmental

phases

Browsing rate

of forest

regeneration



Prevent construction of infrastructure

and other facilities, grazing, stoning and

any other form of soil degradation

Forbidden interventions in mountain

grasslands and remnants of tree and

bush vegetation

Protection

against

natural

hazards –

direct

protection

forests

Forests on steep

slopes above roads,

railways, settlements,

commercial or

residential buildings,

where there is a risk

of landslides, rockfall

or avalanches

Forests near the

airport

Forests that protect

against wind

A belt of forest trees

near infrastructural

facilities

Small-scale silviculture systems, mosaic

stand structure

Selection of tree species that are

appropriate for protection function

Prompt sanitary works / harvesting

Reduce the production period, lower

growing stocks, thinner trees – reduce

the target diameter of trees and increase

the number of trees per ha

Harvest of large-diameter trees with low

stability or trees that are dying due to

damage or age and may endanger

lower-lying traffic or objects

Small stand openings to prevent erosion

Prevent bare forest ground

Artificial planting when needed

Prompt sanitation of forest soil after

disturbances, such as planting with

pioneer species or species with a good

root system

Rigorous protection regime (closure of

forest roads, signboards warning of

activities when harvesting and logging)

In order to stop falling rocks, high hives

and dead trees should be left and must

be properly anchored and placed in

parallel with the horizontal lines

Similar as in

the case of

indirect

protection

forests, plus

build

protection

infrastructure

when forest

protection is

insufficient

(protection

nets, torrent

bulkheads)

3. Supporting services: providing habitat for species

In Forest management plans, the main supporting ES is the conservation of biodiversity in terms of

providing habitat for species. The forests that are important for providing this function / ES are those

that enable the provision of living space for plant and animal life groups, in particular those species

whose life cycle is connected to the forest, the conservation of biodiversity and the conservation of

natural equilibrium (Manual…, 2012; Table 4). Due to high proportion of forests in Slovenia (1.2 mio

ha of forests) and their preserved natural state, more than 45 % of forests are included in the Natura



9

2000 network, and the nature protection / provision of habitat for species is extremely important on

5.1 % of the entire forest area (Figure 6).

Figure

6: Forests that are important as large preserved habitats for species (photo: Sašo Gorjanc, SFS)



Table 4: How the main supporting ES are considered in SFM

Objectives Criteria Guidelines/ measures Indicators

Habitat

for

species

Rare forest

ecosystems or

those in the vicinity

of other

ecosystems

Sites of rare or

endangered animal

or plant species

Forests and other

minority

ecosystems in the

forest area that are

relevant for the

preservation of rare

and endangered

animal and plant

species (e.g. nesting

sites)

Small forest

remnants in

agricultural and

peri-urban

landscape

Forests in the

Natura2000 sites

and ecologically

important sites

Preserve the favourable status of

all indigenous species

Maintain minority and

endangered ecosystems

Harvesting and skidding should

be adjusted to the animal species

(e.g. to their nesting season)

Adjust regeneration period and

the size of open areas to the

needs of endangered species

Maintain uneven-aged forest

structure

Create spatial and structural

diversity

Leaving large-diameter trees

Leaving habitat trees

Increasing the amount of dead

wood

Preservation of natural

distribution and the state of

habitats of plant and animal

species (Natura 2000 sites!)

Preservation of connectivity

between habitats of plant and

animal species

Adapt the time and intensity of

harvesting and other forestry

measures, and the used

technology to the ecology of

endangered species

Increase biodiversity with

preservation of minority tree

species, fruit trees, hollow and

decaying and rare tree and shrub

species

Create a network of areas left to

natural dynamics with no

management

Preserve the forest areas in

agricultural and urban landscapes

and forests along the streams

Increase the proportion of shrubs

and grasslands within the forests

Tree species

composition (of

mature stand and

of forest

regeneration)

Stand structure

(vertical, horizontal)

Diameter

distribution (e.g.

the proportion of

large-diameter

trees)

Number and

proportion of

ecocells

(unmanaged areas)

Proportion of

primeval forests

Indicators related

to endangered

species

The proportion and

structure of

deadwood



1

that are relevant for improving

living conditions for wildlife

Maintenance of naturally rich and

species-rich forest edges relevant

as living habitats for wildlife

Define quiet zones for normal

development of endangered

wildlife species and improvement

of their living conditions

Adapt the time of harvest and

skidding to the time of nesting

season of endangered birds and

away from nesting areas of other

protected species

Protect wetlands in the forest and

other water ecosystems

Create new grasslands in the

Alpine space to improve the living

conditions of species

4. Cultural services: Recreation and mental and physical health

Among cultural ES, recreation and mental health were selected due to their high relevance in the

Alpine space and in Slovenia. These are mainly forests that enable activities that are relaxing and

strengthen physical or mental state including picking-up forest fruit for recreation purposes (Manual…,

2012). The important recreational function is provided by forests with relevant natural features,

accessibility and recreational infrastructure (paths, facilities) (Table 5). Due to the close proximity of

forests to urban places and touristic attractions around them, 4.9 % of forest areas are important for

recreation and tourism (Figure 7).



Figure 7: High importance of recreation in the Alps (photo: NU Triglav National Park, 2016)

Table 5: How the main cultural ES are considered in SFM

ES Criteria Guidelines Indicators

Recreation and

mental and

physical health

Vicinity of towns

and major urban

settlements

Footpaths to

tourist and

recreational sites

Entry points in

areas intended for

recreation

Infrastructure for

recreational

activities

European long-

distance paths

(E3, E4, E6, E7 and

E8) and other

important routes

with a large

number of visitors

Cycling and

mountain bike

routes

Maintain recreational

infrastructure

Enable accessibility of recreational

areas

Inform public regarding the

importance of forests for

recreation

Create interesting forest stands

that are attractive to the visitors

Uneven-aged and small-scale

horizontal stand structure

High diversity of tree species

Selection of aesthetically

interesting species along

recreational trails

Sanitary cut to prevent accidents

Immediate cleaning of branches

and other material after

harvesting, putting branches on

piles away from recreational paths

and in a way that prevents them

Number of visitors

in the forests

Number, length

and state of

recreational paths

List of interesting

objects

Survey of visitors

Etc.



3

Sport grounds

Urban forests

Intensity of

picking non-wood

forest products

from disturbing the aesthetics of

the forests

Adjust technology of wood

production: use of more friendly

harvesting and skidding

technologies

Communication with forest

owners in case of private forests

Avoid harvesting and skidding in

periods when forests are most

heavily visited

Cutting trees for views

Collaborating with Slovenian

hiking association

Harmonisation with other land

uses: redirect tourists and people

seeking recreation from

ecologically valuable areas



3 CONCLUSIONS

In forest management planning, multiple ES are considered and provided to the society. However, by

doing so, the forest ecosystems must be managed according to the objectives. In the planning

guidelines, forest ecosystems and their soil and sites must be preserved when measures for certain ES

are set. For example, when watersheds are concerned, the suggested width of stream vegetation

should be doubled if the soil is erodible. When timber production is concerned, a strong emphasis is

given to consideration of soil conditions in case of erodible soils…, reflecting in limitations of the

technology used (e.g. type of tractors, limitations of machine harvesting, of the density of forest

infrastructure build). When cultural services are at stake, the state of forest soil and sites is often used

as an indicator of the successfulness of multiple use. If forest soil is eroded due to overvisited sites,

the sites are either managed with additional infrastructure in order to stabilise the slopes, or forest

visitors are redirected to other places. Such approach is rather difficult and intensive, but it provides

many benefits in all areas. It adds to the soil conservation, makes a contribution to the climate-change

mitigation, satisfies the cultural demands for forests, creates forests that are rich in biodiversity and

provides food in terms of wood, fuelwood and other non-wood products, all of which are emphasised

in the SFM.

4 REFERENCES

Bončina, A., Simončič, T., Rosset, C. (2019). Assessment of the concept of forest functions in Central

European forestry. Environmental science & policy, 99, 123-135.

Decree on protective forests and forests with a special purpose. Official Gazette of RS, Nos. 88/05,

56/07, 29/09, 91/10, 1/13 and 39/15.

FAO (2003). Sustainable Forest Management and the Ecosystem services approach: two concepts, one

goal.

Forest management plan for Forest management unit Pokljuka 2005-2016 (2005). Slovenia Forest

Service, Bled.

Manual on the elaboration of forest management plans for forest management units (2012). Slovenia

Forest Service, Department for forest planning, Ljubljana.

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well−being: Current state

and trends. Washington DC, Island Press.



5

MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on Protection of Forests in Europe) (2002) Improved Pan-European

Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. Expert Level Meeting 7-8 October 2002, Vienna,

Austria.

MCPFE (2002). General guidelines for the sustainable management of forests in Europe. Second

Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. 16-17 June 1993, Helsinki/Finland.

Poljanec, A. (ed.) (2012). Forest management and game plans of forest management regions for the

period 2011-2020 (in Slovene). Jonozovič M., Marenče M., Matijašić D., Pisek R., Poljanec A, Veselič

Ž., Slovenia forest service, 111 p.

Regulations on forest management and game management plans (Official Gazette of RS, no. 91/10).

Simončič, T., Bončina, A., Rosset, C., Binder, F., De Meo, I., Čavlović, J., Gal, J., Matijašić, D., Schneider,

J., Singer, F., Sitko, R. (2013). Importance of priority areas for multi-objective forest planning: a

Central European perspective. International Journal of Forestry Review 15, 4, 509–523.

Simončič, T., Spies, T.A., Deal, R.L., Bončina, A. (2015). A conceptual framework for characterizing forest

areas with high societal values: Experiences from the Pacific Northwest of USA and Central Europe.

Environmental Management, 56, 1, 127–143.

Wagner, S., Huth, F., Mohren, F., Herrmann, I. (2013). Silvicultural systems and multiple service forestry,

in: Kraus, D., Krumm, F. (Eds.). Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of

forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute, pp. 64–73.

ZG (Zakon o gozdovih) (1993) Ur. l. RS, št. 30–1299/1993.

http://link.springer.com/journal/267



5 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Concept of sustainable and multi-objective forest management and ecosystem services

(see also Bončina et al., 2019 for the detailed illustration of the integration of forest functions/

ecosystem services into forest management) ............................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: highly productive forests on the Pokljuka plateau (photo by Andreja Repe Nève, SFS) 11

Figure 3: the high importance of forests for the provision of drinking water and regulation of water

regime (photo by mag. Matjaž Guček, SFS) ................................................................................................. 12

Figure 4: The area and distribution of protection forests in Slovenia (source: SFS)...................... 15

Figure 5: Forests important for protecting settlements against natural hazards (photo: mag. Matjaž

Guček, SFS) ................................................................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 6: Forests important as large preserved habitats for species (photo: Sašo Gorjanc, SFS)19

Figure 7: High importance of recreation in the Alps (photo: NU Triglav National Park, 2016) 22

6 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: FAO Classification of Ecosystem Services and the list of ES addressed in forest management

plans .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Table 2: How the main provisioning ES are considered in SFM ........................................................... 13

Table 3: How the main regulating ES are considered in SFM ................................................................ 17

Table 4: How the main supporting ES are considered in SFM .............................................................. 20

Table 5: How the main cultural ES are considered in SFM ..................................................................... 22



7

PART II



DELIVERABLE CONTENT

This deliverable shows results from the Soil Function Assessment (SFA) and the Soil Forest

Management categorisation (traffic light system for biomass use and heavy machinery transit effects)

for five soil pits (L4S1-5) investigated in the Tyrolean Case Study forest area of Prägraten (see Figure

1).

Among other environmental factors, both, the Soil Function Assessment and the Soil Forest

Management categorisation rely on a combination of specific soil properties, are to be formulated.

The soil data collected in the five pits in Prägraten provided us with enough information to conduct

both evaluations. For the latter one, selected soil chemical and physical properties are essential: these

are summarised in the one-page soil pit descriptions (Fig. 3 -7).

The colour categories assigned to the measured values of pH, base saturation, cation exchange

capacity and carbon to nitrogen ratio that were applied considering the criteria of the legend in Table

8, allowed us to derive the “traffic light” colour category of the “biomass use” box. Together with the

category assigned to the “compaction risk” box, making use of the soil coarse fraction and the texture,

we defined site-specific forest management measures at each soil pit (Waldtypisierung Tirol, 2019).

For conducting the SFA, we calculated 12 soil function fulfilment levels using the SEPP tool (Soil

Evaluation for Planning Procedures), which are also based on data retrieved from soil pit descriptions.

The tool was developed by the Institute of Geography of the University of Innsbruck and it allows an

automated assessment of the level of function fulfilment in five classes from very low (1) to very high

(5) (Gruber et al. 2019). Tables 9a-13a list the soil function fulfilment levels for each soil pit. Since soil

functions determine the provision of SbES, the results of the SFA (see Figure 2) could be used to derive

the provision of five SbES that were defined within the Links4Soils project. Table 1 shows on which

group of soil functions each SbES is based and the conversion tables 2-6 show how the results of the

SFA are transferred to an SbES evaluation: intervals of combined grouped soil function levels

correspond to SbES levels from very low (1) to very high (5). Tables 9b-13b show the evaluation results

for the 5 services at each soil pit, providing at least two short comments respectively to explain which

environmental factors and soil properties are behind the assignment of the grade and the reason

behind differences among soil pit evaluations.

Table 7 summarises the results of both, the SbES evaluation and the forest management categories

for each investigated soil pit. The results reflect that those forest soils contribute greatly to the “global

climate regulation” and to “surface runoff regulation”, whereas the provision of “water filtration and

purification” and “habitat provision” is rather low. However, if forest soils are managed improperly,

the ability of soils to provide those services might be deteriorated. Therefore, the Forest Department

of the Tyrolean Government developed guidelines to prevent soil degradation (Links4Soils project

deliverable D.T. 3.1.4). By means of the traffic light system practitioners get valuable and easily

understandable information on how to implement sustainable forest management. In line with the

thematic maps produced in Prägraten regarding compaction risk and biomass use (Links4Soils project

deliverable D.T. 3.1.1), where more than 60% of the case study area was assigned an orange category

for forest management, 4 investigated soil pits also individually show an intermediate evaluation.

Therefore, controlled but not extreme protective measures have to be applied at most sites.



9

Figure 1: A case study area showing L4S pits and forest cover



Table 1: Soil-based Ecosystem Services in relation to groups of soil functions. The functions “habitat for

crops”, “groundwater recharge” and “retention of precipitation (average kf)” were excluded

Soil functions -- SEPP tool Soil-based ES -- Links4Soils

Habitat for drought-tolerant species

Habitat provision (biodiversity) Habitat for moisture-tolerant species

Habitat for soil organisms

Habitat for crops Agricultural biomass provision

Retention of precipitation (average kf)

Surface runoff regulation Retention of precipitation (min kf)

Short-term retention of heavy precipitation

Groundwater recharge ---

Nutrient provision to plants Nutrient cycle regulation

Carbon storage Global climate regulation (carbon cycle)

Retention of heavy metals

Water filtration and purification

Transformation of organic contaminants

Filtration and buffering of organic

contaminants

Retention of water-soluble contaminants

Buffering of acidic substances

Figure 2: Barplots representing the distribution of the soil function levels of fulfilment (1 - very low to 5 –

very high) of the 5 soil profiles described in the case study area of Prägraten

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14i1TNuqGRd_7NxG8Qfcgj2OjzS51-a90LWBWAbPJAo4/edit#heading=h.7ulwc29v9306

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14i1TNuqGRd_7NxG8Qfcgj2OjzS51-a90LWBWAbPJAo4/edit#heading=h.vyxzgp6z6c15

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14i1TNuqGRd_7NxG8Qfcgj2OjzS51-a90LWBWAbPJAo4/edit#heading=h.b2dbqkjxyxbw

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14i1TNuqGRd_7NxG8Qfcgj2OjzS51-a90LWBWAbPJAo4/edit#heading=h.czzjem4vhx93

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14i1TNuqGRd_7NxG8Qfcgj2OjzS51-a90LWBWAbPJAo4/edit#heading=h.fuiedhpvnb72



1

Table 2: Conversion table from three soil functions to the SbES "Habitat provision and biodiversity". Since

habitats for moisture-tolerant and drought-tolerant species exclude each other, only the higher

level of function fulfilment of both is considered.

The sum of soil function

fulfilment levels

SbES level

Habitat for soil organisms

+

maximum (Habitat for moisture-

tolerant species and Habitat for

drought-tolerant species)

Habitat provision

(biodiversity)

2 1

3-4 2

5-6 3

7-8 4

9-10 5

Table 3: Conversion table from two soil functions to the SbES "Surface runoff regulation". Since the one

function – i.e. retention of precipitation – was calculated with two different algorithms (based on

average or minimum kf), only one result (i.e. level based on min kf) is considered.


fulfilment levels

SbES level

Retention of precipitation (min kf)

+

Short-term retention of heavy

precipitation

Surface runoff

regulation

2 1

3-4 2

5-6 3

7-8 4

9-10 5

Table 4: Conversion table from one soil function to the SbES "Nutrient cycle regulation". Since only one

soil function is relevant for the SbES, the levels stay unchanged.

Soil function fulfilment level SbES level

Nutrient provision to plants Nutrient cycle regulation

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5



https://docs.google.com/document/d/14i1TNuqGRd_7NxG8Qfcgj2OjzS51-a90LWBWAbPJAo4/edit#heading=h.b2dbqkjxyxbw



Table 5: Conversion table from one soil function to the SbES "Global climate regulation (carbon cycle)".

Since only one soil function is relevant for the SbES, the levels stay unchanged.

Soil function fulfilment level SbES level

Carbon storage Global climate

regulation (carbon cycle)

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

Table 6: Conversion table from five soil functions to the SbES "Water filtration and purification". Since

all functions are likewise important for avoiding different pollutants in surface and groundwater

bodies, all of them are considered and equally weighted.


fulfilment levels

SbES level

Retention of heavy metals

+

Transformation of organic

contaminants

+

Filtration and buffering of

organic contaminants

+

Retention of water-soluble

contaminants

+

Buffering of acidic substances

Water filtration and

purification

5-7 1

8-12 2

13-17 3

18-22 4

23-25 5







3

Table 7: The summary of SbES evaluation given to the soil pits of Prägraten and soil management

categories assigned for biomass use and compaction risk

Soil(-based) Ecosystem Services

Habitat

provision

(biodiversity)

Surface

runoff

regulation

Nutrient

cycle

regulation

Global

climate

regulation

(carbon

cycle)

Water

filtration

and

purification

Biomass

use

guideline

category

Compactio

n risk

guideline

category

Sit

e ID

S L4S1 3 5 3 5 2

L4S2 2 4 1 5 2 L4S3 3 5 3 5 2



Table 8: The legend assigning colours to intervals of soil chemical properties: these intervals set the

baseline for the traffic light colour definition

L4S4 3 5 3 5 2 L4S5 3 4 3 5 2



5

Figure 3: Description of physical and chemical properties of soil pit L4S1 with resulting biomass use and compaction

risk effect categories



Tables 9a,b: Levels of fulfilment assigned with SEPP tool to 12 functions for pit L4S1 (a), followed by 5

derived Soil(-based) Ecosystem Services evaluation (b)

Soil functions – SEPP tool SFA level

Habitat for drought-tolerant species 2

Habitat for moisture-tolerant species 2

Habitat for soil organisms 3

Retention of precipitation (min kf) 4

Short Term Retention of Heavy Precipitation 5

Nutrient provision to plants 3

Carbon storage 5

Retention of heavy metals 2

Transformation of organic contaminants 1

Filtration and buffering of organic

contaminants 1

Retention of water-soluble contaminants 2

Buffering of acidic substances 3

Soil-based Ecosystem Service SbES level Comment

Habitat provision (biodiversity) 3

A low level of fulfilment

characterises the habitat

functions, as the available

field capacity is relatively

high for the drought-tolerant

species and relatively low for

the moisture-tolerant ones.

The present soil organism

communities have slightly

better conditions.

Surface runoff regulation 5

Nutrient cycle regulation 3

Global climate regulation

(carbon cycle) 5

The conifer forest land use,

which characterises all sites,

guarantees a high biomass

production, thus a high level

of fulfilment for the carbon

storage function.

Water filtration and purification 2



7






derived Soil(-based) Ecosystem Services evaluation with comments (b)

Soil(-based) Ecosystem Service SbES level Comment



A combination of high

water storage capacity, air

capacity and saturated

hydraulic conductivity at

this pit is the reason for

high uptake of water by

the soil during

precipitation. A good

surface runoff regulation

is provided.


The nutrient provision

level of fulfilment is the

lowest due to the very low

pH values which

characterise the soil at this

pit. The nutrient cycling

for plants and soil biota is

at its minimum level.

Global climate regulation (carbon

cycle) 5









Carbon storage 5



Filtration and buffering of organic contaminants 1





9






derived Soil(-based) Ecosystem Services evaluations with comments (b)



Particularly in relation to

moisture-tolerant species,

this pit provides a good

environment for many soil

organisms. This is also

due to the higher field

capacity in comparison to

the other pits.




cycle) 5


This pit is characterised by

a higher available field

capacity in comparison to

the others. This guarantees

a higher level for the

retention of water-soluble

contaminants.








Carbon storage 5








1










A combination of high water

storage capacity, air capacity and

saturated hydraulic conductivity at

this pit is the reason for high uptake

of water by the soil during

precipitation. A very good surface

runoff regulation is provided.



cycle) 5

Water filtration and purification 2 All pits have a poor retention of

heavy metals and filtration capacity

of organic contaminants. This is

partially due to the coarse texture of

the soils.








Carbon storage 5








3







Soil functions -- SEPP tool SFA level







Carbon storage 5









The minimum permeability

coefficient at this pit is very

low compared to the average

one. Overall, the surface

runoff regulation is positively

evaluated because of a high

level of short-term retention

of heavy precipitation, which

characterises all described soil

pits.


Average values for pH, clay

content and coarse fraction

result in a model-based

average cation exchange

capacity. As in most of the

described soil pits, the nutrient

cycle regulation service at this

profile is provided

moderately.


cycle) 5




5

7 REFERENCES

Gruber F.E., Schaber E., Baruck J., Geitner C. (2019) How and to what extent does topography control

the results of soil function assessment: a case study from the Alps in South Tyrol (Italy), Soil Syst.

2019, 3, 18; doi:10.3390/soilsystems3010018

Waldtypisierung Tirol, 2019. Waldtypenhandbuch. Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung.

Innsbruck, AT

Links4Soils Deliverable D.T3.1.1. - Applicable soil thematic maps on soil degradation threats with

explanatory manual for forest planners and practitioners

Links4Soils Deliverable D.T3.1.4. - Transnational implementation guidelines of soil protection in

forest management practices

8 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Soil-based Ecosystem Services in relation to groups of soil functions. The functions “habitat

for crops” ,“groundwater recharge” and “retention of precipitation (average kf)” were excluded 30

Table 2: Conversion table from three soil functions to the SbES "Habitat provision and biodiversity".

Since habitats for moisture-tolerant and drought-tolerant species exclude each other, only the

higher level of function fulfilment of both is considered. ....................................................................... 31

Table 3: Conversion table from two soil functions to the SbES "Surface runoff regulation". Since the

one function – i.e. retention of precipitation – was calculated with two different algorithms (based on

average or minimum kf), only one result (i.e. level based on min kf) is considered. .................... 31

Table 4: Conversion table from one soil function to the SbES "Nutrient cycle regulation". Since only

one soil function is relevant for the SbES, the levels stay unchanged. .............................................. 31

Table 5: Conversion table from one soil function to the SbES "Global climate regulation (carbon

cycle)". Since only one soil function is relevant for the SbES, the levels stay unchanged. ......... 32

Table 6: Conversion table from five soil functions to the SbES "Water filtration and purification".

Since all functions are likewise important to avoid different pollutants in surface and groundwater

bodies, all of them are considered and equally weighted. ..................................................................... 32

Table 7: Summary of SbES evaluation given to the soil pits of Prägraten and soil management

categories assigned for biomass use and compaction risk .................................................................... 33

Table 8: Legend assigning colours to intervals of soil chemical properties: these intervals set the

baseline for the traffic light colours definition ............................................................................................ 34

Tables 9a,b: Levels of fulfilment assigned with SEPP tool to 12 functions for pit L4S1 (a), followed by

5 derived Soil(-based) Ecosystem Services evaluation (b) ...................................................................... 36


5 derived Soil(-based) Ecosystem Services evaluation with comments (b) ...................................... 38




5 derived Soil(-based) Ecosystem Services evaluations with comments (b) .................................... 40





9 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Case study area showing L4S pits and forest cover ................................................................ 29

Figure 2: Barplots representing the distribution of the soil function levels of fulfilment (1 - very low

to to 5 - very high) of the 5 soil profiles described in the case study area of Prägraten ............ 30

Figure 3: Description of physical and chemical properties of soil pit L4S1, with resulting biomass use

and compaction risk effect categories ........................................................................................................... 35











7

ABOUT THE LINKS4SOILS PROJECT

Web links

Links4Soils results web page: Alpine Soil Platform – www.alpinesoils.eu

Links4Soils Interreg Alpine Space project web page: www.alpine-space.eu/projects/links4soils

Links4Soils project partners

Agricultural Institute of Slovenia, SI (project leader)

Kmetijski inštitut Slovenije

Slovenia Forest Service, SI

Zavod za gozdove Slovenije

Office of the Tyrolean Government, AT

Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung

Climate Alliance Tirol, AT

Klimabündnis Tirol

Institute of Geography, University of Innsbruck, AT

Institut für Geographie, Universität Innsbruck

University of Turin, Department of Agricultural, Forest and

Food Sciences, IT

Università degli Studi di Torino, Dipartimento di Scienze

Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari

Autonomous Region of Aosta Valley, IT

Regione autonoma Valle d´Aosta

National Research Institute of Science and Technology for

the Environment and Agriculture, Grenoble Regional Centre,

FR

Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies

pour l'environnement et l'agriculture, Grenoble

http://www.alpinesoils.eu/

http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/links4soils



Municipality of Kaufering, DE

Markt Kaufering

the concept and test of sustainable forest management using the … · 2020-05-20 · tourism...

Documents