National Forest Inventory Contributions to Forest Biodiversity

Monitoring
Gherardo Chirici, Ronald E. McRoberts, Susanne Winter, Roberta Bertini, Urs-Beat Brändli,
Iciar Alberdi Asensio, Annemarie Bastrup-Birk, Jacques Rondeux, Nadia Barsoum, and
Marco Marchetti

Abstract: Forests are the most biodiverse terrestrial ecosystems. National forest inventories (NFIs) are the main
source of information on the status and trends of forests, but they have traditionally been designed to assess land
coverage and the production value of forests rather than forest biodiversity. The primary international processes
dealing with biodiversity and sustainable forest management, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
Forest Europe, Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators 2010 of the European Environmental Agency, and
the Montréal Process, all include indicators related to forest biodiversity. The scope of this article is to review

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023

and present possibilities offered by NFIs to harmonize estimation of indicators useful for international forest
biodiversity monitoring and reporting. We summarize key findings from Working Group 3 of Action E43
(“Harmonisation of National Forest Inventories in Europe: Techniques for Common Reporting”) of the European
program Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST). We discuss definitions and techniques for harmo-
nizing estimates of possible biodiversity indicators based on data from NFIs in Europe and the United States. We
compare these possible indicators with indicators selected by international processes. The results demonstrate
that NFIs can report comparable or harmonized estimates of indicators for multiple biodiversity features (forest
categories, deadwood, forest age, forest structure, and forest naturalness), but for others (ground vegetation and
regeneration) NFIs should invest more in harmonization efforts. On the basis of these key findings, we
recommend that NFIs should represent a main component of a future global biodiversity monitoring network as
urgently requested by the CBD. FOR. SCI. 58(3):257–268.
Keywords: COST Action E43, international references, harmonization, biodiversity indicator, naturalness,
forest type, deadwood, forest age, regeneration

F
OREST ECOSYSTEMS HAVE THE POTENTIAL to harbor
greater levels of biological diversity than any other
terrestrial ecosystem (Lindenmayer and Franklin
2002). This biodiversity includes vertebrates such as mam-
mals and birds, invertebrates, and microbes (Chapman
2009). Many forest species depend on forest habitats for
only parts of their life cycles, whereas others are completely
forest-dependent. Some trees and other plant species may be
considered foundational in the sense that their loss would be
particularly devastating because of the cascade of species
extinctions that would follow (Gaston and Spicer 2004,
Ellison et al. 2005).
Human-induced environmental effects such as climate
change, introduction of invasive species, intensive cuttings,
and pollution pose serious threats to forest biodiversity. As
a result, biodiversity in all three of its main components,
genes, species, and ecosystems, is declining (Convention on
Biological Diversity [CBD] 2010a). For these reasons, in-
ternational agreements that focus on halting the loss of
forest biodiversity and on monitoring the maintenance of
ecosystems integrity have been established.
The CBD set as a target “to achieve by 2010 a significant
reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the
global, regional and national level” (United Nations Envi-
ronment Program [UNEP] 2002). As expected (Pereira and
Cooper 2006), this target was not met (CBD 2010a). During
the tenth Conference of the Parties (COP) held in Aichi,
Japan, in 2010, the CBD adopted Decision X/2 for the
implementation of the strategic plan for biodiversity
2011/2020 and established the 20 Aichi targets. Aichi

Manuscript received January 13, 2012; accepted March 21, 2012; published online May 3, 2012; http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/forsci.12-003.
Gherardo Chirici, Università degli Studi del Molise, Pesche, Isernia 86090, Italy—Phone: 0039-0874-404138; gherardo.chirici@unimol.it. Ronald E.
McRoberts, US Forest Service. Susanne Winter, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany. Roberta Bertini, Università degli Studi di Florence, Italy.
Urs-Beat Brändli, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Switzerland. Iciar Alberdi Asensio, CIFOR-INIA. Annemarie Bastrup-Birk, University of
Copenhagen, Denmark. Jacques Rondeux, University of Liège, Gembloux Agro-Bio-Tech, Belgium. Nadia Barsoum, Forest Research, United Kingdom.
Marco Marchetti, Università degli Studi del Molise, Italy.
Acknowledgments: This article was prepared within the framework of the activities of Working Group 3: “Contribution Of Field Data Acquired in NFI for
Forest Biodiversity Assessment” led by Gherardo Chirici and Susanne Winter of COST Action E43 “Harmonisation of National Forest Inventories in Europe:
Techniques for Common Reporting” (chaired by Prof. Erkki Tomppo). The online interface and the first questionnaire database system was implemented by
Alessandro Mastronardi (GM Studio, Italy). We thank all the people who responded to the questionnaire and participated in the activities of WG3 of COST
Action E43 together with the authors: Albertas Kasperavicius for Lithuania, Anna-Lena Axelsson for Sweden, Vivian Kvist Johannssen for Denmark, Attila
Kismarczi for Hungary, Catherine Cluzeau and Nabila Hamza for France, Christine Sanchez for Belgium, Elmar Hauk for Austria, Sonia Condés and Santiago
Saura Martínez de Toda for Spain, Ioizos Ioizou for Cyprus, Jana Beranova for Czech Republic, Jan-Erik Nilsen for Norway, Marko Kovac for Slovenia,
Dieter Pelz for Germany, Tarmo Tolm for Estonia, Teocharis Zagas for Greece, Tiina Tonteri and Helena Makela for Finland, Vladimir Caboun for Slovakia,
Paulo Godinho Ferreira for Portugal and Vittorio Tosi, Patrizia Gasparini, Anna Barbati, Piermaria Corona, Nicola Puletti, and Ugo Chiavetta for Italy.
Copyright © 2012 by the Society of American Foresters.

Forest Science 58(3) 2012 257

Target 5 requires that by 2020 the loss of all natural habitats,
including forests, is halved and, if feasible, stopped. Aichi
target 7 requires that by 2020 areas under agriculture, aqua-
culture, and forestry be sustainably managed, thus ensuring
conservation of biodiversity (CBD 2010b).
Because of the broad, multidimensional, and multiscale
characteristics of biodiversity, it is clear that a successful
and statistically rigorous monitoring program able to track
changes over time and space must be based on indicators
(Puumalainen et al. 2003, Boutin et al. 2009). Otherwise,
a global monitoring program covering the comprehensive
concept of biodiversity would be financially prohibitive.
Nevertheless collecting, storing, and analyzing large amounts
of data for estimating biodiversity indicators is still expen-
sive (Green et al. 2005).
A very large number of publications in the last 20 years
have proposed requisite characteristics for biodiversity in-
dicators. However, despite expending considerable effort to
create order in this complex discipline, many issues are still
open for discussion (Duelli and Obrist 2003, Levrel 2007,
Maclaurin and Sterelny 2008, Lamb et al. 2009).
This condition is reflected in the difficulty of effectively
summarizing and communicating methodological problems
and results from biodiversity monitoring to a wide range of
stakeholders (Lamb et al. 2009). A result is that the return
on the investment of large sums of money devoted to the
broad objective of biodiversity monitoring has been mini-
mal (Boutin et al. 2009). The failure to achieve the 2010
CBD target was a clear demonstration that natural features
such as biodiversity that do not have accepted measurement
systems are often marginalized in decisionmaking processes
related to land management and nature conservation issues
(Norton 1998).
We consider four sets of indicators that have been ac-
cepted at the international level, two specifically related to
biodiversity monitoring and two established for monitoring
the sustainable management of forest resources. All at least
partially pertain to monitoring forest biodiversity.
The CBD, in its Decision VII/30 of the 7th COP held in
February 2004 in Kuala Lumpur, expressed the need to
develop a framework to better evaluate progress in the
implementation of the Strategic Plan to reduce the rate of
loss of biodiversity by 2010 and agreed to a provisional list
of 17 headline indicators from seven focal areas. Currently,
29 indicators exist as state-of-the-art result of the activities
of a wide range of organizations including United Nations
agencies, research institutes and universities, and non-
governmental organizations within the framework of the
Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP) (2011). Of the
29 BIP indicators, four explicitly pertain to forest habitats
(1.1.1 Extent of forests and forest types, 2.1.1 and 2.1.2
Area of forest under sustainable management, and 4.3.1
Forest fragmentation), but many others are also directly or
indirectly related to forest habitats.
The European Commission, through the European Envi-
ronmental Agency (EEA), is implementing the Strategic
Plan for the Conservation of Biological Diversity of the
CBD through the SEBI2010 initiative (Streamlining Euro-
pean 2010 Biodiversity Indicators). SEBI2010 developed a
set of 26 indicators to track biodiversity changes as a means
258 Forest Science 58(3) 2012
of monitoring progress toward achieving the 2010 European
objective of halting the loss of biodiversity (EEA 2007).
Although many of these indicators are general, 14 are rel-
evant for forest ecosystems (EEA 2011), and two are spe-
cific for forests: forest growing stock, increment, and fell-
ings (Indicator 17); and forest deadwood (Indicator 18).
Indicator 17 is intended to monitor the ratio between har-
vesting and increments with a positive ecological value,
indicating that harvesting does not exceed increment. Indi-
cator 18 is intended to monitor deadwood as a proxy for
naturalness by substituting for the “unmeasurable” diversity
of invertebrate species (EEA 2011).
Since 1990, Forest Europe, the former Ministerial Con-
ference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE),
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023
has adopted four resolutions requiring evaluations of the
degree to which forests are sustainably managed (MCPFE
1997, 2003a, 2007). MCPFE criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management (MCPFE 2003b) include
Criterion 4, “maintenance, conservation and appropriate
enhancement of forest biodiversity,” with nine indicators:
tree species composition, regeneration, naturalness, intro-
duced tree species, deadwood, genetic resources, landscape
pattern, threatened forest species, and protected forests.
More recently, in the last MCPFE held in Oslo in June 2011,
Forest Europe reiterated commitments to work toward ad-
dressing global environmental challenges and contributing
to achievement of the Aichi targets (Forest Europe 2011).
The Montréal Process deals with sustainable forest man-
agement in temperate and boreal forests in 12 countries
outside Europe. This process has also identified criteria and
indicators for sustainable forest management including
Criterion 1, “conservation of forest biodiversity,” with nine
indicators for ecosystem, species, and genetic diversity
(Montréal Process 2007).
National Forest Inventories
Historically, forest inventories have been conducted to
obtain information on the productive function of forests.
Large-scale inventories date back only to the early 20th
century: 1919 in Norway, 1921 in Finland, 1923 in Sweden
(Köhl and Brassel, 1999), and 1928 in the United States.
During the later 20th century, many European countries
developed and implemented national forest inventories
(NFIs) that feature probability sampling designs.
Now, NFIs must report on a wider array of forest goods
and services. The shift from inventorying for wood produc-
tion purposes to multipurpose resource monitoring, includ-
ing biodiversity objectives, has required the definition of
new NFI objectives, new sampling designs, and new esti-
mation procedures (Lund 1986, Iles 1998, Köhl et al. 1995,
Corona and Marchetti 2007). Because these redesigned
NFIs are more comprehensive than wood production inven-
tories, they are increasingly regarded as a primary source
of reliable data for monitoring forest biodiversity (Corona
et al. 2011).
Different NFIs use different definitions of the invento-
ried variables with the result that estimates from different
countries cannot be aggregated without introducing errors
(Traub et al. 1997, Cienciala et al. 2008). Two approaches
have been proposed for circumventing this problem. Köhl
et al. (2000) describe the first, standardization, as a top-
down approach that follows a common system of nomen-
clature and focuses on common standards with respect to
NFI definitions and methods. The second approach, harmo-
nization, is based on the acknowledgment that individual
countries have developed the unique features of their NFIs
for specific purposes and are justified in their desire to
maintain them. Harmonization is a bottom-up approach that
focuses on developing methods for producing comparable
estimates despite the lack of standardization.
NFIs usually operate independently from each other and,
as a result, have developed definitions and methods that
are optimized for local and national conditions. In 2004,
COST Action E43, “Harmonisation of National Forest In-
ventories in Europe: Techniques for Common Reporting,”
was launched with the aim of enhancing NFIs for purposes
of harmonizing national and global reporting. For the first
time, methods and definitions adopted by NFIs were com-
pared to identify possible technical solutions for improving
international forest attribute estimates based on the aggre-
gation of comparable national estimates. A technique for
adjusting estimates based on a national definition to con-
form to a common international reference definition is
called a bridge in COST Action E43 (Ståhl et al. 2012).
The specific role of Working Group 3 (WG3) of COST
Action E43 was to evaluate the possible use of NFI data for
international forest biodiversity reporting, in other words, to
study possible technical solutions to harmonize estimates of
forest biodiversity indicators based on NFI data acquired by
countries using their national definitions. This task included
development of common reference definitions and construc-
tion of bridges for converting estimates based on a national
definition to estimates based on a reference definition.
Scope of the Article
A global monitoring network for biodiversity does not
exist, and its development and implementation would be
extremely expensive (Green et al. 2005). However, without
financial resources, scientists are able to develop only lim-
ited data sets that are used mainly for research purposes
(Levrel et al. 2010), they are limited to incomplete thematic
or temporal coverage, and they rarely consider methods for
integration at multiple scales (Mace et al. 2005, Pereira and
Cooper 2006). In addition, merging local monitoring pro-
grams is almost impossible because of the lack of compa-
rability of methods and definitions. As a consequence, their
results are too local or too restricted to specific objectives to
attract additional financial resources. In this context it is
essential to explore the possibilities for using existing data
sets for monitoring biodiversity.
The general aim of this article was to review and sum-
marize the work of WG3 of COST Action E43. The results
achieved are analyzed to understand the potential role of
NFIs as sources of information for forest biodiversity mon-
itoring as required by international processes. With com-
pletion of COST Action E43, an assessment of the degree
to which the achievements of WG3 can contribute to the
broader task of international biodiversity reporting is appro-
priate. Thus, we focus on indicators developed by WG3
using a bottom-up approach that can be estimated in a
harmonized manner using NFI data and that have also been
selected using a top-down approach by international pro-
cesses (CBD, SEBI2010, Forest Europe, and the Montréal
Process). More specific aims are threefold: to identify forest
biodiversity indicators whose estimates can be harmonized
using NFI data; to recommend changes to NFI protocols to
facilitate harmonized estimation of forest biodiversity indi-
cators for purposes of international reporting; and to high-
light areas for future investigations related to the use of
NFI data for harmonized estimation of forest biodiversity
indicators.
First, we report how potential forest biodiversity indica-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023
tors based on NFI data were developed by WG3 of COST
Action E43, and second, we compare them with indicators
selected by international processes to highlight gaps and
synergies. Finally, we present specific recommendations to
facilitate the future harmonization of NFIs as a means of
increasing the utility of their data for international forest
biodiversity reporting.
Materials and Methods
NFIs provide raw data useful for harmonized estimation
of forest biodiversity indicators. The work done by WG3 of
COST Action E43 did not consider all possible aspects of
forest biodiversity but rather focused on seven essential
features identified using a bottom-up approach (Chirici
et al. 2011). First, a preliminary list of 41 forest variables
potentially useful for monitoring forest biodiversity was
compiled on the basis of the suggestions from COST Action
E43 participants, a review of the literature on biodiversity
indicators (Noss 1999, Hyman and Leibowitz 2001), re-
porting requirements for international agreements such as
the CBD (1992, UNEP 2003) and indicators of sustainable
forest management selected by Forest Europe (MCPFE
1997, 2003a, 2003b), the Montréal Process (Montréal
Process 2007), and the SEBI2010 (EEA 2003). Consider-
ation was also given to the results of the Biodiversity
Evaluation Tools for European Forests BEAR project
(Larsson 2001). Second, responses to a questionnaire were
solicited from NFI delegates from 21 European countries
and the USA (Figure 1).
The variables identified as most important for forest
biodiversity monitoring and most feasible for assessment
using NFI field protocols (Figure 2) were grouped into
seven essential features (Chirici et al. 2011): forest catego-
ries, forest structure, deadwood, regeneration, forest age,
ground vegetation, and naturalness. For each essential fea-
ture, detailed information regarding spatial and temporal
characteristics of the sampling designs, country definitions,
field measurement procedures, and related inventorying
protocols and methods were acquired for 25 European coun-
tries and the United States. Information was also acquired
through a bibliographic review of technical documentation
produced by the NFIs and by soliciting details from par-
ticipants in COST Action E43. The results in terms of
relevance for forest biodiversity monitoring and of differ-
ences and similarities across the NFIs are presented by
Forest Science 58(3) 2012 259
 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023
Figure 1. Number of forest biodiversity variables currently assessed by the NFIs of European countries
and by the United States of the 41 proposed in the first questionnaire developed by WG3 of COST Action
E43. See Chirici et al. (2011) for a detailed description of the variables investigated.

Figure 2. Result of the ranking analysis on the basis of importance and feasibility for the 41 variables
investigated in the first questionnaire of COST Action E43 WG3. See Chirici et al. (2011) for a detailed
description of the variables investigated.

260 Forest Science 58(3) 2012

Chirici et al. (2011). For features for which similarities
prevail, international reference definitions for biodiversity
indicators were also proposed, and, for some indicators,
reference definitions and bridges were empirically tested
using actual NFI data to assess the realistic prospects for
harmonized estimation and reporting (Winter et al. 2008,
Chirici et al. 2011, McRoberts et al. 2012, Rondeux et al.
2012).
The biodiversity indicators based on NFI variables re-
ported by Chirici et al. (2011), grouped in essential features,
are compared with indicators adopted by the four inter-
national processes introduced in above: CBD (BIP 2011),
Forest Europe (MCPFE 2003b), the Montréal Process (Mon-
tréal Process 2007), and SEBI2010 (EEA 2011) (Table 1).
We did not consider indicators from the four international
processes that are already known to be easily estimated
using data routinely acquired by NFIs such as growing
stock, increments, fellings, and level and type of forest
management. In addition, landscape-level indicators for the
four international biodiversity sets were not investigated
using NFI data. Finally, the WG3 indicators developed for
the “ground vegetation” and “regeneration” essential fea-
tures are only briefly discussed because possibilities for
their harmonized estimation are very limited. Future pros-
pects for international harmonization of estimates of bio-
diversity indicators based on NFI data are presented in the
Conclusions.
Results
Forest Category
A forest type is “a category of forest defined by its
composition, and/or site factors (locality), as categorized by
each country in a system suitable to its situation” (Montréal
Process 2007). Forest area estimates, classified according
to forest categories (forest types, habitats, or ecosystems),
are required by all four international processes (Table 1). In
fact, all estimates of all biodiversity indicators should be
compared only within homogeneous ecological conditions
(Larsson 2001) classified according to a common forest
type system of nomenclature (Barbati et al. 2007). On the
basis of the results from WG3 of COST Action E43, NFIs
are able to provide harmonized estimates for this basic
indicator.
The NFIs of 19 countries (76%) responding to the WG3
questionnaire have already adopted systems to classify for-
ests into categories for stratification or reporting purposes.
These systems are based on potential natural vegetation
(Switzerland), actual vegetation (7 countries), or a combi-
nation of the two (11 countries). NFI plots are classified by
forest category on the basis of field observations only (50%
of the countries), a combination of field observations and
geographic information system layers, or remotely sensed
data.
WG3 proposed the European Forest Types (EFTs) sys-
tem of nomenclature as an international reference. This
system was recently developed (EEA 2006) with the objec-
tive of improving future reporting of the state of European
forests (EEA 2008) or for processes such as Forest Europe.
NFI plots should be unequivocally classified into one
of the 14 EFT categories during field assessment or using
data collected previously. Chirici et al. (2011) demonstrated
that data on tree species and dbh from calipering and the
geographic location of plots are the main information
needed for classifying more than 8,000 NFI plots from 14
countries representing all the main biogeographical regions
into the 14 EFTs categories. The classification methods
were developed by each country separately on the basis of
the reference definitions from EEA (2006). Some countries
implemented the classification using automated algorithms
to ensure objectivity and repeatability of the classification.
For countries outside Europe, development of a specific
system of nomenclature congruent with the EFTs should be
considered.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023
However, regardless of the adopted reference definitions,
NFIs are generally able to develop techniques for bridging
gaps between national and common international reference
nomenclature systems using raw NFI data to report esti-
mates based on a common system of nomenclature. Al-
though different terminology (e.g.: forest types, ecosystems,
habitats) may be used, the indicator proposed by WG3 is
similar to the indicators selected by the international proc-
esses (Table 1).
Deadwood
All deadwood components including dead trees, stumps,
and fine and coarse woody debris are essential to forest
ecosystem dynamics by providing food and habitat for taxa
such as fungi, arthropods, birds, insects, and epiphytic li-
chens (Christensen et al. 2005, Lombardi et al. 2010,
Rondeux et al. 2012). Deadwood is also an important forest
carbon pool whose assessment must be reported for inter-
national agreements (Stokland et al. 2004, Cienciala et al.
2008, Woodall et al. 2008).
Deadwood is an indicator only for SEBI2010 and Forest
Europe, not for the CBD or the Montréal Process (Table 1).
Deadwood is assessed by most NFIs responding to the WG3
questionnaire; the only exceptions are Hungary, Romania,
and Cyprus. However, the NFIs of all countries do not
assess all deadwood components. Deadwood components
are classified by NFIs on the basis of their spatial position,
shape, and dimension with respect to multiple variables:
standing or lying; coarse or fine; and stumps, trunks, snags
or full trees (Gschwantner et al. 2009). The NFIs of the
responding countries use different definitions for the dead-
wood components, and even within a single NFI, different
components are inventoried in the field using different
protocols. Rondeux et al. (2012) and Chirici et al. (2011)
provide more detailed information on the varied deadwood
assessment protocols.
The main deadwood variables reported by all NFIs are
total volume with additional information related to the tree
species of deadwood element, the spatial position (laying or
standing), and the decomposition stage. The deadwood in-
dicator proposed by WG3 is not only closely related to the
indicators selected by SEBI2010 and Forest Europe but the
definitions and terminology are also consistent. Because
estimates of deadwood volume (and biomass) can be re-
ported by most NFIs participating in COST Action E43 and
Forest Science 58(3) 2012 261
Table 1. List of potential relationships between biodiversity indicators.

WG3 of COST Action E43

Essential
features Indicators
Forest category 1.1 Forest category
Deadwood 2.1 Deadwood volume
by decay class, tree
species, horizontal/
vertical position
Forest structure 3.1 Relative abundance 1.40.1 Red List Index
CBD, BIP indicators Forest Europe SEBI2010 Montréal Process
1.10.1 Extent of forest 1.1 Forest area 4 Ecosystem coverage 1.1.a Area and percentage
and forest types 5 Habitats of European of forest by forest
interest ecosystem type,
successional stage,
age class, and forest
ownership or tenure
4.5 Deadwood 18 Forest: deadwood
4.1 Tree species 2 Red List Index from 1.2.a Number of native

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023

of native tree and Sampled composition European species forest-associated
species in terms of Red List Index species
basal area
3.2 Number of native 4.4 Introduced tree 3 Species of European interest
tree species Species
3.3 Proportion of plots 4.8 Threatened forest 10 Invasive alien species in 1.2.b Number and status
with 1, 2, 3, and species Europe of native forest-
more native tree 11 Occurrence of temperature- associated species at
species sensitive species risk, as determined
by legislation or
scientific assessment
3.4 Largest diameter
trees
3.5 SD of the tree
heights
3.6 Number of vertical
layers
3.7 Frequency
distribution of SD
classes of dbh
Forest age 4.1 Dominant age: 1.3 Age structure
mean age of the and/or diameter
100 trees with the distribution
largest dbh on a
per ha basis
4.2 Mean age
4.3 Weighted mean age
4.4 Old trees:
proportion of trees
older than half of
their natural life
span
Naturalness 5.1 Naturalness 4.3 Naturalness
Regeneration 6.1 Regeneration 4.2 Regeneration
(investigated but
no indicators
proposed)
Not investigated 4.30.1 Forest 4.7 Landscape 13 Fragmentation of natural 1.1.c Fragmentation of
fragmentation pattern and seminatural areas forests
2.10.1 Area of forest 3.5 Forests under
under sustainable management
management: plans
certification
2.10.2 Area of forest 1.2 Growing stock 17 Forest: growing stock, 2.b Total growing stock
under sustainable 3.1 Increment and increment and fellings and annual increment
management: fellings of both merchantable
degradation and and nonmerchantable
deforestation tree species in forests
available for wood
production
2.d Annual harvest of
wood products as a
percentage of net
growth or sustained
yield

Biodiversity indicators considered in WG3 of COST Action E43 (Chirici et al. 2011), CBD (BIP 2011), Forest Europe (MCPFE 2003b), SEBI2010 (EEA 2007), and the Montréal
Process (Montréal Process 2007). The table was created including the indicators considered in WG3 of COST Action E43 with positive harmonization possibilities (ground
vegetation was therefore excluded). For each COST Action E43 WG3 indicator, the most relevant indicators from the international processes were listed, those COST Action
E43 WG3 indicators we consider directly useful to express at least one of the indicators proposed in the international processes are highlighted in bold. Essential features used
in COST Action E43 WG3 to group the indicators are listed in the first column.

262 Forest Science 58(3) 2012

because of the positive prospects for harmonizing NFI-
based estimates of deadwood reported by Rondeux et al.
(2012), this indicator should be considered by all interna-
tional processes, specifically by the CBD and the Montréal
Process, which still do not consider it.
Forest Structure
Forest structure relates to the physical organization of
forest elements with respect to composition and complexity
(Chirici et al. 2011). Forest structure is an essential biodi-
versity feature that aggregates information for multiple vari-
ables such as tree species composition and vertical and
horizontal structure (e.g., tree dimensions and development
phases). The degree to which forests provide habitats is
strictly related to the diversity of their structure as repre-
sented by a naturalness gradient (Bartha et al. 2006, Michel
and Winter 2009). Thus, forest structural complexity is
correlated with richness in flora and fauna (MacMahon et al.
1981, De Graaf et al. 1998, Winter et al. 2005, Winter and
Möller 2008, McRoberts 2009).
The four international sets of indicators all include at
least one indicator related to species composition, but none
explicitly mentions measures of horizontal or vertical forest
stand diversity (Table 1). However, Forest Europe and the
Montréal Process include indicators for age and succes-
sional stage, which are related to horizontal and vertical
diversity. NFI data can easily be used to produce compara-
ble estimates of internationally accepted indicators of spe-
cies composition when the target species are inventoried;
otherwise the NFI protocol should be modified to include
them. NFIs are the most important sources of information
for estimating tree diversity indicators in forest areas. In this
case, harmonization should be based on common definitions
of “tree” and “forest” (Vidal et al. 2008) and must use data
from sampling units with at least similar configurations and
dimensions. As an alternative, bridging techniques must be
developed to compensate for the effects of differences be-
tween national and reference definitions and different sam-
pling procedures. McRoberts et al. (2009) demonstrated the
effects of plot size and minimum dbh on estimates of forest
structure indicators such as indices of species composition,
number of layers, and dbh diversity. Bridging techniques to
compensate for differences in minimum dbh are relatively
easy, but techniques to compensate for differences in plot
sizes require distances from plot centers to individual trees,
data that are seldom available, even if they are acquired by
the NFIs.
A large number of variables traditionally assessed by
NFIs can potentially be used as the basis for forest structure
indicators: tree dbh, tree height, tree species, forest density
(number of trees per unit area), spatial tree distribution (e.g.,
distance to the nearest neighbor tree), tree social position,
crown layering, species distribution by crown layer, and
information on forest gaps, edges, and development phases.
Tree species, tree diameter, tree height, and forest density
are the only four variables that are assessed by the NFIs of
at least 25 of the 26 countries responding to the WG3
questionnaire, although density, social position, and vertical
layers are also assessed by most NFIs.
In contrast, the possibility for reporting harmonized es-
timates of diversity indicators for nontree life-forms on the
basis of NFI data is very limited. For example, the definition
for nontree vegetation (defined as the essential feature
“ground vegetation” in WG3 of COST Action E43) varies
across countries. Shrubs are the most common life-form;
they are recorded in all responding countries, followed by
herbs, ferns, mosses, lichens, and finally liverworts. Cover-
age quantified by the Braun-Blanquet (1965) scale or a
modification of it is the most frequently measured attribute
in NFIs for every ground vegetation life-form (Chirici et al.
2011). Because of differences in definitions and in field
procedures, NFIs currently have only very limited possibil-
ities for providing harmonized estimates of biodiversity
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023
indicators for nontree life-forms, with the exception of the
simple indicators reported by Chirici et al. (2011).
Finally, it should be noted that Forest Europe explicitly
considers tree regeneration as an indicator (Table 1). Most
NFIs collect and record information that can be used to
characterize spatial and temporal patterns of forest regen-
eration, an essential feature identified by WG3 of COST
Action E43. However, the ability to harmonize estimates
of regeneration is greatly impeded by differences in sam-
pling methods; further, bridging techniques to compensate
for these differences are not readily apparent (Chirici et al.
2011). Thus, harmonization of estimates of regeneration indi-
cators may require agreement on basic sampling components.
Indicators proposed by WG3 that are similar to those
selected by the four international processes are limited to
compositional indicators for tree life-forms. International
sets of indicators explicitly focus more on the assessment of
species included in predefined lists (e.g., endangered spe-
cies in red lists, indigenous/native species, and invasive/
alien species) than on indicators of forest structure based on
NFI measurements. However, structural indicators are indi-
rectly related to age and successional stage indicators that
have been selected by international processes.
Forest Age
A large number of studies confirm that the ages of trees
and forest stands are good candidates for biodiversity indi-
cators (Halpern and Spies 1995, Pitkänen 1997, Rambo and
Muir 1998a, 1998b, Jonsson and Jonsell 1999, Deconchat
and Balent 2001, McGee and Kimmerer 2002, Poulsen
2002, Müller et al. 2005, Brändli et al. 2007). Despite its
scientific relevance, forest age is an indicator selected only
by Forest Europe among the four international processes
(Table 1).
Tree age is defined identically by all NFIs as the bio-
logical or actual age of individual trees determined as the
time elapsed between the germination and the measurement
date. In coppice systems, tree age is defined as the biolog-
ical age of the aboveground tree stem, and in plantations age
is usually based on the planting date.
Forest age is estimated by the NFIs of 96% of the
participating countries in WG3 of COST Action E43, al-
though only a few (Austria, Finland, Slovakia, Sweden,
United Kingdom, and Switzerland) estimate forest age on
the basis of tree age (as the median or a weighted average of
Forest Science 58(3) 2012 263
individual tree ages). However, forest age is estimated pri-
marily only for even-aged stands.
Three forest age indicators were tested by WG3: domi-
nant age expressed as the proportion of old plots; stand age
expressed as the proportion of stands older than 120 years in
even-aged high forest; and tree age expressed as the mean
number and proportion of old trees per hectare (Chirici et al.
2011). A test with actual NFI data from 14 countries was
conducted, and the results demonstrated that an indicator
based on forest age as reported by NFIs is problematic
because of differences in local methods and definitions and
therefore is not recommended. The proposed indicators by
WG3 can instead be estimated on the basis of tree ages
measured in the field and thus are directly comparable
across countries. Ages for trees that are not measured can be
estimated with local relationships between age and dbh.
Although terminology and definitions may differ, the
indicators proposed by WG3 are related to indicators se-
lected by Forest Europe. Because of the scientific relevance
of forest age and because NFIs are able to provide compa-
rable estimates at the international level, this indicator could
be considered for adoption by all the other international
processes.
Naturalness
Despite the explicit selection of naturalness as an indi-
cator only by Forest Europe (Table 1), the concept of forest
naturalness is particularly relevant for forest biodiversity
monitoring because it pertains to the degree to which forest
ecosystems are characterized by natural processes and/or
the absence of human influence. Definitions of naturalness
vary considerably (Šaudytė et al. 2005, McRoberts et al.
2012, Winter 2012), but all relate to a continuum
with entirely natural and entirely artificial at the extremes
(Angermeier 2000).
Two perspectives on naturalness serve as a basis for
approximately complementary approaches to its assess-
ment. The first approach is based on an assessment of
ecosystem processes. The advantage of this approach is that
the assessment focuses on the subject of primary concern,
the ecosystem, whereas the disadvantages are the difficul-
ties in defining and measuring parameters that relate to
ecosystem processes and that can be evaluated in a globally
consistent manner at broad geographical scales. The second
approach is based on the degree of human influence and
focuses on human activity as the driver of ecosystem dis-
turbance. Jalas (1955) introduced the term hemeroby, from
the Greek hemeros meaning cultivated, tamed, or refined, as
a measure of human impact on ecosystems.
Although naturalness is a more familiar concept in Eu-
rope than elsewhere, even in Europe, little natural forest
remains. Branquart and Latham (2007) reported proportions
of natural forest ranging from 0.001 in Western Europe to
0.083 in Northern Europe. Generally, countries with the
least forest area characterized as natural or close to natural
do not explicitly assess naturalness.
McRoberts et al. (2012) evaluated 10 possible indicators
for assessing naturalness using data for forest variables
traditionally acquired by NFIs. Of the 10, 2 relate primarily
264 Forest Science 58(3) 2012
to the hemeroby approach, 6 relate primarily to the eco-
systems approach, and 2 have been proposed for use with
both approaches. One constraint was that estimates for all
the indicators were sensitive in varying degrees to minimum
dbh and plot size.
The indicators proposed by WG3 are closely related to
that one proposed by Forest Europe, although definitions
and terminology vary considerably.
Discussion
The work carried out by WG3 of COST Action E43
demonstrated that variables currently assessed by NFIs
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023
may be used for harmonized estimation of a large number
of forest biodiversity indicators. These indicators include
many that have been selected by international processes for
monitoring biodiversity and for assessing the sustainability
of forest management.
A comparison of the biodiversity indicators proposed
by WG3 with similar biodiversity indicators selected by
four international processes is shown in Table 1. Of the
16 indicators developed by WG3 (Table 1), 10 coincide at
least partially with indicators for at least one of the inter-
national sets of biodiversity indicators.
The results represented in Table 1 may be summarized
using three categories:
1. For some cases, a good correspondence was found
between the indicators selected by all the four inter-
national processes and those proposed by NFI experts
and scientists participating in WG3 of COST Action
E43. For these cases, data currently acquired by NFIs
are available and may be used for harmonized estima-
tion of biodiversity indicators for international report-
ing. These cases include forest area and its classifica-
tion into forest types, habitats, or ecosystem types.
The definition of forest area has been accepted inter-
nationally (Vidal et al. 2008), and proposals for com-
mon forest type systems of nomenclatures are avail-
able, at least for Europe (EEA 2006). All four
international sets of indicators include indicators re-
lated to species composition expressed in terms of
species diversity or the presence/absence of species
defined in lists for threatened/introduced/alien/
invasive/native species. However, NFI data are useful
only when the target species are inventoried. Har-
monized estimation of indicators is feasible for tree
species but is still nearly impossible for nontree
vegetation.
2. Some forest biodiversity indicators developed by
WG3 are included among the sets of indicators for
only a subset of the international processes. This is the
case for forest structural diversity, forest age, natural-
ness, and regeneration, which have been selected only
by Forest Europe, and deadwood, which has been
selected only by Forest Europe and SEBI2010. For
these cases we recommend that international groups of
experts consider these indicators for inclusion in fu-
ture updated versions of the indicator sets.
3. Finally, in two cases forest biodiversity indicators
selected by international processes were not investi-
gated by WG3. This is the case for landscape level
indicators and indicators of the diversity of animal life
forms.
Conclusions
Threats to forest biodiversity are abundant, and climate
change is likely to present additional challenges for forest
resource managers and conservationists with respect to the
maintenance of forest diversity. Threats to biodiversity can
be subdivided into four main causes (Gaston and Spicer
2004): (1) direct exploitation; (2) habitat loss and degrada-
tion; (3) introduced species; and (4) extinction cascades.
Multiple international processes (Montréal Process 2007,
BIP 2011, EEA 2011, Forest Europe 2011) require practical
and reliable tools to measure and report on forest biodiver-
sity. These requirements can be satisfied by investing in the
development of statistically rigorous forest biodiversity
monitoring systems that use the same resources routinely
used to monitor forest wood supply (Boutin et al. 2009,
Corona et al. 2011).
WG3 of COST Action E43 proposed multiple forest
biodiversity indicators whose estimation can be harmonized
using available raw NFI data (Chirici et al. 2011). We
compared indicators resulting from two processes: indica-
tors selected by an international process and indicators
developed on the basis of the analysis of existing NFI data.
These two approaches to developing sets of indicators are
clearly different, but they produce surprisingly similar re-
sults. For example, each essential feature identified by WG3
of COST Action E43 is represented by at least one of the
international processes, and 10 of the 16 indicators devel-
oped by WG3 were also selected by one or more of the
international processes. The international sets of indicators
were developed using a top-down approach, i.e., groups of
experts evaluated the potential optimal indicators for mon-
itoring the different aspects and components of biodiversity.
We suggest a future revision of these international sets of
indicators using a bottom-up approach, starting from the
availability of the data and proceeding to selection of indi-
cators whose estimates can be harmonized using existing
and routinely acquired data. Comparable estimates for the
indicators selected should be possible from all the parties
involved in the international processes.
This approach was supported by the Conference of the
Parties of the CBD that recently presented the “Strategic
Goals and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets” (CBD 2010b) for
the period 2011–2020. The second Aichi target specifies
that by 2020, biodiversity values should be incorporated
into national accounting and reporting systems. The Work-
ing Group on Interlinkages of the Streamlining European
Biodiversity Indicators project of the EEA recently empha-
sized that monitoring of biodiversity in Europe needs to be
based on existing data sources (EEA 2011).
Considering that forests are the most biodiverse terres-
trial ecosystems (Kapos and Iremonger 1998), and NFIs are
the most important source of information on status and
trends of forests (Tomppo et al. 2010), NFIs should repre-
sent a main component of any biodiversity monitoring
network.
Based on the information requested by the four interna-
tional processes and the results of research conducted by
WG3 of COST Action E43 (Chirici et al. 2011), we recom-
mend that NFIs invest more in the acquisition of appropriate
data and development of consistent methods for the har-
monized estimation of indicators for ground vegetation and
regeneration (Table 1). Current differences in definitions
and assessment methods still limit the possibility for har-
monizing estimates of these indicators across different
countries. Simplification of bridging techniques may re-
quire that NFIs take steps to standardize definitions, sam-
pling methods, and measurement protocols.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023
The possibility for enlarging the scope of NFI mea-
surements to facilitate biodiversity assessments at different
levels is particularly appealing because well-equipped and
skilled staff routinely conduct NFIs. These possibilities
will be further facilitated by additional exchange of methods
and practices among NFI participants in COST Action E43
and COST Action FP1001 “USEWOOD” and by NFI rep-
resentatives in international working groups on biodiversity
within the framework of the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
Literature Cited
ANGERMEIER, P.L. 2000. The natural imperative for biological
conservation. Conserv. Biol. 14(2):373–381.
BARBATI, A., P. CORONA, AND M. MARCHETTI. 2007. A forest
typology for monitoring sustainable forest management: The
case of European Forest types. Plant Biosyst. 141:93–103.
BARTHA, D., P. ODOR, T. HORVATH, G. TIMAR, K. KENDERES,
T. STANDOVAR, J. BÖLÖNI, F. SZMORAD, L. BODONCZI, AND
R. ASZALO. 2006. Relationship of tree stand heterogeneity and
forest naturalness. Acta Silv. Lignar. Hung. 2:7–22.
BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS PARTNERSHIP. 2011. 2010 BIP biodi-
versity indicators. Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. Avail-
able online at www.bipindicators.net/; last accessed May 14,
2011.
BOUTIN, S., D.L. HAUGHLAND, J. SCHIECK, J. HERBERS, AND
E. BAYNE. 2009. A new approach to forest biodiversity moni-
toring in Canada. For. Ecol. Manag. 258:168 –175.
BRÄNDLI, U.-B., C. BÜHLER, AND A. ZANGGER. 2007. Waldindika-
toren zur Artenvielfalt-Erkenntnisse aus LFI und BDM
Schweiz. Schweiz. Z. For. 158:243–254.
BRANQUART, E., AND J. LATHAM. 2007. Selection criteria for
protected forest areas dedicated to biodiversity conservation
in Europe. In COST Action E27: Protected forest areas in
Europe—Analysis and harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,
conclusions, and recommendations, Frank, G., J. Parviainen, K.
Vanderkerhove, J. Latham, A. Schuck, and D. Little (eds.).
Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural
Hazards and Landscape (BFW), Vienna, Austria.
BRAUN-BLANQUET, J. 1965. Plant sociology: The study of plant
communities. Halner, London, UK.
CHAPMAN, A.D. 2009. Numbers of living species in Australia
and the world. Australian Biological Resources Study. Avail-
able online at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/
publications/other/species-numbers/2009/index.html; last ac-
cessed June 3, 2011.
CHIRICI, G., S. WINTER, AND R.E. MCROBERTS (EDS.). 2011.
Contribution of national forest inventories for forest biodiver-
sity assessment. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. 206 p.
Forest Science 58(3) 2012 265
CHRISTENSEN, M., L. HAHN, E. MOUNTFORD, P. ÓDOR, D. ROZEN-
BERGER, J. DIACI, T. STANDOVAR, S. WIJDEVEN, S. WINTER,
T. VRSKA, AND P. MEYER. 2005. Dead wood in European beech
(Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. For. Ecol. Manag. 210:
267–282.
CIENCIALA, E., E. TOMPPO, A. SNORRASON, M. BROADMEADOW,
A. COLIN, K. DUNGER, Z. EXNEROVA, B. LASSERRE, H. PE-
TERSSON, T. PRIWITZER, G.S. PEÑA, AND G. STÅHL. 2008.
Preparing emission reporting systems from forests: Use of
national forest inventories in European countries. Silva Fenn.
42:73– 88.
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. 1992. Convention on
Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biolog-
ical Diversity, United Nations Environment Programme.
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. 2010a. Global biodiver-
sity outlook 3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity. Montréal, QC, Canada. 94 p. Available online at
www.cbd.int/GBO3; last accessed Apr. 15, 2011.
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. 2010b. COP 10 Decision
X/2. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020. Conference of
the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Nagoya,
Japan, 18 –29 October 2010. Available online at www.cbd.int/
decision/cop/?id⫽12268; last accessed Aug. 10, 2011.
CORONA, P., G. CHIRICI, R.E. MCROBERTS, S. WINTER, AND
A. BARBATI. 2011. Contribution of large-scale forest invento-
ries to biodiversity assessment and monitoring. For. Ecol.
Manag. 262(11):2061–2069.
CORONA, P., AND M. MARCHETTI. 2007. Outlining multi-purpose
forest inventories to assess the ecosystem approach in forestry.
Plant Biosyst. 141(2):243–251.
DECONCHAT, M., AND G. BALENT. 2001. Vegetation and bird
community dynamics in fragmented coppice forests. Forestry
74:105–118.
DE GRAAF, R.M., J.B. HESTBECK, AND M. YAMASAKI. 1998.
Associations between breeding bird abundance and stand struc-
ture in the White Mountains, New Hampshire and Maine, USA.
For. Ecol. Manag. 103:217–231.
DUELLI, P., AND M.K. OBRIST. 2003. Biodiversity indicators:
The choice of values and measures. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
98:87– 89.
ELLISON, A.M., M.S. BANK, B.D. CLINTON, E.A. COLBURN, K. EL-
LIOTT, C.R. FORD, D.R. FOSTER, B.D. KLOEPPEL, J.D. KNOEPP,
G.M. LOVETT, J. MOHAN, D.A. ORWIG, N.L. RODENHOUSE,
W.V. SOBCZAK, K.A. STINSON, J.K. STONE, C.M. SWAN,
J. THOMPSON, B. VON HOLLE, AND J.R. WEBSTER. 2005. Loss
of foundation species: Consequences for the structure and
dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3:
479 – 486.
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2003. Core set of indicators.
Available online at eea.eu.int; last accessed Oct. 15, 2008.
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2006. European forest types.
Categories and types for sustainable forest management and
reporting. EEA Tech. Rep. No. 9/2006. 111 p.
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2007. Halting the loss of bio-
diversity by 2010: Proposal for a first set of indicators to
monitor progress in Europe. EEA Tech. Rep. No. 11/2007. 182 p.
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2008. European forests—Eco-
system conditions and sustainable use. EEA Tech. Rep. No.
3/2008. 110 p.
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2011. Interlinkages between
the European biodiversity indicators, improving their infor-
mation power. Report of the SEBI working group on Inter-
linkages. Available online at biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/
information/indicator/F1090245995/SEBI%20publications-
2005-2010; last accessed May 16, 2011.
266 Forest Science 58(3) 2012
FOREST EUROPE. 2011. Oslo ministerial decision: European for-
ests 2020. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests
in Europe, Oslo, 14 –16 June 2011. Available online at gyro
conference.event123.no/ForestEurope/ForestEuropeMinisterial
Conference/documents2.cfm; last accessed Aug. 14, 2011.
GASTON, K.J., AND J.I. SPICER. 2004. Biodiversity: An introduc-
tion, 2nd ed. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK. 191 p.
GREEN, R.E., A. BALMFORD, P.R. CRANE, G.M. MACE, J.D. REYN-
OLDS, AND R.K. TURNER. 2005. A framework for improved
monitoring of biodiversity: Responses to the World Summit on
Sustainable Development. Conserv. Biol. 19:56 – 65.
GSCHWANTNER, T., K. SCHADAUER, C. VIDAL, A. LANZ, E.
TOMPPO, L. DI COSMO, N. ROBERT, D.E. DUURSMA, AND M.
LAWRENCE. 2009. Common tree definitions for national forest
inventories in Europe. Silva Fenn. 43(2):303–321.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023
HALPERN, C.B., AND T.A. SPIES. 1995. Plant species diversity in
natural and managed forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecol.
Applic. 5:913–934.
HYMAN, J.B., AND S.G. LEIBOWITZ. 2001. JSEM: A framework
for identifying and evaluating indicators. Environ. Monitor.
Assess. 66(3):207–232.
KAPOS, V., AND S.F. IREMONGER. 1998. Achieving global and
regional perspectives on forest biodiversity and conservation.
P. 3–14 in Assessing biodiversity for improved forest planning,
Bachmann, P., M. Kohl, and R. Paivinen (eds.). EFI Proceed-
ings No. 18. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
KÖHL, M., P. BACHMANN, P. BRASSEL, AND G. PRETO (EDS.). 1995.
The Monte Verità conference on forest survey designs. “Sim-
plicity versus efficiency” and assessment of non-timber re-
sources. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Land-
scape Research (WSL/FNP), Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (ETH), Section of Forest Inventory and Planning,
Birmensdorf, Zürich, Switzerland. 316 p.
KÖHL, M., AND P. BRASSEL. 1999. La forêt suisse comparée aux
autres forêts d’Europe. P. 387–392 in Inventaire forestier na-
tional suisse Résultats du deuxième inventaire 1993–1995,
Brassel, P., and U.-B. Brändli (eds.). Institut fédéral de recher-
ches sur la forêt, la neige et le paysage, Birmensdorf; Office
fédéral de l’environnement, des forêts et du paysage, Berne,
Switzerland.
KÖHL, M., B. TRAUB, AND R. PÄIVINEN. 2000. Harmonisation and
standardisation in multi-national environmental statistics—
Mission impossible? Environ. Monitor. Assess. 63(2):361–380.
ILES, K. 1998. Some practical aspects of designing a large inven-
tory. P. 79 – 85 in Integrated tools for natural resources inven-
tories in the 21st century, Hansen, H. and T. Burk (eds.). US
For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC 212. North Central Research
Station. St. Paul, MN.
JALAS, J. 1955. Hemerobe und hemerochore Pflanzenarten. Ein
terminologischer Reformversuch. Acta Soc. Fauna Flora Fenn.
72:1–15.
JONSSON, B.G., AND M. JONSELL. 1999. Exploring potential bio-
diversity indicators in boreal forests. Biodivers. Conserv.
8:1417–1433.
LAMB, E.G., E. BAYNE, G. HOLLOWAY, J. SCHIECK, S. BOUTIN,
J. HERBERS, AND D.L. HAUGHLAND. 2009. Indices for moni-
toring biodiversity change: Are some more effective than oth-
ers? Ecol. Indicators 9:432– 444.
LARSSON, T.B. 2001. Biodiversity evaluation tools for European
forests. Ecol. Bull, No. 50. 237 pp.
LEVREL, H. 2007. Selecting indicators for the management of
biodiversity. IFB Editions, Paris, France.
LEVREL, H., B. FONTAINE, P.-Y. HENRY, F. JIGUET, R. JULLIARD,
C. KERBIRIOU, AND D. COUVET. 2010. Balancing state and
 volunteer investment in biodiversity monitoring for the imple-
mentation of CBD indicators: A French example. Ecol. Econ.
69:1580 –1586.
LINDENMAYER, D.B., AND J.F. FRANKLIN. 2002. Conserving forest
biodiversity: A comprehensive multi-scaled approach. Island
Press, Washington, DC. 351 p.
LOMBARDI, F., G. CHIRICI, M. MARCHETTI, R. TOGNETTI, B.
LASSERRE, P. CORONA, A. BARBATI, B. FERRARI, S. DI PAOLO,
D. GIULIARELLI, F. MASON, F. IOVINO, A. NICOLACI,
L. BIANCHI, A. MALTONI, AND D. TRAVAGLINI. 2010. Dead-
wood in forest stands close to old-growthness under Mediter-
ranean conditions in the Italian Peninsula. Ital. J. For. Mount.
Environ. 65(5):481–504.
LUND, H.G. 1986. A primer on integrating resource inventories.
US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. W0-49. 64 p.
MACE, G.M., H. MASUNDIRE, AND J.E.M. BAILLIE. 2005. Biodi-
versity. In Millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and
human well-being: Current state and trends, vol. 1. Findings
of the Condition and Trends Working Group. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
MACLAURIN, J., AND K. STERELNY. 2008. What is biodiversity?
University of Chicago Press, Chicago. IL.
MACMAHON, J.A., D.H. SCHIMPF, D.C. ANDERSEN, K.G. SMITH,
AND R.L. BAYN. 1981. An organism-centered approach to some
community and ecosystem concepts. J. Theor. Biol. 88(2):
287–307.
MCGEE, G.G., AND R.W. KIMMERER. 2002. Forest age and man-
agement effects on epiphytic bryophyte communities in
Adirondack northern hardwood forests, New York, USA.
Can. J. For. Res. 32:1562–1576.
MCROBERTS, R.E. 2009. A two-step nearest neighbors algorithm
using satellite imagery for predicting forest structure within
species composition classes. Remote Sens. Environ. 113:
532–545.
MCROBERTS, R.E., E.O. TOMPPO, K. SCHADAUER, C. VIDAL,
G. STÅHL, G. CHIRICI, A. LANZ, E. CIENCIALA, S. WINTER, AND
W.B. SMITH. 2009. Harmonizing national forest inventories.
J. For. 107:179 –187.
MCROBERTS R.E., S. WINTER, G. CHIRICI, AND E. LAPOINT. 2012.
Assessing forest naturalness. For. Sci. 56:294 –309.
MICHEL, A., AND S. WINTER. 2009. Tree microhabitat structures as
indicators of biodiversity in Douglas-fir forests of different
stand ages and management histories in the Pacific Northwest,
USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 257:1453–1464.
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE PROTECTION OF FORESTS IN
EUROPE. 1997. Work-programme on the conservation and en-
hancement of biological and landscape biodiversity in forest
ecosystems: Adopted at expert-level by the Third Meeting of the
Executive Bureau of the Pan-European Biological and Land-
scape Diversity Strategy, 20 –21 November, 1997, Geneva,
Switzerland. Available online at www.mcpfe.org; last accessed
Oct. 15, 2007.
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE PROTECTION OF FORESTS IN
EUROPE. 2003a. Vienna declaration and Vienna resolutions
adopted at the Fourth Ministerial Conference on the Protection
of Forests in Europe, 28 –30 April 2003, Vienna Austria. Avail-
able online at www.mcpfe.org; last accessed Oct. 15, 2007.
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE PROTECTION OF FORESTS IN
EUROPE. 2003b. Improved Pan-European indicators for sus-
tainable forest management as adopted by the MCPFE expert
level meeting 7– 8 October 2002, Vienna, Austria. Available
online at www.mcpfe.org; last accessed Oct. 15, 2008.
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE PROTECTION OF FORESTS IN
EUROPE. 2007. Warsaw declaration. In Proc. of the Fifth
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe,
5–7 November 2007, Warsaw. Available online at www.
mcpfe.org; last accessed Oct. 15, 2007.
MONTRÉAL PROCESS. 2007. Criteria and indicators for the conser-
vation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal
forests. The Montréal Process, 3rd ed. Available online at
www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/, last accessed Oct. 15, 2008.
MÜLLER, J., C. STRÄTZ, AND T. HOTHORN. 2005. Habitat factors
for land snails in European beech forests with a special focus
on coarse woody debris. Eur. J. For. Res. 124:233–242.
NORTON, B.G. 1998. Improving ecological communication:
The role of ecologists in environmental policy formation. Ecol.
Appl. 8:350 –364.
NOSS, R.F. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity:
A suggested framework and indicators. For. Ecol. Manag.
115:135–146.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023
PEREIRA, H.M., AND H.D. COOPER. 2006. Towards the global
monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21(3):
123–129.
PITKÄNEN, S. 1997. Correlation between stand structure and
ground vegetation: An analytical approach. Plant Ecol. 131:
109 –126.
POULSEN, B.O. 2002. Avian richness and abundance in temperate
Danish forests: Tree variables important to birds and their
conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 11:1551–1566.
PUUMALAINEN, J., P. KENNEDY, AND S. FOLVING. 2003. Monitor-
ing forest biodiversity: A European perspective with reference
to temperate and boreal forest zone. J. Environ. Manag.
67:5–14.
RAMBO, T.R., AND P.S. MUIR. 1998a. Forest floor bryophytes of
Pseudotsuga menziesii-Tsuga heterophylla stands in Oregon:
Influences of substrate and overstory. Bryologist 101:116 –130.
RAMBO, T.R., AND P.S. MUIR. 1998b. Bryophyte species associa-
tions with coarse woody debris and stand ages in Oregon.
Bryologist 101:366 –376.
RONDEUX, J., R. BERTINI, A. BASTRUP-BIRK, P. CORONA, N.
LATTE, R.E. MCROBERTS, G. STÅHL, S. WINTER, AND G.
CHIRICI. 2012. Assessing deadwood using harmonised national
forest inventory data. For. Sci. 56:269 –283.
ŠAUDYTĖ, S., S. KARAZIHJA, AND O. BELOVA. 2005. An approach
to assessment of naturalness for forest stands in Lithuania.
Baltic For. 11(1):39 – 45.
STÅHL, G., E. CIENCIALA, G. CHIRICI, A. LANZ, C. VIDAL, S.
WINTER, R.E. MCROBERTS, J. RONDEUX, K. SCHADAUER, AND
E. TOMPPO. 2012. Bridging national and reference definitions
for harmonising forest statistics. For. Sci. 56:214 –223.
STOKLAND, J.N., S.M. TOMTER, AND U. SÖDERBERG. 2004. Devel-
opment of deadwood indicators for biodiversity monitoring:
Experiences from Scandinavia. P. 207–226 in Monitoring and
indicators of forest biodiversity in Europe—From ideas to
operationality. EFI Proc. No. 51.
TOMPPO, E., T. GSCHWANTNER, M. LAWRENCE, AND R.E. MCROB-
ERTS (EDS.). 2010. National forest inventories: Pathways for
common reporting. Springer. Heidelberg, Germany. 607 p.
TRAUB, B., M. KÖHL, AND R. PÄIVINEN. 1997. Simulation study.
In Study on European forestry information and communication
system: Report on forest inventory and survey systems. Euro-
pean Commission, Luxembourg.
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM. 2002. Report of the
Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20. Decision VI/26.
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM. 2003. Proposed
biodiversity indicators relevant to the 2010 target. UNEP/
CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/26.
VIDAL, C., A. LANZ, E. TOMPPO, K. SCHADAUER, R. GSCHWANT-
NER, L. DI COSMO, AND N. ROBERT. 2008. Establishing forest
Forest Science 58(3) 2012 267
 inventory reference definitions for forest and growing
stock: A study towards common reporting. Silva Fenn.
42:247–266.
WINTER, S. 2012. Forest naturalness assessment as a component of
biodiversity monitoring and conservation management. For-
estry 85:293–304.
WINTER, S., A. BÖCK, AND R.E. MCROBERTS. 2012. Uncertainty of
large-area estimates of indicators of forest structural gamma
diversity: A study based on national forest inventory data. For.
Sci. 56:284 –293.
WINTER, S., M. FLADE, H. SCHUMACHER, E. KERSTAN, AND
G. MÖLLER. 2005. The importance of near-natural stand struc-
268 Forest Science 58(3) 2012
tures for the biocoenosis of lowland beech forests. For. Snow
Landsc. Res. 79(1/2):127–144.
WINTER, S., G. CHIRICI, R.E. MCROBERTS, AND E. TOMPPO. 2008.
Possibilities for harmonising national forest inventory data for
use in forest biodiversity assessments. Forestry 81:33– 44.
WINTER, S., AND G.C. MÖLLER. 2008. Microhabitats in lowland
beech forests as monitoring tool for nature conservation. For.
Ecol. Manag. 255:1251–1261.
WOODALL, C.W., L.S. HEATH, AND J.E. SMITH. 2008. National
inventories of down and dead woody material forest carbon
stocks in the United States: Challenges and opportunities.
For. Ecol. Manag. 256(3):221–228.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article/58/3/257/4604536 by guest on 27 December 2023