Abstract
Planted monocultures of even-aged coniferous tree species are abundant worldwide but increasingly damaged by biotic and abiotic stressors and disturbances. In Central Europe, a fundamental goal of ecologically oriented forest management is thus the conversion of pure and often even-aged coniferous stands into structurally more diverse and mixed broad-leaved forests. This conversion is often achieved by single-tree selection resulting in small canopy openings that promote artificial or natural regeneration. Consequently, forest conversion aims at altering stand structure and tree communities. In order to describe the status quo of forest conversion and derive implications for forest management, we investigated changes of tree composition and forest structure in the Bavarian Spessart mountains in southwest Germany. We conducted a resurvey of 108 semi-permanent plots in four different coniferous stand types of Norway spruce, Scots pine, Douglas fir, and European larch about 30 years after the initial survey. We found significant differences in the stratification and cover of respective forest layers between the two sampling periods that indicated an increase in stand structural heterogeneity. While species richness of the overstorey remained constant, species richness and diversity of the shrub and lower canopy layer increased significantly. Regenerating “winner” species included late-successional broad-leaved (e.g., European beech, sessile oak), pioneer broad-leaved (e.g., silver birch, rowan) and shade-tolerant coniferous (e.g., silver fir, Douglas fir) species. Although Norway spruce was significantly reduced in the overstorey, it regenerated in parts extensively in the understorey. We conclude that the forest conversion in the Spessart mountains was overall successful in terms of diversifying forest structure and tree species. Its effects are, though, still emerging and the stands are in a transitional phase. Besides the preferred natural regeneration of target tree species, forest management may consider active measures to guide the facilitated diverse tree community of previously pure and even-aged coniferous stands towards stand maturity.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
A considerable proportion of Central European forests consists of planted, even-aged, and pure stands with coniferous tree species such as Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) or Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) (Spiecker 2003; Messier et al. 2022) due to land-use and forestry history, respectively (Zerbe 2023). Over the past decades, an ongoing decrease in tree vitality and an increase in tree mortality has been observed, particularly in pure and structurally uniform Norway spruce stands (Marini et al. 2017; Bałazy et al. 2019; Bolte et al. 2021). These phenomena are often associated with the interacting effects of abiotic and biotic stressors (Gardiner et al. 2010; Groot et al. 2019) that are expected to further increase in the future due to climate change (Seidl and Rammer 2017; Bolte et al. 2021).
Since the paradigm shift towards near-natural silviculture in Central Europe in the 1990s, a major goal of current forestry is the conversion and restoration of pure and even-aged coniferous stands towards more diverse and structurally rich mixed forests (Klimo et al. 2000; Ammer et al. 2008; Barsoum and Henderson 2016). Compared to monocultures, mixed forests are thought to exhibit a higher adaptation potential and greater resilience against the effects of climate change (e.g., drought, storms, weather extremes), pest outbreaks, and other abiotic and biotic disturbances (Bolte et al. 2009; Neuner et al. 2015; Bauhus et al. 2017; Jactel et al. 2021). Furthermore, mixed forests may provide more accompanying ecosystem services beyond timber production (Gamfeldt et al. 2013; Schuldt et al. 2018). Recent research shows that mixed forests can produce comparable or even more biomass (Forrester and Bauhus 2016; Pretzsch et al. 2017; Zeller et al. 2018), however, not inevitably concerning harvested products (Puettmann et al. 2016). Mixed forests also contribute more to multifunctionality and social acceptance (Williams 2014; Messier et al. 2022) and can harbour and conserve greater biological diversity (Ampoorter et al. 2020). The positive effects of tree species diversity depends, however, on the environmental conditions and species mixtures (Ammer 2019b) and varies in space and time (Mina et al. 2018).
The long-term conversion of monospecific coniferous forests in Central Europe is often achieved by selectively felling individual trees that have reached a species-specific target diameter to create small canopy gaps that facilitate artificial or natural regeneration (Zerbe 2002; Spiecker et al. 2004; von Lüpke et al. 2004). Alternative approaches range from clearcutting (e.g., following calamities) and replanting of target species and extend to favouring natural regeneration under existing canopies (Stanturf et al. 2014; Hansen and Spiecker 2015). Forest conversion aims at modifying the homogenous forest structure and tree species composition of even-aged coniferous plantations (von Lüpke et al. 2004; Schall and Ammer 2013; Dieler et al. 2017). These modifications change abiotic site conditions and thus resource availability of e.g., light, water, nutrients, and space for species regeneration (Augusto et al. 2003; Barbier et al. 2008; Fischer et al. 2016; Kremer and Bauhus 2020). Depending on the dimension of canopy cover reduction or gap size increase, specific forest structures and tree species are promoted. For instance, pioneer tree species such as rowan (Sorbus aucuparia L.) or silver birch (Betula pendula Roth.) benefit from higher light availability due to more vigorous canopy reduction (Yamamoto 2000; Huth and Wagner 2006; Dobrowolska 2008). In contrast, shade-tolerant species like European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) profit from less vigorous canopy reduction (Wagner et al. 2010; Fischer et al. 2016). According to the “heterogeneity-diversity relationship”, a high structural diversity is often accompanied by high levels of biodiversity, particularly regarding vascular plants (Stein et al. 2014; Heidrich et al. 2020; Oettel and Lapin 2021). Compared to a combination of pure stands, mixed stands may increase the landscape-scale diversity of forest understoreys (Simmons and Buckley 1992; Gosselin et al. 2017). However, previous studies found that landscape-scale mixtures of tree species promoted understorey diversity better than stand-scale mixtures (Cavard et al. 2011; Heinrichs et al. 2019) challenging the beforementioned results.
To our knowledge, studies on changes in tree species diversity and composition as well as forest structure in the context of the conversion of pure coniferous towards diverse mixed forests of almost three decades are scarce. To fill this gap, we investigated such changes in the Bavarian Spessart mountains in southwest Germany. We compared our results with a large-scale survey from the 1990s (Zerbe 1995, 1999) and assessed them against the background of natural ecological processes and forest restoration activities. Specifically, we expected that during the last three decades former even-aged and pure coniferous stands increased in i) stand structural heterogeneity, ii) tree species richness and diversity, iii) abundance and frequency of broad-leaved tree species, and iv) heterogeneity of tree species composition. From these results, we assess and discuss the status quo of forest conversion in the Spessart mountains and derive implications for forest restoration management in the lower mountain ranges of Central Europe which are still largely covered by pure and even-aged coniferous stands, particularly of increasingly susceptible Norway spruce.
Material and methods
Study area
The study area Spessart is a low mountain range with elevations up to 586 m a.s.l.. It is located in north-western Bavaria in southwest Germany and stretches in the north into the adjacent federal state of Hesse (Fig. 1). The bedrock consists mainly of red sandstone and is locally influenced by loess (Matthes and Okrusch 1965). Thus, acidic and nutrient-poor soils prevail throughout the mountain range. The climate is sub-oceanic with mean annual precipitation ranging from 700 mm in the lower mountain elevations (< 300 m a.s.l.) to about 1000 mm at higher elevations (reference period: 1971–2000, Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt (2021)). The mean annual temperatures follow the same gradient ranging from 8 to 9 °C in the valley of the river Main to around 7 °C in the upper Spessart (Zerbe 1999). The natural forest vegetation is mainly beech forest (Fagus sylvatica L.) on acidic soils (Zerbe 1999; Weichhardt-Kulessa 2011). Spessart forests historically experienced many phases of anthropogenic influence, with a spatially varying impact of forest glassworks, hunting, agriculture as well as litter gathering and subsequent afforestation of degraded forest sites about 200 years ago. Particularly related to the history of hunting, this impact resulted in a distinguished separation of main forest types in the northern and southern Spessart. Consequently, pure and even-aged stands of Norway spruce, Scots pine, and European larch (Larix decidua Mill.) are the dominant forest types in the north, while in the south, near-natural broad-leaved forests with European beech and oak (mainly Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) prevail. Furthermore, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco) has been introduced and managed in the Spessart for more than 150 years (Mergner 2018; Lange et al. 2022).
Study design and data collection
We re-identified the geolocation of sampling plots within coniferous stand types from detailed forestry map records (spatial resolution of 1:10,000) of the initial studies by Zerbe (1995, 1999). Therefore, we determined geographic coordinates by comparing the historical map information with digital topographical maps (e.g., by major landmarks, isolines, road network) and forestry geodata (e.g., by forest departments, districts, sections, stand numbers, forest roads, paths, skidding trails) via the geographic information system Quantum GIS (version 3.22; QGIS Development Team 2022). In total, we re-identified the geolocation of 108 sampling plots from which the majority were Norway spruce-dominated stands (n = 62), while Scots pine- (n = 27), European larch- (n = 9), and Douglas fir-dominated stands (n = 10) contributed less to the total number of sampling locations (Fig. 1). Due to the varying silvicultural treatments of previously mature stands since the 1990s (c.f. Zerbe 1999), stand ages differed among the sampling locations at the time of the resurvey. We assessed current stand ages from detailed forest management plans (Bavarian State Forest Research Centre, unpublished) and verified them approximately by expert-based estimation in the field. At the time of our resurvey, the stand ages ranged from 13 to 180 years with a mean stand age of 98 years according to the management plans.
Within each stand, we established a sampling plot with a size of 20 m × 20 m (400 m2), which corresponds to the size of the first survey. The exact location was indicated by a handheld GPS device (Garmin eTrex 30x). We adopted site characteristics (i.e., slope [°], elevation [m a.s.l.], terrain location, aspect) from Zerbe (1999) and double-checked the information in the field to minimize potential relocation errors (Kapfer et al. 2016). We did not resurvey plots if there was an inconsistency between GPS-indicated locations and site characteristics of the original plot. We estimated the possible relocation error to be a few tens of metres and considered this accuracy adequate, given the rather spatial homogeneity of the forest stands and the reasonably large sampling plots. We visually assessed the plot-wise assemblage of woody plants (i.e., species identities and respective cover value classes) as well as forest structure (i.e., occurrence and total cover [estimated in %] of each forest layer (i.e., shrub (1 – 5 m growth height), lower canopy (≥ 5 m – 15 m growth height), upper canopy (> 15 m growth height) according to the vegetation sampling method by Braun-Blanquet (1964). For instance, a given sampling plot with an estimated cover value of 0% indicates the complete absence of living biomass, while a cover value of 100% depicts the maximum coverage of living biomass within a given forest layer. We standardized the nine ordinal species cover value classes to intermediate class decimal values (Tremp 2005). The nomenclature of plant species follows Jäger (2017). We conducted field work in summer 2021 and 2022.
Forest management in the past 30 years
To evaluate the data besides natural ecological processes also in the context of silvicultural activities, extensive records from management chronicles of the Spessart forest offices have been sighted, compiled, filtered, and processed concerning wood extraction, tree plantings, soil preparation, fertilization, weeding, and fencing. During the evaluation process it became apparent that the raw data were deficient for further statistical analyses due to several reasons: some foresters wrote down detailed management decisions, some either more or less, some did not. For some forestry districts such records were just not available. Lacking data were probably resulting from different forestry reformations and several consolidations of forest offices in the Spessart during the last decades. Furthermore, the demarcation and sizes of stands changed over time and did not allow for a precise comparison of management data. Thus, a consistent and reliable management history was not possible to reconstruct for a statistically sound analysis. However, qualitative insights from the researched management chronicles are incorporated in the discussion section. Generally, forest conversion management applied in our study area comprised the following options: a) single-tree selection to promote natural or artificial regeneration in small canopy gaps, b) planting seedlings of coniferous and broad-leaved tree species in advance below the canopy of mature trees, and c) sanitary cuttings after extreme events (e.g., storm damage, insect calamities, etc.) followed by natural regeneration and/or planting of target tree species (Möges and Zanker 2008; Treutlein and Achhammer 2018; Management chronicles unpublished). Consequently, since the 1990s, there has been no one-size-fits-all conversion method applied. However, our study results depict a typical situation of adaptive forest management in an extensive montane forest landscape in Central Europe (Bolte et al. 2009; von Lüpke et al. 2004).
Data analysis
Concerning the assessment of species diversity, we followed the Hill number framework, specifically the three estimators proposed by Chao et al. (2014). Thus, we calculated plot-wise species richness (q0), the exponential of Shannon’s entropy index (q1; hereafter: true diversity), and the inverse of Simpson’s concentration index (q2; hereafter: Simpson diversity) for both sampling periods. While species richness is biased towards rare species, very sensitive to sample size, and offers no information about relative abundances, the frequencies of the more common species get more weight with increasing Hill number (Chao et al. 2014). We then calculated the delta (Δ) of Hill numbers and stand structural attributes between both sampling periods to obtain a measure of temporal change per plot.
We tested, using simple linear models (Chambers 1992), changes in Δ mean cover of forest layers, species richness (q0), true diversity (q1), and Simpson diversity (q2) per plot against the null hypothesis of no change over time for i) all plots and ii) stand types separately. This approach enabled us to capture the overall temporal trend and simultaneously identify the specific stand types that drive the overall trend. We considered the upper canopy layer (UCL; > 15 m), lower canopy layer (LCL; > 5–15 m), and shrub layer (SL; 1–5 m) each separately as well as the combined total canopy layer (TCL; 1 – > 15 m). Furthermore, we calculated the cumulated cover of all three forest layers (hereafter: total cover) according to Ewald et al. (2011). This approach prevents an overprediction of the cumulated cover by subtracting the overlap of forest layers from their sum: total cover [%] = (UCL/100 + LCL/100 + SL/100 – UCL/100 × LCL/100 × SL/100) × 100. After fitting simple linear models, followed by ANOVA-testing (and in the case of stand types), Tukey HSD post hoc tests for pairwise comparisons among stand types were performed to avoid multiple testing (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995). Some response variables of the aforementioned models had to be rank-transformed because they did not meet the parametric assumptions on normally distributed residuals or homogeneity of variance.
To test for the significance of tree species compositional change, we computed a repeated measurement permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) with the function adonis2 of package vegan (Oksanen et al. 2022) using 999 permutations and Bray–Curtis dissimilarity. This performs a permutational test that uses distance matrices of the tree species composition of plots to find significant differences among sampling periods (Anderson 2001). We used the R2 values from the PERMANOVA models as a measure of the magnitude of temporal change to compare between stand types. To examine the temporal shift in β-diversity (i.e., the variability in species composition among stand types) we used permutational analysis of multivariate dispersion (PERMDISP) with the function betadisper (Anderson 2006) of the package vegan (Oksanen et al. 2022). This analysis evaluates the homogeneity of within-group dispersions based on Bray–Curtis distances with significance testing using permutation. An increase in multivariate distance between sampling plots and the time-specific centroid is explained as biotic differentiation, while a decrease suggests biotic homogenization.
We visualized the variation in tree species composition (cover values of each species) within and among the four different stand types for both sampling periods by ordination [Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS)]. We applied the NMDS with two dimensions using the function metaMDS of the package vegan (Oksanen et al. 2022). Stress values smaller than 0.20 generally result in viable interpretations (Clarke 1993). We applied the function envfit to fit explanatory vectors of stand structural attributes onto the ordination.
To test the affiliation of woody species in coniferous stands either to the 1990s or 2020s and thus identify “winner” and “loser” species, we conducted an Indicator Species Analysis (ISA; Dufrêne and Legendre 1997) on species-specific cover values with the function indval of the package labdsv (Roberts 2022). The ISA calculates an indicator value for each species based on the product of its relative frequency and its relative mean abundance across plots and sampling periods. The statistical significance of indicator values is assessed via permutation tests. The ISA was applied separately to the upper and lower canopy, as well as to the shrub layer.
We performed all statistics using R, version 4.1.1 (R Core Team 2022).
Results
Forest structure
The occurrence of an upper canopy layer on a given plot decreased from 108 to 94 plots between the 1990s and 2020s. This decrease occurred predominantly in spruce stands (n = 13) and only little in pine stands (n = 1). The occurrence of a lower canopy layer increased from 41 to 106 and the shrub layer occurrence increased from 74 to 105 since the 1990s (Fig. 2).
The mean cover of the upper canopy layer per plot decreased significantly by 15.3% ± 2.7 (mean ± SE) between the two sampling periods (t = -5.79, P < 0.001). This overall trend was mainly driven by the reduction of the spruce stands (− 31.7% ± 2.5), while upper canopy cover increased significantly for the pine stands (+ 11.0% ± 3.8; Fig. 3B, Table 1). There was no significant change in upper canopy cover of the Douglas fir (decreasing trend) and larch stands (increasing trend). The mean cover of the lower canopy layer per plot significantly increased by 37.8% ± 2.9 from the 1990s to the 2020s (t = 13.20, P < 0.001). This increase occurred over all four stand types and was strongest in the spruce stands (+ 44.0% ± 3.4), intermediate in the Douglas fir (+ 36.6% ± 9.2) and larch stands (+ 33.6% ± 9.7), and weakest in the pine stands (+ 22.5% ± 5.6) (Fig. 3C, Table 1). The mean cover of the shrub layer per plot significantly increased by 12.3% ± 1.3 between both sampling periods (t = 9.63, P < 0.001). The increase occurred over all four stand types (+ 6.6% ± 1.6 to 14.8% ± 4.3) (Fig. 3D, Table 1). Taken together, the mean total cover by woody plants (upper canopy + lower canopy + shrub layer) per plot significantly increased by 22.2% ± 3.5 and similarly between the stand types (+ 16.4% ± 3.1 to 37.9% ± 8.1) since the first survey (t = 18.08, P < 0.001; Fig. 3A, Table 1).
Tree species richness and diversity
The initial survey in the 1990s identified 20 woody species across all forest layers in 108 sampling plots. The total species number was eleven in the upper canopy, six in the lower canopy and 18 in the shrub layer. Our resurvey yielded a total of 30 woody species in all forest layers. Across all plots and stand types, the upper canopy had ten, the lower canopy had 20, and the shrub layer had 28 woody species. Between both sampling periods, the total number of woody species remained approximately constant for the upper canopy, however, increased for the lower canopy (+ 14 species), the shrub layer (+ 10 species) as well as the combination of all three forest layers together, i.e., the total canopy (+ 10 species).
The mean species richness of the total canopy layer per plot significantly increased by 2.1 ± 0.2 (mean ± SE) between both sampling periods (t = 9.06, P < 0.001). Spruce stands contributed most to the increase in species richness (+ 2.8 ± 0.3), Douglas fir (+ 1.5 ± 0.7) and pine stands (+ 0.9 ± 0.4) had a less strong influence, while larch stands (+ 1.3 ± 0.8) did not change significantly over time. The total canopy layers' mean true diversity (t = 9.20, P < 0.001) and Simpson diversity (t = 8.45, P < 0.001) per plot increased significantly by 0.9 ± 0.1 and 0.7 ± 0.1 from the 1990s to the 2020s. Spruce (+ 1.1 ± 0.1; + 0.8 ± 0.1) and Douglas fir (+ 1.1 ± 0.3; + 1.0 ± 0.3) stands contributed most to the increase in diversity indices, while the increase was less strong and not significant in pine (+ 0.4 ± 0.2; + 0.3 ± 0.2) and larch (+ 0.5 ± 0.3; + 0.4 ± 0.3) stands (Fig. 4A; Table 2).
In the upper canopy layer, we found no significant differences in mean species richness (t = 1.60, P = 0.12) and Simpson diversity per plot (t = 1.33, P = 0.19) among sampling periods. However, the mean true diversity per plot increased significantly by 0.3 ± 0.1 (t = 4.98, P < 0.001). The pine stands were the only stand type that increased significantly in all three Hill numbers since the 1990s (Fig. 4B; Table 2).
In the lower canopy layer, mean species richness (t = 12.79, P < 0.001), true diversity (t = 6.45, P < 0.001), and Simpson diversity (t = 9.65, P < 0.001) per plot increased significantly by 2.7 ± 0.2, 0.5 ± 0.1, or 1.0 ± 0.2 between the 1990s and 2020s. All three variables increased in almost each single stand type over time, even though with different magnitude. The increase was strongest in the spruce stands, intermediate in the Douglas fir and larch stands, and lowest in the pine stands. True diversity and Simpson diversity of larch stands did not show significant differences between sampling periods (Fig. 4C; Table 2).
In the shrub layer, mean species richness (t = 8.16, P < 0.001), true diversity (t = 3.99, P < 0.001), and Simpson diversity (t = 18.10, P < 0.001) per plot increased significantly by 2.2 ± 0.3, 0.5 ± 0.1, or 0.6 ± 0.1 among both sampling periods. This positive trend was driven by the spruce and Douglas fir stands, while pine and larch stands did not show significant differences in any Hill number over time (Fig. 4D; Table 2).
Tree species composition
The only partial overlap of sampling plots in the NMDS graph between the 1990s and 2020s indicates changes in tree species composition (Fig. 5A). The composition of woody species in all forest layers differed significantly between the two sampling periods (PERMANOVA: F = 34.41; R2 = 0.14; P < 0.001). The ordination shows that the species composition was more heterogeneous in the 1990s than in the 2020s and thus, suggests an overall homogenization of the composition of woody species across all sampling locations. The test results verify this visual impression (Table 3; PERMDISP). The overall homogenization can be attributed to a shift from distinct conifer-dominated stands (i.e., Douglas fir, spruce, pine, larch) of the 1990s towards mixed stands with broad-leaved (e.g., beech, oak, birch) and coniferous (e.g., silver fir, spruce, Douglas fir) trees in the 2020s (Fig. 5A).
The missing or only minor overlap of sampling plots of the same stand type between both sampling periods suggests a shift in the composition of woody species over time (Fig. 5B). Tree species composition within stand types changed significantly between the 1990s and 2020s for all four stand types (PERMANOVA, Table 3). The NMDS revealed a shift in species composition towards the centre of ordination space (Fig. 5B). Contrary to the overall homogenization of the composition of woody species of all stand layers across all sampling plots, spruce and Douglas fir stands experienced a compositional differentiation over time, while trends were not significant for the pine and larch stands (PERMDISP; Table 3).
Several stand structural attributes fit significantly into ordination space: envfit results showed a decrease in cover of the upper canopy layer (r2 = 0.07, P < 0.001) approximately orthogonal to an increase in cover of the shrub (r2 = 0.06, P < 0.001) and lower canopy (r2 = 0.07, P < 0.001) layer as well as the cover of the total canopy (r2 = 0.11, P < 0.001). These changes are directed roughly along the direction of compositional change. While the cover of the upper canopy layer can be mainly associated with spruce stands of the 1990s, the tree species composition of the 2020s is associated with the cover of the shrub and lower canopy layer as well as the total canopy cover (Fig. 5B).
“Winner” and “loser” tree species
In total, ten tree species significantly changed in relative frequency or relative mean abundance in the different forest layers among both sampling periods. In the upper canopy layer, we found two tree species that changed significantly over time. P. abies showed a declining trend and F. sylvatica increased. In the lower canopy layer, ten tree species (e.g., F. sylvatica, P. abies, Pinus strobus, etc.) revealed an increasing trend, while none showed a significant decline. In the shrub layer, eight tree species (e.g., F. sylvatica, P. abies, P. menziesii, etc.) indicated an increasing trend, whereas no woody species declined from the 1990s to the 2020s. Thus, almost all significant indicator tree species (except for spruce in the upper canopy) can be considered as “winner” species. Especially beech can be assessed as the overall winner because it achieved the highest indicator scores for each forest layer. Additionally, spruce may be highlighted due to its extensively increasing regeneration in the shrub- and lower canopy layer compared to the initial survey (Table 4).
Discussion
Forest structure
Our first expectation (i.e., stand structural heterogeneity of coniferous stands increased during the past 30 years) can be confirmed since the occurrence and cover of the upper canopy layer decreased, while it increased in the lower canopy, the shrub layer and across all forest layers. Especially in the spruce stands, the significant reduction in overstorey density presumably increased resource availability (e.g., light, space, water, nutrients) for the underlying forest layers and thus, stimulated artificial or natural regeneration of trees and shrubs (Augusto et al. 2003; Kremer and Bauhus 2020). The resulting increase in understorey coverage was probably further promoted due to the extensive regeneration of broad-leaved tree species. Especially the tree architecture of highly promoted European beech is known for its enormous shading potential and competitiveness against other tree species (Hagemeier 2002; Heiri et al. 2009; Mölder et al. 2014). The amplified emergence of multi-layered stands emphasise an increase in stand structural heterogeneity (Pretzsch et al. 2016; Oettel and Lapin 2021). Mixed stands with species that feature different ecological traits have been shown to enhance stand structure and heterogeneity compared to monospecific stands (Bauhus 2009; Pretzsch and Schütze 2016; Juchheim et al. 2020). The detected changes in stand structure may be seen in the context of forest management because canopy cover is an important management indicator, especially in coniferous forests (Coote et al. 2013). Also, extreme events (e.g., wind-throw, bark beetle calamity) may play a vital role as some stands in the Spessart showed clear signs of natural disturbances concerning their current structure and species composition. Based on data from the German national forest inventory, Storch et al. (2019) found that low to moderate harvesting intensities, i.e., the removal of ≤ 70% of standing timer volume, positively influenced most aspects of structural diversity. It is well known that irregular canopy openings stimulate tree regeneration locally (Wagner et al. 2011) and result in horizontally and, later, vertically structured stands. Thus, forest management can intentionally emulate small-scale canopy disturbances to promote structural diversity (Doyon et al. 2008; Moretti et al. 2010; Puettmann et al. 2016). The structural diversity of such stands increases over time if some parts are kept dense for at least one or two decades (von Lüpke et al. 2004). If, as in classical shelterwood cuttings, the entire stand was opened up, the regeneration layer would develop to a rather uniform stratum resulting in a less structured future forest stand (Meyer and Ammer 2022). Moreover, the careful density reduction in the overstorey combined with advanced regeneration in the understorey also offers the option to never fall below a certain amount of carbon stored in the living biomass (Ammer 2019a). Besides the cost-efficient use of natural regeneration, underplanting can contribute to the structural complexity of managed forests (Löf et al. 2019). In this context, the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of forest structure can promote biodiversity at the landscape scale (Ammer et al. 2017).
Generally, our results provide scientific support for the guidelines of the Bavarian State Forest Administration (BaySF) that planned to convert pure and even-aged conifer-dominated stands into more diverse and structurally rich mixed forests (Möges and Zanker 2008; Treutlein and Achhammer 2018). However, the current stand structure still seems to be in a transitional phase because the tree regeneration has in most cases not reached the upper canopy yet. This result seems not surprising because average rotation periods of Central European commercial forests may take several decades up to few centuries, depending e.g. on the specific tree species and site conditions (Pach et al. 2018). For instance, the rotation length of spruce stands often exceed more than one century in many European regions (Lindner et al. 2000). Thus, extensive time is needed for forest landscape restoration (Stanturf et al. 2019). Nevertheless, according to Bolte et al. (2021), the efforts to convert coniferous plantations need to be multiplied to reduce the damages that are expected to occur with ongoing climate change.
Tree species richness, diversity, and composition
Our second expectation (i.e., tree species richness and diversity of coniferous stands increased during the past 30 years) can be partly confirmed and particularly depends on the forest layer and measure of diversity in focus. Despite our expectations, we did not find a significant increase in species richness (q0) of the upper canopy, although the total number of woody species increased by 50% across all sampling plots since the 1990s. Apparently, forest conversion towards mature mixed forests is after about 30 years still in an early phase and re-growing trees did not reach the upper canopy yet or got outcompeted by the dominant trees. However, true diversity (q1) increased. The related increase in diversity can be explained by the combined effect of species richness and evenness (Pielou 1966) that gives more weight to the abundance of typically occurring species compared to solely species richness that weights each species equally regardless of their abundance (Chao et al. 2014). Thus, the current individual numbers seem to be distributed more balanced between the occurring species compared to the 1990s.
In contrast, species richness (q0) and diversity (q1, q2) increased in the lower canopy and shrub layer as well as across all layers and sampling plots. At this stage of forest development, the tree species in the regeneration include pioneer (e.g., birch, rowan), broad-leaved (e.g., beech, oak) and coniferous (e.g., Douglas fir, silver fir) tree species. Our findings are in line with many other studies that found canopy disturbance accompanied with increasing light availability to promote tree regeneration abundance or diversity (Canham et al. 1990; Yamamoto 2000; Jonášová and Matějková 2007; Heinrichs and Schmidt 2009; Seliger et al. 2021). Due to the increasing heterogeneity of environmental conditions in the understorey induced by canopy gaps, a diverse tree regeneration was established which supports the heterogeneity-diversity hypothesis (Helbach et al. 2022). The variability in temporal changes of Hill numbers within stand types and the overall facilitation of light-demanding as well as shade-tolerant tree species that we found highlight the significance of different stand development stages on diversity measures (Ujházy et al. 2017). The increase in all investigated measures of sub-canopy diversity suggests a development towards more diverse forests and an increase in evenness of the present species in the community.
Our third expectation (i.e., abundance and frequency of broad-leaved tree species in coniferous stands increased during the past 30 years) can be confirmed. The tree regeneration was strongly promoted as many broad-leaved and coniferous species experienced an increase in abundance or frequency since the 1990s. Only spruce in the upper canopy showed a significantly declining trend. Both results provide scientific support to the regional guidelines of forest restoration (Möges and Zanker 2008; Treutlein and Achhammer 2018). Further, the promotion of broad-leaved tree species, especially European beech, fit tendencies that have been reported for other European regions (Sterba and Eckmuellner 2008; Kudernatsch et al. 2021; BMEL 2021). The significant increase in F. sylvatica in the over- and understorey seems to be the result of both, silvicultural facilitation (e.g., by planting as documented for several stands in the management chronicles) and natural regeneration due to its strong competitiveness over most parts of Central Europe (Ellenberg and Leuschner 2010). In this regard, Axer et al. (2022) found natural regeneration from admixed European beech groups within spruce stands in the Ore mountains up to distances of 69 m and recommend groupwise mixtures of beech with a distance of 40–50 m as a restoration approach. Considering its silvicultural promotion, general competitiveness, potential dispersal distance and the fact that mature beech individuals were present in sight distance in the great majority from our sampling plots, its extensive spread appears comprehensible.
Although, mature spruce was evidently reduced in the upper canopy, the tree species regenerated in parts extensively. In this context, is has been reported that spruce has a competitive advantage against beech concerning its growth if the relative diffuse radiation is over 20% (Unkrig 1997; von Lüpke and Spellmann 1997; Kühne and Bartsch 2003). Other studies found this advantage of spruce only at a light availability that exceeds 40% (Ammer 2005). Thus, it can be inferred that a more vigorous reduction of canopy cover with increasing light availability in the understorey may lead to a promotion of spruce regeneration. Dobrovolny (2016) found that already spruce group-fellings of about 0.04 hectare, which interestingly corresponds to the plot size of our study, is enough to facilitate spruce against beech. Furthermore, in the context of extreme events (e.g., wind-throws, forest fires) that are prognosed to increase in frequency and magnitude under climate change (Seidl et al. 2017), the process of “direct re-growth” of pre-disturbance species has been reported (Romme et al. 2011). Given this, the dominant pre-disturbance species may gain a re-dominance after one or two decades without silvicultural interventions (Priewasser 2013; Kramer et al. 2014), which illustrates an unfavourable scenario in terms of current restoration objectives. In this context, regeneration of pioneer tree species may play an increasingly important role to compensate the ecological deficits resulting from the long-term cultivation of pure coniferous stands and can facilitate the development towards diverse mixed forests (Raspé et al. 2000; Zerbe and Meiwes 2000; Hynynen et al. 2010).
If the current re-growing diverse tree community is to be retained to stand maturity it probably needs active management, especially due to the strong competitive ability of beech and in parts dense regeneration of spruce. Otherwise, there may be a major risk of favouring the next generation of monospecific stand types over an extensive area. In this context, European beech admixtures of at least 30% in the future stands are recommended to have a positive influence on the understorey diversity (Walentowski 1998; Kudernatsch et al. 2021). However, very high proportions of beech may have negative effects on phytodiversity and can lead to a reduction of plant diversity (Zerbe 1993; Budde et al. 2011).
Our fourth expectation (i.e., heterogeneity of tree species composition in coniferous stands increased during the past 30 years) can be partly confirmed. Our results question the assumed increase in β-diversity as a result of an increase in tree species richness (Hilmers et al. 2018; Schall et al. 2018) for coniferous stands that are currently under conversion. Instead, we found an overall shift and the convergence of tree species composition across the forest landscape since the 1990s. The former clearly definable tree communities of pure coniferous stand types (i.e., Norway spruce, Scots pine, Douglas fir, and European larch) experienced a floristic homogenization on the landscape scale. This increasing homogeneity across the forest environment has also been reported from other parts of Europe (Kjučukov et al. 2022) and particularly from forest understoreys (Keith et al. 2009; Reinecke et al. 2014; Prach and Kopecký 2018). However, an overall floristic homogenisation of understorey vegetation was not conclusively detected in our study area but trends became apparent (Seliger et al. 2023). Here, the shift in tree species composition can mainly be attributed to an extensive increase in broad-leaved tree species, especially European beech. The former exclusively coniferous stands developed in a similar manner towards mixed forests with a higher share of broad-leaved tree species. This development corresponds largely to the objectives of forest conversion and management plans (Möges and Zanker 2008; Borrass et al. 2017; Treutlein and Achhammer 2018). Furthermore, it may be assessed beneficial from a perspective of naturalness because the native prevalent forest community in the Spessart mountains is beech forest on acidic soils (Luzulo-Fagetum community; Zerbe 1999; Weichhardt-Kulessa 2011).
In contrast to the decline of overall forest landscape heterogeneity, we found a differentiation of tree communities within specific stand types since the 1990s, especially in spruce stands. Probably due to the active (silvicultural measures) and passive (natural disturbances) transformation towards mixed forests, the relatively homogenous species composition of pure coniferous stands (Zerbe 1999; Hunter 2004) got more heterogeneous on the stand level. The resulting mosaic of remaining old stands and more or less intensively converted stands possibly led to a more heterogeneous species composition within single coniferous stand types of the Spessart. In this context, Heinrichs et al. (2019) found that tree mixtures on the landscape scale are more effective in promoting the diversity of vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens compared to tree mixtures on the stand scale. The heterogeneity of species composition is seen as one of the key properties that make forests a complex and adaptive system (Bauhus et al. 2013; Puettmann et al. 2013).
Aiming to increase the spatial heterogeneity and diversity of tree communities, it may be neither beneficial to convert pure coniferous stands with European beech uniformly over the whole landscape nor with beech solely (Heinrichs et al. 2020; Kudernatsch et al. 2021). Instead, promoting beech groups can increase species-turnover on the stand scale and simultaneously increase landscape heterogeneity (Kudernatsch et al. 2021). According to these studies it seems beneficial to favour different stand types and development stages if the aim is to achieve a diversification on the landscape scale. This may include also to retain some old coniferous stands, given the environmental suitability of the specific tree species under expected climate change scenarios.
Conclusions
We found that the even-aged and pure coniferous stands of the Spessart mountains overall experienced a diversification in forest structure and tree communities since the 1990s. This is especially true for spruce stands, which showed the greatest change concerning stratification, tree species richness, diversity, and composition. Forest conversion seems to be in full play and observed changes trend currently towards restoration objectives, i.e., structurally heterogeneous and species-rich mixed forests. However, the studied stands are still in a transitional phase, and tree regeneration has mostly not reached the upper canopy yet. Furthermore, regeneration of spruce increased in some stands extensively and there possibly bears the risk of a direct re-growth (Romme et al. 2011) and the potential development of spruce-dominated stands if no intervention takes place. On the other hand the extensive promotion of European beech may lead to homogenous forest properties and relatively low understorey species diversity in the long term (Hobi et al. 2015). In this context, the recently observed crown dieback and mortality of beech in many parts of Central Europe after extensive drought (Schuldt et al. 2020; Obladen et al. 2021) question its future dominance. These findings underline the advantage to diversify commercial forests as a measure of risk management under climate change. Concerning the conversion of pure and even-aged coniferous stands, we propose the cost-efficient use of natural regeneration of autochthonous broad-leaved tree species, wherever possible, and supporting active silvicultural interventions in commercial stands to promote diverse and structurally rich mixed forests. In accordance with other authors (e.g., Stanturf et al. 2019; Bolte et al. 2021), we suggest that the effort to convert coniferous plantations need to be multiplied to reduce the damages that are expected to occur with ongoing climate change.
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analysed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code availability
The R code generated for the data analysis for the study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Ammer C (2005) Untersuchungen zur Raumbesetzung junger Buchen und Fichten. Freiburger Forstliche Forschung 60:1–19
Ammer C (2019a) Conversion of Norway spruce by European beech - growth and carbon sequestration of regeneration and overstorey in stands managed by long-term selection cuttings. Allgemeine Forst- Jagdzeitung 190:73–89
Ammer C (2019b) Diversity and forest productivity in a changing climate. New Phytol 221:50–66
Ammer C, Bickel E, Koelling C (2008) Converting Norway spruce stands with beech – a review of arguments and techniques. Austrian J Forest Sci 125:3–26
Ammer C, Schall P, Gossner MM et al (2017) Waldbewirtschaftung und Biodiversität: Vielfalt ist gefragt. AFZ-Der Wald 2017:20–25
Ampoorter E, Barbaro L, Jactel H et al (2020) Tree diversity is key for promoting the diversity and abundance of forest-associated taxa in Europe. Oikos 129:133–146
Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46
Anderson MJ (2006) Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62:245–253
Augusto L, Dupouey J-L, Ranger J (2003) Effects of tree species on understory vegetation and environmental conditions in temperate forests. Ann for Sci 60:823–831
Axer M, Kluckow F, Wagner S (2022) Evaluation of a restoration approach after one century—effects of admixed European beech on the natural regeneration potential and humus condition in spruce stands. Front For Glob Change. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.826186
Bałazy R, Zasada M, Ciesielski M et al (2019) Forest dieback processes in the Central European Mountains in the context of terrain topography and selected stand attributes. For Ecol Manag 435:106–119
Barbier S, Gosselin F, Balandier P (2008) Influence of tree species on understory vegetation diversity and mechanisms involved—a critical review for temperate and boreal forests. For Ecol Manag 254:1–15
Barsoum N, Henderson L (2016) Converting planted non-native conifer to native woodlands: a review of the benefits, drawbacks and experience in Britain
Bauhus J (2009) Rooting patterns of old-growth forests: is aboveground structural and functional diversity mirrored belowground? In: Wirth C, Gleixner G, Heimann M (eds) Old-Growth Forests. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 211–229
Bauhus J, Puettmann KJ, Kühne C (2013) Close-to-nature forest management in Europe: Does it support complexity and adaptability of forest ecosystems? In: Messier C, Puettmann KJ, Coates KD (eds) Managing forests as complex adaptive systems. Routledge, pp 187–213
Bauhus J, Forrester DI, Gardiner B et al (2017) Ecological stability of mixed-species forests. In: Pretzsch H, Forrester DI, Bauhus J (eds) mixed-species forests Ecology and management. Springer, Berlin, pp 337–382
Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt (2021) Bayerns Klima im Wandel. Klimaregion Spessart-Rhön., Augsburg
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser B (methodol) 57:289–300
BMEL (2021) Waldbericht der Bundesregierung 2021. Available via https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/waldbericht2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=11. Accessed 12 Dec 2022
Bolte A, Ammer C, Löf M et al (2009) Adaptive forest management in central Europe: climate change impacts, strategies and integrative concept. Scand J for Res 24:473–482
Bolte A, Höhl M, Hennig P et al (2021) Zukunftsaufgabe Waldanpassung. AFZ-DerWald:12–16
Borrass L, Kleinschmit D, Winkel G (2017) The “German model” of integrative multifunctional forest management—Analysing the emergence and political evolution of a forest management concept. For Policy Econ 77:16–23
Braun-Blanquet J (1964) Pflanzensoziologie: Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. Springer, Vienna
Budde S, Schmidt W, Weckesser M (2011) Impact of the admixture of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) on plant species diversity and naturalness of conifer stands in Lower Saxony. Waldökologie, Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz 11:49–61
Canham CD, Denslow JS, Platt WJ et al (1990) Light regimes beneath closed canopies and tree-fall gaps in temperate and tropical forests. Can J for Res 20:620–631
Cavard X, Macdonald SE, Bergeron Y et al (2011) Importance of mixedwoods for biodiversity conservation: Evidence for understory plants, songbirds, soil fauna, and ectomycorrhizae in northern forests. Environ Rev 19:142–161
Chambers JM (1992) Statistical Models in S. Wadsworth, California
Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Hsieh TC et al (2014) Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol Monogr 84:45–67
Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austral Ecol 18:117–143
Coote L, Dietzsch AC, Wilson MW et al (2013) Testing indicators of biodiversity for plantation forests. Ecol Indic 32:107–115
de Groot M, Diaci J, Ogris N (2019) Forest management history is an important factor in bark beetle outbreaks: lessons for the future. For Ecol Manag 433:467–474
Dieler J, Uhl E, Biber P et al (2017) Effect of forest stand management on species composition, structural diversity, and productivity in the temperate zone of Europe. Eur J Forest Res 136:739–766
Dobrovolny L (2016) Density and spatial distribution of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) regeneration in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karsten) stands in the central part of the Czech Republic. iForest 9:666–672
Dobrowolska D (2008) Effect of stand density on oak regeneration in flood plain forests in Lower Silesia, Poland. Forestry (lond) 81:511–523
Doyon F, Yamasaki S, Duchesneau R (2008) The use of the natural range of variability for identifying biodiversity values at risk when implementing a forest management strategy. For Chron 84:316–329
Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366
Ellenberg H, Leuschner C (2010) Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen in ökologischer, dynamischer und historischer Sicht. In: ökologischer, dynamischer und historischer Sicht. Ulmer, Stuttgart
Ewald J, Jehl H, Braun L et al (2011) Die Vegetation des Nationalparks Bayerischer Wald als Ausdruck von Standort und Walddynamik. Tuexenia 31:9–38
Fischer H, Huth F, Hagemann U et al (2016) Developing restoration strategies for temperate forests using natural regeneration processes. In: Stanturf JA (ed) Restoration of boreal and temperate forests, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 118–179
Forrester DI, Bauhus J (2016) A review of processes behind diversity – productivity relationships in forests. Curr Forestry Rep 2:45–61
Gamfeldt L, Snäll T, Bagchi R et al (2013) Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat Commun 4:1340
Gardiner B, Blennow K, Carnus J-M et al Destructive storms in European forests: past and forthcoming impacts. Final report to European Commission-DG Environment. European Forest Institute.
Gosselin M, Fourcin D, Dumas Y et al (2017) Influence of forest tree species composition on bryophytic diversity in mixed and pure pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) stands. For Ecol Manag 406:318–329
Hagemeier M (2002) Funktionale Kronenarchitektur mitteleuropäischer Baumarten am Beispiel von Hängebirke, Waldkiefer, Traubeneiche, Hainbuche. Winterlinde und Rotbuche. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart
Hansen J, Spiecker H (2015) Conversion of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) forests in Europe. In: Stanturf JA (ed) Restoration of boreal and temperate forests. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 370–379
Heidrich L, Bae S, Levick S et al (2020) Heterogeneity-diversity relationships differ between and within trophic levels in temperate forests. Nat Ecol Evol 4:1204–1212
Heinrichs S, Schmidt W (2009) Short-term effects of selection and clear cutting on the shrub and herb layer vegetation during the conversion of even-aged Norway spruce stands into mixed stands. For Ecol Manag 258:667–678
Heinrichs S, Ammer C, Mund M et al (2019) Landscape-scale mixtures of tree species are more effective than stand-scale mixtures for biodiversity of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens. Forests 10:73
Heinrichs S, Schall P, Ammer C et al (2020) Annahmen und Ergebnisse zur Biodiversität im Wirtschaftswald – Neues aus der Biodiversitätsforschung. WSL Berichte 15:296
Heiri C, Wolf A, Rohrer L et al (2009) Forty years of natural dynamics in Swiss beech forests: structure, composition, and the influence of former management. Ecol Appl 19:1920–1934
Helbach J, Frey J, Messier C et al (2022) Light heterogeneity affects understory plant species richness in temperate forests supporting the heterogeneity-diversity hypothesis. Ecol Evol 12:e8534
Hilmers T, Friess N, Bässler C et al (2018) Biodiversity along temperate forest succession. J Appl Ecol 55:2756–2766
Hobi ML, Commarmot B, Bugmann H (2015) Pattern and process in the largest primeval beech forest of Europe (Ukrainian Carpathians). J Veg Sci 26:323–336
Hunter ML (2004) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Huth F, Wagner S (2006) Gap structure and establishment of silver birch regeneration (Betula pendula Roth.) in Norway spruce stands (Picea abies L. Karst.). For Ecol Manag 229:314–324
Hynynen J, Niemisto P, Vihera-Aarnio A et al (2010) Silviculture of birch (Betula pendula Roth and Betula pubescens Ehrh.) in northern Europe. Forestry (lond) 83:103–119
Jactel H, Moreira X, Castagneyrol B (2021) Tree diversity and forest resistance to insect pests: patterns, mechanisms, and prospects. Ann Rev Entomol 66:277–296
Jäger EJ (2017) Exkursionsflora von Deutschland. Springer Spektrum, Berlin
Jonášová M, Matějková I (2007) Natural regeneration and vegetation changes in wet spruce forests after natural and artificial disturbances. Can J for Res 37:1907–1914
Juchheim J, Ehbrecht M, Schall P et al (2020) Effect of tree species mixing on stand structural complexity. Forestry (lond) 93:75–83
Kapfer J, Hédl R, Jurasinski G et al (2016) Resurveying historical vegetation data - opportunities and challenges. Appl Veg Sci 20:164–171
Keith SA, Newton AC, Morecroft MD et al (2009) Taxonomic homogenization of woodland plant communities over 70 years. Proc Biol Sci 276:3539–3544
Kjučukov P, Hofmeister J, Bače R et al (2022) The effects of forest management on biodiversity in the Czech Republic: an overview of biologists’ opinions. iForest 15:187–196
Klimo E, Hager H, Kulhavý J (2000) Spruce monocultures in Central Europe: Problems and prospects. European Forest Institute, Joensuu
Kramer K, Brang P, Bachofen H et al (2014) Site factors are more important than salvage logging for tree regeneration after wind disturbance in Central European forests. For Ecol Manag 331:116–128
Kremer KN, Bauhus J (2020) Drivers of native species regeneration in the process of restoring natural forests from mono-specific, even-aged tree plantations: a quantitative review. Restor Ecol 28:1074–1086
Kudernatsch T, Schauer B, Walentowski H (2021) Effects of forest conversion of spruce monocultural stands to mixed spruce-beech forests on vegetation and humus layer. Tuexenia 41:109–142
Kühne C, Bartsch N (2003) Zur Naturverjungung von Fichten-Buchen-Mischbestanden im Solling. Forst Und Holz 58:3–7
Lange F, Ammer C, Leitinger G et al (2022) Is Douglas fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco] invasive in central Europe? A case study from south-west Germany. Front. For. Glob. Change
Lindner M, Lasch P, Erhard M (2000) Alternative forest management strategies under climatic change – prospects for gap model applications in risk analyses. Silva Fenn. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.634
Löf M, Madsen P, Metslaid M et al (2019) Restoring forests: regeneration and ecosystem function for the future. New for 50:139–151
Marini L, Økland B, Jönsson AM et al (2017) Climate drivers of bark beetle outbreak dynamics in Norway spruce forests. Ecography 40:1426–1435
Matthes S, Okrusch M (1965) Sammlung Geologischer Führer Spessart. Gebrüder Bornträger, Berlin
Mergner W (2018) 120 Jahre Douglasienanbau im ehemaligen Forstamt Heigenbrücken. Geschichtsblatt Heigenbrücken 2018:24–27
Messier C, Bauhus J, Sousa-Silva R et al (2022) For the sake of resilience and multifunctionality, let’s diversify planted forests! Conser Lett 15:e12829
Meyer P, Ammer C (2022) Forest management. In: Wohlgemuth T, Jentsch A, Seidl R (eds) Disturbance ecology. Springer, Cham, pp 315–346
Mina M, Huber MO, Forrester DI et al (2018) Multiple factors modulate tree growth complementarity in Central European mixed forests. J Ecol 106:1106–1119
Möges Z (2008) Naturnahe Forstwirtschaft Im Unternehmen BaySF. AFZ-Derwald 12:620–622
Mölder A, Streit M, Schmidt W (2014) When beech strikes back: How strict nature conservation reduces herb-layer diversity and productivity in Central European deciduous forests. For Ecol Manag 319:51–61
Moretti M, de Cáceres M, Pradella C et al (2010) Fire-induced taxonomic and functional changes in saproxylic beetle communities in fire sensitive regions. Ecography 33:760–771
Neuner S, Albrecht A, Cullmann D et al (2015) Survival of Norway spruce remains higher in mixed stands under a dryer and warmer climate. Glob Chang Biol 21:935–946
Obladen N, Dechering P, Skiadaresis G et al (2021) Tree mortality of European beech and Norway spruce induced by 2018–2019 hot droughts in central Germany. Agric for Meteorol 307:108482
Oettel J, Lapin K (2021) Linking forest management and biodiversity indicators to strengthen sustainable forest management in Europe. Ecol Indic 122:107275
Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R et al (2022) Package 'vegan'. Community ecology package. Version 2.6–4
Pach M, Sansone D, Ponette Q et al (2018) Silviculture of mixed forests: a European overview of current practices and challenges. In: Dynamics, Silviculture and Management of Mixed Forests. Springer, Cham, pp 185–253
Pielou EC (1966) The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. J Theor Biol 13:131–144
Prach J, Kopecký M (2018) Landscape-scale vegetation homogenization in Central European sub-montane forests over the past 50 years. Appl Veg Sci 21:373–384
Pretzsch H, Schütze G (2016) Effect of tree species mixing on the size structure, density, and yield of forest stands. Eur J Forest Res 135:1–22
Pretzsch H, Del Rio M, Schütze G et al (2016) Mixing of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) enhances structural heterogeneity, and the effect increases with water availability. For Ecol Manag 373:149–166
Pretzsch H, Forrester DI, Bauhus J (eds) (2017) Mixed-species forests. Ecology and management. Springer, Berlin
Priewasser K (2013) Factors influencing tree regeneration after windthrow in Swiss forests. Dissertation, ETH Zurich
Puettmann KJ, Messier C, Coates KD (2013) Managing forests as complex adaptive systems. Introductory concept and application. In: Messier C, Puettmann KJ, Coates KD (eds) Managing forests as complex adaptive systems. Routledge, Miltan Park, pp 3–16
Puettmann K, Ares A, Burton J et al (2016) Forest restoration using variable density thinning: lessons from Douglas-Fir stands in western Oregon. Forests 7:310
QGIS Development Team (2022) QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project
R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
Raspé O, Findlay C, Jacquemart A-L (2000) Sorbus aucuparia L. J Ecol 88:910–930
Reinecke J, Klemm G, Heinken T (2014) Vegetation change and homogenization of species composition in temperate nutrient deficient Scots pine forests after 45 yr. J Veg Sci 25:113–121
Roberts DW (2022) Package 'labdsv'. R package version 2.0–1
Romme WH, Boyce MS, Gresswell R et al (2011) Twenty years after the 1988 Yellowstone fires: lessons about disturbance and ecosystems. Ecosystems 14:1196–1215
Schall P, Ammer C (2013) How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests. Eur J Forest Res 132:379–396
Schall P, Gossner MM, Heinrichs S et al (2018) The impact of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests. J Appl Ecol 55:267–278
Schuldt A, Assmann T, Brezzi M et al (2018) Biodiversity across trophic levels drives multifunctionality in highly diverse forests. Nat Commun 9:2989
Schuldt B, Buras A, Arend M et al (2020) A first assessment of the impact of the extreme 2018 summer drought on Central European forests. Basic Appl Ecol 45:86–103
Seidl R, Rammer W (2017) Climate change amplifies the interactions between wind and bark beetle disturbances in forest landscapes. Landscape Ecol 32:1485–1498
Seidl R, Thom D, Kautz M et al (2017) Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat Clim Change 7:395–402
Seliger A, Puffpaff S, Manthey M et al (2021) Management options for the conversion of allochthonous coniferous forest patches towards more natural species composition in the Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft National Park, NE Germany. Balt for 27:40–54
Seliger A, Ammer C, Kreft H et al (2023) Changes of vegetation in coniferous monocultures in the context of conversion to mixed forests in 30 years – Implications for biodiversity restoration. J Environ Manage 343:118199
Simmons EA, Buckley GP (1992) Ground vegetation under planted mixtures of trees
Spiecker H (2003) Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe-temperate zone. J Environ Manage 67:55–65
Spiecker H, Hansen J, Klimo E (2004) Norway spruce conversion: Options and consequences, Brill-Leiden
Stanturf JA, Palik BJ, Dumroese RK (2014) Contemporary forest restoration: A review emphasizing function. For Ecol Manag 331:292–323
Stanturf JA, Kleine M, Mansourian S et al (2019) Implementing forest landscape restoration under the Bonn Challenge: a systematic approach. Ann for Sci 76:1–21
Stein A, Gerstner K, Kreft H (2014) Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecol Lett 17:866–880
Sterba H, Eckmuellner O (2008) Invasion of Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in conifer forests-five case studies in Austria. Austrian J for Sci 125:89–101
Storch F, Kändler G, Bauhus J (2019) Assessing the influence of harvesting intensities on structural diversity of forests in south-west Germany. For Ecosyst 6:1–12
Tremp H (2005) Aufnahme und Analyse vegetationsökologischer Daten. Ulmer, Stuttgart
Treutlein U, Achhammer C (2018) Waldumbauoffensive 2030. LWF aktuell:6–9
Ujházy K, Hederová L, Máliš F et al (2017) Overstorey dynamics controls plant diversity in age-class temperate forests. For Ecol Manage 391:96–105
Unkrig V (1997) Regeneration of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and spruce (Picea abies L.) in the forest reserve Sonnenkopf. Forst Holz 52:538–543
von Lüpke B, Spellmann H (1997) Aspects of stability and growth of mixed spruce-beech-stands as a basis of silvicultural decisions. Forstarchiv 68:167–179
von Lüpke B, Ammer C, Braciamacchie M et al (2004) Silvicultural Strategies for Conversion. In: Spiecker H (ed) Norway Spruce conversion - options and consequences. BRILL, Leiden, pp 121–164
Wagner S, Collet C, Madsen P et al (2010) Beech regeneration research: From ecological to silvicultural aspects. For Ecol Manag 259:2172–2182
Wagner S, Fischer H, Huth F (2011) Canopy effects on vegetation caused by harvesting and regeneration treatments. Eur J For Res 130:17–40
Walentowski H (1998) Die Weißtannen-Waldgesellschaften Bayerns. Diss. Bot.:1–473
Weichhardt-Kulessa K (2011) Vegetationskundliche und vegetationsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen an Mooren im Spessart und Odenwald. Dissertation, TU Berlin
Williams KJ (2014) Public acceptance of plantation forestry: Implications for policy and practice in Australian rural landscape. Land Use Policy 38:346–354
Yamamoto S-I (2000) Forest gap dynamics and tree regeneration. J For Res 5:223–229
Zeller L, Liang J, Pretzsch H (2018) Tree species richness enhances stand productivity while stand structure can have opposite effects, based on forest inventory data from Germany and the United States of America. For Ecosyst 5:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-017-0127-6
Zerbe S (1993) Fichtenforste als Ersatzgesellschaften von Hainsimsen-Buchenwäldern: Vegetation, Struktur und Vegetationsveränderungen eines Forstökosystems. Ber Forschungszentr Waldökosyst 100:1–173
Zerbe S (1995) Die Vegetation der Fichtenforste im Buntsandstein-Spessart. Schriftenr Vegetationskde 27:341–351
Zerbe S (1999) Die Wald- und Forstgesellschaften des Spessarts mit Vorschlägen zu deren zukünftigen Entwicklung. Mitt Naturwiss Mus Aschaffenburg 19:1–354
Zerbe S (2002) Restoration of natural broad-leaved woodland in Central Europe on sites with coniferous forest plantations. For Ecol Manag 167:27–42
Zerbe S (2023) Restoration of Ecosystems – Bridging Nature and Humans. A Transdisciplinary Approach. Springer Spektrum
Zerbe S, Meiwes KJ (2000) Zum Einfluß von Weichlaubhölzern auf Vegetation und Auflagehumus von Fichtenforsten — Untersuchungen in einem zwei Jahrzehnte alten Birken-Ebereschen-Vorwald im Hoch-Solling. Eur J Forest Res 119:1–19
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the provision of forest inventory data by the Bavarian State Forest Research Centre (Regensburg, Germany). We thank the local forest administrations in the Bavarian Spessart mountains for their fruitful cooperation. We also give thanks to Hayato Hasegawa (Kyushu Institute of Technology, Japan) for assistance during part of the field work in 2022.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by project DEAL. This research was funded by the Bavarian Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Forestry (Grant No. F053).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AS, CA, and SZ designed the study. AS conducted the data collection. AS and HK performed the data analysis. AS wrote the original draft. AS, CA, HK, and SZ conceived, wrote, and edited the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed as potential conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Communicated by Miren del Río.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Seliger, A., Ammer, C., Kreft, H. et al. Diversification of coniferous monocultures in the last 30 years and implications for forest restoration: a case study from temperate lower montane forests in Central Europe. Eur J Forest Res 142, 1353–1368 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-023-01595-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-023-01595-4