ArticleEcology and evolution2020
Contrasting vulnerability of monospecific and species-diverse forests to wind and bark beetle disturbance: The role of management.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of management on susceptibility of Nordic boreal forests to damage by natural disturbances.Ambio · 2026Review
- Ecological Mechanisms Underlying the Effects of Forest-Medicinal Plant Agroforestry Systems on Soil Quality and the Understory Environment.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Do pheromone traps help to reduce new attacks ofPeerJ · 2022Article
- Contrasting vulnerability of monospecific and species-diverse forests to wind and bark beetle disturbance: The role of management.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wind and bark beetle disturbances have increased in recent decades, affecting Europe's coniferous forests with particular severity. Management fostering forest diversity and resilience is deemed to effectively mitigate disturbance impacts, yet its efficiency and interaction with other disturbance management measures remain unclear.We focused on Central Europe, which has become one of the hotspots of recent disturbance changes. We used the iLand ecosystem model to understand the interplay between species composition of the forest, forest disturbance dynamics affected by climate change, and disturbance management. The tested measures included (a) active transformation of tree species composition toward site-matching species; (b) intensive removal of windfelled trees, which can support the buildup of bark beetle populations; and (c) reduction of mature and vulnerable trees on the landscape via modified harvesting regimes.We found that management systems aiming to sustain the dominance of Norway spruce in the forest are failing under climate change, and none of the measures applied could mitigate the disturbance impacts. Conversely, management systems fostering forest diversity substantially reduced the level of disturbance. Significant disturbance reduction has been achieved even without salvaging and rotation length reduction, which is beneficial for ecosystem recovery, carbon, and biodiversity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.