ArticleScientific reports2025
Recovery of the forest's protective effect after stand-replacing wind disturbances.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Forests in mountain areas provide an indispensable ecosystem service by protecting people and infrastructure from natural hazards. However, open questions remain regarding its long-term and reliable provision, which will amplify with climate change. In particular, natural disturbances, such as wind storms, can cause temporary losses of the forest's protective effect against natural hazards, such as rockfall, snow avalanches or landslides, potentially leading to higher risks for settlements and infrastructures. In this study, we analyzed the recovery of the protective effect of a large number of windthrow areas in the Swiss Alps using high-resolution canopy height models and single tree detection. We observed a considerable recovery of tree height (67 % on average), forest cover (90 %) and stem density (46 %) 31 years after the storm. Basal area showed a lower recovery of 16 % on average with 25 % of the studied areas showing a retarded recovery of ≤ 6 %. This highlights the extended timescales required for full recovery of the protective effect against certain hazard types, such as rockfall or landslides. Recovery rates were most importantly influenced by temperature, precipitation, local topography, gap size and lithological substrate, underlining the importance of local environmental conditions when predicting recovery. The study highlights future research gaps, including the role of deadwood as well as species mixture in the recovery of the forest's protective effect after disturbances.
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.