ArticleScientific reports2026
European forestry systems mirror social-ecological diversity but closer-to-nature forest management and landscape planning are also required.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hemiboreal Stand Development and Living Biomass Carbon Stocks: An Ontogenetic and Typology-Based Assessment Using National Forest Inventory Data.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New forest-related policies lead to conflicts among different forest benefits, actors and stakeholders. This requires multiple tools for forest management and landscape planning towards multifunctional landscapes. We first explore if the relative proportions of clearcutting (CC) and continuous cover forestry (CCF) as the two major contrasting traditional forest management systems in Europe can be explained by the complex net effect of biophysical, anthropogenic and social system variables. We then review mismatches between CC and CCF methods, and the tools required by new policies advocating multifunctional forest landscapes. The first three components of a multivariate analysis (PCA) explained 66% of the variation in the dataset. There were four main clusters of countries: (1) Nordic-Baltic boreal, (2) continental temperate lowland, (3) mountain, and (4) southern and southeastern Europe. The incidence of CCF in the 26 countries was correlated to both PC1 and PC2, and a multiple regression explained 53% of the variation in applying CCF. However, key mismatches between the application of CC and CCF and policy about multifunctional landscapes include difficulties to secure biodiversity conservation and ecosystem resilience. Therefore, new “closer-to-nature” forest management systems and triad landscape planning are also necessary.
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.