A new proposal for the MCPFE A new proposal for the MCPFE Forest Types classification Forest Types classification

Marco MarchettiMarco MarchettiItalian Academy of Forest SciencesItalian Academy of Forest Sciences

EcoGeoFor – Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Geomatics, University of Molise,Italy

Feasibility and issues of country reporting

European forest area =European forest area =1004 million 1004 million haha

if we don’t take if we don’t take into account the into account the

variabilityvariability in in natural conditionsnatural conditions and and anthropogenic anthropogenic influencesinfluences affecting affecting MCPFE indicatorsMCPFE indicators

Can we Can we correctly correctly

evaluate the evaluate the state of state of

European European forests?forests?

Today MCPFE reporting: in a country with high ecological diversity…

reporting data by BROADLEAVED FOREST makes somewhat fruitless the effort in collecting and processing data on growing stock, tree specie composition,

deadwood! deciduous+evergreen forest together

no consideration of ecological differences between forest communities (mesophytic/thermophilous/mediterranean sclerophyllous)

The European forest types -Categories and types forsustainable forest managementreporting and policy:

Product of an international consortium lead by the Italian Academy of Forest Sciences under EEA contract

http://www.eea.europa.eu/

European Forest Types

= 14 classes of European forests growing under relatively homogeneous ecological conditions (climatic, edaphic) and levels

of anthropogenic modification

Applications:Applications: 11. possible future reporting of the 7 forest types based . possible future reporting of the 7 forest types based

MCPFE indicatorsMCPFE indicators2. forest monitoring, with particular reference to 2. forest monitoring, with particular reference to

large scale forest biodiversity assessmentslarge scale forest biodiversity assessments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

14 Top level classes for the MCPFE reporting (CATEGORIES)14 Top level classes for the MCPFE reporting (CATEGORIES)

76 low level classes (TYPES) to 76 low level classes (TYPES) to describe and document the variety describe and document the variety of forest communities that each category comprisesof forest communities that each category comprises

Types are intended to stratify national forest Types are intended to stratify national forest data, data,

the 14 categories for data evaluation and the 14 categories for data evaluation and international reportinginternational reporting

Classification schemeClassification scheme

Hig

her n

atu

raln

ess

Hig

her n

atu

raln

ess

Low

est

Low

est

natu

raln

ess

natu

raln

ess

14. Plantations and self-sown exotic forest

1. Boreal forest2. Hemiboreal and nemoral coniferous

and mixed broadleaved-coniferous forest

3. Alpine coniferous forest 4. Acidophilous oak and oak-birch forest5. Mesophytic deciduous forest 6. Beech forest 7. Montainous beech forest 8. Thermophilous deciduous forest9. Broadleaved evergreen forest10. Coniferous forests of the

Mediterranean, Anatolian and Macaronesian regions

11. Mire and swamp forest12. Floodplain forest13. Non-riverine alder, birch or aspen

forest

13 classesof forestdominated bynative tree species

14 Categories14 Categories

Important breaking point Important breaking point of naturalnessof naturalness

COVERAGE: forest land as defined in FAO (2004)

76 Types76 Types

CATEGORIES 1-13 delineation: - changes of ecological forest zones influencing the natural tree-species composition, the length of the growing season (i.e. growing stock), decomposition rate and natural disturbance regimes (i.e deadwood type and amount)- variation in management systems

- simplification of forest structure (monospecific, regularly tree spacing)

- relevant modification in site species composition, when the native vegetation is replaced by forest stands predominantly consisting of non-native (or non-indigenous, exotic, introduced) trees

Cat. 14 -Cat. 14 - Plantations and self-sown exotic Plantations and self-sown exotic forestforest ( (planted forest – planted forest – plantations & planted/seeded component of semi-natural - in the newly proposed FRA reporting tables from Kotka V ?!):

Estimated number of categories per countries, based on a preliminary assessment on ICP level I plots

the increased reporting effort is seemingly moderate: the shift will be from the current 3 classes to, on average, 6 reporting categories per country

Classification keys

• The European Forest Types are provided with a classification key allowing a systematic cross-link (post-stratification) of national forest data (e.g. NFIs, forest management plans) to categories and types, based on:

– simple ecological information (biogeographic region, water regime, site edaphic condition)

– forest dominant tree species (as resulting from NFIs plots dbh data)

Nomenclature

• The classification key is integrated by a nomenclature, a descriptive frame to characterise categories and types, that includes: – the definition of the category– the geographical distribution of the category– Types descriptions

• Types are also referenced to:

– Eunis III level classes– EU Habitats Directive Annex I (92/43/EEC)

Example of type description

Feasibility of the scheme

Cross-linking country data to Cross-linking country data to European Forest Types European Forest Types

Data from a questionnarie circulated within 20 European countries

Countries not covered by the questionnarie

Countries without forest types scheme in NFIs

Countries with forest types scheme in NFIs

COST action E43 Harmonisation of National Forest Inventories in Europe: tecniques for common reporting

0 5 10 15 20

NO

YES

Most of the European countries included in the survey declare they can easily link NFIs data to NFIs data to European Forest TypesEuropean Forest Types

A number of countries (Italy, France, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Spain, Ireland) volunteered to classify NFIs raw data (plots) by volunteered to classify NFIs raw data (plots) by European Forest TypesEuropean Forest Types

Results will be delivered to the COST ACTION by by june 2007june 2007

A second way to cross-link NFIs field plots to EFTs are

Label to label bridging functionsLabel to label bridging functions

• applicable and convenient in the countries having already NFIs forest types schemes to stratify ground plots, provided that: such classifications are grounded on same diagnostic criteria as the European forest types (e.g. actual forest vegetation, forest tree species composition, site ecological conditions, etc)

Label to label bridging function: ItalyLabel to label bridging function: Italy

Italian NFIs forest types20 classes of semi-natural forests grounded on forest physiognomy; 3 classes corresponding to forest plantations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

14 first 14 first levellevel classesclasses ((CATEGORIESCATEGORIES))

75 75 secondsecond levellevel classesclasses ((TYPESTYPES))

Cross-reference at the type level

76 second level classes (TYPES)

CATEGORY TYPE CLASS (code). Dominant species

3. Alpine coniferous forest 3.1 Subalpine larch-arolla pine and dwarf pine forests

1. Larch, Arolla

4. Mountain pine

3.2 Subalpine and montane spruce and montane mixed spruce-fir mixed forests

2. Spruce

3. Fir

3.3 Scots pine and Black pine forests 4. Scots pine

5. Black pine

4. Acidophilous oak and oak birch forest

4.1 Acidophilous oak-dominated (Q. petraea, Q. robur)

9. Sessile oak, Peduncolate oak

5. Mesophytic deciduos forest 5.2 Sessile oak-hornbeam forest 12. Horn-beam

5.8 Ravine and slope forest 14. Maple, lime

6. Beech forest 6.3 Subatlantic submontane beech forests

8. Beech

7. Montane beech forest 7.3 Apennine-Corsican montane beech forests

8. Beech, fir

EUROPEAN FOREST TYPES ITALIAN NFI FOREST TYPES

by field survey plots are assigned to NFI forest types

dominant species&

basic ecological information

STRATIFICATION OF NFIsplots by categories

European Forest Types

nomenclature+ key

CATEGORY TYPE CLASS (code). Dominant species

12. Floodplain forest 12.1/2 Riparian/fluvial forest 13. Alders

12.1/2 Riparian/fluvial forest 13. Aspen

12.1 Riparian forest 13. Willow

12.3 Mediterranean and Macaronesian riparian forest

13. Plane tree

13. Non-riverine alder, birch or aspen forest

13.2 Italian Alder forest 14. Italian alder

13.4 Southern boreal birch forest 14. Birch

14. Plantatations and self-sown exotic forest

14.1 Plantation of site-native species 19. Plantations of native broadleaves (e.g. cherry, walnut)

20. Plantations of native conifers

14.2 Plantations of not-site-native species and self-sown exotic forest

14. Self-sown stands of Robinia pseudoacacia, Ailanthus altissima

18. Plantation of Popolus clones

19. Plantations of Eucalyptus

20. Plantations of Pseudotsuga menziesii or Pinus radiata or of other exotic conifers

EUROPEAN FOREST TYPES ITALIAN NFI FOREST TYPES

ITALY = 11 categories

Label to label bridging function:

Slovenia

BASED ON FOREST MANAGEMENTPLANS DATA

classification of forest vegetation communities

The way ahead: MCPFE reporting

• The European Forest Types have been European Forest Types have been presented and discussed in the presented and discussed in the MCPFE Workshop on “Pan-European MCPFE Workshop on “Pan-European understanding of forest understanding of forest classification” classification” (November 2006, Bled Slovenia)

• The system was recognized as scientifically sound and bridging functions developed in Italy/Slovenia were regarded as proofs of the feasibility of the scheme at country level: no additional data collection is required to link avalaible dbs to European Forest Types

Reccomendations from the MCPFE WorkshopReccomendations from the MCPFE Workshop

• To present the proposed 14 main Categories of the ‘European Forest Types’ for consideration and if possible for adoption by the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting (5-6 June 2007) as the standard for the seven MCPFE indicators which require reporting ‘by forest type’

• Actions (training at a regional level, development of tools to cross-references national forest type classifications to the proposed pan-European scheme) are needed in order to strengthen capacity and to facilitate implementation in many countries

• The case-studies (Italy, Slovenia) showed that most of the data needed to classify forests into the Forest Types are readily available in most countries, however, it was recommended that more case-studies would be valuable (cf. in this direction goes the COST ACTION test)

Final remarkFinal remark

Experts concluded that some additional forest types would be usefulExperts concluded that some additional forest types would be useful in some categories when validation at a national level suggested such a need and that for certain forest types some definitions need more clarification and should be redefined: e.g.

the Slovenian evaluation showed the need of a ‘silver fir forest’ type Category 14, Plantations and self sown exotic forest; this category

would need further elaboration, e.g. by adding types to separate highly managed plantations of non-native species from more ‘naturalized’ plantations, which may host more natural biodiversity (e.g. Picea sitkensis old plantations in UK)

Before accomodating new types into the scheme, Before accomodating new types into the scheme, would not be better to wait for a first round of would not be better to wait for a first round of

application of the scheme at EU level (to have a better application of the scheme at EU level (to have a better overview of new types needed at EU level)?overview of new types needed at EU level)?

The question is not to agree on a classification fully The question is not to agree on a classification fully reflecting the variety of forest condition at country reflecting the variety of forest condition at country level (44 countries!) but at the pan-European one!level (44 countries!) but at the pan-European one!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONATTENTION