Forest: deadwood

Assessment versions

Published (reviewed and quality assured)

• Forest: deadwood (SEBI 018) - Assessment published May 2010

Justification for indicator selection

MAIN ADVANTAGES OF THE INDICATOR

• Biodiversity relevance: deadwood is a measure of habitat quality relevant for thousands of European forest organisms, several threatened. Data on deadwood can be collected at relatively low cost in national forest inventories and the indicator is reported by countries according to agreed definitions.
• Accepted methodology.
• Geographical coverage: pan-European.

Scientific references:

• No rationale references available

Indicator definition

Volume of standing and lying deadwood in forest and other wooded land, classified by forest type (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) (MCPFE) definition). In national forest inventories, countries generally classify according to type (standing, snags, lying, species and state of decay).

Units

No units have been specified

Policy context and targets

Context description

Deadwood (coarse woody debris) in form of snags (dead standing trees) and logs (dead lying trees) is a habitat for a wide array of organisms and after humification an important component of forest soil. Some species are dependent, during some part of their life cycle, to find a place to live, either on the surface or in cavities/protected places of dead or dying wood of moribund or dead trees (standing and fallen), or upon wood-inhabiting fungi or other species. Because of lack of deadwood in multipurpose forests many of the species dependent on deadwood are endangered.

At present it is still debated what amount of deadwood is required in order to maintain the most valuable species and under what circumstances the accumulated deadwood component may give rise to a risk for insect outbreaks.

Relation of the indicator to the focal area

Decaying wood habitats are important components of biodiversity in European forests and recognised as an indicator for assessing and monitoring biodiversity as well as sustainable forest management.

Targets

No targets have been specified

Related policy documents

No related policy documents have been specified

Methodology

Methodology for indicator calculation

Definition of terms:

Terminology is well defined for international reporting by MCPFE. Dead wood (coarse woody debris) as such as well as the methodology for reporting of volume are thus defined by MCPFE.

On a national scale monitoring of deadwood is carried out in several National forest Inventories (NFIs). Work towards harmonisation of terminology is carried out by the COST E43 action. This comprises type classification (standing, bending, lying) as well as potentially important additional parameter (Uprooted stems, Clearcut stems, Pieces of stems, Cut branches, Uprooted staves, Logging residues, Fine woody debris, Intact snags, Broken snags, Broken, lying stems without uprooting). There are several approaches to register state of decay, most commonly this is classified in 5 classes. Noting the tree species is desirable but data are not collected by everybody.

MCPFE has defined the following reporting of the indicator "Deadwood":

Measurement units

• Status: m³/ha.
• Changes: m³/ha/yr.

Figures to be reported on

• Volume of dead standing trees (snags) and lying trees (logs) on forest area and
  other wooded land, classified by forest type.

Minimum length and diameter of standing and lying dead trees

• Length: 2 m.
• Diameter: It is up to the countries to define the minimum size of diameter to be
  reported. It is recommended that the minimum size be:

Standing deadwood: 10 cm d.b.h.
Lying deadwood: 10 cm mean diameter.

Forest type

A European Forest Types classification has been proposed to MCPFE (EEA, 2006).

Methodology for gap filling

No methodology for gap filling has been specified. Probably this info has been added together with indicator calculation.

Methodology references

• European forest types -- Categories and types for sustainable forest management reporting and policy EEA, 2006. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. EEA Technical report No 9/2006.
• status based on national forest inventories FBI 2003 (Forest biodiversity indicators in the Nordic countries)
• Terms and definitions (Final version) FRA 2005 (Global forest resources assessment update) (2005). FAO Forestry Department. Rome, 2004
• Terminology of Forest Management. Terms and Definitions in EnglisH IUFRO (2000). IUFRO World Series Vol. 9-en. IUFRO Secretariat Vienna. SilvaTerm Database
• Forest resources in Europe 1950-1990 Kuusela, K. 1994. Cambridge University Press.
• TBFRA Supplementary Enquiry for Data on Protected and Protective Forests and Other Wooded Land MCPFE (2000). MCPFE and UNECE, Geneva.
• MCPFE Assessment Guidelines for Protected and Protective Forest and Other Wooded Land in Europe as adopted by the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting MCPFE (2002). 10- 11 June 2002, Vienna, Austria.
• State of Europe's Forests 2003 MCPFE (2003). The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. Jointly prepared by MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna and UNECE/FAO. Vienna.
• Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 UNECE/FAO (2005). Data for Europe, United Nations, New York and Geneva.
• Communication from Mr. Almunia to the members of the Commission SEC(2005) 161 final. Sustainable Development Indicators to monitor the implementation of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy.
• Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (TBFRA 2000) UNECE/FAO (2000). Main report. UNECE/FAO Contribution to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. United Nations, New York and Geneva.

Data specifications

EEA data references

• No datasets have been specified here.

External data references

• Biomass stock in forest and other wooded land (Forest Resources Assessment 2005 - country tables)

Data sources in latest figures

Uncertainties

Methodology uncertainty

No uncertainty has been specified

Data sets uncertainty

No uncertainty has been specified

Rationale uncertainty

MAIN DISADVANTAGES OF THE INDICATOR

• The indicator is a general measure on habitat quality. It will not, at least not in international reporting, be possible to evaluate the indicator with respect to specific organisms, e.g. threatened species.
• A minimum level of required deadwood to create suitable habitats in multifunctional forests is not yet defined. This will probably have to be done when developing management plans at landscape or stand scales. Huge amounts of deadwood may also be a risk (insect calamities, fire).
• Methodology to measure deadwood differs between countries. Some countries include also tree stumps into the calculations. Numbers may also be influenced by the share of undisturbed forest (in which case figures for deadwood may reflect the share of undisturbed forest instead of the real amount of dead wood in production forests).

ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS

The 35 MCPFE quantitative indicators (http://www.mcpfe.org/documents/r_2007/ici)
all relate to sustainable forestry management. From this set, those with most direct relevance to biodiversity were selected.

Work description

Resource needs

No resource needs have been specified

Status

Deadline