Forests and Climate Change in Czechia: an Appeal to Responsibility

Abstract

Forests cover more than one third of the area of Czechia and provide many environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits. Only a small part of the country´s forested area is left to nature. Most Czech forests are managed, with Norway spruce as the main tree species. The ongoing climate change progressively creates new conditions for the functioning of forests as important components of the landscape and providers of ecosystem services for society. Until recently, Czech forestry policy makers had not paid enough attention to climate change. As a result, Czech forests grapple with increasing instability caused by repeated windstorms, droughts and insect plagues. Traditionally applied management methods and rigid business models are not suitable for resolving the situation. Czech forestry thus takes an exceptional position within Europe. The responsibility for the development of the adaptation strategy and sustainable management policy lies in the hands of forestry policy makers. In order to restore stability and to ensure multifunctionality of forests under new climatic conditions, it will be necessary to introduce a new model of forest management. Compared to the traditional forestry model based on age classes, the new management model must be more flexible and better adapted to the new environmental situation. The principles of the new forestry policy should stem from agreement and cooperation of the forestry sector with scientific and nature protection institutions, as well as from an active discussion within society.

Full text

10.2478/jlecol-2018-0009 aaaJournal of Landscape Ecology (2018), Vol: 11 / No. 3.
3
FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN CZECHIA:
AN APPEAL TO RESPONSIBILITY
JOSEF FANTA, PETR PETŘÍK
Institute of Botany, The Czech Academy of Sciences, CZ-252 43 Průhonice
Corresponding authors e-mails: jfanta.cz@gmail.com; petrik@ibot.cas.cz
Received: 24th October 2018, Accepted: 2nd January 2019
ABSTRACT
Forests cover more than one third of the area of Czechia and provide many environmental,
economic, social and cultural benefits. Only a small part of the country´s forested area is left
to nature. Most Czech forests are managed, with Norway spruce as the main tree species. The
ongoing climate change progressively creates new conditions for the functioning of forests as
important components of the landscape and providers of ecosystem services for society.
Until recently, Czech forestry policy makers had not paid enough attention to climate change.
As a result, Czech forests grapple with increasing instability caused by repeated windstorms,
droughts and insect plagues. Traditionally applied management methods and rigid business
models are not suitable for resolving the situation. Czech forestry thus takes an exceptional
position within Europe. The responsibility for the development of the adaptation strategy and
sustainable management policy lies in the hands of forestry policy makers. In order to restore
stability and to ensure multifunctionality of forests under new climatic conditions, it will be
necessary to introduce a new model of forest management. Compared to the traditional
forestry model based on age classes, the new management model must be more flexible and
better adapted to the new environmental situation. The principles of the new forestry policy
should stem from agreement and cooperation of the forestry sector with scientific and nature
protection institutions, as well as from an active discussion within society.
The starting point of the change are the documents Strategy of Adaptation to Climate
Change under the Conditions of the Czech Republic and National Action Plan, elaborated in
2016 and 2017 by the Ministry of the Environment, and the Strategic Framework Czech
Republic, approved by the Czech government. The chosen adaptation strategy and its
implementation must not only restore the stability of forests, but also improve the future
position of the Czech forestry sector among European countries.
Keywords: Czech forestry; climate change impact on forests; adaptation strategy; forest
management innovation; new forestry policy concept; biodiversity; Platform for the
Landscape
INTRODUCTION
Forests cover nearly one third of the Czech landscape and affect its environment in
a considerable way. Their good state and functioning are the basic preconditions for the
provision of optimal ecosystem services to society. As an independent site factor, the climate
affects forest ecosystems, which, in turn, moderate local and regional microclimates, soils

Fanta J., Petřík P.: Forests and Climate Change in Czechia: an appeal to responsibilityaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
4
and water regimes over large areas. Conversely, forest management creates conditions
supporting the production function of forests. These mutual relationships have various
consequences not only for forests, but for entire landscapes.
The ongoing climate change has a strong impact on forests. Increasing temperatures, more
frequent droughts and extreme climatic fluctuations form the background of disturbances and
insect plagues that afflict Czech forestry, alter the biodiversity of forests and bring
uncertainties as to the future provision of forest services and the benefits of forests for
mankind, including wood production (Fanta, 1992; Moldan ed., 1993; Buček & Vlčková,
2009 a, b; Hlásny et al., 2012). Only some 11 % of Norway spruce forests are growing on
natural sites. Most Czech forests are monocultures of Norway spruce planted and growing in
unsuitable conditions outside of the species’ natural niche. Such commercial forests are
highly vulnerable to the new climatic conditions. To minimize the risks, forest management
must adapt to the changes. Unlike in neighbouring countries, leading policy-makers of the
Czech forestry sector have not reacted to the new situation in time. Instead, they have
continued to prefer traditional management methods, which are oriented mainly towards the
production of timber and other wood.
Forest management was established in the 18th and 19th centuries as a set of technical
operations aimed to maximize wood production, which was indispensable for industrial
development at the time (Silvicultura Oeconomica, von Carlowitz, 1713). The so-called
age-classes forestry approach (Hartig, 1791; Hundeshagen, 1827) combined all temporal and
economic aspects in a model corresponding with the ideology of economic growth of the
Second Industrial Revolution in the best way. This approach, however, completely ignored
natural conditions. This has harmed the forestry sector not only ecologically, but also
economically. The development of ecology as a science and attempts to apply ecological
knowledge in forest management, although successful (e.g. Gayer, 1886; Möller, 1922;
Konšel, 1931), did not change the official concept of forestry policy of that time. Forests of
today are ecologically unstable products of previous forestry policy and forest management.
To minimize future risks, a new forestry policy and a proper corresponding forest
management concept must be developed.
FORESTRY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIONS IN EUROPE
In the founder countries of the EU, foresters have been paying attention to climate change
and its impact on forests and forestry since the beginning of the international discussion
headed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014) and later, with
declining biodiversity also by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2018). In some countries, working teams have been
established already in the 1990s, to investigate various aspects of the problem and to identify
strong and weak points of the matter (Fanta, 1992). Climate change has become one of the
most important research topics of the European Forest Institute and, to date, hundreds of
scientific publications have appeared in scientific journals worldwide. The complicated
nature of the matter has stimulated broad international communication among specialists
from different parts of Europe (e.g. Bolte et al., 2009; Lindner et al., 2010; Hanewinkel et al.,
2012; de Frenne et al., 2013; Fitzgerald & Lindner, 2013; Wagner et al., 2014; and Nabuurs
in this issue), especially in the fields of climatology, biology, pedology and ecology, and
brought them together with foresters to find answers to both scientific and practical questions
connected with climate change. Moreover, respected international organizations such as the
European Environment Agency, the Food and the Agricultural Organization, the
International Union of Forest Research Organizations and European Academies´ Science

aaaJournal of Landscape Ecology (2018), Vol: 11 / No. 3
5
Advisory Council are participating in this process, discussing topics such as short rotation
forestry and accounting procedures used in the LULUCF sector. Last but not least, the two
main forest management certification organizations, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), saw an increase in
the area of certified forests; however, the percentage of the total forest area covered by such
forests is still low (http://web.unep.org). Because of the aforesaid strange attitude of the
Czech forestry policy-makers, hardly any Czech foresters were involved in these
international research and policy programmes.
IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FORESTS: LESSONS FROM THE PAST
CENTURIES
The present climate change is not the first to occur in Central Europe. The results of
palaeoecological investigations concerning changes in forests and vegetation development
over the Holocene in Central Europe are a good basis for imagining the course of changes we
will be confronted with in forests and vegetation under the current climate (e. g. Firbas, 1949,
1952; Ložek, 1973; Holten, 1990; Jankovská & Pokorný, 2008; Pokorný, 2013). In most
cases, the changes were rather rapid and not reverting, leading to the development of new
types of vegetation cover or to the shifting of vegetation zones (see Machar, et al. in this
issue). In the historical period, the changes in vegetation cover have been concurrent with
human activities in the landscape. For example, the warm climate in the first half of the
Middle Ages (in the 9th and 13th centuries) facilitated the colonization of lowland areas of
Northern and Northwestern Europe, accompanied by extensive deforestation and the
development of large areas of wind-blown sand landscapes in today’s Flanders, in the
Netherlands, northern Germany and northern Poland, which nearly ended in desertification
(Koster, 1978; 2010). The colonization of uplands and low mountains, accompanied by
extensive deforestation in the Czech lands, formed the basis of prosperity of the Bohemian
kingdom in the 13th and 14th centuries. However, a rapid swing in the opposite direction – the
cool and wet period of Little Ice Age (in the 15th–19th centuries) – caused the abandonment of
many settlements in hilly areas and led to the cessation of agricultural land use of upland
areas. This development was followed by extensive soil erosion of abandoned agricultural
land. As a result, the 14th century has been identified as the period of greatest displacements
of soil matter in the history of the Central-European Quaternary (Bork et al., 1998).
At the end of the 17th century, Central Europe had the lowest forest cover in its history. It
was a crisis which developed as a result of former extensive clearing of previously
unmanaged forests. The inception of organized forestry (von Carlowitz, 1713), in reaction to
this new situation, made it possible to resolve the first Central-European energy crisis, which
was caused by a lack of firewood and timber – the basic energy and construction materials of
the time. The cool and wet Little Ice Age was a favourable period for the development of
coniferous forests. Organized forest management had made it possible not only to restore
cleared forests, but also to afforest abandoned agricultural land, and, in the following
centuries (i.e. the first industrial period), to produce previously unheard of quantities of
firewood and timber. Unfortunately, this was achieved by the establishment of monoculture
plantations, at the expense of natural conditions. What is even worse is that the age-classes
forestry model developed at that time survives virtually unchanged to this day.
The aforesaid examples show that the impact of climate change on forests will potentially
be great. Moreover, the speed of the ongoing change confirms the knowledge gained by the
palaeoecological research.

Fanta J., Petřík P.: Forests and Climate Change in Czechia: an appeal to responsibilityaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
6
CURRENT SITUATION IN CZECHIA
In contrast to other European countries, the leading bodies of the Czech forestry sector had
until recently (January 2019) not taken any clear position on the matter of climate change.
This has several causes. The first reason stems from the discontinuity in the political
development of the country since the half of the past century (Petřík et al., 2015). In that
period, the totalitarian regime was not interested in environmental issues and blocked any
rational discussion in this field. This was logical. The second half of the 20th century was a
period that left heavy environmental damage to forests from industrial pollution (Hruška &
Cienciala, 2001; 2003). However, the chaotic political situation after the Velvet Revolution
in November 1989 had a similar effect. Initial attempts to change the course for the better,
such as the Conference on European Environment (held in Dobříš in 1991; Moldan, 1993),
were successful, but they did not gain sufficient attention. The political mood was geared
above all towards economic aspects, at the expense of the environment. Under the influence
of this approach, for example, the main Czech forestry organization (the Czech State Forest
Service) decided to outsource all field operations (such as tending, felling and reforestation),
and to largely limit its own activities on administrative tasks, with economic aspects at the
forefront. The ecological aspects of forest management were sidelined. Hardly any attention
was paid to the potential danger and prevention of windbreaks, and even the effects of the
Kyrill storm in 2007 did not bring any change in approach.
A new impulse came with the accession of the country to the European Union. The
National Forestry Program II (2008–2013) explicitly addressed all important topics
pertaining to the impact of climate change on forests and forestry. However, because of an
unstable political situation at the time, the reality fell flat. Forest diebacks of Norway spruce
forests in some parts of the country, caused by drought, root rot or bark beetles, have already
reached dimension on which they are hard to address within the regular forest management
scheme. Several climate-change-oriented publications (e.g. Buček & Vlčková, 2009a, b;
Hlásny, 2012) were published but did not find immediate continuation and support in
institutional research programmes or in forestry practice. Not even the Principles of the state
forestry policy, accepted in 2012 by the Czech government, mentioned the need for change in
the approach to forests and forestry under threat from climate change. In the meantime,
however, the technical means for tackling bark beetle outbreaks turned out to be ineffective
and the outbreak became a calamity. In 2017 a state of emergency was declared in three
Moravian provinces. One year later, clearings covered an area of 40,000 hectares, and other
areas are exposed to the same danger. It is clear that the present concept of forestry and
forestry policy has failed spectacularly.
FUTURE CLIMATE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT ON FORESTS AND FORESTRY
The current climate change will affect not only the nature of forests as ecosystems and
vegetation formations, but also the quantity and quality of benefits and services they provide,
which contemporary society cannot do without. Certain processes, including some that are
invisible, are already under way, and others can be expected to start taking place sooner or
later. Examples of such processes are numerous. Many of them have already been
investigated in other countries, for example Slovenia, Austria, Germany and Switzerland.
Several examples:
- Change in the course of ongoing temperatures and precipitation, their distribution during
the year and potential extreme fluctuations (droughts and floods; e.g. Bässler, 2008; Pretel,
2009; Remund et al., 2016).

aaaJournal of Landscape Ecology (2018), Vol: 11 / No. 3
7
- Changes in the tree species composition of managed forests (strong impact on Norway
spruce forests growing on unsuitable sites; regional differences related to site conditions (e.g.
Leuzinger et al., 2005; Hlásny, 2012; Lévesque et al., 2013).
- Latitudinal and elevational shifts in the distribution of forest communities and their
transformation are predicted (e.g. Buček & Vlčková, 2009a, b; Brus et al., 2011;
Zimmermann, 2013; Machar et al. in this issue).
- Stimulation and suppression of soil processes in some areas and on sensitive sites (abundant
nitrogen release and rapid growth stimulation of Norway spruce; growth restriction of
vegetation and trees on dry sites; e.g. Rothe et. al., 1998; Rothe & Mellert, 2004).
- Changes in ecological tolerance of tree species, forest growth and biomass production -
biomass reduction at lower elevations due to drought; greater wood production in mixed
forests compared to monocultures (e.g. Lafond et al., 2014; Pretzsch et al., 2015a); and
contemporary excessive growth of Norway spruce and its low ability to resist wind and snow
(e.g. Boisvenue & Running, 2006; Bolte et al., 2010; Braun et al., 2015; Pretzsch et al.,
2015b; Bosela et al., 2016).
- Insect outbreaks in forests (bark beetle infestation of Norway spruce plantations at lower
elevations and on sensitive sites, see e.g. Engesser et al., 2008; Hlásny & Turčány, 2009;
Příhoda & Lukášová, 2014).
- Changes in the occurrence of saprophytic and saproxylic organisms on forest trees, e.g.
Chalara fraxinea on indigenous ash trees; Gemmamyces piceae on the introduced species
Picea engelmannii (Loo, 2009; Sturrock et al., 2011; Černý, 2016); root rot on Norway
spruce at lower elevations; potential root rot on young Douglas fir trees planted on sites
formerly occupied by Norway spruce (Vor et al., 2015; Holderegger et al., 2017); loss of
mycorrhizal fungi on trees on some places (e.g. Oliva & Stenlid, 2012; Desprez-Loustau
et al., 2016).
- Changes in natural regeneration of forest trees: the rise and following decline of natural
regeneration of Norway spruce on unsuitable sites; increase of natural regeneration of
European beech and other broadleaves in lower elevation zones (Ott et al., 1991; Bugmann,
1999; Moser et al., 2015).
- Increased danger of wind- and stormbreaks in Norway spruce monocultures (Schelhaas
et al., 2003) and forest fires under dry conditions, especially in the summer period, i.e. during
harvesting of agricultural crops.
The mutual relationships of these and other examples of climate change consequences for
forest trees and sites create innumerable possibilities of how forest ecosystems will react to
climate conditions changing in time and space. In the long term, climate change will alter the
conditions for forest growth and the functioning of forests as ecosystems. It will influence
local ecosystem services (i.e. production, supporting, regulation and cultural – see the
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). This will inevitably create vastly different
conditions for the management of forests as a renewable natural resource.
The decision on how to properly manage forests under future climatic conditions should be
based on basic research knowledge, a modern approach to forestry, practical experience and
public awareness.
TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT
Thanks to environmental science, forests are no longer viewed merely as a source of wood,
but as ecosystems and irreplaceable structural components of the landscape. The goals of
modern forestry are defined in terms of sustainability, multi-functionality, biodiversity and
provision of ecosystem services (see e.g. MCPFE/PEBLDS consultation meeting on pan-

Fanta J., Petřík P.: Forests and Climate Change in Czechia: an appeal to responsibilityaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
8
European recommendations for afforestation and reforestation in the context of the
UNFCCC). Under these conditions, forest management must be understood as a coordinated
activity based on the integration of ecological and economic insight and executed as an
integrated process enabling and securing the aforesaid functions and goals. The
close-to-nature management model expresses the character of this approach in the best way.
The word ‘nature’ does not mean that technical management interventions should be
excluded. Instead, it indicates the respect for the broad context of ecological relationships
and processes mentioned above; management interventions should not be carried out as
a rigid set of prescribed technical operations; each intervention has to be in line with natural
development. Logically, any forest management concept must be adaptive, meaning flexibly
adaptable to various situations, closely corresponding to local conditions and aimed towards
the achievement of forest management goals.
In fact, such a concept is not new to Central European or even to Czech forestry. Similar
concepts of forest management have been developed and applied, both in the past and
recently, mostly in response to the dissatisfaction with the old-fashioned age-classes-forestry
model (e.g. Rubner, 1968). Some forest owners in Central Europe have decided to apply this
management approach as a general strategy – and with good results, even with regard to
economy. In Czechia, good examples are provided by Konias (1951) and Košulič (2010).
Recently, this approach has been strongly advocated by the organization Pro Silva Europa
with its national branches in various countries (see Pro Silva Bohemica in Czechia; Remeš in
this issue). Based on broad scientific knowledge and practical experience, leading European
forestry bodies and institutions recommend the close-to-nature management model as the
best strategy to cope with the uncertainties brought by climate change (e.g. Kolström et al.,
2011). An analogous response can be found in presentations from the EASAC (European
Academic Science Advisory Council) ‘Beyond Wood Conference’, held on 23 May 2016 in
Brussels.
The crucial point of the adaptation of Czech forestry to the new climatic situation,
however, is the need to change the present business model of the Czech State Forest Service.
The present concept is explicitly economy-oriented and does not properly respect the
ecological conditions of forests. In fact, this discordance is at the roots of the problems of
contemporary forestry, including the expanding bark beetle calamity. The business model
must be revised and brought into balance with the regionally different ecological conditions
of particular forest areas. This balance is the basic precondition for the development and
application of sustainable forest management – the only acceptable model for the future,
which can bring stability to local forest environments and the forestry sector as a whole. The
development of this new concept is the main contemporary task of Czech forestry policy. It is
without doubt that the final result of this process must be a new forest bill.
FORESTRY AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
In the new concept of forest management, the maintenance and restoration of biodiversity
is an important point. Indigenous trees, plants and other organisms provide greater ecological
and physical stability of ecosystems than planted monocultures, which are a cause of severe
biodiversity degradation. The problem of biodiversity restoration must be addressed
systematically and in coordination with nature and landscape protection administrations (Vor
et. al., 2015). Foresters may base their practice on information revealed by long-term
investigations in national parks, nature reserves and areas left to natural development. Last
but not least, this adaptation process must be related to broader landscape circumstances
(Hrnčiarová et al., 2009; Fanta & Petřík, 2014). In principle, two main approaches to the

aaaJournal of Landscape Ecology (2018), Vol: 11 / No. 3
9
conservation or improvement of forest biodiversity are being discussed: (i) the creation of
wilderness areas (maintenance of natural processes with minimum intervention; and (ii)
sustainable management linking productive and non-productive functions of forests. The
former point pertains to species depending on the continuity of the forest cover, dead wood
and large trees (i.e. some bryophytes, lichens, fungi, saprophytic beetles, cavity-nesting birds
associated with old forests), which are negatively affected by intensive forest management
(Gregory et al., 2007; Virkkala et al., 2008; Moning & Müller, 2009; Scheidegger et al.,
2009; Paillet et al., 2010). The latter approach is applicable to the protection of endangered
species through management with shorter rotation times in place of high forest systems, such
as coppicing with standards (see Konvička et al., 2006; Hédl et al., 2010). In Europe,
progress towards sustainable forest management is periodically monitored (see Lindenmayer
et al., 2006; and MCPFE). Silvicultural diversification (sometimes called ‘polyculture’) is
recommended for the mitigation of risks to the biodiversity of forests and the ecosystem
services they provide (Felton et al., 2010; Gamfeldt et al., 2013; Löhmus & Runnel, 2014;
Hofmeister et al., 2015). Forest certification as applied by the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC) should be preferred because it leads to the application of stronger measures (Elbakidze
et al., 2011).
A CHALLENGE FOR CZECH FORESTRY AND LESSONS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
The ongoing climate change is a long-term phenomenon; progressively, it will alter our
present environment and create an entirely new set of conditions for the existence of forests
in this part of the European continent. Some of these changes are already underway,
especially on dry lowland sites. In the short term, however, these changes will also take place
under different conditions (Vitasse et al., 2012; Moser et al., 2015). Their impact on forest
growth and forest management will be both beneficial (e.g. increased biomass production at
higher elevations) and adverse (e.g. lower resistance of damaged forests to diseases). Both
local and regional differences in forest management will therefore increase. The future
principles of forest management must be derived from detailed knowledge of site conditions
and processes of natural ecosystem development.
A good example of a creative approach to the formulation of a new concept of forest
management and planning is the forest development type model developed in
Baden-Wuerttembergia, Germany (von Teuffel & Krebs, 1999; von Teuffel, 1999) and
officially implemented there since 2014. This model comes as an alternative when
monocultures and forestry based on age classes fail (Perpeet, 2001). The Czech alternative of
this forest management and planning concept (Černý, 2004) was rejected by the leading
Czech forest planning authorities and remains limited to national parks and a few
experimental plots (e.g. Forest Enterprise of Mendel University in Křtiny).
Despite the fact that timber production will remain one of the primary purpose of majority
of forests, it is essential to find harmony between wood production and other ecosystem
functions, such as carbon sequestration in vegetation and soil, water retention, maintenance
of biodiversity and social functions (see Stachová in this issue). This coherence must be
attained in a both economically and ecologically efficient way. This is a task that requires
both an intensive cooperation of the forestry sector with the scientific community and
intensive intersectoral cooperation between foresters and nature protection authorities. It also
requires an effective system of subsidies supporting the adjustment of forestry policy and the
creation of legislation that will open the way towards flexible and adaptive forest
management respecting the balance among economic, ecological and social conditions. This
is the way to restore the stability of forests and to ensure forest ecosystem services – the most

Fanta J., Petřík P.: Forests and Climate Change in Czechia: an appeal to responsibilityaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
10
important obligations of Czech forestry today (cf. Putz & Redford, 2009; Harvey et al., 2010;
Lindenmayer et al., 2012).
The Czech government has revitalized the Governmental Advisory Board for Sustainable
Development and, simultaneously, entrusted the Ministry of the Environment to elaborate
the Strategy of Adaptation to Climate Change under the Conditions of the Czech Republic
(https://www.mzp.cz/cz/zmena_klimatu_adaptacni_strategie) and its follow-up the National
Action Plan (https://www.mzp.cz/cz/narodni_akcni_plan_zmena_klimatu). These initiatives
are being followed now by analyses of the effects of the changing climate on the
development of various aspects of the economy, the environment and public life. The first
good examples of an effective cooperation of the forestry sector with researchers in biology
are documents dealing with adaptation of forest management to climate change (Hlásny
et al., 2016; Čermák et al., 2016). Further steps should be oriented towards a new, more
flexible concept of forest site typology, management of tree species and species mixtures,
game management and transitioning from even-aged silviculture to selective cutting in
multi-age forests, eventually resulting in the introduction of small-scale management into
forest law. In Czechia, specific attention must be paid to the execution of management
measures including the use of heavy machinery and to the involvement of the forestry sector
in countryside development, especially in cooperation with the agricultural sector.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
From its very beginnings, organized forestry has focused primarily on the provision of
firewood and timber in amounts required by the rapidly evolving industry. The development
of methods of silviculture, forest protection and wood harvesting has led to massive changes
in tree species composition, the introduction of non-native provenances of forest trees and the
introduction of a homogeneous structure of forest stands. At the same time, clear-cutting
followed by tree planting represented a technically and economically efficient approach to
forest management. Developments over the last decades characterized by dramatic
Europe-wide damage to forests and growing demands of the society on the multifunctional
character of forests have raised the need for changes in the current paradigm of forest
management.
In the face of climate change and related changes in forest disturbance regimes,
risk-oriented management becomes the key concept for future development. Unstable
monocultural forests need to be transformed into stable, uneven-aged and mixed forests.
Only such forests will be able to ensure the provision of the desired forest functions, even in
cases of local failure of some tree species, be it as a result of the adverse effects of climatic
factors or of pests. Such an approach will reduce the risk of sudden destruction of large
forested areas and facilitate the desired asynchronous dynamics and ecological stability of
forests and forested landscapes. The landscape framework must also be taken into
consideration. With respect for natural conditions, valuable open habitats should not be
afforested but kept open to support the landscape diversity. With regard to the needs for
multifunctional management that supports biodiversity, water retention in the landscape,
accumulation of carbon, etc., it is necessary to create a framework for the implementation of
a wider spectrum of management alternatives supporting these functions. Forestry
policymakers must also take into account the social significance of these functions and
implement an effective subsidy policy.
More than ten years ago, specialists in the field of forestry became divided by the
publication of a critical standpoint of Czech scientists and professionals devoted to the
protection of Czech forests, which called for systemic changes in forestry (Fanta et al., 2006).

aaaJournal of Landscape Ecology (2018), Vol: 11 / No. 3
11
For the forestry sector such a direct approach was not acceptable. Today, it is clear that it was
impossible to achieve positive change in the divided forestry community of that time. With
the increasing impact of climate change on forests, however, the need to change the concept
of forest management became more pressing than before. Therefore, the Forum 2000
conference (2016) aimed to first ascertain the positions of various groups as the starting point
of a discussion about the future concept of Czech forestry. The Platform for the Landscape
(www.nasekrajina.eu), a new initiative of the Czech scientific community administered by
the Institute of Botany of the Czech Academy of Sciences, offers a forum for such
a discussion. The Platform for the Landscape aims to give impetus to the process of
elaborating a coherent future-oriented national forestry policy that will be based on scientific,
economic and social foundations, and on effective intersectoral cooperation. This initiative is
in line with the document Strategic Framework Czech Republic 2030 (2017), which
formulates, in general terms, the principles of ecosystem management to secure biological
diversity and the provision of ecosystem services in Czechia.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The activities of the Platform for the Landscape are supported by the project Strategy
AV21, programme ROZE. The work on this publication was supported by the long-term
conceptual development programme of the Institute of Botany of the Czech Academy of
Sciences (RVO 67985939). Authors would like to thank Frederick Rooks for the text
proofreading and Petr Maděra for valuable comments.
REFERENCES
Bässler, C. (2008). Klimawandel – Trends der Lufttemperatur im inneren Bayerischer Wald
(Böhmerwald). Silva Gabreta 14(1), 1-18.
Boisvenue, C. & Running S. W. (2006). Impacts of climate change on natural forest
productivity – evidence since the middle of the 20th century. Global Change Biol. 12,
862-882. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01134.
Bolte, A., Ammer, C., Madsen, P., Nabuurs, G.-J., Schall, P., Spathelf, P. & Rock, J. (2009).
Adaptive forest management in Central Europe: Climate change impacts, strategies and
integrative concept. Scand. J. For. Res. 24, 473-482. DOI: 10.1080/02827580903418224.
Bolte, A., Hilbrig, L., Grundmann, B., Kampf, F., Brunet, J. & Roloff, A. (2010). Climate
change impact on stand structure and competitive interactions in a southern Swedish spruce –
beech forest. Eur. J. For. Res. 129, 261-276. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-009-0323-1.
Bork, H.-R. et al. (1998). Landschaftsentwicklung in Mitteleuropa. Klett-Perthes, Gotha.
Bosela, M., Štefančík, I., Petráš, R. & Vacek, S. (2016). The effects of climate warming on
the growth of European beech forests depend critically on thinning strategy and site
productivity. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 222, 21-31. DOI:
10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.03.005.
Braun, S., Remund, J. & Rihm, B. (2015). Indikatoren zur Schätzung des Trockenheitsrisikos
in Buchen- und Fichtenwäldern. Schweiz. Zeitschr. Forstwes. 166, 361-371.
Brus, D. J., Hengeveld, G. M., Walvoort, D. J. J., Goedhart, P. W., Heidema, A. H., Nabuurs,
G. J. & Gunia, K. (2011). Statistical mapping of tree species over Europe. Eur. J. For. Res.
131, 145-157. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-011-0513-5.

Fanta J., Petřík P.: Forests and Climate Change in Czechia: an appeal to responsibilityaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
12
Buček, A. & Vlčková, V. (2009b). Možný vliv globálních změn klimatu na vegetační stupně
1990-2030. Mapy 1: 2,000.000. Atlas krajiny ČR, 7. odd. MŽP – VÚKOZ, Praha.
Buček, A. & Vlčková, V. (2009a). Scénář změn vegetační stupňovitosti na území České
republiky: deset let poté. Ochrana přírody 64, 8-11.
Bugmann, H. (1999). Anthropogene Klimaveränderung. Sukzessionsprozesse und
forstwirtschaftliche Optionen. Schweiz. Zeitschr. Forstwes. 150, 275-287.
Čermák, P., Zatloukal, V., Cienciala, E., Pokorný, R. et al. (2016). Katalog lesnických
adaptačních opatření. MENDELU-ČZU-IFER, Praha-Brno.
Černý, K., (2016). Nepůvodní invazní patogeny dřevin – výzva nebo předem ztracený boj?
Živa LXIV (CII), 6: 286-291.
Černý, M. (ed.) (2004). Metodika tvorby lesního hospodářského plánu na podkladě provozní
inventarizace. IFER, Jílové.
De Frenne, P., Rodríguez-Sánchez, F., Coomes, D. A., Baeten, L., Verstraeten, G., Vellend,
M., Bernhardt-Römermann, M., Brown, C. D., Brunet, J., Cornelis, J., Decocq, G. M.,
Dierschke, H., Eriksson, O., Gilliam, F. S., Hédl, R., Heinken, T., Hermy, M., Hommel, M.,
Jenkins, M. A., Kelly, D. L., Kirby, K. J., Mitchell, F. J. G., Naaf, T., Newman, M., Peterken,
G., Petřík, P., Schultz, J., Sonnier, G., Van Calster, H., Waller, D. M., Walther, G.-R., White,
P. S., Woods, K., Wulf, M., Graae, B. J. & Verheyen, K. (2013). Microclimate moderates
plant responses to macroclimate warming. PNAS 110 (46): E18561-E18565. DOI:
10.1073/pnas.1311190110.
Desprez-Loustau, M. L., Aguayo, J., Dutech, C., Hayden, K. J., Husson, C., Jakushkin, B.,
Marcais, B., Piou, D., Robin, C., Vacher, C. et al. (2016). An evolutionary perspective to
address forest pathology challenges of today and tomorrow. Annals For. Sci. 73, 45-67.
Elbakidze M., Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Nordberg, M. & Pautov, Y. (2011). How does
forest certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Standards and outcomes in
Sweden and NW Russia. Forest Ecol. Manag. 262, 1983-1995. DOI:
10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.040.
Engesser, R., Forster, B., Meier, F. & Wermellinger, B. (2008). Forstliche Schadorganismen
im Zeichen des Klimawandels. Schweiz. Zeitschr. Forstwes. 159, 344-351.
Fanta, J. (1992). Possible Impact of Climatic Change on Forested Landscapes in Central
Europe: A Review. Catena Supplement 22, 133-151.
Fanta, J., Farkač, J., Hruška, J., Košulič, M. sen., Prach, K. & Rusek, J. (eds.) (2006).
Stanovisko vědců a odborných pracovníků k ochraně českých lesů. (manuscript, not
published).
Fanta, J. & Petřík, P. (eds.) (2014). Povodně a sucho: krajina jako základ řešení. Institute of
Botany, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Průhonice.
Felton, A. et al. (2010). Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production
stands: An assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in northern Europe.
Forest Ecol. Manag. 260(6), 939-947. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06011.
Firbas, F. (1949, 1952). Spät- und nacheiszeitliche Waldgeschichte Mitteleuropas nördlich
der Alpen. Vol. I, II. Fischer, Jena.
Fitzgerald, J. & Lindner, M. (eds.) (2013). Adapting to climate change in European forests –
Results of the MOTIVE project. Pensoft Publ., Sofia.
Gamfeldt, L. et al. (2013). Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests
with more species. Nature Comm. 4, 1340. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2328.

aaaJournal of Landscape Ecology (2018), Vol: 11 / No. 3
13
Gayer, K. (1886). Der gemischte Wald, seine Begründung und Pflege insbesondere durch
Horst- und Gruppenwirtschaft. Berlin.
Gregory, R. D., Vorisek, P., Van Strien, A., Gmelig Meyling, A. W., Jiguet, F., Fornasari, L.,
Burfield, I. J. (2007). Population trends of widespread woodland birds in Europe. IBIS 149
(Suppl. 2), 78-97. DOI: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.0698.x.
Hanewinkel, M., Cullmann, D. A., Schelhaas, M.-J., Nabuurs, G.-J. & Zimmermann, N. E.
(2012). Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land.
Nature Clim. Change, Letters. DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1687.
Hartig, G. L. (1791). Anweisung zur Holzzucht für Förster. Marburg.
Hartl-Meier, C., Dittmar, Ch., Zang, Ch. & Rothe, A. (2014). Mountain forest growth
response to climate in the Northern Limestone Alps. Trees 28, 819-829. DOI:
10.1007/s00468-014-0994-1.
Harvey, C. A., Dickson, B. & Kormos, C. (2010). Opportunities for achieving biodiversity
conservation through REDD. Conserv. Letters 3(1), 53-61.
DOI:10:1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00086.x.
Hédl, R., Kopecký, M. & Komárek, J. (2010). Half a century of succession in a temperate
oakwood: from species‐rich community to mesic forest. Diversity and Distributions 16,
267-276. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00637.x.
Hlásny, T. & Turčány, M. (2009). Insect pests as climate change driven disturbances in forest
ecosystems. In: Strelcova K. et al., eds.: Bioclimatology and Natural Hazards. Springer,
Berlin.
Hlásny, T. (2012). Jak může ovlivnit změna klimatu smrkové porosty v ČR? Les. práce
91(1), 29-31.
Hlásny, T., Marušák, R., Novák, J. et al. (2016). Adaptace hospodaření ve smrkových
porostech České republiky na změnu klimatu s důrazem na produkci lesa. Lesnický průvodce
15, VÚLHM, Strnady.
Hofmeister, J., Hošek, J., Brabec, M., Dvořák, D., Beran, M., Deckerová, H. et al. (2015).
Value of old forest attributes related to cryptogam species richness in temperate forests: A
quantitative assessment. Ecol. Indicators 57, 497-504. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.015.
Holderegger, R. et al. (2017). Auswirkungen des Douglasienanbaus auf die Biodiversität:
wichtige Forschungsfragen (Essay). Schweiz. Zeitschr. Forstwes. 168(1), 21-25.
Holten, J. I. (ed.) (1990). Effects of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems. NINA,
Trondheim.
Hrnčiarová, T., Mackovčin, P., Zvara, I. et al. (2009). Atlas krajiny České republiky. MŽP
Praha – VÚKOZ Průhonice.
Hruška, J. & Cienciala, E. (eds.) (2001). Dlouhodobá acidifikace a nutriční degradace
lesních půd – limitující faktor současného lesnictví. MŽP, Praha.
Hruška, J. & Cienciala, E. (eds.) (2003). Long-term acidification and nutrient degradation of
forest soils – limiting factors of forestry today. Czech Ministry of the Environment, Prague.
Hundeshagen, J. C. (1827). Lehrbuch der forst- und landwirtschaftlichen Naturkunde.
Tübingen.
IPBES (2018). The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services
for Europe and Central Asia. Rounsevell, M., Fischer, M., Torre-Marin Rando, A. & Mader,
A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 1-892.

Fanta J., Petřík P.: Forests and Climate Change in Czechia: an appeal to responsibilityaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
14
IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II
and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jankovská, V. & Pokorný, P. (2008). Forest vegetation of the last full-glacial period in the
Western Carpathians (Slovakia and Czech Republic). Preslia 80, 307-324.
Kolström, M., Vilén, T. & Lindner, M. (2011). Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in
European Forests. EFI Policy Brief 6, Helsinki.
Konias, H. (1951). Lesní hospodářství: Zvyšování dřevní produkce a ozdravění lesů na
Opočensku. Nakl. JSČZ, Praha.
Konšel, J. (1931). Stručný nástin tvorby a pěstění lesů v biologickém ponětí. Čs. Matice
lesnická, Písek.
Konvička, M., Fric, Z. & Beneš, J. (2006). Butterfly extinction in European states: Do
socioeconomic conditions matter more than physical geography? Global Ecol. Biogeogr.
15(1), 82-92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00188.x.
Koster, E. A. (1978). The eolian drift sands of the Veluwe, Central Netherlands: a physical
geographical study. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Koster, E. A. (2010). Origin and development of Late Holocen drift sands: geomorphology
and sediment attributes. In: Fanta J. & Siepel H. (eds.), Inland drift sand landscapes. KNNV
Publishing, Zeist.
Košulič, M. sen. (2010). Cesta k přírodě blízkému hospodářskému lesu. FSC-ČR, Brno.
Lafond, V. et al. (2014). Uneven-aged management options to promote forest resilince for
climate change adaptations: effects of group selection and harvesting intensity. Annals For.
Sci. 71, 173-186. DOI: 10.1007/s13595-013-0291-y.
Leuzinger, S. et al. (2005). Responses of deciduous forest trees to severe drought in Central
Europe. Tree Physiol. 325, 641-650.
Lévesque, M. et al. (2013). Drought response of five conifer species under contrasting water
availability suggests high vulnerability of Norway spruce and European larch. Global
Change Biol. 19, 3184-3199. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12268.
Lindenmayer, D. B., Franklin, J. F. & Fischer, J. (2006). General management principles and
a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv 131(3),
433-445. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.019.
Lindenmayer, D. B., Hulvey, K. B., Colyvan, M., Felton, A., Possingham, H., Steffen, W.,
Wilson, K., Youngentob, K. & Gibbons, P. (2012). Avoiding bio-perversity from carbon
sequestration solutions. Conserv. Letters 5, 28-36. DOI:
10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00213.x.
Lindner, M., Maroschek, M., Netherer, S., Kremer, A., Barbati, A., Garcia-Gonzalo, J.,
Seidl, R., Delzon, S., Corona, P., Kolström, M., Lexer, M. J. & Marchetti, M. (2010). Climate
change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For.
Ecol. Man. 259, 698-709. DOI:20.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023.
Löhmus, A. & Runnel, K. (2014). Ash dieback can rapidly eradicate isolated epiphyte
populations in production forests: A case study. Biol. Conserv. 169, 185-188. DOI:
10.1016/j.biocon.23013.11.031.
Loo, J. A. (2009). Ecological impacts of non-indigenous invasive fungi as forest pathogens.
Biol. Invasions 11, 81-96.
Ložek, V. (1973). Příroda ve čtvrtohorách. Academia, Praha.

aaaJournal of Landscape Ecology (2018), Vol: 11 / No. 3
15
Machar, I., Vlčková, V., Šálek, L., Pechanec, V., Nowak, A., Nowak, S., Plášek, V., Svajda,
J., Opršal, Z. & Topacoglu, O. (2019). Environmental Modelling of Forest Vegetation Zones
as a Support Tool for Sustainable Management of Central European Spruce Forests. Journal
of Landscape Ecology 11(3): 45-63.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing. Synthesis.
Island Press, Washington.
Moldan, B. (ed.) (1993). Rizika změny klimatu a strategie jejich snížení. ČHMÚ, Praha.
Möller, A. (1922). Der Dauerwaldgedanke, sein Sinn und seine Bedeutung. Berlin.
Moning, C. & Müller, J. (2009). Critical forest age thresholds for the diversity of lichens,
molluscs and birds in beech (Fagus sylvatica) dominated forests. Ecol. Indicators. 9(5),
922-932. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.11.002.
Moser, B., Metslaid, M., Wasem, U. & Wohlgemuth, T. (2015). Verjüngungspotenzial
verschiedener Waldföhren- und Fichtenherkünfte bei variabler Trockenheit. Schweiz.
Zeitschr. Forstwes. 166, 399-407.
Nabuurs, G.-J. (2019). Future scenarios of European forests. Journal of Landscape Ecology
11(3): 175-184.
Oliva, J. & Stenlid, J. (2012). Understanding the role of sapwood loss and reaction zone
formation on radial growth of Norway spruce (Picea abies) trees decayed by Heterobasidion
annosum s.l. Forest Ecol. Man. 274, 201-209.
Ott, E., Lüscher, F., Frehner, M. & Brang, P. (1991). Verjüngungsökologische
Besonderheiten im Gebirgsfichtenwald in Vergleich zur Bergwaldstufe. Schweiz. Zeitschr.
Forstwes. 142, 879-904.
Paillet, Y., Berges, L., Hiälten, J., Ódor, P., Avon, C., Bernhardt-Römermann M. et al.
(2010). Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: Meta-analysis of
species richness in Europe. Conserv. Biol. 24(1), 101-112. DOI:
10.1111/J.1523-1739.2009.01399.x.
Perpeet, M. (2001). Naturnaher Waldbau – die Waldentwicklungstypen der
Bundesforstverwaltung. Min. der Finanzen, Bonn.
Petřík, P., Fanta, J. & Petrtýl, M. (2015). It is time to change land use and landscape
management in the Czech Republic. Ecos. Health Sustainab. 1(9), 1-6. DOI:
10.1890/15-0016.1.
Pokorný, P. (2013). Dějiny lesa. K poznání vztahů člověka a přírodního prostředí. In: Bárta
M. & M. Kovář: Civilizace a dějiny. Historie světa pohledem dvaceti českých vědců.
Academia, Praha, s. 401-426.
Pretel, J. (2009). Současný vývoj klimatu a jeho výhled. Ochrana přírody 64, 2-7.
Pretzsch, H. et al. (2015a). Long-term stand dynamics of managed spruce-fir-beech
mountain forests in Central Europe: structure, productivity and regeneration success.
Forestry 88, 407-428.
Pretzsch, H., del Río, M., Ammer, Ch., Avdagic, A., Barbeito, I., Bielak, K., Brazaitis, G.,
Coll, L. et al. (2015b). Growth and yield of mixed versus pure stands of Scots pine (Pinus
sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L) analysed along a productivity gradient
through Europe. Eur. J. Forest Res. 134, 927-947. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-15-0900-4.
Příhoda, J. & Lukášová, V. (eds.) (2014). Lesy střední a severní Moravy jsou v ohrožení. Les.
práce 11, 5-9.
Putz, F. E. & Redford, K. H. (2009). Dangers of carbon-based conservation. Global Envir.

Fanta J., Petřík P.: Forests and Climate Change in Czechia: an appeal to responsibilityaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
16
Change 19(4), 400-401. DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.005.
Remeš, J. Development and present state of close-to-nature silviculture. Journal of
Landscape Ecology 11(3): 17-32.
Remund, J., von Arx, G., Gallien, L., Rebetez, M., Huber, B. & Zimmermann, N. E. (2016).
Klimawandel in der Schweiz – Entwicklung waldrelevanter Klimagrössen. In: Pluess A. R. et
al. (eds.). Wald im Klimawandel – Grundlagen für Adaptationsstrategien. Haupt,
Bern-Stuttgart-Wien, pp. 23-37.
Rothe, A., Köhling, C. & Moritz, K. (1998). Waldbewirtschaftung und Grundwasserschutz –
Der aktuelle Kenntnisstand. AFZ/Der Wald 53, 291-295.
Rothe, A. & Mellert, K. H. (2004). Effects of forest management on nitrate concentrations in
seepage water of forests in southern Bavaria, Germany. Water Air Soil Pollution 156,
337-355.
Rubner, K. (1968). Grundlagen des naturnahen Waldbaus in Europa. Forstwiss. Cblt. 87,
8-36.
Scheidegger, C., Werth, S. et al. (2009). Conservation strategies for lichens: Insights from
population biology. Fungal Biol. Reviews 23(3), 55-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.fbr.2009.10.003
Schelhaas, M.-J., Nabuurs, G.-J. & Schuck, A. (2003). Natural disturbances in the European
forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Global Change Biol. 9(11), 1620-1633. DOI:
10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00684.x.
Stachová, J. (2019). Forests in the Czech public discourse. Journal of Landscape Ecology
11(3): 33-44.
Sturrock, R. N., Frankel, S. J., Brown, A. V., Hennon, P. E., Kliejunas, J. T., Lewis, K. J.,
Worrall, J. J. & Woods, A. J. (2011). Climate change and forest diseases. Plant Pathol. 60,
133-149. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02406.x.
Virkkala, R., Heikkinen, R. K., Leikola, N. & Luoto, M. (2008). Projected large-scale range
reductions of northern-boreal land bird species due to climate change. Biol. Conserv. 141(5),
1343-1353. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.007.
Vitasse, Y., Hoch, G., Randin, C. F., Lenz, A., Kollas, C. & Körner, C. (2012). Tree
recruitment of European tree species at their current upper elevation limits in the Swiss Alps.
J. Biogeogr. 39(8), 1439-1449. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02697.x.
von Carlowitz, H. C. (1713). Sylvicultura Oeconomica oder Hauswirthliche Nachricht und
Naturmässige Anweisung zur wilden Baum-Zucht. Braun, Leipzig.
von Teuffel, K. (1999). Waldentwicklungstypen in Baden-Württemberg. AFZ/Der Wald 54,
672-676.
von Teuffel, K. & Krebs, M. (1999). Forsteinrichtung im Wandel. AFZ/Der Wald 54,
858-865.
Vor, T., Spellmann, H., Bolte, A. & Ammer, Ch. (eds.) (2015). Potentiale und Risiken
eingeführter Baumarten. Baumartenportraits mit naturschutzfachlicher Bewertung.
Göttinger Forstwiss., B. 7. Uni-Vlg., Göttingen.
Wagner, S., Nocentini, S., Huth. F. & Hoogstra-Klein, M. (2014). Forest management
approaches for coping with uncertainty of climate change: Trade-offs in service provisioning
and adaptability. Ecology and Society 10, art. 32. DOI: 10.575/ES-06213-190132.
Zimmermann, N. E. (2013). Future ranges in European tree species. In: Fitzgerald J. &
Lindner M. (eds.), Adapting to climate change in European forests – Results of the MOTIVE
project. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia.