Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Scaling issues in forest ecosystem management and how to address them with models

European Journal of Forest Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scaling is widely recognized as a central issue in ecology. The associated cross-scale interactions and process transmutations make scaling (i.e. a change in spatial or temporal grain and extent) an important issue in understanding ecosystem structure and functioning. Moreover, current concepts of ecosystem stewardship, such as sustainability and resilience, are inherently scale-dependent. The importance of scale and scaling in the context of forest management is likely to further increase in the future because of the growing relevance of ecosystem services beyond timber production. As a result, a consideration of processes both below (e.g. leaf-level carbon uptake in the context of climate change mitigation) and above (e.g. managing for biodiversity conservation at the landscape scale) the traditional focus on the stand level is required in forest ecosystem management. Furthermore, climate change will affect a variety of ecosystem processes across scales, ranging from photosynthesis (tree organs) to disturbance regimes (landscape scale). Assessing potential climate change impacts on ecosystem services thus requires a multi-scale perspective. However, scaling issues have received comparatively little attention in the forest management community to date. Our objectives here are thus first, to synthesize scaling issues relevant to forest management and second, to elucidate ways of dealing with complex scaling problems by highlighting examples of how they can be addressed with ecosystem models. We have focused on three current management issues of particular importance in European forestry: (1) climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration, (2) multi-functional stand management for biodiversity and non-timber goods and services and (3) improving the resilience to natural disturbances. We conclude that taking into account the full spatiotemporal heterogeneity and dynamics of forest ecosystems in management decision-making is likely to make management more robust to increasing environmental and societal pressures. Models can aid this process through explicitly accounting for system dynamics and changing conditions, operationally addressing the complexity of cross-scale interactions and emerging properties. Our synthesis indicates that increased attention to scaling issues can help forest managers to integrate traditional management objectives with emerging concerns for ecosystem services and therefore deserves more attention in forestry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderegg WRL, Plavcová L, Anderegg LL, Hacke UG, Berry JA, Field CB (2013) Drought’s legacy: multiyear hydraulic deterioration underlies widespread aspen forest die-off and portends increased future risk. Glob Change Biol 19:1188–1196

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen T, Carstensen J, Hernandez-Garcia E, Duarte CM (2009) Ecological thresholds and regime shifts: approaches to identification. Trends Ecol Evol 24:49–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bissonette JA (1997) Scale-sensitive ecological properties: historical context, current meaning. In: Bissonette JA (ed) Wildlife and landscape ecology: effects of pattern and scale. Springer, New York, pp 3–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitterlich W (1948) Die Winkelzählprobe. Allg Forst Holzwirtsch Ztg 59:4–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Bland WL, Bell MM (2007) A holon approach to agroecology. Int J Agric Sustain 5:280–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Blennow K, Olofsson E (2008) The probability of wind damage in forestry under a changed wind climate. Clim Change 87:347–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand FS, Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecol Soc 12:23

    Google Scholar 

  • Breckling B, Middelhoff U, Reuter H (2006) Individual-based models as tools for ecological theory and application: understanding the emergence of organisational properties in ecological systems. Ecol Model 194:102–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugmann H, Lindner M, Lasch P, Flechsig M, Ebert B, Cramer W (2000) Scaling issues in forest succession modelling. Clim Change 44:265–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadell JG, Raupach MR (2008) Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 320:1456–1457

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chave J (2013) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: what have we learned in 20 years? Ecol Lett 16:4–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cienciala E, Tatarinov FA (2006) Application of BIOME-BGC model to managed forests 2. Comparison with long-term observations of stand production for major tree species. For Ecol Manage 237:252–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming GS, Barnes G, Southworth J (2008) Environmental asymmetries. In: Norberg J, Cumming GS (eds) Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 15–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie WS (2011) Units of nature or processes across scales? The ecosystem concept at age 75. New Phytol 190:21–34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Pury DGG, Farquhar GD (1997) Simple scaling of photosynthesis from leaves to canopies without the errors of big-leaf models. Plant Cell Environ 20:537–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Donato DC, Campbell JL, Franklin JF (2012) Multiple successional pathways and precocity in forest development: can some forests be born complex? J Veg Sci 23:576–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer DB (2012) Framework to improve the application of theory in ecology and conservation. Ecol Monogr 82:129–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastaugh CS, Hasenauer H (2011) Incorporating management history into forest growth modelling. iForest 4:212–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastaugh CS, Hasenauer H (2012) A statistical thinning model for intializing large-scale ecosystem models. Scand J For Res. 27:567–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastaugh CS, Pötzelsberger E, Hasenauer H (2011) Assessing the impacts of climate change and nitrogen deposition on Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) growth in Austria with BIOME-BGC. Tree Physiol 31:262–274

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Enquist BJ, Economo EP, Huxman TE, Allen AP, Ignace DD, Gillooly JF (2003) Scaling metabolism from organisms to ecosystems. Nature 423:639–642

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar G, von Caemmener S, Berry J (1980) A biochemical model of photosynthesis CO2 fixation in leaves of C4 species. Planta 149:78–90

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer AP, Charnley S (2012) Risk and cooperation: managing hazardous fuel in mixed ownership landscapes. Environ Manage. 49:1192–1207

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontes L, Bontemps JD, Bugmann H, van Oijen M, Gracia C, Kramer K, Lindner M, Rötzer T, Skovsgaard JP (2010) Models for supporting forest management in a changing environment. For Sys 19:8–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Forest Europe, UNECE, FAO (2011) State of Europe’s forests 2011. Status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. ISBN 978-82-92980-05-7

  • Franklin JF, Spies TA, van Pelt R, Carey AB, Thornburgh DA, Berg DR, Lindenmayer DB, Harmon ME, Keeton WS, Shaw DC, Bible K, Chen J (2002) Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. For Ecol Manage 155:399–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabler K, Schadauer K (2006) Methoden der Österreichischen Waldinventur 2000/02. Berichte 135, Bundesamt und Forschungszentrum für Wald, Wien, Austria, p 132

  • Green DG, Sadedin S (2005) Interactions matter—complexity in landscapes and ecosystems. Ecol Complex 2:117–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm V, Wissel C (1997) Babel, or the ecological stability discussions: an inventory and analysis of terminology and a guide for avoiding confusion. Oecologia 109:323–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall FG, Hilker T, Coops NC (2012) Data assimilation of photosynthetic light-use efficiency using multi-angular satellite data: I. Model formulation. Remote Sens Environ 121:301–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamann A, Aitken SN (2012) Conservation planning under climate change: accounting for adaptive potential and migration capacity in species distribution models. Divers Distrib. 19:268–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasenauer H (ed) (2006) Sustainable forest management. Growth models for Europe. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasenauer H, Petritsch R, Zhao M, Boisvenue C, Running SW (2012) Reconciling satellite with ground data to estimate forest productivity at national scales. For Ecol Manage 276:196–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirota M, Holmgren M, van Nes EH, Scheffer M (2011) Global resilience of tropical forest and savanna to critical transitions. Science 334:232–235

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs NT (2003) Challenges and opportunities in integrating ecological knowledge across scales. For Ecol Manage 181:223–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS, Gunderson LH (2002) Resilience and adaptive cycles. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 25–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogstra MA, Schanz H (2008) How (un)certain is the future in forestry? A comparative assessment of uncertainty in the forest and agricultural sector. For Sci 54:316–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe D, Costanzo M, Fey P, Gojobori T, Hannick L, Hide W, Hill DP, Kania R, Schaeffer M, St Pierre S, Twigger S, White O, Rhee SY (2008) The future of biocuration. Nature 455:47–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jactel H, Nicoll BC, Branco M, Gonzalez-Olabarria JR, Grodzki W, Langström B, Moreira F, Netherer S, Orazio C, Piou D, Santos H, Schelhaas MJ, Tojic K, Vodde F (2009) The influences of forest stand management on biotic and abiotic risks of damage. Ann For Sci 66:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis PG (1976) The interpretation of the variations in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in the field. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 273:593–610

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keane RE, Hessburg PF, Landres PB, Swanson FJ (2009) The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in landscape management. For Ecol Manage 258:1025–1037

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy RE, Turner DP, Cohen WB, Guzy M (2006) A method to efficiently apply a biogeochemical model to a landscape. Landscape Ecol 21:213–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Koestler A (1967) The ghost in the machine. Arkana, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer K, Groen TA, van Wieren SE (2003) The interacting effects of ungulates and fire on forest dynamics: an analysis using the model FORSPACE. For Ecol Manage 181:205–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer K, Groot Bruinderink GWTA, Prins HHT (2006) Spatial interactions between ungulate herbivory and forest management. For Ecol Manage 226:238–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagergren F, Grelle A, Lankreijer H, Mölder M, Lindroth A (2006) Current carbon balance of the forested area in Sweden and its sensitivity to global change as simulated by Biome-BGC. Ecosystems 9:894–908

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Landsberg JJ, Waring RH (1997) A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency carbon balance and partitioning. For Ecol Manage 95:209–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (1999) Fragile dominion. Complexity and the commons. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lexer MJ, Hönninger K (2001) A modified 3D-patch model for spatially explicit simulation of vegetation composition in heterogeneous landscapes. For Ecol Manage 144:43–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Lexer MJ, Seidl R (2009) Addressing biodiversity in a stakeholder-driven climate change vulnerability assessment of forest management. For Ecol Manage 258S:S158–S167

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang Y, He HS, Yang J, Wu ZW (2012) Coupling ecosystem and landscape models to study the effects of plot number and location on prediction of forest landscape change. Landscape Ecol. 27:1031–1044

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multi-scaled approach. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S, Kremer A, Barbati A, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Seidl R, Delzon S, Corona P, Kolström M, Lexer MJ, Marchetti M (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manage 259:698–709

    Google Scholar 

  • Lischke H, Löffler T, Thornton PE, Zimmermann NE (2007) Model up-scaling in landscape research. In: Kienast F, Wildi O, Ghosh S (eds) A changing world. Challenges for landscape research. Landscape series 8. Springer, New York, pp 259–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Loehle C, MacCracken JG, Runde D, Hicks L (2002) Forest management at landscape scales. Solving the problems. J Forestry 100:25–33

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell N, Pockman WT, Allen CD, Breshears DD, Cobb N, Kolb T, Plaut J, Sperry J, West A, Williams DG, Yepez EA (2008) Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytol 178:719–739

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MCPFE (1993) General Guidelines for the sustainable management of forests in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Helsinki

  • Medlyn B, Barrett D, Landsberg JJ, Sands P, Clement R (2003) Conversion of canopy intercepted radiation to photosynthate: review of modeling approaches for regional scales. Funct Plant Biol 30:153–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier ES, Lischke H, Schmatz DR, Zimmermann NE (2012) Climate, competition and connectivity affect future migration and ranges of European trees. Global Ecol Biogeogr 21:164–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Milad M, Schaich H, Bürgi M, Konold W (2011) Climate change and nature conservation in Central European forests: a review of consequences, concepts and challenges. For Ecol Manage 261:829–843

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl 17:2145–2151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mohren GMJ, Hasenaeur H, Köhl M, Nabuurs GJ (2012) Forest inventories for carbon change assessments. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4:686–695

    Google Scholar 

  • Moritz MA, Morais ME, Summerell LA, Carlson JM, Doyle J (2005) Wildfires, complexity, and highly optimized tolerance. PNAS 102:17912–17917

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson J (2003) Forest-level models and challenges for their successful application. Can J For Res 33:422–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka E, Spies TA (2005) Historical range of variability in landscape structure: a simulation study in Oregon, USA. Ecol Appl 15:1727–1746

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV (1989) Transmutations across hierarchical levels. In: Innis GS, O’Neill RV (eds) Systems analysis of ecosystems. International Co-operative Publishing House, Fairland, pp 59–78

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV (2001) Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? (With full military honors, of course!). Ecology 82:3275–3284

    Google Scholar 

  • Osmond B, Ananyev G, Berry J, Langdon C, Kobler Z, Lin G, Monson R, Nichol C, Rascher U, Schurr U, Smith S, Yakir D (2004) Changing the way we think about global change research: scaling up in experimental ecosystem science. Glob Change Biol 10:393–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry D (1998) The scientific basis of forestry. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:435–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Petritsch R, Hasenauer H (2007) Interpolating input parameters for large scale ecosystem models. Austrian J For Sci 124:135–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeifer EM, Hicke JA, Meddens AJH (2011) Observations and modeling of aboveground tree carbon stocks and fluxes following a bark beetle outbreak in the western United States. Glob Change Biol 17:339–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietsch SA, Hasenauer H (2005) Using ergodic theory to assess the performance of ecosystem models. Tree Physiol 25:825–837

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Placer K, Schneider J (2001) Arbeit zur Kartierung der trockenen Deposition in Österreich. Federal Environment Agency, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, Messier C (2009) A critique of silviculture. Managing for complexity. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauscher HM, Lloyd FT, Loftis DL, Twery MJ (2000) A practical decision-analysis process for forest ecosystem management. Comput Electron Agric 27:195–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuter H, Hölker F, Middelhoff U, Jopp F, Eschenbach C, Breckling B (2005) The concepts of emergent and collective properties in individual-based models—summary and outlook of the Bornhöved case studies. Ecol Model 186:489–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruel JJ, Ayres MP (1999) Jensen’s inequality predicts effects of environmental variation. Trends Ecol Evol 14:361–366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Running SW, Coughlan JC (1988) A general model of forest ecosystem processes for regional applications. 1. Hydrologic balance, canopy gas exchange and primary production processes. Ecol Model 42:125–154

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Running SW, Hunt ER Jr (1993) Generalization of a forest ecosystem process model for other biomes, BIOME–BGC, and an application for global-scale models. In: Ehleringer JR, Field CB (eds) Scaling physiological processes: leaf to globe. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 141–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MG (1991) Effects of climate change on plant respiration. Ecol Appl 1:157–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayer JA, Maginnis S (2005) Forests in landscapes: ecosystem approaches to sustainability. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelhaas MJ, Nabuurs G-J, Schuck A (2003) Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Glob Change Biol 9:1620–1633

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araujo MB, Arnell NW, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter TR, Gracia CA, De La Vega-Leinert AC, Erhard M, Ewert F, Glendining M, House JI, Kankaanpää S, Klein RJT, Lavorel S, Lindner M, Metzger MJ, Meyer J, Mitchell TD, Reginster I, Rounsevell M, Sabate S, Sitch S, Smith B, Smith J, Smith P, Sykes MT, Thonicke K, Thuiller W, Tuck G, Zaehle S, Zierl B (2005) Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310:1333–1337

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Lexer MJ (2013) Forest management under climatic and social uncertainty: trade-offs between reducing climate change impacts and fostering adaptive capacity. J Environ Manage 114:461–469

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Lexer MJ, Jäger D, Hönninger K (2005) Evaluating the accuracy and generality of a hybrid patch model. Tree Physiol 25:939–951

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Rammer W, Jäger D, Lexer MJ (2008) Impact of bark beetle (Ips typographus L.) disturbance on timber production and carbon sequestration in different management strategies under climate change. For Ecol Manage 256:209–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Schelhaas MJ, Lindner M, Lexer MJ (2009) Modelling bark beetle disturbances in a large scale forest scenario model to assess climate change impacts and evaluate adaptive management strategies. Reg Environ Chang 9:101–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Rammer W, Lexer MJ (2011a) Climate change vulnerability of sustainable forest management in the Eastern Alps. Clim Change 106:225–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Schelhaas MJ, Lexer MJ (2011b) Unraveling the drivers of intensifying forest disturbance regimes in Europe. Glob Change Biol 17:2842–2852

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Spies TA, Rammer W, Steel EA, Pabst RJ, Olsen K (2012a) Multi-scale drivers of spatial variation in old-growth forest carbon density disentangled with Lidar and an individual-based landscape model. Ecosystems 15:1321–1335

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Rammer W, Scheller RM, Spies TA (2012b) An individual-based process model to simulate landscape-scale forest ecosystem dynamics. Ecol Model 231:87–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Sierra CA, Loescher HW, Harmon ME, Richardson AD, Hollinger DY, Perakis SS (2009) Interannual variation of carbon fluxes from three contrasting evergreen forests: the role of forest dynamics and climate. Ecology 90:2711–2723

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smithwick EAH, Harmon ME, Domingo JB (2003) Modeling multiscale effects of light limitations and edge-induced mortality on carbon stores in forest landscapes. Landscape Ecol 18:701–721

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchomel C, Becker G, Pyttel P (2011) Fully mechanized harvesting in overaged oak coppice stands. For Prod J 61:290–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton PE, Running SW, Hunt ER (2005) Biome-BGC: terrestrial ecosystem process model, Version 4.1.1. Model product. Available on-line [http://daac.ornl.gov] from Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. doi:10.3334/ORNLDAAC/805

  • Tierney GL, Faber-Langendoen D, Mitchell BR, Shriver WG, Gibbs JP (2009) Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 7:308–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (2010) Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world. Ecology 91:2833–2849

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner DP, Dodson R, Marks D (1996) Comparison of alternative spatial resolutions in the application of a spatially distributed biogeochemical model over complex terrain. Ecol Model 90:53–67

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Urban DL (2005) Modeling ecological processes across scales. Ecology 86:1996–2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban DL, O’Neill RV, Shugart HH (1987) Landscape ecology: a hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. Bioscience 37:119–127

    Google Scholar 

  • VEMAP Members (1995) Vegetation/Ecosystem Modeling and Analysis Project: comparing biogeography and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial ecosystem responses to climate change and CO2 doubling. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 9:407–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9:2

    Google Scholar 

  • West GB, Enquist BJ, Brown JH (2009) A general quantitative theory of forest structure and dynamics. PNAS 106:7040–7045

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimberly MC, Spies TA, Long CJ, Whitlock C (2000) Simulating historical variability in the amount of old forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Conserv Biol 14:167–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfslehner B, Seidl R (2010) Harnessing ecosystem models and multi-criteria decision analysis for the support of forest management. Environ Manage 46:850–861

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wulder MA, White JC, Nelson RF, Naesset E, Orka HO, Coops NC, Hilker T, Bater CW, Gobakken T (2012) Lidar sampling for large-area forest characterization: a review. Remote Sens Environ 121:196–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Zlatanov T (2006) Perspectives for sustainable management of the forests in Lesnovska river basin. J Balkan Ecol 9:125–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Zlatanov T, Lexer MJ (2009) Coppice forestry in South-Eastern Europe: problems and future prospects. Silva Balcanica 10:5–8

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is a result of the European Union COST action FP0603 ‘Forest models for research and decision support in sustainable forest management’. R. Seidl received support from an EC FP7 Marie Curie Scholarship (grant agreement 237085). C.S. Eastaugh received support from the Climate and Energy Fund of the Austrian Federal Government (MOTI project, contract K10AC1K00050). K. Kramer was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Economics through the Knowledge Base project DynTerra (KB-IV, 5238828). C. Reyer acknowledges funding from the EC FP7 MOTIVE project (grant agreement 226544). We are grateful to H. Lischke and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rupert Seidl.

Additional information

Communicated by U. Berger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Seidl, R., Eastaugh, C.S., Kramer, K. et al. Scaling issues in forest ecosystem management and how to address them with models. Eur J Forest Res 132, 653–666 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-013-0725-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-013-0725-y

Keywords

Navigation