European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 138, Issue 2, pp 239–251 | Cite as

Post-harvesting dynamics of the deadwood profile: the case of lowland beech-oak coppice-with-standards set-aside stands in France

  • L. LarrieuEmail author
  • A. Cabanettes
  • N. Gouix
  • L. Burnel
  • C. Bouget
  • M. Deconchat
Original Paper


In most European temperate forests, the heavy harvesting of low-quality wood for energy, a low minimum harvest diameter and a short rotation period, result in the limited deadwood resources. However, areas are being set aside in managed forests to restore deadwood levels. Coppice-with-standards is a silvicultural method characterized by periodic logging which clear-cuts coppice trees and removes some standard trees. We studied the deadwood profile (i.e., both amount and diversity) in oak-beech coppice-with-standards over time-since-the-last-harvest in order to evaluate how long it takes to recover significantly high amounts and diversity of deadwood substrates. A total of 282 circular 500-m2 plots were set up in 24 forests in southwestern France. We sampled five time-since-harvest classes within 80 years of the time elapsed since the last harvest. At the plot level, we used Generalized Linear Mixed Models to compare both deadwood volume and diversity among time classes. Diversity was also compared within time classes through accumulation curves. Deadwood legacies were very scarce after harvesting, both for volume and diversity. It took more than 70 years for deadwood amounts to become significantly higher than just after harvest; deadwood diversity was significantly higher only 30–50 years after harvesting due to quick snag recruitment. Crown deadwood, a particularly specialized resource rarely recorded, provided roughly 10–20% of the total deadwood amount throughout the study period and should be systematically recorded in further studies. Time-since-the-last-harvest was the best explanatory variable for both deadwood volume and diversity. We therefore recommend installing permanent set-aside areas to ensure deadwood conservation.


Deadwood diversity Deadwood volume Conservation islands 



We thank the forest owners, managers and agents from the French National Forest Office (ONF) who authorized access and facilitated our field work. We also thank Marco Banchi, Laurent Raison and Jérôme Willm who helped with measurements, Vicki Moore who reviewed the English manuscript and the anonymous reviewers who helped us to substantially improve the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10342_2019_1164_MOESM1_ESM.docx (582 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 581 kb)


  1. Bardat J, Bioret F, Botineau M, Boullet V, Delpech R, Géhu JM, Haury J, Lacoste A, Rameau JC, Royer JM, Roux G, Touffet J (2004) Prodrome des Végétations de France. MNHN, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Bässler C, Müller J (2010) Importance of natural disturbance for recovery of the rare polypore Antrodiella citrinella Niemela & Ryvarden. Fungal Biol 114(1):129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. (R package version 1.1-6). Accessed 15 Nov 2017
  4. Bauhus JR, Puettmann K, Messier C (2009) Silviculture for old-growth attributes. For Ecol Manag 258(4):525–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker M (1978) Définition des stations en forêt de Haye; potentialités du hêtre et du chêne. Revue Forestière Française XXX 4:251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergez JE, Cabanettes A, Auclair D, Bédéneau M (1990) Effet des réserves de taillis sous futaie sur la croissance du taillis. Étude préliminaire. (Effect of standards on coppice growth in coppice-with-standards. Preliminary results). Ann For Sci 47:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boncina A (2000) Comparison of structure and biodiversity in the Rajhenav virgin forest remnant and managed forest in the Dinaric region of Slovenia. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 9(3):201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouget C, Brin A, Brustel H (2011) Exploring the “last biotic frontier”: are temperate forest canopies special for saproxylic beetles? For Ecol Manag 261(2):211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouget C, Lassauce A, Jonsell M (2012a) Effects of fuelwood harvesting on biodiversity—a review focused on the situation in Europe. Can J For Res 42:1421–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouget C, Nusillard B, Pineau X, Ricou C (2012b) Effect of deadwood position on saproxylic beetles in temperate forests and conservation interest of oak snags. Insect Conserv Divers 5(4):264–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouget C, Larrieu L, Nusillard B, Parmain G (2013) In search of the best local habitat drivers for saproxylic beetle diversity in temperate deciduous forests. Biodivers Conserv 22(9):2111–2130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouget C, Larrieu L, Brin A (2014a) Key features for saproxylic beetle diversity derived from rapid habitat assessment in temperate forests. Ecol Ind 36:656–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bouget C, Parmain G, Gilg O, Noblecourt T, Nusillard B, Paillet Y, Pernot C, Larrieu L, Gosselin F (2014b) Does a set-aside conservation strategy help the restoration of old-growth forest attributes and recolonization by saproxylic beetles? Anim Conserv 17(4):342–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brin A, Brustel H, Jactel H (2009) Species variables or environmental variables as indicators of forest biodiversity: a case study using saproxylic beetles in maritime pine plantations. Ann For Sci 66:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brunet J, Isacsson G (2009) Influence of snag characteristics on saproxylic beetle assemblages in a south Swedish beech forest. J Insect Conserv 13(5):515–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burnel L, Larrieu L, Cabanettes A, Willm J (2011) Peut-on estimer rapidement depuis le sol le volume de bois mort des houppiers de chênes adultes avec une précision acceptable? Cah Tech Inra 74:1–11Google Scholar
  17. Burrascano S, Keeton WS, Sabatini FM, Blasi C (2013) Commonality and variability in the structural attributes of moist temperate old-growth forests: a global review. For Ecol Manag 291:458–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bütler R, Lachat T (2009) Forests without harvesting: an opportunity for the saproxylic biodiversity. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Forstwesen 160(11):324–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bütler R, Angelstam P, Ekelund P, Schlaeffer R (2004) Dead wood threshold values for the three-toed woodpecker presence in boreal and sub-Alpine forest. Biol Conserv 119(3):305–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bütler R, Lachat T, Larrieu L, Paillet Y (2013) Habitat trees: key elements for forest biodiversity. In: Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. Chap 2.1. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 84–92Google Scholar
  21. Chen HYH, Popadiouk RV (2002) Dynamics of North American boreal mixedwoods. Environ Rev 10:137–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Christensen M, Hahn K, Mountford EP, Odor P, Standovar T, Rozenbergar D, Diaci J, Wijdeven S, Meyer P, Winter S, Vrska T (2005) Dead wood in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. For Ecol Manag 210(1–3):267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Development Core Team R (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  24. Edwards DP, Gilroy JJ, Woodcock P, Edwards FA, Larsen TH, Andrews DJR, Derhé MA, Docherty TDS, Hsu WW, Mitchell SL, Ota T, Williams LJ, Laurance WF, Hamer KC, Wilcove DS (2014) Land-sharing versus land-sparing logging: reconciling timber extraction with biodiversity conservation. Glob Change Biol 20:183–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fedrowitz K, Koricheva J, Baker SC, Lindenmayer DB, Palik B, Rosenvald R, Beese W, Franklin JF, Kouki J, Macdonald E, Messier C, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Gustafsson L (2014) Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 51:1669–1679. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frank AF (2011) R-hacks/mer-utils.R. Accessed 15 Nov 2017
  27. Franklin JF, Spies TA, Van Pelt R, Carey AB, Thornburgh DA, Berg DR, Lindenmayer DB, Harmon ME, Keeton WS, Shaw DC, Bible K, Chen JQ (2002) Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. For Ecol Manag 155(1–3):399–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gossner M, Lachat T, Brunet J, Isacsson G, Bouget C, Brustel H, Brandl R, Weisser WW, Müller J (2013) Current near-to-nature forest management effects on functional trait composition of saproxylic beetles in beech forests. Conserv Biol 27:605–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Green P, Peterken GF (1997) Variation in the amount of deadwood in the woodlands of the Lower Wye Valley, UK in relation to the intensity of management. For Ecol Manag 98:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harmon ME, Sexton J (1996) Guidelines for measurements of woody detritus in forest ecosystems, US LTER publication No. 20. US LTER Network Office, University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  31. Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, Anderson NH, Cline SP, Aumen NG, Sedell JR, Lienkaemper GW, Cromack K, Cummins KW (1986) Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv Ecol Res 15:133–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hedgren P (2007) Early arriving saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) and parasitoids (Hymenoptera) in low and high stumps of Norway spruce. For Ecol Manag 241:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hilszczanski J, Gibb H, Hjältén J, Atlegrim O, Johansson T, Pettersson RB, Ball JP, Danell K (2005) Parasitoids (Hymenoptera, Ichneunionoidea) of Saproxylic beetles are affected by forest successional stage and dead wood characteristics in boreal spruce forest. Biol Conserv 126:456–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jung TS, Thompson ID, Titman RD, Applejohn AP (1999) Habitat selection by forest bats in relation to mixed-wood stand types and structure in central Ontario. J Wildl Manag 63:1306–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahl T, Arnstadt T, Baber K, Baessler C, Bauhus J, Borken W, Buscot F, Floren A, Heibl C, Hessenmoeller D, Hofrichter M, Hoppe B, Kellner H, Krueger D, Linsenmair KE, Matzner E, Otto P, Purahong W, Seilwinder C, Schulze ED, Wende B, Weisser WW, Gossner MM (2017) Wood decay rates of 13 temperate tree species in relation to wood properties, enzyme activities and organismic diversities. For Ecol Manag 391:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larrieu L, Cabanettes A, Gonin P, Lachat T, Paillet Y, Winter S, Bouget C, Deconchat M (2014) Deadwood and tree microhabitat dynamics in unharvested temperate mountain mixed forests: a life-cycle approach to biodiversity monitoring. For Ecol Manag 334:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Larrieu L, Cabanettes A, Gouix N, Burnel L, Bouget C, Deconchat M (2017) Development over time of the tree-related microhabitat profile: the case of lowland beech-oak coppice-with-standards set-aside stands in France. Eur J For Res 136(1):37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Larsson TB et al (2001) Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Ecol Bull 50Google Scholar
  39. Lassauce A, Anselle P, Lieutier F, Bouget C (2012) Overmature coppices enhance saproxylic beetle biodiversity: a case study in French deciduous forests. For Ecol Manag 266:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lavoie S, Ruel JC, Bergeron Y, Harvey BD (2012) Windthrow after group and dispersed tree retention in eastern Canada. For Ecol Manag 269:158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lenth RV (2016) Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Lõhmus A, Baker SC, Bauhus J, Beese W, Brodie A, Kiehl B, Kouki J, Pastur GM, Messier C, Neyland M, Palik B, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Volney J, Wayne A, Gustafsson L (2012) A major shift to the retention approach for forestry can help resolve some global forest sustainability issues. Conserv Lett 5:421–431. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lombardi F, Lasserre B, Tognetti R, Marchetti M (2008) Deadwood in relation to stand management and forest type in Central Apennines (Molise, Italy). Ecosystems 11:882–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martikainen P, Siitonen J, Kaila L, Punttila P, Rauh J (1999) Bark beetles (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) and associated beetle species in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. For Ecol Manag 116:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meyer P, Schmidt M (2011) Accumulation of dead wood in abandoned beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests in northwestern Germany. For Ecol Manag 261:342–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moussaoui L, Fenton JN, Leduc A, Bergeron Y (2016) Deadwood abundance in post-harvest and post-fire residual patches: an evaluation of patch temporal dynamics in black spruce boreal forest. For Ecol Manag 368:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Müller J, Bütler R (2010) A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur J For Res 129(6):981–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Økland B, Bakke A, Hagvar S, Kvamme T (1996) What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multiscaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodivers Conserv 5:75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R et al. (2011) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.17-2.
  51. ONF (2009a) Conservation de la biodiversité dans la gestion courante des forêts publiques. INS-09-T-71, ParisGoogle Scholar
  52. ONF (2009b) Îlots de vieux bois. NDS-09-T-310, ParisGoogle Scholar
  53. Paillet Y, Pernot C, Boulanger V, Debaive N, Fuhr M, Gilg O, Gosselin F (2015) Quantifying the recovery of old-growth attributes in forest reserves: a first reference for France. For Ecol Manag 346:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Percel G, Parmain G, Laroche F, Bouget C (2018) The larger, the better? Effects of delayed diameter-limit cutting on old-growth attributes and saproxylic beetle diversity in temperate oak forests. Eur J For Res 137(2):237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pinheiro J, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Statistics and computing series. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rabe MJ, Morrell TE, Green H, deVos JC, Miller CR (1998) Characteristics of ponderosa pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. J Wildl Manag 62(2):612–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rameau JC, Mansion D, Dumé G (1989) Flore Forestière Française. IDF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  58. Roberge JM, Angelstam P, Villard MA (2008) Specialised woodpeckers and naturalness in hemiboreal forests—deriving quantitative targets for conservation planning. Biol Conserv 141:997–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Röser D, Asikainen A, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Møller IS (eds) (2008) Sustainable use of wood for energy—a synthesis with focus on the Nordic–Baltic region. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  60. Seibold S, Hagge J, Müller J, Gruppe A, Brandl R, Bässler C, Thorn S (2018) Experiments with dead wood reveal the importance of dead branches in the canopy for saproxylic beetle conservation. For Ecol Manag 409:564–570. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Siitonen J, Martikainen P, Punttila P, Rauh J (2000) Coarse woody debris and stand characteristics in mature managed and old-growth boreal mesic forests in southern Finland. For Ecol Manag 128(3):211–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Similä M, Kouki J, Martikainen P (2003) Saproxylic beetles in managed and seminatural scots pine forests: quality of dead wood matters. Fort Ecol Manag 174:365–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Skaug H, Fournier D, Magnusson A, Bolker B (2016) glmmADMB: generalized linear mixed models using AD model builder.
  64. Speight MCD (1989) Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Concil of Europe. Nat Environ Ser 42:1–79Google Scholar
  65. Stokland JN (2001) The coarse woody debris profile: an archive of recent forest history and an important biodiversity indicator. Ecol Bull 49:71–83Google Scholar
  66. Stokland JN, Tomter SM, Söderberg GU (2004) Development of deadwood indicators for biodiversity monitoring: experiences from Scandinavia. In: Marchetti M (ed) Monitoring and indicators of forest biodiversity in Europe—from ideas to operationality, vol 51. EFI proceedings. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 207–226Google Scholar
  67. Stokland JN, Siitonen J, Jonsson BG (2012) Biodiversity in dead wood. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Summers RW (2004) Use of pine snags by birds in different stand types of Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris. Bird Study 51:212–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Wagner CE (1982) Practical aspects of the line intersect method. Petawawa National Forestry Institute (Canada). Information report PI-X-12Google Scholar
  70. Vandekerkhove K, De Keersmaeker L, Menke N, Meyer P, Verschelde P (2009) When nature takes over from man: dead wood accumulation in previously managed oak and beech woodlands in North-western and Central Europe. For Ecol Manag 258:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vandekerkhove K, Thomaes A, Jonsson BG (2013) Connectivity and fragmentation: Island biogeography and metapopulation applied to old-growth elements. In: Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. Chap. 2.3. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 104–115Google Scholar
  72. Walker LR, Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Clarkson BD (2010) The use of chronosequences in studies of ecological succession and soil development. J Ecol 98:725–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Winter S, Borrass L, Geitzenauer M, Blondet M, Breibeck R, Weiss G, Winkel G (2014) The impact of Natura 2000 on forest management: a socio-ecological analysis in the continental region of the European Union. Biodivers Conserv 23:3451–3482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR1201 DYNAFORINRA, INPTCastanet Tolosan CedexFrance
  2. 2.CRPFOccAuzeville TolosaneFrance
  3. 3.CEN-MPToulouse Cedex 3France
  4. 4.UR EFNOIrsteaNogent-sur-VernissonFrance
  5. 5.LTSER France “Zone Atelier Pyrénées-Garonne”DYNAFORAuzeville TolosaneFrance

Personalised recommendations