Report - ICP Forests

More documents

Recommendations

Info

110 4. National Survey <strong>Report</strong>s in 2009 4.15 Italy The 2009 Level I survey in Italy was based on 6 966 trees on 257 permanent plots. 31.8% of the conifers and 21.3% of the broadleaves were without any defoliation (class 0). 31.6% of the conifers and 31.6% of the broadleaves were in defoliation classes 2 to 4. Among the young conifers (
4. National Survey <strong>Report</strong>s in 2009 111 Visible damage symptoms were observed for 16.1% of the assessed trees (18.8% in 2008). Similarly to the previous years most frequently recorded damage was caused by insects (29.6% of all cases), followed by others – direct action by man (12.5%), abiotic factors (mostly wind) (12.1%), fungi (10.6%). The proportion of damaged trees of the most common tree species was quite similar and constituted 14.1-16.5% of the assessed trees. No serious and extensive attacks of biotic agents were recorded in 2009. Pinus sylvestris stands in western regions were still slightly damaged by Neodiprion sertifer and the crowns had not fully recovered from the attacks of the previous years as well. A local outbreak of Lymantria dispar has continued for the second year in south-western Latvia. A decline of Alnus was observed in different regions of Latvia, but the causing agent has not yet been ascertained. 4.17 Lithuania The national forest inventory and the regional forest health monitoring grids (4 × 4 km) in Lithuania were combined since 2008. The transnational Level I grid (16 × 16 km) was kept. In 2009 the forest condition survey was carried out on 983 sample plots from which 72 plots were on the transnational Level I grid and 911 plots on the national forest inventory grid. In total 5 961 sample trees representing 19 tree species were assessed. The main tree species assessed were Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, Betula pendula, Betula pubescens, Populus tremula, Alnus glutinosa, Alnus incana, Fraxinus excelsior, and Quercus robur. In general, the mean defoliation of all trees species has slightly increased since 2007. However, mean defoliation of all tree species has varied inconsiderably from 1997 to 2009 and the condition of Lithuanian forests can be defined as relatively stable. The mean defoliation of all tree species slightly increased up to 21.3% in 2009 (20.5% in 2008). 18.6% of all sample trees were not defoliated (class 0), 63.7% were slightly defoliated and 17.7% were assessed as moderately defoliated, severely defoliated and dead (defoliation classes 2–4). Mean defoliation of conifers was 20.8% (20.3% in 2008) and for broadleaves 22.1% (20.8% in 2008). Mean defoliation of Pinus sylvestris was 20.8% (20.4% in 2008). Starting from 1998 mean defoliation of Pinus sylvestris has not exceeded 22.0%. The number of trees in defoliation classes 2-4 decreased to 14.9% (16.4% in 2008). Mean defoliation of Picea abies was only 0.3 percent points higher than in 2008 (20.3%) and the share of trees in defoliation classes 2-4 decreased to 20.9% (24.5% in 2008). Populus tremula had the lowest mean defoliation and the lowest share of trees in defoliation classes 2-4. Mean defoliation of Populus tremula was 17.8% (16.3% in 2008) and the proportion of trees in defoliation classes 2-4 was 9.3% (10.3% in 2007). Mean defoliation of Alnus glutinosa increased up to 25.1% (18.5% in 2008) and the share of trees in defoliation classes 2-4 up to 27.9% (16.5% in 2008). It was the worst condition of Alnus glutinosa in the whole assessment period (1989 – 2009). Mean defoliation of Alnus incana was 1.2 percent points lower than in 2008 (24.4%). The share of trees in defoliation classes 2-4 decreased to 19.6% (28.9% in 2008). Mean defoliation of Betula spp. Slightly increased to 19.8% (19.1% in 2008) and the share of trees in defoliation classes 2-4 decreased to 13.8% (16.5% in 2008). The condition of Fraxinus excelsior remained the worst. This tree species had the highest defoliation since 2000. Mean defoliation of Fraxinus excelsior has been gradually decreasing in the last few years, but increased again in 2009. Mean defoliation was 39.8% (36.5% in 2008).
Page 1:
W O R K R E P O R T Institute for W
Page 4 and 5:
United Nations Economic Commission
Page 6 and 7:
4.18 REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ..........
Page 8 and 9:
8 Preface
Page 10 and 11:
10 Summary Ground vegetation was an
Page 12 and 13:
12 1. Introduction
Page 14 and 15:
14 2. Large Scale Crown Condition S
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
46 3. Intensive Monitoring in beech
Page 48 and 49:
48 3. Intensive Monitoring Figure 3
Page 50 and 51:
50 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.2.2.2
Page 52 and 53:
52 3. Intensive Monitoring Figure 3
Page 54 and 55:
54 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.3 Soil
Page 56 and 57:
56 3. Intensive Monitoring centrifu
Page 58 and 59:
58 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.3.3. R
Page 60 and 61: 60 3. Intensive Monitoring Figures
Page 62 and 63: 62 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.3.3.3
Page 64 and 65: 64 3. Intensive Monitoring Figures
Page 66 and 67: 66 3. Intensive Monitoring 0 - 20 c
Page 68 and 69: 68 3. Intensive Monitoring Hall, J.
Page 70 and 71: 70 3. Intensive Monitoring Country
Page 72 and 73: 72 3. Intensive Monitoring Table 3.
Page 74 and 75: 74 3. Intensive Monitoring The nomi
Page 76 and 77: 76 3. Intensive Monitoring the one
Page 78 and 79: 78 3. Intensive Monitoring Figure 3
Page 80 and 81: 80 3. Intensive Monitoring Temporal
Page 82 and 83: 82 3. Intensive Monitoring Table 3.
Page 84 and 85: 84 3. Intensive Monitoring should b
Page 86 and 87: 86 3. Intensive Monitoring code spe
Page 88 and 89: 88 3. Intensive Monitoring Helleboc
Page 90 and 91: 90 3. Intensive Monitoring Rumexscu
Page 92 and 93: 3. Intensive Monitoring 92 Annex 3.
Page 94 and 95: 94 Annex soil organic layer soil mi
Page 96 and 97: 96 Annex soil organic layer soil mi
Page 98 and 99: 98 4. National Survey Reports in 20
Page 122 and 123: 122 Annex Annex I-1 Broadleaves and
Page 124 and 125: 124 Annex Observed trees Observed p
Page 126 and 127: 126 Annex Annex I-3 Percentage of t
Page 128 and 129: 128 Annex Annex I-5 Changes in mean
Page 130 and 131: 130 Annex Period 1998 - 2009 Year M
Page 132 and 133: 132 Annex Annex II National Surveys
Page 134 and 135: 134 Annex Annex II-2 Percent of tre
Page 136 and 137: 136 Annex Annex II-4 Percent of bro
Page 138 and 139: 138 Annex Annex II-6 Percent of dam
Page 140 and 141: 140 Annex Annex II-8 Changes in def
Page 142 and 143: 142 Annex 100 Croatia all species c
Page 144 and 145: 144 Annex 100 France * all species
Page 146 and 147: 146 Annex 100 Latvia all species co
Page 148 and 149: 148 Annex 100 The Netherlands all s
Page 150 and 151: 150 Annex 100 Serbia all species co
Page 152 and 153: 152 Annex 100 Turkey all species co
Page 154 and 155: 154 Annex Annex IV Testing statisti
Page 156 and 157: 156 Annex 2. Expert Panels, WG and
Page 158 and 159: 158 Annex Expert Panel on Crown Con
Page 160 and 161:
160 Annex FFCC FSCC Bundesforschung
Page 162 and 163:
162 Annex BELGIUM Tel. +32 54 43 71
Page 164 and 165:
164 Annex DENMARK Phone: +45 39 47
Page 166 and 167:
166 Annex 1055 BUDAPEST HUNGARY Pho
Page 168 and 169:
168 Annex Republic of Moldova (Min)
Page 170 and 171:
170 Annex SERBIA Phone: +381 11 3 5
Page 172 and 173:
172 Annex Ukraine (NFC) (Min) Unite
Page 174 and 175:
174 Annex
show all

Report - ICP Forests

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?