Forest Condition in Europe - ICP Forests

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6.8. DENMARK .............................................................................................................................................. 77 6.9. ESTONIA ................................................................................................................................................ 77 6.10. FINLAND ............................................................................................... FEHLER! TEXTMARKE NICHT DEFINIERT. 6.11. FRANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 79 6.12. GERMANY .............................................................................................................................................. 79 6.13. HUNGARY .............................................................................................................................................. 79 6.14. ITALY ..................................................................................................................................................... 82 6.15. LATVIA................................................................................................................................................... 82 6.16. LITHUANIA ............................................................................................................................................. 83 6.17. REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA............................................................................................................................ 85 6.18. NORWAY ............................................................................................................................................... 85 6.19. POLAND ................................................................................................................................................. 86 6.20. ROMANIA............................................................................................................................................... 86 6.21. RUSSIAN FEDERATION ............................................................................................................................... 87 6.22. SERBIA................................................................................................................................................... 87 6.23. SLOVAK REPUBLIC .................................................................................................................................... 87 6.24. SLOVENIA ............................................................................................................................................... 88 6.25. SPAIN ................................................................................................... FEHLER! TEXTMARKE NICHT DEFINIERT. 6.26. SWEDEN ................................................................................................................................................ 89 6.27. SWITZERLAND ......................................................................................................................................... 90 6.28. TURKEY .................................................................................................................................................. 91 6.29. UKRAINE ................................................................................................................................................ 92 6.30. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ..................................................................................................................... 93 ANNEX I: MAPS OF THE TRANSNATIONAL EVALUATIONS ............................................................................... 94 ANNEX I-1: BROADLEAVES AND CONIFERS................................................................................................................... 94 ANNEX I-2: PERCENTAGE OF TREES DAMAGED (2012) .................................................................................................. 95 ANNEX I-3: MEAN PLOT DEFOLIATION OF ALL SPECIES (2012) ........................................................................................ 96 ANNEX I-4: CHANGES IN MEAN PLOT DEFOLIATION (2011-2012)................................................................................... 97 ANNEX II: NATIONAL RESULTS ............................................................... FEHLER! TEXTMARKE NICHT DEFINIERT. ANNEX III: ADDRESSES .................................................................................................................................. 118 ANNEX III-1: UNECE AND ICP FORESTS .................................................................................................................. 118 ANNEX III-2: EXPERT PANELS, WG AND OTHER COORDINATING INSTITUTIONS ................................................................ 119 ANNEX III-3: MINISTRIES (MIN) AND NATIONAL FOCAL CENTRES (NFC) ........................................................................ 123 ANNEX III-4: AUTHORS ......................................................................................................................................... 138
Forest Condition in Europe 2013 7 Summary Of the 42 countries participating in ICP Forests, 29 countries reported for the year 2012 largescale (Level I) monitoring data from about 15,000 plots and forest ecosystem related (Level II) monitoring data from about 700 plots. The data analysis focused on the impact of air pollution on forest soils, tree nutrition, and tree crown condition. In this respect emphasis was laid on the assessment of future risks of air pollution damage to the forests in Europe. Also considered was the impact of factors other than air pollution such as pests and diseases. Mean annual throughfall and bulk deposition of S and N was calculated for 289 and 357 Level II plots, respectively. S deposition is highest in central Europe, ranging from the North Sea coast via central Germany to Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Slovak Republic. High S deposition along the coast mostly occurs with high Cl deposition indicating that S deposition originates from sea salt. The fact that throughfall is higher than bulk deposition confirms that the canopy filters sulphur from the air. Similar to S deposition, N deposition is highest in central Europe but extends further west to France, the United Kingdom, and Ireland, as well as further south to Switzerland. On about half of the investigated sites there is a statistically significant decrease in S and N deposition between 2000 and 2010. For assessing effects of N deposition on the nutrition of trees, the exceedances of harmful pollutant concentrations (critical limits) in the soil were calculated. Up to 251 Level II plots were included in the study depending on data availability. Deposition data included throughfall and bulk deposition. Soil solution was sampled using lysimeters in the same intervals as deposition. For different soil depths annual mean concentrations and their exceedances of critical limits published in the scientific literature were assessed. Results show a clear relation between N deposition and the occurrence of high nitrate concentrations below the rooting zone indicating N saturation at the particular sites. Nutrient imbalances related to high nitrate concentrations could be substantiated. Mg deficiencies occur more frequently on coniferous plots with exceedances of critical limits for nitrate in the soil solution. Also for beech trees the percentage of plots with low Mg amounts is higher on plots with critical limit exceedances. For spruce, pine, beech and oak there is a tendency towards less optimal Mg/N ratios with increasing exceedances of critical limits for nitrate in the soil solution. The share of trees with light green to yellow discolouration is higher when critical limits for nutrient imbalances are exceeded. The share of trees showing insect damage is related to the exceedance of critical levels for the BC/Al ratio. Crown condition is the most widely applied indicator for forest health and vitality in Europe. Mean defoliation of 135,388 sample trees on 6,807 transnational Level I plots was 19.5%. Of all trees assessed a share of 20.0% was scored as damaged, i. e. had a defoliation of more than 25%. Of the main species groups, deciduous temperate oak species had by far the highest mean defoliation (24.4%), followed by deciduous Sub-Mediterranean oak species (22.0%), and evergreen oak species (21.2%). A mean defoliation of 20.7% was assessed for Fagus sylvatica. Coniferous species had lower defoliation, with Mediterranean lowland pine species showing 20.4%, followed by Picea abies (18.6%), Pinus sylvestris (18.1%). These figures are not comparable to those of previous reports because of fluctuations in the plot sample, mainly due to changes in the participation of countries. Therefore, the long-term development of defoliation was calculated from the monitoring results of those countries which have been submitting data since 1992 every year without interruption. While defoliation of Scots pine and
Page 1: International Co-operative Programm
Page 4 and 5: United Nations Economic Commission
Page 8 and 9: 8 Forest Condition in Europe 2013 N
Page 10 and 11: 10 Forest Condition in Europe 2013
Page 32 and 33: 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Page 56 and 57:
56 Forest Condition in Europe 2013
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Page 108 and 109:
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Page 110 and 111:
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Page 112 and 113:
Percent of trees 1990 1991 1992 199
Page 114 and 115:
Percent of trees 1990 1991 1992 199
Page 116 and 117:
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144:
show all

Forest Condition in Europe - ICP Forests

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?