Waldbauliches Planungshandbuch. Eine Orientierungshilfe zur ÖSL-spezifischen Behandlung von Waldbeständen

Digitales Quellenverzeichnis

Mischungsart

Quellen: Definition

Landesbetrieb Forst Brandenburg (2013). Betriebliche Anweisung zur Forsteinrichtung des Landeswaldes im Land Brandenburg. Kurz: BA FE Bbg. 2013-04-15

Niedersächsischen Landesforsten (2019). Klimaangepasste Baumartenwahl in den Niedersächsischen Landesforsten. Aus dem Walde – Schriftenreihe Waldentwicklung in Niedersachsen. Heft 61. Abrufbar unter: https://www.nw-fva.de/fileadmin/nwfva/publikationen/pdf/bockmann_2019_klimaangepasste.pdf

Richter, A. (1963). Einführung in die Forsteinrichtung. Radebeul. Deutscher Landwirtschaftsverlag.

Quellen: Holzproduktion

Madrigal-González, J., Calatayud, J., Ballesteros-Cánovas, J.A. et al. Climate reverses directionality in the richness–abundance relationship across the World’s main forest biomes. Nat Commun 11, 5635 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19460-y

Pretzsch, Hans; Schütze, Gerhard; Biber, Peter (2015). Zum Einfluss der Baumartenmischung auf die Ertragskomponenten von Waldbeständen. 122 Allg. Forst- u. J.-Ztg., 187. Jg., 7/8

Pretzsch, Hans; Forrester, David I.; Bauhus, Jürgen (2017). Mixed-Species Forests, Ecology and Management. X, 653 S. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54553-9

Quellen: Biodiversität

Ampoorter, Evy; Barbaro, Luc; Jactel, Hervé; Baeten, Lander; Boberg, Johanna; Carnol, Monique et al. (2020). Tree diversity is key for promoting the diversity and abundance of forest‐associated taxa in Europe. In: Oikos 129 (2), S. 133–146. DOI: 10.1111/oik.06290

Korboulewsky, Nathalie; Perez, Gabriel; Chauvat, Matthieu (2016). How tree diversity affects soil fauna diversity: A review. In: Soil Biology and Biochemistry 94, S. 94–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.11.024

Penone, Caterina; Allan, Eric; Soliveres, Santiago; Felipe-Lucia, María R.; Gossner, Martin M.; Seibold, Sebastian et al. (2019). Specialisation and diversity of multiple trophic groups are promoted by different forest features. In: Ecology Letters 22 (1), S. 170–180. DOI: 10.1111/ele.13182

Schall, Peter; Heinrichs, Steffi; Ammer, Christian; Ayasse, Manfred; Boch, Steffen; Buscot, François et al. (2020). Can multi‐taxa diversity in European beech forest landscapes be increased by combining different management systems? In: J Appl Ecol 57 (7), S. 1363–1375. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13635

Tinya, Flóra; Kovács, Bence; Bidló, András; Dima, Bálint; Király, Ildikó; Kutszegi, Gergely et al. (2021). Environmental drivers of forest biodiversity in temperate mixed forests - A multi-taxon approach. In: The Science of the total environment 795, S. 148720. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148720

Tomao, Antonio; Antonio Bonet, José; Castaño, Carles; de-Miguel, Sergio (2020). How does forest management affect fungal diversity and community composition? Current knowledge and future perspectives for the conservation of forest fungi. In: Forest Ecology and Management 457, S. 117678. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117678

Quellen Erholung

Abildtrup, J., Garcia, S., Olsen, S. B., Stenger, A. (2013). Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol. Econ., Land Use 92, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.001

Andrada II, R., Deng, J., Gazal, K., 2015. Exploring people’s preferences on specific attributes of urban forests in Washington DC: A conjoint approach. J. Hortic. For. 7, 200–209

Arnberger, A., Ebenberger, M., Schneider, I.E., Cottrell, S., Schlueter, A.C., von Ruschkowski, E., Venette, R.C., Snyder, S.A., Gobster, P.H., 2018a. Visitor preferences for visual changes in bark beetle-impacted forest recreation settings in the United States and Germany. Environ. Manage. 61, 209–223

Arnberger, A., Eder, R., Allex, B., Preisel, H., Ebenberger, M., Husslein, M., 2018b. Trade-offs between wind energy, recreational, and bark-beetle impacts on visual preferences of national park visitors. Land Use Policy 76, 166–177.

Buhyoff, G.J., Gauthier, L.J., Wellman, J.D., 1984. Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurements. For. Sci. 30, 71–82.

De Meo, I., Cantiani, P., Paletto, A., 2020. Effect of Thinning on Forest Scenic Beauty in a Black Pine Forest in Central Italy. Forests 11, 1295. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11121295

De Meo, I., Paletto, A., Cantiani, M.G., 2015. The attractiveness of forests: preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy. Ann. For. Res. 58, 145–156.

Deng, S., Yan, J., Guan, Q., Katoh, M., 2013. Short-term effects of thinning intensity on scenic beauty values of different stands. J. For. Res. 18, 209–219.

Ebenberger, M., Arnberger, A., 2019. Exploring visual preferences for structural attributes of urban forest stands for restoration and heat relief. Urban For. Urban Green. 41, 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.011

Filyushkina, A., Agimass, F., Lundhede, T., Strange, N., Jacobsen, J.B., 2017. Preferences for variation in forest characteristics: Does diversity between stands matter? Ecol. Econ. 140, 22–29.

Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Żylicz, T., Angelstam, P., 2015. Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol. Econ. 119, 8–23.

Gong, L., Zhang, Z., Xu, C., 2015. Developing a Quality Assessment Index System for Scenic Forest Management: A Case Study from Xishan Mountain, Suburban Beijing. Forests 6, 225–243. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6010225

Gundersen, V.S., Frivold, L.H., 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For. Urban Green. 7, 241–258.

Hegetschweiler, T., Fischer, C., Moretti, M., Hunziker, M., 2020. Integrating data from National Forest Inventories into socio-cultural forest monitoring–a new approach. Scand. J. For. Res. 35, 274–285.

Hong, S.-K., Kim, J.-M., Jo, H.-K., Lee, S.-W., 2018. Monetary Valuation of Urban Forest Attributes in Highly Developed Urban Environments: An Experimental Study Using a Conjoint Choice Model. Sustainability 10, 2461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072461

Irvine, K.N., Herrett, S., 2018. Does ecosystem quality matter for cultural ecosystem services? J. Nat. Conserv. 46, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2018.08.010

Liu, X., Tvinnereim, E., Grimsrud, K.M., Lindhjem, H., Velle, L.G., Saure, H.I., Lee, H., 2021. Explaining landscape preference heterogeneity using machine learning-based survey analysis. Landsc. Res. 46, 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2020.1867713

Mandziuk, A., Fornal-Pieniak, B., Ollik, M., 2021. The willingness of inhabitants in medium-sized city and the city’s surroundings settlements to pay for recreation in urban forests in Poland. IForest-Biogeosciences For. 14, 483.

Nielsen, A.B., Olsen, S.B., Lundhede, T., 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 80, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.003

Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Messager, P., Miller, D., 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013

Ozkan, U.Y., Ozdemir, I., 2015. Assessment of landscape silhouette value in urban forests based on structural diversity indices. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12, 3971–3980.

Paletto, A., Guerrini, S., De Meo, I., 2017. Exploring visitors’ perceptions of silvicultural treatments to increase the destination attractiveness of peri-urban forests: A case study in Tuscany Region (Italy). Urban For. Urban Green. 27, 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.06.020

Paudyal, R., Stein, T.V., Ober, H.K., Swisher, M.E., Jokela, E.J., Adams, D.C., 2018. Recreationists’ perceptions of scenic beauty and satisfaction at a public forest managed for endangered wildlife. Forests 9, 241.

Pelyukh, O., Paletto, A., Zahvoyska, L., 2019. People’s attitudes towards deadwood in forest: evidence from the Ukrainian Carpathians. J. For. Sci. 65 (2019), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.17221/144/2018-JFS

Pukkala, T., Kellomäki, S., Mustonen, E., 1988. Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scand. J. For. Res. 3, 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827588809382538

Roovers, P., Hermy, M., Gulinck, H., 2002. Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59, 129–145.

Schroeder, H., Daniel, T.C., 1981. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. For. Sci. 27, 71–80.

Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K., 2010. Visual Perception of Habitats Adopted for Post-Mining Landscape Rehabilitation. Environ. Manage. 46, 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9513-3

Sonntag-Öström, E., Nordin, M., Slunga Järvholm, L., Lundell, Y., Brännström, R., Dolling, A., 2011. Can the boreal forest be used for rehabilitation and recovery from stress-related exhaustion? A pilot study Scand. J. For. Res. 26, 245–256.

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

Burgess, S. S. O., Adams, M. A., Turner, N. C., & Ong, C. K. (1998). The redistribution of soil water by tree root systems. Oecologia, 115(3), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050521

Forrester, David I. (2015). Transpiration and water-use efficiency in mixed-species forests versus monocultures: effects of tree size, stand density and season. Tree Physiology, 35(3), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpv011

Forstwissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Freiburg und Forstliche Versuchs- und Forschungsanstalt Baden-Württemberg (Hg.) (2012). Ausgleichs- und Reaktorfunktionen von Waldböden im Stoff- und Wasserkreislauf. FVA-Kolloquium in Freiburg am 4. – 5. Oktober 2012. Berichte Freiburger Forstliche Forschung Heft 96. Online verfügbar unter https://www.fva-bw.de/fileadmin/publikationen/fff_bericht/fff_h_96.pdf.

Spathelf, Peter; Natkhin, Marco; Thom, Dominik; Puhlmann, Heike; Bolte, Andreas; Sass-Klaassen, Ute et al. (2025). Fakten zum Thema: Wald und Wassermangel. In: AFZ Der Wald (1).

Vilhar, Urša (2025). Runoff and Evapotranspiration–Precipitation Ratios as Indicators of Water Regulation Ecosystem Services in Urban Forests. In: Land, 14(4), S. 809. DOI: 10.3390/land14040809.

Kronenschlussgrad

Quellen: Definition

Kramer H., Akça A. (1982). Leitfaden zur Waldmesslehre.5. überarbeitete Auflage 2008. J. D. Sauerländer´s Verlag

Quellen: Holzproduktion

Lockow K.-W., (2022). Die Krone des Waldes. Aus: Waldbestandsmessung - Stichprobenverfahren – Wachstumsmodellierung. S. 87–106

Meyer P., Kieker B., Ackermann J., Nagel R., Schmidt M., Spellmann H. (2016). Kronenschluss und horizontale Struktur in Buchenaltbeständen. AFZ-DerWald 9/2016. S. 42 -44

Quellen: Biodiversität

Penone, Caterina; Allan, Eric; Soliveres, Santiago; Felipe-Lucia, María R.; Gossner, Martin M.; Seibold, Sebastian et al. (2019): Specialisation and diversity of multiple trophic groups are promoted by different forest features. In: Ecology Letters 22 (1), S. 170–180. DOI: 10.1111/ele.13182.

Zeller, Laura; Förster, Agnes; Keye, Constanze; Meyer, Peter; Roschak, Christian; Ammer, Christian (2023). What does literature tell us about the relationship between forest structural attributes and species richness in temperate forests? – A review. In: Ecological Indicators 153, S. 110383. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110383.

Quellen: Erholung

Brown, T.C., Daniel, T.C., 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. For. Sci. 32, 471–487.

Chen, Y., Sun, B., Liao, S., Chen, L., Luo, S., 2015. Landscape perception based on personal attributes in determining the scenic beauty of in-stand natural secondary forests. Ann. For. Res. 59, 91–103.

De Meo, I., Cantiani, P., Paletto, A., 2020. Effect of Thinning on Forest Scenic Beauty in a Black Pine Forest in Central Italy. Forests 11, 1295. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11121295

De Meo, I., Paletto, A., Cantiani, M.G., 2015. The attractiveness of forests: preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy. Ann. For. Res. 58, 145–156.

Deng, S., Yan, J., Guan, Q., Katoh, M., 2013. Short-term effects of thinning intensity on scenic beauty values of different stands. J. For. Res. 18, 209–219.

Edwards, D., Jay, M., Jensen, F.S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagné, C., Peace, A., Weiss, G., 2012. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-European perspective. For. Policy Econ. 19, 12–19.

Rosa, J.C.S., Geneletti, D., Morrison-Saunders, A., Sánchez, L.E., Hughes, M., 2020. To what extent can mine rehabilitation restore recreational use of forest land? Learning from 50 years of practice in southwest Australia. Land Use Policy 90, 104290.

Sacchelli, S., Grilli, G., Capecchi, I., Bambi, L., Barbierato, E., Borghini, T., 2020. Neuroscience application for the analysis of cultural ecosystem services related to stress relief in forest. Forests 11, 190.

Skłodowski, J., Gołos, P., Skłodowski, M., Ożga, W., 2013. The preferences of visitors to selected forest areas for tourism and recreational purposes. https://doi.org/10.2478/frp-2013-0028

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

Ansley, R. J., Zhang, T., & Cooper, C. (2018). Soil Moisture, Grass Production and Mesquite Resprout Architecture Following Mesquite Above-Ground Mortality. Water, 10(9), 1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091243

Antonio D. del Campo, Kyoichi Otsuki, Yusuf Serengil, Juan A. Blanco, Rasoul Yousefpour, Xiaohua Wei, A global synthesis on the effects of Durchforstungon hydrological processes: Implications for forest management, Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 519, 2022, 120324, ISSN 0378-1127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120324.

Englisch, M. (2016). Wald und Wasser – ein (fast) ideales Paar. BFW-Praxisinformation, 40, 3–5.

Gebhardt, T., Häberle, K.-H., Matyssek, R., Schulz, C., & Ammer, C. (2014). The more, the better? Water relations of Norway spruce stands after progressive thinning. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 197, 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.05.013

Hardage, K., Wheelock, S. J., Gaffney, R., O’Halloran, T., Serpa, B., Grant, G., Coppoletta, M., Csank, A., Tague, C., Staudacher, M., & Tyler, S. (2022). Soil moisture and micrometeorological differences across reference and thinned stands during extremes of precipitation, southern Cascade Range. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.898998

Kong, X., Ghaffar, S., Determann, M., Friese, K., Jomaa, S., Mi, C., Shatwell, T., Rinke, K., & Rode, M. (2022). Reservoir water quality deterioration due to deforestation emphasizes the indirect effects of global change. Water Research, 221, 118721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118721

Reise, J. (2020). Literaturstudie zum Thema Wasserhaushalt und Forstwirtschaft. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1696994/literaturstudie-zum-thema-wasserhaushalt-und-forstwirtschaft/2428642/

Spathelf, Peter; Natkhin, Marco; Thom, Dominik; Puhlmann, Heike; Bolte, Andreas; Sass-Klaassen, Ute et al. (2025). Fakten zum Thema: Wald und Wassermangel. In: AFZ Der Wald (1).

Bestandesschichtung

Quellen: Definition

ThüringenForst (2010). Thüringer Forsteinrichtungsanweisung und Anweisung zur Fortschreibung der Waldbiotopkartierung für den Staats - und Körperschaftswald (kurz FA 2010)

Burschel, P., Huss J. (1997). Grundriss des Waldbaus. Ein Leitfaden für Studium und Praxis. 2., neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Parey Buchverlag Berlin.

Quellen: Holzproduktion

Bartsch N., Röhrig E. (2016). Waldökologie. Kapitel 12, Strukturelemente von Wäldern. Springer-Verlag Berlin. DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44268-5_12

Burschel, P., Huss J. (1997). Grundriss des Waldbaus. Ein Leitfaden für Studium und Praxis. 2., neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Parey Buchverlag Berlin.

DBU (2015). Thünen Insititut. Ergebnisdatenbank BWI³ https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/land-forstwirtschaft/strukturvielfalt-der-waelder#mischbestande-fordern-die-waldfunktionen-und-streuen-das-risiko

Ehbrecht M., Schall P., Ammer C., Fischer M., Seidel D. (2019). Effects of structural heterogeneity on the diurnal temperature range in temperate forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 432, pp. 860-867.

Brasseur G. P., Jacob D., Schuck-Zöller S. (2023). Klimawandel in Deutschland. Entwicklung, Folgen, Risiken und Perspektiven. Springer Sektrum Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66696-8

Quellen: Biodiversität

MacArthur, R. H., & MacArthur, J. W. (1961). On Bird Species Diversity. Ecology, 42(3), 594–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/1932254

Penone, C., Allan, E., Soliveres, S., Felipe-Lucia, M. R., Gossner, M. M., Seibold, S., Fischer, M. (2019). Specialisation and diversity of multiple trophic groups are promoted by different forest features. Ecology Letters, 22(1), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13182

Sing, L., Metzger, M. J., Paterson, J. S., & Ray, D. (2018). A review of the effects of forest management intensity on ecosystem services for northern European temperate forests with a focus on the UK. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, 91(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpx042

Tinya, F., Kovács, B., Bidló, A., Dima, B., Király, I., Kutszegi, G., . . . Ódor, P. (2021). Environmental drivers of forest biodiversity in temperate mixed forests - A multi-taxon approach. The Science of the Total Environment, 795, 148720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148720

Tomao, A., Antonio Bonet, J., Castaño, C., & de-Miguel, S. (2020). How does forest management affect fungal diversity and community composition? Current knowledge and future perspectives for the conservation of forest fungi. Forest Ecology and Management, 457, 117678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117678

Quellen: Erholung

Bawa, R.S., 2017. Effects of wildfire on the value of recreation in western North America. J. Sustain. For. 36, 1–17.

Breyne, J., Dufrêne, M., Maréchal, K., 2021. How integrating socio-cultural values into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators. Ecosyst. Serv. 49, 101278.

Brown, T.C., 1987. Production and cost of scenic beauty: examples for a ponderosa pine forest. For. Sci. 33, 394–410.

Carvalho-Ribeiro, S.M., Lovett, A., 2011. Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal. For. Policy Econ. 13, 46–54.

Ciesielski, M., Stereńczak, K., 2021. Using Flickr data and selected environmental characteristics to analyse the temporal and spatial distribution of activities in forest areas. For. Policy Econ. 129, 102509.

De Meo, I., Cantiani, P., Paletto, A., 2020. Effect of Thinning on Forest Scenic Beauty in a Black Pine Forest in Central Italy. Forests 11, 1295.

De Meo, I., Paletto, A., Cantiani, M.G., 2015. The attractiveness of forests: preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy. Ann. For. Res. 58, 145–156.

Deng, S., Yan, J., Guan, Q., Katoh, M., 2013. Short-term effects of thinning intensity on scenic beauty values of different stands. J. For. Res. 18, 209–219.

Ebenberger, M., Arnberger, A., 2019. Exploring visual preferences for structural attributes of urban forest stands for restoration and heat relief. Urban For. Urban Green. 41, 272–282.

Eleftheriadis, N., Tsalikidis, I., 1990. Coastal pine forest landscapes: Modelling scenic beauty for forest management. J. Environ. Manage. 30, 47–62.

Filyushkina, A., Agimass, F., Lundhede, T., Strange, N., Jacobsen, J.B., 2017. Preferences for variation in forest characteristics: Does diversity between stands matter? Ecol. Econ. 140, 22–29.

Gan, J., Miller, J.H., 2001. In the Eye of the Beholders: Public Views on the Aesthetic Value of Pine Stands Regenerated by Different Methods. For. Landowner March April 2001 P 16-21.

Garrod, G., Ruto, E., Snowdon, P., 2009. Assessing the Value of Forest Landscapes: A Choice Experiment Approach. Arboric. J. 32, 189–211.

Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Żylicz, T., Angelstam, P., 2015. Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol. Econ. 119, 8–23.

Gill, N., Dun, O., Brennan-Horley, C., Eriksen, C., 2015. Landscape Preferences, Amenity, and Bushfire Risk in New South Wales, Australia. Environ. Manage. 56, 738–753.

Gong, L., Zhang, Z., Xu, C., 2015. Developing a Quality Assessment Index System for Scenic Forest Management: A Case Study from Xishan Mountain, Suburban Beijing. Forests 6, 225–243.

Gundersen, V.S., Frivold, L.H., 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For. Urban Green. 7, 241–258.

Hegetschweiler, K.T., de Vries, S., Arnberger, A., Bell, S., Brennan, M., Siter, N., Olafsson, A.S., Voigt, A., Hunziker, M., 2017. Linking demand and supply factors in identifying cultural ecosystem services of urban green infrastructures: A review of European studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 21, 48–59.

Hegetschweiler, K.T., Stride, C.B., Fischer, C., Ginzler, C., Hunziker, M., 2022. Integrating recreation into National Forest Inventories – Results from a forest visitor survey in winter and summer. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 100489.

Heyman, E., Gunnarsson, B., Stenseke, M., Henningsson, S., Tim, G., 2011. Openness as a key-variable for analysis of management trade-offs in urban woodlands. Urban For. Urban Green. 10, 281–293.

Irvine, K.N., Herrett, S., 2018. Does ecosystem quality matter for cultural ecosystem services? J. Nat. Conserv. 46, 1–5.

Jankovska, I., Straupe, I., Brumelis, G., Donis, J., Kupfere, L., 2014. Urban forests of Riga, Latvia-pressures, naturalness, attitudes and management. Balt. For. 20, 342–351.

Kellomäki, S., Savolainen, R., 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landsc. Plan. 11, 97–107.

Nielsen, A.B., Olsen, S.B., Lundhede, T., 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 80, 63–71.

Ozkan, U.Y., Ozdemir, I., 2015. Assessment of landscape silhouette value in urban forests based on structural diversity indices. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12, 3971–3980.

Paletto, A., Guerrini, S., De Meo, I., 2017. Exploring visitors' perceptions of silvicultural treatments to increase the destination attractiveness of peri-urban forests: A case study in Tuscany Region (Italy). Urban For. Urban Green. 27, 314–323.

Pröbstl, U., 1989. Auswirkungen des Waldsterbens auf Erholung und Fremdenverkehr in waldreichen Mittelgebirgslandschaften Bayerns. Forstwiss. Cent. 108, 56–65.

Roovers, P., Hermy, M., Gulinck, H., 2002. Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59, 129–145.

Ryan, R.L., 2012. The influence of landscape preference and environmental education on public attitudes toward wildfire management in the Northeast pine barrens (USA). Landsc. Urban Plan. 107, 55–68.

Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For. Urban Green. 1, 135–149.

Weller, P., Elsasser, P., 2018. Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany–Evidence from a choice experiment. For. Policy Econ. 93, 1–9.

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

Burgess, S. S. O., Adams, M. A., Turner, N. C., & Ong, C. K. (1998). The redistribution of soil water by tree root systems. Oecologia, 115(3), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050521

Hoek van Dijke, A. J., Herold, M., Mallick, K., Benedict, I., Machwitz, M., Schlerf, M., Pranindita, A., Theeuwen, J. J. E., Bastin, J.-F., & Teuling, A. J. (2022). Shifts in regional water availability due to global tree restoration. Nature Geoscience, 15(5), 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00935-0

Jones, J., Ellison, D., Ferraz, S., Lara, A., Wei, X., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Forest restoration and hydrology. Forest Ecology and Management, 520, 120342. ISSN 0378-1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120342

Referowska-Chodak, E., & Kornatowska, B. (2023). Effects of Forestry Transformation on the Ecosystem Level of Biodiversity in Poland’s Forests. Forests. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusId:261332170

Reise, J. (2020). Literaturstudie zum Thema Wasserhaushalt und Forstwirtschaft. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1696994/literaturstudie-zum-thema-wasserhaushalt-und-forstwirtschaft/2428642/

Begleitvegetation

Quellen: Definition

Burschel, P., Huss J. (1997). Grundriss des Waldbaus. Ein Leitfaden für Studium und Praxis. 2., neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Parey Buchverlag Berlin.

Quellen: Holzproduktion

Budde, S., (2006). Auswirkungen des Douglasienanbaus auf die Bodenvegetation im Forst. Cuvillier Verlag Göttingen. 146 S.

Burschel, P., Huss J. (1997). Grundriss des Waldbaus. Ein Leitfaden für Studium und Praxis. 2., neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Parey Buchverlag Berlin.

Frei E., Widmer S., Babbi M., Krüsi B. O., (2019). Extensive Bekämpfung des Adlerfarns an einem voralpinen Trockenstandort. Erkenntnisse aus einem zehnjährigen Feldversuch. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 51 (08). 374-381

Ministerium für Umwelt, Forsten und Verbraucherschutz RLP, (2020). Waldbautechnik für die Praxis: Etablierungsblockade Adlerfarn. Landesforsten Rheinland-Pfalz

Schmidt, W., & Streit, M. (2009). Gibt es einen Zusammenhang zwischen der Diversität der Baumschicht und der Bodenvegetation? Waldökologie, Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz, 7, 5-19.

Quellen: Biodiversität

Ćosović, Marija; Bugalho, Miguel; Thom, Dominik; Borges, José (2020). Stand Structural Characteristics Are the Most Practical Biodiversity Indicators for Forest Management Planning in Europe. In: Forests 11 (3), S. 343. DOI: 10.3390/f11030343.

Gilliam, Frank (2014). Herbaceous Layer in Forests of Eastern North America. Unter Mitarbeit von Frank G. Gilliam. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press Incorporated.

Gilliam, Frank S. (2007). The Ecological Significance of the Herbaceous Layer in Temperate Forest Ecosystems. In: BioScience 57 (10), S. 845–858. DOI: 10.1641/B571007.

Lelli, Chiara; Bruun, Hans Henrik; Chiarucci, Alessandro; Donati, Davide; Frascaroli, Fabrizio; Fritz, Örjan et al. (2019). Biodiversity response to forest structure and management: Comparing species richness, conservation relevant species and functional diversity as metrics in forest conservation. In: Forest Ecology and Management 432, S. 707–717. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.057.

Spicer, Michelle Elise; Radhamoni, Harikrishnan Venugopalan Nair; Duguid, Marlyse C.; Queenborough, Simon A.; Comita, Liza S. (2022). Herbaceous plant diversity in forest ecosystems: patterns, mechanisms, and threats. In: Plant Ecol 223 (2), S. 117–129. DOI: 10.1007/s11258-021-01202-9.

Quellen: Erholung

Aminzadeh, B., Ghoreyshi, S., 2007. Scenic landscape quality and recreational activities in natural forest parks, Iran.

Brown, T.C., 1987. Production and cost of scenic beauty: examples for a ponderosa pine forest. For. Sci. 33, 394–410.

Brown, T.C., Daniel, T.C., 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. For. Sci. 32, 471–487.

Gundersen, V., Stange, E., Kaltenborn, B., Vistad, O., 2017. Public visual preferences for dead wood in natural boreal forests: The effects of added information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 158, 12–24.

Gundersen, V.S., Frivold, L.H., 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For. Urban Green. 7, 241–258.

Lamb, R.J., Purcell, A.T., 1990. Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 19, 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(90)90041-Y

Nielsen, A.B., Gundersen, V.S., Jensen, F.S., 2018. The impact of field layer characteristics on forest preference in Southern Scandinavia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 170, 221–230.

Oku, H., Fukamachi, K., 2006. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.10.008

Skłodowski, J., Gołos, P., Skłodowski, M., Ożga, W., 2013. The preferences of visitors to selected forest areas for tourism and recreational purposes. https://doi.org/10.2478/frp-2013-0028

Wang, R., Zhao, J., Meitner, M.J., 2017. Urban woodland understory characteristics in relation to aesthetic and recreational preference. Urban For. Urban Green. 24, 55–61.

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

Balandier, P., Gobin, R., Prévosto, B., & Korboulewsky, N. (2022). The contribution of understorey vegetation to ecosystem evapotranspiration in boreal and temperate forests: a literature review and analysis. European Journal of Forest Research, 141, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-022-01505-0

Burgess, S. S. O., Adams, M. A., Turner, N. C., & Ong, C. K. (1998). The redistribution of soil water by tree root systems. Oecologia, 115(3), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050521

Englisch, M. (2016). Wald und Wasser – ein (fast) ideales Paar. BFW-Praxisinformation, 40, 3–5.

Guan, S., Lu, Y., & Liu, X. (2022). Evaluation of Multiple Forest Service Based on the Integration of Stand Structural Attributes in Mixed Oak Forests. Sustainability, 14(14), 8228. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148228

Kölling, C., Göttlein, A., & Rothe, A. (2007). Energieholz nachhaltig nutzen. LWF aktuell, 61, 32–36.

Kozii, N., Haahti, K., Tor-ngern, P., Chi, J., Hasselquist, E. M., Laudon, H., Launiainen, S., Oren, R., Peichl, M., Wallerman, J., & Hasselquist, N. J. (2020). Partitioning growing season water balance within a forested boreal catchment using sap flux, eddy covariance, and a process-based model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 2999–3014. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2999-2020

Kreye, M. M., Adams, D. C., & Escobedo, F. J. (2014). The Value of Forest Conservation for Water Quality Protection. Forests, 5(5), 862–884. https://doi.org/10.3390/f5050862

Liu, X., Feng, T., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., & Wang, P. (2025). Vegetation restoration affects soil hydrological processes in typical natural and planted forests on the Loess Plateau. Journal of Hydrology, 650, 132465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.132465

Referowska-Chodak, E., & Kornatowska, B. (2023). Effects of Forestry Transformation on the Ecosystem Level of Biodiversity in Poland’s Forests. Forests, 14(9), 1739. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14091739

Reise, J. (2020). Literaturstudie zum Thema Wasserhaushalt und Forstwirtschaft. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1696994/literaturstudie-zum-thema-wasserhaushalt-und-forstwirtschaft/2428642/

Wais, W., Huber, C., & Göttlein, A. (2008). Waldverjüngung und Wasserqualität. LWF Waldforschung, Aktuell, 66, 9–13.

Wang, Y., Yang, J., Chen, Y., Wang, A., & De Maeyer, P. (2018). The Spatiotemporal Response of Soil Moisture to Precipitation and Temperature Changes in an Arid Region, China. Remote Sensing, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10030468

Waldinnenrand

Quellen: Definition

Hrsg. Ministerium für Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz (2020). Richtlinie zum Erhalt und zur Anlage von Waldrändern im Land Brandenburg. Landesbetrieb Forst Brandenburg

Hrsg. Ministerium für Klimaschutz, Landwirtschaft, ländliche Räume und Umwelt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. MKLLU MV (2023). Waldrandgestaltung. Landesforstanstalt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Moggert, J. (2021). Waldränder. Übergang zwischen Wald und Flur – ein wertvolles Strukturelement der Landschaft. Erschienen in: Waldpost 2021 Zeitung für Waldbesitzer in Sachsen. Staatsbetrieb Sachsenforst

Quellen: Holzproduktion

Gockel, H. (2012). Ökonomie, Ökologie und Erholungswert im Einklang – Mittelwaldähnliche Waldrandgestaltung. – Allg. Forstz. 15: 24–26

Gockel, H.; Grawe, F. und Burkhard B. (2012). Modell- und Demonstrationsvorhaben im Bereich Biologische Vielfalt "Mittelwaldähnliche Waldrandgestaltung und -nutzung zur Förderung der Nutzholzarten Stiel-Eiche, Trauben-Eiche und Hainbuche sowie seltener Edellaub- und Nadelgehölze wie Elsbeere, Wacholder oder Eibe". Endbericht

Hrsg. Ministerium für Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz (2020). Richtlinie zum Erhalt und zur Anlage von Waldrändern im Land Brandenburg. Landesbetrieb Forst Brandenburg

Landeszentrum Wald Sachsen-Anhalt (2016). Definition wichtiger forstlicher Begriffe. Abzurufen bei: https://landeszentrumwald.sachsen-anhalt.de/fuer-waldbesitzende/waldbauportal/definition-wichtiger-forstlicher-begriffe

Hrsg. Ministerium für Klimaschutz, Landwirtschaft, ländliche Räume und Umwelt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. MKLLU MV (2023). Waldrandgestaltung. Landesforstanstalt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Hrsg. Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Klimaschutz des Landes Brandenburg, (2020). Waldränder — artenreiche Lebensräume. Landesbetrieb Forst Brandenburg

Waldbesitzerportal.de: https://www.waldbesitzerportal.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Download/Merkblaetter/Waldbau_Info_Nr_6_Waldrandgestaltung.pdf

Quellen: Biodiversität

Bergen, K. M.; Goetz, S. J.; Dubayah, R. O.; Henebry, G. M.; Hunsaker, C. T.; Imhoff, M. L. et al. (2009). Remote sensing of vegetation 3‐D structure for biodiversity and habitat: Review and implications for lidar and radar spaceborne missions. In: J. Geophys. Res. 114 (G2), DOI: 10.1029/2008JG000883.

Börner, A. R.; Diestelhorst, O.; Eßer, G.; Gray, D.; Gutmann, M.; Jelinek, K. H. et al. (2020). Paffendorf, Februar 2020 Untersuchung der ökologischen Funktion der Waldinnenränder auf der Sophienhöhe. Hg. v. Forschungstelle Rekultivierung.

Online verfügbar unter https://www.forschungsstellerekultivierung.de/-/media/Project/Team/Rekultivierung/documents/biodiversitaet/forschungsarbeiten/Bericht_Waldinnenrnder_2019.pdf, zuletzt geprüft am 16.01.2025.

Quellen: Erholung

Karjalainen, E., 1996. Scenic preferences concerning clear-fell areas in Finland. Landsc. Res. 21, 159–173.

Yarrow, C., 1966. A Preliminary Survey of the Public’s Concepts of Amenity in British Forestry. For. Int. J. For. Res. 39, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/39.1.59

Fry, G., Sarlöv-Herlin, I., 1997. The ecological and amenity functions of woodland edges in the agricultural landscape; a basis for design and management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 37, 45–55.

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

Nicht bewertet.

Totholzmenge

Quellen: Definition

Oehmichen, K. (2007). Erfassung der Totholzmasse – Zusammenstellung von Verfahrensansätzen und Bewertung ihrer Eignung für massenstatistische Erhebungen. Arbeitsbericht des Instituts für Waldökologie und Waldinventuren. Aufgerufen am 16.02.2026 unter https://literatur.thuenen.de/digbib_extern/dk039310.pdf

Quellen: Holzproduktion

BMEL (2016). Der Wald in Deutschland - ausgewählte Ergebnisse der dritten Bundeswaldinventur. Berlin. Abrufbar unter: https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Wald/bundeswaldinventur3.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8 (aufgerufen am 19.11.2024)

BMK (2024). https://publicus.boorberg.de/hinweise-zur-verkehrssicherung-im-wald-und-auf-waldwegen/ (Aktuelle Rechtslage des Ministeriums für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Energie und Mobilität vom 17.01.2024 - aufgerufen am 19.11.2024)

Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2016). Totholzmengen im Wald. https://www.bfn.de/daten-und-fakten/totholzmengen-im-wald (aufgerufen am 19.11.2024)

Bundesministerium Landwirtschaft, Regionen und Tourismus (2020). Indikatoren für nachhaltige Waldbewirtschaftung des Österreichischen Walddialoges, Aktualisierung und Bewertung 2020. Korrigierte Fassung vom 3. Mai 2021

Dög M., Seintsch B., Rosenkranz L., Dieter M. (2016). Belastungen der deutschen Forstwirtschaft aus der Schutz- und Erholungsfunktion des Waldes. Landbauforschung, Applied Agricultural and Forestry Research, Vol. 66, No. 2, 2016, 71-92

Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft (WSL). https://totholz.wsl.ch/de/totholz/totholz-und-forstwirtschaft/ (aufgerufen am 19.11.2024)

Härtl, F., & Knoke, T. (2019). Coarse woody debris management with ambiguous chance constrained robust optimization. Forests, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/f10060504.

Härtl, F. H., Langhammer, P., & Knoke, T. (2018). Strategien zur Minimierung von Opportunitätskosten der Totholzbereitstellung. Swiss Forestry Journal, 169(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.3188/szf.2018.0009

Mordini M, Lehner J, Niedermann-Meier S, Nussbeck I, Kurschat R, Mühlethaler U, (2012). Biotopbäume und Totholz: Forstbetriebliche Auswirkungen. Auslegeordnung und erste methodische Ansätze. Projektbericht im Auftrag des BAFU. Hochschule für Agrar-, Forst- und Lebensmittelwissenschaften HAFL, Zollikofen. 85 S.

Schaller M., Dittgen A., Küng S., (2015). Auswirkungen von Biotopbäumen und Totholz in Schweizer Forstbetrieben – Ergänzung der Studie „Forstbetriebliche Auswirkungen, Auslegeordnung und erste methodische Ansätze“ Projektbericht im Auftrag des BAFU. Hochschule für Agrar-, Forst- und Lebensmittelwissenschaften HAFL, Zollikofen, 139 S.

Schulze, L.; Wagemann, O. (2020). Wiederbewaldung mit Mutterstöcken. https://www.waldwissen.net am 09.12.2020 online veröffentlicht. https://www.waldwissen.net/de/waldwirtschaft/waldbau/mutterstoecke-und-stockachselpflanzung-zur-wiederbewaldung-von-kalamitaetsflaechen (abgerufen 20.01.2025)

Steinebrunner F., Tischer A., Medicus T., Huth F., Bernhardt-Römermann, F. (2025). The effects of deadwood on tree regeneration and microsites: A systematic review. Forest Ecology and Management. Volume 596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123096

Stöckli B. (1995). Moderholz für die Naturverjüngung im Bergwald, Anleitung zum Moderanbau. Gruppe Vegetation und Waldreservate, Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft

Quellen: Biodiversität

Jörg Müller; Heinz Bussler (2008). Key factors and critical thresholds at stand scale for saproxylic beetles in a beech dominated forest, Southern Germany. In: Revue d'Ecologie, Terre et Vie Sup10, S. 81–90. Online verfügbar unter https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03530516/.

Lachat, T., Bouget, C., Bütler, R., & Müller, J. (2013). 2.2 Totholz: Quantitative und qualitative Voraussetzungen für die Erhaltung der biologischen Vielfalt von Xylobionten. In Focus–Managing Forest in Europe, 96.

Müller, Jörg; Bütler, Rita (2010). A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. In: European Journal of Forest Research 129 (6), S. 981–992. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-010-0400-5.

Parisi, F.; Pioli, S.; Lombardi, F.; Fravolini, G.; Marchetti, M.; Tognetti, R. (2018). Linking deadwood traits with saproxylic invertebrates and fungi in European forests - a review. In: iForest 11 (3), Artikel 2670, S. 423–436. DOI: 10.3832/ifor2670-011.

Sabatini, F. M.; Burrascano, S.; Azzella, M. M.; Barbati, A.; Paulis, S. de; Di Santo, D. et al. (2016). One taxon does not fit all: Herb-layer diversity and stand structural complexity are weak predictors of biodiversity in Fagus sylvatica forests. In: Ecological Indicators 69, S. 126–137. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.012.

Schnell, S.; Henning, P. (2019). Totholzvorräte weiterhin auf hohem Niveau. In: AFZ-Der Wald 14, 2019.

Storch, Felix; Dormann, Carsten F.; Bauhus, Jürgen (2018). Quantifying Forest structural diversity based on large-scale inventory data: a new approach to support biodiversity monitoring. In: Forest Ecosystems 5 (1), S. 34. DOI: 10.1186/s40663-018-0151-1.

Quellen: Erholung

Benson, R.E., Ullrich, J.R., 1981. Visual impacts of forest management activities: findings on public preferences. US Department Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap.

Breyne, J., Dufrêne, M., Maréchal, K., 2021. How integrating socio-cultural values into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators. Ecosyst. Serv. 49, 101278.

Brown, T.C., 1987. Production and cost of scenic beauty: examples for a ponderosa pine forest. For. Sci. 33, 394–410.

Brown, T.C., Daniel, T.C., 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. For. Sci. 32, 471–487.

Eriksson, L., Nordlund, A., Schenk, T., Westin, K., 2015. A study of forest values and management attitudes in the general public in Germany and Sweden: does context matter? J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 58, 1412–1431.

Eriksson, L., Nordlund, A. M., Olsson, O., & Westin, K. (2012). Recreation in different forest settings: A scene preference study. Forests, 3(4), 923–943.

Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Żylicz, T., Angelstam, P., 2015. Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol. Econ. 119, 8–23.

Gregory, K.J., Davis, R.J., 1993. The perception of riverscape aesthetics: an example from two Hampshire rivers. J. Environ. Manage. 39, 171–185.

Gundersen, V., Stange, E., Kaltenborn, B., Vistad, O., 2017. Public visual preferences for dead wood in natural boreal forests: The effects of added information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 158, 12–24.

Heyman, E., 2012. Analysing recreational values and management effects in an urban forest with the visitor-employed photography method. Urban For. Urban Green. 11, 267–277.

Janeczko, E., Bielinis, E., Tiarasari, U., Woźnicka, M., Kędziora, W., Przygodzki, S., Janeczko, K., 2021. How Dead Wood in the Forest Decreases Relaxation? The Effects of Viewing of Dead Wood in the Forest Environment on Psychological Responses of Young Adults. Forests 12, 871.

Jankovska, I., Straupe, I., Brumelis, G., Donis, J., Kupfere, L., 2014. Urban forests of Riga, Latvia-pressures, naturalness, attitudes and management. Balt. For. 20, 342–351.

Kohsaka, R., Flitner, M., 2004. Exploring forest aesthetics using forestry photo contests: case studies examining Japanese and German public preferences. For. Policy Econ. 6, 289–299.

Martens, D., Bauer, N., 2010. Im Test: Wald als Ressource für psychisches Wohlbefinden | In Test: Forest serving as a resource for psychological well-being. Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 161, 90–96.

Meo, I.D., Paletto, A., Cantiani, M.G., 2015. The attractiveness of forests: Preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy. Ann. For. Res. 58, 145–156.

Nastran, M., 2020. Visiting the Forest with Kindergarten Children: Forest Suitability. Forests 11, 696.

Nielsen, A.B., Heyman, E., Richnau, G., 2012. Liked, disliked and unseen forest attributes: Relation to modes of viewing and cognitive constructs. J. Environ. Manage. 113, 456–466.

Nielsen, A.B., Olsen, S.B., Lundhede, T., 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 80, 63–71.

Pastorella, F., Avdagić, A., Čabaravdić, A., Mraković, A., Osmanović, M., Paletto, A., 2016. Tourists' perception of deadwood in mountain forests. Ann. For. Res. 59, 311–326.

Pelyukh, O., Paletto, A., Zahvoyska, L., 2019. People's attitudes towards deadwood in forest: evidence from the Ukrainian Carpathians. J. For. Sci. 65 (2019), 171–182.

Qiu, L., Lindberg, S., Nielsen, A.B., 2013. Is biodiversity attractive? —On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 119, 136–146.

Rathmann, J., Sacher, P., Volkmann, N., Mayer, M., 2020. Using the visitor-employed photography method to analyse deadwood perceptions of forest visitors: a case study from Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany. Eur. J. For. Res. 139, 431–442.

Scott, J.H., 1998. Fuel Reduction in Residential and Scenic Forests: a Comparison of Three Treatments in a Western Montana Ponderosa Pine Stand.

Simkin, J., Ojala, A., Tyrväinen, L., 2021. The perceived restorativeness of differently managed forests and its association with forest qualities and individual variables: A field experiment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 18, 422.

Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., Kolehmainen, O., 2001. Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 53, 53–70.

Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Hallikainen, V., 2017. Effect of the season and forest management on the visual quality of the nature-based tourism environment: a case from Finnish Lapland. Scand. J. For. Res. 32, 349–359.

Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For. Urban Green. 1, 135–149.

van Rensburg, T.M., Mill, G.A., Common, M., Lovett, J., 2002. Preferences and multiple use forest management. Ecol. Econ. 43, 231-244. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.69079

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

FAO, IUFRO and USDA. (2021). A guide to forest-water management (FAO Forestry Paper No. 185). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6473en

Pulido-Esquivel, A. Y., Prado-Hernández, J. V., Buendía-Espinoza, J. C., & García-Núñez, R. M. (2025). Agroforestry Systems Enhance Soil Moisture Retention and Aquifer Recharge in a Semi-Arid Mexican Valley. Water, 17(10), 1488. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17101488

Guan, S., Lu, Y., & Liu, X. (2022). Evaluation of Multiple Forest Service Based on the Integration of Stand Structural Attributes in Mixed Oak Forests. Sustainability.

Wais, W., Huber, C., & Göttlein, A. (2008). Waldverjüngung und Wasserqualität. LWF aktuell, 66, 9–13.

Totholzart

Quellen: Definition

Stokland, J. N.; Siitonen, J.; Jonsson, B. G. (2012). Biodiversity in Dead Wood: Cambridge University Press (Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation). Online verfügbar unter https://books.google.de/books?id=2jcgAwAAQBAJ.

Quellen: Holzproduktion

Härtl F. H., Langhammer P., Knoke T., (2018). Strategien zur Minimierung von Opportunitätskosten der Totholzbereitstellung. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen. 169 (1): 9–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.3188/szf.2018.0009

Mordini, M., Rotach P. (2010). Die Eichenbestände fördern. Wie weiter mit den ehemaligen Mittelwäldern des Kantons Thurgau? Wald und Holz, 7/10: 39-41.

Niedermann-Meier, S.; Mordini M.; Bütler, R.; Rotach, P. (2010). Habitatbäume im Wirtschaftswald: ökologisches Potenzial und finanzielle Folgen für den Betrieb? Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 161, 10: 391-400.

Quellen: Biodiversität

Lachat, Thibault; Bouget, Christophe; Bütler, Rita; Müller, Jörg (2013). 2.2 Totholz: Quantitative und qualitative Voraussetzungen für die Erhaltung der biologischen Vielfalt von Xylobionten. In: In Focus‐Managing Forest in Europe, S. 96.

Quellen: Erholung

Abildtrup, J., Garcia, S., Olsen, S.B., Stenger, A., 2013. Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol. Econ., Land Use 92, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.001

Braun Kohlová, M., Nepožitková, P., Melichar, J., 2021. How Do Observable Characteristics of Post-Mining Forests Affect Their Attractiveness for Recreation? Land 10, 910.

Breyne, J., Dufrêne, M., Maréchal, K., 2021. How integrating’socio-cultural values’ into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators. Ecosyst. Serv. 49, 101278.

Czajkowski, M., Budziński, W., Campbell, D., Giergiczny, M., Hanley, N., 2017. Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management. Environ. Resour. Econ. 68, 705–727.

Deng, L., Luo, H., Ma, J., Huang, Z., Sun, L.-X., Jiang, M.-Y., Zhu, C.-Y., Li, X., 2020. Effects of integration between visual stimuli and auditory stimuli on restorative potential and aesthetic preference in urban green spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 53, 126702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126702

Deng, S., Yan, J., Guan, Q., Katoh, M., 2013. Short-term effects of thinning intensity on scenic beauty values of different stands. J. For. Res. 18, 209–219.

Duesberg, S., Ní Dhubháin, Á., 2019. Forest intensification in Ireland: Developing an approximation of social acceptability. Land Use Policy 85, 368–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.028

Filyushkina, A., Agimass, F., Lundhede, T., Strange, N., Jacobsen, J.B., 2017. Preferences for variation in forest characteristics: Does diversity between stands matter? Ecol. Econ. 140, 22–29.

Garrod, G., Ruto, E., Snowdon, P., 2009. Assessing the Value of Forest Landscapes: A Choice Experiment Approach. Arboric. J. 32, 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2009.9747573

Gerstenberg, T., Baumeister, C.F., Schraml, U., Plieninger, T., 2020. Hot routes in urban forests: The impact of multiple landscape features on recreational use intensity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 203, 103888.

Gerstenberg, T., Hofmann, M., 2016. Perception and preference of trees: A psychological contribution to tree species selection in urban areas. Urban For. Urban Green. 15, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.004

Gerstenberg, T., Hofmann, M., Gillner, S., 2017. Predicting tree preferences from visible tree characteristics. Eur. J. For. Res. 136, 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-017-1042-7

Gosal, A.S., Newton, A.C., Gillingham, P.K., 2018. Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 14, 91–104.

Grilli, G., Barbierato, E., Capecchi, I., Sacchelli, S., 2022. Application of stated-preferences methods and neuroscience for the valuation of dynamicity in forest cultural ecosystem services. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 65, 398–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1885354

Han, K.-T., 2007. Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Environ. Behav. 39, 529–556.

Hegetschweiler, K.T., Plum, C., Fischer, C., Brändli, U.-B., Ginzler, C., Hunziker, M., 2017. Towards a comprehensive social and natural scientific forest-recreation monitoring instrument—A prototypical approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 167, 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.06.002

Hornigold, K., Lake, I., Dolman, P., 2016. Recreational Use of the Countryside: No Evidence that High Nature Value Enhances a Key Ecosystem Service. PLOS ONE 11, e0165043. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165043

Irvine, K.N., Herrett, S., 2018. Does ecosystem quality matter for cultural ecosystem services? J. Nat. Conserv. 46, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2018.08.010

Kellomäki, S., Savolainen, R., 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landsc. Plan. 11, 97–107.

Pierskalla, C.D., Deng, J., Siniscalchi, J.M., 2016. Examining the product and process of scenic beauty evaluations using moment-to-moment data and GIS: The case of Savannah, GA. Urban For. Urban Green. 19, 212–222.

Pukkala, T., Kellomäki, S., Mustonen, E., 1988. Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scand. J. For. Res. 3, 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827588809382538

Roovers, P., Hermy, M., Gulinck, H., 2002. Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59, 129–145.

Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K., 2010. Visual Perception of Habitats Adopted for Post-Mining Landscape Rehabilitation. Environ. Manage. 46, 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9513-3

Tew, E.R., Simmons, B.I., Sutherland, W.J., 2019. Quantifying cultural ecosystem services: Disentangling the effects of management from landscape features. People Nat. 1, 70–86.

Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For. Urban Green. 1, 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00014

Upton, V., Dhubháin, Á.N., Bullock, C., 2015. Are Forest Attitudes Shaped by the Extent and Characteristics of Forests in the Local Landscape? Soc. Nat. Resour. 28, 641–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.933925

Upton, V., Dhubháin, Á.N., Bullock, C., 2012. Preferences and values for afforestation: The effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labelled choice experiment. For. Policy Econ. 23, 17–27.

Vítková, M., 2006. How do Czechs see urban forests? J SCI 52, 565–579.

Wang, R., Zhao, J., 2020. Effects of evergreen trees on landscape preference and perceived restorativeness across seasons. Landsc. Res. 45, 649–661.

Weller, P., Elsasser, P., 2018. Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany–Evidence from a choice experiment. For. Policy Econ. 93, 1–9.

Zhang, Z., Qie, G., Wang, C., Jiang, S., Li, X., Li, M., 2017. Relationship between forest color characteristics and scenic beauty: Case study analyzing pictures of mountainous forests at sloped positions in Jiuzhai Valley, China. Forests 8, 63.

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

Englisch, M. (2016). Wald und Wasser – ein (fast) ideales Paar. BFW-Praxisinformation, 40, 3–5.

Hararuk, O., Kurz, W. A., & Didion, M. (2020). Dynamics of dead wood decay in Swiss forests. Forest Ecosystems, 7(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-020-00248-x

Lasota, J., Błońska, E., Piaszczyk, W., & Wiecheć, M. (2018). How the deadwood of different tree species in various stages of decomposition affected nutrient dynamics? Journal of Soils and Sediments, 18(8), 2759–2769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-017-1858-2

Kölling, C., Göttlein, A., & Rothe, A. (2007). Energieholz nachhaltig nutzen. LWF aktuell, 61, 32–36.

Reise, J. (2020). Literaturstudie zum Thema Wasserhaushalt und Forstwirtschaft. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1696994/literaturstudie-zum-thema-wasserhaushalt-und-forstwirtschaft/2428642/

Totholzlagerung

Quellen: Definition

Stokland, J. N., Siitonen, J., & Jonsson, B. G. (2012). Biodiversity in Dead Wood. Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.de/books?id=2jcgAwAAQBAJ

Quellen: Holzproduktion

Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSL (2024). https://totholz.wsl.ch/de/totholz/formen-von-totholz/ (aufgerufen am 15.04.2024)

Stöckli B. (1995). Moderholz für die Naturverjüngung im Bergwald, Anleitung zum Moderanbau. Gruppe Vegetation und Waldreservate, Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft

Quellen: Biodiversität

Franc, N. (2007). Standing or downed dead trees — Does it matter for saproxylic beetles in temperate oak-rich forest? Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 37(12), 2494–2507. https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-096

Lachat, Thibault; Brang, P.; Bolliger, M.; Bollmann, K.; Brändli, U-B; Bütler, R.; Herrmann Wermelinger, B. (2019): Totholz im Wald. Entstehung, Bedeutung und Förderung. In: Merkblatt für die Praxis 52, S. 1–12. DOI: 10.24451/arbor.8746

Lassauce, A., Paillet, Y., Jactel, H., & Bouget, C. (2011). Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: Meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecological Indicators, 11(5), 1027–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.02.004

Quellen: Erholung

Pastorella, F., Avdagić, A., Čabaravdić, A., Mraković, A., Osmanović, M., Paletto, A., 2016. Tourists’ perception of deadwood in mountain forests. Ann. For. Res. 59, 311–326. https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2016.482

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

Englisch, M. (2016). Wald und Wasser – ein (fast) ideales Paar. BFW-Praxisinformation, 40, 3–5.

FAO, IUFRO and USDA (2021). A guide to forest-water management (FAO Forestry Paper No. 185). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6473en

Zersetzungsgrad

Quellen: Definition

Soge, Ayodele O.; Popoola, Olatunde I.; Adetoyinbo, Adedeji A. (2021). Detection of wood decay and cavities in living trees: a review. In: Can. J. For. Res. 51 (7), S. 937–947. DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2020-0340.

Quellen: Holzproduktion

Deutscher Bundestag (BT), Wissenschaftliche Dienste (2024). Totholzaufkommen, Zersetzungsdauer und CO₂-Emissionen. WD 5 - 3000 - 035/24. Abrufbar unter: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/999516/24ec2675c04bfa78003c62daf4060475/WD-5-035-24-pdf.pdf (aufgerufen am 15.04.2024).

Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSL (2024). Zersetzungsgrad des Holzes. Abrufbar unter: https://totholz.wsl.ch/de/totholz/abbau-von-holz/zersetzungsgrad/ (aufgerufen am 15.04.2024).

Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSL (2024). Borkenkäfer und Co. Abrufbar unter: WSL - Borkenkäfer und Co (aufgerufen am 15.04.2024).

Hararuk, O., Kurz, W. A., Didion, M. (2020). Dynamics of dead wood decay in Swiss forests. Forest Ecosystems 7(1), 36. DOI: 10.1186/s40663-020-00248-x.

Quellen: Biodiversität

Felton, Adam; Lindbladh, Matts; Brunet, Jörg; Fritz, Örjan (2010). Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: An assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in northern Europe. In: Forest Ecology and Management 260 (6), S. 939–947. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06.011.

Liu, Qi-Sha; Yan, Shu-Zhen; Chen, Shuang-Lin (2015). Species diversity of myxomycetes associated with different terrestrial ecosystems, substrata (microhabitats) and environmental factors. In: Mycol Progress 14 (5), S. 1–13. DOI: 10.1007/s11557-015-1048-9.

Nilsson, Sven G.; Niklasson, Mats; Hedin, Jonas; Eliasson, Per; Ljungberg, Håkan (2006). Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry in Changing Landscapes-Principles and Southern Sweden as an Example. In: Journal of Sustainable Forestry 21 (2-3), S. 11–43. DOI: 10.1300/J091v21n02_02.

Quellen: Erholung

Benson, R.E., Ullrich, J.R., 1981. Visual impacts of forest management activities: findings on public preferences. USDepartment Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.69079

Breyne, J., Dufrêne, M., Maréchal, K., 2021. How integrating’socio-cultural values into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators. Ecosyst. Serv. 49, 101278.

Brown, T.C., 1987. Production and cost of scenic beauty: examples for a ponderosa pine forest. For. Sci. 33, 394–410.

Brown, T.C., Daniel, T.C., 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. For. Sci. 32, 471–487.

Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Żylicz, T., Angelstam, P., 2015. Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol. Econ. 119, 8–23.

Gregory, K.J., Davis, R.J., 1993. The perception of riverscape aesthetics: an example from two Hampshire rivers. J. Environ. Manage. 39, 171–185.

Gundersen, V., Stange, E., Kaltenborn, B., Vistad, O., 2017. Public visual preferences for dead wood in natural boreal forests: The effects of added information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 158, 12–24.

Heyman, E., 2012. Analysing recreational values and management effects in an urban forest with the visitor-employed photography method. Urban For. Urban Green. 11, 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.02.003

Jankovska, I., Straupe, I., Brumelis, G., Donis, J., Kupfere, L., 2014. Urban forests of Riga, Latvia-pressures, naturalness, attitudes and management. Balt. For. 20, 342–351.

Kohsaka, R., Flitner, M., 2004. Exploring forest aesthetics using forestry photo contests: case studies examining Japanese and German public preferences. For. Policy Econ. 6, 289–299.

Martens, D., Bauer, N., 2010. Im Test: Wald als Ressource für psychisches Wohlbefinden | In Test: Forest serving as a resource for psychological well-being. Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 161, 90–96. https://doi.org/10.3188/szf.2010.0090

Meo, I.D., Paletto, A., Cantiani, M.G., 2015. The attractiveness of forests: Preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy. Ann. For. Res. 58, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2015.308

Nastran, M., 2020. Visiting the Forest with Kindergarten Children: Forest Suitability. Forests 11, 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11060696

Nielsen, A.B., Heyman, E., Richnau, G., 2012. Liked, disliked and unseen forest attributes: Relation to modes of viewing and cognitive constructs. J. Environ. Manage. 113, 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.014

Qiu, L., Lindberg, S., Nielsen, A.B., 2013. Is biodiversity attractive? —On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 119, 136–146.

Sacher, P., Meyerhoff, J., & Mayer, M. (2022). Evidence of the association between deadwood and forest recreational site choices. FOREST POLICY

Scott, J.H., 1998. Fuel Reduction in Residential and Scenic Forests: a Comparison of Three Treatments in a Western Montana Ponderosa Pine Stand.

Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., Kolehmainen, O., 2001. Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 53, 53–70.

Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For. Urban Green. 1, 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00014

van Rensburg, T.M., Mill, G.A., Common, M., Lovett, J., 2002. Preferences and multiple use forest management. Ecol. Econ. 43, 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00214-8

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

Bantle, A., Borken, W., Ellerbrock, R. H., Schulze, E. D., Weisser, W. W., & Matzner, E. (2014). Quantity and quality of dissolved organic carbon released from coarse woody debris of different tree species in the early phase of decomposition. Forest Ecology and Management, 329, 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.06.035

Harmon, M. E., Franklin, J. F., Swanson, F. J., Sollins, P., Gregory, S. V., Lattin, J. D., Anderson, N. H., Cline, S. P., Aumen, N. G., & Sedell, J. R. (2004). Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in ecological research, 34, 59–234.

Pichler, V., Homolák, M., Skierucha, W., Pichlerová, M., Ramírez, D., Gregor, J., & Jaloviar, P. (2012). Variability of moisture in coarse woody debris from several ecologically important tree species of the Temperate Zone of Europe. Ecohydrology, 5(4), 424–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.235

Besondere Einzelbäume

Quellen: Holzproduktion

Dög M., Seintsch B., Rosenkranz L., Dieter M. (2016): Belastungen der deutschen Forstwirtschaft aus der Schutz- und Erholungsfunktion des Waldes. Landbauforschung, Applied Agricultural and Forestry Research, Vol. 66, No. 2, 2016, 71-92

Schmitt J., Hartebrodt C. (2019). Visualisierung von Walddienstleistungen (Vi¬Wal¬Di). Schriftenreihen Berichte Freiburger Forstliche Forschung, Heft 103, 53 S.

Quellen: Biodiversität

Nicht bewertet.

Quellen: Erholung

Braun Kohlová, M., Nepožitková, P., Melichar, J., 2021. How Do Observable Characteristics of Post-Mining Forests Affect Their Attractiveness for Recreation? Land 10, 910.

Brown, T.C., 1987. Production and cost of scenic beauty: examples for a ponderosa pine forest. For. Sci. 33, 394–410.

Czajkowski, M., Budziński, W., Campbell, D., Giergiczny, M., Hanley, N., 2017. Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management. Environ. Resour. Econ. 68, 705–727.

Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Żylicz, T., Angelstam, P., 2015. Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol. Econ. 119, 8–23.

Gundersen, V., Stange, E., Kaltenborn, B., Vistad, O., 2017. Public visual preferences for dead wood in natural boreal forests: The effects of added information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 158, 12–24.

Hull, R.B., IV, Buhyoff, G.J., 1986. The Scenic Beauty Temporal Distribution Method: An Attempt to Make Scenic Beauty Assessments Compatible with Forest Planning Efforts. For. Sci. 32, 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/32.2.271

Kellomäki, S., Savolainen, R., 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landsc. Plan. 11, 97–107.

Maloof, J., 2010. Measuring the beauty of forests. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 67, 431–437.

Mizuuchi, Y., Nakamura, K.W., 2021. Landscape assessment of a 100-year-old sacred forest within a shrine using geotagged visitor employed photography. J. For. Res. 26, 267–277.

Nastran, M., 2020. Visiting the Forest with Kindergarten Children: Forest Suitability. Forests 11, 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11060696

Nelson, T., Strong, M.J., Johnson, T., 2006. Aesthetic and biological perceptions of successional forest. For. Trees Livelihoods 16, 247–267.

Scarpa, R., Hutchinson, W.G., Chilton, S.M., Buongiorno, J., 2000. Importance of forest attributes in the willingness to pay for recreation: a contingent valuation study of Irish forests. For. Policy Econ. 1, 315–329.

Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K., 2010. Visual Perception of Habitats Adopted for Post-Mining Landscape Rehabilitation. Environ. Manage. 46, 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9513-3

Skłodowski, J., Gołos, P., Skłodowski, M., Ożga, W., 2013. The preferences of visitors to selected forest areas for tourism and recreational purposes. https://doi.org/10.2478/frp-2013-0028

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

Nicht bewertet.

Baummikrohabitate

Quellen: Definition

Courbaud, Benoit; Larrieu, Laurent; Kozak, Daniel; Kraus, Daniel; Lachat, Thibault; Ladet, Sylvie et al. (2022). Factors influencing the rate of formation of tree‐related microhabitats and implications for biodiversity conservation and forest management. In: J Appl Ecol 59 (2), S. 492–503. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.14068

Kraus, Daniel; Bütler, Rita; Krumm, Frank; Lachat, Thibault; Winter, Susanne (2016). Katalog der Baummikrohabitate - Referenzliste für Feldaufnahmen. Online verfügbar unter https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297697155_Katalog_der_Baummikrohabitate_-_Referenzliste_fur_Feldaufnahmen.

Larrieu, Laurent; Paillet, Yoan; Winter, Susanne; Bütler, Rita; Kraus, Daniel; Krumm, Frank et al. (2018). Tree related microhabitats in temperate and Mediterranean European forests: A hierarchical typology for inventory standardization. In: Ecological Indicators 84, S. 194–207. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.08.051

Quellen: Holzproduktion

Großmann J., Pyttel P. (2019). Einfluss der Waldbewirtschaftung auf Anzahl und Diversität von Baum-Mikrohabitaten. AFZ-DerWald 20/2019, S. 17-21

Müller, A. (2021). Zum ökonomischen Wert von Waldökosystemleistungen – Integration der Ergebnisse eines Choice Experimentes in ein Szenario-Modell zur Waldbewertung. Dissertation. 56 Seiten. Technische Universität München, TUM School of Life Sciences

Niedermann-Meier, S.; Mordini M.; Bütler, R.; Rotach, P. (2010). Habitatbäume im Wirtschaftswald: ökologisches Potenzial und finanzielle Folgen für den Betrieb. Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 161, 10: 391-400

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Waldpolitik und Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Biodiversität und Genetische Ressourcen beim BMEL (Hrsg.) (2020). Wege zu einem effizienten Waldnaturschutz in Deutschland. Stellungnahme. Berlin, 62 S.

Quellen: Biodiversität

Asbeck, Thomas; Pyttel, Patrick; Frey, Julian; Bauhus, Jürgen (2019). Predicting abundance and diversity of tree-related microhabitats in Central European montane forests from common forest attributes. In: Forest Ecology and Management 432, S. 400–408. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.043.

Asbeck, Thomas; Sabatini, Francesco; Augustynczik, Andrey L. D.; Basile, Marco; Helbach, Jan; Jonker, Marlotte et al. (2021). Biodiversity response to forest management intensity, carbon stocks and net primary production in temperate montane forests. In: Scientific reports 11 (1), S. 1625. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-80499-4.

Bütler, Rita; Lachat, Thibault; Krumm, Frank; Kraus, Daniel; Larrieu, Laurent (2020). Taschenführer der Baummikrohabitate. Beschreibung und Schwellenwerte für Feldaufnahmen.

Courbaud, Benoit; Larrieu, Laurent; Kozak, Daniel; Kraus, Daniel; Lachat, Thibault; Ladet, Sylvie et al. (2022): Factors influencing the rate of formation of tree‐related microhabitats and implications for biodiversity conservation and forest management. In: J Appl Ecol 59 (2), S. 492–503. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.14068.

Larrieu, Laurent; Cabanettes, Alain (2012). Species, live status, and diameter are important tree features for diversity and abundance of tree microhabitats in subnatural montane beech–fir forests 1 This article is one of a selection of papers from the International Symposium on Dynamics and Ecological Services of Deadwood in Forest Ecosystems. In: Can. J. For. Res. 42 (8), S. 1433–1445. DOI: 10.1139/x2012-077.

Vuidot, Aurélie; Paillet, Yoan; Archaux, Frédéric; Gosselin, Frédéric (2011). Influence of tree characteristics and forest management on tree microhabitats. In: Biological Conservation 144 (1), S. 441–450. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.030.

Quellen: Erholung

Nicht explizit untersucht in der Literatur, für Details in Wäldern aber relevant, z.B.:

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

Nicht bewertet.

Stammeigenschaften

Quellen: Holzproduktion

Hrsg. Deutscher Forstwirtschaftsrate e.V. (2023). Rahmenvereinbarung für den Rohholzhandel in Deutschland (RVR), 5. aktualisierte Auflage, 01. Dezember 2023

Kohnle U. (2014). Auswirkung von Rindenschäden auf Sortierung und Aushaltung. AFZ-DerWald 24/2014, S. 24-26.

Nill M., Kohnle U., Sauter U. H. (2011). Rindenschäden mit mutmaßlichem Bezug zur Holzernte im Spiegel der Betriebsinventuren in Baden-Württemberg. Forstarchiv 82, Heft 6, S. 216-224

Quellen: Biodiversität

Teilweise nicht bewertet sowie nicht explizit untersucht in der Literatur. Siehe → Baummikrohabitate.

Quellen: Erholung

Nicht explizit untersucht in der Literatur. Siehe → Besondere Einzelbäume.

Quellen: Wasserquantität, -qualität und -kontinuität

Nicht bewertet.

Glossar

Luck, Gary W. et al. (2003) Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Volume 18, Issue 7, 331 - 336

https://www.carbonconnect.ch/resources/glossar/

https://standard.eva.eco/1-1/glossar/

https://naturwald-akademie.org/bildung/waldlexikon/

https://landeszentrumwald.sachsenanhalt.de/fileadmin/Bibliothek/Politik_und_Verwaltung/MW/WL/03_Dokumente/05_Forsten/Definitionen_wichtiger_forstlicher_Begriffe.pdf

https://www.waldhilfe.de/

https://www.kuratoriumwald.com/

https://www.wald.de/waldwissen/

https://www.bpb.de/themen/umwelt/naturschutzpolitik/glossar/

https://www.lwk-niedersachsen.de/lwk/news/37282_Ringeln_eine_gefahrlose_Alternative

https://www.waldwissen.net/de/technik-und-planung/forsttechnik-und-holzernte/waldarbeit/merkblatt-schlagraeumung

https://web.archive.org/web/20160116131654/https://www.na-hessen.de/dokumentation/schlagflora.php

https://mlr.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/unsere-themen/wald-und-naturerlebnis/wald-im-klimawandel/waldstrategie-bw/wet

https://www.landesforsten.de/wir/loewe/

https://www.forstwirtschaft-in-deutschland.de/waelder-entdecken/forstliches-glossar/

Waldbauliches Planungshandbuch. Eine Orientierungshilfe zur ÖSL-spezifischen Behandlung von Waldbeständen

Digitales Quellenverzeichnis

Mischungsart

Kronenschlussgrad

Bestandesschichtung

Begleitvegetation

Waldinnenrand

Totholzmenge

Totholzart

Totholzlagerung

Zersetzungsgrad

Besondere Einzelbäume

Baummikrohabitate

Stammeigenschaften

About this page

Finden!