Habitat inventories and monitoring require the evaluation of the status of various characteristics of these habitats – indicator traits. In the case study of Estonian forests in Viru County (Natura 2000 Annex I forest habitat types *9010, *9080, and *91D0), the survey data of old-growth and natural forests were used to test for the efficiency of the indicator set that has been suggested for the evaluation of the habitat’s representativity status. The data from expert-graded forests (121 stands) were alternatively clustered with k-means clustering, their characteristics were tested for indicator power with discriminant analysis, and the resulting efficient set of characteristics was clustered again for an updated classification.
In studying the differences between analyses of expert grading and cluster system, we found that different characteristics had different weights in forest classification. In addition to the standard structural characteristics, signs of anthropogenic activity and landscape pattern proved to be of importance. From the testing for various precision scales of classification, we concluded that different indicator traits of structure and composition are required, and the three-grade system appears to be practical for the purpose of avoiding over-interpretation. We found that additional studies are needed to define reasonable indicator traits for wet and swampy forests, and also for forests on unproductive soils.Adermann, V. 2009. Eesti metsad 2008. Metsavarude hinnang statistilisel valikmeetodil [Estonian Forests 2008. The Estimation of Forest Sources by Statistical Sampling Methodology]. Metsakaitse- ja Metsauuenduskeskus, Tallinn (in Estonian, with English summary).
Airaksinen, O. & Karttunen, K. 2001. Natura 2000 – luontotyyppiopas. 2. korjattu painos. Ympäristöopas 46 (in Finnish).
Andersson, L., Martverk, R., Külvik, M., Palo, A. & Varblane, A. 2003. Woodland Key Habitat Inventory in Estonia 1999–2002. Regio Publishing, Tartu.
Arold, I. 2005. Eesti maastikud [Estonian Landscapes]. Tartu University Press (in Estonian).
Auninš, A. (ed.) 2010. Eiropas Savienibas aizsargājamie biotopi Latvijā. Noteikšanas rokasgrāmata. Latvijas Dabas fonds, Riga (in Latvian).
Brang, P., Commarmot, B., Rohrer, L. & Bugmann, H. 2008. Monitoringkonzept für Naturwaldreservate in der Schweiz. Birmensdorf, Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald,
Schnee und Landschaft WSL. Zürich, ETH Zürich, Professur für Waldökologie. http://www.wsl.ch/publikationen/pdf/8555.pdf (visited 04-05-2010).
Büchs, W. 2003. Biodiversity and agri-environmental indicators – general scopes and skills with special reference to the habitat level. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 98, 35–78.
[CBD] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2006. Global Biodiversity Outlook. Chapter 2. The 210 Biodiversity Target. Montreal. http://www.cbd.int/doc/gbo/gbo2/cbd-gbo2-en.pdf (visited 08-05-2010).
European Commission. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC. EU. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:NOT (visited 23-04-2010).
European Commission. 1996a. Standard Data Form. EUR 15 Version. EU, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/standarddataforms/form_en.pdf (visited 10-05-2010).
European Commission. 1996b. Standard Data Form. Explanatory Notes. EU, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/standarddataforms/notes_en.pdf (visited 10-05-2010).
European Commission. 2006. Assessment, Monitoring and Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive – Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. EU, Brussels. http://www.artdata.slu.se/filer/ gybs/notes_guidelines_report_art17_final.pdf (visited 10-05-2010).
Guth, J. & Kučera, T. 2005. NATURA 2000 habitat mapping in the Czech Republic: methods and general results. Ekológia (Bratislava), 24(1), 39–51.
Jonsson, B.-G. & Jonsell, M. 1999. Exploring potential biodiversity indicators in boreal forests. Biodivers. Conserv., 8, 1417–1433.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008900309571
Jüriado, I. & Liira, J. 2009. Distribution and habitat ecology of the threatened forest lichen Lobaria pulmonaria in Estonia. Folia Crypt. Est., 46, 55–65.
Kaasik, M., Ploompuu, T., Ots, R., Meier, E., Ohvril, H., Okulov, O., Teral, H., Neiman, L., Russak, V., Kallis, A. & Post, P. 2008. Growth acceleration of Pinus sylvestris in bog stands due to intensified nutrient influx from the atmosphere. Oil Shale, 25, 75–93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/oil.2008.1.08
Kohv, K. & Liira, J. 2005. Anthropogenic disturbances, structural changes and indicators in the boreal forest. Scand. J. Forest Res., 20, 122–134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14004080510041011
Korjus, H. 2002. Puistu loodusväärtuse inventeerimine [Inventorying natural values in forest stands]. Forestry Studies, 37, 59–72 (in Estonian, with English summary).
Kouki, J., Arnold, K. & Martikainen, P. 2004. Long-term persistence of aspen – a key host for many threatened species – is endangered in old-growth conservation areas in Finland.
J. Nat. Conserv., 12, 41–52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2003.08.002
Laasimer, L. 1965. Eesti NSV taimkate [Vegetation of the Estonian S.S.R.]. Valgus, Tallinn (in Estonian, with English summary).
Lähde, E., Laiho, O., Norokorpi, Y. & Saksa, T. 1999. Stand structure as the basis of diversity index. For. Ecol. Manage., 115(2–3), 213–220.
Lamb, E. G., Bayne, E., Holloway, G., Schieck, J., Boutin, S., Herbers, J. & Haughland, D. L. 2009. Indices for monitoring biodiversity change: Are some more effective than others? Ecol. Indic., 9, 432–444.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.06.001
Liira, J. 2009. Olemasolevate koosluste seiremetoodikate hindamine ning soovitusi Natura2000 elupaikade seisundi seiremetoodika edendamiseks [The Evaluation of Present Day Methods of Habitat Monitoring and Suggestions for the Updated Monitoring of Natura 2000 Habitats]. Tartu University Press (in Estonian).
Liira, J. & Kohv, K. 2004. Erineva majandamisrežiimiga metsade bioloogilise mitmekesisuse seire metoodika väljatöötamine [Biodiversity monitoring methodology of forests with various management regimes]. Ministry of Environment. Report (in Estonian).
Liira, J. & Kohv, K. 2010. Stand characteristics and biodiversity indicators along the productivity gradient in boreal forests: defining a critical set of indicators for the monitoring of habitat nature quality. Plant Biosys., 144, 211–220.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11263500903560868
Liira, J. & Sepp, T. 2009. Indicators of structural and habitat natural quality in boreo-nemoral forests along the management gradient. Ann. Bot. Fenn., 46(4), 308–325.
Liira, J., Sepp, T. & Parrest, O. 2007. The forest structure and ecosystem quality in conditions of anthropogenic disturbance along productivity gradient. For. Ecol. Manage., 250(1–2), 34–46.
Lindenmayer, D. B., Margules, C. R. & Botkin, D. B. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv. Biol., 14, 941–950.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x
Lõhmus, E. 2004. Eesti metsakasvukohatüübid [Forest Site Types of Estonia] (Jõgiste, K., Kusmin, J. & Meikar, T., eds). Eesti Loodusfoto, Tartu (in Estonian).
Lõhmus, A. & Kraut, A. 2010. Stand structure of hemiboreal old-growth forests: characteristic features, variation among site types, and a comparison with FSC-certified mature stands in Estonia. For. Ecol. Manage., 260(1), 155–165.
Lõhmus, A. & Lõhmus, P. 2008. First-generation forests are not necessarily worse than long-term managed forests for lichens and bryophytes. Rest. Ecol., 16(2), 231–239.
Lõhmus, A., Lõhmus, P. & Vellak, K. 2007. Substratum diversity explains landscape-scale covariation in the species richness of bryophytes and lichens. Biol. Conserv., 135, 405–414.
McElhinny, C., Gibbons, P., Brack, C. & Bauhus, J. 2005. Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: its definition and measurement. For. Ecol. Manage., 218(1–3), 1–24.
Meier, E. & Paal, J. 2009. Cryptogams in Estonian alvar forests: species composition and their substrata in stands of different age and management intensity. Ann. Bot. Fenn., 46(1), 1–20.
Meier, E., Paal, J., Liira, J. & Jüriado, I. 2005. Influence of tree stand age and management on the species diversity in Estonian eutrophic alvar and boreo-nemoral Pinus sylvestris forests. Scand. J. Forest Res., 20, 135–144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14004080510042155
Ministry of Environment. 2002. Potentsiaalsete Natura alade inventeerimisjuhend [Inventory Manual of Natura 2000 sites]. Manuscript (in Estonian).
Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Cons. Biol., 4, 355–364.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x
Noss, R. F. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. For. Ecol. Manage., 115, 135–146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00394-6
Oja, A. (ed.) 2009. Eesti FSC standard [Estonian FSC Standard]. MTÜ Eesti FSC Töögrupp (in Estonian).
Paal, J. 2002. Estonian forest site types in terms of the Habitat Directive. Balt. For., 8, 21–27.
Paal, J. 2007. Loodusdirektiivi elupaigatüüpide käsiraamat [Interpretation Manual of Natura 2000 Habitat Types]. Auratrükk, Tallinn (in Estonian).
Palo, A. 2004. Natura 2000 metsaelupaigad [NATURA 2000 Forest Habitats]. Eesti Loodusfoto, Tartu (in Estonian).
Palo, A., Remm, K., Kikas, T. & Mander, Ü. 2004. The prediction of vegetation pattern using biophysical landscape factors. In Geo-Environment. Monitoring, Simulation and Remediation of the Geological Environment (Martin-Duque, J. F., Brebbia, C. A., Godfrey, A. E. & Diaz de Teran, J. R., eds), pp. 315–334. WIT Press, Southampton, Boston.
Peterson, U. 2003. Kõrgemalt näeb metsa paremini [Forests can be seen well from the sky]. Eesti Mets, 4, 10–14 (in Estonian).
Pikk, J. 2003. Puistute ja puuliikide kohanemine toitumistingimuste muutustele erineva veerežiimi ja troofsusega kasvukohtadel [Adaptation of stands and tree species to changes in nutrient conditions under different moisture and nutrition regimes]. Forestry Studies, 38, 58–73
(in Estonian, with English summary).
Prieditis, N. 1997. Alnus glutinosa-dominated wetland forests of the Baltic Region: community structure, syntaxonomy and conservation. Plant Ecol., 129, 49–94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009759701364
Prieditis, N. 1999. Status of wetland forests and their structural richness in Latvia. Environ. Conserv., 26, 332–346.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892999000442
Ranius, T. & Jonsson, M. 2007. Theoretical expectations for thresholds in the relationship between number of wood-living species and amount of coarse woody debris: a study case in spruce forests. J. Nat. Conserv., 15, 120–130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2007.02.001
Remm, K. 2005. Correlations between forest stand diversity and landscape pattern in Otepää Nature Park, Estonia. J. Nat. Conserv., 13, 137–145.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2005.02.001
Saaber, K. (ed.) 1996. Koguteos Virumaa [Anthology: Virumaa]. Lääne-Viru Maavalitsus, Ida-Viru Maavalitsus, Tallinn (in Estonian).
Sepp, T. & Liira, J. 2009. Vanade salumetsade rohurinde koosseis ja seda mõjutavad tegurid [Factors influencing the species composition and richness of herb layer in old boreo-nemoral forests]. Forestry Studies, 50, 23–41 (in Estonian, with English summary).
Trass, H., Vellak, K. & Ingerpuu, N. 1999. Floristical and ecological properties for identifying of primeval forests in Estonia. Ann. Bot. Fenn., 36, 67–80.
Vellak, K. & Ingerpuu, N. 2005. Management effects on bryophytes in Estonian forests. Biodiv. Cons., 14, 3255–3263.
Vellak, K. & Paal, J. 1999. Diversity of bryophyte vegetation in some forest types in Estonia: a comparison of old unmanaged and managed forests. Biodiv. Cons., 8, 1595–1620.
Viceníková, A. & Polák, P. (eds). 2003. Európsky významné biotopy na Slovensku. ŠOP SR, Banská Bystrica (in Slovenian).
Viilma, K. & Palo, A. 2008. Kaitsealade metsade inventeerimise suunised [Natura 2000 forest inventory rules on protected areas. Manual for forest taxators]. Environmental Board. Manuscript (in Estonian).
Viilma, K., Öövel, J., Tamm, U., Tomson, P., Amos, T., Ostonen, I., Sørensen, P. & Kuuba, R. 2001. Estonian Forest Conservation Area Network. Final Report of the Estonian Forest Conservation Area Network Project. Triip Grupp, Tartu.
Winter, S., Chirici, G., McRoberts, R. E., Hauk, E. & Tomppo, E. 2008. Possibilities for harmonizing national forest inventory data for use in forest biodiversity assessments. Forestry, 81(1), 33–44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpm042
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.03.026
