Comment on "Opinion paper: Forest management and biodiversity": the role of protected areas is greater than the sum of its number of species

Abstract

In a recent opinion paper, Schulze et al. (2014) compared an-imal and plant richness of protected areas with intensivelyand extensively managed forests in Germany and in Roma-nia. Schulze et al. hypothesised that “differences in manage-ment practice have contributed to the observed differences indiversity of central versus southeastern Europe”. The studyconcludes with a hypothesis that “clear-felling followed bynatural succession may even be superior to the protectionof old-growth forests, regarding biodiversity”. We wish tocontinue the dialog on this important topic, and express oursomewhat different perspective on the conclusions and im-plications of this particular paper (Schulze et al., 2014). Weagree in principal that emulating natural disturbance regimesand creating openings via clear-fellings can be one of sev-eral management tools to introduce heterogeneity in other-wise homogenous mid-seral stands that have resulted frompast management (Franklin and Johnson, 2012). However,we believe it is misleading to compare clear-fellings to pro-tected areas dominated by old-growth or primary forests us-ing a simplistic measure of biodiversity and without a land-scape perspective on the role of different habitat types (suc-cessional stages) to sustain biodiversity over time and space.We identify some critical limitations of the original opinionpaper and offer an alternative perspective to the authors’ con-clusions regarding protected forests.We highlight three major issues of the opinion paper ofSchulze et al. (2014): limited scope, an incomplete concep-tual framework, and conjectural interpretations unsupportedby solid data.