Coppice restoration and conservation: a European perspective

References

• Alder DC, Fuller RJ, Marsden SJ. 2018. Implications of transformation to irregular silviculture for woodland birds: a standwise comparison in an English broadleaved woodland. For Ecol Manag. 422:69–78. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ash JE, Barkham JP. 1976. Changes and variability in the field layer of a coppiced woodland in norfolk, england. J Ecol. 64(2):697–712. doi:10.2307/2258779.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baeten L, Brauwens B, De Schrijver A, de Keersmaeker L, Van Calster H, Vandekerkhove K, Roelandt B, Beeckman H, Verheyen K. 2009. Herb layer changes (1954–2000) related to the conversion of coppice-with-standards forest and soil acidification. Appl Veg Sci. 12(2):187–197. doi:10.1111/j.1654-109X.2009.01013.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardat J, Aubert M. 2007. Impact of forest management on the diversity of corticolous bryophyte assemblages in temperate forests. Biol Conserv. 139(1–2):47–66. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker T, Spanka J, Schrӧder L, Leuschner C, Bernhardt-Römermann M. 2016. Forty years of vegetation change in former coppice-with-standards woodlands as a result of management change and N deposition. Appl Veg Sci. 20(2):304–313. doi:10.1111/avsc.12282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borchard N, Adolphs T, Beulshausen F, Ladd B, Gießelmann UC, Hegenberg D, Möseler BM, Amelung W. 2017. Carbon accrual rates, vegetation and nutrient dynamics in a regularly burned coppice woodland in Germany. Glob Change Biol Bioenerg. 9(6):1140–1150. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouvet A, Paillet Y, Archaux F, Tillon L, Denis P, Gilg O, Gosselin F. 2016. Effects of forest structure, management and landscape on bird and bat communities. Environ Conserv. 1:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Brin A, Valladares L, Ladet S, Bouget C. 2016. Effects of forest continuity on flying saproxylic beetle assemblages in small woodlots embedded in agricultural landscapes. Biodivers Conserv. 25(3):587–602. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1076-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broome A, Clarke S, Peace A, Parsons M. 2011. The effect of coppice management on moth assemblages in an english woodland. Biodivers Conserv. 20(4):729–749. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9974-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown AHF, Warr SJ. 1992. The effects of changing management on seed banks in ancient coppices. In: Buckley GP, editor. Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. London: Chapman and Hall; p. 147–166.
   Google Scholar
• Brunet J, Fritz Ö, Richnau G. 2010. Biodiversity in European beech forest—a review with recommendations for sustainable forest management. Ecol Bull. 53:77–94.
   Google Scholar
• Buckley GP, Mills J. 2015. Coppice silviculture: from the Mesolithic to the 21st century. In: Kirby KJ, Watkins C, editors. Europe’s changing woods and forest: from wildwood to managed landscapes. Wallingford (UK): CABI International; p. 77–92.
   Google Scholar
• Campetella G, Canullo R, Gimona A, Garadnai J, Chiarucci A, Giorgini D, Angelini E, Cervellini M, Chelli S, Bartha S. 2016. Scale dependent effects of coppicing on 1 the species pool 2 of late-successional beech forest. Appl Veg Sci. 19(3):474–485. doi:10.1111/avsc.12235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camprodon J, Brotons L. 2006. Effects of undergrowth clearing on the bird communities of the north-western Mediterranean coppice holm oak forests. For Ecol Manag. 221(1–3):72–82. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capizzi D, Luiselli L. 1996. Ecological relationships between small mammals and age of coppice in an oak-mixed forest in central Italy. Rev Ecol. 51:277–291.
   Google Scholar
• Cervellini M, Fiorini S, Cavicchi A, Campetella G, Simonetti E, Chelli S, Canullo R, Gimona A. 2017. Relationships between understory specialist species and local management practices in coppiced forests – Evidence from the Italian apennines. For Ecol Manag. 385:35–45. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke SA, Green DG, Bourn NA, Hoare DJ. 2011. Woodland management for butterflies and moths: a best practice guide. Wareham (UK): Butterfly Conservation.
   Google Scholar
• Debussche M, Debussche G, Lepart J. 2001. Changes in the vegetation of Quercus pubescens woodland after cessation of coppicing and grazing. J Veg Sci. 12(1):81–92. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2001.tb02619.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Decocq G, Aubert M, Dupont F, Alard D, Saguez R, Wattez-Franger A, de Foucault B, Delelis-Dusollier A, Bardat J. 2004. Plant diversity in a managed temperate deciduous forest: understorey response to two silvicultural systems. J Appl Ecol. 41(6):1065–1079. doi:10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00960.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Decocq G, Aubert M, Dupont F, Bardat J, Wattez-Franger A, Saguez R, de Foucault B, Alard D, Delelis-Dusollier A. 2005. Silviculture-driven vegetation change in a European temperate deciduous forest. Ann For Sci. 62(4):313–323. doi:10.1051/forest:2005026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinh TT, Kajikawa C, Akaji Y, Yamada K, Matsumoto TK, Makimoto T, Miki NH, Hirobe M, Sakamoto K. 2019. Stump sprout dynamics of Quercus serrata Thunb. and Q. acutissima Carruth. four years after cutting in an abandoned coppice forest in western Japan. For Ecol and Manag. 435:45–56. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.12.034.
   Google Scholar
• Dolek M, Kőrösi A, Freese-Hager A. 2018. Successful maintenance of Lepidoptera by government-funded management of coppiced forests. J Nat Conserv. 43:75–84. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2018.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donald PF, Fuller RJ, Evans AD, Gough SJ. 1998. Effects of forest management and grazing on breeding bird communities in plantations of broadleaved and coniferous trees in western England. Biol Conserv. 85(1–2):183–197. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00114-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douda J, Boubilik K, Doudová J, Kynci M, Müller J. 2017. Traditional forest management practices stop forest succession and bring back rare plant species. J Appl Ecol. 54(3):761–771. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12801.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fartmann T, Müller C, Poniatowski D. 2013. Effects of coppicing on butterfly communities of woodlands. Biol Conserv. 159:396–404. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.11.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford ED, Newbould PJ. 1977. The biomass and production of ground vegetation and its relation to tree cover through a deciduous woodland cycle. J Ecol. 65(1):201–212. doi:10.2307/2259074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forest Europe. 2015. State of Europe’s forests 2015. Madrid:Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Forman RTT. 1995. Land mosaics. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller RJ, Rothery P. 2013. Temporal consistency in fine-scale habitat relationships of woodland birds during a period of habitat deterioration. For Ecol Manag. 289:164–174. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.09.035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giudici F, Zingg A. 2005. Sprouting ability and mortality of chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) after coppicing. A case study. Ann For Sci. 62(6):513–523. doi:10.1051/forest:2005056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gossner MM, Lachat T, Brunet J, Isacsson G, Bouget C, Brustel H, Brandl R, Weisser WW, Mueller J. 2013. Current near-to-nature forest management effects on functional trait composition of saproxylic beetles in beech forests. Conserv Biol. 27(3):605–614. doi:10.1111/cobi.12023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gossner MM, Wende B, Levick S, Schall P, Floren A, Linsenmair KEE, Steffan-Dewenter I, Schulze E-D, Weisser WW. 2016. Deadwood enrichment in European forests – which tree species should be used to promote saproxylic beetle diversity? Biol Conserv. 201:92–102. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Götmark F. 2013. Habitat management alternatives for conservation forests in the temperate zone: review, synthesis, and implications. For Ecol Manag. 306:292–307. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greatorex-Davies JN, Marrs RH. 1992. The quality of coppice woods as habitats for invertebrates. In: Buckley GP, editor. Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. London: Chapman and Hall; p. 271–296.
   Google Scholar
• Greatorex-Davies JN, Sparks TH, Hall ML. 1994. The response of Heteroptera and Coleoptera species to shade and aspect in rides of coniferized lowland woods in southern England. Biol Conserv. 67(3):255–273. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(94)90617-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenaway F, Hill D. 2005. Woodland management advice for Bechstein’s and barbastelle bat. English Nature Research Reports 658. Peterborough: English Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Gurnell J, Hicks M, Whitbread S. 1992. The effects of coppice management on small mammal populations. In: Buckley GP, editor. Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. London: Chapman and Hall; p. 213–232.
   Google Scholar
• Harmer R, Howe J. 2003. The silviculture and management of coppice woodlands. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Hédl R, Šipoš J, Chudomelová M, Utinek D. 2017. Dynamics of herbaceous vegetation during four years of experimental coppice introduction. Folia Geobot. 52(1):83–99. doi:10.1007/s12224-016-9281-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinrichs S, Schmidt W, Bernhardt-Römermann M. 2017. Biotic homogenization of herb layer composition between two contrasting beech forest communities on limestone over 50 years. Appl Veg Sci. 20(2):271–281. doi:10.1111/avsc.12255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Bourn NAD, Bulman CR, Thomas CD. 2009. Managing successional species: modelling the dependence of heath fritillary populations on the spatial distribution of woodland management. Biol Conserv. 142(11):2743–2751. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins JJ, Kirby KJ. 2007. Ecological change in British broadleaved woodland since 1947. Ibis. 149:29–40. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00703.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horák J, Kout J, Vodka Š, Donato DC. 2016. Dead wood dependent organisms in one of the oldest protected forests of Europe: investigating the contrasting effects of within-stand variation in a highly diversified environment. For Ecol Manag. 363:229–236. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.12.041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horák J, Vodka S, Kout J, Halda JP, Bogusch P, Pech P. 2014. Biodiversity of most dead wood-dependent organisms in thermophilic temperate oak woodlands thrives on diversity of open landscape structures. For Ecol Manag. 315:80–85. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.12.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itô H, Hino T, Sakuma D. 2012. Species abundance in floor vegetation of managed coppice and abandoned forest. For Ecol Manag. 269:99–105. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.12.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kajtoch Ł, Zmihorski M, Bonczar Z. 2012. Hazel Grouse occurrence in fragmented forests: habitat quantity and configuration is more important than quality. Eur J For Res. 131(6):1783–1795. doi:10.1007/s10342-012-0632-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirby KJ. 2015. Changes in the vegetation of clear-fells and closed canopy stands in an English oak wood over a 30-year period. New J Bot. 5(1):2–12. doi:10.1179/2042349715Y.0000000001.
   Google Scholar
• Kirby KJ, Buckley GP, Mills J. 2017. Biodiversity implications of coppice decline, transformations to high forest and coppice restoration in British woodland. Folia Geobot. 52(1):5–13. doi:10.1007/s12224-016-9252-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobayashi T, Kitahara M, Ohkubo T, Aizawa M. 2010. Relationships between the age of northern Kantou plain (central Japan) coppice woods used for production of Japanese forest mushroom logs and butterfly assemblage structure. Biodivers Conserv. 19(8):2147–2166. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9870-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopecky M, Hedl R, Szabo P, Hooftman D. 2013. Non-random extinctions dominate plant community changes in abandoned coppices. J Appl Ecol. 50(1):79–87. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Košulič O, Michalko R, Hula V, Heneberg P. 2016. Impact of Canopy Openness on Spider Communities: implications for Conservation Management of Formerly Coppiced Oak Forests. PLoS One. 11(2):e0148585. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148585.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larrieu L, Cabanettes A, Delarue A. 2012. Impact of silviculture on dead wood and on the distribution and frequency of tree microhabitats in montane beech-fir forests of the Pyrenees. Eur J For Res. 131(3):773–786. doi:10.1007/s10342-011-0551-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larrieu L, Cabanettes A, Gouix N, Burnel L, Bouget C, Deconchat M. 2016. Development over time of the tree-related microhabitat profile: the case of lowland beech–oak coppice-with-standards set-aside stands in France. Eur J For Res. 136(1):37–49. doi:10.1007/s10342-016-1006-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larrieu L, Cabanettes A, Gouix N, Burnel L, Bouget C, Deconchat M. 2019. Post-harvesting dynamics of the deadwood profile: the case of lowland beech-oak coppice-with-standards set-aside stands in France. Eur J Forest Res. 138(2):239–251. doi:10.1007/s10342-019-01164-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassauce A, Anselle P, Lieutier F, Bouget C. 2012. Coppice-with-standards with an overmature coppice component enhance saproxylic beetle biodiversity: A case study in French deciduous forests. For Ecol Manag. 266:273–285. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.11.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindegaard KN, Adams PWR, Holley M, Lamley A, Henriksson A, Larsson S, von Engelbrechten H‐G, Lopez GE, Pisarek M. 2016. Short rotation plantations policy history in Europe: lessons from the past and recommendations for the future. Food Energ Secur. 5(3):125–152. doi:10.1002/fes3.86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity. Washington (DC): Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Longa GD, Boscutti F, Marini L, Alberti G. 2019. Coppicing and plant diversity in a lowland wood remnant in North–East Italy. Plant Biosyst. 154(2):173–180. doi:10.1080/11263504.2019.1578276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mairota P, Manetti MC, Amorini E, Pelleri F, Terradura M, Frattegiani M, Savini P, Grohmann F, Mori P, Terzuolo PG, et al. 2016. Opportunities for coppice management at the landscape level: the Italian experience. iFor. 9(5):775–782. doi:10.3832/ifor1865-009.
   Google Scholar
• Manetti MC, Becagli C, Sansone D, Pelleri F. 2016. Tree-oriented silviculture: a new approach for coppice stands. iFor. 9(5):791–800. doi:10.3832/ifor1827-009.
   Google Scholar
• Mason CF, MacDonald SM. 2002. Responses of ground flora to coppice management in an English woodland – a study using permanent quadrats. Biodivers Conserv. 11(10):1773–1789. doi:10.1023/A:1020395014155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason F, Zapponi L. 2015. The forest biodiversity artery: towards forest management for saproxylic conservation. iFor. 9(2):205–216. doi:10.3832/ifor1657-008.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews JD. 1989. Silvicultural systems. Oxford: Clarenden Press.
   Google Scholar
• Matula R, Svátek M, Kůrová J, Úradníček L, Kadavý J, Kneifl M. 2012. The sprouting ability of the main tree species in central European coppices: implications for coppice restoration. Eur J For Res. 131(5):1501–1511. doi:10.1007/s10342-012-0618-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrath MJ, Luyssaert S, Meyfroidt P, Kaplan JO, Burgi M, Chen Y, Erb K, Gimmi U, McInerney D, Naudts K, et al. 2015. Reconstructing European forest management from 1600 to 2010. Biogeosci. 12(14):4291–4316. doi:10.5194/bg-12-4291-2015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell P. 1992. Growth stages and microclimate in coppice and high forest. In: Buckley GP, editor. Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. London: Chapman and Hall; p. 31–51.
   Google Scholar
• Müllerová J, Hédl R, Szabó P. 2015. Coppice abandonment and its implications for species diversity in forest vegetation. For Ecol Manag. 343:88–100. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paillet Y, Bergès L, Hjältén J, Ódor P, Avon C, Bernhardt‐Römermann M, Bijlsma R‐J, De Bruyn L, Fuhr M, Grandin U, et al. 2010. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged Forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol. 24(1):101–112. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01399.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panaïotis C, Carcaillet C, M’hamedi M. 1997. Determination of the natural mortality age of an holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) stand in Corsica (Mediterranean Island). Acta Oecol. 18(5):519–530. doi:10.1016/S1146-609X(97)80038-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellissier V, Touroult J, Julliard R, Siblet JP, Jiguet F. 2013. Assessing the Natura 2000 network with a common breeding birds survey. Anim Conserv. 16(5):566–574. doi:10.1111/acv.12030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterken GF. 1993. Woodland conservation and management. 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen PM. 2002. Importance of site conditions and time since abandonment for coppice vegetation on Langeland (Denmark). Nord J Bot. 22(4):463–481. doi:10.1111/j.1756-1051.2002.tb01400.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyttel PL, Fischer UF, Suchomel C, Gartner SM, Bauhus J. 2013. The effect of harvesting on stump mortality and re-sprouting in aged oak coppice forests. For Ecol Manag. 289:18–27. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.09.046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rackham O. 2003. Ancient woodland: its history, vegetation and uses in England. Dalbeattie (UK): Castlepoint Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ramakers JJC, Dorenbosch M, Foppen RPB. 2014. Surviving on the edge: a conservation-oriented habitat analysis and forest edge manipulation for the hazel dormouse in the Netherlands. Eur J Wildl Res. 60(6):927–931. doi:10.1007/s10344-014-0849-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reczyńska K, Świerkosz K. 2016. Compositional changes in thermophilous oak forests in Poland over time: do they correspond to European trends? Appl Veg Sci. 20(2):293–303. doi:10.1111/avsc.12290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt M, Kriebitzsch W-U, Ewald J. editors. 2014. Waldartenlisten der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen, Moose und Flechten Deutschlands. Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz.
   Google Scholar
• Schulte LA, Mitchell RJ, Hunter ML Jr, Franklin JF, McIntyre RK, Palik BJ. 2006. Evaluating the conceptual tools for forest biodiversity conservation and their implementation in the US. For Ecol Manag. 232(1–3):1–11. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze ED, Aas G, Grimm GW, Gossner MM, Walentowski H, Ammer C, Kühn I, Bouriaud O, von Gadow K. 2016. A review on plant diversity and forest management of European beech forests. Euro J For Res. 135(1):51–67. doi:10.1007/s10342-015-0922-y.
   Google Scholar
• Scolastri A, Cancellier L, Iocchi M, Cutini M. 2016. Old Coppice vs High Forest: the impact of beech forest management on plant species diversity in central Apennines (Italy). J Plant Ecol. 10:271–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebek P, Bace R, Bartos M, Benes J, Chlumska Z, Dolezal J, Dvorsky M, Kovar J, Machac O, Mikatova B, et al. 2015. Does a minimal intervention approach threaten the biodiversity of protected areas? A multi-taxa short-term response to intervention in temperate oak-dominated forests. For Ecol Manag. 358:80–89. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.09.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seibold S, Brandl R, Buse J, Hothorn T, Schmidl J, Thorn S, Müller J. 2015. Association of extinction risk of saproxylic beetles with ecological degradation of forests in Europe. Conserv Biol. 29(2):382–390. doi:10.1111/cobi.12427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Šipoš J, Hédl R, Hula V, Chudomelová M, Košulič O, Niedobová J, Riedl V. 2017. Patterns of functional diversity of two trophic groups after canopy thinning in an abandoned coppice. Folia Geobot. 52(1):45–58. doi:10.1007/s12224-017-9282-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sozio G, Iannarilli F, Melcore I, Boschetti M, Fipaldini D, Luciani M, Roviani D, Schiavano A, Mortelliti A. 2016. Forest management affects individual and population parameters of the hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius. Z Säugetierkd. 81:96–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sparks TH, Greatorex-Davies JN, Mountford JO, Hall ML, Marrs RH. 1996. The effects of shade on the plant communities of rides in plantation woodland and implications for butterfly conservation. For Ecol Manag. 80(1–3):197–207. doi:10.1016/0378-1127(95)03639-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Šplíchalová M, Adamec Z, Kadavy J, Kneifl M. 2012. Probability model of sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) stump sprouting in the Czech Republic. Eur J For Res. 131(5):1611–1618. doi:10.1007/s10342-012-0628-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strubelt I, Diekmann M, Griesec D, Zachariasa D. 2019. Inter-annual variation in species composition and richness after coppicing in a restored coppice-with-standards forest. For Ecol Manag. 432:32–139. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szabo P. 2010. Driving forces of stability and change in woodland structure: a case-study from the Czech lowlands. For Ecol Manag. 259(3):650–656. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.11.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tredici P. 2001. Sprouting in temperate trees: a morphological and ecological review. Botan Rev. 67(2):121–140. doi:10.1007/BF02858075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unrau A, Becker G, Spinelli R, Lazdina D, Magagnotti N, Nicolescu VN, Buckley P, Bartlett D, Kofman PD. editors. 2018. Coppice forests in Europe. Freiburg i. Br. Germany: Albert Ludwig University.
   Google Scholar
• Van Calster H, Baeten L, De Schrijver A, De Keersmaeker L, Rogister JE, Verheyen K, Hermy M. 2007. Management driven changes (1967–2005) in soil acidity and the understorey plant community following conversion of a coppice-with-standards forest. For Ecol Manag. 241(1–3):258–271. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Calster H, Baeten L, Verheyen K, De Keersmaeker L, Dekeyser S, Rogister JE, Hermy M. 2008. Diverging effects of overstorey conversion scenarios on the understorey vegetation in a former coppice-with-standards forest. For Ecol Manag. 256(4):519–528. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.04.042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandekerkhove K, Thomaes A, Crèvecoeur L, De Keersmaeker L, Leyman A, Köhler F. 2016. Saproxylic beetles in non-intervention and coppice-with-standards restoration management in Meerdaal forest (Belgium): an exploratory analysis. iForest. 9(4):536–545. doi:10.3832/ifor1841-009.
   Google Scholar
• Vandekerkhove K, Thomaes A, Jonsson BG. 2013. Connectivity and fragmentation: island biogeography and metapopulation applied to old-growth elements. In: Kraus D, Krumm F, editors. Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. Joensuu: European Forest Institute; p. 104–115.
   Google Scholar
• Verdasca MJ, Leitão AS, Santana J, Porto M, Dias S, Beja P. 2012. Forest fuel management as a conservation tool for early successional species under agricultural abandonment: the case of Mediterranean butterflies. Biol Conserv. 146(1):14–23. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheyen K, Baeten L, De Frenne P, Bernhardt-Römermann M, Brunet J, Cornelis J, Decocq G, Dierschke H, Eriksson O, Hédl R, et al. 2012. Driving factors behind the eutrophication signal in understorey plant communities of deciduous temperate forests. J Ecol. 100(2):352–365. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01928.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstraeten G, Baeten L, Van den Broeck T, De Frenne P, Demey A, Tack W, Muys B, Verheyen K. 2013. Temporal changes in forest plant communities at different site types. Appl Veg Sci. 16(2):237–247. doi:10.1111/j.1654-109X.2012.01226.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vild O, Roleček J, Hédl R, Kopecký M, Utinek D. 2013. Experimental restoration of coppice-with-standards: response of understorey vegetation from the conservation perspective. For Ecol Manag. 310:234–241. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren MS, Key RS. 1991. Woodlands: past, present and potential for insects. In: Collins NM, Thomas JA, editors. The conservation of insects and their habitats. London: Academic Press; p. 155–211.
   Google Scholar
• Winter S, Brambach F. 2011. Determination of a common forest life cycle assessment method for biodiversity evaluation. For Ecol Manag. 262(12):2120–2132. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.07.036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar