Global biodiversity and productivity: The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem productivity has been explored in detail in herbaceous vegetation, but patterns in forests are far less well understood. Liang et al. have amassed a global forest data set from >770,000 sample plots in 44 countries. A positive and consistent relationship can be discerned between tree diversity and ecosystem productivity at landscape, country, and ecoregion scales. On average, a 10% loss in biodiversity leads to a 3% loss in productivity. This means that the economic value of maintaining biodiversity for the sake of global forest productivity is more than fivefold greater than global conservation costs. Science , this issue p. 196

Forests are a substantial terrestrial carbon sink, but anthropogenic changes in land use and climate have considerably reduced the scale of this system¹. Remote-sensing estimates to quantify carbon losses from global forests^2–5 are characterized by considerable uncertainty and we lack a comprehensive ground-sourced evaluation to benchmark these estimates. Here we combine several ground-sourced⁶ and satellite-derived approaches^2,7,8 to evaluate the scale of the global forest carbon potential outside agricultural and urban lands. Despite regional variation, the predictions demonstrated remarkable consistency at a global scale, with only a 12% difference between the ground-sourced and satellite-derived estimates. At present, global forest carbon storage is markedly under the natural potential, with a total deficit of 226 Gt (model range = 151–363 Gt) in areas with low human footprint. Most (61%, 139 Gt C) of this potential is in areas with existing forests, in which ecosystem protection can allow forests to recover to maturity. The remaining 39% (87 Gt C) of potential lies in regions in which forests have been removed or fragmented. Although forests cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions, our results support the idea^2,3,9 that the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests offer valuable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets.

The choice between different forest management practices is a crucial step in short, medium, and long-term decision making in forestry and when setting up measures to support a regional or national forest policy. Some conditions such as biogeographically determined site factors, exposure to major disturbances, and societal demands are predetermined, whereas operational processes such as species selection, site preparation, planting, tending, or thinning can be altered by management. In principle, the concept of a forest management approach provides a framework for decision making, including a range of silvicultural operations that influence the development of a stand or group of trees over time. These operations vary among silvicultural systems and can be formulated as a set of basic principles. Consequently, forest management approaches are essentially defined by coherent sets of forest operation processes at a stand level. Five ideal forest management approaches (FMAs) representing a gradient of management intensity are described using specific sets of basic principles that enable comparison across European forests. Each approach is illustrated by a regional European case study. The observed regional variations resulting from changing species composition, stand density, age structure, stand edges, and site conditions can be interpreted using the FMA framework. Despite being arranged along an intensity gradient, the forest management approaches are not considered to be mutually exclusive, as the range of options allows for greater freedom in selecting potential silvicultural operations. As derived goods and services are clearly affected, the five forest management approaches have implications for sustainability. Thus, management objectives can influence the balance between the economic, ecological, and social dimensions of sustainability. The utility of this framework is further demonstrated through the different contributions to this special issue

Economic impact assessment of invasive species requires integration of information on pest entry, establishment and spread, valuation of assets at risk and market consequences at large spatial scales. Here we develop such a framework and demonstrate its application to the pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, which threatens the European forestry industry. The effect of spatial resolution on the assessment result is analysed. Direct economic impacts resulting from wood loss are computed using partial budgeting at regional scale, while impacts on social welfare are computed by a partial equilibrium analysis of the round wood market at EU scale. Substantial impacts in terms of infested stock are expected in Portugal, Spain, Southern France, and North West Italy but not elsewhere in EU in the near future. The cumulative value of lost forestry stock over a period of 22 years (2008–2030), assuming no regulatory control measures, is estimated at €22 billion. The greatest yearly loss of stock is expected to occur in the period 2014–2019, with a peak of three billion euros in 2016, but stabilizing afterwards at 300–800 million euros/year. The reduction in social welfare follows the loss of stock with considerable delay because the yearly harvest from the forest is only 1.8%. The reduction in social welfare for the downstream round wood market is estimated at €218 million in 2030, whereby consumers incur a welfare loss of €357 million, while producers experience a €139 million increase, due to higher wood prices. The societal impact is expected to extend to well beyond the time horizon of the analysis, and long after the invasion has stopped. Pinewood nematode has large economic consequences for the conifer forestry industry in the EU. A change in spatial resolution affected the calculated directed losses by 24%, but did not critically affect conclusions.