Rupert Seidl
Auto-generated profile, based on publicly available information

Rupert Seidl

School of Life Sciences, Ecosystem Dynamics and Forest Management Group Technical University of Munich Freising Germany

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

22Years (2005-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
31 May 2017 in Nature Climate Change
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RSRupert Seidl
Rupert Seidl
DTDominik Thom
Dominik Thom
MKMarkus Kautz
Markus Kautz
DMDario Martin-Benito
Dario Martin-Benito
MPMikko Peltoniemi
Mikko Peltoniemi
CRChristopher Reyer
Christopher Reyer

1 February 2010 in Forest Ecology and Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MLMarcus Lindner
Marcus Lindner
MMMichael Maroschek
Michael Maroschek
SNSigrid Netherer
Sigrid Netherer
AKAntoine Kremer
Antoine Kremer
ABAnna Barbati
Anna Barbati
MMMarco Marchetti
Marco Marchetti

29 May 2020 in Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
NMNate G. McDowell
Nate G. McDowell
CACraig D. Allen
Craig D. Allen
KAKristina Anderson-Teixeira
Kristina Anderson-Teixeira
BABrian H. Aukema
Brian H. Aukema
BBBen Bond-Lamberty
Ben Bond-Lamberty
CXChonggang Xu
Chonggang Xu
Shifting forest dynamics: Forest dynamics are the processes of recruitment, growth, death, and turnover of the constituent tree species of the forest community. These processes are driven by disturbances both natural and anthropogenic. McDowell et al. review recent progress in understanding the drivers of forest dynamics and how these are interacting and changing in the context of global climate change. The authors show that shifts in forest dynamics are already occurring, and the emerging pattern is that global forests are tending toward younger stands with faster turnover as old-growth forest with stable dynamics are dwindling. Science , this issue p. eaaz9463

3 August 2014 in Nature Climate Change
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RSRupert Seidl
Rupert Seidl
MSMart-Jan Schelhaas
Mart-Jan Schelhaas
WRWerner Rammer
Werner Rammer
PVPieter Verkerk
Pieter Verkerk

22 May 2015 in Biological Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DTDominik Thom
Dominik Thom
RSRupert Seidl
Rupert Seidl
In many parts of the world forest disturbance regimes have intensified recently, and future climatic changes are expected to amplify this development further in the coming decades. These changes are increasingly challenging the main objectives of forest ecosystem management, which are to provide ecosystem services sustainably to society and maintain the biological diversity of forests. Yet a comprehensive understanding of how disturbances affect these primary goals of ecosystem management is still lacking. We conducted a global literature review on the impact of three of the most important disturbance agents (fire, wind, and bark beetles) on 13 different ecosystem services and three indicators of biodiversity in forests of the boreal, cool‐ and warm‐temperate biomes. Our objectives were to (i) synthesize the effect of natural disturbances on a wide range of possible objectives of forest management, and (ii) investigate standardized effect sizes of disturbance for selected indicatorsviaa quantitative meta‐analysis. We screened a total of 1958 disturbance studies published between 1981 and 2013, and reviewed 478 in detail. We first investigated the overall effect of disturbances on individual ecosystem services and indicators of biodiversity by means of independence tests, and subsequently examined the effect size of disturbances on indicators of carbon storage and biodiversity by means of regression analysis. Additionally, we investigated the effect of commonly used approaches of disturbance management, i.e. salvage logging and prescribed burning. We found that disturbance impacts on ecosystem services are generally negative, an effect that was supported for all categories of ecosystem services, i.e. supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services (P< 0.001). Indicators of biodiversity, i.e. species richness, habitat quality and diversity indices, on the other hand were found to be influenced positively by disturbance (P< 0.001). Our analyses thus reveal a ‘disturbance paradox’, documenting that disturbances can put ecosystem services at risk while simultaneously facilitating biodiversity. A detailed investigation of disturbance effect sizes on carbon storage and biodiversity further underlined these divergent effects of disturbance. While a disturbance event on average causes a decrease in total ecosystem carbon by 38.5% (standardized coefficient for stand‐replacing disturbance), it on average increases overall species richness by 35.6%. Disturbance‐management approaches such as salvage logging and prescribed burning were neither found significantly to mitigate negative effects on ecosystem services nor to enhance positive effects on biodiversity, and thus were not found to alleviate the disturbance paradox. Considering that climate change is expected to intensify natural disturbance regimes, our results indicate that biodiversity will generally benefit from such changes while a sustainable provisioning of ecosystem services might come increasingly under pressure. This underlines that disturbance risk and resilience require increased attention in ecosystem management in the future, and that new approaches to addressing the disturbance paradox in management are needed.

26 May 2018 in Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AMAkira S. Mori
Akira S. Mori
FIForest Isbell
Forest Isbell
RSRupert Seidl
Rupert Seidl