European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01311-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Managing forest genetic resources as a strategy to adapt forests 
to climate change: perceptions of European forest owners 
and managers
Barbara Vinceti1  · Mattia Manica2  · Nina Lauridsen1  · Pieter Johannes Verkerk3  · Marcus Lindner4  · 
Bruno Fady5 
Received: 21 May 2020 / Revised: 11 August 2020 / Accepted: 25 August 2020 / Published online: 2 September 2020 
© The Author(s) 2020
Abstract
Managing genetic diversity is of key importance in fostering resilience of forest ecosystems to climate change. We carried 
out a survey reaching over 200 forest owners and managers from 15 European countries to understand their perceptions of 
the main threats to forest ecosystems, their knowledge of forest genetic resources (FGR) and their attitude toward actively 
managing these resources to strengthen the resilience of forest ecosystems to climate change. Respondents perceived pests 
and diseases to be the top-ranking threats to forests, followed by windstorms and drought, with differences across coun-
tries. They stated to be aware of the potential offered by managing FGR and indicated that they paid attention to origin and 
quality in their choice of planting material. Generally, respondents showed a positive attitude in using forest reproductive 
material foreign to the planting site, to better match the projected future climate conditions, introducing either a new native 
tree species or a new non-local genotype of a species already planted (keeping the same species but changing the source of 
planting material). However, forest reproductive material from local sources was largely preferred over non-local material 
(both genetically improved and not improved). Forest managers and owners may need to be exposed to more evidence of 
the potential benefits deriving from active adaptation and mitigation management of FGR before implementing adaptive 
measures. Also, more efforts should be invested in understanding perceptions and motivations of European forest owners 
and managers, in order to better tailor advice on optimal measures to counteract the detrimental effects of climate change.
Keywords Forest genetic resources · Forest management · Forest reproductive material · Climate change · Adaptation
Introduction
Recent attempts to assess the impact of observed climate 
Communicated by Oliver Gailing. change on forest ecosystems in Europe highlighted changes 
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this in growth, in mortality associated with drought and in the 
article (https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1034 2-020-01311 -6) contains distribution range of many species (Lindner et al. 2014). Pre-
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. dicting climate change impacts on forest ecosystems remains 
very challenging, given the level of uncertainty linked to 
*  Barbara Vinceti 
 b.vinceti@cgiar.org the numerous simplifications applied in the modeling of 
biological and climate processes, and socioeconomic path-
1 Bioversity International, Maccarese, Rome, Italy ways (e.g., Dyderski et al. 2018; Reyer et al. 2017; Reyer 
2 Department of Biodiversity and Molecular Ecology, 2015). Climate change projections for Europe indicate an 
Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, increase in duration of drought periods in Southern and 
San Michele all’Adige, Italy Central Europe; however, past climate scenario projections 
3 European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland have systematically underestimated observed trends in warm 
4 European Forest Institute, Bonn, Germany extreme events (Lorenz et al. 2019). In the Mediterranean 
5 INRAE, Écologie des Forêts Méditerranéennes (URFM), region, forest fires and droughts are projected to increase, 
Avignon, France while the boreal region is expected to experience enhanced 
Vol.:(012 3456789)
 1108 European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119
forests growth and increasing risk of forest pests. Based on before; therefore, past practices would neither be applica-
projections of the European Environment Agency (EEA ble nor provide guidance (Stainforth et al. 2007). Further-
2017), Northern Europe is expected to face an increase in more, climate scenarios can be partly contradictory, and 
summer and winter precipitations and an increase in occur- predictions are more robust at global or regional than local 
rence of extreme events, such as, for example, flooding and level. Forecasts are often presented in a format that is not 
late frosts. In mountain regions, an upward shift of plant easy to translate in precise recommendations for manage-
species is foreseen. On average, cold extremes are expected ment at stand level (Lindner et al. 2014).
to decrease, but their intensity and duration might remain In decision-making processes about forest management, 
the same or increase under future climatic conditions (Rum- factors such as values, knowledge, trust, risk perception, 
mukainen 2012). desired outcomes, past hardships and beliefs come into 
Disturbances from abiotic and biotic pressures (wind- play (Aubin et al. 2011; Hajjar and Kozak 2015).
storms, bark beetles and wildfires) increased during the A good number of studies have focused on understand-
twentieth century in Europe and are projected to become ing the views of forest-dependent communities and forest 
more frequent in the next decades (Seidl et al. 2014, 2017). owners about climate change and their readiness to intro-
Plant diseases are largely influenced by environmental con- duce changes in their forest management to foster adap-
ditions, so environmental changes are likely to impact on tation of forest ecosystems to future climate conditions, 
pathogens, on their hosts, and on the interaction between especially in North America (Grotta et al. 2013; Hajjar 
them (Sturrock et al. 2011). et al. 2014; Lenart and Jones 2014; Rodriguez-Franco and 
Forest responses to environmental changes and adaptive Haan 2015) and Europe (Williamson et al. 2005; Blen-
processes are species-specific. They depend on the phenol- now and Persson 2009; Blennow et al. 2012; Lawrence 
ogy and ecology of species and ecotypes, on the stand char- and Marzano 2013). Despite a different level of awareness 
acteristics, on the competition regime, on forest structure about climate change between the two regions, some gen-
(Reyer et al. 2009; Bolte et al. 2009) and on the character- eral findings emerge from the existing literature. Personal 
istics of the distribution range of a species (Kremer, 2007). belief in climate change and a personal experience of its 
Tree species with a wide range in Europe will unlikely face effects appear to be critical factors that stimulate adoption 
extinction at species level, while some local tree populations of adaptive measures in forest management (Blennow et al. 
could be lost, particularly those in marginal ecological sites 2012; Williamson et al. 2005). Forest owners, managers 
and at the rear edge of the distribution (Fady et al. 2016). and forestry professionals seemed not inclined to make 
Tree species with scattered or limited distributions generally significant changes to their management in anticipation 
appear to be more vulnerable and may face important threats of climate change, but looked eager to learn more about 
at the species level (Hubert and Cottrell 2007). ways this could affect their forests (Grotta et al. 2013) and 
Managing genetic diversity has a key role in fostering tree understand better the benefits to be derived from active 
adaptive responses to environmental changes and in miti- management (Lenart and Jones (2014). In some cases, 
gating the effects of pests and diseases (Alfaro et al. 2014; other threats, such as pests and diseases, were felt as more 
Fady 2015); thus, it could contribute to increasing overall pressing than climate change (Lawrence and Marzano 
resilience of forest ecosystems. This has been recognized 2013); in other cases, lack of financial support (Laakkonen 
by FAO, which launched a global plan of action for the con- et al. 2017) or lack of information and knowledge were 
servation, sustainable use and development of forest genetic presented as main disincentives and constraints (Sousa-
resources (FGR) in 2014 (FAO 2014). Silva et al. 2016, 2018). In the case of private owners 
The perception of forest owners and managers vis-à-vis of small forest properties non-continuously managed by 
the challenges posed to forests by abiotic and biotic pres- experts, it has been found that the prevailing view is to 
sures is critical to understand what strategies and approaches leave natural dynamics in forest ecosystems guide self-
are actually being adopted to mitigate their effects and what regulatory processes, without additional interventions 
options could be proposed when no action is being taken (Mostegl et al. 2019).
(Blennow 2012; Blennow et al. 2012; Sousa-Silva et al. In order to promote the uptake of adaptive measures 
2018). to climatic changes by the forestry sector, policy-makers 
Projected climate changes appear to be greater in mag- should consider several aspects in addition to information 
nitude than the climate variability experienced by forest sharing: in particular the socioeconomic context that deter-
managers in the past, generating pronounced uncertainties. mines what is economically relevant in a specific system, 
Evidence-based traditional forest management approaches the institutional and policy contexts and the development of 
may not propose effective future management solutions techniques and tools to support a transition in forest man-
rapidly enough. Future climatic conditions may produce agement toward the implementation of adaptive measures 
novel system states and dynamics, never experienced (Andersson and Keskitalo 2018).
1 3
European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119 1109
A large part of published research on forests and climate migration is mainly centered around ecological risks and 
change has focused on the potential shifts in tree species benefits; however, divergent opinions may be related to fun-
distribution, on the vulnerability of individual species, on damentally different views on nature, and more specifically, 
the expected impacts of climate change on these and less to the ethical aspects associated with the question of whether 
on the specific adaptive measures recommendable for spe- a deliberate management of natural systems or their self-
cific contexts (Keenan 2015). Evidence collected in the USA adaptation should be encouraged (Aubin et al. 2011). Thus, 
showed that the most accepted adaptive practices to climate opinions on what type and quality (e.g., origin, degree of 
change were those tested over long time, such as thinning improvement) of forest reproductive material should be used 
and prescribed burning in highly dense forests (Lenart and can be quite different and dependent on the socioeconomic 
Jones 2014). context.
Tree species selection is widely recognized as the main An assessment of these different views was carried out by 
critical choice through which the capacity of forest ecosys- Hajjar et al. (2014) who examined the opinions expressed 
tems to withstand climatic changes is directly influenced by leaders of forest-dependent communities and the gen-
(Blennow et al. 2012; Lawrence and Marzano 2013; Yousef- eral public in two provinces of Canada, about different 
pour and Hanewinkel 2015; Sousa-Silva et al. 2018); in reforestation strategies in the face of climatic change; the 
addition, silvicultural treatments that enhance complexity strategies differed in their degree of reliance on biotechnol-
of a stand and modify its age and structure have an influence ogy. It turned out that the views were aligned around a low 
on how forests respond to climate change (Jandl et al. 2019). acceptance for a passive strategy, which meant no planned 
Despite the large amount of evidence on the critical role action to buffer climate change effects. Replanting with 
of FGR to foster adaptation in forest ecosystems (Alfaro local seeds was considered highly acceptable, while other 
et al. 2014), very few studies have examined the readiness strategies based on breeding and movement of seed outside 
of forest owners and managers in Europe to actively man- of a species natural range were considered less acceptable. 
age FGR, beyond tree species selection, to actively contrast Solutions based on genetic engineering obtained the lowest 
the effects of environmental changes. Genetic adaptation to acceptance. Examples of similar investigations are currently 
climate change is influenced directly by decisions on the missing for Europe.
type of regeneration approach used and the geographic ori- We tried to fill this gap by exploring the extent to which 
gin and genetic composition of the planted material selected forest owners and managers are actively managing FGR as 
(Lefèvre 2004; Finkeldey and Ziehe 2004; Hosius et al. a strategy to adapt forests to climate change. We tried to 
2006; Ratnam et al. 2014; Fady et al. 2015). understand what were the main forest threats of concern for 
Depending on the local context, different alternatives forest owners and managers across Europe and then looked 
for regeneration can be considered: a) the promotion of at the following aspects: a) What is the general knowledge 
natural regeneration where the pace of climate change is of forest owners and managers about FGR? b) What is their 
not drastically changing site conditions; b) the planting of attitude toward actively managing FGR to contrast the 
best-adapted varieties together with those currently used; effects of climatic changes and of other threats? c) How do 
c) the use of assisted gene flow and assisted migration (as forest owners and managers consider genetic resources in 
presented by Aitken and Whitlock 2013), which implies, their choices about forest regeneration?
respectively, the movement of forest reproductive mate-
rial (FRM—seeds, plant parts such as cuttings and scions, 
and plants raised by means of seeds or propagated in vitro) 
within a species range or outside a species range, introduc- Methods
ing planting material selecting from provenances and species 
adapted to the future climatic conditions of the planting site We developed a survey targeting forest owners and managers 
(Huber and Cottrell 2007). across Europe. Respondents had the possibility to identify 
Different forms of assisted migration can be implemented themselves or to answer anonymously. To maximize the 
based on what are the goals (Williams and Dumroese 2013) rate of response, the survey was available in multiple Euro-
and considering the boundaries of existing regulations. pean languages (English, Danish, Finnish, French, German, 
Substantial uncertainties are associated with this approach Italian and Spanish). The survey was created online using 
(McLachlan et al. 2007), due to lack of clarity about future Surveymonkey (https ://www.survey monke y.com/) and was 
climate scenarios, especially at the local scale, lack of robust accessible from October 17, 2016, to January 31, 2017. The 
seed transfer guidelines, risks of maladaptation and genetic initiative was widely advertised through posts on websites, 
pollution, potential disturbances to indigenous flora and newsletters and social media accounts of institutions, pro-
fauna, risks of introducing new pathogens or exposing newly grammes and research initiatives related to conservation and 
introduced species to new pathogens. The debate on assisted sustainable management of forests and FGR. Associations of 
1 3
 1110 European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119
forest owners and managers were also contacted. Reminders Table 1  Description of the sample of respondents to the survey
were sent at regular intervals.
Respondents had to provide information about their role, Professional profile Forest owner 98 48.0%
experience, level of activity, from local to international and Forest manager 106 52.0%
type of entity represented. The content of the questionnaire Total 204
is in the Supplementary Material. Representation Individuals 180 88.2%
Forest owners and managers were asked to indicate their Associations 15 7.4%
perception about the main threats affecting forests today and Other entities* 9 4.4%
in the future. For this, they had to choose among the follow- Scale of activity Local level 75 36.8%
ing pre-defined threat categories: drought, fire, freezing rain/ Regional (within-country) 71 34.8%level
ice storms, overexploitation of forests, pests and diseases, Country level 52 25.5%
wind storms. More than one threat could be identified, and International level 6 2.9%
a possibility was given to add other, unlisted types of threats. Countries represented 15
In addition, respondents were asked to define the type of Years of experience < 5 years 10 4.9%
management intensity they were referring to in their answers 5–10 years 29 14.2%
using pre-defined forest management categories, described 10–20 years 45 22.1%
in the text of the survey (see Supplementary Material). Vari- > 20 years 120 58.8%
ous questions referred to the degree of consideration of FGR Ownership of forest land Privately owned/managed 164 80.4%
in management decision, in particular with regard to choices Public land 20 9.8%
around forest regeneration options, sources and quality of Other** 20 9.8%
FRM. Follow-up questions regarding the sources of plant-
ing material were reserved to those who indicated artificial *Other entities = representative of forest service, legal representa-
regeneration as a prevalent management choice. tion of regional association of forest owners/land owners, representa-tive of interest group of forest/land owners, forest service, operations 
We used descriptive statistics to examine responses to manager for a forestry company
each question, looking at overall patterns emerging at the **Other = representative of stakeholder organization (e.g., forest own-
regional (European) level. A multiple correspondence analy- ers), researcher in forest management, consultant, advisor, extension 
sis (MCA) was performed to reveal the underlying structure agent for private landowners. NB. All respondents without a specified 
of the data. Moreover, a correspondence analysis (CA) was association with a country location were removed
applied on contingency tables of countries to investigate 
the association between the perception regarding current other entities (e.g., national forest services, other public 
and future threats to forest and the geographic location of bodies, forest companies). Responses mainly referred to 
respondents. Subsequently, a hierarchical clustering on prin- the local and regional (sub-national) levels (72%). Only a 
cipal components (HCPC) was applied on the results of the few responses (ca. 4%) referred to the international level. 
CA to identify groupings of countries with similar responses The majority of respondents had a long-term experience 
for each question in the survey. Conditional inference trees (> 20 years) (56%) and were from the private sector (80%) 
(CITs) were applied to individual questions to reveal pat- (Table 1). The prevalent form of management intensity (see 
terns in responses. They perform recursive partitioning of definitions in Supplementary Material, in question 3 of the 
the sample, based on statistical significance tests. Missing survey) applied by respondents (indicated by 72% of all 
values were discarded from the analysis (14% of the records respondents) corresponded to a combined economic objec-
in the original dataset had to be removed due to missing tive/site-adapted forestry (see definition in Supplementary 
information; the sample used for the analysis is presented in Material), followed by ‘Intensive even-aged forestry’ (indi-
Table 1) Statistical analyses were performed using the statis- cated by 14% of respondents). The following categories were 
tical software R (R Core Team, 2017) and the FactomineR, represented in much smaller proportions: ‘Close-to-nature 
factoextra and partykit packages (Le et al. 2008; Kassambara forestry’ (9.6%), ‘Unmanaged forest nature reserve’ (1%), 
and Mundt 2017; Hothorn and Zeileis 2015). ‘Short rotation forestry’ (1%), other (2.5%; this category 
refers to cases of mixed approaches). We received most 
response from Austria (52), France (64) and Norway (31), 
Results followed by Germany (12), Italy (8) and Spain (9). From 
other countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Por-
A total of 204 forest owners (98) and managers (106) tugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK), we received 
from 15 European countries responded to our survey (see five or less responses.
Table 1). Most respondents presented their personal views, A MCA applied to all the survey questions combined did 
and a minority represented the view of associations or not reveal any clustering of respondents. The first two axes 
1 3
European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119 1111
Fig. 1  Hierarchical cluster-
ing on factor map (HCPC). 
Country profiles are visualized 
in a space defined by differ-
ent forests threats. Countries 
closely positioned on the factor 
map and belonging to the same 
cluster share a similar pro-
file in terms of perception of 
threats expressed by individual 
respondents
only explained 11.3% of the variation, and the cloud of indi- similarity, so threats that have a similar profile among coun-
vidual respondents clustered at the center. Discarding from tries are positioned close to each other. The biplot reveals 
the analysis, the facultative questions with very low fre- that there is a clear association between current and future 
quency of responses (that could undermine the analysis) did perception of the importance of each threat, so the ranking 
not improve the results. Consequently, individual questions of importance attributed to each threat is not changing in 
were analyzed separately, looking for prevalent answers. order of magnitude over time in the view of respondents.
Based on the perceptions of survey respondents, the Mediterranean countries such as France, Italy, Spain and 
top-ranking threats to forests were considered to be pests Portugal perceive fire and drought as critical current and 
and diseases, both today and in future (34.8% and 32.6%, future threats. Slovenian respondents highlighted freez-
respectively), windstorms (29.1% and 23.7%, respectively) ing events as a major threat (probably relating to the major 
and drought (14.4% and 19%, respectively), followed by fire ice storm that occurred in 2014 and has affected about 
with much lower percentages (4.9% and 7%, respectively). 500,000 ha of forests). Norway, Germany and Belgium 
The category ‘Other threats’ included threats indicated by reported windstorms as a threat, while the category ‘other 
respondents in addition to the pre-defined categories; most threats’ appeared associated mainly with northern European 
respondents referred explicitly to climate change as a current countries such as Finland, Iceland, Sweden and the UK. In 
and future threat. most cases, people who chose ‘other threats’ specified ‘cli-
The HCPC on the factor map detected three main clus- mate change.’ Pests and diseases were perceived as current 
ters of countries with a similar profile in terms of per- and future threats across countries, with no particular geo-
ception of threats. They are formed, respectively, by: (1) graphic pattern.
Spain–Italy–Portugal, (2) the UK–Iceland–Sweden–Finland A total of 86% of the respondents expressed the view 
and (3) all other countries (Fig. 1). that management of FGR could mitigate some of the future 
Results from the CA indicated that the two first axes threats affecting forests, in particular pests and diseases and 
explain 56.4% of the cloud total variability, so they represent droughts. Other future concerns that could be addressed by 
a good part of the variability (Fig. 2). The distance between proper use of FGR, according to the respondents, were cli-
any row points or column points gives a measure of their mate change and issues related to low potential resilience of 
1 3
 1112 European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119
Fig. 2  Results from the cor-
respondence analysis (CA) on 
current and future forest threats 
(red color) in the different 
countries (blue color) to which 
the survey responses refer. The 
distance between any row points 
or column points gives a meas-
ure of their similarity (or dis-
similarity). Threats that have a 
similar profile among countries 
are close to each other. In the 
same way, those countries posi-
tioned close to each other have 
a similar threat profile. Both 
current and future threats are 
projected on the plane. Other 
threats = respondents expressed 
independently additional con-
cerns; these mainly referred to 
climate change as an element of 
current and future threat. (Color 
figure online)
forest stands with limited genetic diversity (including breed- We then examined the attitude of forest owners and 
ing populations). The responses also indicated some aware- managers toward moving FRM in order to optimize the 
ness among respondents about the linkages between different matching between future site conditions and the selected 
quality of wood and non-wood products and their genetic FRM. The survey questions on this subject were addressed 
origin. A total of 75% of the respondents stated explicitly to all respondents, regardless of what forest regeneration 
that they took into consideration genetic aspects in their for- approach they were adopting, in order to understand their 
est management. general inclination. The proportion of answers falling in the 
Respondents applied artificial regeneration (43% of different categories of responses is not randomly distributed. 
respondents) and natural regeneration (41% of respondents) Responses are concentrated around a middle position (‘par-
to a similar extent. Coppicing was indicated by 6% of the tially positive’) for both the movement of tree species and 
respondents, while 10% of the respondents indicated using a the movement of tree provenances within the same species 
combination of artificial regeneration, self-seeding and cop- (Fig. 3), with a significantly higher value assigned to mov-
pice, according to characteristics of the species considered, ing a tree species than moving provenances. Respondents 
of the planting site and climatic conditions. The responses rated the option of ‘using a tree species not present before 
revealed a geographical pattern, with a group of countries, in the planting site’ as partially positive in ca. 45% of the 
mainly although not exclusively from Northern Europe cases, versus ‘using a provenance not present before in the 
(Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden) where arti- planting site’ as ‘partially positive’ in 32% of the cases. 
ficial regeneration is largely prevalent, and a second group However, by adding up the categories ‘rather positive’ and 
characterized by a more widespread use of natural regenera- ‘very positive,’ the option of ‘using a provenance not present 
tion and coppice (Figure S1 in Supplementary Material). before in the planting site’ scored slightly higher than ‘using 
When opting for artificial regeneration, respondents indi- a tree species not present before in the planting site’ (40% vs. 
cated that aspects of genetic quality of FRM (attention to 35%). By combining all three categories, ‘partially positive,’ 
best origin) were usually taken into account for both conifers ‘rather positive’ and ‘very positive,’ the option of ‘using a 
and broadleaves across all countries. After excluding miss- provenance not present before in the planting site’ received 
ing values, 97% respondents said yes or often for conifers more support than the alternative option, with about 10% 
and 74% said yes or often for broadleaves. more votes.
1 3
European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119 1113
Fig. 3  Perception of forest owners and managers (expressed as % of reproductive material of a tree provenance not present before in the 
respondents; 204 in total), about a using forest reproductive material planting site
of a tree species not present before in the planting site; b using forest 
We repeated the analysis above comparing responses of that can be derived from the use of improved FRM.1 The 
those currently favoring natural regeneration versus those majority of the forest owners and managers (73%) indicated 
using artificial regeneration. We found that those already that they were aware of the existence of some good local 
making use of artificial regeneration as a prevalent approach provenances of species of interest for them, from native 
had a higher positive attitude toward moving both species seed stands. Furthermore, aspects of quality of provenances 
and provenances (for respondents operating at the local 
level, ‘very positive’ and ‘positive’ responses were four 
times more numerous than those of respondents making use 
of natural regeneration) and also a significantly lower nega- 1 Improved forest reproductive material has been tested and selected 
tive attitude toward these two options, compared to forest in order to obtain benefits, such as increased productivity, improved 
owners and managers who privileged natural regeneration. timber quality, better resilience to climatic conditions, pests and dis-
Most forest owners and managers (75%) indicated that eases. In particular, genetic improvement can vary from provenance 
they were informed about the characteristics and benefits selection, seed stand establishment, establishment of seedling or clonal seed orchards with controlled pollination, up to advanced 
breeding techniques and genetic engineering.
1 3
 1114 European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119
Fig. 4  Extent to which aspects 
of quality (best provenances) 
are considered in the choice of 
forest reproductive material for 
conifers and broadleaves. Not 
applicable: the context does not 
enable to carry out a selection
turned out to be commonly considered in the choice of FRM an influence on the largest proportion of the forest cover 
(Fig. 4), both for conifers and broadleaves. (ca. 1.1%), followed by storms, wind and snow (0.6%) (data 
Regarding access to FRM, a total of 65% of the respond- from FOREST EUROPE 2015 presented in the European 
ents indicated they had access to improved FRM; 24% of the Environmental Agency report of 2016). Fires affect ca. 0.1% 
respondents did not have access to improved FRM, while the of the forest cover in Europe; however, 85% of fires are in 
remaining fraction was not informed. southern Europe, so their occurrence has a strong regional 
With regard to choices of different types of FRM, local pattern. The fact that the option ‘climate change’ was not 
material was generally preferred over ‘non-local mate- available among the closed answers (to avoid the complexity 
rial.’ A 2-sample t test did not reveal any preference on otherwise associated with the concept of climate change) has 
whether ‘improved material’ was preferred over material likely limited the choice of this response. Nevertheless, some 
not improved. respondents explicitly referred to climate change (reporting 
The majority of forest owners and managers (83%) who this under the option ‘Other’) and the types of threats most 
opted for artificial regeneration had preferences for some cited (e.g., increases in pests and diseases and to increased 
provenances they wished to plant. However, in half of the frequency of fires and droughts) are largely associated with 
cases, it was the regulatory framework that defined what climate change.
could be planted; personal choices came into play in 37% The large majority of respondents (more than two thirds) 
of cases, while other factors played a role in 13% of cases. indicated that they are aware of the potential role of FGR 
These included cases of a selection of provenances guided management in addressing climate change and mitigate 
by professional experts, by scientific guidelines or based on other future threats for forests, in particular the influence of 
a combination of different actors or/and conditions. pests and diseases and of drought. This level of awareness 
may be the result of a close interaction, in some European 
countries targeted by our survey, between scientists involved 
Discussion in research on FGR and regional and national platforms of 
forest owners and managers. However, even excluding some 
We asked forest owners and managers about their perception countries where the dialogue between scientist and managers 
about main threats to forests and their responses reflected is most active (e.g., France, Austria, Norway), results do not 
well the distinctive predominant threats at regional level. change. This may therefore be a reflection of the work of ini-
The most highly ranked threats in our survey were pests tiatives such as the European Programme on Forest Genetic 
and diseases and windstorms, followed by drought and fire. Resources (EUFORGEN), which has been running for more 
Available data on the relative areas of forest affected by dif- than 25 years and has focused significantly on knowledge 
ferent types of disturbance show that pests and insects have sharing and awareness raising across European countries.
1 3
European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119 1115
For what regards motivations to adopt adaptive measures, with stakeholders about most promising options (Seidl et al. 
a recent study carried out targeting small-scale private forest 2011, Halofsky et al. 2018).
owners in Austria revealed the motivations of forest owners We examined the characteristics of the pool of respond-
to adopt adaptive management measures, their perception ents from 15 countries in Europe, to assess whether the sam-
of climate change and their adaptability to it; the objective ple was balanced. The respondents over-represent private 
was to develop appropriate information campaigns, advi- versus public ownership, but this is in line with the charac-
sory services and monetary incentives (Mostegl et al. 2019). teristics of forest ownership across Europe: 13 out of the 15 
Results showed that climate change was a fairly well-known countries sampled in this study are from Northern Europe, 
issue, and slightly more than half of the respondents were Central-West Europe and South-West Europe (based on the 
convinced that adaptation measures had to be promptly set FOREST EUROPE clustering of countries), where private 
in place. However, small-scale private forest owners turned ownership of forests ranges from 60 to over 70% of the total 
out to be a very inhomogeneous group, with three distinct forest area (FOREST EUROPE 2015). A constraining ele-
clusters identified, who reacted differently to the manage- ment in the analysis is the unbalanced number of respond-
ment options and incentives proposed: ‘utility oriented,’ ents per country, which limited the possibility to look at 
‘recreation oriented’ and ‘tradition conscious’ forest own- individual countries, so most results are aggregated. The 
ers. Our data did not reveal any underlying structure that overall analyses revealed some grouping of responses by 
could lead to identify distinct typologies of forest owners countries with regard to perception of threats to forests, but 
and managers; however, this was probably due to the broad the analysis of all individual responses to all questions failed 
diversification of responses associated with the multi- to show a structure in the data. This means that the grouping 
country nature of our survey. Anyhow, most findings point of similar responses varied among different questions.
to the need to design locally adapted solutions, including In our survey, forest owners and managers were asked to 
tailor-made advisory services. The biological and socioeco- indicate their prevalent approach for forest regeneration and 
nomic context (including the industrial sector) defines what responses showed a balance between natural and artificial 
management solutions are locally preferable to enhance the regeneration. Considerable differences between individual 
resilience of forest stands in light of climate change. For countries and regions emerged, as reflected in forest sta-
instance, planting a better-adapted tree provenance may tistics. Nowadays, regeneration by planting dominates in 
be a more efficient solution than changing the tree species Northern and Central-East Europe, while natural regenera-
to be planted; in other cases, specific forest management tion is prevalent in the other European regions; about 68% 
practices applied after the stand establishment are equally of the total European forest area is regenerated naturally 
critical in ensuring long-term resilience as the modifica- or expands spontaneously (FOREST EUROPE 2015). Cop-
tions in species and provenances composition. Examples picing is common only in Southern European countries. 
of adaptive management practices are a reduced planting According to the Forest Resource Assessment released by 
density to mitigate moisture stress, an increased thinning FAO (FRA 2015), in the countries represented in our survey, 
and use of prescribed fire to reduce the risks of insect and artificial regeneration is used for 40–50% of the forest area 
diseases outbreaks in overstocked stands, an increased thin- in Northern and Central-West Europe, and for less than 15% 
ning in areas closer to urban settlements to avoid risk of in South-West European countries. Indeed, choices around 
fire. Mixed-species forestry is an important option to adapt forest regeneration methods and, in case of artificial regen-
forests to climate change (Bauhus et al. 2017). Even if mix- eration, around sources of FRM, are highly influenced by 
tures do not provide an effective insurance in all situations, the characteristics of the forest ecosystem considered and 
they contribute to reduce the impact of disturbance agents the role of forestry in the economy of a particular country.
and help in preventing complete losses. However, distribut- In case of use of artificial regeneration, it is interesting 
ing risks across several tree species may not be necessarily to see in our respondents a prevalent positive inclination 
a successful strategy in areas with high tree species diver- toward moving FRM (both species and provenances) to 
sity as a starting condition or where climate and soils may match expected future climate conditions, with a slightly 
be suitable only for a very limited range of tree species. higher overall preference for moving tree species rather than 
What matter are the specific traits of the individual species provenances. This positive attitude toward moving FRM 
mixed and the nature of the disturbance. How a mix of prov- was more pronounced in those forest users and managers 
enances would perform versus a mix of tree species depends already making use of artificial regeneration. However, this 
largely on the local environmental conditions and choices finding is partly contradicted by the responses to a question 
are bounded by management objectives. The identification on a related topic provided by those respondents relying on 
of most viable solutions requires a careful assessment of pro- artificial regeneration; when asked to indicate what FRM 
jected climate changes and vulnerabilities, and a discussion they favored, the largely preferred choice of FRM was for 
local material over non-local material (both improved and 
1 3
 1116 European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119
Table 2  Preferred options in the selection of forest reproductive recording of performance were missing in many cases, so 
material (FRM) (more than one option could be chosen). The highest evidence on outcomes is not available.
values (corresponding to FRM of local origin) are marked in bold With regard to practice, the large majority of respondents 
Type of FRM N. respondents % respondents to our survey indicated that, in case of artificial regenera-
Local 87 39.91 tion, they pay attention to the selection of tree species prov-
Non-local 10 4.59 enances with optimal characteristics, for both conifers and 
Local improved 96 44.04 broadleaves across all geographies, so this is another indica-
Non-local improved 25 11.47 tion that awareness on the importance of FGR is growing. 
Access to improved material did not seem to be a major con-
straint, especially for conifers. According to a recent mod-
eling study, the economic benefits of using improved FRM 
not improved). The most selected choice in absolute terms from seed orchards greatly outweigh the additional cost of 
was for improved, local FRM, which indicates a lower appre- the planting material due to a significant increase in produc-
ciation for foreign material. The only results that could be tivity across diverse site conditions. However, in contexts 
compared to these findings derive from the study by Hajjar where forests mainly provide services other than production, 
et al. (2014) in western Canada, focused on assessing per- the cost of high-quality FRM may be excessive compared 
ception of threats posed by climate change, targeting leaders to the profits that can be obtained from forest products, and 
of forest-dependent communities and the general public. The this may be an obstacle for the active implementation of 
findings from Hajjar et al. (2014) revealed a low accept- practices to foster adaptation to environmental changes.
ance for a passive approach (i.e., no intervention) and a high Other constraints may derive from a lack of specificity 
acceptance of replanting with local seeds. Acceptance of in the recommendations guiding use of FRM in light of cli-
strategies that involve more manipulation, such as breeding, mate change and their potentially limited predictive capacity 
use of non-local seeds, moving of seeds outside of a species’ about performance of the FRM transferred, due to different 
natural range was lower. reasons. FRM transfer guidelines have been mostly based 
Scientists are increasingly testing and proposing new on present or past climatic conditions and, in addition, a 
management solutions to increase the adaptability of for- great amount of uncertainty characterizes future climate 
ests to climate change. Among these, the option to plant tree projections; habitat similarity for the transferred FRM is 
species or provenances in areas where they are not occurring assessed mainly in relation to climatic factors, neglecting 
today, but that are expected to become suitable in future, other important parameters, such as soil characteristics and 
is increasingly considered. This strategy is called assisted interactions with other species and provenances; phenologi-
migration or assisted gene flow, depending on whether a cal responses may be very different across tree species in 
species is planted within its current distribution range or reaction to the same climatic change and research has not 
outside (Aitken and Whitlock 2013), and it is based on evi- investigated sufficiently if large differences in response exist 
dence generated by genomic studies that show adaptation to also among genotypes within the same species; heritable 
particular environmental conditions (e.g., drought or heat) variation in adaptive traits is partly related to epigenetics 
at local to regional scales (Aubin et al. 2016). Our results (Konnert et al. 2015). Furthermore, FRM is increasingly 
show that despite an increasing awareness on the role of traded across countries, but national laws focus only on its 
FGR management and a stated positive inclination for FRM production and commercialization and do not regulate its 
movement as a measure to foster adaptation in forest eco- use, so they do not assist in defining where the imported 
systems, there is a certain resistance to introduce foreign FRM should be planted. There are exceptions in some coun-
planting material and a preference for FRM of local origin tries where national laws provide recommendations to for-
(Table 2). est owners on the use of FRM. These recommendations are 
Indeed, forest managers may need to see more research all compliant with the Council Directive 1999/105/EC, and 
evidence of potential benefits to be obtained from moving in some countries, they include more restrictive rules for 
FRM, before taking a more proactive attitude in this regard. FRM transfer into and between ecoregions (e.g., in Bulgaria, 
As observed by other authors (Lenart & Jones 2014), wide- Cyprus, Croatia, Estonia, France, Lithuania, Norway, Slova-
spread support tends to the be reserved to those adaptive kia, Slovenia, Sweden, the UK, Serbia, Poland); in others, 
management practices tested over decades, while those that recommendations define what FRM can be used based on 
most directly affect the expansion of plant species outside species adaptation to site conditions (Belgium, Bulgaria, 
their current range are less supported. Nevertheless, FRM Finland, France, Greece, Lithuania, Slovenia) (Konnert et al. 
has been moved in trade considerably in the past (Koskela 2015). However, in all these cases, recommendations tend 
et  al. 2014; Jansen et  al. 2019). However, tracking and to be based on provenance regions whose boundaries were 
defined through research in provenance trials established 
1 3
European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119 1117
without taking into consideration climate change responses Compliance with ethical standards 
in the design.
Expanding the view to adaptive management measures in Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of in-
a broader sense, a recent systematic review of the scientific terest regarding the publication of this article.
literature by Hagerman and Pelai (2018) supports the view 
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
that the majority of recommendations on how to respond to bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
climate change with forest management are too generic and tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long 
vague, therefore difficult to put into practice in contexts with as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, 
specific socio-ecological characteristics. The authors thus provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes 
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are 
flagged the need to develop recommendations tailored to included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated 
local needs, taking into account the specificities of the con- otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in 
tents for which they are proposed, focusing on management the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not 
solutions that enable to deal with uncertainty and incorpo- permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will 
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a 
rate different perspectives. copy of this licence, visit http://creati vecom mons. org/licens es/by/4.0/.
References
Conclusions
Aitken SN, Whitlock MC (2013) Assisted gene flow to facilitate local 
The European forest owners and managers targeted in this adaptation to climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol 44:367–388
study perceived pests and diseases, windstorms and drought Alfaro RI, Fady B, Vendramin GG, Dawson IK, Fleming RA, Sáenz-
Romero C, Lindig-Cisneros RA, Murdock T, Vinceti B, Navarro 
as the main threats of concern for forest ecosystems, with CM, Skrøppa T, Baldinelli G, El-Kassaby YA, Loo J (2014) The 
significant regional differences. Choices about FRM are role of forest genetic resources in responding to biotic and abiotic 
very critical, and aspects of quality (best provenances) are factors in the context of anthropogenic climate change. For Ecol 
considered by forest owners and managers in their selec- Manag 333:76–87
Andersson E, Keskitalo ECH (2018) Adaptation to climate change? 
tion of planting material, for both conifers and broadleaves. Why business-as-usual remains the logical choice in Swedish 
We found a generally positive attitude in moving FRM that forestry. Glob Environ Change 48:76–85
is new to the planting site, in order to match the predicted Aubin I, Garbe CM, Colombo S, Drever CR, McKenney DW, Messier 
future climate conditions, for both tree species and tree C, Pedlar J, Saner MA, Venier L, Wellstead AM, Winder R, Wit-
ten E, Ste-Marie C (2011) Why we disagree about assisted migra-
provenances. However, despite the stated positive inclina- tion: ethical implications of a key debate regarding the future of 
tion to moving FRM, the preferred choice of FRM was for Canada’s forests. For Chron 87:755–765
local material over non-local material (both improved and Aubin I, Munson AD, Cardou F, Burton PJ, Isabel N, Pedlar JH, 
not improved). This indicates a trust that local FRM will Paquette A, Taylor AR, Delagrange S, Kebli H, Messier C, Ship-
ley B, Valladares F, Kattge J, Boisvert-Marsh L, McKenney D 
perform well under future climate conditions. This expecta- (2016) Traits to stay, traits to move: a review of functional traits 
tion may be over-optimistic, if global temperatures pass the to assess sensitivity and adaptive capacity of temperate and boreal 
2 °C threshold of the 2015 Paris Agreement. Forest manag- trees to climate change. Environ Rev 24:164–186
ers may need to be exposed to more research evidence of Bauhus J, Forrester DI, Gardiner B, Jactel H, Vallejo R, Pretzsch H 
(2017) Ecological stability of mixed-species forests. In: Mixed-
potential benefits deriving from the management of genetic species forests, pp 337–382
diversity in planting material, both from local and foreign Blennow K (2012) Adaptation of forest management to climate change 
sources, before undertaking active adaptation and mitigation among private individual forest owners in Sweden. For Policy 
measures. Econ 24:41–47
Blennow K, Persson J (2009) Climate change: motivation for taking 
measure to adapt. Glob Environ Change 19:100–104
Acknowledgements This research was part of the GenTree project Blennow K, Persson J, Tomé M, Hanewinkel M (2012) Climate change: 
which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 believing and seeing implies adapting. PLoS ONE 7(11):e50182. 
Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No. https: //doi.org/10.1371/journa l.pone.00501 82
676876. We acknowledge the contribution of Michele Bozzano, Ewa Bolte A, Ammer C, Löf M, Madsen P, Nabuurs G-J, Schall P, Spathelf 
Hermanowicz and Joanne Fitzgerald in the design of the survey. P, Rock J (2009) Adaptive forest management in central Europe: 
climate change impacts, strategies and integrative concept. Scand 
Author’s contribution BV, NL and PJV contributed to the design and J For Res 24:473–482
set up of the survey. MM, BV and NL performed data cleaning and Dyderski MK, Paź S, Frelich LE, Jagodziński AM (2018) How much 
analysis. BV wrote the manuscript with the help of PJV, BF and ML. does climate change threaten European forest tree species distribu-
tions? Glob Chang Biol 24:1150–1163
Availability of data The data that support the findings of this study are Europe Environment Agency (EEA) (2017) Climate change, impacts 
available from the corresponding author [BV], upon reasonable request. and vulnerability in Europe 2016. An indicator-based report. EEA 
Report. No 1/2017
1 3
 1118 European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119
Fady B, Cottrell J, Ackzell L, Alía R, Muys B, Prada A, González- Ramamonjisoa L (2014) Utilization and transfer of forest genetic 
Martínez S (2015) Forests and global change: What can genetics resources: a global review. For Ecol Manag 333:22–34
contribute to the major forest management and policy challenges Kremer A (2007) How well can existing forests withstand climate 
of the twenty-first century? Reg Environ Chang 16:927–939 change? In: Koskela, Buck, Teissier’s (eds) Climate change 
Fady B, Aravanopoulos FA, Alizoti P, Mátyás C, von Wühlisch G, and forest genetic diversity—implication for sustainable forest 
Westergren M, Belletti P, Cvjetkovic B, Ducci F, Huber G, management in Europe. European Forest Genetic Resources Pro-
Kelleher CT, Khaldi A, Bou Dagher Kharrat M, Kraigher H, gramme (EUFORGEN). Bioversity International Rome
Kramer K, Mühlethaler U, Peric S, Perry A, Rousi M, Sbay H, Laakkonen A, Zimmerer R, Kähkönen T, Hujala T, Takala T, Tikkanen 
Stojnic S, Tijardovic M, Tsvetkov I, Varela MC, Vendramin GG, J (2017) Forest owners’ attitude towards pro-climate and climate-
Zlatanov T (2016) Evolution-based approach needed for the responsive forest management. For Policy Econ 87:1–10
conservation and silviculture of peripheral forest tree popula- Lawrence A, Marzano M (2013) Is the private forest sector adapting 
tions. For Ecol Manag 375:66–75 to climate change? A study of forest managers in North Wales. 
FAO (2014) Global plan of action for the conservation, sustainable Ann For Sci 71:291–300
use and development of forest genetic resources. FAO Rome. Le S, Josse J, Husson F (2008) FactoMineR: an R package for multi-
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3849 e.pdf variate analysis. J Stat Softw 25:1–18. https ://doi.org/10.18637 /
FAO (2015) Global Forest Resources Assessment. FAO Rome jss.v025.i01
Finkeldey R, Ziehe M (2004) Genetic implications of silvicultural Lefèvre F (2004) Human impacts on forest genetic resources in the 
regimes. For Ecol Manag 197:231–244 temperate zone: an updated review. For Ecol Manag 197:257–271
FOREST EUROPE (2015) State of Europe’s Forests 2015. http:// Lenart M, Jones C (2014) Perceptions on climate change correlate with 
fores teurop e.org/state- europ es-fores ts-2015-repor t/ willingness to undertake some forestry adaptation and mitigation 
Grotta AT, Creighton JH, Schnepf C, Kantor S (2013) Family for- practices. J For 112:553–563
est owners and climate change: understanding, attitudes, and Lindner M, Fitzgerald JB, Zimmermann NE, Reyer C, Delzon S, van 
educational needs. J For 111:87–93 der Maaten E, Schelhaas MJ, Lasch P, Eggers J, van der Maaten-
Hagerman SM, Pelai R (2018) Responding to climate change in for- Theunissen M, Suckow F, Psomas A, Poulter B, Hanewinkel 
est management: two decades of recommendations. Front Ecol M (2014) Climate change and European forests: What do we 
Environ 16:579–587 know, what are the uncertainties, and what are the implications 
Hajjar R, Kozak RA (2015) Exploring public perceptions of for- for forest management? J Environ Manag 15:69–83. https ://doi.
est adaptation strategies in Western Canada: implications for org/10.1016/j.jenvma n.2014.07.030
policy-makers. For Policy Econ 61:59–69 Lorenz R, Stalhandske Z, Fischer EM (2019) Detection of a climate 
Hajjar R, McGuigan E, Moshofsky M, Kozak RA (2014) Opinions change signal in extreme heat, heat stress, and cold in Europe from 
on strategies for forest adaptation to future climate conditions observations. Geophys Res Lett 46:8363–8374
in western Canada: surveys of the general public and leaders of McLachlan JS, Hellmann JJ, Schwartz MW (2007) A framework for 
forest-dependent communities. Can J For Res 44:1525–1533 debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conserv 
Halofsky JE, Andrews-Key SA, Edwards JE, Johnston MH, Nelson Biol 21:297–302
HW, Peterson DL, Schmittg KM, Swanstonh CW, Williamson Mostegl NM, Probstl-Haider U, Jandl R, Haider W (2019) Targeting 
TB (2018) Adapting forest management to climate change: climate change adaptation strategies to small-scale private forest 
the state of science and applications in Canada and the United owners. For Policy Econ 99:83–99
States. For Ecol Manag 421:84–97 R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical com-
Hubert J, Cottrell J (2007) The role of forest genetic resources in help- puting. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 
ing British forests respond to climate change. Forestry Commis- https: //www.R-proje ct.org/
sion Information Note 86. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh Ratnam W, Rajora OP, Finkeldey R, Aravanopoulos F, Bouvet J-M, 
Hosius B, Leinemann L, Konnert M, Bergmann F (2006) Genetic Vaillancourt RE, Kanashiro M, Fady B, Tomita M, Vinson C 
aspects of forestry in the Central Europe. Eur J For Res (2014) Genetic effects of forest management practices: global 
125:407–417 synthesis and perspectives. For Ecol Manag 333:52–65
Hothorn T, Zeileis A (2015) Partykit: a modular toolkit for recursive Reyer C (2015) Forest productivity under environmental change—a 
partytioning in R. J Mach Learn Res 16:3905–3909 review of stand-scale modeling studies. Curr For Rep 1:53–68
Jandl R, Spathelf P, Bolte A, Prescott CE (2019) Forest adaptation Reyer C, Guericke M, Ibisch PL (2009) Climate change mitigation via 
to climate change—is non-management an option? Ann For Sci afforestation, reforestation and deforestation avoidance: and what 
76:48 about adaptation to environmental change? New For 38:15–34
Jansen S, Konrad H, Geburek T (2019) Crossing borders—European Reyer C, Bathgate S, Blennow K, Borges J, Bugmann H, Delzon S, 
forest reproductive material moving in trade. J Environ Manag Faias SP, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Gardiner B, Gonzalez-Olabarria JR, 
233:308–320 Gracia C, Hernández JG, Kellomäki S, Kramer K, Lexer MJ, 
Kassambara A, Mundt F (2017) factoextra: extract and visualize the Lindner M, van der Maaten E, Maroschek M, Muys B, Nicoll B, 
results of multivariate data analyses. R package version 1.0.5. Palahi M, Palma JHN, Paulo JA, Peltola H, Pukkala T, Rammer 
https ://CRAN.R-projec t.org/packa ge=facto extra W, Ray D, Sabaté S, Schelhaas M, Seidl R, Temperli C, Tomé 
Keenan RJ (2015) Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest M, Yousefpour R, Zimmermann NE, Hanewinkel M (2017) Are 
management: a review. Ann For Sci 72:145–167. https ://doi. forest disturbances amplifying or canceling out climate change-
org/10.1007/s13595 -014-0446-5 induced productivity changes in European forests? Environ Res 
Konnert M, Fady B, Gömöry D, A’Hara S, Wolter F, Ducci F, Koskela Lett 12:034027. https: //doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5ef 1
J, Bozzano M, Maaten T, Kowalczyk J, European Forest Genetic Rodriguez-Franco C, Haan TJ (2015) Understanding climate change 
Resources Programme (EUFORGEN) (2015) Use and transfer of perceptions, attitudes, and needs of forest service resource manag-
forest reproductive material in Europe in the context of climate ers. J Sust For 34:423–444
change. European Forest Genetic Programme (EUFORGEN), Rummukainen M (2012) Changes in climate and weather extremes in 
Bioversity International, Rome, Italy. ISBN 978-92-9255-031-8 the 21st century. Wiley Interdisc Rev Clim Change 3:115–129
Koskela J, Vinceti B, Dvorak W, Bush D, Dawson IK, Loo J, Kjaer 
ED, Navarro C, Padolina C, Bordács S, Jamnadass R, Graudal L, 
1 3
European Journal of Forest Research (2020) 139:1107–1119 1119
Seidl R, Rammer W, Lexer MJ (2011) Adaptation options to reduce Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 365:2145–2161. https: //
climate change vulnerability of sustainable forest management in doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2074
the Austrian Alps. Can J For Res 41(4):694–706 Sturrock RN, Frankel SJ, Brown AV, Hennon PE, Kliejunas JT, Lewis 
Seidl R, Schelhaas M-J, Rammer W, Verkerk PJ (2014) Increasing KJ, Worrall JJ, Woods AJ (2011) Climate change and forest dis-
forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. eases. Plant Pathol 60:133–149
Nat Clim Change 4:930 Williams M, Dumroese K (2013) Preparing for climate change: forestry 
Seidl R, Thom D, Kautz M, Martin-Benito D, Peltoniemi M, Vac- and assisted migration. J For 111:287–297
chiano G, Wild J, Ascoli D, Petr M, Honkaniemi J, Lexer MJ, Williamson TB, Parkins JR, McFarlane BL (2005) Perceptions of cli-
Trotsiuk V, Mairota P, Svoboda M, Fabrika M, Nagel TA, Reyer mate change risk to forest ecosystems and forest-based communi-
CPO (2017) Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat Clim ties. For Chron 81:710–716
Change 7:395–402 Yousefpour R, Hanewinkel M (2015) Forestry professionals’ percep-
Sousa-Silva R, Ponette Q, Verheyen K, Van Herzele A, Muys B (2016) tions of climate change, impacts and adaptation strategies for for-
Adaptation of forest management to climate change as perceived ests in south-west Germany. Clim Change 130:273–286. https ://
by forest owners and managers in Belgium. For Ecosyst 3:22 doi.org/10.1007/s10584 -015-1330-5
Sousa-Silva R, Verbist B, Lomba Â, Valent P, Suškevičs M, Picard O, 
Hoogstra-Klein MA, Cosofret V-C, Bouriaud L, Ponette Q, Ver- Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to 
heyen K, Muys B (2018) Adapting forest management to climate jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
change in Europe: linking perceptions to adaptive responses. For 
Policy Econ 90:22–30
Stainforth DA, Allen MR, Tredger ER, Smith LA (2007) Confidence, 
uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions. 
1 3