Restoration of selective beech coppices: A case study in the

Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 18–27
www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco
Restoration of selective beech coppices:
A case study in the Apennines (Italy)
Matteo Coppini *, Luigi Hermanin
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Ambientali e Forestali (DISTAF), Università di Firenze,
Via San Bonaventura 13, 50145, Firenze (FI), Italy
Received 11 December 2006; received in revised form 2 April 2007; accepted 13 April 2007
Abstract
The coppice selection system is a special type of management of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) coppice practiced in mountain regions of Italy until
the first half of the 20th century. The improvement of social and economic conditions within mountain communities and the progressive shift from
an intensive use of the forests towards a protective policy led to the conversion of many beech coppices into high stands. Among abandoned
coppices we can still find some that exhibit the typical features of the coppice selection system. Where the locally predominant forest type is beech
coppice in transition to high forest, a widespread and fairly homogeneous ecosystem in the Apennines between Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna, the
restoration of the coppice selection system can have a role in maintaining and improving both landscape and ecological diversity. This work
evaluates the possibility of restoring this silvicultural system on selective beech coppices that are in a state of prolonged silvicultural abandonment.
The first cutting treatment of the restoration procedure has been tested in permanent sample plots. Dendrometric characteristics of the stands are
analysed and results on the silvicultural and production aspects of this first cutting treatment are presented. Due to the increase of standing volume
during the period of silvicultural abandonment, firewood production resulting from this first cut is generally high.
# 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Coppice selection system; Beech; Treatment restoration; Traditional management
1. Introduction
1.1. Rationale for restoring selective beech coppices
Only a few years ago the restoration of the coppice selection
system would have been considered unworthy of study.
However, recent changes in forest management perspectives
and objectives favoring development of multifunctional forests
and the structural diversification of stands (Wohlgemuth et al.,
2002), and the possibility of profitable harvests (von Teuffel,
1999), made possible by the accumulation of biomass in
coppices left uncut for decades (Glatzel, 1999), have lately
made the idea of selective coppice restoration a legitimate
subject for discussion and research.
Restoration of cultural landscapes and traditional forest
management practices can have an important role in nature
conservation and sustainable forest management (Strandberg
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 055 3288683; fax: +39 055 319179.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Coppini).
0378-1127/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.04.035
et al., 2005; Rotherham, 2006), and for maintaining forest
diversity (Bengtsson et al., 2000) and historical characteristics
of ancient woods (Peterken, 1999). Research related to the
restoration of such practices could help preserve the rural
cultural heritage through the study and application of specific
techniques and knowledge which could otherwise be lost
(Agnoletti, 2002).
In contexts where forests have already been largely
converted into high stands and where current managing
policies favor the continued development of unproductive
coppices into relatively homogeneous high stands, the revival
of coppice management could contribute to landscape diversity
(Rackham, 1976) and help maintain biodiversity by providing
important habitat for those plant and animal species typically
found in more open coppice stands which would otherwise not
survive in high stands. Restoration of such management
systems can be considered an improvement in the context of
environmental-biological stability (Andreatta, 2006; Joys et al.,
2004; Niemela et al., 1996), and a useful diversification of
wood production (Piegai et al., 2004) and of forest work and its
related professional skills.
M. Coppini, L. Hermanin / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 18–27
Previous experiences on the restoration or introduction of
the coppice selection system in beech are unknown. In Sweden,
however, a selective coppice regime has been tested for aspen
(Populus tremula L.) and birch (Betula pendula Roth and B.
pubescens Ehrh.), as a low-impact form of management for
urban coppices, chosen for its visual and aesthetic qualities, as
shoots are always presents on the stool (Rydberg, 2000).
1.2. Traditional use of beech coppices
The use of wood for domestic heating and cooking was very
common in rural areas and in the small mountain villages in
Italy until the Second World War. The bulk of wood used for
this purpose was harvested from coppice stands. The most
common coppice management was, and still is, the coppice
with standards system. In this silvicultural system, clear felling
of shoots is carried out at selected rotation ages and a certain
number of standards (usually from 50 to 150 per ha), of two or
three times the rotation age, are retained. In mountain areas,
where beech coppices were widespread, a particular type of
harvesting regime known as the coppice selection system
(ceduo a sterzo) or ant cut (taglio della formica) was also in use.
This silvicultural system probably originated as a way for
people in these often impoverished rural communities to
harvest wood from the forest on a more frequent basis without
destroying or impoverishing it. It was practiced with great skill
by local woodcutters using refined silvicultural techniques that
were generally transferred through the generations from father
to son (Menicacci, 2002). Only a scant literature exists on this.
Some Italian and French authors tried to codify the treatment,
assessing dendrometric parameters of the system, cutting
rotation periods, and the stock and felling volumes adopted by
these traditional managers.
In the coppice selection system, the coppice stand is
organised into three age classes with shoots of different age and
diameter coexisting on the same stool. At each coppicing time
(from 8 to 12-year rotation) the larger and older shoots are cut
and the others are lightly thinned (Buffolo, 1936; Patrone,
19
1944; Mannozzi-Torini, 1949; Poggi, 1960; Hermanin and La
Marca, 1985; Bernetti, 1995; Camia et al., 2002). If ‘‘t’’ is the
average life span of mature shoots for a determined assortment
(also defined by a fixed cutting diameter) and l the rotation
period (=1/3t), at each felling, shoots that have reached age t are
removed, and younger shoots, i.e. shoots at the end of their
second rotation period (2l) and if necessary shoots at the end of
their first rotation period (1l), are selectively thinned, creating
conditions favoring the growth of a new generation of shoots
(Fig. 1). Thus, the main differences from other coppice systems
is the continuous presence of live shoots on stools.
The rotation period, the felling diameter and the age of
mature shoots depend upon the assortments to be obtained and
the fertility of the site. Buffolo (1936) described two kinds of
coppice selection system (moderate with short rotation, or
strong with long rotation) with rotation periods (l) of 6 and 10
years and full cycle (t) of 18 and 30 years, respectively. Patrone
(1944) described rotation periods ranging between 6 and 8
years and full cycle lengths between 18 and 24 years.
According to Mannozzi-Torini (1949) rotation periods vary
from 6 to 8 years and full cycle lengths between 18 and 24
years. Hermanin and La Marca (1985) indicated 36 years as the
maximum cutting age with a rotation of 12 years. Finally,
according to Bernetti (1995), rotation periods vary between 9
and 12 years with full cycle lengths ranging from 27 to 36 years.
Short rotation periods and a low cutting diameter, usually
between 8 and 10 cm, were typical of coal production
(Mannozzi-Torini, 1949; Servant et al., 2006) which was the
main produce of the coppice selection system.
Simplified versions of this system were also used in Italy and
elsewhere in Europe. In some Italian mountain regions, a more
simplified treatment yielded shoots of two (rather than three)
age classes on each stool (Hermanin, 1981). Beech selective
coppices were common in the Pyrenees as well and were mostly
managed in a simplified form with two shoot age classes
(Perrin, 1954). In the Chilterns (England) beech woods have
been treated in a slightly different way than other coppices, and
where beech wood was to be coppiced for poles and firewood,
Fig. 1. Sketch of a beech stool under a coppice selection system. The different thickness shows three different dbh-age classes of shoots. (a) Condition immediately
before felling, (b) immediately after felling and (c) after l years.
20
M. Coppini, L. Hermanin / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 18–27
no beeches less than 9 years of age were to be cut. (Clements
et al., 2001). In mountain regions of France, beech coppices
were usually treated according to a selection system (furetage)
defined as a cut which removes only larger shoots, leaving the
others for future exploitation (Bastien, 2002).
1.3. Selective beech coppice advantages
Limitations on the application of the coppice system for
beech are the species’ relatively poor ability to produce new
shoots, their slow initial growth, and the need for protection
from adverse weather conditions, at least when they are young
(Crivellari, 1955; Bernetti, 1995). Recurrent interventions and
the permanence of living shoots on the stool, typical of selective
coppice, help to overcome these limitations. Clements et al.
(2001) suggests leaving beech stools with a single stem after
coppicing to promote their regrowth, while other authors have
suggested stimulation of root shoots using special cutting
techniques (Mannozzi-Torini, 1949; Ciancio and Nocentini,
2004, p. 149).
The preference of beech for deep, fertile, soils (Hofmann,
1991) can be considered a further limitation to the application
of the coppice system. In the Apennines, intense periods of
rainfall and drought are typical of the region’s Mediterranean
mountain-climate regime; the thick litter layer of beech forests
has an important role in maintaining adequate soil moisture.
With simple coppice or coppice with standards management
regimes, the soil is often totally or partially uncovered following coppice harvests due to complete or near-total loss of
canopy cover, and on these sites, particularly on steep slopes,
rapid litter mineralization and soil erosion can occur. Selective
coppice reduces these harmful effects by the retention of live
shoots on each stool, which provides a diffuse, if light, shade
and soil cover (Piussi, 2006).
1.4. Abandonment of selective beech coppices
Although, still in the 1960s, the transformation of simple
coppice into selective coppice was considered as an improvement in beech coppice management (Poggi, 1960), the coppice
selection system has been progressively abandoned over the
past 50 years for several reasons: reduction of demand for
firewood, high cost of felling operations in remote areas lacking
roads, difficulty in shoot selection and in felling operations,
badly executed cuts and bad selection of shoots from the
various age classes (quality and number) that may cause a slow
but progressive heightening of the stump.
The abandonment of this type of silvicultural management
has apparently accelerated with improvements in social and
economic conditions of people living in the mountains. Over
time, with changing socioeconomic conditions in rural areas
and forest policies increasingly discouraging intensive forest
management, many beech coppices, including selective coppices, have progressively been converted to high stands (Bürgi,
1999). The idea that conversion to high stand was the most
appropriate silvicultural management strategy for abandoned
beech coppices, considering the physiological and ecological
requirements of the species, has become the prevailing view
among foresters. Many studies have been carried out on this
subject in order to better define silvicultural and production
options for beech (Amorini and Gambi, 1977; Bianchi and
Hermanin, 1988; Padula et al., 1988; Amorini and Fabbio,
1991; Amorini et al., 1995; Ciancio et al., 2006) and numerous
public campaigns have promoted conversion of these coppice
systems to high stand over extensive areas of Tuscany and
Emilia-Romagna (Premuda, 1957; Hofmann, 1963; Gambi,
1968; Bianchi, 1976).
1.5. Current condition and management of selective beech
coppices
According to the Italian National Forest Inventory, beech
woods in Italian mountain areas cover an area of about
700,000 ha. In 1985 (the year the inventory was taken) beech
coppice was still the most common type of management,
extending over a surface of more than 400,000 ha, mainly in the
northern Apennines and in the Alps. Of this, about 10% was
selective coppice. But in recent times, as discussed above, there
has been a decline in management intensity in this type of
forest. Already in 1985, about 45% of beech coppices had an
average life span of more than 30 years (Castellani et al., 1988).
In Emilia-Romagna coppices are found over 316,578 ha, of
which 73,790 ha are beech coppices and 9937 ha (about 14%)
are managed under the coppice selection system (Bassi and
Bassi, 2000). In Tuscany, coppice forests cover an area of
670,096 ha, of which 54,960 ha are beech coppices, with
selective coppices representing less than 6% (3184 ha).
However, an additional 28,000 ha of aged coppices, most of
which were selective coppices, should be added to this figure. It
should also be noted that converted high stands presently total
13,200 ha; these are mainly derived from selective coppices
(Hofmann et al., 1998).
At the present time, most selective beech coppices are in a
state of prolonged silvicultural abandonment, neglected particularly since the 1960s and 1970s. This study aims to evaluate
whether or not selective beech coppices presently in a state of
silvicultural abandonment could be restored and if the restoration
treatments could be productive and economically sustainable.
The objective is to provide a scientific basis to support silvicultural management decisions, by establishing and evaluating a
replicable procedure for restoring selective coppices that may be,
in particular socioeconomic and geographic situations, a feasible
alternative to conversion to high stands.
2. Description of the study sites
The experiment included sites on both sides of the watershed
of the Tuscan-Emilian Apennines. In 2004, three permanent
sample plots were set up: A and B located at 448170 N, 108160 E,
in the high Val Secchia (Emilia-Romagna) at 1250 m above
m.s.l., with total areas of 6000 and 4000 m2, respectively, and C
located at 448120 N, 108270 E, in Garfagnana (Tuscany) at
1200 m above m.s.l., being 1750 m2 in size (Fig. 2). The
Emilian site faces North-East while the Tuscan site faces
M. Coppini, L. Hermanin / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 18–27
21
Fig. 2. Location of the study sites.
South-West; the climate regime is Mediterranean mountain
with higher annual precipitations on the Tuscan site (2000 mm)
than on the Emilian site (1600 mm). Annual average
temperature is 5 and 7 8C, respectively. The soil is an Eutric
Regosol on arenaceous flysch bedrock.
Forest stands are dominated by beech with few other tree
species (Ostrya carpinifolia Scop., Salix caprea L., Acer
pseudoplatanus L., Sorbus aria (L.) Crantz, Sorbus aucuparia
L., Laburnum anagyroides Medicus). Ground vegetation is
represented mostly by Geranium nodosum L., Anemone
nemorosa L., Oxalis acetosella L., Galium odoratum (L.)
Scop., Cardamine heptaphylla (Vill.) O. E. Schulz, and Luzula
nivea(L.) Lam. et DC.
In these forests selective coppice management was
historically very popular for firewood production (Fornaciari
Chitoni, 1964; Bianchi, 1976). Many coppices have been
converted into high stand in recent decades, although some
unconverted coppices are still found, especially in sites where
harvesting was not profitable.
A coppice not regularly cut nor converted into high stand,
that is not biologically old but where the abandonment of
management (and utilization) has exceeded the ordinary
rotation age, is commonly defined as ‘‘aged coppice’’ (Clauser,
1982). These coppices can remain in a state of silvicultural
abandonment, the sprouting capacity of the stumps maintained
for a period of time that varies among tree species and with site
fertility (Perrin, 1954, p. 201).
Defining ‘‘cultivation abandonment classes’’ for the coppice
selection system as proposed in Table 1, most selective beech
coppices still found in the Apennines can be considered in the
third class (‘‘prolonged abandonment’’), in which trees exhibit
decrease in resprouting ability, reduction in the number of live
shoots and progressive selection of the dominant individuals of
the stand. As it is relatively difficult to find younger selective
coppices, and considering that those in a prolonged state
of abandonment are the most difficult to be restored, our
study focuses on stands belonging to the third abandonment
class.
Table 1
Definition of cultivation abandonment classes in relation to the number of years since the last selection cut (compared to the ordinary utilization limit that commonly
is at least 36 years), likely silvicultural-abandonment process and suggested restoration procedures
Cultivation abandonment
class
Utilization delay beyond the
ordinary limit
Likely silvicultural-abandonment process
Possible restoration procedure
Delayed utilization
Utilization is delayed up to 10 years
No decrease occurs in stand vitality
nor in resprouting capacity
With a strong selective cut the stand could
return to selection coppice regime
Abandonment
Utilization is delayed 10–20 years
Larger shoots become dominant and
standard crowns enlarge
A first moderate cut of dominant shoots is
needed to promote stool resprouting,
a second cut will remove all bigger shoots
Prolonged abandonment
Utilization is delayed for more
than 20 years
Stools around standards and smaller
dominated shoots could die
Two or three subsequent cuts could be
necessary in order to promote resprouting
capacity of living stools; caution is required
22
M. Coppini, L. Hermanin / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 18–27
3. Material and methods
To describe the state of the stands before intervention,
dendrometric surveys were carried out. The diameter at breast
height (dbh) of all shoots in the plots and a sample of shoot
heights for each plot were measured to determine shoot
diameter distributions, vertical structure and standing volumes.
Dominant values of dbh and height of shoots were calculated
for each plot as mean dbh and height of the 400 largest shoots
per ha. The total volume prior to silvicultural intervention (i.e.,
cutting) and the volume of the shoots harvested were estimated
using volume equations for beech coppices in Emilia-Romagna
(Bassi et al., 2000). Current volume increments of shoots were
calculated in plots A and B as mean annual growth over the last
10 years.
Vitality of the stands was evaluated by counting live and
dead stools. To determine the age of the stands, and the age
distribution of the shoots, tree rings were counted in each plot
on nearly 10 live shoots of different sizes. These data were used
to estimate the length of time that had passed since the stands
had been subject to their last coppicing cut. Shoot diameter
distribution data were used to classify coppice shoots into two
groups – <12 cm dbh (smaller) and >12 cm dhb (larger) – as a
basis for design of the restoration treatment.
The first restoration treatment (cutting) was carried, the
intensity of the operation based on dendrometric characteristics, condition of the coppice shoots, vitality of the stand
and fertility conditions of the site (Fig. 3). The restoration
procedure included the removal of some of the standards
depending on their dominance in the coppice stand. The
objective was the re-establishment of the stools in order to
encourage their resprouting.
Silvicultural criteria for shoots and standards removal were:
for stools with only dominant shoots, at least one of these
shoots was to be removed;
for stools with both dominant and suppressed shoots, at least
one of the dominant and, if necessary, some suppressed
shoots were to be removed;
for stools with only suppressed shoots, these were to be
thinned if necessary;
dominant standards with large crowns surrounded by only
dead stools were to be left in order provide soil coverage
(shading);
dominant standards that still had living stools nearby, could
be removed in order to promote stool growth.
4. Results
The study stands had a high number of live shoots per ha,
with a mean density of approximately 3900 ha1, with a large
variation among plots (from 2846 ha1 in plot C to 5608 ha1
in plot A). The number of standards per ha averaged 65 (from
52 in plot A to 80 in plot C) (Table 2). The average numbers of
live and dead stools per ha (excluding standards) were
approximately 1280 and 410, respectively (Table 3).
The range of recorded shoots ages in the plots was wide,
from 30 to nearly 70 years. The average age of smaller shoots
(<12 cm dbh) was approximately 40 years while the average
age of the larger shoots (>12 cm) was nearly 60 years
(Fig. 4). The dbh and total heights of dominant shoots were
21 cm and nearly 18 m respectively, while mean values of all
shoots were 11 cm and 13.5 m respectively. Total values of
basal area and volume are in average 42 m2 and 314 m3.
Fig. 3. Example of the procedure for the restoration of coppice selection system; (a) coppice before felling; (b1) moderate removal of two mature shoot; (b2) strong
cut with the removal of nearly all dominant shoots.
M. Coppini, L. Hermanin / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 18–27
23
Table 2
Dendrometric characteristics in sample plots and data on the first cut of the restoration procedure
dbhd (cm)
hd (m)
G (m2)
%
30%
18.49
17.62
15.18
17.41
17.15
16.32
43.37
21.69
21.68
3393
973
2420
29%
21.02
17.45
18.60
18.04
17.10
17.44
2926
1423
1503
49%
23.94
22.47
16.93
18.42
17.97
15.77
Plot
Situation
Nsh
Nst
Ntot
(%)
A
Before cut
Cut
After cut
5608
1645
3963
52
35
17
5660
1680
3980
Before cut
Cut
After cut
3330
945
2385
63
28
35
Before cut
Cut
After cut
2846
1377
1469
80
46
34
B
C
cut
V (m3)
(%)
50%
306.38
162.31
144.06
53%
39.11
14.78
24.33
38%
297.24
115.64
181.59
39%
44.25
26.89
17.36
61%
337.13
206.42
130.71
61%
cut
cut
Nsh, Nst and Ntot represent the number of shoots, standards and their total per ha respectively, dbhd (cm) and hd (m) represent dominant diameter and height of shoots
(calculated on the 400 largest shoots per ha), G (m2) is the basal area, V (m3) is the volume. The percentages are relative to the initial values (before intervention).
Table 3
Number of live and dead stools over an area of one ha in sample plots
Plot
Live
stools
Dead
stools
Total
stools
% of dead
stools
A
B
C
1542
1142
1154
567
408
263
2109
1550
1417
27
26
19
Mean values
1279
412
1662
24
period of 10 years of observation; Amorini et al. (1995),
reporting on a 47 years old beech coppice in a state of
silvicultural abandonment, found 824 live stools per ha with a
reduction of about 30% of the original value after 20 years.
The stands in this study had been abandoned for about 40
years, as the average life span of the smaller shoots indicates. In
this period competition for light among shoots led to a
differentiation in growth rates among stools (Bernabei and
Piovesan, 1997). This structural differentiation is notable in
Current increment of shoots volume amounts to 10 m3
ha1 year1.
With the first restoration cut, 30–50% of individuals and
40–60% of the basal area were removed. The ratio was higher
for higher dbh classes: 40–70% of shoots with dbh > 12 cm
were removed (Fig. 5). The removal of standards involved
44–68% of their total number, and was done mainly by
choosing those standards which have around them a certain
number of stools that are still alive even if strongly dominated,
as discussed above. The wood volume removed with the cut
amounts to 150 m3 ha1 approximately, between 40 and 60% of
the initial volume of the stands (Fig. 6).
5. Discussion
5.1. Stand structure
The distribution in dbh classes before intervention was
typically uneven aged, tending towards larger dbh classes
(>12 cm) when compared to actively managed selective
coppice stands (Fig. 5) for which felling diameters described
in literature ammount to 8–10 cm (Buffolo, 1936; Patrone,
1944; Mannozzi-Torini, 1949; Camia et al., 2002).
The number of dead stumps (excluding standards) gives an
indication of the reduction of coppice density compared to the
original number (before abandonment); this reduction amounts
to about 20–25% of the original value (Table 3). However the
density of stools remained relatively high compared to those
described for younger beech coppices in state of silvicultural
abandonment: Piovesan et al. (1995) found, in a naturally
developing 34 years old beech coppice nearly 900 live stools
per ha with a reduction of about 20% of the original value over a
Fig. 4. Relation between age (years) and dbh (cm) on a sample of shoots in the
plots.
24
M. Coppini, L. Hermanin / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 18–27
Fig. 5. Distribution in 1 cm-dbh classes of the number of shoots removed with the intervention (light grey) and shoots left after the intervention (dark grey) in the plots
and in a selective beech coppice in regime (data on selective beech coppice in regime from Buffolo, 1936).
Fig. 4 where shoots with nearly the same age (50–60 years)
have very different diameters. However some age groups of
shoots are recognizable in these stands, indicative of the
selective system practiced in the past.
Due to the long period of time since these stands were
abandoned, during which there was considerable biomass
accumulation, the growing stock in the sample plots was
extremely high (314 m3 in average), higher in fact than any
value recorded in yield tables for beech coppices (Giordano,
1949; Bernetti, 1980; Castellani, 1982). Such values are found
only in high stands converted a long time ago (Amorini et al.,
1995). As has been found in other coppices (Hermanin and
Pollini, 1990) lengthening of the rotation periods results in
increased wood production.
The estimated current shoot volume increment (10 m3 ha1
year1) is equal or higher than that recorded for 60 years old
even-aged high stands of beech (Cantiani and Bernetti, 1963;
Bianchi, 1981) and nearly double the values recorded for beech
coppices at their maximum current volume increments
(Giordano, 1949; Castellani, 1982) but similar to the values
reported by Buffolo (1936) who indicated sustained yields of 6–7
to 9–10 m3 ha1 year1.
5.2. Effects of the restoration treatment and future
prospects
The main shoot removal treatment, which was concentrated
on the larger shoot size class, led to a reduction of 1–2 cm of the
dominant dbh of the stands. Nearly half of the shoots of the
larger class (>12 cm dbh) and 30% of the smaller shoots
(<12 cm dbh) were removed (Fig. 5). After this cutting
treatment, nearly 350 shoots per ha of the larger (>12 cm dbh)
dbh) were left, maintaining adequate protection to the smaller,
younger, shoots. Additional larger shoots could be gradually
Fig. 6. Distribution of volume per ha in 5 cm-dbh classes of shoots removed with intervention (light grey) and shoots remaining after intervention (dark grey).
M. Coppini, L. Hermanin / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 18–27
removed in the succeeding cuts after evaluation of the stumps
resprouting responses.
In fact, there is no certainty that stumps will respond to the
cut with an adequate production of shoots. On this subject, no
previous specific experimental data exists, probably due to the
fact that the main aim of forest scientists and managers
interested in coppice management has been to regulate the
minimum age for cutting, whereas problems concerning old or
abandoned coppices were not considered important. Authors
who have dealt with this subject, have done so in the context of
coppice conversion to high stands. They generally agree that
beech respouting ability decreases with the age of stools
(Perrin, 1954, pp.320; Crivellari, 1955; Hofmann, 1963; Brun
and Furlan, 2000). However, Ciancio and Nocentini (2004)
reported that resprouting capacity first increases with age and
then decreases until it ceases altogether and that this pattern is
considered a function of the species’ longevity.
The restoration treatment also included removal of
standards. In a coppice stands, standards are usually retained
in the stand as seed trees, and for timber production and soil
protection and cover. In a selective coppice, the soil protection
and cover functions are already fulfilled to some extent by the
permanent presence of shoots. So the number of standards of a
coppice selection system may be limited. According to Ciancio
and Nocentini (2004) standards are not indispensable in
selective coppices as they do not carry significant advantages,
and have some negative effects such as competition and
suppression of dominated shoots, a view supported by Perrin
(1954), who indicated that standards over a selective coppice
stand can restrict stool resprouting. The number of standards
should therefore not exceed 50 per ha and it would be
appropriate if they were neither very large nor forming broad
canopies, as they would otherwise occupy an area available for
coppice development.
However, shoots of shade-tolerant species can remain viable
for quite a long time under closed canopy conditions (Canham,
1988; Bernabei and Piovesan, 1997), so the removal of some
standards, as tested in this study, may be useful if these are still
surrounded by some live stools. This is quite a complicated
operation because of the large dimension of standards stems but
it is possible when the stools that are around them have thin and
flexible shoots. When the damage caused by removal was
judged to be too great in this study, the standard was left
standing, but was girdled as part of the restoration treatment.
25
The wood volume removed with this first restoration cut was
high, though a good volume of growing stock still remained,
between 130 and 180 m3 ha1 (Table 2). This may sustain the
production of wood during the following years. Even after this
intervention, sample plots showed values of growing stocks
higher than those recorded in the literature for selective
coppice; these values are usually low, ranging from 30–40 to
70–80 m3 ha1 before felling, depending on the fertility of the
site (corresponding to 5–6 and 15–20 m3 ha1 after felling)
(Patrone, 1944). Thus, compared to typical values, there
appears to be a good safety margin to the intervention in terms
of growing stock reserves. We asume that since the first cut
maintain a certain number of large shoots in the stand, the
restoration process might require a second (or even a third)
cutting treatment. In practice we plan to accomplish this in
phases, passing through a time of transition, monitoring stand
development, and calibrating the next procedure steps on the
basis of stools resprouting response.
We expect that the silvicultural setting of the restored
coppice should be no longer the classic one described in
literature for the coppice selection system but a formation with
a higher minimum level of growing stock capable of producing
enough biomass, so as to make the continuation of the treatment
economically viable (Fig. 7). For this longer rotation periods
than the ones commonly recorded (8–12 years) will be
necessary, eventually leading to stands with only two age
classes. While this needs to be tested and confirmed through
research, it might offer the advantage of even simplifying the
cutting procedures and consequently reduce management costs,
as described by Perrin (1954) in the Pyrenees.
In fact the problem of effective cutting practice remains, and
is a key to good outcomes and for the continuance of the
treatment itself. The use of chain saws may also be problematic
for the application of these selective cuts (as opposed to the use
of manual cutting tools, such as hatchets), but with particular
care mechanized cutting may work well, for example if light
chain saws are used that allow cutters to work easily even
within a thick stool without damaging the remaining shoots
(Menicacci, 2002).
Many authors agree that a good outcome depends mainly on
the skills of specialized workers who should be very
experienced in this type of cut. Some even advise that workers
with these skills should be transferred to those places where the
treatment has been used unsuccessfully (Poggi, 1960; Ciancio
Fig. 7. Selective beech coppice in high Val Secchia. (a) Advanced structure of a coppice with at least three large shoots; (b) coppice after the selection cut (arrows
indicate two large shoots removed) (Photo by Molducci).
26
M. Coppini, L. Hermanin / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 18–27
and Nocentini, 2004). Nowadays there is a lack of such
specialized personnel, so if there is a real determination to
proceed with the restoration of this traditional silvicultural
system, it would be necessary to provide a good training on the
correct application of the method.
In planning the restoration of selective beech coppice
systems, managers should also carefully consider the best ways
to define and execute coppice selection system field operations,
and also consider the definition of aged coppices, in accordance
with regional law. In Italy, there are lower and upper age limits
for fellings in selective coppices: the cut is allowed between 24
or 30 years, in Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna respectively, to 36
years, when they are considered ‘‘aged coppice’’; delayed
utilization up to 50 years of age is allowed only with special
permission (Regione Toscana, 2003; Regione Emilia-Romagna,
1995).
6. Conclusions
This experiment shows that if stools density and the total
number of shoots in abandoned selective beech coppice
stands is sufficiently high, a first restoration cutting treatment
can be profitable in terms of firewood production without
severely reducing the number of shoots remaining in the
stand. From a productive point of view, the quantity of
optimal growing stock, and estimates of future biomass and
utilizable wood production, are unknown at present, and
will have to be estimated on the basis of future stand
development.
According to regional policies, the possibility of restoring
selective beech coppices in state of silvicultural abandonment is
limited but, if confirmed by a positive response of the stands in
this study, the present experiment could show how restoration
treatments can be applied to selective beech coppices in state of
prolonged silvicultural abandonment that have maintained a
good structural features and uneven age distribution of coppice
shoots.
As this study has shown, firewood production from restored
stands can also be high, especially during the first phase of the
restoration process. This might support local economic
development particularly where young converted stands or
non-mature high stands are dominant, which are typical
uneconomic phases of high stand management cycles. In fact,
compared to the first cut of conversion to high-stand procedure
(Amorini and Fabbio, 1991) the first restoration cut in this study
was much more profitable.
The development of new technologies for the use of forest
biomass for energy production (Bernetti et al., 1998; Hellrigl,
2003; Jansen and Kuiper, 2004) also suggests a reconsideration of coppice selection system in the context of forest
management planning. However, a restoration of this system
for the purposes of forest-based energy production would
probably require improvement of road networks in forested
regions; at present, in those forests where beech coppices
have been neglected, their distance from existing roads makes
exploitation for the purpose of firewood production unprofitable.
Acknowledgements
The research is based on permanent sample plots set up in
Tuscany by ARSIA within the project ‘‘Relationship between
silviculture management of woods and slopes stability’’ and in
Emilia-Romagna by the Consorzio Forestale Alta Val Secchia
as part of the ‘‘Apennine Forest’’ project in collaboration with
Studio Verde snc. The authors would like to thank these
institutions for their contribution to this research.
References
Agnoletti, M., 2002. Bosco ceduo e paesaggio: processi generali e fattori locali.
In: Ciancio, O., Nocentini, S. (Eds.), Il bosco ceduo in Italia. Acc. It. Sc.
For., Firenze, pp. 23–62 (in Italian).
Amorini, E., Fabbio, G., 1991. Ricerche sull’‘‘invecchiamento dei cedui’’:
riflessioni sul trattamento di conversione. L’It. For. e Mont. 46 (3), 193–204
(in Italian).
Amorini, E., Fabbio, G., Tabacchi, G., 1995. Le faggete di origine agamica:
Evoluzione naturale e modello colturale per l’avviamento ad alto fusto. In:
Giannini, R. (Ed.), Atti del seminario ‘‘Funzionalità dell’ecosistema faggeta’’. Acc. It. Sc. For., Firenze, pp. 331–345 (in Italian).
Amorini, E., Gambi, G., 1977. Il metodo dell’invecchiamento nella conversione
dei cedui di faggio. Ann. Ist. Sper. Selv. 8, 21–42 (in Italian).
Andreatta, G., 2006. Consequences of the cessation of traditional forest
exploitation: the example of the Dolomiti Bellunesi National Park. In:
Parrotta, J., Agnoletti, M., Johann, E. (Eds.), Cultural heritage and sustainable forest management: the role of traditional knowledge. Ministerial
Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe, Warsaw, pp. 281–287.
Bassi, S., Baratozzi, L., Bertani, R., Maltoni, M.L., Scarelli, M., Tabacchi, G.,
2000. Tavole dendrometriche regionali. Regione Emilia-Romagna, Bologna
(in Italian).
Bassi, S., Bassi, S., 2000. Emilia-Romagna. In: Giordano, E., Hofmann, A.
(Eds.), Attraveso le regioni forestali d’Italia vol. 1. Ed. Vallombrosa, pp.
587–646 (in Italian).
Bastien, Y., 2002. Taillis et taillis sous futaie. ENGREF, Nancy, 18 pp. (in
French).
Bengtsson, J., Nilsson, S.G., Franc, A., Menozzi, P., 2000. Biodiversity,
disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests.
For. Ecol. Manage. 132, 39–50.
Bernabei, M., Piovesan, G., 1997. Alcune osservazioni sugli accrescimenti
anulari del faggio (Fagus sylvatica L.) del Lazio settentrionale. Monti e
Boschi 5, 52–56 (in Italian).
Bernetti, G., 1980. L’auxometria dei boschi cedui italiani. L’It. For. e Mont. 35
(1), 2–24 (in Italian with English abstract).
Bernetti, G., 1995. Selvicoltura speciale. Utet, Torino (in Italian).
Bernetti, I., Fagarazzi, C., Romano, S., 1998. La produzione di biomasse per uso
energetico nei cedui della provincia di Firenze. Ann. Acc. It. Sc. For 47,
163–200 (in Italian with English abstract).
Bianchi, M., 1976. Esperienze di conversione dei cedui di faggio nell’alta valle
del Serchio. L’It. For. e Mont. 31 (6), 231–240 (in Italian).
Bianchi, M., 1981. Le fustaie di faggio di origine agamica della Toscana: tavola
di produzione per i boschi coetanei. Ann. Acc. It. Sc. For. 30, 248–283 (in
Italian).
Bianchi, M., Hermanin, L., 1988. Stato delle ricerche sperimentali sulla
conversione in alto fusto dei cedui di faggio. Quaderni dell’Istituto di
Assestamento e Tecnologia Forestale Fasc. II, Tip. Nova, Firenze, 25 pp. (in
Italian).
Brun, F., Furlan, G., 2000. Interventi di valorizzazione dei boschi cedui:
convenienza economica e ricadute dell’utilizzo delle faggete in Piemonte.
Quaderni del dipartimento di economia e ingegneria agraria, forestale e
ambientale, Grugliasco 95 pp. (in Italian).
Buffolo, V., 1936. I cedui di faggio trattati a sterzo in Italia. L’Alpe 11–12, 404–
412 (in Italian).
Bürgi, M., 1999. A case study of forest change in the Swiss lowlands. Landscape
Ecol. 14, 567–575.
M. Coppini, L. Hermanin / Forest Ecology and Management 249 (2007) 18–27
Camia, A., Bovio, G., De Ferrari, F., 2002. Il ceduo a sterzo di Valmala (CN). In:
Ciancio, O.O, Nocentini, S. (Eds.), Il bosco ceduo in Italia. Acc. It. Sc. For,
Firenze, (in Italian), pp. 249–276.
Canham, C., 1988. Growth and canopy architecture of shade-tolerant trees:
response to canopy gaps. Ecology 69 (3), 786–795.
Cantiani, M., Bernetti, G., 1963. Piano di assestamento della foresta dell’Abetone
per il dodicennio 1961–1972. Tip. Coppini, Firenze, 357 pp. (in Italian).
Castellani C., Scrinzi G., Tabacchi G., Tosi V., 1988. Inventario Forestale
Nazionale. Sintesi metodologica e risultati. I.S.A.F.A., Trento, 461 pp. (in
Italian).
Castellani, C., 1982. Tavole stereometriche ed alsometriche costruite per i
boschi italiani. I.S.A.F.A., Trento, 810 pp. (in Italian).
Ciancio, O., Corona, P., Lamonaca, A., Portoghesi, L., Travaglini, D., 2006.
Conversion of clearcut beech coppices into high forests with continuous
cover: a case study in central Italy. For. Ecol. Manage. 224, 235–240.
Ciancio, O., Nocentini, S., 2004. Il bosco ceduo. Selvicoltura, Assestamento,
Gestione. Acc. It. Sc. For, Firenze, 721 pp. (in Italian).
Clauser, F., 1982. Sull’evoluzione dei cedui invecchiati. Monti e Boschi 1–2,
23–26 (in Italian).
Clements, T.J., Mountford, E., Pakenham, R., 2001. History and management of
beech in northwest european lowland, Great Britain. In: Hahn, K., Fanta, J.
(Eds.), Contemporary Beech Forest Management in Europe. Nat-man
Project Working Report 1, pp. 7–52.
Crivellari, D., 1955. Conservazione e miglioramento delle faggete alpine e
appenniniche. In: Atti del Congresso Nazionale di Selvicoltura, vol. 1, pp.
237–284 (in Italian).
Fornaciari Chitoni, M., 1964. Piano Economico dei beni silvo-pastorali dell’Azienda Speciale Consorziale del Livello di Nasseta nei Comuni di
Collagna, Busana e Ligonchio per il decennio 1964–73. Azienda Speciale
Consorziale ‘‘Livello di Nasseta’’, Reggio Emilia, 47 pp. (in Italian).
Gambi, G., 1968. Le conversioni dei cedui in altofusto sull’Appennino ToscoEmiliano. Annali Accademia Nazionale di Agricoltura 1–2, 55–103 (in
Italian).
Giordano, G., 1949. Manuale pratico di cubatura dei legnami. Hoepli, Milano
(in Italian).
Glatzel, G., 1999. Historic forest use and its possible implication to recently
accelerated tree growth in central Europe. In: Karjalainen, T., Spiecker, H.,
Laroussinie, O. (Eds.), EFI Proceedings on Causes and Consequences of
Accelerating Tree Growth in Europe, no. 27. pp. 65–74.
Hellrigl, B., 2003. Gestione del bosco e CO2: un contributo per i cedui di faggio.
Compagnia delle Foreste, Arezzo, 74 pp. (in Italian with Englis abstract).
Hermanin, L., 1981. Piano di riordinamento colturale dei boschi e dei pascoli
del Comune di Scanno. Decennio 1981–1990. Centro Stampa Palagi,
Firenze, 145 pp. (in Italian).
Hermanin, L., La Marca, O., 1985. Appunti di Assestamento Forestale dalle
lezioni del Prof. M. Cantiani. Ed. A-Zeta, Firenze (in Italian).
Hermanin, L., Pollini, M., 1990. Produzione legnosa e paesaggio, considerazioni sul turno in un ceduo di leccio. Cellulosa e Carta 2, 6–10 (in Italian).
Hofmann, A., 1963. La conversione dei cedui di faggio. Ann. Acc. It. Sc. For.
12, 145–164 (in Italian).
Hofmann, A., 1991. Il faggio e le faggete in Italia. Collana Verde del Ministero
dell’Agricoltura e delle Foreste 81, 140 (in Italian).
Hofmann, A., Goretti, D., Merendi, G., Tabacchi, Vignoli, M., Bernetti, G.,
1998. Boschi e Macchie di Toscana: vol. 3, L’Inventario Forestale. Edizioni
Regione Toscana, Firenze, 219 pp. (in Italian).
Jansen, P., Kuiper, L., 2004. Double green energy from traditional coppice
stands in The Netherlands. Biomass Bioenerg. 26, 401–402.
Joys, A.C., Fuller, R.J., Dolman, P.M., 2004. Influence of deer browsing,
coppice history, and standard trees on the growth and development of
vegetation structure in coppiced woods in lowland England. For. Ecol.
Manage. 202, 23–37.
Mannozzi-Torini, L., 1949. Il trattamento a sterzo dei boschi cedui di faggio.
L’Eco della Montagna 5, 118–124 (in Italian).
27
Menicacci, M., 2002. Il taglio a sterzo nell’Appennino Pistoiese. In: Ciancio,
O., Nocentini, S. (Eds.), Il bosco ceduo in Italia. Acc. It. Sc. For, Firenze,
pp. 277–291 (in Italian).
Niemela, J., Haila, Y., Punttila, P., 1996. The importance of small-scale
heterogeneity in boreal forests: variation in diversity in forest-floor invertebrates across the succession gradient. Ecography 19, 352–368.
Padula, M., D’Amico, C., Ricci, S., Gioffredi, R., 1988. Esperienze di conversione all’alto fusto di boschi cedui invecchiati di faggio nell’Appennino
settentrionale (Italia). Ann. Acc. It. Sc. For. 37, 23–64 (in Italian).
Patrone, G., 1944. Lezioni di assestamento forestale. Tip. Ricci, Firenze (in
Italian).
Perrin H., 1954. Selvicoltura. Tomo 2. Il trattamento delle foreste. Teoria e
pratica delle tecniche selvicolturali. Acc. It. Sc. For. Firenze, 429 pp. (in
Italian).
Peterken, G.F., 1999. Applying natural forestry concepts in an intensively
managed landscape. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 8, 321–328.
Piegai, F., Fabiano, F., Marchi, E., 2004. Tagli di avviamento e normali
utilizzazioni dei cedui: unità di misura e perdite di legna da ardere. L’It.
For. e Mont. 59 (6), 483–510 (in Italian with English abstract).
Piovesan, G., Hermanin, L., Schirone, B., 1995. Considerazioni sulla crescita e
lo sviluppo di un ceduo matricinato di faggio (Fagus sylvatica L.) di età
avanzata. L’It. For. e Mont. 50 (4), 404–424 (in Italian with English
abstract).
Piussi, P., 2006. Close to nature forestry criteria and coppice management. In:
Diaci, J. (Ed.), Nature-based Forestry in Central Europe, vol. 126. Studia
Forestalia Slovenica, pp. 27–37.
Poggi, U., 1960. Considerazioni sulla trasformazione dei cedui di faggio a taglio
raso mediante l’introduzione del taglio a sterzo. L’It. For. e Mont. 5, 193–
197 (in Italian).
Premuda, G., 1957. La conversione dei boschi cedui di faggio in fustaia nelle
Foreste Demaniali Pistoiesi. Monti e Boschi 3, 109–114 (in Italian).
Rackham, O., 1976. Trees and woodland in the british landscape. Dent and
Sons, London, 215 pp.
Regione Emilia-Romagna, 1995. D.C.R. n. 2354 del 1 marzo 1995. Prescrizioni
di Massima e Polizia Forestale. Servizio Parchi e Risorse Foreste, Bologna,
53 pp. (in Italian).
Regione Toscana, 2003. D.P.G.R. 8 agosto 2003, n. 48/R. Regolamento Forestale della Toscana. Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Toscana. 37, 32–78
(in Italian).
Rotherham, I.D., 2006. Working landscapes or recreational showcases—sustainable forest management and the implications of cultural knoledge loss.
In: Parrotta, J., Agnoletti, M., Johann, E. (Eds.), Cultural Heritage and
Sustainable Forest Management: The Role of Traditional Knowledge.
MCPFE, Warsaw, pp. 209–216.
Rydberg, D., 2000. Initial sprouting, growth and mortality of European aspen
and birch after selective coppicing in central Sweden. For. Ecol. Manage.
130, 27–35.
Servant, G., Henesy, K., Willis, J., Capretti, M., Carturan, E., Gallinaro, N.,
2006. Charcoal production in Sunart (Scotland) and Vavestino (Italy)—the
legacy of traditional craft and silvicultural system. In: Parrotta, J., Agnoletti, M., Johann, E. (Eds.), Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Forest
Management: The Role of Traditional Knowledge. Ministerial Conference
for the Protection of Forests in Europe. pp. 260–267.
Strandberg, B., Kristiansen, S.M., Tybirk, K., 2005. Dynamic oak-scrub to
forest succession: Effects of management on understorey vegetation, humus
forms and soils. For. Ecol. Manage. 211, 318–328.
von Teuffel, K., 1999. Consequences of increased tree growth on forest
management planing and silviculture. In: Karjalainen, T., Spiecker, H.,
Laroussinie, O. (Eds.), EFI Proceedings on Causes and Consequences of
Accelerating Tree Growth in Europe, no. 27. pp. 229–236.
Wohlgemuth, T., Bürgi, M., Scheidegger, C., Schütz, M., 2002. Dominance
reduction of species through disturbance—a proposed management principle for central Europe forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 166, 1–15.