Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services

Felipe-Lucia, María R., Soliveres, Santiago, Penone, Caterina, Manning, Peter, van der Plas, Fons, Boch, Steffen, Prati, Daniel, Ammer, Christian, Schall, Peter, Gossner, Martin M., Bauhus, Jürgen, Buscot, Francois, Blaser, Stefan, Blüthgen, Nico, de Frutos, Angel, Ehbrecht, Martin, Frank, Kevin, Goldmann, Kezia, Hänsel, Falk, Jung, Kirsten, Kahl, Tiemo, Nauss, Thomas, Oelmann, Yvonne, Pena, Rodica, Polle, Andrea, Renner, Swen, Schloter, Michael, Schöning, Ingo, Schrumpf, Marion, Schulze, Ernst-Detlef, Solly, Emily, Sorkau, Elisabeth, Stempfhuber, Barbara, Tschapka, Marco, Weisser, Wolfgang W., Wubet, Tesfaye, Fischer, Markus, Allan, Eric·2018·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4PMC PMC6240034
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Trade-offs and synergies in the supply of forest ecosystem services are common but the drivers of these relationships are poorly understood. To guide management that seeks to promote multiple services, we investigated the relationships between 12 stand-level forest attributes, including structure, composition, heterogeneity and plant diversity, plus 4 environmental factors, and proxies for 14 ecosystem services in 150 temperate forest plots. Our results show that forest attributes are the best predictors of most ecosystem services and are also good predictors of several synergies and trade-offs between services. Environmental factors also play an important role, mostly in combination with forest attributes. Our study suggests that managing forests to increase structural heterogeneity, maintain large trees, and canopy gaps would promote the supply of multiple ecosystem services. These results highlight the potential for forest management to encourage multifunctional forests and suggest that a coordinated landscape-scale strategy could help to mitigate trade-offs in human-dominated landscapes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Importance of forest attributes and environmental factors for explaining ecosystem services. Bars show the variance exclusively explained by forest attributes and environmental factors, the shared variance between them and the unexplained variance. See Supplementary Table 2 for sample size in each ecosystem service model and Supplementary Fig. 3 for correlation among all drivers
Fig. 1 Importance of forest attributes and environmental factors for explaining ecosystem services. Bars show the variance exclusively explained by forest attributes and environmental factors, the shared variance between them and the unexplained variance. See Supplementary Table 2 for sample size in each ecosystem service model and Supplementary Fig. 3 for correlation among all driversCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Change in the synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Pearson correlations between pairs of ecosystem services (All factors), and after removing the effect of environmental factors (E) and of both the environmental factors and forest attributes together (F). Horizontal lines show the mean positive (blue lines, synergies) and negative (red lines, trade-offs) correlations. See Fig. 3 for details
Fig. 2 Change in the synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Pearson correlations between pairs of ecosystem services (All factors), and after removing the effect of environmental factors (E) and of both the environmental factors and forest attributes together (F). Horizontal lines show the mean positive (blue lines, synergies) and negative (red lines, trade-offs) correlations. See Fig. 3 for detailsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Details on the synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Panel a shows the individual Pearson correlations between pairs of ecosystem services. Consistent (r ≥ |0.1|) synergies and trade-offs across the three correlation matrices (All factors, E and F) are underlined. Panel b shows the correlations after removing the effect of environmental factors (E). Those correlations driven by environmental factors (i.e. those significantly different from the original correlations, panel a vs. panel b) are in solid line boxes. Panel c shows the correlations after removing the effect of both environmental factors and forest attributes (F). Those correlations driven by the forest attributes alone (i.e. significantly different from the correlation with only environment effects removed, panel b vs. panel c) are in solid line boxes, and those driven by a combination of the environmental factors and forest attributes (i.e. significantly different from the original correlations (panel b vs. panel d) but not from those with environmental effects removed (panel c vs. panel d)) are in dashed line boxes. See Supplementary Fig. 4 for the changes in correlations caused by the environmental factors and the forest attributes separately
Fig. 3 Details on the synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Panel a shows the individual Pearson correlations between pairs of ecosystem services. Consistent (r ≥ |0.1|) synergies and trade-offs across the three correlation matrices (All factors, E and F) are underlined. Panel b shows the correlations after removing the effect of environmental factors (E). Those correlations driven by environmental factors (i.e. those significantly different from the original correlations, panel a vs. panel b) are in solid line boxes. Panel c shows the correlations after removing the effect of both environmental factors and forest attributes (F). Those correlations driven by the forest attributes alone (i.e. significantly different from the correlation with only environment effects removed, panel b vs. panel c) are in solid line boxes, and those driven by a combination of the environmental factors and forest attributes (i.e. significantly different from the original correlations (panel b vs. panel d) but not from those with environmental effects removed (panel c vs. panel d)) are in dashed line boxes. See Supplementary Fig. 4 for the changes in correlations caused by the environmental factors and the forest attributes separatelyCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Effects of forest attributes on ecosystem services. Standardized partial effects from linear models after model simplification are shown. Shaded lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. Asterisks indicate significant effects also found in the full models (significance levels: ***p ≤ 0.001; **p ≤ 0.01; *p ≤ 0.05, as measured by Student’s t-test). DBH diameter at breast height. See Supplementary Tables 6 and 8 for details, and Supplementary Data 3
Fig. 4 Effects of forest attributes on ecosystem services. Standardized partial effects from linear models after model simplification are shown. Shaded lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. Asterisks indicate significant effects also found in the full models (significance levels: ***p ≤ 0.001; **p ≤ 0.01; *p ≤ 0.05, as measured by Student’s t-test). DBH diameter at breast height. See Supplementary Tables 6 and 8 for details, and Supplementary Data 3CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 69 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Our Human Planet: Summary for Decision Makers (Island Press, 2005).
  2. MacLean, D. A., Seymour, R. S., Montigny, M. K. & Messier, C. in Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes (ed. Villard, M.-A.) Ch. 14 (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
  3. Larsen, J. B. Functional forests in multifunctional landscapes: restoring the adaptive capacity of landscapes with forests and trees. In Forest Landscape Restoration in Central and Northern Europe: EFI Proc. No. 53 (eds. Veltheim, T. & Pajari, B.) 97–102 (European Forest Institute, 2005).

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Felipe-Lucia, M. R., Soliveres, S., Penone, C., Manning, P., van der Plas, F., Boch, S., Prati, D., Ammer, C., Schall, P., Gossner, M. M., Bauhus, J., Buscot, F., Blaser, S., Blüthgen, N., de Frutos, A., Ehbrecht, M., Frank, K., Goldmann, K., Hänsel, F., Jung, K., Kahl, T., Nauss, T., Oelmann, Y., Pena, R., Polle, A., Renner, S., Schloter, M., Schöning, I., Schrumpf, M., Schulze, E.-D., Solly, E., Sorkau, E., Stempfhuber, B., Tschapka, M., Weisser, W. W., Wubet, T., Fischer, M., & Allan, E.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-11-16
Volume
9
Issue
1
ISSN
2041-1723
DOI
10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4
PMC
PMC6240034
Cited by
334
References
69
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4
The paper
Felipe-Lucia, M. R., Soliveres, S., Penone, C., Manning, P., van der Plas, F., Boch, S., Prati, D., Ammer, C., Schall, P., Gossner, M. M., Bauhus, J., Buscot, F., Blaser, S., Blüthgen, N., de Frutos, A., Ehbrecht, M., Frank, K., Goldmann, K., Hänsel, F., . . . Allan, E. (2018). Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.