Find in Library

The present study compares the advantages and disadvantages between the landscape and forest approaches, in quantitative terms. The results are meant to conciliate vegetation use and conservation, which were thoroughly compared in both approaches. The landscape approach followed the European school for vegetation description and classification. Hence, 177 releves were surveyed via a stratified random sampling strategy. In total, 13 plant communities were distinguished, as well as their characteristic species. The forest approach followed a stratified systematic sampling design in which 14 662 sites of ci. 1 000 m2were surveyed. On the whole, 136 forest stands, comprising 1 271 forest substands, were recognised. Floristic composition, vegetation dynamics and spatial distribution were compared between both approaches. The landscape approach resulted in a list of 609 vascular plant species, whereas the forest approach included only 11 species (those of importance for wood products). Vegetation dynamics was well represented in the 13 plant communities depicted by the landscape approach, as opposed to the forest approach that only documents the population dynamics of the few selected species. As regards the spatial context, a substantial percentage of both approaches was successfully integrated (80%). The remaining forest substands included so heterogeneous conditions that they restricted the integration of plant communities and forest stands. It is strongly recommended to generate a study strategy including both supplementary approaches, since both provide relevant aspects for use and conservation purposes.