A resilient forest is not simply one that survives disturbance or returns to a previous condition.
Stability can come from the forest’s own ecological processes, allowing it to absorb disturbance and recover. But it can also be maintained through repeated management intervention designed to protect a particular forest condition or level of wood production. Both can support resilience, but they do so in different ways and can lead to different ecological outcomes.
This distinction is becoming more important as climate change increases the risks from drought, storms, pests and disease. Our recent Productive and Biodiverse synthesis study examines what different forms of forest resilience mean for biodiversity, wood production and long-term adaptation to changing conditions.
Ecological resilience depends on a forest’s capacity to absorb and recover from disturbance
Ecological resilience comes from the processes and biological diversity that allow a forest to respond to disturbance while retaining or recovering its functions.
Species diversity, genetic variation and structural complexity can all contribute to that capacity. But a forest should not be assumed to be resilient simply because it is left unmanaged or composed of native species. For example, natural stands can be dominated by a single species and native populations may have limited genetic diversity. Both situations can leave forests vulnerable to rapid climate change or newly introduced pests and diseases. “Naturalness” is therefore not, by itself, an indicator of resilience or adaptive capacity.
That does not mean natural processes are unimportant. It means resilience has to be judged against the pressures a forest is expected to face, rather than inferred from how natural the forest appears.
The difference between forest stability and ecological resilience
Forests can also be kept stable through deliberate intervention.
Shorter rotations can reduce the period during which trees are exposed to particular risks. Sanitary felling can help contain disease and prevent wildfires. Selective breeding can increase resistance to specific threats, such as water scarcity. In each case, management helps maintain a desired forest condition or productive function.
The Productive and Biodiverse study uses the term “coerced resilience” for stability maintained in this way. It differs from ecological resilience because the desired state depends on continued human intervention.
The study links coerced resilience with possible trade-offs including reduced habitat for biodiversity, a narrower range of ecosystem services and a reduced capacity to withstand disturbances that management was not designed to address.
A forest can therefore be highly resilient to one particular risk or highly reliable at maintaining wood production, while remaining vulnerable to other disturbances. Calling both situations simply “resilient” can conceal an important difference.
Recovering from one forest disturbance does not guarantee resilience to the next
Past recovery is not necessarily evidence that a forest is well adapted to future conditions.
Research reviewed in the synthesis found that Central European forests had recovered well from recent disturbances while their adaptive capacity to future climate conditions remained low. Many tree species present in regeneration were considered poorly adapted to the climate conditions expected in the future, indicating that substantial changes in species composition may be required.
That example captures why resilience has to be forward-looking. The relevant question is not simply whether a forest recovered from the last drought, storm or pest outbreak, but whether its composition and structure leave it capable of coping with the conditions likely to come next.
The synthesis points towards proactive and adaptive management, including site-adapted species, natural regeneration and greater structural complexity, while recognising that there is no single approach that can simply be applied across Europe, and changing species composition requires long-term planning. Monitoring also has an important role because changing conditions may require management to be adjusted as new risks emerge.
For forest managers, businesses and policymakers, resilience needs a more precise question behind it: resilient to what, over what period, through which mechanisms, and for which ecological or productive functions?
That does not produce one ideal resilient forest. It gives us a clearer basis for deciding which risks we are trying to manage, what form of resilience we are building and what consequences may follow from those choices.
Explore the full Productive and Biodiverse study and its findings here
