Acta Sil va e et Ligni 128 (2022), 1–5 1 Uvodnik / Editorial article FORESTRY AND THE 40 th ANNIVERSARY OF IALE GOZDARSTVO IN 40. OBLETNICA ORGANIZACIJE IALE Janez PIRNAT 1 (1) University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, janez.pirnat@bf.uni-lj.si ABSTRACT In this paper we evaluated key forestry related topics in the journal Landscape Ecology in the period 1987-2021 using keyword analysis to highlight which forestry topics have been relevant for landscape ecologists from the inception of the IALE organisa- tion until present. Our analysis has shown that forests have far too often been just a framework for research focusing on man- agement interventions in the forest. The three key words with the highest frequencies were forest/wood fragmentation, forest management and forest(s). Until now, however, we have not made sufficient use of the opportunity to study the field of forest ecosystem functionning at the landscape level. Suggestions for future reserch are therefore given. Key words: forest, 40 th anniversary of IALE, key word analysis, forest fragmentation IZVLEČEK V pričujočem prispevku smo ovrednotili ključne gozdarske teme v reviji Landscape Ecology v obdobju 1987–2021 z analizo ključnih besed, da bi poudarili, katere gozdarske teme so bile pomembne za krajinske ekologe od ustanovitve organizacije IALE do danes. Naša analiza je pokazala, da so bili gozdovi vse prevečkrat le okvir za raziskovanje gospodarskih posegov v gozd. Tri ključne besede z najvišjo frekvenco so bile fragmentacija gozda, gospodarjenje z gozdovi in gozd(ovi). Doslej še nismo dovolj izkoristili možnosti preučevanja področja delovanja gozdnih ekosistemov na krajinski ravni. Zato so podani predlogi za pri- hodnje raziskave. Ključne besede: gozd, 40. obletnica IALE, analiza ključnih besed, razdrobljenost gozda GDK 945:90+91+972IALE(045)=111, UDK 001.891:630*91(045)=111 Prispelo / Received: 20. 7. 2022 DOI 10.20315/ASetL.128.2 Sprejeto / Accepted: 22. 8. 2022 1 AIM OF THE OVERVIEW 1 CILJ PREGLEDA Landscape ecology falls under the umbrella of the field of “landscape science” (Wu, 2013), as do many other disciplines, such as conservation biology, for- estry, geography, landscape architecture and land- scape planning. Many authors have analyzed the key research topics of landscape ecology as well as those appearing in the journal Landscape Ecology (Wiens, 1992; Forman, 1995; Hobbs, 1997; Antrop, 2001; Wu and Hobbs, 2002; Wu, 2006; Andersen, 2008; McIntyre et al., 2013; Risser in Iverson, 2013; Wu, 2013; Helfen- stein et al., 2014; Wu, 2017; Kienast et al., 2021). How- ever, no studies have analyzed how landscape ecology deals with forest and forestry, despite the fact that forest is one of the key building blocks of both natu- ral and cultural landscapes, and that forestry was or- ganized internationally as a research activity as early as 1890, when IUFRO (International Union of Forestry Research Organizations) was established. On the other hand, IALE (International Association for Landscape Ecology) is a much younger organization, having been founded in 1982 in Bratislava on the basis of an idea presented at the 1981 Landscape Ecology Congress in Veldhoven in the Netherlands. Wu (2013) has defined important core research topics and concepts in landscape ecology from a spatial point of view, particularly with respect to the pattern- process relationship: connectivity, fragmentation, scale, land use change, ecosystem/landscape history models, spatial analysis models and sustainability. In our re- search, we wanted to determine the extent to which these key research topics relate to forest and forestry. 2 RESUL TS 2 REZUL T ATI In order to determine which topics in forest and forestry science have been researched in the journal Landscape Ecology, we chose an analysis based on keywords related to forest and forestry in the period 1987-2021, from the creation of the journal to the end of 2021, in 282 issues of the journal encompassing a total of 3229 articles. For this presentation we have combined different original keyword records (e.g. clear cuts, clear-cutting, clearcut, clearcutting) and replaced them with a single record (e.g. clearcut). 2 Pirna t J .: F or estr y and the 40 th anni v ersar y o f IALE In total, we have listed 736 keywords that can be linked to forest and forestry. We categorized these key- words into meaningful groups (Table 1) and keywords by frequency of occurrence (Table 2). 3 DISCUSSION AND PERSPECTIVES 3 DISKUSIJA IN PERSPEKTIVA Although forests have been regarded as one of the most studied landscapes in the journal Landscape Ecology (Wu, 2017), the pattern-process relationship as a key topic in landscape ecology has not been prop- erly addressed. According to the definition of Alma Farina (2010), landscape ecology is an ecological dis- cipline dealing with the spatial distribution of organ- isms, patterns and processes. In our case, we decided to omit groups of general, geographical and vegetation designations, as well as the broad concept of »manage- ment« and other keywords not directly involved in the “pattern-process” relationship. Keywords most closely related to landscape ecological designations include fragmentation, deforestation, forest birds, reforesta- tion, restoration and dynamics (Table 2). It is possible to see that keyword “fragmentation” is well represent- ed; however, keywords from the field of forest func- tioning (i.e. forest dynamics) are relatively rare. Forest often represents only a space or framework in which researchers study certain processes that are the result of (in)direct human activities. Examples in- Table 1: Different keyword group frequencies with up to 5 of the most common keywords Preglednica 1: Različne frekvence skupin ključnih besed z do 5 najpogostejšimi ključnimi besedami Keyword groups Frequency % Top 5 (or less) keywords Geographical indication 139 19 Boreal f, Atlantic f, Mediterranean f, temperate f, tropical f Forest structure 107 14 f patch, f cover, f composition, f configuration, f edge Forest - general 78 11 forest, woodland, urban f, forestry, agroforestry Forest changes - loss 70 10 deforestation, f fragmentation, w fragmentation, f loss, subtropical fragmentation Forest management 69 9 f management, inventory, landscape model, silvicultural management, class Forest vegetation types 52 7 conifer f, deciduous f, mixed wood, oak f, riparian f Forest changes - gain 44 6 f expansion, f regeneration, f restoration, f succession, afforestation Forest species - animals 33 4 f birds, Woodland fauna, f carnivores, f carabid beetles, f avifauna Forest social dimension 28 4 f history, f service, private f, non-industrial private f, farm woodlands Forest damage, diseases 26 4 f disturbances, fire, f degradation, f damage, f die-off Forest technology 26 4 f clear-cutting, f harvesting, timber harvest, timber production, Woody debris Forest functioning 25 3 f dynamics, f connectivity, f productivity, f biogeochemistry, f dendrochronology Computer programs 19 3 Random forest, f simulation, Random forest algorithm, Balanced Random Forests Forest changes - neutral 10 1 f cover change, transition, landscape cover change model Forest diversity, ecology 10 1 f ecology, conservation, diversity, biodiversity, dendroecology Note: f denotes the word ‘forest’ Keywords Frequency forest / wood fragmentation 45 forest management 41 forest(s) 32 Boreal forest(s) 27 deforestation 18 Random forest 18 forest / woodland birds 17 Tropical forest(s) 16 Atlantic forest(s) 14 Temperate forest(s) 13 afforestation / reforestation 11 forest restoration 10 forest dynamics 10 Table 2: Keywords by frequency of occurrence, taking into account those that appeared at least 10 times Preglednica 2: Ključne besede po frekvenci pojavljanja ob upoštevanju tistih, zapisanih najmanj 10-krat Acta Sil va e et Ligni 128 (2022), 1–5 3 clude fragmentation and deforestation. A much more demanding step is to study the functioning of the for- est, i.e. the forest as an ecosystem itself, which includes keywords such as f dynamics, f connectivity, f produc- tivity and f biogeochemistry. Why have landscape ecologists appeared to neglect forest functioning issues? One possible answer may be that researchers in the field of forestry have not been particularly interested in the relationship between landscape patterns and processes, or they have pub- lished their research in specialized journals in the field of forestry. There may be another reason, namely the keyword type of analysis. The limitations of this type of analysis are well known (Helfenstein et al., 2014). Authors my not be careful enough when choosing the keywords as- sociated with their research, especially in recent times when it has been more attractive to choose keywords relating to methodology rather than the ecological function itself. “Random forest” represents such a key- word in our case. According to the idea of ecological civilization (Fra- zier et al., 2019), three concepts integral to landscape ecology have been recognized as essential: linkages between landscape patterns and biodiversity, the mea- surement of connectivity and flows across spatially het- erogeneous systems, and the study of linkages between disturbances, resilience and recovery. With the help of these guidelines, we propose prioritizing research top- ics that connect forestry and landscape ecology: • forest ecosystem services and well-being (Hladnik and Pirnat, 2011; Hladnik et al., 2020) • urban forests as a source of urban heat island miti- gation (Nastran et al., 2019) • forests as a source of ecosystem disservices miti- gation (Nagel et al. 2014, 2016; Žabota and Kobal, 2020, 2021) • larger persistent forest patches in suburban areas (Pirnat and Hladnik, 2016) • post-glacial forest spread (Magri et al., 2006) • ecosystem services of (sub)urban forests and a ho- listic social-ecological approach (Pirnat and Hla- dnik, 2018, 2019) Forty years is not much time compared to the age of a forest, but it represents a substantial period of time for the field of landscape ecology. Congratulations to landscape ecology for a successful 40 years. Now land- scape ecology is a mature and well adapted science, with roots well embedded in different disciplines. Just like a well-established tree. Or a forest. 4 SUMMARY 4 POVZETEK Krajinska ekologija sodi na področje krajinske zna- nosti kot tudi številnih drugih disciplin, kot so ohrani- tvena biologija, gozdarstvo, geografija, krajinska arhi- tektura in krajinsko načrtovanje. Številni avtorji so do sedaj že analizirali ključne raziskovalne teme krajinske ekologije, vključno s tistimi, ki se pojavljajo v reviji Landscape Ecology. S prostorskega vidika so pomemb- ne naslednje temeljne raziskovalne teme in koncepti v krajinski ekologiji, zlasti kar zadeva odnos med vzor- cem in procesom: povezljivost, razdrobljenost, merilo, sprememba rabe zemljišč, modeli zgodovine ekosiste- ma / krajine, modeli prostorske analize in trajnost. Do sedaj niso še v nobeni študiji analizirali, kako se krajinska ekologija ukvarja z gozdom in gozdarstvom, kljub dejstvu, da je gozd eden ključnih gradnikov tako naravnih kot kulturnih krajin, in da je bilo gozdarstvo organizirano na mednarodni ravni kot raziskovalna dejavnost že leta 1890, ko je bila ustanovljena IUFRO (International Union of Forestry Research Organizati- ons). Po drugi strani pa je IALE (International Associa- tion for Landscape Ecology) veliko mlajša organizacija, ki je bila ustanovljena leta 1982 v Bratislavi na podlagi ideje, predstavljene na kongresu krajinske ekologije leta 1981 v Veldhovnu na Nizozemskem. V naši raziskavi smo zato želeli ugotoviti, v kolikšni meri se te ključne raziskovalne teme s področja kra- jinske ekologije nanašajo na gozd in gozdarstvo. Da bi ugotovili, katere gozdarske teme so doslej obravnavali v reviji Landscape Ecology, smo analizirali ključne be- sede, povezane z gozdarstvom in gozdarstvom v obdo- bju 1987–2021, od nastanka revije do konca leta 2021, v 282 številkah te revije. Za večjo preglednost smo združili različne izvirne zapise ključnih besed (npr. clear cuts, clear-cutting, clearcut, clearcutting) in jih zamenjali z enovitim zapisom (npr. clearcut). Skupaj smo našli 736 ključnih besed, ki jih je mogoče povezati z gozdom in gozdarstvom. Te ključne besede smo raz- vrstili v pomenske skupine (preglednica 1). Čeprav so gozdovi med najbolj raziskanimi krajin- skimi tipi v reviji Landscape Ecology, odnos med vzor- ci in procesi kot ključna tema v krajinski ekologiji ni bil ustrezno obravnavan. Ob pregledu vseh ključnih besed smo se odločili, da se v drugem delu analize ne ukvarjamo več s ključnimi besedami, ki vsebujejo splo- šne, geografske in vegetacijske oznake, opustili smo tudi širok pojem »upravljanje«, saj niso neposredno vključene v odnos »vzorec-proces«. Analiza preostalih ključnih besed, ki so najbolj povezane s krajinsko eko- loškimi lastnostmi gozdov, kažejo, da so bile najbolj po- goste ključne besede: razdrobljenost, gozdovi, gozdne 4 Pirna t J .: F or estr y and the 40 th anni v ersar y o f IALE ptice, pogozditev in obnova, dinamika (preglednica 2). Mogoče je videti, da je ključna beseda razdrobljenost (fragmentacija) sicer dobro zastopana, druge ključne besede s področja delovanja gozdov (to je dinamika gozdov) pa so razmeroma redke. Gozdovi so pogosto le prostor ali okvir, v katerem raziskovalci preučujejo druge procese, ki so posledica (ne)posrednih človeških dejavnosti. Ti primeri vključu- jejo tudi ključne besede razdrobljenost, deforestacija. Zahtevnejši korak je preučevanje delovanja gozda, torej gozda kot samega ekosistema, sem sodijo ključne bese- de, kot so gozdna dinamika, povezljivost gozda, gozdna produktivnost in biogeokemija gozda. Zakaj so krajinski ekologi v dosedanjih objavah zanemarjali vprašanja de- lovanja gozdov? Eden izmed možnih odgovorov je lah- ko ta, da raziskovalci na področju gozdarstva niso bili posebej zainteresirani za odnos med krajinskimi vzorci in procesi, ali pa so objavili svoje raziskave v speciali- ziranih revijah na področju gozdarstva. Morda obstaja še en razlog, in sicer površnost pri izbiri ključnih besed. Avtorji morda niso bili dovolj natančni pri izbiri ključnih besed, povezanih z njihovimi raziskavami, še posebej v zadnjem času, ko je bilo bolj privlačno izbrati ključne besede, ki se nanašajo na metodologijo prej kot na eko- loške funkcije gozda. Danes so priznani kot bistveni trije koncepti krajin- ske ekologije: povezave med krajinskim vzorcem in biot- sko raznovrstnostjo; merjenje povezljivosti in tokovi po prostorsko heterogenih sistemih ter povezave med mo- tnjami, odpornostjo in okrevanjem. S pomočjo teh smer- nic predlagamo prednostno obravnavanje naslednjih raziskovalnih tem, ki povezujejo gozdarstvo in krajinsko ekologijo: storitve gozdnega ekosistema in blaginja, ur- bani gozdovi kot vir blažitve mestnih toplotnih otokov, gozdovi kot vir blaženja ekosistemskih bremen, večje ohranjene gozdne zaplate na primestnih območjih, post- glacialno širjenje gozdov, ekosistemske storitve (pri)me- stnih gozdov in celosten socialno-ekološki pristop. Štirideset let ni veliko v primerjavi s starostjo gozda, je pa precejšnje časovno obdobje za področje krajinske ekologije. Zato čestitamo krajinski ekologiji za uspešnih prvih 40 let. Kljub nekaterim omejitvam in dosedanjim pomanjkljivostim je krajinska ekologija zrela in dobro prilagojena znanost s koreninami, dobro vgrajenimi v različne discipline. Tako kot dobro uveljavljeno drevo. Ali gozd. REFERENCES VIRI Andersen B.J. 2008. Research in the journal Landscape Ecology, 1987–2005. Landscape Ecology, 23, 2: 129-134. Antrop M. 2001. The language of landscape ecologists and planners a comparative content analysis of concepts used in landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning, 55, 3: 163-173. DOI 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00151-7 Farina A. 2010. Ecology, cognition and landscape. (Landscape Se- ries). Münich, Springer: 169 str. Forman R. 1995. Some general principles of landscape and region- al ecology. Landscape Ecology, 10, 3:133-142. DOI 10.1007/ BF00133027 Frazier A.E., Bryan B.A., Buyantuev A., Chen L., Echeverria C., Jia P ., Liu L., Li Q., Ouyang Z., Wu J., Xiang W., Yang J., Yang L., Zhao S. 2019. Ecological civilization: perspectives from landscape ecol- ogy and landscape sustainability science. Landscape Ecology, 34, 1: 1-8. DOI 10.1007/s10980-019-00772-4 Helfenstein J., Bauer L., Clalüna A., Bolliger J., Kienast F. 2014. Land- Land- scape ecology meets landscape science. Landscape Ecology, 29, 7: 1109-1113. DOI 10.1007/s10980-014-0055-6 Hladnik D., Pirnat J. 2011. Urban forestry - linking naturalness and amenity = the case of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Urban Forestry & Ur- ban Greening, 10, 2: 105-112. DOI 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.02.002 Hladnik D., Kobler A., Pirnat J. 2020. Evaluation of forest edge struc- ture and stability in peri-urban forests. Forests, 11, 3, 338: 19 str. DOI 10.3390/f11030338 Hobbs R. 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape eco- logy. Landscape & Urban Planning, 37, 1-2: 1-9. DOI 10.1016/ S0169-2046(96)00364-7 Kienast F., Walters G., Bürgi M. 2021. Landscape ecology reaching out. Landscape Ecology, 36, 8: 2189-2198. DOI 10.1007/ s10980-021-01301-y Magri D., Vendramin G. G., Comps B., Dupanloup I., Geburek T ., Gömö- ry D., Latałowa M., Litt T ., Paule L., Roure J. M., Tantau I., Van Der Knaap W.O., Rémy J., De Beaulieu J. L. 2006. A new scenario for the Quaternary history of European beech populations: palaeo- botanical evidence and genetic consequences. New phytologist, 171, 1: 199-221. DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01740.x McIntyre N.E., Iverson L.R., Turner M.G. 2013. A 27-year perspective on landscape ecology from the US-IALE annual meeting. Landsca- pe Ecology, 28, 10: 1845-1848. DOI 10.1007/s10980-013-9944-3 Nagel T .A., Svoboda M., Kobal M. 2014. Disturbance, life history tra- its, and dynamics in an old-growth forest landscape of southe- astern Europe. Ecological Applications, 24, 4: 663-679. DOI 10.1890/13-0632.1 Nagel T .A., Firm D., Roženbergar D., Kobal M. 2016. Patterns and dri- vers of ice storm damage in temperate forests of Central Euro- pe. European Journal for Forest Research, 135, 3: 519-530. DOI 10.1007/s10342-016-0950-2 Nastran M., Kobal M., Eler K. 2019. Urban heat islands in relation to green land use in European cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Gree- ning, 37: 33-41. DOI 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.01.008 Pirnat J., Hladnik D. 2016. Connectivity as a tool in the prioritization and protection of sub-urban forest patches in landscape conser- vation planning. Landscape & Urban Planning, 153: 129-139. DOI 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.013 Pirnat J., Hladnik D. 2018. The concept of landscape structure, forest continuum and connectivity as a support in urban forest mana- gement and landscape planning. Forests, 9, 10, 584: 14 str. DOI 10.3390/f9100584 Pirnat J., Hladnik D. 2019. A tale of two cities - from separation to common green connectivity for maintaining of biodiversity and well-being. Land Use Policy, 84: 252-259. DOI 10.1016/j.landu- sepol.2019.03.011 Risser P .G., Iverson L.R. 2013. 30 Years later-landscape ecology: di- rections and approaches. Landscape Ecology, 28, 3: 367-369. DOI 10.1007/s10980-013-9856-2 Wiens J. 1992. What is landscape ecology, really? Landscape Ecology, 7, 3: 149-150. DOI 10.1007/BF00133306 Acta Sil va e et Ligni 128 (2022), 1–5 5 Wu J. 2006. Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustain- ability science. Landscape Ecology, 21, 1: 1–4. DOI 10.1007/ BF00133306 Wu J. 2013. Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30 years after the Allerton Park workshop. Landscape Ecology, 28, 1: 1-11. DOI 10.1007/s10980-012-9836-y Wu J. 2017. Thirty years of Landscape Ecology (1987-2017): retro- spects and prospects. Landscape Ecology 32, 12: 2225-2239. DOI 10.1007/s10980-017-0594-8 Wu J., Hobbs R. 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landsca- pe ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology, 17, 4: 355-365. DOI 10.1023/A:1020561630963 Žabota B., Kobal M. 2020. A new methodology for mapping past rockfall events: from mobile crowdsourcing to rockfall simulati- on validation. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9, 9, 514: 21 str. DOI 10.3390/ijgi9090514 Žabota B., Kobal M. 2021. Accuracy assessment of UAV-photogram- metric-derived products using PPK and GCPs in challenging ter- rains: in search of optimized rockfall mapping. Remote Sensing, 13, 3812: 31 str. DOI 10.3390/rs13193812