Managing Boreal Birch Forests for Climate Change Mitigation

Abstract

Boreal birch forests, dominated by Betula pendula and Betula pubescens, are significant components of Northern European and North American landscapes. These forests play a vital role in climate change mitigation by sequestering carbon and enhancing ecosystem resilience. This study aims to evaluate global scientific research trends concerning the management of boreal birch forests, with an emphasis on climate adaptation. We conducted a two-phase study: first, a bibliometric analysis of 287 peer-reviewed publications from 1978 to 2024 sourced from the Web of Science and Scopus databases; and second, a qualitative literature review based on refined selection criteria guided by the PRISMA framework. The analysis revealed that most research originates from Finland, Canada, Sweden, and the USA. Our findings were categorized into four thematic areas: management issues, abiotic and biotic drivers of forest dynamics, climate adaptation strategies, and current management practices. Furthermore, the results indicate an increasing research focus on climate-smart silviculture, biodiversity-oriented thinning, and mixed-species forestry. The review highlights significant management challenges and identifies knowledge gaps, particularly in genetic diversity, soil biota, and socio-economic dimensions. We conclude that adaptive, multifunctional management of boreal birch forests is essential for sustaining their ecological and economic roles in a changing climate.

1. Introduction

Management of boreal forests for climate change mitigation involves enhancing their capacity to absorb and store carbon while also making them more resilient to climate change impacts. In Northern Europe, birch (Betula pendula Roth, Betula pubescens Ehrh.) forests are a significant component of the landscape. Birch is a prominent tree species in the region, forming significant parts of the forest area and adjacent lands. Birch forests contribute to biodiversity and play a marked role in the broader mixed forest ecosystem [1,2,3,4,5]. The boreal forests cover about 30% of the global forest area [6], while the birch (Betula spp.) is the most common broadleaved species in Fennoscandia and the Baltic Region [1,6,7]. Birch resources are important in Western Europe too, reaching 0.5% to 15% of all hardwood standing volume, depending on the country, and its expansion is thriving in some regions [4,8]. Birch species (Betula spp.) are commonly associated with mixed forest ecosystems, frequently co-occurring with a variety of coniferous taxa, including spruce (Picea spp.) [9,10], pine (Pinus spp.) [11,12], and fir (Abies spp.) [13]. These assemblages reflect complex ecological interactions and successional dynamics characteristic of temperate and boreal forest systems and adjacent lands.

Northern forest ecosystems are increasingly exposed to rapid climate change, including rising temperatures, extended growing seasons, elevated atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and shifts in precipitation patterns and water availability [14,15,16,17]. Boreal birch forests, which are widely distributed across northern regions, play a critical role in regional biodiversity, carbon storage, and local livelihoods. Despite their ecological and economic importance, these forests face multiple challenges, including uneven age structures, susceptibility to pests and diseases, and vulnerability to extreme climatic events. Sustainable management practices are therefore essential to maintain ecosystem functionality and resilience. Such practices aim to emulate natural disturbance regimes, preserve landscape heterogeneity, and promote natural regeneration, while also mitigating climate change impacts through enhanced carbon sequestration. In addition, optimized timber harvesting, responsible resource utilization, and the potential use of birch biomass for renewable energy can contribute to both economic and environmental goals. Integrating these strategies enhances forest health, biodiversity, and the adaptive capacity of birch-dominated landscapes under changing climatic conditions [18,19,20,21].

Numerous review articles in the field of forests at the landscape level have been published so far [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29], with some specifically focused on boreal forests [30,31,32]. The present study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how boreal birch forests can be managed to support climate change mitigation. Specifically, it seeks to analyze global research trends on birch forest management through bibliometric and literature review approaches, identify the key abiotic and biotic drivers influencing forest dynamics, evaluate current silvicultural practices for their effectiveness in sustaining productivity, biodiversity, and resilience, and examine how climate change considerations are incorporated into management frameworks, while highlighting critical research gaps and proposing future directions to enhance the role of birch forests in carbon sequestration and climate adaptation.

2. Materials and Methods

In the domain of information science, a growing emphasis has been placed on the use of quantitative methods to assess library resources and services with increased objectivity and efficiency. Among these methodologies, bibliometrics has emerged as a pivotal analytical tool. Bibliometric techniques facilitate the examination of scholarly communication by quantifying patterns in authorship, publication output, and citation behaviors across specific subjects over time. Such analyses provide valuable insights into the evolution, structure, and impact of research domains. The significance of bibliometrics has expanded considerably in recent years due to its wide-ranging applications in library management, collection development, and research evaluation. According to Mathankar [22] approximately 25% of the global literature sources in library and information science focuses on bibliometric studies, underlining its prominence within the field. Evaluating the impact and scholarly value of research remains a complex endeavor; however, bibliometric indicators—such as citation analysis, journal impact factors, and journal rankings—have become standard tools for this purpose. Citation analysis involves the systematic tracking of citation frequency and distribution, offering a proxy measure of research influence. These metrics are increasingly utilized not only by researchers but also by funding bodies and academic institutions. Major citation databases, including the Web of Science (formerly managed by the Institute for Scientific Information, now part of Clarivate Analytics), Scopus, and others, systematically compile and disseminate these indicators to support scholarly assessment [23].

Our study was conducted in two main phases. The first phase involved a bibliometric analysis aimed at assessing global scientific research trends related to the management of birch forests over the period 1978–2024. Bibliometric analysis was selected because it offers a quantitative and systematic approach to evaluate research output, collaboration patterns, and knowledge structure across a defined scientific field. By identifying trends, thematic clusters, and influential publications, bibliometrics allows researchers to obtain a comprehensive overview of the evolution and current state of research. This method is particularly suitable for our study, as the field of Boreal birch forest management is interdisciplinary, encompassing forestry, ecology, climate science, and policy, and requires an integrative perspective to inform evidence-based management practices.

To identify the relevant literature, we utilized two of the most widely recognized scientific databases: the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) within the Web of Science (WoS) and the Scopus database. These databases were chosen for their extensive coverage of the peer-reviewed literature, rigorous selection criteria, and robust citation tracking capabilities, which are essential for bibliometric studies. WoS employs the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), introduced by Garfield [33], as a metric to assess journal influence, whereas Scopus uses the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), developed by González-Pereira et al. [34]. The use of multiple databases increases the comprehensiveness of the literature retrieval and reduces potential bias caused by database-specific coverage.

We used the search phrase “management of Boreal birch forests” as our primary query term to retrieve publications directly relevant to the topic. Following data retrieval, we applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework to refine and filter the literature [35]. Figure 1 illustrates the complete selection workflow. In total, 490 articles were retrieved—206 from Scopus and 284 from WoS. After removing 117 duplicate records, 373 unique articles remained for screening. Screening was conducted in multiple steps: initially based on titles and abstracts, applying the inclusion criteria of English-language publications addressing the selected topic. Non-English articles, previous literature reviews, non-peer-reviewed sources, unpublished materials, and letters to editors were excluded. At this stage, 11 records were manually excluded, leaving 362 articles for retrieval. Seven articles could not be retrieved, resulting in 355 articles assessed for eligibility. Full-text screening led to the exclusion of 68 additional records (4 lacking abstracts and 64 thematically irrelevant), leaving a final dataset of 287 eligible articles. To ensure accuracy and reproducibility, all screening steps were conducted independently by two researchers, with disagreements resolved through discussion and consensus or consultation with a third researcher. Counts were cross-verified against database export logs at each PRISMA stage.

Our bibliometric analysis focused on six dimensions: (1) publication types, (2) research areas, (3) publication years, (4) countries, (5) journals, and (6) keywords. These dimensions were selected to capture both the quantitative trends (e.g., volume of publications and geographical distribution) and qualitative aspects (e.g., research themes and collaboration networks) of Boreal birch forest research. Data processing and visualization were conducted using a combination of tools: Web of Science Core Collection (version 5.35, Clarivate, London, UK) [36], Scopus, Microsoft Excel (version 2024) [37], and Geochart for geographical mapping [38]. VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) was employed to generate bibliometric maps and visualize clusters of co-authorship, co-citation, and keyword relationships [39]. This allowed us to identify influential authors, institutions, and research hotspots, as well as emerging trends and gaps in the literature.

In the second phase of our study, we conducted a qualitative literature review of the 364 articles deemed most relevant after additional refinement. This in-depth review allowed us to categorize findings into four major thematic areas: (1) main management issues identified in Boreal birch forests, (2) abiotic and biotic drivers shaping forest dynamics and their implications for management, (3) incorporation of climate change impacts into forest management planning, and (4) current management practices for Boreal birch forests. Figure 2 presents the overall methodology applied in this study.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. A Bibliometric Review

We have inventoried 287 publications on this topic. Most of them are articles (261 articles, namely 91% of the total publications), followed by 16 proceedings papers (5%), eight reviews (3%), and two book chapters (1%).

Amongst the 58 research areas in which we can frame the published articles, the most important ones are: Forestry (164 articles), Environmental sciences Ecology (94 articles), Biodiversity conservation (17 articles), and Remote sensing (15 articles).

From the yearly distribution of published articles (Figure 3), a continuous increase in their number can be observed, with a peak in 2023; however, fluctuations of this number were observed in some years.

Researchers from 33 countries on five continents have contributed to articles on this topic. The most represented countries are Canada (93 articles), Finland (84 articles), USA (40 articles), Sweden (39 articles) and Norway (20 articles), (Figure 4).

Countries can be grouped into seven clusters, from which four contain five countries. The first one includes: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and the USA; the second includes: Canada, Chile, Switzerland, and Bangladesh; the third includes: England, France, Italy, and Scotland; the fourth includes: Austria, Denmark, Finland, and Portugal (Figure 5).

Articles on this topic have been published in 103 journals, with the most contributions coming from Forest Ecology and Management (62 articles), Canadian Journal of Forest Research (17 articles), and Forests (15 articles). However, if total link strength is considered, the top three are: Forest Ecology and Management; Canadian Journal of Forest Research; and the European Journal of Forest Research.

In the published articles, the most frequently used keywords are: boreal forest, management, growth, dynamics and forest management. Keywords can be grouped into many clusters, three of them having at least 10 keywords: the first includes: birch, boreal forests, climate change, competition. Decomposition, ecosystem, growth, model, Norway spruce, Picea abies, productivity, Scots pine, silver birch and stands; the second includes: balsam fir, black spruce, boreal, forests, patterns, regeneration dynamics, response, white spruce and yellow birch; the third includes: biodiversity, coarse woody debris, coleoptera, conservation, dead wood, diversity, forest management, management, saproxylic beetles and spruce.

The evolution of keyword usage over time is as follows: during 2011–2013, terms such as disturbance, coarse woody debris, white spruce and balsam fire were prevalent; in 2014–2015, the focus shifted to boreal forests, management, dynamics and growth; while in 2016–2019, keywords like biodiversity, regeneration, biodiversity and climate change became dominant (Figure 6).

As with other bibliometric studies [40,41,42,43], articles represent approximately 90% of total publications, although proceedings papers and reviews are also well represented. The sustained growth in the number of published articles is normal and in line with other studies [42,43], and can be attributed to the increasing number of authors and scientific journals. The countries with the highest number of articles are those in Northern Europe and North America—regions with well-represented boreal birch forests: Canada, Sweden, Finland, and Norway. However, countries at lower latitudes are also represented: all of Central Europe, China, and Argentina. The journals where these articles have been published largely belong to this geographical area: Canadian Journal of Forest Research, Silva Fennica, and Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. While the most commonly used keywords are boreal forest, management, growth, dynamics, and forest management, in recent years there has been an increase in keywords reflecting current scientific concerns, such as biodiversity and climate change. The higher number of citations for keywords like Norway spruce and Scots pine compared to birch is due to the greater number of articles studying the first two species, often in mixed stands that include birch, resulting in a higher share of citations for those species.

3.2. Key Findings from the Literature on Birch Boreal Forest Management

3.2.1. Management Challenges in Boreal Birch Forests

A comprehensive review of the literature revealed a wide range of management challenges in boreal birch forests across diverse geographic regions (Table 1). These challenges span ecological, operational, and silvicultural domains, and are compounded by the ongoing impacts of climate change. Dominant themes include competition in mixedwood stands, the effects of clear-cutting and partial disturbances, regeneration issues, structural vulnerabilities such as windthrow and mortality, and carbon stock dynamics under changing thinning regimes.

Studies from Canada, Finland, Sweden, and Latvia dominate the literature, with growing contributions from China and the USA. The issues are often interlinked, pointing to the need for integrated forest management strategies tailored to local stand conditions and socio-ecological goals.

Mixedwood competition and structural complexity

A recurring challenge is managing birch in mixed-species stands. Research from Canadian and North-European contexts emphasizes the complexity of interactions between birch and conifer species such as white spruce and Norway spruce [44,50]. These competitive dynamics influence regeneration, growth, and long-term stand structure. Intertree competition and canopy dynamics [45] complicate management decisions, particularly in light- and nutrient-limited environments. For instance, in Québec and Western Norway, birch regeneration is constrained by both overstory dominance and ground-level competition, emphasizing the need for refined silvicultural techniques that foster structural diversity while maintaining productivity.

Harvesting practices and ecological trade-offs

The application of clear-cutting and related methods continues to pose ecological challenges. Clear-cutting in late-successional or mixed stands [46,47] often reduces biodiversity and disrupts forest continuity. Insufficient retention of deadwood in these areas [48,61,68] negatively impacts habitat quality for saproxylic insects and wood-dependent species (a total of 854 saproxylic insects belonging to 53 genera were captured over the three months of sampling). These concerns are evident in studies from Canada and Finland, where researchers highlight the loss of habitat structure and its implications for forest resilience. The outcomes demonstrate that harvesting practices must move beyond timber yield to consider biodiversity conservation and ecological integrity.

Tree mortality, windthrow, and vulnerability

Structural vulnerability is another prominent concern, especially in unmanaged or aging birch stands. Mortality rates, often linked to stand density and external disturbances, have been reported by Hallinger et al. [74] (the cumulativ mortality averaged over all clercut ages was 16% for birch) and Aldea et al. [73]. In Latvian birch forests, windthrow is a repeated issue [64,80], exacerbated by poor soil-root stability and storm exposure [79]. These findings call for improved stand design and silvicultural interventions that mitigate physical damage risks, such as mixed-species planting and adaptive thinning.

Deadwood management and biodiversity

Deadwood availability plays a pivotal role in maintaining biodiversity, particularly for decomposer organisms and saproxylic insects [48,60]. Research from Sweden and Canada emphasizes that the quantity, quality, and timing of deadwood creation—especially through harvests—are critical factors. Seasonal harvesting can influence colonization dynamics [48], underscoring the need to integrate deadwood management into routine silvicultural planning as a proactive strategy rather than a residual outcome.

Regeneration and site-specific challenges

Regenerating birch naturally presents mixed results. While natural regeneration can be successful under certain conditions [62], it is frequently hindered by competition, herbivory, and inadequate site preparation. For example, Baleshta et al. [53] argue for density management to promote birch vigor, proposing thinning paper birch to 4444 stems ha⁻¹ in young mixed stands, and Dumins et al. [78] demonstrate how soil preparation and stock type affect root development and growth. These studies point toward the necessity of tailoring regeneration strategies to local edaphic and compositional conditions, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach.

Planning complexity and management trade-offs

Operational challenges in forest planning are widespread, particularly in balancing timber production with ecological objectives. Studies from Finland and Sweden underscore the complexity of modeling volume growth, selecting silvicultural treatments, and evaluating spatial structure [57,64,76]. These complexities create trade-offs between carbon sequestration, biodiversity goals, and economic returns. The dominance of short-term financial priorities often constrains the adoption of long-term, ecologically sustainable strategies.

Technological advances and monitoring tools

An encouraging trend across several studies is the growing use of remote sensing technologies—such as LiDAR and hyperspectral imaging—for monitoring forest structure, composition, and growth. These tools are enhancing precision in silvicultural planning and facilitating more informed decision-making. Such innovations, however, must be integrated into broader management systems that account for ecological variability and site-specific contexts.

3.2.2. Abiotic and Biotic Drivers Shaping Birch Boreal Forest Dynamics and Their Implications for Management

Silver birch (Betula pendula Roth), a fast-growing, pioneer deciduous species, plays an ecologically and economically important role in Boreal forests due to its adaptability, genetic diversity, and responsiveness to environmental conditions. Our findings demonstrate that both abiotic and biotic factors significantly influence birch growth dynamics, with direct implications for adaptive forest management and climate change mitigation.

Water availability and climatic stress:

Canopy height increment in B. pendula was primarily influenced by tree size, competitive pressure, neighboring species, and water availability [60]. Water-related constraints emerged as a central climatic driver across much of the birch range. Summer water deficits significantly limited growth, especially in rear-edge populations, where local hydrological conditions were critical [84]. These populations have exhibited declining growth trends since the early 2000s, corresponding with rising aridity. Birch stands in southern and warmer European regions proved particularly sensitive to drought stress, a vulnerability further exacerbated by anthropogenic land use practices that restrict water inflow. These observations underline the need for localized water management strategies to conserve rear-edge birch populations and support their long-term viability [85,86].

Climatic water stress is pushing birch beyond its physiological thresholds in drier parts of its range. This highlights the urgent need for forest managers to integrate water conservation, landscape hydrological planning, and coordinated land-use strategies that mitigate drought stress intensified by human activity [87].

Wind disturbance and tree stability:

Wind disturbance, another critical abiotic driver, presents increasing risks under intensifying cyclonic activity. Birch, along with willows and Norway spruce, contributes to land and soil stabilization in harsh northern climates [88,89]. Quantitative assessments such as static tree-pulling tests have proven effective in evaluating wind resistance, with the dimensions of soil–root plates serving as reliable indicators of tree stability. Comparative studies between naturally windthrown and artificially overturned birch trees in the Eastern Baltic region confirmed the utility of this method for assessing adaptive management interventions [79]. Incorporating biomechanical considerations into forest planning can help enhance tree stability, especially in storm-prone regions.

Soil moisture and site conditions:

A study in Lithuania revealed that B. pendula performed better in more humid environments, whereas Betula pubescens (downy birch) thrived in drier conditions. Dominant and codominant trees showed lower defoliation levels, regardless of moisture regime. In younger stands (up to 50 years), B. pendula exhibited larger stem diameters in humid areas, while B. pubescens showed better growth in normally moist or temporarily flooded conditions compared to constantly wet peat soils [89]. These findings indicate that forest site moisture significantly influences birch growth and suggest the need for species-specific management strategies based on local hydrology.

Herbivory and seedling establishment:

Biotic interactions, particularly herbivory, play a major role in birch establishment and distribution. In the Norwegian treeline ecotone, livestock herbivory markedly reduced birch seedling occurrence, survival, and height growth. Although winter precipitation, topographic features (e.g., lee-side shelter), and proximity to existing trees supported seedling establishment, grazing remained the dominant limiting factor [90,91]. To facilitate upward treeline shifts under climate warming, forest management should consider implementing grazing exclusion zones or controlling livestock densities in sensitive ecotones.

Insect threats and post-logging considerations:

European birch species have shown extreme susceptibility to the Bronze Birch Borer (Agrilus anxius), an American insect currently under quarantine monitoring in Europe [92]. Post-logging dynamics also play a key role in pest management and biodiversity conservation. Research in balsam fir–white birch stands showed that paper birch logs are less likely to be colonized by xylophagous insects. Therefore, prompt conifer log removal during the high-risk period (mid-July to mid-September) is recommended to protect commercially valuable wood [48]. In contrast, retaining dead birch trunks in clear-cut areas supports saproxylic beetles, including specialist species adapted to sunlit conditions. Structural retention strategies that mimic natural disturbance regimes can promote insect biodiversity in managed forests [61].

Competition and species interactions:

Competition with other species, particularly conifers, significantly affects birch performance. In British Columbia’s sub-boreal mixedwoods, competition dynamics between birch and spruce were modulated by slope aspect. On north-facing slopes, spruce growth was negatively impacted by birch density, with competition effects being strongest during peak growth periods. However, such interactions were largely absent on south-facing slopes, suggesting that environmental gradients mediate species competition [66]. These results indicate that uniform management prescriptions are inadequate; instead, site-specific strategies that account for local conditions are crucial for optimizing forest productivity.

Silvicultural practices and mixed stands:

Current silvicultural policies in regions like British Columbia often emphasize conifer regeneration, typically through broad vegetation control. However, our findings suggest that strategic retention of birch—especially at variable densities—can enhance spruce growth while also supporting mixed-species stands that benefit productivity and biodiversity [44]. This calls for a paradigm shift from uniform to precision vegetation management, balancing economic objectives with ecological resilience [93,94].

3.2.3. Incorporating Climate Change Impacts into Birch Boreal Forest Management Planning

The need for climate-informed management frameworks

Integrating climate change impacts into strategic boreal forest management planning is essential for sustaining long-term forest productivity and resource availability. Despite growing recognition of the issue, there is still no unified scientific consensus on the optimal methodologies for incorporating climate variables into high-level planning frameworks. Under scenarios of high climate forcing, merchantable wood volume is projected to decline by up to 50%, underscoring the risks of resource shortages and economic vulnerability. Embedding climate uncertainty into management frameworks can reduce the likelihood of overharvesting and unsustainable exploitation. This study contributes to a growing body of literature by offering practical approaches for incorporating climate considerations into forest planning models [95].

Drought vulnerability and adaptive silviculture in Sweden

The evidence highlights a dual reality: while climate change poses significant threats to boreal birch forests, it also presents opportunities for enhancing productivity—provided that adaptive and regionally tailored management strategies are implemented. In Sweden, research has revealed that climate-induced increases in drought frequency and severity are expected to elevate tree mortality rates. Vulnerability to drought is influenced by tree-, stand-, and site-level variables, with warmer annual temperatures likely to increase drought stress in northern and central Sweden. Adaptive silvicultural strategies—such as promoting mixed-species stands and applying thinning to reduce competition—have shown promise for mitigating these impacts [72,96].

Climate-driven productivity changes in Finland

In Finland, simulation studies indicate that climate change will have a varied impact on forest productivity. Birch, while expected to face competition from Scots pine in some areas, may also benefit from improved growing conditions in others. Nationally, overall forest growth could increase by 44%, with a corresponding 82% rise in potential harvest levels. However, these benefits are conditional upon strategic decisions, including the selection of climate-resilient species and the adjustment of rotation lengths [97]. Additional Finnish simulations demonstrate that birch shows smaller growth responses to climate change compared to conifers, with projected growth increases of up to 20% in southern regions and 33% in the north—suggesting a modest but positive yield impact, assuming appropriate management adjustments are made [98].

Modeling thinning regimes and economic implications in Finland

Further modeling from Finland concluded that thinning regimes characterized by high stocking and longer rotations yielded the greatest improvements in timber yield and saw log proportion. Growth increases driven by warming temperatures, increased precipitation, and elevated CO₂ levels led to a 22–26% rise in overall growth and a 12–13% improvement in timber yield. These productivity gains were supported by economic analyses based on net present value, reinforcing the need to adapt management practices to capitalize on climate-driven opportunities (the gradual increase in temperature and precipitation with a concurrent elevation in CO2 over the simulation period enhanced the growth by an average of 22–26% depending on the climate scenario, resulting in an increase of 12–13% in timber yield) [50].

Carbon storage and management strategies in Quebec

In Quebec, long-term modeling over a 300-year horizon (2010–2310) across three boreal forest management units evaluated biomass carbon storage under multiple climate and management scenarios. Scenarios favoring partial cuts across 50–75% of managed areas outperformed business-as-usual clear-cutting strategies (applied to over 95% of the area), better maintaining carbon storage and retaining coniferous cover. These findings suggest that partial-cut systems can help stabilize biomass carbon and secure wood supply in the face of climate change, though they would necessitate enhanced infrastructure and access [69]. This supports a broader paradigm in forest management that prioritizes ecological functionality and long-term resilience over short-term yield maximization.

Climate uncertainty and adaptive management in the Acadian forest

In the Acadian forest region—an ecotone between boreal and temperate zones—climate change introduces significant uncertainty. Shifts in stand demographics due to temperature and precipitation variability, combined with more frequent disturbances such as wildfire, pests, and windthrow, threaten to disrupt timber supply (fires influence the mean annual disturbance rate between 0.17% and 0.4%·year⁻¹, and hurricane damage between 0.14–0.08%·year⁻¹). Because responses vary across forest stands, managers must be prepared for both gains and losses in productivity. In this context, landscape-scale planning and adaptive monitoring are indispensable tools for anticipating and responding to dynamic conditions [99,100,101,102,103].

Synthesis: Toward flexible, climate-informed strategies

Collectively, these case studies underline the need for a shift in forest management planning—from static, historically grounded approaches to flexible, climate-informed strategies. Effective adaptations include modifying thinning intensity and frequency, adjusting rotation lengths, and encouraging species mixtures that enhance ecological resilience. They also point to the need for sustained investment in infrastructure, research, and monitoring to support the implementation of these adaptive practices.

In summary, while climate change presents considerable challenges for boreal birch forests—particularly in terms of drought vulnerability, competition, and disturbance regimes—it also opens avenues for improved management and enhanced productivity. Success depends on proactive planning and the integration of climate risks and opportunities into all levels of forest decision-making. Incorporating these considerations is no longer optional; it is a critical necessity for ensuring the long-term ecological and economic sustainability of boreal forest ecosystems in an era of rapid environmental change.

3.2.4. Current Management Practices for Birch Boreal Forests

Ecological and commercial importance of birch

The management of birch-dominated boreal forests reflects a dynamic interplay of ecological, economic, and silvicultural considerations, with substantial regional variation. Two birch species of significant commercial and ecological importance—silver birch (Betula pendula Roth) and downy birch (Betula pubescens Ehrh.)—occur naturally across a wide Eurasian range. They are especially prevalent in the temperate and boreal forests of Northern Europe, where birch comprises between 11% and 28% of the total forest growing stock. Birch is the most commercially significant broadleaved species in this region due to its adaptability, ecological role, and prevalence in mixed and pure stands. These early-successional, light-demanding species typically develop straight, slender stems in competitive forest settings [5].

Birch’s role in Northern European forestry

In Northern Europe, birch’s role is critical, but it is often overshadowed by conifers such as spruce and pine, which are favored for their higher economic returns [5,104]. Despite this bias, growing evidence highlights birch’s potential to enhance biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and ecosystem resilience, particularly under climate change scenarios [54,83,88]. Simulations in Finland, for example, show that increased birch planting—especially in southern regions—results in higher forest volume growth, timber yield, and carbon stock compared to current baseline management. Favoring birch and Scots pine over Norway spruce may thus represent a viable climate adaptation strategy in the south, while all three species remain suitable for northern regions [64].

Benefits of mixed-species management systems

Mixed-species management systems that integrate birch can deliver ecological benefits over monocultures. Birch-containing mixtures are associated with enhanced biodiversity, improved water quality, esthetic and recreational values, and reduced vulnerability to pests and pathogens [105,106,107]. In boreal mixed stands, early competitive dynamics show that planted spruce can match or surpass the growth of naturally regenerated birch, especially when given a two-year head start. This allows for sustained spruce-birch mixtures, particularly if birch is retained during early juvenile management [71,78]. Strategic planting and thinning interventions can balance early competition and long-term stand development [62,82].

Regional contrasts in birch integration

However, the integration of birch remains controversial in some regions. In North America, paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) is often treated as a weed species and removed—chemically or mechanically—from Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca) plantations to maximize conifer productivity. Yet, this removal can increase susceptibility to diseases such as Armillaria root rot, and the broader implications for forest health and biodiversity remain poorly understood [53].

Silvicultural practices supporting birch regeneration

Silvicultural practices that mimic natural disturbances—including retention forestry, uneven-aged management, partial harvesting, and prescribed burning—have demonstrated success in promoting birch regeneration and maintaining structural diversity in Scandinavia and Eastern Canada [47,62,68]. These approaches are more aligned with the gap dynamics typical of old-growth forests. For instance, partial harvesting in eastern Canada helps preserve the structural and compositional attributes of old-growth boreal mixedwoods, while enhancing regeneration and residual stem growth [68].

Challenges from browsing, burning, and undervaluation

Nevertheless, challenges persist. In spruce-dominated stands in south-central Finland, uneven-aged management has led to increased browsing damage on birch and other deciduous species. Lower basal area after harvest appears to heighten this pressure [108]. Similarly, while prescribed burning and retention practices benefit species like birch and rowan, browsing impacts remain significant and age-dependent [62]. In Sweden, although climate change is projected to increase overall forest growth, economic models sometimes undervalue birch compared to other species, potentially limiting its future use despite its ecological advantages [104].

Soil biodiversity and ecosystem consequences of spruce replacement

In Western Norway, economic motives have driven the replacement of native birch forests with spruce monocultures, causing shifts in belowground eukaryotic communities—including fungi, protists, and soil microfauna—thus altering soil biodiversity and broader ecosystem functions [106,108]. These unintended consequences emphasize the need to integrate soil ecological dynamics into forest management planning.

Post-disturbance regeneration and fire-prone landscapes

Post-disturbance regeneration and site-specific management are crucial for birch in fire-prone regions. In Alaska, birch regeneration after fire is highly dependent on seed source proximity, topography, and pre-fire vegetation, which should guide salvage logging and replanting efforts [86]. Similarly, in warm-dry boreal forests, clearcutting can cause successional setbacks that lock landscapes into early-successional stages, potentially impacting sustainability and long-term productivity [46].

Retention forestry and mortality concerns

The practice of green tree retention, aimed at maintaining biodiversity post-clearcutting, is often undermined by high mortality rates. For birch, average mortality is about 16%, influenced by wind exposure, tree volume, and grouping. Management strategies should prioritize retaining trees in clusters near forest edges with reduced wind exposure to lower mortality [74].

Peatland drainage and site-specific dynamics

Peatland drainage remains common in boreal birch management. In downy birch stands, root morphology is significantly influenced by distance to drainage ditches, peat depth, and temperature, underscoring the need to re-evaluate these practices under climate change conditions [109].

Historical legacies in Latvia and Lithuania

In regions such as Latvia and Lithuania, historical industrial forestry has shaped current forest composition. Early 20th-century silviculture emphasizing natural regeneration often resulted in birch succession in harvested spruce stands, contributing to today’s large expanses of mature birch-dominated forests [110]. Wind is also a significant disturbance factor in Latvia, where birch susceptibility increases with stand age, basal area, and slenderness. Trees with previous mechanical damage are especially vulnerable. Management practices aimed at reducing competition and maintaining structural integrity can help mitigate wind damage [80].

Genetic diversity as a foundation for resilience

A critical but under-addressed issue is genetic diversity. Forest practices that do not account for genetic variation have led to genetic erosion and even local extinction in parts of the boreal zone. Maintaining adaptive genetic variation is essential for long-term forest resilience, particularly under accelerating climate pressures [111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118].

Species-specific traits of B. pendula and B. pubescens

Boreal birch forests are dominated primarily by two species—silver birch (Betula pendula Roth) and downy birch (Betula pubescens Ehrh.)—which, while often co-occurring, differ markedly in ecological preferences, growth dynamics, and responses to management. B. pendula is a fast-growing, light-demanding pioneer that performs best in more humid environments, showing larger stem diameters in such sites, whereas B. pubescens is better adapted to normally moist or temporarily flooded conditions and can tolerate poorer, wetter soils [90]. These differences have direct implications for climate adaptation strategies and silvicultural planning. For instance, in Finland, simulations suggest that increased planting of B. pendula in southern regions can enhance forest volume growth and carbon stocks [64], while B. pubescens may be more suitable for lowland peatlands or drainage-affected sites [109]. Recognizing these species-specific traits is essential for optimizing mixed-species management systems, especially under climate change scenarios where drought tolerance, wind resistance, and competitive dynamics with conifers such as Picea abies vary between the two [44,79,85]. Thus, while our review addresses birch broadly as Betula spp., the ecological and management distinctions between B. pendula and B. pubescens warrant explicit consideration in both research and practice.

Contrasts between plantation and natural birch management

Boreal birch management encompasses both plantation forestry and the stewardship of natural or semi-natural stands, including mixed-species forests. Plantation-based birch forestry, often aimed at producing veneer, pulpwood, or bioenergy, typically involves intensive site preparation, genetically improved planting stock, even-aged structure, and scheduled thinning to optimize stem form and yield [5,104]. In contrast, natural or semi-natural stands, especially in mixedwood settings, are frequently managed using close-to-nature approaches such as partial harvesting, retention forestry, and regeneration through natural seeding [47,62,68]. These systems generally prioritize biodiversity, structural heterogeneity, and ecological resilience alongside timber production. The health challenges also differ: plantations may face greater pest and pathogen risks due to uniform genetic makeup—such as vulnerability to Melampsoridium betulinum or potential invasion by bronze birch borer (Agrilus anxius) [92]—while natural stands are more frequently affected by browsing pressure [62] and wind damage in overmature cohorts [80]. Recognizing these contrasts is important for designing management regimes that align with ecological, economic, and climate adaptation objectives. These challenges arise primarily from structural, operational, and ecological complexities specific to birch-dominated or birch-associated stands, as well as from other drivers of change, including climate, environmental, and socio-economic factors [119,120,121].

To synthesize these findings, Figure 7 presents a conceptual overview of the main management challenges, abiotic and biotic drivers, and climate-informed practices shaping boreal birch forest management.

3.2.5. Gaps in Our Research and Directions for Future Research and Management Practices

Despite offering valuable insights into the global trends and key themes related to boreal birch forest management, our study presents several limitations and uncovers important areas that warrant further investigation: (1) Geographic and data gaps: the existing literature is heavily concentrated in Northern Europe and North America, with significantly fewer studies from Eastern Europe, Asia, and boreal regions of the Southern Hemisphere. Countries with emerging birch forestry potential (e.g., China, the Baltic states, and parts of Russia) are underrepresented in peer-reviewed literature. (2) Limited integration of genetic diversity and soil biodiversity: forest genetic diversity and its role in adaptive capacity remain underexplored in the context of birch forest management. Belowground biodiversity, including soil microbial and fungal communities, is often overlooked despite its critical influence on ecosystem functioning and forest health. (3) Underrepresentation of socioeconomic and policy dimensions: the current body of research pays limited attention to socioeconomic drivers, forest owner behavior, policy instruments, and market incentives that influence birch forest management decisions. There is a lack of interdisciplinary studies that integrate ecological, economic, and social dimensions to guide sustainable forest policy. (4) Emerging threats not fully explored: while drought and windthrow are acknowledged as key abiotic stressors, other emerging threats such as pest outbreaks, invasive species, and shifting phenological patterns under climate change receive insufficient attention in the context of birch forests. Post-disturbance recovery strategies, particularly after wildfires or extreme weather events, are not well addressed in current management guidelines.

To address these gaps, we recommend the following directions for future research: (1) Expand geographic scope to include underrepresented boreal and hemiboreal regions and support comparative cross-continental studies. (2) Develop harmonized protocols for measuring forest resilience, biodiversity, and carbon dynamics to enable better meta-analyses and knowledge transfer. (3) Incorporate genetic and soil ecological studies into forest management planning to enhance long-term ecosystem sustainability and adaptability. (4) Promote interdisciplinary and participatory research involving stakeholders, local communities, and policy makers to ensure relevance and applicability of management recommendations. (5) Investigate the effectiveness of climate-adaptive practices such as mixed-species stands, variable retention harvesting, and nature-based solutions under a range of future climate scenarios.

Implications for future forest management practices: (1) Shift from single-objective (timber-focused) management toward multifunctional forest strategies that balance productivity, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration. (2) Encourage adaptive management frameworks that are flexible and responsive to emerging environmental and socioeconomic conditions. (3) Implement climate-smart silviculture, including species diversification, assisted migration, and modified thinning regimes, tailored to site-specific vulnerabilities. (4) Strengthen the use of technological tools (e.g., remote sensing, LiDAR, AI-based modeling) to support real-time forest assessment and decision-making. (5) Support policies and incentives that value ecosystem services and foster sustainable birch forest use, including payments for carbon and biodiversity conservation.

4. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that boreal birch forests, dominated by Betula pendula and B. pubescens, are crucial for carbon sequestration, biodiversity support, and ecological resilience. Our bibliometric and qualitative analyses reveal increasing scientific attention to climate-smart silviculture, mixed-species management, and adaptive strategies. However, conventional forestry often undervalues birch in comparison to conifers, despite its ecological importance and adaptability to changing climates.

The findings confirm that effective management must address persistent challenges, including competition in mixed stands, vulnerability to drought and wind disturbances, post-disturbance regeneration, and the integration of genetic and belowground biodiversity into planning. Climate change amplifies these risks but also creates opportunities for productivity gains where adaptive, site-specific management is applied.

Future management strategies should transition from timber-centered approaches to multifunctional frameworks that integrate ecological, economic, and social dimensions. Emphasizing mixed-species forestry, variable retention harvesting, climate-adaptive silviculture, and the use of advanced monitoring technologies will be critical. Additionally, expanding research into underrepresented regions, incorporating genetic and soil ecology, and aligning management with policy and socio-economic incentives are necessary steps forward.

Ultimately, boreal birch forests can act as resilient carbon sinks and biodiversity reservoirs if managed through adaptive, multifunctional strategies that align with climate realities and societal needs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S. and O.B.; methodology, A.S. and L.D.; software, L.D. and G.M.; validation, O.B. and K.F.; formal analysis, A.S. and K.F.; investigation, O.B.; resources, A.S. and K.F.; data curation, O.B. and K.F.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S., O.B. and L.D.; writing—review and editing, A.S., O.B. and L.D.; visualization, L.D. and G.M.; supervision, A.S.; project administration, A.S.; funding acquisition, A.S. and O.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Table

Figure 1 Selection process of the eligible reports based on the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

Figure 2 Schematic representation of the methodological workflow used in the present study.

Figure 3 Distribution of publications per year concerning management of birch boreal forests.

Figure 4 Countries with authors contributing to articles on the management of birch Boreal forests.

Figure 5 Clusters of countries with authors of articles on the management of birch boreal forests. The node size and thickness of the connecting lines are proportional to the number of documents containing the keyword. The colors indicate the cluster to which the item belongs, and the connection line between nodes represents co-occurrence; the shorter the distance between nodes, the stronger the relationship between countries.

Figure 6 Annual distribution of keywords on management of birch boreal forests. The node size and thickness of the connecting lines are proportional to the number of documents containing the keyword. The colors indicate the cluster to which the item belongs, and the connection line between nodes represents co-occurrence; the shorter the distance between nodes, the stronger the relationship between the keywords.

Figure 7 Main findings of our literature research concerning birch Boreal forest management.

Table 1

Management challenges of boreal birch forests summarized by country/region.

Country no.	Country/Region	Management Problems	Cited by
1	Canada	1. Birch–white spruce interactions in mixed stands; 2. Canopy disturbance, inter-tree competition, and density management; 3. Clear-cutting effects in mixed and late successional forests; 4. Soil and microbial activity influenced by stand age and tree species; 5. Forest health monitoring and modeling for climate mitigation; 6. Native plant colonization and wood property variation	Hawkins and Dhar, 2013 [44]; Duchesne and Prévost, 2013 [45]; Barrette et al., 2024 [46]; Hebert, 2003 [47]; Bloin et al., 2022 [48]; Bauhus et al., 1998 [49]; Hall, 1995 [50]; Ameray et al., 2023 [51]; Gagnon et al., 2020 [52]; Baleshta et al., 2005 [53]; Giroud et al., 2017 [54]
2	China	1. Forest fire regime and landscape changes under harvesting; 2. Landscape—scale forest succession; 3. Optimization of neighborhood-based stand spatial structure	Chen et al., 2015 [55]; He et al., 2002 [56]; Dong et al., 2022 [57]
3	Finland	1. Carbon stock management under climate change; 2. Detection of growth dynamics and timber yield prediction; 3. Dead wood retention and decomposition; 4. Natural regeneration of birch; 5. Effects of climate change on forest productivity	Garcia-Gonzalo et al., 2007 [58,59]; Campos et al., 2023 [60]; Kaila et al., 1997 [61]; Mannisto et al., 2024 [62]; Makinen et al., 2006 [63]; AlRahahleh et al., 2018 [64]
4	Lithuania	1. Growth and chemical composition under climate change; 2. Effects of thinning and plantations; 3. Seedling responses to environmental changes; 4. Antioxidant activity and forest ecosystem responses	Ozolinčius et al., 2016 [65]; Juknys et al., 2012 [66]; Gudynaitė-Franckevičienė et al., 2019 [67]; Augustaitis et al., 2022 [68]; Juodvalkis et al., 2005 [69]; Sirgedaitė-Šėžienė et al., 2024 [70]; Kund et al., 2010 [71]
5	Sweden	1. Drought vulnerability; 2. Tree mortality drivers; 3. Evaluation of growth models; 4. Nitrogen fertilization; 5. Transition from monocultures to mixed-species stands	Aldea et al., 2024 [72]; Aldea et al., 2023 [73]; Hallinger et al., 2016 [74]; Ball et al., 2000 [75]; Felton et al., 2016 [76]
6	Latvia	1. Windstorm damage and stand-level risk factors; 2. Soil preparation and root architecture; 3. Tree- and stand-scale factors influencing wind damage	Donis et al., 2005 [77]; Dumins et al., 2025 [78]; Krisans et al., 2022 [79]; Kitenberga et al., 2021 [80]
7	USA	1. Tree regeneration	Allaby et al., 2017 [81]
8	Central and Northern Europe	1. Species interactions and climate effects on tree mortality	Condes et al., 2025 [82]
9	General (high-latitude forests)	1. Tree species identity determines fire spread	Blauw et al., 2017 [83]

References

1. Ķēniņa, L.; Elferts, D.; Jaunslaviete, I.; Bāders, E.; Šņepsts, G.; Jansons, Ā. Tree biomass—A fragile carbon storage in old-growth birch and aspen stands in hemiboreal Latvia. Balt. For.; 2022; 28, pp. 156-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.46490/BF654]

2. Araminienė, V.; Varnagirytė-Kabašinskienė, I. Research on Birch Species in Lithuania: A Review Study. Res. Rural Dev.; 2014; 2, pp. 50-56.

3. Oksanen, E. Birch as a Model Species for the Acclimation and Adaptation of Northern Forest Ecosystem to Changing Environment. Front. For. Glob. Change; 2021; 4, 682512. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.682512]

4. Dubois, H.; Verkasalo, E.; Claessens, H. Potential of birch (Betula pendula Roth and B. pubescens Ehrh.) for forestry and forest-based industry sector within the changing climatic and socio-economic context of Western Europe. Forests; 2020; 11, 336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f11030336]

5. Hynynen, J.; Niemistö, P.; Viherä-Aarnio, A.; Brunner, A.; Hein, S.; Velling, P. Silviculture of birch (Betula pendula Roth and Betula pubescens Ehrh.) in northern Europe. Forestry; 2010; 83, pp. 103-119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpp035]

6. Liepiņš, K.; Baumanis, I.; Gailis, A.; Aļļis, J. Management and Stand Dynamics of Birch Forests: A Reflection on Shifting Silvicultural Concepts in Latvia. Proceedings of the Rural Development 2011: The Fifth International Scientific Conference; Akademija, Lithuania, 24–25 November 2011; pp. 1-5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15544/RD.2011.2.012]

7. Bareika, V. Lithuanian birch stands and their growth perspectives. Forestry and Landscape Management; Lygis, V. Relevant Issues of Environment Management 2019 Kaunas Forestry and Environmental Engineering University of Applied Sciences: Kaunas, Lithuania, 2019; pp. 42-64.

8. Triviño, M.; Potterf, M.; Tijerín, J.; Ruiz-Benito, P.; Burgas, D.; Eyvindson, K.; Duflot, R. Enhancing resilience of boreal forests through management under global change: A review. Curr. Landsc. Ecol. Rep.; 2023; 8, pp. 103-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40823-023-00088-9]

9. Murariu, G.; Dincă, L.; Tudose, N.; Crișan, V.; Georgescu, L.; Munteanu, D.; Mocanu, G.D. Structural characteristics of the main resinous stands from Southern Carpathians, Romania. Forests; 2021; 12, 1029. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f12081029]

10. Dincă, L.; Achim, F. The management of forests situated on fields susceptible to landslides and erosion from the Southern Carpathians. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev.; 2019; 19, pp. 183-188.

11. Vlad, R.; Constandache, C.; Dincă, L.; Tudose, N.C.; Sidor, C.G.; Popovici, L.; Ispravnic, A. Influence of climatic, site and stand characteristics on some structural parameters of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) forests situated on degraded lands from east Romania. Range Manag. Agrofor.; 2019; 40, pp. 40-48.

12. Silvestru-Grigore, C.V.; Dinulică, F.; Spârchez, G.; Hălălișan, A.F.; Dincă, L.C.; Enescu, R.E.; Crișan, V.E. Radial growth behavior of pines on Romanian degraded lands. Forests; 2018; 9, 213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f9040213]

13. Dincă, L.; Murariu, G.; Enescu, C.M.; Achim, F.; Georgescu, L.; Murariu, A.; Holonec, L. Productivity differences between southern and northern slopes of Southern Carpathians (Romania) for Norway spruce, silver fir, birch and black alder. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot.; 2020; 48, pp. 1070-1084. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15835/nbha48211824]

14. Kayes, I.; Mallik, A. Boreal Forests: Distributions, Biodiversity, and Management. Life on Land; Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71065-5_17-1]

15. Kjønaas, O.J.; Bàrcena, T.G.; Hylen, G.; Nordbakken, J.-F.; Økland, T. Boreal tree species change as a climate mitigation strategy: Impact on ecosystem C and N stocks and soil nutrient levels. Ecosphere; 2021; 12, e03826. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3826]

16. Felton, A.; Nilsson, U.; Sonesson, J.; Felton, A.M.; Roberge, J.-M.; Ranius, T.; Ahlström, M.; Bergh, J.; Björkman, C.; Boberg, J. . Replacing monocultures with mixed-species stands: Ecosystem service implications of two production forest alternatives in Sweden. Ambio; 2016; 45, pp. 124-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0749-2]

17. Topa, C.; Murariu, G.; Calmuc, V.; Calmuc, M.; Arseni, M.; Serban, C.; Chitescu, C.; Georgescu, L. A Spatial–Seasonal Study on the Danube River in the Adjacent Danube Delta Area: Case Study—Monitored Heavy Metals. Water; 2024; 16, 2490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w16172490]

18. Mäkelä, A.; Minunno, F.; Kujala, H.; Kosenius, A.-K.; Heikkinen, R.K.; Junttila, V.; Peltoniemi, M.; Forsius, M. Effect of forest management choices on carbon sequestration and biodiversity at national scale. Ambio; 2023; 52, pp. 1737-1756. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01899-0]

19. UNECE. Boreal Forests and Climate Change from Impacts to Adaptation; Policy Brief UNECE: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; 22p. Available online: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Boreal%20forests%20policy%20brief_%20ENG_final0.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2025).

20. FAO. Managing Forests for Climate Change; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010; 20p. Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/i1960e/i1960e00.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2025).

21. Araminiene, V.; Dinca, L.; Varnagiryte-Kabasinskiene, I.; Enescu, R.; Crisan, V.; Stakenas, V. Growth and chemical composition of silver birch: Comparative study between Lithuania and Romania. J. For. Res.; 2020; 32, pp. 2111-2120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01231-6]

22. Bratu, I.; Dinca, L.; Schiteanu, I.; Mocanu, G.; Murariu, G.; Stanciu, M.; Zhiyanski, M. Sports in Natural Forests: A Systematic Review of Environmental Impact and Compatibility for Readability. Sports; 2025; 13, 250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sports13080250] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40863759]

23. Dinca, L.; Crisan, V.; Murariu, G.; Hahuie, V. The economic value of forest fruits. A bibliometric analysis researched during the period of 1978 to 2023. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev.; 2025; 25, pp. 273-283.

24. Bratu, I.; Dinca, L.; Constandache, C.; Murariu, G. Resilience and decline: The impact of climatic variability on temperate oak forests. Climate; 2025; 13, 119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cli13060119]

25. Yardibi, F.; Kang, K.S.; Özbey, A.A.; Bilir, N. Bibliometric Analysis of Trends and Future Directions of Research and Development of Seed Orchards. Forests; 2024; 15, 953. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f15060953]

26. Dinca, L.; Crisan, V.; Ienasoiu, G.; Murariu, G.; Drasovean, R. Environmental Indicator Plants in Mountain Forests: A Review. Plants; 2024; 13, 3358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants13233358]

27. Gambella, F.; Sistu, L.; Piccirilli, D.; Corposanto, S.; Caria, M.; Arcangeletti, E.; Proto, A.R.; Chessa, G.; Pazzona, A. Forest and UAV: A bibliometric review. Contemp. Eng. Sci.; 2016; 9, pp. 1359-1370. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12988/ces.2016.68130]

28. Dinca, L.; Murariu, G.; Lupoae, M. Understanding the ecosystem services of riparian forests: Patterns, gaps, and global trends. Forests; 2025; 16, 947. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f16060947]

29. Enescu, C.M.; Mihalache, M.; Ilie, L.; Dinca, L.; Constandache, C.; Murariu, G. Agricultural benefits of shelterbelts and windbreaks: A bibliometric analysis. Agriculture; 2025; 15, 1204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111204]

30. McCarthy, J. Gap dynamics of forest trees: A review with particular attention to boreal forests. Environ. Rev.; 2001; 9, pp. 1-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/a00-012]

31. Venäläinen, A.; Lehtonen, I.; Laapas, M.; Ruosteenoja, K.; Tikkanen, O.; Viiri, H.; Ikonen, V.; Peltola, H. Climate change induces multiple risks to boreal forests and forestry in Finland: A literature review. Glob. Change Biol.; 2020; 26, pp. 4178-4196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15183] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32449267]

32. Anyomi, K.A.; Neary, B.; Chen, J.; Mayor, S.J. A critical review of successional dynamics in boreal forests of North America. Environ. Rev.; 2022; 30, pp. 563-594. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/er-2021-0106]

33. Garfield, E. The Agony and the Ecstasy: The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005; Available online: http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2025).

34. Gonzalez-Pereira, B.; Guerrero-Bote, V.P.; Moya-Anegon, F. A new approach to the metric of journal scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. J. Informetr.; 2010; 4, pp. 379-391. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002]

35. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E. . The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ; 2021; 372, n71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71]

36. Clarivate.com. Web of Science Core Collection. 2024; Available online: https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/webofscience-platform/web-of-science-core-collection/ (accessed on 21 March 2025).

37. Microsoft.com. Microsoft Excel. 2024; Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/excel (accessed on 2 April 2025).

38. Geochart. Available online: https://developers.google.com/chart/interactive/docs/gallery/geochart (accessed on 12 April 2025).

39. VOS Viewer. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/ (accessed on 5 April 2025).

40. Dincă, L.; Constandache, C.; Postolache, R.; Murariu, G.; Tupu, E. Timber harvesting in mountainous regions: A comprehensive review. Forests; 2025; 16, 495. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f16030495]

41. Budău, R.; Timofte, C.S.C.; Mirisan, L.V.; Bei, M.; Dincă, L.; Murariu, G.; Racz, K.A. Living landmarks: A review of monumental trees and their role in ecosystems. Plants; 2025; 14, 2075. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants14132075]

42. Timis-Gansac, V.; Dincă, L.; Constandache, C.; Murariu, G.; Cheregi, G.; Timofte, C.S.C. Conservation biodiversity in arid areas: A review. Sustainability; 2025; 17, 2422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su17062422]

43. Dincă, L.; Coca, A.; Tudose, N.C.; Marin, M.; Murariu, G.; Munteanu, D. The role of trees in sand dune rehabilitation: Insights from global experiences. Appl. Sci.; 2025; 15, 7358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app15137358]

44. Hawkins, C.D.; Dhar, A. Birch (Betula papyrifera) × white spruce (Picea glauca) interactions in mixedwood stands: Implications for management. J. For. Sci.; 2013; 59, pp. 137-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17221/2/2013-JFS]

45. Duchesne, L.; Prévost, M. Canopy disturbance and intertree competition: Implications for tree growth and recruitment in two yellow birch–conifer stands in Quebec, Canada. J. For. Res.; 2013; 18, pp. 168-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10310-012-0338-1]

46. Barrette, M.; Dumais, D.; Auger, I.; Boucher, Y. Clear-cutting of temperate forests in late successional stages triggers successional setbacks extending compositional recovery by an additional century. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2024; 566, 122084. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2024.122084]

47. Hébert, R. Are clearcuts appropriate for the mixed forest of Québec?. For. Chron.; 2003; 79, pp. 664-671. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5558/tfc79664-3]

48. Bloin, P.; Mazerolle, M.J.; Hebert, C. Effects of the seasonal availability of freshly cut logs and tree species on the early response of saproxylic insects in boreal forest. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2022; 511, 120114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120114]

49. Bauhus, J.; Pare, D. Effects of tree species, stand age and soil type on soil microbial biomass and its activity in a southern boreal forest. Soil Biol. Biochem.; 1998; 30, pp. 1077-1089. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00213-7]

50. Hall, J.P. Forest health monitoring in Canada: How healthy is the boreal forest?. Water Air Soil Pollut.; 1995; 82, pp. 77-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01182821]

51. Ameray, A.; Bergeron, Y.; Cavard, X. Modelling the potential of forest management to mitigate climate change in Eastern Canadian forests. Sci. Rep.; 2023; 13, 14506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41790-2]

52. Gagnon, V.; Rodrigue-Morin, M.; Tardif, A.; Beaudin, J.; Greer, C.W.; Shipley, B.; Bellenger, J.-P.; Roy, S. Differences in elemental composition of tailings, soils, and plant tissues following five decades of native plant colonization on a gold mine site in Northwestern Québec. Chemosphere; 2020; 250, 126243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126243]

53. Baleshta, K.E.; Simard, S.W.; Guy, R.D.; Chanway, C.P. Reducing paper birch density increases Douglas-fir growth rate and Armillaria root disease incidence in southern interior British Columbia. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2005; 208, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.076]

54. Giroud, G.; Bégin, J.; Defo, M.; Ung, C.H. Regional variation in wood density and modulus of elasticity of Quebec’s main boreal tree species. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2017; 400, pp. 289-299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.06.019]

55. Chen, H.; Hu, Y.; Chang, Y.; Bu, R.; Li, Y.; Liu, M. Changes of forest fire regime and landscape pattern under different harvesting modes in a boreal forest of Northeast China. J. Arid Land; 2015; 7, pp. 841-851. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40333-015-0015-2]

56. He, H.S.; Hao, Z.; Larsen, D.R.; Dai, L.; Hu, Y.; Chang, Y. A simulation study of landscape scale forest succession in northeastern China. Ecol. Model.; 2002; 156, pp. 153-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00104-7]

57. Dong, L.; Bettinger, P.; Liu, Z. Optimizing neighborhood-based stand spatial structure: Four cases of boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2022; 506, 119965. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119965]

58. Garcia-Gonzalo, J.; Peltola, H.; Briceno-Elizondo, E.; Kellomäki, S. Changed thinning regimes may increase carbon stock under climate change: A case study from a Finnish boreal forest. Clim. Change; 2007; 81, pp. 431-454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9149-8]

59. Garcia-Gonzalo, J.; Peltola, H.; Briceño-Elizondo, E.; Kellomäki, S. Effects of climate change and management on timber yield in boreal forests, with economic implications: A case study. Ecol. Model.; 2007; 209, pp. 220-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.06.021]

60. Campos, M.B.; Valve, V.; Shcherbacheva, A.; Echriti, R.; Wang, Y.; Puttonen, E. Detection of silver birch growth dynamics and timing with dense spatio-temporal lidar time-series. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci.; 2023; 48, pp. 1715-1722. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-1-W2-2023-1715-2023]

61. Kaila, L.; Martikainen, P.; Punttila, P. Dead trees left in clear-cuts benefit saproxylic Coleoptera adapted to natural disturbances in boreal forest. Biodivers. Conserv.; 1997; 6, pp. 1-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018399401248]

62. Männistö, L.; Miina, J.; Huuskonen, S. How to utilize natural regeneration of birch to establish mixed spruce-birch forests in Finland?. Silva Fenn.; 2024; 58, 23075. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14214/sf.23075]

63. Mäkinen, H.; Hynynen, J.; Siitonen, J.; Sievänen, R. Predicting the decomposition of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch stems in Finland. Ecol. Appl.; 2006; 16, pp. 1865-1879. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1865:PTDOSP]2.0.CO;2]

64. Alrahahleh, L.; Kilpeläinen, A.; Ikonen, V.-P.; Strandman, H.; Asikainen, A.; Venäläinen, A.; Kaurola, J.; Kangas, J.; Peltola, H. Effects of using certain tree species in forest regeneration on volume growth, timber yield, and carbon stock of boreal forests in Finland under different CMIP5 projections. Eur. J. For. Res.; 2018; 137, pp. 573-591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10342-018-1126-z]

65. Ozolinčius, R.E.M.; Bareika, V.; Rubinskienė, M.A.; Viškelis, P.R.; Mažeika, R.O.; Staugaitis, G. Chemical composition of silver birch (Betula pendula Roth.) and downy birch (Betula pubescens Ehrh.) sap. Balt. For.; 2016; 22, pp. 222-229.

66. Juknys, R.; Sujetoviene, G.; Zeimavicius, K.; Sveikauskaite, I. Comparison of climate warming induced changes in silver birch (Betula pendula Roth) and lime (Tilia cordata Mill.) phenology. Balt. For.; 2012; 18, pp. 25-32.

67. Gudynaitė-Franckevičienė, V.; Araminienė, V.; Varnagirytė-Kabašinskienė, I. Effects of different climatic conditions on birch and poplar seedlings. Proceedings of the 9th International Scientific Conference “Rural Development 2019: Research and Innovation for Bioeconomy”; Kaunas, Lithuania, 26–28 September 2019; pp. 237-243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15544/RD.2019.056]

68. Augustaitis, A.; Augustaitiene, I.; Sidabriene, D.; Koike, T.; Marozas, V. Integrated effect of environmental changes on forest ecosystems in Lithuania: Strategies for adaptation to and mitigation of the main threats of global climate change. Eur. J. For. Res.; 2022; 22, pp. 45-48.

69. Juodvalkis, A.; Kairiukstis, L.; Vasiliauskas, R. Effects of thinning on growth of six tree species in north-temperate forests of Lithuania. Eur. J. For. Res.; 2005; 124, pp. 187-192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10342-005-0070-x]

70. Sirgedaitė-Šėžienė, V.; Čėsnienė, I.; Vaitiekūnaitė, D. Temporal variations in enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant activity in silver birch (Betula pendula Roth.): The genetic component. Forests; 2024; 15, 1262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f15071262]

71. Kund, M.; Vares, A.; Sims, A.; Tullus, H.; Uri, V. Early growth and development of silver birch (Betula pendula Roth.) plantations on abandoned agricultural land. Eur. J. For. Res.; 2010; 129, pp. 679-688. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10342-010-0369-0]

72. Aldea, J.; Dahlgren, J.; Holmström, E.; Löf, M. Current and future drought vulnerability for three dominant boreal tree species. Glob. Change Biol.; 2024; 30, e17079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17079] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38273579]

73. Aldea, J.; Bianchi, S.; Nilsson, U.; Hynynen, J.; Lee, D.; Holmström, E.; Huuskonen, S. Evaluation of growth models for mixed forests used in Swedish and Finnish decision support systems. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2023; 529, 120721. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120721]

74. Hallinger, M.; Johansson, V.; Schmalholz, M.; Sjöberg, S.; Ranius, T. Factors driving tree mortality in retained forest fragments. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2016; 368, pp. 163-172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.03.023]

75. Ball, J.P.; Danell, K.; Sunesson, P. Response of a herbivore community to increased food quality and quantity: An experiment with nitrogen fertilizer in a boreal forest. J. Appl. Ecol.; 2000; 37, pp. 247-255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00487.x]

76. Felton, A.; Belyazid, S.; Eggers, J.; Nordström, E.-M.; Öhman, K. Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies for production forests: Trade-offs, sinergines, and uncertainties in biodiversity and ecosystem services delivery in Northern Europe. Ambio; 2024; 53, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01909-1]

77. Donis, J.; Kitenberga, M.; Šņepsts, G.; Dubrovskis, E.; Jansons, Ā. Factors affecting windstorm damage at the stand level in hemiboreal forests in Latvia: Case study of 2005 winter storm. Silva Fenn.; 2018; 52, 10009. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14214/sf.10009]

78. Dūmiņš, K.; Žīgure, S.; Celma, S.; Štāls, T.A.; Vendiņa, V.; Zuševica, A.; Lazdiņa, D. Impact of soil preparation method and stock type on root architecture of Scots pine, Norway spruce, silver birch and black alder. Forests; 2025; 16, 830. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f16050830]

79. Krišāns, O.; Matisons, R.; Vuguls, J.; Seipulis, A.; Samariks, V.; Saleniece, R.; Jansons, Ā. The Destructive Static Tree-Pulling Test Provides Reliable Estimates of the Soil–Root Plate of Eastern Baltic Silver Birch (Betula pendula Roth.). Plants; 2022; 11, 1509. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants11111509] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35684280]

80. Kitenberga, M.; Šņepsts, G.; Vuguls, J.; Elferts, D.; Jaunslaviete, I.; Jansons, Ā. Tree-and stand-scale factors shape the probability of wind damage to birch in hemiboreal forests. Silva Fenn.; 2021; 55, 10483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14214/sf.10483]

81. Allaby, A.C.; Juday, G.P.; Young, B.D. Early white spruce regeneration treatments increase birch and reduce aspen after 28 years: Toward an integrated management of boreal post-fire salvaged stands. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2017; 403, pp. 79-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.07.047]

82. Condés, S.; Bielak, K.; Brazaitis, G.; Brunner, A.; Löf, M.; Pach, M.; del Río, M. Influence of species interactions and climate on tree mortality in mixed stands of Pinus sylvestris, Betula spp., and Picea abies. Eur. J. For. Res.; 2025; 144, pp. 909-924. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10342-025-01760-x]

83. Blauw, L.G.; van Logtestijn, R.S.; Broekman, R.; Aerts, R.; Cornelissen, J.H.C. Tree species identity in high-latitude forests determines fire spread through fuel ladders from branches to soil and vice versa. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2017; 400, pp. 475-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.06.023]

84. González de Andrés, E.; Colangelo, M.; Luelmo-Lautenschlaeger, R.; López-Sáez, J.A.; Camarero, J.J. Sensitivity of Eurasian Rear-Edge Birch Populations to Regional Climate and Local Hydrological Conditions. Forests; 2023; 14, 1360. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f14071360]

85. Davidescu, S.O.; Clinciu, I.; Tudose, N.C.; Ungurean, C. An evaluating methodology for hydrotechnical torrent-control structures condition. Ann. For. Res.; 2012; 55, pp. 125-143.

86. Marin, M.; Clinciu, I.; Tudose, N.C.; Ungurean, C.; Mihalache, A.L.; Mărțoiu, N.E.; Tudose, O.N. Assessment of seasonal surface runoff under climate and land use change scenarios for a small forested watershed: Upper Tarlung watershed (Romania). Water; 2022; 14, 2860. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w14182860]

87. Marin, M.; Tudose, N.C.; Ungurean, C.; Mihalache, A.L. Application of Life Cycle Assessment for torrent control structures: A review. Land; 2024; 13, 1956. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land13111956]

88. Pojar, J.; Stewart, A.C. Spruce-willow-birch zone. Ecosystems of British Columbia; Special Report Series; Research Branch, BC Ministry of Forests: Victoria, BC, Canada, 1991; pp. 251-262.

89. Štraus, D.; Redondo, M.Á.; Castaño, C.; Juhanson, J.; Clemmensen, K.E.; Hallin, S.; Oliva, J. Plant–soil feedbacks among boreal forest species. J. Ecol.; 2024; 112, pp. 138-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.14224]

90. Araminienė, V.; Varnagirytė-Kabašinskienė, I.; Stakėnas, V. Forest site influence on birch growth and health: Lithuanian case study. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Rural Development; Kaunas, Lithuania, 19–20 November 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15544/RD.2015.050]

91. Mienna, I.M.; Klanderud, K.; Næsset, E.; Gobakken, T.; Bollandsås, O.M. Quantifying the roles of climate, herbivory, topography, and vegetation on tree establishment in the treeline ecotone. Ecosphere; 2024; 15, e4845. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4845]

92. Petter, F.; Orlinski, A.; Suffert, M.; Roy, A.S.; Ward, M. EPPO perspective on Agrilus planipennis (emerald ash borer) and Agrilus anxius (bronze birch borer). For. Int. J. For. Res.; 2020; 93, pp. 220-224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpz045]

93. Albert, C.; Taylor, A.R.; D’Orangeville, L. Integrating the effects of climate change into long-term strategic forest management planning using a process-based stand model. Can. J. For. Res.; 2024; 55, pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2024-0238]

94. Emil, C.V.; Lucian, D.; Diana, V.; Gabriel, M.; Romana, D.; Dănuț, M.G.; Lucian, G.; Andrei, A. Characteristics of oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.) and ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) in a plain-low hills-mountains-plateau sequence. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e39297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39297]

95. Vasile, D.; Petritan, A.-M.; Tudose, N.C.; Toiu, F.L.; Scarlatescu, V.; Petritan, I.C. Structure and spatial distribution of dead wood in two temperate old-growth mixed European beech forests. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot.; 2017; 45, pp. 639-645. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15835/nbha45210829]

96. Mustățea, M.; Clius, M.; Tudose, N.C.; Cheval, S. An enhanced Machado Index of naturalness. Catena; 2022; 212, 106091. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106091]

97. Kellomäki, S.; Peltola, H.; Nuutinen, T.; Korhonen, K.T.; Strandman, H. Sensitivity of managed boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive management. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.; 2008; 363, pp. 2339-2349. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2204] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18024332]

98. Briceño-Elizondo, E.; Garcia-Gonzalo, J.; Peltola, H.; Matala, J.; Kellomäki, S. Sensitivity of growth of Scots pine, Norway spruce and silver birch to climate change and forest management in boreal conditions. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2006; 232, pp. 152-167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.062]

99. Taylor, A.R.; MacLean, D.A.; Neily, P.D.; Stewart, B.; Quigley, E.; Basquill, S.P.; Boone, C.K.; Gilby, D.; Pulsifer, M. A review of natural disturbances to inform implementation of ecological forestry in Nova Scotia, Canada. Environ. Rev.; 2020; 28, pp. 387-414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/er-2020-0015]

100. Brecka, A.F.; Boulanger, Y.; Searle, E.B.; Taylor, A.R.; Price, D.T.; Zhu, Y.; Shahi, C.; Chen, H.Y. Sustainability of Canada’s forestry sector may be compromised by impending climate change. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2020; 474, 118352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118352]

101. Albert, C.; Taylor, A.R.; Logan, T.; D’Orangeville, L. The Acadian Forest of New Brunswick in the 21st century: What shifting heat and water balance imply for future stand dynamics and management. Environ. Rev.; 2023; 31, pp. 690-707. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/er-2022-0122]

102. D’Orangeville, L.; Houle, D.; Duchesne, L.; Phillips, R.P.; Bergeron, Y.; Kneeshaw, D. Beneficial effects of climate warming on boreal tree growth may be transitory. Nat. Commun.; 2018; 9, 10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05705-4]

103. Boulanger, Y.; Pascual, J.; Bouchard, M.; D’Orangeville, L.; Périé, C.; Girardin, M.P. Multi-model projections of tree species performance in Quebec, Canada under future climate change. Glob. Change Biol.; 2022; 28, pp. 1884-1902. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16014] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34854165]

104. Subramanian, N.; Bergh, J.; Johansson, U.; Nilsson, U.; Sallnäs, O. Adaptation of forest management regimes in southern Sweden to increased risks associated with climate change. Forests; 2015; 7, 8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f7010008]

105. Şesan, T.E.; Oancea, F.; Toma, C.; Matei, G.-M.; Matei, S.; Chira, F.; Chira, D.; Fodor, E.; Mocan, C.; Ene, M. . Approaches to the study of mycorrhizas in Romania. Symbiosis; 2010; 52, pp. 75-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13199-010-0093-z]

106. Lutter, R.; Riit, T.; Agan, A.; Rähn, E.; Tullus, A.; Sopp, R.; Ots, K.; Kaivapalu, M.; Täll, K.; Tullus, T. . Soil fungal diversity of birch plantations on former agricultural land resembles naturally regenerated birch stands on agricultural and forest land. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2023; 542, 121100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121100]

107. Ayturan, Z.C.; Kongoli, C.; Kunt, F. Investigation of the effects of tree species on air quality using i-Tree software: A case study in California. Ann. For. Res.; 2024; 67, pp. 201-213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15287/afr.2024.3605]

108. Mundra, S.; Loganathachetti, D.S.; Kauserud, H.; Fiore-Donno, A.M.; Økland, T.; Nordbakken, J.F.; Kjønaas, O.J. Tree species replacement from birch to spruce affects eukaryome in boreal forest soil. Eur. J. Soil Biol.; 2024; 120, 103593. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2023.103593]

109. Rezapour, A.; Truu, M.; Maddison, M.; Rohula-Okunev, G.; Tullus, A.; Uri, V.; Mander, Ü.; Ostonen, I. Morphological variation in absorptive roots in downy birch (Betula pubescens) and Norway spruce (Picea abies) forests growing on drained peat soils. Forests; 2022; 13, 112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f13010112]

110. Tērauds, A.; Brūmelis, G.; Nikodemus, O. Seventy-year changes in tree species composition and tree ages in state-owned forests in Latvia. Scand. J. For. Res.; 2011; 26, pp. 446-456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2011.586647]

111. Budeanu, M.; Şofletea, N.; Petriţan, I.C. Among-population variation in quality traits in two Romanian provenance trials with Picea abies L. Balt. For.; 2014; 20, pp. 37-47.

112. Apostol, E.N.; Stuparu, E.; Scarlatescu, V.; Budeanu, M. Testing Hungarian oak (Quercus frainetto Ten.) provenances in Romania. iForest; 2020; 13, pp. 9-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3832/ifor3108-012]

113. Marcu, N.; Budeanu, M.; Apostol, E.N.; Radu, G.R. Valuation of the economic benefits from using genetically improved forest reproductive materials in afforestation. Forests; 2020; 11, 382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f11040382]

114. Šilinskas, B.; Varnagirytė-Kabašinskienė, I.; Beniušienė, L.; Aleinikovas, M.; Škėma, M.; Baliuckas, V. Evaluation of mechanical wood properties of silver birch (Betula pendula L. Roth.) of half-sib genetic families. Forests; 2024; 15, 845. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f15050845]

115. Budeanu, M.; Besliu, E.; Pepelea, D. Testing the radial increment and climate–growth relationship between Swiss stone pine European provenances in the Romanian Carpathians. Forests; 2025; 16, 391. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f16030391]

116. Baliuckienė, A.; Baliuckas, V. Genetic variability of silver birch (Betula pendula L.) wood hardness in progeny testing at juvenile age. Balt. For.; 2006; 12, pp. 134-140.

117. Şofletea, N.; Curtu, A.L.; Daia, M.L.; Budeanu, M. The dynamics and variability of radial growth in provenance trials of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) within and beyond the hot margins of its natural range. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot.; 2015; 43, pp. 265-271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15835/nbha4319861]

118. Besliu, E.; Curtu, A.L.; Apostol, E.N.; Budeanu, M. Using Adapted and Productive European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Provenances as Future Solutions for Sustainable Forest Management in Romania. Land; 2024; 13, 183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land13020183]

119. Mihalache, A.L.; Marin, M.; Davidescu, Ș.O.; Ungurean, C.; Adorjani, A.; Tudose, N.C.; Davidescu, A.A.; Clinciu, I. Physical status of torrent control structures in Romania. Environ. Eng. Manag. J.; 2020; 19, pp. 861-872. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2020.081]

120. Oprică, R.; Tudose, N.C.; Davidescu, S.O.; Zup, M.; Marin, M.; Comanici, A.N.; Crit, M.N.; Pitar, D. Gender inequalities in Transylvania’s largest peri-urban forest usage. Ann. For. Res.; 2022; 65, pp. 57-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15287/afr.2022.2757]

121. Tudose, N.C.; Petritan, I.C.; Toiu, F.L.; Petritan, A.-M.; Marin, M. Relation between topography and gap characteristics in a mixed sessile oak–beech old-growth forest. Forests; 2023; 14, 188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f14020188]