Skip to main content

Table 2 Cross table of all core publications comprising the main important criteria and factors that can be assigned to these publications

From: On the knowns and unknowns of natural regeneration of silviculturally managed sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) forests—a literature review

Reference

Peer-reviewed

Country

Evidencelevel

Study type

Studyduration[years]

Type of regenerationfelling

Lightavailabilityquantified

Light toheight growthrelationship

Total cost ofregenerationefforts

Minimum gapsize suggested [ha]

Number ofmain successfactors graduallyconsidered

Annighöfer et al. (2015)

Yes

GER

3

Experiment

3

SW

Yes

No

  

4

Annighöfer et al. (2019)

Yes

GER

4

Experiment

1

SW

Yes

Yes

  

2

Baudry (2013); *Baudry et al. (2013)

No

BEL

3

Experiment

4

SW

Yes

Yes

  

2

Bilke (2004)

No

GER

3

Experiment

n.a.

GSF

No

No

 

< 0.3

3

Bonneau (1996)

Yes

FRA

4

Experiment

9

 

No

No

  

0

Brezina and Dobrovolny (2011)

Yes

CZE

3

Experiment

4

SW, GSF, CC

Yes

Yes

 

< 0.3

4

Bruciamacchie et al. (1994)

No

FRA

4

Experiment

n.a.

GSF

No

No

 

< 0.3

2

Chaar and Colin (1999)

Yes

FRA

4

Experiment

2

SW

No

No

  

0

Dohrenbusch (1996)

No

GER

4

Experiment

8

SW, CC

Yes

Yes

  

2

Euler (2016); *Euler et al. (2017); Freise et al. (2017)

No

GER

4

Experiment

1

GSF

Yes

Yes

 

0.2–0.3

3

Fischer and West (1991)

No

GER

6

Expert knowledge

 

SW

    

0

Götmark et al. (2011); *Götmark (2007)

Yes

SWE

2

Experiment

7

SW

Yes

Yes

  

2

Hager (1994)

No

GER

4

Experiment

1

GSF

Yes

Yes

  

3

Hauskeller-Bullerjahn (1997); *Hauskeller-Bullerjahn et al. 2000)

No

GER

3

Experiment

5

SW

Yes

Yes

  

2

Heuer et al. (2006)

No

GER

3

Experiment

4

SW, GSF

Yes

Yes

 

0.1

1

Humphrey and Swaine (1997a)

Yes

GBR

3

Experiment

3

nG

Yes

No

 

0.5–1.0

1

Humphrey and Swaine (1997b)

Yes

GBR

4

Experiment

2

nG

No

No

  

2

Jaloviar et al. (2014)

Yes

SLO

4

Experiment

1

SW

Yes

Yes

  

2

Karius (2004)

No

GER

6

Expert knowledge

 

SW, CC

    

0

Keller (1990); *Schütz (1991)

No

SUI

3

Experiment

1

GSF

No

No

 

< 0.3

2

Kelly (2002)

Yes

IRL

4

Experiment

25

GSF

Yes

No

  

3

Kollár (2017)

Yes

HUN

3

Experiment

2

GSF

Yes

Yes

 

< 0.1

2

Kuehne et al. (2014a)

Yes

GER

6

Expert knowledge

 

SSF, nG, SW, CC

   

Min. 1.0

0

Laurent (2016); *Laurent et al. (2017a), Laurent et al. (2017b)

Yes

FRA

4

Experiment

1

 

Yes

Yes

  

2

Ligot (2014); *Ligot et al. (2014a); Ligot et al. (2014b); Ligot et al. (2013)

Yes

BEL

2

Experiment

5

SSF

Yes

Yes

 

0.05

3

von Lüpke (1998); *von Lüpke & Hauskeller-Bullerjahn (1999)

Yes

GER

3

Experiment

8

SW, GSF, CC

Yes

Yes

 

> 0.3

2

von Lüpke (2008)

Yes

GER

5

Experiment

13

GSF, CC

Yes

Yes

 

> 0.25

2

Mechler and Lieber (2000)

No

GER

6

Expert knowledge

 

SW

   

< 0.3

0

Modrow (2016); *Modrow & Pyttel (2019); Modrow et al. (2020

Yes

GER

4

Experiment

1

GSF

Yes

Yes

 

> 0.2

3

Mölder et al. (2017)

Yes

GER

6

Literature review

 

GSF

   

Depending onmanagementgoals

0

Mölder et al. (2019a)

Yes

GER

6

Literature review

      

0

Mölder et al. (2019b)

Yes

GER

3

Experiment

2

     

3

Nebout (2009)

No

FRA

6

Expert knowledge

  

Yes

No

 

Depending onmanagementgoals

0

Nicolini et al. (2000)

Yes

FRA

5

Experiment

5

SW

  

2500–3600

 

1

Nutto (1998); *Nutto (2000)

No

GER

5

Experiment

n.a.

nG

Yes

Yes

  

1

Petritan et al. (2013)

Yes

ROU

5

Experiment

1

GSF

No

No

 

< 0.3

2

Pisoke and Spiecker (1997)

No

GER

5

Experiment

n.a.

nG

No

No

  

0

proQuercus (2010)

No

SUI

6

Expert knowledge

 

GSF

No

No

  

0

proQuercus (2013)

No

FRA

6

Expert knowledge

     

Min. 1.0

0

Rößler et al. (2019)

No

GER

5

Experiment

1

SW, GSF

    

2

Rumpf (2011)

No

GER

6

Expert knowledge

 

SW

Yes

Yes

14,000

Min. 1.0

0

Sanchez and Auquière (2015)

No

FRA

6

Expert knowledge

     

0.3–0.5

0

Scheeder (1989)

No

GER

6

Expert knowledge

 

GSF

   

0.1–1.0

0

Schürg (2013)

No

GER

4

Experiment

1

SSF

Yes

No

  

2

Spellmann (2001)

No

GER

5

Experiment

5

 

No

No

  

2

Stahl-Streit (2004)

No

GER

6

Expert knowledge

 

SSF

    

0

Tinya et al. (2019)

Yes

HUN

3

Experiment

1

SW

Yes

No

  

2

Tobisch (2009)

No

HUN

4

Experiment

4

GSF

Yes

Yes

  

2

van Cleve (2012)

No

GER

5

Experiment

2

GSF

Yes

No

  

2

van Couwenberghe et al. (2010)

Yes

FRA

3

Experiment

1

nG

No

No

  

2

van Couwenberghe et al. (2013)

Yes

FRA

4

Experiment

4

GSF

Yes

Yes

  

2

Wilhelm and Rieger (2013)

No

GER

6

Expert knowledge

 

GSF

   

< 0.3

0

Wilhelm et al. (2019)

No

GER

6

Expert knowledge

 

GSF

   

< 0.1

0

  1. Type of regeneration felling: SW = shelterwood, GSF = group selection felling, SSF = single-tree selection felling, nG = natural gap, CC = clearcut
  2. n.a. not available
  3. * references originated from the same study and thus compiled as a single MS Access data base entry