Skip to main content

Annals of Forest Science - Debates

This new section is devoted to commentaries and debates inspired by results published in the journal. It concentrates on scientific debates and should be seen as a space for discussion about the research results displayed in the journal. Science indeed builds on contradictory debates and complementary view points that may help reach a consensus, or raises new questions that require further research.

The section is moderated by the editorial board. Should you wish to produce a contribution, please send an email to annforsci@inrae.fr with your proposed comment and we will put it online as soon as possible.

Annals of Forest Science"We generally appreciate the position that ground truth and remotely sensed data need to be combined to achieve reliable estimates."

Commentary on - Infestation of Pine 

The new debate we wish to highlight is raised by claims that the pine wood nematode present in saw-dust could infect wounded pine seedlings independently of the presence of the usual bark beetle vector. However, French colleagues from “Département Santé des Forêts-DSF”, the department in charge of forest health monitoring at national level of France, insist that this risk has been assessed earlier, and that it remains minor with respect to all other risks.

“The paper by Arbuzova et al. (2023) shows that pine sawdust infested with Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, the pinewood nematode, is capable of infecting seedlings when in direct contact with a root or stem wound. The authors concluded that sawdust infested with the nematode should be taken into account in the pest risk analysis when assessing the potential spread of the pinewood nematode to areas not yet colonised. These results should not obscure the risk analyses that have already been performed about the spread of the disease. It should be remembered that the entry and establishment of the pathogen in a healthy area, such as France, can only occur in the presence of the insect vector, Monochamus spp. The expert report of ANSES[1] on the risk of spreading the nematode (referral 2014-SA-0103) classifies by decreasing order of importance: wood for packaging and dunnage, wood of host species, sawn or not, seedlings for planting larger than 3 cm in diameter, wood waste, and isolated bark. Indeed, the imported products most at risk are those that may contain the nematode and its vector. The risk of introduction via isolated bark is considered almost non-existent. Usually, even if the bark can carry the nematode, the insect vector cannot be present. The same is true for sawdust, whether mixed with soil or not. Furthermore, even if contaminated sawdust could accidentally infect a seedling, the seedling would be unattractive to the Monochamus spp. vector because of its size. In this case, the nematode would not be able to establish itself in a new host population. To prevent any risk of introduction via import, the surveillance effort must therefore be massively maintained on all wood products thicker than 3 cm.”

Claude Husson (DGAL-DSF[2]
Emmanuel Kersaudy (SRAL-DSF)

Reference :
Arbuzova, E.N., Kulinich, O.A., Chalkin, A.A. et al. Infestation of pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) seedlings with the pinewood nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus Steiner and Buhrer (Nickle) through wood sawdust. Annals of Forest Science 80, 6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13595-023-01174-y

[1] ANSES, Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail ; https://www.anses.fr/fr
[2] https://agriculture.gouv.fr/le-departement-de-la-sante-des-forets-role-et-missions


Commentary on Ceccherini et al. (2022)

We continue this section by an ongoing discussion around forest harvest monitoring, which already resulted in three  publications in our journal, after the fiery debate that followed the publication of a paper by Ceccherini et al (2020), which claimed that remote sensed data of the forest cover in Europe revealed an unprecedented increase in harvests, while Breidenbach et al (2022), claimed that national forest inventories kept no trace of such increases (other European NFIs adopted similar views).

Annals of Forest Science published three Opinions on this issue (Picard et al. 2021; Breidenbach et al, 2022 and Ceccherini et al, 2022) and we believed that this would close the debate with a consensus statement that there was a need to better tune the two approaches (remote sensing of forests and ground based approaches) in order to contribute to the development of new and really needed monitoring tools for forests at the relevant time and space scales. This need became even more visible during the year 2022 in Western Europe given the very severe combination of heat and drought that will possibly cause severe damage to trees and forests, and the large increase of burnt area (which is easier to detect).

However, Johannes Breidenbach detected in the last contribution of Ceccherini et al (2022) some aspects which he and his co-authors felt important to address. They therefore provided this response, which we publish in this new space dedicated to debates.

Breidenbach and his co-authors generally appreciate the position of Ceccherini et al (2022) that ground truth and remotely sensed data need to be combined to achieve reliable estimates. However, the latter authors make several incorrect and unfounded claims and accusations about Breidenbach et al. (2022). that should be corrected. Breidenbach and his co-authors respond here to each of three basic claims and focused on what they consider the principal points.
 

With this text (Commentary on Ceccherini et al. (2022), we would like to close the discussion and are awaiting novel advances in the development of forest monitoring methods that might address the current challenges facing European forests in a context of rapid climate change and frequent extreme events.


Commentary on Ceccherini et al. (2022)


Authors: Johannes Breidenbach (*), David Ellison, Hans Petersson, Jonas Fridman, Terje Gobakken, Rasmus Astrup, Erik Næsset

*Correspondence to: job@nibio.no

Keywords: Global Forest Watch, Landsat, Remote Sensing, National Forest Inventory, Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Abstract

We generally appreciate the position of Ceccherini, Duveiller et al. (2022) that ground truth and remotely sensed data need to be combined to achieve reliable estimates. However, Ceccherini, Duveiller et al. (2022) make several incorrect and unfounded claims and accusations about Breidenbach, Ellison et al. (2022). We think these claims should be corrected. We respond to each of three basic claims by Ceccherini, Duveiller et al. (2022). Due to space limitations, we have focused on what we consider the principal points.
 

Click here to read more


References

Ceccherini G, G Duveiller, G Grassi, G Lemoine, V Avitabile, R Pilli, A Cescatti (2020) Abrupt increase in harvested forest area over Europe after 2015. Nature 583:72-77

Breidenbach J, D Ellison, H Petersson, KT Korhonen, HM Henttonen, J Wallerman, J Fridman, T Gobakken, R Astrup, E Næsset (2022) Harvested area did not increase abruptly—how advancements in satellite-based mapping led to erroneous conclusions. Annals of Forest Science 79:2. doi: 10.1186/s13595-022-01120-4

Ceccherini G, G Duveiller, G Grassi, G Lemoine, V Avitabile, R Pilli, A Cescatti (2022) Potentials and limitations of NFIs and remote sensing in the assessment of harvest rates: a reply to Breidenbach et al. Annals of Forest Science 79:31. doi: 10.1186/s13595-022-01150-y

Picard N. JM Leban, JM Guehl, E Dreyer, O Bouriaud, JD Bontemps, G Landmann, A Colin, JL Peyron, P Marty (2021). Recent increase in European forest harvests as based on area estimates (Ceccherini et al. 2020a) not confirmed in the French case. Annals of Forest Science 78, 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-021-01030-x

Opinion Papers Published

Recent increase in European forest harvests as based on area estimates (Ceccherini et al. 2020a) not confirmed in the French case

Authors: Nicolas Picard, Jean-Michel Leban, Jean-Marc Guehl, Erwin Dreyer, Olivier Bouriaud, Jean-Daniel Bontemps, Guy Landmann, Antoine Colin, Jean-Luc Peyron and Pascal Marty

Published on: 25 January 2021

View Full Text
View PDF

Harvested area did not increase abruptly—how advancements in satellite-based mapping led to erroneous conclusions

Authors: Johannes Breidenbach, David Ellison, Hans Petersson, Kari T. Korhonen, Helena M. Henttonen, Jörgen Wallerman, Jonas Fridman, Terje Gobakken, Rasmus Astrup and Erik Næsset

Published on: 22 February 2022

View Full Text
View PDF

Potentials and limitations of NFIs and remote sensing in the assessment of harvest rates: a reply to Breidenbach et al.

Authors: Guido Ceccherini, Gregory Duveiller, Giacomo Grassi, Guido Lemoine, Valerio Avitabile, Roberto Pilli and Alessandro Cescatti

Published on: 13 July 2022

View Full Text
View PDF


Official journal of