Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices

CREAF. Campus UAB. Edifici C 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès (Barcelona) Tel. + 34 93 581 13 12 [email protected] www.creaf.cat | blog.creaf.cat MONIMED - Monitoring Mediterranean climate-smart forestry practices for climate resilience and ecosystem service provision This research was supported by the project MONIMED (G-04-2024), funded by the European Union through FORWARDS (Horizon Europe Project No. 101084481) grants to third parties managed by European Forest Institute Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices Due date of deliverable: 22/11/2025 Actual submission date: 22/11/2025 Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 2 Authors Diana Pascual Sánchez, Eduard Pla Ferrer, Mireia Banqué i Casanovas, Agustí Escobar Rúbies, Xavier Ballesteros, Anna Cortés Bullich, Anna Sánchez de Mingo. Abstract This deliverable describes the performance of the practices implemented in the project, as well as the previous conventional practices applied in the same areas. The two objectives are, firstly, to quantify the new Climate-Smart Forestry practices implemented in February 2025, and, secondly, to compare these practices using new monitoring parameters linked to multifunctional management, biodiversity conservation, mitigation capacity and climate resilience. The first section provides a brief introduction to the deliverable. The second section summarises the actions implemented in the three sites. The third section quantifies the effects of the practices in Requesens. Sections four and five reproduce the same information for the Montesquiu and Montnegre-Corredor field trials, respectively. Citation Pascual D, Pla E, Banqué M, Escobar A, Ballesteros X, Cortés A, Sánchez A (2025). Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices. MONIMED Project Revision Name of the version Writer/ Reviewer Data Description MONIMED_D3.2.EvaluationPerformance Practices2_20251121.docx Diana Pascual et al. 21/11/2025 First version of the DL delivered to EFIMED Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 3 Index 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 2. The implemented practices ..................................................................................... 5 2.1. Holm oak forest in La Albera protected area (Girona) ........................................ 5 2.2. Mixed forest of Pinus sylvestris and oaks in the Montesquiu natural park (Barcelona) ................................................................................................................. 6 2.3. Holm oak forest in the Montnegre-Corredor natural park (Barcelona) ................ 6 3. Holm oak forest in La Albera protected area (Girona) .......................................... 8 3.1. Evaluation of the new Climate-Smart Forestry practices .................................... 8 3.2. Evaluation of the practices using new monitoring parameters ............................ 9 3.2.1. Measuring the mitigation capacity .......................................................... 10 3.2.2. Measuring the resistance to droughts ..................................................... 14 3.2.3. Measuring the restoration of other ecosystem services ......................... 15 3.2.4. Measuring the reduction in fire risk ......................................................... 19 4. Mixed forest of Pinus sylvestris and oaks in the Montesquiu natural park (Barcelona) .................................................................................................................. 24 4.1. Evaluation of the new Climate-Smart Forestry practices .................................. 24 4.2. Evaluation of the practices using new monitoring parameters .......................... 25 4.2.1. Measuring the mitigation capacity .......................................................... 25 4.2.2. Measuring the resistance to droughts ..................................................... 27 4.2.3. Measuring the restauration of other ecosystem services ....................... 29 4.2.4. Measuring the reduction of fire risk ......................................................... 32 5. Holm oak forest in the Montnegre-Corredor natural park (Barcelona) ............. 36 5.1. Evaluation of the new Climate-Smart Forestry practices .................................. 36 5.2. Evaluation of the practices using new monitoring parameters .......................... 37 5.2.1. Measuring the mitigation capacity .......................................................... 37 5.2.2. Measuring the resistance to droughts ..................................................... 39 5.2.3. Measuring the restauration of other ecosystem services ....................... 40 5.2.4. Measuring the reduction of fire risk ......................................................... 42 6. References .............................................................................................................. 46 Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 4 1. Introduction Mediterranean forests, shaped by past intensive and simplified management, now face heightened vulnerability due to rural abandonment and climate change. These legacy of forest structures increase exposure to drought, pests, and wildfire, while ecosystem service provision is at risk. Demonstration projects over recent decades have evaluated how silvicultural interventions influence forest growth, vitality, and fire risk mitigation. The MONIMED project advances adaptive management through climate-smart forestry, combining multifunctional objectives with closer-to-nature approaches. Pilot sites under conventional regimes (5–10 years of monitoring) are compared with new trials applying integrative multifunctional management and process-oriented strategies. Long-term assessment incorporates novel indicators addressing biodiversity support, carbon sequestration, and resilience to climatic pressures. This report describes the performance of the practices implemented within the MONIMED project. In first, the document summaries the effects of the two new Climate-Smart Forestry practices implemented in February 2025 in forest structure and characteristics: the close-to-Nature and the preparation to natural dynamics field trials. This evaluation is based on the comparison between the initial inventories developed on Autumn 2024, and the final inventories, developed on Autumn 2025. In second place, the document compares the implemented practices using new monitoring parameters linked to multifunctional management, biodiversity conservation, mitigation capacity and climate resilience of the system. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 5 2. The implemented practices This chapter briefly summarises the practices evaluated in this deliverable, to easily follow up the results. A more detailed description of the practices can be consulted at (Pascual, et al., 2025) and (Pascual, et al., 2025b). The project is developed in the Mediterranean area of Catalonia (NE Spain), in forests dominated by Quercus ilex, Quercus humilis and Pinus sylvestris. The field trials are established in three sites: • A Holm oak forest in La Albera protected area (Girona). • A mixed forest of Pinus sylvestris and oaks in the Montesquiu natural park (Barcelona). • A Holm oak forest in the Montnegre-Corredor natural park (Barcelona). 2.1. Holm oak forest in La Albera protected area (Girona) This site is in La Albera protected area, in Requesens estate, an area highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. Holm oak is the dominant species in a highly dense forest with an irregular structure, unmanaged for approximately 80 years. The silvicultural practices were applied in 2015 and 2025. A detailed description of the practices can be found at (Pascual, et al., 2025). Table 1 summarizes the four practices, implemented in a surface of about 1 ha, and complemented with a control plot with no intervention. Table 1. Practices implemented at Requesens site. Practices Treatment Description Evaluation Year Conventional silvicultural practices Low intensity treatment Low thinning clearing with the objective to adapt the forest to a regular structure 10%-reduction in basal area 18%-reduction in density No changes in canopy cover 2015 High intensity treatment Selection treatment and intense understory clearing to adapt forest to an irregular structure 33%-reduction in basal area 43%-reduction in density 29%-reduction of canopy cover 2015 New ClimateSmart Forestry practices Close-toNature Silviculture Individual-tree silvicultural method, prioritizing the selection of high-quality trees for multiple objectives 8%-reduction in basal area 14%-reduction in density 2%-reduction in canopy cover 2025 Preparation to natural dynamics Promotion of forest maturity and restore complex ecological processes 3%-reduction in basal area 1%-reduction in density No changes in canopy cover 2025 Control No intervention 2015 Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 6 2.2. Mixed forest of Pinus sylvestris and oaks in the Montesquiu natural park (Barcelona) This site is in Montesquiu natural park, in mixed forest of Pinus sylvestris and Quercus humilis, unmanaged for approximately 40 years The forest had suffered last decade tree decline episodes and plagues, which park managers attribute to episodes of drought as the main cause. The silvicultural practices were applied in 2015 and 2024-2025. A detailed description of the practices can be found at (Pascual, et al., 2025). Table 2 summarizes the five practices, implemented in a surface of about 1 ha, and complemented with two control plots with no intervention. Table 2. Practices implemented at Montesquiu site. Practices Treatment Description Evaluation Year Conventional silvicultural practices Low intensity treatment Understory clearing with the objective to reduce resources competition. No effects on Scots pine 4%-reduction in basal area 17%-reduction in density 2015 High intensity treatment Low thinning and intense understory clearing with the objective to reduce tree competition 17%-reduction in basal area 24%-reduction in density 2015 Pine logging Elimination of Scots pines to accelerate the replacement of pines by oaks and evaluate the oaks’ future development 75%-reduction in basal area 64%-reduction in density 2015 New ClimateSmart Forestry practices Close-toNature Silviculture Individual-tree silvicultural method, prioritizing the selection of high-quality trees for multiple objectives 28%-reduction in basal area 26%-reduction in density 2025 Preparation to natural dynamics Promotion of forest maturity and restore complex ecological processes 8%-reduction in basal area 4%-reduction in density 2025 Control No intervention 2015 Control2 No intervention 2025 2.3. Holm oak forest in the Montnegre-Corredor natural park (Barcelona) This site is in Montnegre-Corredor natural park, a Holm oak forest with a high vulnerability to pests, forest fires and droughts. The silvicultural practices were applied in 2020 and 2025. A detailed description of the practices can be found at (Pascual, et al., 2025). Table 3 summarizes the four practices, complemented with a control plot with no intervention. As the affected area is different in each practice, the surface occupied in indicated in the Treatment’s column. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 7 Table 3. Practices implemented at Montnegre site. Practices Treatment Description Evaluation Year Conventional silvicultural practices Irregular forest management model (5.4 ha) Thinning (gentle felling in patches of holm oak and the densest patches of stone pine), coppice management and selective clearing 8%-reduction in basal area 19%-reduction in density 14%-reduction in canopy cover 2020 New ClimateSmart Forestry practices Close-to-Nature Silviculture (1ha) Individual-tree silvicultural method, prioritizing the selection of highquality trees for multiple objectives 16%-reduction in basal area 36%-reduction in density 22%-reduction in canopy cover 2025 Preparation to natural dynamics (1 ha) Promotion of forest maturity and restore complex ecological processes 6%-reduction in basal area 2%-reduction in density No changes in canopy cover 2025 Control No intervention (1.9 ha) 2020 Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 8 3. Holm oak forest in La Albera protected area (Girona) This chapter evaluates the performance of the practices implemented in the Holm oak forest in La Albera protected area. This evaluation uses three different datasets: • The forests inventories developed in LIFE MIDMACC project (LIFE12 ENV/ES/000536, http://medacc-life.eu/), between 2014 and 2018. The inventory followed the criteria established in the monitoring protocol contained in (Savé, et al., 2015) • The initial inventory of MONIMED project, performed in Autumn 2024 to capture the initial condition of the site. The inventory followed the indications and criteria set in the Monitoring protocol (Pascual, et al., 2025b). • The final inventory of MONIMED project, performed in Autumn 2025 to evaluate the implemented practices. The inventory followed the indications and criteria set in the Monitoring protocol (Pascual, et al., 2025b). Based on the three datasets, two different analyses have been performed: • The evaluation of the new Climate-Smart Forestry practices: The intensity of the interventions has been defined using the initial and final inventory of MONIMED project. • The comparison of the practices using new monitoring parameters: One of the novelties of MONIMED project was to include new monitoring parameters linked to multifunctional management, biodiversity conservation, mitigation capacity and climate resilience of the system. This analysis shows the results of these parameters for all the practices using the common inventory performed on Autumn 2024. All the results in this deliverable are shown per treatment, that’s mean, that the values presented are the mean value of the three permanent circular subplots per treatment. 3.1. Evaluation of the new Climate-Smart Forestry practices Two new Climate-Smart Forestry practices were implemented in February 2025 with the MONIMED project. Before and after the implementation, forest inventories were developed on Autumn 2024 and Autumn 2025. The comparison between both inventories allow to evaluate the intensity of the interventions. - Close-to-Nature Silviculture Plot: Application of the individual-tree silvicultural method, where high-quality trees for multiple objectives (biodiversity conservation, timber production, and natural regeneration) were selected. Specific silvicultural interventions were applied to optimize their development, including reducing direct competition. The objective is to make a light intervention with an important impact on future trees, but without compromising the budget. The practice’s intensity was: ➢ An 8%-reduction in basal area and a 14%-reduction in density. ➢ A 2%-reduction in canopy cover. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 9 - Plot of preparation to natural dynamics in non-productive stands: Application of concrete interventions to promote forest maturity and restore complex ecological processes by minimizing human influence. The interventions included the increase of coarse woody debris stocks both on the forest floor (through tree felling) and standing (via tree girdling), the alleviation of direct competition to larger-diameter trees and the promotion of vertical heterogeneity. The practice’s intensity was: ➢ A 3%-reduction in basal area and a 1%-reduction in density. ➢ No changes in the canopy cover. Table 4 summarizes the initial density and basal area of each treatment area initially, the same numbers after the implementation of the forest management, and the percentage of change. The intensity of the new CSF practices is smaller than the conventional practices, as consequence of the objective to focus more on concrete interventions with low intensity and budget, but that allow to maximize the ecological benefits. The numbers show a decreasing trend in the intensity of treatments, covering a wide range of possibilities that will allow evaluating the effect of the intensity in the several ecological variables. Table 4. Summary of the density and basal area per treatment, before the forest management (Pre), after the management (Post) and percentage of change (Change). Practices Treatment Density Basal area Canopy cover Pre (ft/ha) Post (ft/ha) Change (%) Pre (m2/ha) Post (m2/ha) Change (%) Pre (%) Post (%) Change (%) Conventional practices (2014-15) Low intensity 2,812 2,292 -18% 28.1 25.4 -10% 72 72 0% High intensity 2,599 1,485 -43% 33.5 22.5 -33% 85 60 -29% New CSF practices (2024-25) Close-to-nature 3,310 2,833 -14% 37.0 34.0 -8% 85 83 -2% Natural dynamics 2,759 2,727 -1% 41.7 40.3 -3% 82 82 0% Control 2,164 2,164 - 32.8 32.8 - 77 77 0% 3.2. Evaluation of the practices using new monitoring parameters All the practices are evaluated using the monitoring parameters established in the monitoring protocol (Pascual, et al., 2025b). For this evaluation, the dataset of the initial inventory of MONIMED project (Autumn 2024) is used for all the practices. Moreover, the results of the final inventory of the MONIMED project (Autumn 2025) are shown in the two new practices, to capture the final situation of the forest after the new treatments. Table 5 summaries the monitored variables and is followed by a detailed description of each variable, the means to measure, frequency and specifications, as is included in (Pascual, et al., 2025b). Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 16 Table 13 shows the IBP values for 2024. The potential for biodiversity carrying capacity in Requesens was found to be medium-low (28-34% of the maximum 50 points) for almost all the treatments except for the natural dynamics treatment where the carrying capacity was medium (44%). The factors that contributed most to biodiversity in the new CSF practices were the mixed character of the holm oak alongside the presence of strawberry trees, maples, oaks and mountain ash. The presence of rocky features also contributed to biodiversity in all treatments. Factors requiring further improvement include dead wood, both standing and on the ground, and large living trees. Microhabitats are singularities of the trees that certain species require at certain stages of their life cycle (e.g. cavities or wounds). The most abundant features in Holm oaks were concavities, agglomerations of shoots or branches, deformations, tree cankers, and epiphytic plants, lichens and parasites. Table 13. IBP values per treatment and for each factor in 2024. Practice Treatment Management-modifiable elements Fixed Contextual Factors IBP total IBP % Biodiversity carrying capacity A B C D E F G H I J Conventional practices Low intensity 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 5 15 30% Medium-Low High intensity 2 2 1 1 0 2 2 2 0 2 14 28% Medium-Low New CSF practices Close-tonature 5 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 14 28% Medium-Low Natural dynamics 5 2 1 0 0 5 2 2 0 5 22 44% Medium Control 2 2 1 1 0 2 2 2 0 5 17 34% Medium-Low Figure 2 illustrates the contribution of each factor to the IBP for each treatment. This graphical representation indicates which factors require an increase to improve biodiversity in these areas. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 17 Figure 2. Contribution of each factor to the total punctuation in each treatment in 2024. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 18 The IBP was measured again in the final inventory, but only in the CSF practices where the interventions took place. Thanks to an increase in vertical vegetation structure and fallen deadwood resulting from the close-to-nature intervention, and an increase in fallen deadwood resulting from the natural dynamic intervention, both practices have slightly improved the IBP (Table 14). Table 14. IBP values per treatment and for each factor in 2025. Practice Treatment Management-modifiable elements Fixed Contextual Factors IBP total IBP % Biodiversity carrying capacity A B C D E F G H I J New CSF practices Close-tonature 5 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 17 34% Medium-Low Natural dynamics 5 2 1 1 0 5 2 2 0 5 23 46% Medium-Low Wood provision. This is assessed by quantifying aboveground biomass, using tree diameter at breast height (DBH). Biomass is estimated using species-specific allometric models (see Table 7), which enable the calculation of the total aerial biomass (tonnes per hectare) of trunks, bark, branches, and roots. Total aerial biomass values are shown in Table 15. Biomass ranges from 100 to 174 t/ha. The effects of lowand high-intensity treatments, which result in lower biomass, are observed 10 years after intervention. The new CSF practices have a lower impact on biomass reduction. Some reference values for total aerial biomass can be found in the Catalan Ecological and Forest Inventory (IEFC) for Forest Region III, which was developed by CREAF (Inventari Ecològic i Forestal de Catalunya - IEFC) in 1988–1989. This inventory provides total aerial biomass values for the Alt Empordà county, where Requesens is located, of around 54.7 t/ha. Data is also available at the species level: the total aerial biomass for holm oak ranges from 14.9 to 167.2 t/ha, with an average of 59.8 t/ha. The Requesens treatments hold higher values of total aerial biomass than the regional mean but are still within the range of values. Table 15. Total aerial biomass in each practice and treatment, in 2024 and 2025. Practice Treatment Total aerial biomass (tn/ha) 2024 2025 Other species Holm oak Total Other species Holm oak Total Conventional practices Low intensity 10.8 105.4 116.2 High intensity 12.6 88.8 101.5 New CSF practices Close-to-nature 61.6 81.0 142.6 53.7 78.8 132.5 Natural dynamics 30.0 144.1 174.1 30.0 137.1 167.1 Control 14.7 143.9 158.6 Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 19 3.2.4. Measuring the reduction in fire risk Fire risk reduction is quantified using two variables: forest structure and forest fuel continuity. Forest structure. This is monitored through various factors, including tree density, basal area, regeneration and canopy cover. Table 16 shows the density of each treatment in 2024 and the CSF practices in 2025. These values reveal different insights. The initial density is much higher in areas where CSF practices are performed than in control or conventional practices, particularly with regard to species other than holm oak. Furthermore, the CSF interventions are slight, yet the final density remains higher than in conventional or control practices. Secondly, the effects of lowand high-intensity treatments are clearly evident 10 years after intervention, with notably lower density in the high-intensity treatment. Thirdly, the high density of associated species after the intervention in the CSF practices highlights one of primary objective of this type of management: to retain biodiversity as an important factor in increasing resilience to climate change. Finally, although the initial density makes it difficult to compare the treatments, density evolution will be compared within each treatment over time. Similar to the total aerial biomass, some density reference values can be found in the Catalan Ecological and Forest Inventory (IEFC, Forest Region III). The mean density of Holm oak in Alt Empordà county is around 2,105 ft/ha, and ranges from 359 to 8,529 ft/ha. All treatments fall within this range and are close to the mean value. Table 16. Density in each practice and treatment plots, in 2024 and 2025. Practice Treatment Density (ft/ha) 2024 2025 Other species Holm oak Total Other species Holm oak Total Conventional practices Low intensity 244 2,175 2,419 High intensity 244 1,178 1,422 New CSF practices Close-to-nature 1,337 1,974 3,310 1,019 1,814 2,833 Natural dynamics 520 2,239 2,759 520 2,207 2,727 Control 308 1,974 2,281 Table 17 shows the basal area of each treatment in 2024, as well as the CFS practices in 2025. In this case, the initial values are quite similar between the new CSF practices and the control plot, and much higher than the conventional practices. Once again, the effects of the lowand high-intensity treatments are clearly evident 10 years after the intervention, with a notably lower basal area. The reduction in basal area following the CSF practices is slight, with a reduced impact on associated species, thereby favouring biodiversity conservation. Some reference values for basal area can be found in the Catalan Ecological and Forest Inventory (IEFC, Forest Region III). The mean basal area of holm oak in Alt Empordà Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 20 county is around 17.1 m²/ha and ranges from 4.3 to 45.0 m²/ha. The mean basal area for all species in Alt Empordà is around 18.4 m²/ha. The basal area values obtained in Requesens are higher than the reference value, possibly due to a lack of management in the area for around 80 years. Table 17. Basal area in each practice and treatment plots, in 2024 and 2025. Practice Treatment Basal area (m2/ha) 2024 2025 Other species Holm oak Total Other species Holm oak Total Conventional practices Low intensity 3.6 25.2 28.8 High intensity 4.4 20.1 24.5 New CSF practices Close-to-nature 17.1 19.9 37.0 14.8 19.2 34.0 Natural dynamics 8.5 33.2 41.7 8.5 31.8 40.3 Control 4.4 32.5 37.0 Table 18 shows the canopy cover of each treatment in 2024, as well as in the CFS practices in 2025. The values indicate high canopy cover, approaching completeness in the control and low-intensity treatments. The new CFS practices have only slightly modified the canopy cover to avoid an increase in scrubland due to greater sunlight exposure. Table 18. Canopy cover in each practice and treatment plots, in 2024 and 2025. Practice Treatment Canopy cover (%) 2024 2025 Conventional practices Low intensity 92 High intensity 88 New CSF practices Close-to-nature 85 83 Natural dynamics 82 82 Control 97 Table 19 shows the regeneration in different strata in 2024. The results indicate a high density of regeneration in the form of seedlings (with a diameter at breast height of less than 2.5 cm) and saplings (with a diameter at breast height of less than 7.5 cm), with notable differences observed between the various treatments. For example, the values for the natural dynamic treatment are notably lower than those for the other treatments. Some reference values for regeneration can be found in the Catalan Ecological and Forest Inventory (IEFC, Forest Region III). The mean regeneration of holm oak ranges from 0 to 69,766 ft/ha, with an average of around 18,204 ft/ha. All treatments fall within this range and are close to the mean value. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 21 Table 19. Regeneration in each practice and treatment plots in 2024. Practice Treatment Regeneration (ft/ha) 2024 H3<30 cm 0,30 m≤ H<1,30m H>=1,30m Total D3<2,5 cm D<7,5 cm Conventional practices Low intensity 7,083 15,833 2,083 833 25,833 High intensity 5,000 14,583 14,167 3,750 37,500 New CSF practices Close-to-nature 13,750 1,667 2,083 833 18,333 Natural dynamics 3,333 833 1,667 0 5,833 Control 20,417 417 0 833 21,667 Forest fuel continuity. This refers to the spatial distribution and height of the different strata of the fuel (aerial, ladder or surface cover), which directly affects the forest's vulnerability to fire risk due to fire propagation. Forest fuel continuity is monitored through the crown fire hazard and the understorey biovolume. Crown fire hazard is determined by visually estimating the percentage of fuel cover (aerial, surface, and ladder fuels) and measuring the height of surface fuel and the distance between aerial, surface, and ladder fuels. Using this data, a forest fuel continuity model can be estimated, which is related to a level of crown fire hazard: Low, Moderate or High. Table 20 shows the fuel continuity model and the crown fire hazard for the treatments in 2024 and 2025. Compared with the other practices, conventional practices exhibited a high hazard. This is due to various factors: in the low-intensity treatment, logging residues remained after the intervention, creating vertical continuity between the combustible layers (superficial, ladder and aerial), consequently resulting in a high crown fire hazard. In the high-intensity treatment, opening the crown cover resulted in more light reaching the soil, facilitating understorey explosions and increasing the superficial and ladder fuel layers notably. The new CSF practices are surprising in that the crown fire hazard changed from low to moderate after the treatments. For close-to-nature silviculture, this can be explained by an increase in logging residues after the intervention, which is expected to change in the future. However, the natural dynamic treatment is expected to maintain a low hazard level in future, since the intervention did not affect fuel continuity. Longer monitoring is needed to draw conclusions about changes in crown fire hazard. 3 Ht is the total height, D is the diameter at breast height (1.3 m). Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 22 Table 20. Forest fuel continuity model and crown fire hazard in 2024 and 2025. Practice Treatment 2024 2025 Forest fuel continuity model Crown fire hazard Forest fuel continuity model Crown fire hazard Conventional practices Low intensity A3-A4 High A2-A3-A4 High High intensity A3 High A3 High New CSF practices Close-to-nature C14 Low B14 Moderate Natural dynamics C14-C17 Low B14 Moderate Control A1-A3-B14 HighModerate B9-B14 Moderate Figure 3. Graphic representation of the forest fuel continuity models present in Requesens (Source: (Piqué, et al., 2011)). Understorey biovolume is estimated through 10-metre transects, where the vegetation cover and mean height are recorded. Multiplying these values together results in the biovolume of the understorey layer. Table 21 shows that the effects of lowand high-intensity conventional practices are still evident 10 years after implementation. The understorey has grown strongly thanks to a higher light arrival, particularly in the high-intensity treatment. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 23 Table 21. Understorey biovolume in each practice and treatment plots. Practice Treatment Biovolume 2024 (m3/ha) Conventional silvicultural practices Low intensity 2,375.3 High intensity 6,048.6 New CSF practices Close-to-nature 372.7 Natural dynamics 259.5 Control 1,323.2 Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 24 4. Mixed forest of Pinus sylvestris and oaks in the Montesquiu natural park (Barcelona) This chapter evaluates the performance of the practices implemented in the mixed forest of Pinus sylvestris and oaks in Montesquiu natural park. This evaluation uses three different datasets: • The forests inventories developed in LIFE MIDMACC project, between 2014 and 2018. The inventory followed the criteria established in the monitoring protocol contained in (Savé, et al., 2015) • The initial inventory of MONIMED project, performed in Autumn 2024 to capture the initial condition of the site. The inventory followed the indications and criteria set in the Monitoring protocol (Pascual, et al., 2025b). • The final inventory of MONIMED project, performed in Autumn 2025 to evaluate the implemented practices. The inventory followed the indications and criteria set in the Monitoring protocol (Pascual, et al., 2025b). Similarly to the previous location, two different analyses have been performed: the evaluation of the new Climate-Smart Forestry practices and the comparison of the practices using new monitoring parameters. All the results in this deliverable are shown per treatment, that’s mean, that the values presented are the mean value of the three permanent circular subplots per treatment. 4.1. Evaluation of the new Climate-Smart Forestry practices Two new Climate-Smart Forestry practices were implemented in December 2024 and January 2025 with the MONIMED project. The intensity of the interventions is estimated with the forest inventories developed on Autumn 2024 and 2025. - Close-to-Nature Silviculture Plot: Application of the individual-tree silvicultural method, where high-quality trees for multiple objectives (biodiversity conservation, timber production, and natural regeneration) were selected. The intensity of the practice was: ➢ A 28%-reduction in basal area and a 26%-reduction in density. - Plot of preparation to natural dynamics in non-productive stands: Application of concrete interventions to promote forest maturity and restore complex ecological processes by minimizing human influence. The intensity of the practice was: ➢ An 8%-reduction in basal area and a 4%-reduction in density. Table 22 summarises the initial density and basal area of each treatment area, the figures following the implementation of forest management, and the percentage change. In this case, the new close-to-nature treatment is more intense than the lowand highintensity treatments, mainly because the starting point of the new practice area has a notably higher basal area than the others due to the larger size of the trees, and a more Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 25 intense cut is needed to reduce competition. Following the treatments, the density values are more similar across the five practices, although the control plots exhibit higher density. The two control areas differ significantly, particularly in terms of basal area, indicating that a second control area was necessary for comparison with the new CSF practices. Table 22. Summary of the density and basal area per treatment, before the forest management, after the management and percentage of change. Practices Treatment Density Basal area Pretreatment (ft/ha) Posttreatment (ft/ha) Change (%) Pretreatment (m2/ha) Posttreatment (m2/ha) Change (%) Conventional practices (2015) Low intensity 944 785 -17% 28.7 27.4 -4% High intensity 1,125 859 -24% 32.9 27.2 -17% Pine logging 1,899 690 -64% 40.9 10.2 -75% New CSF practices (2024-2025) Close-to-nature 966 716 -26% 35.1 25.2 -28% Natural dynamics 764 732 -4% 38.9 36.0 -8% Control (2015) 1,061 1,061 - 29.0 29.0 - Control2 (2025) 971 971 - 39.1 39.1 - 4.2. Evaluation of the practices using new monitoring parameters All the practices are evaluated using the monitoring parameters established in the monitoring protocol (Pascual, et al., 2025b). For this evaluation, the dataset of the initial inventory of MONIMED project (Autumn 2024) is used for all the practices. Moreover, the results of the final inventory of the MONIMED project (Autumn 2025) are shown in the two new practices, to capture the final situation of the forest after the new treatments. 4.2.1. Measuring the mitigation capacity Carbon storage in soils. The carbon content of the topsoil and litter is estimated (MgC/ha). Table 23 shows the carbon content of the soil and litter, after the sampling in 2024. Total carbon stocks range from 32 to 67 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Some variability is observed among the sites, particularly in the conventional practices, where total carbon stocks double those in pine-logging compared with high-intensity treatment. The organic content of the soil and litter will be measured again in three years' time, by which point some initial changes and trends among the practices may have become apparent. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 32 4.2.4. Measuring the reduction of fire risk Forest structure. This is monitored through various factors, including tree density, basal area, regeneration and canopy cover. Table 31 shows the density of each treatment in 2024, alongside the CSF practices in 2025. The density in 2024 is quite similar for all treatments, at around 800–900 ft/ha. However, there is an anomalous value in the high-intensity treatment that does not coincide with the expected density. This may be an error, as two of the three permanent monitoring subplots of this treatment were completely covered by bushes and prickly plants, making access difficult. It is therefore suspected that not all the trees were surveyed, resulting in an unexpectedly low-density value. Furthermore, following the CSF interventions, the final density is relatively lower than that of conventional practices. As with the total aerial biomass, some density reference values can be found in the Catalan Ecological and Forest Inventory (IEFC, Forest Region II). The mean density of Scots pine in the Osona county is around 1,028 ft/ha, and ranges from 214 to 4,317 ft/ha. All treatments exhibit a lower density than the mean value, reflecting the effect of recent forest management practices in the area. Table 31. Density in each practice and treatment plots, in 2024 and 2025. Practices Treatment Density (ft/ha) 2024 2025 Other species Pinus sylvestris Oaks Total Other species Pinus sylvestris Oaks Total Conventional practices Low intensity 159 531 117 806 High intensity 11 446 11 4676 Pine logging 127 0 806 934 New CSF practices Close-to-Nature 499 350 117 966 382 223 111 716 Natural dynamics 541 175 48 764 541 143 48 732 Control 32 414 467 912 Control2 366 525 80 971 Table 32 shows the basal area of each treatment in 2024, as well as the CSF practices in 2025. The basal area is much higher in the area where new CSF practices and Control 2 exist due to the presence of large trees. Following the CSF interventions, the final basal area remains relatively consistent across the conventional practices and the closeto-nature treatment but remains quite high in the natural dynamics’ treatment. Reference values for basal area can be found in the Catalan Ecological and Forest Inventory (IEFC, Forest Region II). The mean Scots pine basal area in the Osona county is around 23.3 m²/ha, ranging from 7.64 to 77.8 m²/ha. The mean basal area for all 6 In the high-intensity treatment, two of the three permanent monitoring subplots were completely covered by bushes and prickly plants, which made access difficult. For this reason, it is suspected that not all the trees were surveyed, resulting in an unexpectedly low-density value. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 33 species in Osona is around 18.1 m²/ha. The basal area values obtained in Montesquiu are higher than the reference values. Table 32. Basal area in each practice and treatment plots, in 2024 and 2025. Practices Treatment Basal area (m2/ha) 2024 2025 Other species Pinus sylvestris Oaks Total Other species Pinus sylvestris Oaks Total Conventional practices Low intensity 2.5 24.9 2.2 29.6 High intensity 0.5 26.0 0.1 26.6 Pine logging 2.0 0.0 15.1 17.1 New CSF practices Close-to-Nature 10.6 20.8 3.7 35.1 6.5 15.1 3.6 25.2 Natural dynamics 21.3 16.0 1.7 38.9 21.3 13.0 1.7 36.0 Control 0.2 18.4 10.9 29.5 Control2 10.1 27.4 1.6 39.1 Table 33 shows the canopy cover of each treatment in 2024, as well as in the CFS practices in 2025. The values indicate high canopy cover in almost all treatments. The high values in 2025 suggest an error in the visual estimation of canopy cover, as the percentage should have decreased slightly following treatment. Table 33. Canopy cover in each practice and treatment plots, in 2024 and 2025. Practices Treatment Canopy cover (%) 2024 2025 Conventional practices Low intensity 70 High intensity 95 Pine logging 88 New CSF practices Close-to-Nature 70 83 Natural dynamics 88 99 Control 92 Control2 85 Table 34 shows the regeneration in different strata in 2024. The results indicate a high density of regeneration mainly in the form of seedlings (with a diameter at breast height of less than 2.5 cm), while the regeneration of saplings (with a diameter at breast height of less than 7.5 cm) is notably lower. Notable differences are observed between the various treatments. For instance, in the pine logging treatment, the regeneration of oaks, maples and holm oaks has exploded due to the highly open canopy resulting from the removal of pines. In conventional practices, regeneration in 2024 was quite high, possibly due to the 2015 management intervention that allowed sunlight to reach the ground. Meanwhile, regeneration in the new CSF practices is almost non-existent, implying the need to open the canopy to accelerate regeneration. It should be noted that the dominant species in the regeneration are oak, holly, common hawthorn, maple, holm oak and common box, in that order, but there is no regeneration of Scots pine. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 34 Some reference values for regeneration can be found in the Catalan Ecological and Forest Inventory (IEFC, Forest Region II). The mean regeneration of Scots pine under Scots pine forest ranges from 0 to 13,905 ft/ha, with an average of around 1,353 ft/ha. The regeneration of oaks (Quercus humilis) under Scots pine is about 6,544 ft/ha and of holm oak (Quercus ilex) is about 6,664 ft/ha. All treatments exhibit a larger regeneration than expected. Table 34. Regeneration in each practice and treatment plots in 2024. Practices Treatment Resprouting (ft/ha) 2024 Ht<30 cm 0,30 m≤ Ht<1,30m Ht>=1,30m Total Dn<2,5 cm Dn<7,5 cm Conventional practices Low intensity 12,500 6,667 4,583 417 24,167 High intensity 6,667 10,833 5,417 833 23,750 Pine logging 45,417 9,167 4,167 833 59,583 New CSF practices Close-to-Nature 1,250 0 2,083 833 4,167 Natural dynamics 3,438 0 938 1,875 6,250 Control 17,917 7,083 3,750 2,917 31,667 Control2 8,750 4,375 0 1,250 14,375 Forest fuel continuity. Table 35 illustrates the fuel continuity model and the crown fire hazard associated with the treatments in 2024 and 2025. A different pattern is observed between the old and new sites. In the area where conventional practices were applied in 2015, the crown fire hazard is high, which is consistent with the increase in understorey biomass and regeneration. In the area where new CSF practices were applied in 2024, the crown fire hazard is low before and after the treatment, primarily due to the stand's more humid and northerly orientation, which has enabled the growth of larger trees and reduced understorey presence. Longer monitoring is needed to draw conclusions about changes in crown fire hazard. Table 35. Forest fuel continuity model and crown fire hazard in 2024 and 2025. Practice Treatment 2024 2025 Forest fuel continuity model Crown fire hazard Forest fuel continuity model Crown fire hazard Conventional practices Low intensity A3-A4 High A3-A4-B8 High – Moderate High intensity A2 High A4-B8 High – Moderate Pine logging A2-A4 High A4-B8 High – Moderate New CSF practices Close-to-nature C12 Low C12 Low Natural dynamics C12 Low C12 Low Control A1-A2 High A4 High Control2 C12 Low B2-C12 Moderate - Low Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 35 Figure 6. Graphic representation of the forest fuel continuity models present in Montesquiu (Source: (Piqué, et al., 2011)). Table 36 shows the understorey biovolume in Montesquiu. The effects of conventional practices are still evident 10 years after implementation, particularly in the high-intensity treatment. Here, the biovolume is six times higher that of in the other treatments, primarily because opening the canopy cover stimulates understorey resprouting. Table 36. Understorey biovolume in each practice and treatment plots. Practices Treatment Biovolume 2024 (m3/ha) Conventional practices Low intensity 2,290.0 High intensity 11,856.07 Pine logging 2,229.8 New CSF practices Close-to-Nature 344.9 Natural dynamics 2,049.2 Control 1,591.8 Control2 554.1 7 In the high-intensity treatment, the transects were only measured in one of the monitoring subplots due to the difficulty of accessing the others, as these areas were covered in scrubland, brambles and prickly plants. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 36 5. Holm oak forest in the Montnegre-Corredor natural park (Barcelona) This chapter evaluates the performance of the practices implemented in the Holm oak forest in Montnegre-Corredor natural park. This evaluation uses three different datasets: • The forests inventories developed in SUDOE MONTCLIMA project (https://www.montclima.eu/en), between 2020 and 2023. The inventory followed the criteria established in the monitoring protocol contained in (Guitart , et al., 2022). • The initial inventory of MONIMED project, performed in Autumn 2024 to capture the initial condition of the site. The inventory followed the indications and criteria set in the Monitoring protocol (Pascual, et al., 2025b). • The final inventory of MONIMED project, performed in Autumn 2025 to evaluate the implemented practices. The inventory followed the indications and criteria set in the Monitoring protocol (Pascual, et al., 2025b). Similarly to the previous locations, two different analyses have been performed: the evaluation of the new Climate-Smart Forestry practices and the comparison of the practices using new monitoring parameters. All the results in this deliverable are shown per treatment, that’s mean, that the values presented are the mean value of the three permanent circular subplots per treatment. 5.1. Evaluation of the new Climate-Smart Forestry practices Two new Climate-Smart Forestry practices were implemented in December 2024 and January 2025 with the MONIMED project. The intensity of the interventions is estimated with the forest inventories developed on Autumn 2024 and 2025. - Close-to-Nature Silviculture Plot: Application of the individual-tree silvicultural method, where high-quality trees for multiple objectives (biodiversity conservation, timber production, and natural regeneration) were selected. The intensity of the practice was: ➢ A 16%-reduction in basal area and a 36%-reduction in density. ➢ A 22%-reduction in canopy cover. - Plot of preparation to natural dynamics in non-productive stands: Application of concrete interventions to promote forest maturity and restore complex ecological processes by minimizing human influence. The intensity of the practice was: ➢ A 6%-reduction in basal area and a 2%-reduction in density. ➢ No changes in the canopy cover. Table 37 summarises the initial density and basal area of each treatment area, the numbers after forest management was implemented, and the percentage change. In this Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 37 case, the intensity of the new close-to-nature treatment is higher than the conventional practice, which was not the expected outcome. This fact is caused because the initial situation of the forest in the pre-treatment inventory was very different between the sites. While the initial density was 1,075 ft/ha in the conventional practice, the close-to-nature forest had a density that was 61% higher (1,729 ft/ha). For this reason, the treatment required a greater reduction in density to achieve a similar density. The same is evident with the basal area, although the final basal area in the close-to-nature treatment reflect the necessity of a new thinning soon. By 2025, density values were more similar among the sites. Table 37. Summary of the density and basal area per treatment, before the forest management, after the management and percentage of change. Practices Treatment Density Basal area Pretreatment (ft/ha) Posttreatment (ft/ha) Change (%) Pretreatment (m2/ha) Posttreatment (m2/ha) Change (%) Conventional practices (2020) Irregular forest management model 1,075 872 19% 23.1 21.4 8% New CSF practices (2024-2025) Close-to-nature 1,729 1,114 36% 35.6 29.8 16% Natural dynamics 1,369 1,337 2% 25.1 23.6 6% Control 1,199 1,199 - 29.0 29.0 - 5.2. Evaluation of the practices using new monitoring parameters All the practices are evaluated using the monitoring parameters established in the monitoring protocol (Pascual, et al., 2025b). For this evaluation, the dataset of the initial inventory of MONIMED project (Autumn 2024) is used for all the practices. Moreover, the results of the final inventory of the MONIMED project (Autumn 2025) are shown in the two new practices, to capture the final situation of the forest after the new treatments. 5.2.1. Measuring the mitigation capacity Carbon storage in soils. The carbon content of the topsoil and litter is estimated (MgC/ha). Table 38 shows the carbon content of the soil and litter, after the sampling in 2024. Total carbon stocks are very similar in all treatments and oscillate between 28 and 36 tonnes of carbon per hectare. The organic content of the soil and litter will be measured again in three years' time, by which point some initial changes and trends among the practices may have become apparent. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 38 Table 38. Soil, litter and total carbon content in each treatment in 2024. Practice Treatment Soil organic content (SOC, MgC/ha) Litter organic content (MgC/ha) Total carbon stocks (MgC/ha) Conventional practices Irregular forest management 33.2 3.4 36.6 New CSF practices Close-to-nature 26.2 6.9 33.1 Natural dynamics 32.4 3.6 36.0 Control 24.0 4.0 28.0 Carbon storage in forests. The species-specific allometric models shown in Table 7 are used to estimate aboveground biomass in trunks, bark, branches and roots. Aerial carbon stocks are then estimated by dividing the aboveground biomass by 2.1 (approximately half). Table 39 shows the aerial carbon stocks in each treatment plot. The values oscillate between 48 and 73 MgC/ha. There is a difference between the first sites where conventional practices and controls were located, where the weight of the holm oak's contribution to the aerial carbon stock is similar to that of other species. In contrast, in the new sites where CSF practices are implemented, the holm oak's contribution is 4–5 times greater than that of other species. Table 39. Aerial carbon stock in each practice and treatment, in 2024 and 2025. Practices Treatment Aerial carbon stock (MgC/ha) 2024 2025 Other species Holm oak Total Other species Holm oak Total Conventional practices Irregular forest management 21.4 27.0 48.5 New CSF practices Close-to-Nature 17.1 56.6 73.7 15.5 46.7 62.2 Natural dynamics 11.4 39.5 50.9 10.0 38.1 48.1 Control 21.1 32.1 53.2 Understory carbon stock is estimated through 10-metre transects and using the biovolume-based allometric models shown in Table 9. Table 40 shows the understorey carbon stock in each treatment. The values are very similar in all the treatments and very low, ranging from 1.9 to 2.5 MgC/ha. Table 40. Understory carbon stock in each practice and treatment. Practices Treatment Understory carbon stock (MgC/ha) 2024 Conventional practices Irregular forest management 2.4 New CSF practices Close-to-Nature 2.5 Natural dynamics 2.2 Control 1.9 Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 39 5.2.2. Measuring the resistance to droughts Forest health status. Table 41 shows the forest decay in 2024 and 2025. It also includes the decline values of SUDOE MONTCLIMA in 2020, 2021 and 2022. A strong episode of the defoliator Lymantria dispar caused a notable decline in 2020, which was exacerbated by a severe drought in 2021 and 2022. By 2024, the forest had begun to recover slightly from the decay. However, the rate of forest decline slowed significantly in 2025, which is important because forests cannot recover that quickly. This seems to have been caused by a human error in the visual estimation, since the field team changed for the final inventory. This analysis will be performed again in 2028, when more evident effects are expected. Table 41. Percentage of forest decline in 2024 and 2025. Practices Treatment Forest decline (%) 2020 2021 2022 2024 2025 Conventional practices Irregular forest management 31.2 44.7 51.6 43.3 27.2 New CSF practices Close-to-Nature 36.0 28.3 Natural dynamics 38.0 36.5 Control 33.5 50.0 67.3 52.0 26.5 Soil moisture. The water content of the soil is measured by installing a humidity sensor, on in each monitoring subplot (three per treatment). Different sensors are used for the various treatments. HOBO sensors were installed in the conventional practice and control plots as part of the SUDOE MONTCLIMA project, while TOMST sensors were used for the new CSF practices. The installation of the TOMST sensors was completed in March 2025 due to delays in procuring the sensors. Once installed, however, wild pigs in the natural dynamics’ treatment area caused problems by digging up the sensors, meaning the data collected was invalid for analysis. Additionally, the HOBO sensors installed in 2020 had no power and had to be restarted in May 2025. Consequently, soil moisture data is only available from May or June 2025 onwards, with no data available for the natural dynamics’ treatment. Table 42 and Figure 7 show the soil moisture values per treatment. The close-to-nature treatment exhibits significantly higher soil moisture than the control and conventional practices, whereas the control plot has significantly higher soil moisture than the conventional practice. A longer data series is needed to draw more robust conclusions. Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 40 Table 42. Mean, minim and maximum soil moisture per day and treatment. Practices Treatment Sensor Data available from Soil moisture (m3/m3) Mean Min. Max. Conventional practices Irregular forest management HOBO 06/2025 0.003±0.001 -0.010 0.070 New CSF practices Close-to-Nature TOMST 05/2025 0.072±0.002 0.031 0.160 Natural dynamics TOMST - - - - Control HOBO 05/2025 0.038±0.002 -0.020 0.150 Figure 7. Average soil moisture per day and treatment. 5.2.3. Measuring the restauration of other ecosystem services Biodiversity. Table 43 shows the IBP values for 2024. The potential for biodiversity carrying capacity in Montnegre-Corredor was found to be medium (44-52%) across all the treatments. The factors that contributed most to biodiversity in all practices were the mixed character of the holm oak alongside pines, oaks, strawberry trees, common hawthorn and mountain ash; standing deadwood; the trees with dendromicrohabitats. Further improvement is required in terms of large living trees in the close-to-nature practice and fallen deadwood in the control area. Table 43. IBP values per treatment and for each factor in 2024. Practices Treatment Management-modifiable elements Fixed Contextual Factors IBP total IBP % Biodiversity carrying capacity A B C D E F G H I J Conventional practices Irregular management 5 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 0 0 22 44% Medium New CSF practices Close-toNature 5 2 5 2 1 5 2 2 0 2 26 52% Medium Natural dynamics 5 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 24 48% Medium Control 5 2 5 0 2 5 2 2 0 0 23 46% Medium Control Irregular FM Close-to-nature Soil moisture (m3/m3) Deliverable 3.2. Evaluation of the performance of the practices 41 Figure 8 illustrates the contribution of each factor to the IBP for each treatment. This graphical representation indicates which factors require an increase to improve biodiversity in these areas. Figure 8. Contribution of each factor to the total punctuation in each treatment in 2024. The IBP was measured again during the final inventory, but only in the CSF practices where the interventions took place. Thanks to an increase in fallen deadwood as a consequence of the action, both treatments have slightly increased the IBP (Table 44). Table 44. IBP values per treatment and for each factor in 2025. Practices Treatment Management-modifiable elements Fixed Contextual Factors IBP total IBP % Biodiversity carrying capacity A B C D E F G H I J New CSF practices Close-toNature 5 2 5 5 1 5 2 2 0 2 29 58% Medium Natural dynamics 5 2 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 0 27 54% Medium