Index of biodiversity potential (IBP) versus direct species monitoring in temperate forests.

• Estimation-based structural Index of biodiversity potential (IBP) is tested by comparing it with conventional species monitoring data. • IBP is positively correlated with species richness of birds, fungi, true bugs, lichens, and moths. • Easy and time-efficient IBP serves as proxy for a potential biodiversity. Effects of forest management on forest biodiversity have received increasing attention in both research and forestry practice. Despite advances in technology, monitoring of biodiversity remains time and cost-intensive and requires specific taxonomic expertise. In forest management, however, there is increasing interest and need to integrate biodiversity monitoring into forest inventories efficiently to estimate the potential effects of forest management on biodiversity. Forest management systems can differ greatly depending on management goals and the intensity and frequency of the applied silvicultural interventions. To identify management effects on biodiversity, an estimation of biodiversity using forest structural attributes may be a reasonable approach. Forest structure can – compared to conventional species-based monitoring - easily be captured during forest inventories and does not require specific taxonomic expertise. The IBP (Index of Biodiversity Potential) is a composite index aiming to provide practitioners with an efficient tool for estimating biodiversity at the local level. We recorded the IBP on 147 plots in three regions of Germany, where detailed biodiversity monitoring had been conducted. This study quantified the relationship between changes in the IBP scores and changes in species richness for 13 taxonomic groups. To determine this, we analyzed estimated relationships between the IBP and species richness using a count regression model. We found positive estimated relationships with species richness of birds, fungi, true bugs, lichens, and moths in at least 3 of 5 examined forest types. However, for spiders, bats, carabids, necrophagous and saproxylic beetles, either no relationship with the IBP or estimated relationships with only one forest type were found. Changes in scores for the IBP's factors number of vertical layers, large living trees, tree-related microhabitats, and proportion of gaps correlated with changes in the measured species richness in many cases. Even though the IBP is generally not adequate to predict actual presence or precise number of species, it can be utilized to depict a forest stand's potential in terms of species richness. Due to its easy and time-efficient application, it could be a useful proxy used in combination with species-based monitoring approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]