Shifts in forest management intensity mediate biodiversity outcomes under contrasting socio-economic and climate scenarios

Forest extent and forest management are both important in shaping biodiversity responses to climate and land use changes. Yet biodiversity impact models typically represent managed forests as an aggregated category despite advances in land use models that differentiate between forest management practices. This limits the ability to assess how shifts between management practices impact biodiversity under future scenarios. We addressed this gap by coupling the biodiversity model GLOBIO with the agent-based land use model CRAFTY-EU. GLOBIO simulates changes in mean species abundance (MSA) in response to drivers of biodiversity loss. CRAFTY-EU allocates land uses including six forest management practices with different timber harvesting intensities based on societal demands and socioeconomic and biophysical suitability. We integrated GLOBIO’s climate change, land use, and updated forest management MSA estimates to evaluate biodiversity outcomes under three socioeconomic and climate scenarios (SSP1-RCP2.6, SSP3-RCP7.0, and SSP5-RCP8.5). Forest expansion partially buffered biodiversity loss only where agricultural abandonment was substantial and climate impacts were moderate. ... mehrThis effect was strongest under SSP1-RCP2.6, weaker under SSP5-RCP8.5 because climate losses dominated, and largely absent under SSP3-RCP7.0 due to limited abandonment and forest decline. Across all scenarios, shifts towards intensive forest management reduced MSA, showing that forest expansion alone does not guarantee biodiversity benefits, especially under management intensification and strong climate change. Land use and forestry policies that promote forest recovery while avoiding management intensification can moderate biodiversity losses, but are unlikely to compensate for strong climate-driven declines. Such policies align with the EU’s Nature Restoration Regulation, which proposes planting 3 billion trees and restoring 20% of land by 2030. Successful implementation requires consideration of prior land use to avoid converting biodiversity-rich areas and planting and management strategies that ensure positive biodiversity outcomes.