Analysing the effects of postfire oak afforestation on the provision of ecosystem services

Forests play a substantial role in generating externalities and supporting services essential for maintaining key ecosystem functions and processes. Fire has long been a natural element of forest dynamics, contributing to model the structure, composition, and diversity of vegetation. However, changes in fire regimes in recent decades in Europe (e.g., more frequent and severe fires) have led to negative ecological, social, and economic impacts, particularly marked by a decline in the provision of ecosystem services. Mediterranean Europe, being a region highly prone to wildfires and currently experiencing a change in fire regimes, exemplifies this situation. In this study, we aim to understand the effects of postfire oak afforestation on the provision of ecosystem services (ES). We analysed 15 afforestation projects with the deciduous Pyrenean oak (Quercus pyrenaica) carried out in 1994-2006 in similar soil type (Cambisols) in the North and Center of Portugal, including seven pure and eight mixed oak stands. For each project area, we identified an adjacent control area affected by the same fire event but without oak afforestation or evident management. In 2021-2022, for each project and control areas, we collected field data on: site conditions, stand characteristics, forest biometry, understory vegetation (height and cover), floristic richness and diversity, oak natural regeneration and litter. At the moment of data collection, the majority of projects (10) were 12 to 17 years old, with the remaining projects (5) having been implemented 21 to 25 years ago. Collected data was used to quantify provisioning ecosystem services (wood volume) and regulation and maintenance services (forest and litter carbon, fire protection, maintenance of nursery populations, habitats, and seed dispersal). Afforested areas supplied more provisioning services (higher wood volume), as a consequence of a higher tree density when compared to non-afforested areas. Total carbon content and litter carbon were not significantly different between afforested and control areas. Nevertheless, afforested and control areas exhibited distinct patterns concerning carbon in the different forest layers: carbon in the tree layer was significantly higher in afforested areas, while carbon in the understory layer was significantly higher in control areas. Afforested areas also showed a significantly higher fire protection service, as a consequence of lower fuel load from regular understory shrub management. Lastly, we found no significant differences in services related to maintenance of nursery populations and habitats (estimated with floristic species and diversity), and seed dispersal (estimated with oak natural regeneration), although afforested areas presented a higher number of oak seedlings. Our study shows that postfire afforestation in oak forests may have a positive, null or negative impact on ES, depending on the service under analysis, highlighting the existence of trade-offs among multiple ES. We emphasize the importance of a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of postfire afforestation on ES to guide postfire management, aiming to enhance forest resilience in the face of predicted climate change.