Nadja K. Simons;María R. Felipe‐Lucia;Peter Schall;Christian Ammer;Jürgen Bauhus;Nico Blüthgen;Steffen Boch;François Buscot;Markus Fischer;Kezia Goldmann;Martin M. Goßner;Falk Hänsel;Kirsten Jung;Peter Manning;Thomas Nauß;Yvonne Oelmann;Rodica Pena;Andrea Polle;Swen C. Renner;Michael Schloter;Ingo Schöning;Ernst Detlef Schulze;Emily F. Solly;Elisabeth Sorkau;Barbara Stempfhuber;Tesfaye Wubet;Jörg Müller;Sebastian Seibold;Wolfgang W. Weisse

Chair of Silviculture, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.;Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Soil Ecology Halle (Saale), Germany.; Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology Biocenter; Present address: German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University of Würzburg;Silviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate Zones, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; Present address: Department of Sustainable Land Management, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, UK;German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany;Environmental Informatics, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany;Forest Entomology, WSL Swiss Federal Research Institute, Birmensdorf, Switzerland;Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany;Bavarian Forest National Park Grafenau Germany; Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Soil Ecology, Halle (Saale), Germany;Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany;Forest Botany and Tree Physiology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; Field Station Fabrikschleichach;Geoecology University of Tübingen Tübingen Germany; Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany;Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry Jena Germany.;Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Frankfurt am Main, Germany;Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, WSL Swiss Federal Research Institute, Birmensdorf, Switzerland;Present address: Ecological Networks, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany;Department of Environmental Systems Science, Sustainable Agroecosystems Group, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Technische Universität München, Freising, German;Ornithology, Natural History Museum Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany;Ecological Networks, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.;Chair for Soil Science, Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany; Rauhenebrach Germany;Institute for Comparative Microbiome Analysis, Neuherberg, Germany;Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Ecosystem Services, Leipzig, Germany; Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern (Switzerland); Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Community Ecology, Halle (Saale), Germany

Ecosystem processes and services;Forest management;Structural diversity;Tree species composition;Trade-offs and synergies;Forest productivit

Abstract Background Forests perform various important ecosystem functions that contribute to ecosystem services. In many parts of the world, forest management has shifted from a focus on timber production to multi-purpose forestry, combining timber production with the supply of other forest ecosystem services. However, it is unclear which forest types provide which ecosystem services and to what extent forests primarily managed for timber already supply multiple ecosystem services. Based on a comprehensive dataset collected across 150 forest plots in three regions differing in management intensity and species composition, we develop models to predict the potential supply of 13 ecosystem services. We use those models to assess the level of multifunctionality of managed forests at the national level using national forest inventory data. Results Looking at the potential supply of ecosystem services, we found trade-offs (e.g. between both bark beetle control or dung decomposition and both productivity or soil carbon stocks) as well as synergies (e.g. for temperature regulation, carbon storage and culturally interesting plants) across the 53 most dominant forest types in Germany. No single forest type provided all ecosystem services equally. Some ecosystem services showed comparable levels across forest types (e.g. decomposition or richness of saprotrophs), while others varied strongly, depending on forest structural attributes (e.g. phosphorous availability or cover of edible plants) or tree species composition (e.g. potential nitrification activity). Variability in potential supply of ecosystem services was only to a lesser extent driven by environmental conditions. However, the geographic variation in ecosystem function supply across Germany was closely linked with the distribution of main tree species. Conclusions Our results show that forest multifunctionality is limited to subsets of ecosystem services. The importance of tree species composition highlights that a lack of multifunctionality at the stand level can be compensated by managing forests at the landscape level, when stands of complementary forest types are combined. These results imply that multi-purpose forestry should be based on a variety of forest types requiring coordinated planning across larger spatial scales.