As we have already mentioned, one of the most significant advantages of Slovak forestry is the existence of site type maps covering the entire territory of Slovakia. These maps themselves would only be l'arte pour l'arte without their practical utilization in forestry management. For this reason, site type survey since its very beginnings were trying to approximate them as close as possible for the needs of daily practice as they represent a kind of site management guidebook. Slovak site type survey based on Zlatnik Geobiocenological School is far more convenient for such needs as are site type survey methodologies of other countries for Zlatnik's site type representing the type of original, natural vegetation on the site given.
Even the basic materials of site type survey contained not only site type unit characteristics but also proposals for targeted tree species compositions, rotation periods, etc. Furthermore, forest categorisation, itself symbolizing certain practical provision for site management, was directly formed on site type survey results. Linking forest categorisation to site type survey further led to the creation of management sets of forest site types (MSFST). These sets unify site types in a different way as Zlatnik's site type groups and have become the most suitable site type units for practical utilization.
Site diversity is, however, not the only reason behind the forest stand diverseness. Richness of species is partially the result of diverse management methods used in the past leading to originally homogenous site type areas to be divided into smaller "plots" with different tree species compositions, very often quite unnatural-looking ones, and with dissimilar health state. This way altered forest stands logically could not be managed according to framework instructions valid for forest stands close to natural ones. Therefore, so-called practice set unit was introduced, combining in itself MSFST and current crop type. Once introduced, framework instructions have been designed for these units.
Gradually we came to the point when this unit too was not able to cover the whole diversity scope of our forests as with time we more and more realise the importance of other forest stand functions. Forest as the object of human interest fulfils various functions, both productive and non-productive and targeted forest appearance also grossly depends on its functional specification. This fact is the reason for further differentiation of framework instructions for management of individual forest stands.
Framework instructions were gradually getting more complex and thus they have been renamed to management models. Each effective management model must contain proposals based on the current forest stand state and must allow to reach the state desirable from the point of view of ecological, economical and functional. Therefore, each management model also contains so-called identifiers serving to match correct management models to individual forest stands.
These identifiers are actually characteristics of forest stands as used in forest management plans and describe:
There are currently 19 identifiers used in Slovak practical forestry. Even when all of them are not obligatory, the number of their possible combinations is very high. Therefore, the task of designing separate management models for each individual case would be pretty hard, if not impossible. For this reason, it is acceptable to combine similar combinations of identifiers into one common model.
Model itself is further divided into the following sections:
Following table represents the example of a typical unified model (combined identifiers comprise the symbol +; in real models the majority of data given is in a code form):
| Identifiers | Prescriptions | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Value | Title | Value |
| Functional Category | Commercial Forests | Rotation Period | 100 rokov |
| Subcategory | - | Possible Reduction of Rotation Period | - |
| Forest Origin | High Forest | Removal Age | Norway Spruce - 100 Birch - 60 |
| Management Method | - | Regeneration Period | 20 Years |
| Zone of Ground Level Pollution | C + D | Secure Establishment Age | 7 Years |
| Type of Ground Level Pollution | Acidic with Fly Ash | Cutting Cycle | 10 Years |
| Buffer Zone | - | Silvicultural System | Clearcutting with Shelterwood Groups |
| Recreational Zone | - | Targeted Structure | 2-storied |
| Conservation Area Category | No Category + Protected Landscape Area | Targeted Tree Species Composition | Beech 60 - 80 %, whole area Norway Spruce 10 - 20 %, patchily Noble Hardwoods 10 - 15 %, individually |
| Nature Conservation Zone | No Zone + D | ||
| Nature Conservation Grade | 1 + 2 | ||
| Specific Parameter | - | Required Regeneration Tree Species Composition | Beech 60 - 70 %, whole area Norway Spruce 15 - 30 %, patchily Noble Hardwoods 10 - 15 %, individually |
| Management Set of Forest Site Types (Potential Tree Species Composition) | Fertile Beechwoods | ||
| Crop Type (Actual Tree Species Composition ) | Sprucewoods | Note | Noble Hardwoods = Norway Maple, Sycamore, Lime Tree, Wych Elm |
| Risk Grade | 0 + 1 + 2 | ||
As it is clear from the title " framework planning," management models represent a different forest management level in comparison to detailed prescriptions applied to exact forest spatial division units (FSDU):
So often criticised number of models depends grossly on our expectations. The more binding management model prescriptions, the more detailed analysis of all possible "forest stand state" cases have to be carried out. Models based purely on 'basic identifiers" can represent only non-committal schemes as the effect of other factors can be crucial. At present, management models are being officially approved by state administration bodies (State Nature Conservancy inclusive). This fact makes them highly binding, requiring the establishment of a very complicated model system, maybe the most intricate in the world. With the calls for sustainable forestry mounting rapidly this may as well be the only route for further countries in order to secure it.
