Sunday, 22nd of September - Wednesday, 25th of September 2024

Kirchberghütte, Todtmoos, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

Tuulikki Halla, UNITE Flagship, Research Council of Finland & School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Finland

Manuel John, Chair of Sustainability Governance, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg & Societal Change Unit, Forest Research Institute Baden-Württemberg, Germany

Sara Klingenfuss, Chair of Geobotany, Faculty of Biology, University of Freiburg, Germany

Theresa Klara Loch, Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Germany

Philipp Mack, Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Germany

Barbara Meyers, Chair of Geobotany, Faculty of Biology, University of Freiburg, Germany

Ronja Mikoleit, Societal Change Unit, Forest Research Institute Baden-Württemberg, Germany & Chair of Sustainability Governance, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg

Taru Peltola, Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, University of Eastern Finland & Finnish Environment Institute, Finland

Forests cover a large share of the land area in Europe and are one of the dominant land cover types. In Germany, they cover 32% (Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft 2024) and in Finland 75% (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland 2024) of the area. Although they are mostly managed for multiple purposes, forest management for cultural and economic values mostly focuses on trees (Blondeel et al. 2021). The understory (see Fig. 1 for Black Forest example) is a central element of forest ecosystems and serves different values and purposes in our society, but is often overlooked within the various frameworks for forest management and conservation.

Management for biodiversity conservation is often centred around natural habitats, flagship species, or (rare) forest specialists, such as woodpeckers (e.g. European Habitats Directive, Bundesamt für Naturschutz n.d.). While conservation measures may indirectly protect the understory - for example by protecting species of conservation interest inhabiting this layer, or by safeguarding sites that inherently include understory elements - there is often less focus on the understory as a functional whole. Individual elements of the understory related to rare or specialised taxa of interest may receive attention, but its broader functional role as a distinct and integral forest ecosystem layer, with stand-alone ecological and cultural services, is often overlooked. Such ecosystem services may include provisioning, cultural and supporting services (Landuyt et al. 2019), but the ecosystem services concept does not cover the full range of understory affordances.

As a result, decision makers in forest management often specifically and exclusively target those aspects of the understory that are relevant to silviculture, and those that are necessary to comply with conservation laws. Through a survey, Blondeel et al. (2021) found that forest management decision makers account for the understory in their management, but on average rank it only 10 out of 17 in importance. When asked about understory-specific management objectives, protection of red list species was considered to be most important by respondents, along with understory characteristics that directly relate to tree growth/timber value (e.g. tree regeneration). Management objectives related to cultural practices centred around the understory, such as non-timber forest products, were ranked only 13 out of 15. At the same time, previous studies suggest that efforts to integrate biodiversity conservation into management can indeed benefit from learning about and engaging non-expert stakeholders and their local ecological knowledge. This could be done, for example, by improving the fit of the resulting conservation measures to local conditions while also potentially increasing their social acceptability (Joa et al. 2018).

The perspective of forest dwellers, both forest visitors and residents in forest landscapes, is often overlooked, although they are a key group to consider in relation to the understory, as they contribute to a new understanding of its value. In fact, many cultural practices are related to the understory and shape how we experience the forest. Foraging is still a central understory-related practice although the number of people practicing it is declining across Europe (Mina et al. 2023). Being in the forest and experiencing what is around us strongly shapes our imagination, relationships and understanding of the natural world and our place in it (Ingold 2002, Macnaghten and Urry 2000, Poe et al. 2014). By interacting with the vegetation that is closer to our human eyes, feet and hands, we form relationships with the elements of the forest. This may even influence our willingness to conserve or protect nature (Rosa and Collado 2019). By discovering how these relationships are formed and what shapes them, we may better understand how to move forward in integrating understory vegetation diversity into management for biodiversity conservation.

Human-nature relationships are affected by many different experiences. We wanted to shed light on these in our multidisciplinary, multinational workshop focusing on the forest understory. Through understanding the values of the forest understory from both ecological and cultural perspectives, and sharing our findings with forest managers, we expect to better integrate its importance into practice. This workshop report summarises the key connections between local ecological knowledge, cultural practices and the importance of understory diversity for forest management that we identified through our multidisciplinary workshop approach. Knowledge exchange and cross-country reflections between Finland and Germany provide a great opportunity to learn about the social and cultural background of the “status quo” of the topic of the understory in both countries, and thus potentially contribute to improving the recognition of the understory within local forest biodiversity conservation regulations.

This section captures the range of insights and ideas that emerged during the workshop. Each participant contributed keywords, concepts, and reflections drawn from their unique personal, cultural and professional backgrounds. The synergy of different perspectives inspired new ideas and led to new understandings of the understory and its role within forest ecosystems. In the following, we present some key reflections on these emerging themes, highlighting the ways in which the workshop broadened our own perspectives and raised new questions about the cultural and ecological importance of the forest understory.

Knowing the understory: Etymology, ecological role and classifications

The online version of the Cambridge dictionary assigns the term "understory"(AmE)/"understorey"(BrE) as belonging to the fields of "biology" and "environment", defining it as "a layer of plants and bushes that grows under the canopy of a forest". Composed of the two basic words, "under" and "story", the term seems to be taken metaphorically (Lakoff and Johnson 2003) from the fields of architecture or civil engineering, where "story" refers to a floor or level of a building. By introducing this term in the context of forests, it draws a comparison between human-made structures and the different "floors" of vegetation present in forests. This metaphorical transfer points in several directions: It could imply that buildings and forests share common characteristics in terms of height and structure. From an experiential point of view, this parallel could even extend to the way in which tall buildings and forests alike can affect visitors. For example, the wooden roof of Notre-Dame de Paris is called "the forest". Finally, it could imply that both forests and buildings can be ‘constructed’, or at least shaped, through deliberate human planning, which in the case of forests would correspond to silviculture.

The under-story is thus defined as a structural layer of forests relative to the trees and in particular the canopy layer they produce, below which the understory is situated. Although the canopy layer is sometimes called the “overstory”, this term is used much less frequently, implying that the canopy is the more fundamental layer. This implicit hierarchy may already indicate the epistemic communities that use the term, but which also have the authority to coin and define it.

At the same time, the discussion revealed that the understory seems to convey various different kinds of knowledge: for example, scientific knowledge about ecosystem functions, traditional knowledge about herbs, berries and mushrooms and how to use them, place-based knowledge about where to find them and social knowledge about the economies (how the ”understory-society” works, e.g., who buys at which price and where, what are the rules for picking berries, mushrooms, herbs, etc.). The idea that there are different forms of knowledge involved also suggests that there are different kinds of actors who have acquired knowledge through different kinds of practices. Who are the ”professionals of the understory”? This also raises interesting questions about what kind of epistemic standpoints and privileges the understory allows, i.e. who knows the understory, how and for what purposes? Does someone have knowledge that others may not have because of their specific way of relating to the understory?

Some of the participants in our workshop actually represented two main epistemic communities within the sciences for which the understory is relevant: ecology and forest engineering. Both ecology and forest science understand forests primarily as natural ecosystems. At the same time, forest ecosystems in temperate and (sub)polar regions are often viewed predominantly as production systems with one key and central element: the tree in its capacity as producer of a central natural and economic resource, timber and timber-related products such as pulp (Scott 1998, Rytteri et al. 2016). From an ecological perspective, trees are important structuring elements of the system, determining incoming light and nutrient input through the leaf litter. However, the understory also contributes to ecosystem functioning in this system in important ways: this layer contains most forest plant species and 80% of the vascular plants (Gilliam 2007), but also regulates water cycling (e.g. Thrippleton et al. 2018), and nutrient and carbon dynamics (e.g. Elliott et al. 2015, Landuyt et al. 2019). Importantly, the understory is also the habitat for young trees and therefore has a major influence on regeneration and potential future production.

Despite its significance, the understory is often overlooked in national and international definitions of forests in some temperate and boreal systems. In German forestry, forest types are based on tree species and co-habitance of tree species only (e.g. Ministerium für Ernährung, Ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz Baden-Württemberg 2024). Nature conservation practices, in turn, are informed by a combination of all plant species in a forest ecosystem, for example regulated by the European Habitats Directive. In Finland, forest land without trees is defined as wasteland (e.g. Schuck et al. 2002), which neglects the understory as a functional element that can regenerate into a thriving forest. On the other hand, unlike in Germany, theoretical ideas about classifying forests that are used in decision-making include understory species (Laine 2023). For example, different tree species should be planted after clear-cutting whether the forest is defined as a "lingonberry type" or "oxalis acetocella-vaccinium myrtillius type" forest. The dominant plant communities in the understory are here used as indicators of soil and microclimate conditions, and their correct identification supports the selection of adequate tree species to ensure forest growth.

In addition to their different educational backgrounds and knowledge about forest practice, the participants also used their respective native languages to discuss the range of terminology related to the understory. This led to discussions that highlighted the different ways in which understory is imagined and constructed in different cultures. In German, the terms "Unterwuchs" (undergrowth) and "Unterholz" (underwood) exist, the latter having its French equivalent "sous-bois", whereas the Finnish term "aluskasvillisuus" reflects the former meaning of undergrowth. However, they all refer to hierarchically conceptualised forest structures, as they are semantically placed subordinate to the forest canopy. As a result, in forest planning or forestry practice, the understory often plays no significant role in defining what a forest is, except when it is necessary to comply with legislation such as the EU Habitats Directive. Particularly in light of recent efforts to highlight the multi-purpose and the social or relational nature of forests (e.g. Borrass et al. (2017), Halla et al. (2023), Himes and Dues (2024)), exploring different ways of classifying forests could help to enrich the discussion, for example by drawing from examples from the tropics where no such hierarchy between different forest strata is applied

Understory economies and living with the understory

The role of the understory in people’s lives - An overview

While in many regions of Europe the economic role of forests lies mainly in timber production today, historically, other uses by the general public were common, mainly related to subsistence economies. Traces of these still exist, for example in the practice of foraging, which involves the gathering of wild plants, mushrooms, and other natural products for food, medicine, or cultural practices. Historically, foraging has played a crucial role in sustaining livelihoods and maintaining cultural traditions, particularly in rural areas. Since the advent of modernity, the importance of small-scale rural subsistence farming has greatly diminished, with the majority of the population now employed in industrialised, urbanised economies where food production has been relegated to large-scale agriculture. This has transformed foraging practices from being an everyday necessity to a leisure activity, which may also explain the greater prevalence of foraging in post-communist Eastern European countries, which industrialised later than other European countries.

The international setting of the workshop also provided opportunities to compare national differences related to foraging. In Germany, the popularity of active participation in foraging practices is likely to vary across different landscapes and foraging items (e.g., mushrooms, herbs, grasses), but to our knowledge, no comparative studies have been conducted across these categories. While the growing body of research on urban foraging has shed light on human-nature interactions (Landor-Yamagata et al. 2018), other foraging behaviors, such as plant foraging in forests, remain largely unexplored. The gathering of wild plants is regulated by German state law and limited to a small amount per household (BNatSchG §39), which may affect the likelihood of people to collect plants and mushrooms from natural areas. In addition, foraging is restricted to public forest areas that are not designated as nature conservation areas, which may discourage people from engaging in this activity. The lack of research on foraging in forests limits the ability to provide forest managers with critical insights into the importance of understory diversity in multiple-use forests, and hinders the integration of this knowledge into forest management practices.

In contrast to that, in Finland, approximately 60% of the population is involved in berry picking in forest environments (Pouta et al. 2006). Due to the existence of “jokaisenoikeus” (everyone’s right),a culture of utilising the elements of the forest understory is well established. In a study conducted in Finnish Karelia, respondents were able to identify an average of 20 uses of wild food plants (Mattalia et al. 2023). In addition to foraging for household consumption, Finland has also allowed, and up until lately strongly supported, berry picking in private and public forests for industrial uses, the problematic implications of which will be discussed later.

These observations sparked discussions about how institutional regulations shape access to forests and the understory, highlighting the links between forests, state power, and economic interests. Individual claims to forest use often have been marginalised in favor of organised or state economic priorities (e.g. Scott 1998, Hölzl 2010), reflecting a wider trend of prioritising industrial and economic objectives over traditional and subsistence uses.

Discussing foraging also led us to the more fundamental question of what is considered part of the understory and how people have historically related to it, and how they do so currently. Whilst from an ecological perspective, the understory mostly includes the bryophytes and plants that grow in this layer, from a forager's perspective fungi would probably be included in the same category, as would tree seeds such as acorns or chestnuts collected from the forest floor. This ties in with debates about different ways of classifying nature (Bowker 2000, Waterton 2002, Waterton et al. 2013) and suggest that the two perspectives of ecology and forest management, although dominant today, are not the only significant ways in which humans relate to forests, and in particular to the understory.

Instead, the understory is in many ways intertwined with different human ontologies and epistemologies. It is still being used in many ways as a resource for livelihoods, food, play, art and education. It is also learned and studied for different purposes. In forestry, for example, mosses, sparrows, herbs and shrubs are used to assess soil fertility and forest productivity. As another example, in Germany, Finland and other European countries such as the UK, the concept of forest kindergartens or outdoor nurseries has become increasingly prominent in recent decades (Sobel 2014). Here, the forest – and its most tangible layer, the understory – can be used for experiential learning to develop practical and social skills while developing a sense of self-efficacy, e.g. by building shelters with branches and twigs, cooking with forest herbs and materials, writing with a stick in the soil, trading and sharing collected goods – a handful of acorns for a patch of moss. This way, children may learn to become aware of, observe and interact with our environment. They also get physical contact with the forest microbiome which can have long-lasting positive health effects in their lives (Robinson and Barrable 2023).

Economies

Foraging and other ways of contact with the understory point to the question of what kind of “understory economies” exist or have existed, forming one important basis of human-understory interactions (Häyrinen and Pynnönen 2020). When we think of the forest as an economic space, we usually talk about the use of timber in commercial forests, or about forests as touristic and recreational spaces. But what kind of economies and viewpoints on the economy open up from the perspective of the understory, i.e. what does the understory tell us about (forest-related) economies? Economy can mean subsistence drawn from a common pool resource (livelihood, not industry); it can mean small businesses producing local wild foods, or using it to create decorative materials etc, but it can also mean the use of the understory for (food) industry on a large scale. It can even mean shadow economies (brutal exploitation of both people and nature), sometimes involving forms of modern slavery, i.e. human trafficking, as in the case of berry pickers in Finland who were brought in from Thailand, and who were deprived of fair wages and forced to living under inhumane conditions (Yle News 2024). This raises further questions, for example: What kinds of informal and/or formal societal institutions allow these practices and establish the understory as an economic space?

Affordances

Another possible framework for thinking more broadly about the understory discussed during the workshop is the concept of “affordances” (Gibson 2015). Seen through this lens, the understory, as a central element of the environment encountered in forests, affects human vision and influences human actions through what it “affords” to them. For example, humans recognise certain qualities, species and functions in the understory as useful, i.e. the understory “affords” them certain things (such as a tree trunk that invites them to climb), or enables them to solve problems. These affordances are not only biological, but simultaneously societally shaped: for example, understanding the understory as a common pool resource rather than private property shapes how different groups benefit from and see value in it. Beyond material affordances, the understory has also inspired theoretical developments, for example by enabling the classification of forests into specific types. While this theoretical construct is (in some countries) applied in modern forestry practice, understory plant species have also helped to guide forestry, and forestry professionals, towards more biodiversity-friendly practices.

The understory also shapes society in important ways. Human-understory relationships have encouraged civil action against forestry practices or institutions in forestry perceived as acting in harmful ways. The concept of everyone’s right in Finland was the outcome of a single woman appealing her right to lingonberry picking in court, which the court then confirmed in the 1930s. Later, in the early 1980s, a civil movement rose to protest against using herbicides in forestry, which was feared to threaten berry picking. Thereby, the understory can also be understood as contributing to active environmental citizenship and agency.

Sensory encounters and sense of place

Yet another way of approaching the understory, which was experimented with during the workshop excursion, is to encounter it directly physically through one’s own body, e.g. by being and moving in the forest. As walking beings, the understory shapes to a large extent what humans experience in the forest. This is something that unites forest managers and other people – their direct knowledge of the forest is to a large extent shaped by their corporeality, as both groups gain a significant share of their knowledge through visual and other physical modes of contact with the forest (combined with other forms of knowledge such as scientific knowledge summarised in statistics, maps or graphs). When we are on our feet, the understory lies in front of and below us, and we can bend or kneel down to be in close sensory contact with it, or we cut a path through dense vegetation with our extremities, so that we can continue on our way. Thus, in addition to the diverse epistemological perspectives on the understory, the concepts of "movement", "corporeality" and "practical" or "incorporated knowledge" seem promising for further exploration in relation to "understories", bundled in a phenomenological perspective on human-forest relationships. In this sense, knowledge could also be conceptualised as knowing along paths and places. From this perspective, forest places can be understood as being connected by a matrix of people's (or other beings') movements: "We know as we go, from place to place“, as environmental anthropologist Tim Ingold puts it. How are our forest movements, paths and places connected to and shaped by different "understories"?

More generally, this points to the profound influence of the understory on the “relational values” (e.g. Jax et al. (2018), Halla et al. (2023), Himes and Dues (2024)) that people hold towards the forest, particularly through a "sense of place." The understory plays a critical role in shaping how individuals experience and connect to the forest environment; it serves as the first point of sensory engagement upon entering a wooded area. The soft texture of moss underfoot, the earthy crunch of needles, and the gentle sound of a stream all form a sensory landscape that grounds the forest experience and deepens attachment to a given place.

In environmental literature, "sense of place" is understood as the emotional and symbolic meanings attached to a particular environment, often shaped by sensory experience and cultural context (Tuan 1977, Relph 2008). The understory is an integral part of these sensory interactions, creating an immediate, tangible connection to the forest that shapes how individuals perceive, relate to, and value the landscape. Even though people may not consciously focus on the understory, it subconsciously guides movement, enhances a sense of immersion, and provides a comforting familiarity or even a challenge, depending on its density and accessibility. Research emphasises that sensory interactions, such as touch, sound, and sight, foster emotional bonds with natural landscapes and provide a basis for relational values (Williams and Stewart 1998). These values, in turn, influence conservation attitudes, as people are more likely to advocate for the protection of places to which they feel connected.

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPERIENCE BY THE PARTICIPANTS

Our workshop sought to create a space for international and interdisciplinary dialogue. Together, we began to weave a web of uses, values, perspectives, meanings and relationships around the understory in an attempt to capture some aspects of its complexity as a socio-economic-ecological system (for a picture of our group see Fig. 4). Here, we would like to share some reflections on exploring the case of the understory in an interdisciplinary setting, its potential scientific value and the inspiration that individual participants were able to draw from it for their individual work.

"Working in this interdisciplinary context allowed me to observe different approaches to what I initially thought could be straightforward questions, such as 'What is the understory?' and 'Why is it important?' . I also realised the complexity and time needed to develop research ideas across different fields, particularly due to the frequent need to define terms and concepts. Establishing a common language initially took time, but it ultimately proved to be a valuable part of the workshop. It also broadened my perspective on the many ways of doing research."

“I was impressed by how we worked together to expand and enrich our understanding of the understory by starting from a seemingly rather simple, everyday concept of the understory. The workshop provided a unique setting and atmosphere to explore different approaches to it, ranging from theoretical and conceptual (readings) to visual and corporeal ways of grasping the understory. Maybe our approach could be characterised as a multi-method way of relating to the understory. Important for me was that we did not force our thinking by aiming at finding common ground, common concepts, common starting points, but rather allowed ourselves to widen the scope, the language, the perspectives. That was inspiring because it allowed us to build upon what each of us brought to the common table. This way of working might have been frustrating to those who wished to achieve more tangible outcomes but I felt this nourished future works and potential in a fruitful way.”

“Facilitating this workshop was a unique opportunity for me to explore the bottom-up creation of research ideas. A key moment in this process was seeing how diverse minds, working together in a focused and collaborative atmosphere, could generate ideas and concepts far beyond what I could have imagined alone. By building on each other’s knowledge, philosophies, and creativity, we approached the understory in an entirely new way. A particularly striking moment was when another researcher explained the concept of ontology and how it could frame our questions about the understory. This resonated deeply with me, as I believe that understanding the full spectrum of meanings, values, and experiences associated with an element of our world, greatly enhances its conservation potential. This insight also shifted my perspective on engaging with foresters about the understory—moving beyond "ecosystem service"-based arguments towards a different narrative for conservation. As both a participant and facilitator, I reflected deeply on how bottom-up processes challenged me to hold space for open ideation in the early stages while effectively synthesising ideas in later steps. For me, the workshop underscored the importance of true interdisciplinary conversations that broaden our understanding of how study elements like the understory can be perceived and approached scientifically. Ultimately, this workshop was not just about exchanging knowledge; it was about fostering connections, broadening perspectives, and, for me personally, building the confidence to guide discussions with an open heart and a mindful attention to time and synthesis.”

“In these times of remote online meetings, I enjoyed the workshop idea of meeting face to face. Embodied presence, joint discussions, theoretical reflections and excursions into the surrounding understory inspired shared knowledge and creation. Well selected pre-reading materials helped to navigate the topic. The multidisciplinary background of the workshop participants as well as the skillful facilitation broadened individual perspectives on the topic and helped to identify possible research gaps, goals, motivations and consequently collaboration. The location of the workshop in a small village allowed the participants to focus on the topic, away from the constant noise of the media channels. The warm atmosphere and hospitality left many fond memories :) :)”

“The exchange between natural and social scientists made it possible to provoke alternative experiences when engaging with the understory. Natural science insights on water, light and nutrient requirements combined with more-than-human perspectives from the social sciences, allowed us to view different perspectives on what it actually means to ‘be a blueberry’. This opened manifold possibilities on where to go from here, while the blueberry will stay in the forest.”

“Taking part in this workshop and creating a common space for reflection on an underexposed forest boundary object with various enthusiastic researchers from very different disciplinary backgrounds has once again catapulted me into the fascinating richness, but also the challenges of interdisciplinary work on/with complex NatureCultures, which cannot be overcome once and for all, but require constant processualisation, commitment and friendliness. In return for these efforts, new and beautiful insights into the complex world of the diversity of (forest) relationships and under-stories wait to be appreciated and further explored.”

“The interdisciplinary exchange during the workshop was incredibly valuable. Having the time and space to engage in discussions while being physically present in the Black Forest made a significant difference. Being in the forest itself created a deeper connection to the place and allowed us to truly learn from one another in a way that would not have been possible in a purely theoretical setting. Encountering different concepts and perspectives helped me develop a more holistic understanding of the understory and the forest as a whole. Hearing how others approached these ideas challenged my own views, broadening my perspective on what the understory means ecologically, socially, and culturally. I also found it especially enriching to work with researchers from different countries. Exploring how two cultures—both connected to temperate and boreal forests—interpret and engage with the understory highlighted important nuances in our ways of thinking. This exchange deepened my appreciation for the diversity of perspectives that shape our understanding of forests.”

“As an environmental social scientist, much of what I’m involved in are ‘second order observations’ (Luhmann 2012): I don’t usually study ‘what’s out there’ directly (i.e. the things and relationships that make up our world), but rather the ways in which other people, such as different cultural or professional groups, identify, make sense of and discuss them, and the connections they make between them. This is what makes working with researchers from the natural sciences both challenging and extremely valuable. From my point of view, the natural sciences offer one (a privileged) approach to bringing order to the world, yet not the only one there is. Looking at it this way often raises fundamental questions about the validity of different ways of knowing the world and nature in particular, leading to discussions that can be equally enjoyable and frustrating. At the same time, learning about what the forest is from a botanist’s or a silviculturalist’s perspective, for example, means hearing from someone who is intimately familiar with the entities which make up the forest from their point of view, someone who has ‘the power of discrimination’, so to speak: To see differences where I don’t see any and to give these differences a name, and to add context to what I perceive and imagine that stems from an enormous body of meticulous empirical work which has developed over centuries and continues to grow and evolve. Their insights provide me with a point of access to the understory that is both highly cognitive and at the same time allows me to tremendously enrich my direct experience. Working with them, going on a hike with them, I see a different forest when they lend me their eyes, and their minds.”

The aim of the workshop was to explore and understand the often overlooked cultural, ecological, social and management significance of the forest understory, particularly within the context of biodiversity conservation and forest management. We aimed to investigate the rich cultural and ecological values of the understory, with a particular focus on foraging practices and their importance to local communities and biodiversity by bringing together different perspectives on the understory and examining local ecological knowledge and cultural practices in both Finland and Germany.

In addition, the workshop facilitated the exchange of knowledge between Finnish and German researchers and promoted new insights into the topic of the sustainable integration of understory management in forest conservation.

With an open format based on facilitation methods that encourage bottom-up ideation and creative thinking (Fig. 2: Exemplary image of workshop outcome), our workshop aimed to broaden the understanding of the understory from diverse perspectives. Prior to the in-person meeting, participants engaged with a collaboratively curated set of readings, ensuring that everyone had the opportunity to contribute material they found important. The program itself was organised into three key phases:

Introduction and Context: Participants shared their backgrounds and perspectives, followed by a summary of existing work on the subject.

Exploration and Ideation: This phase included intensive brainstorming sessions to integrate perspectives and generate research ideas. A field trip to the forest (Fig. 3) provided first-hand experience of understory dynamics, complemented by insights from a local forester on how the understory is perceived in forest management.

Synthesis and Planning: Participants refined research ideas into concrete proposals for written outputs, funding opportunities, and conference papers.

The workshop program was designed to evolve continuously based on the needs and interests of the group. Sessions alternated between diverging and converging methods, allowing participants to reflect on their learning and integrate interdisciplinary perspectives into a unified research idea. We explicitly excluded online research during the workshop, focusing instead on in-presence group interaction in order to facilitate the emergence of ideas generated from the group’s collective understanding and experiencing of the understory.

Suppl. material 1: Workshop programme

The different perspectives presented here demonstrate the profound complexity and multifaceted nature of the understory, both as an ecological component and as a cultural construct. While it plays a central role in forest ecosystems through its ecological functions like water and nutrient cycling, we also ascribe socio-cultural significance to the understory, shaping human experiences and economies. One striking insight is the need to move beyond tree-centric frameworks to embrace a more holistic view of forest ecosystems that recognises the critical contributions of the understory. Reflections range from its overlooked role in forest policy and management to its tangible sensory impact on human connections with nature by movement and touch. These discussions highlight the understory as a space of interaction - where ecological, cultural, and economic dimensions converge - and hopefully supports a rethinking of how forests are defined, valued, and conserved.

The understory invites us to reconsider dominant ways of relating to forests, and to nature more generally. They are part of societal and professional forest/nature discourses and reveal the values and meanings that societies or, for example, forest managers as members of professional communities associate with forests/nature. Perceived and narrated solely as timber, a natural resource for humans or as “ecosystem services” ignores the diversity of meanings, practices and traditions that individuals and communities attach to forests and understory as an integral part of their existence. As both a tangible and intangible cultural heritage, and further as heritage futures (e.g. Siivonen (2019), DYNAMO (2020)), the diversity of traditional forest (understory) knowledge needs to be expanded, cherished and passed on. On the threshold of a paradigm shift in forest management, and more broadly in human-nature interactions, towards more relational (e.g. Detten (2022), Himes and Dues (2024)), regenerative (e.g. Dahm (2022)) and post-humanist (e.g. Marchesini (2017)) approaches, it is essential to acknowledge, define and understand the role and importance of understory in this transition. Furthermore, the power hierarchies associated with it and its definition and use are linked to international trade and modern slavery (e.g. Brown et al. (2021), Rašković (2023)). This makes the understory not only an ecological and cultural issue, but also a highly political one.

Both society and nature are currently undergoing rapid change. Whether these transformations can be managed or even fully understood remains an open question (e.g. Ludwig (2001)), but there is an urgent need for new perspectives. We suggest fostering interdisciplinary explorations of the understory as a promising avenue, allowing for a shift from traditional to new, unconventional perspectives, and asking questions such as:

What kind of qualities, species or functions in or of the understory are ignored and why?

In this way we might be able to generate different forms of understanding of societies, forests, and their relationships. Such 'thinking with' the understory might also help to identify less harmful ways of relating to forests.