## 3 Results
### Review of In-Depth Forest Differentiation  
In addition to the thematic focus on weather differences, extremes, and long-term climate change, the differentiation of the forest was examined, particularly with regard to the identification of research gaps. The differentiation criteria chosen by the authors in relation to forests are therefore presented below. One way of distinguishing forests is by forest type. Three forest types can be differentiated in temperate forests: coniferous forests, deciduous forests, and mixed forests. Sixty studies investigated only one forest type, in nine studies the forest type was not specified. The remaining 57 studies investigated the effects of climate change or EWEs in two or more forest types. Figure 11 shows the distribution of the investigated forest types according to the proportion of mentions. Coniferous and deciduous forests were mentioned equally frequently in 66% of the studies. The effects in mixed forests, on the other hand, were only examined in 44% publications. The mention of the different forest types does not yet indicate whether the authors differentiated the forest according to the different impacts of EWEs and climate change. The effects of EWEs and climate change may vary depending on forest characteristics. For example, the impact of drought on the forest depends on species composition, forest structure, forest type, stand location, or management type. Based on this, we built five forest differentiation types named \"Tree Species\", \"Forest Structure\", \"Forest Type\", \"Stand Location\", and \"Management Type\". The left donut chart in Figure 12 shows whether the studied forest was classified according to one of these criteria. According to this, 60.3% of  
Figure 11: Percentage of forest types investigated. At least two forest types were mentioned in 57 studies. the publications distinguish between the impacts of climate change and EWEs according to at least one forest characteristic. The donut chart on the right shows the distribution of area coverage. The bar chart combines these two points and shows the number of publications that differentiate the effects of EWEs or climate change according to the forest characteristics (\(x\)-axis), and additionally indicates the territorial extent via the color. The authors most frequently differentiate the forest by forest type at all scales. The location of the stand is only considered in two studies. [PERSON] et al. [105] investigated whether pine trees at the edge of the forest are affected by higher mortality rates during drought. Using a combination of dendroecology and remote sensing, it was shown that proximity to the forest edge is negatively related to mortality and positively related to growth. [PERSON] et al. [135] used ALS and AHS data in their study of conifer mortality in the Sierra Nevada to show, among other things, that mortality increases with distance from a river. Relatively little distinction was made between different types of forest management. A commonly used distinction of forest management is that between natural and planted forest. For example, [PERSON] et al. [150] investigated the intensity of drought impacts in planted and natural forests using the MODIS timeseries. Other studies followed similar approaches to distinguish the different responses of planted and natural forests in China [180; 213]. [PERSON] et al. [150] and [PERSON] et al. [180] demonstrated that natural forests are more vulnerable to drought, while [PERSON] et al. [213] focused on carbon sequestration and showed lower values for planted forests. In turn, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [154] examined the effects of forest thinning on drought resilience using airborne thermal data. They demonstrated that the benefits of forest restoration thinning are enhanced during periods of unprecedented drought. In general, studies using this forest differentiation have only been conducted at smaller scales.