Conservation planning in forest landscapes of Fennoscandia and an approach to the challenge of Countdown 2010

Conservation Biology

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1445-1454

  Mikusinski G ^a   Pressey, R L ^b,d   Edenius, L ^a   Kujala, H ^c   Moilanen, A ^c   Niemela J ^c   Ranius, T ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^d JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Boreal forests; Reserve selection; Spatial conservation planning; Zonation software

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION PLANNING; FOREST MANAGEMENT; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; HABITAT AVAILABILITY; POPULATION BOTTLENECK; RED LIST; SOFTWARE;

ANIMAL; CONFERENCE PAPER; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FINLAND; METHODOLOGY; NORWAY; POLICY; SWEDEN; TREE; VERTEBRATE;

ANIMALS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; FINLAND; NORWAY; PUBLIC POLICY; SWEDEN; TREES; VERTEBRATES;

EURASIA; FENNOSCANDIA;

EID: 37349048981     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00833.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (69)

1. Andersson, R., and L. Östlund. 2004. Spatial patterns, density changes and implications on biodiversity for old trees in the boreal landscape of northern Sweden. Biological Conservation 118 : 443 453.
2. Angelstam, P. 1998. Maintaining and restoring biodiversity in European boreal forests by developing natural disturbance regimes. Journal of Vegetation Science 9 : 593 602.
3. Angelstam, P., et al. 1997. Biodiversity and sustainable forestry in European forests - how west and east can learn from each other. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25 : 38 48.
4. Angelstam, P., M. Dönz-Breuss, and J.-M. Roberge, editors. 2004. Targets and tools for the maintenance of forest biodiversity. Ecological Bulletins.
5. Axelsson, A. -L., L. Östlund, and E. Hellberg. 2002. Changes in mixed deciduous forests of boreal Sweden 1866-1999 based on interpretation of historical records. Landscape Ecology 17 : 403 418.
6. Balmford, A., et al. 2005a. The convention on biological diversity's 2010 target. Science 307 : 212 213.
7. Balmford, A., P. Crane, A. Dobson, R. E. Green, and G. M. Mace. 2005b. The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 360 : 221 228.
8. Baskent, E. Z., and S. Keles. 2005. Spatial forest planning: a review. Ecological Modelling 188 : 145 173.
9. Bengtsson, J., P. Angelstam, T. Elmqvist, U. Emanuelsson, C. Folke, M. Ihse, F. Moberg, and M. Nyström. 2003. Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32 : 389 396.
10. Berg, Å., B. Ehnström, L. Gustafsson, T. Hallingbäck, M. Jonsell, and J. Weslien. 1994. Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. Conservation Biology 8 : 718 731.
11. Bernes, C., editor. 1994. Biological diversity in Sweden. A country study. Monitor 14. Naturvårdsverkets förlag, Solna, Sweden.
12. Besseau, P., K. Dansou, and F. Johnson. 2002. The international model forest network (IMFN): elements of success. Forestry Chronicle 78 : 648 654.
13. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) 2002. Decision VI/26. Strategic plan for the convention on biological diversity. CBD, Montreal. Available from http://www.cbd.int/decisions/default.shtml (accessed June 2007).
14. Davis, L. S., and G. Liu. 1991. Integrated forest planning across multiple ownership and decision makers. Forest Science 34 : 200 226.
15. Edenius, L., and G. Mikusiński. 2006. Utility of habitat suitability models as biodiversity assessment tools in forest management. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 21 (Suppl. 7 62 72.
16. Esseen, P-. A., B. Ehnström, L. Ericson, and K. Sjöberg. 1997. Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletins 46 : 16 47.
17. Farrell, E. P., E. Führer, D. Ryan, F. Andersson, R. Hüttl, and P. Piussi. 2000. European Forest ecosystems: building the future on the legacy of the past. Forest Ecology and Management 132 : 5 20.
18. Fries, C., O. Johansson, B. Pettersson, and P. Simonsson. 1997. Silvicultural models to maintain and restore natural stand structures in Swedish boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management 94 : 89 103.
19. Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396 : 41 49.
20. Hanski, I. 2000. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37 : 271 280.
21. Kittredge, D. B., A. O. Finley, and D. R. Foster. 2003. Timber harvesting as ongoing disturbance in a landscape of diverse ownership. Forest Ecology and Management 180 : 425 442.
22. Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, and B. M. Campbell. 2006. An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conservation Biology 20 : 408 419.
23. Kurttila, M., and T. Pukkala. 2003. Combining holding-level economic goals with spatial landscape-level goals in the planning of multiple ownership forestry. Landscape Ecology 18 : 529 541.
24. Kuuluvainen, T. 2002. Natural variability of forests as a reference for restoring and managing biological diversity in boreal Fennoscandia. Silva Fennica 36 : 97 125.
25. Lämås, T., and L. Eriksson. 2003. Analysis and planning systems for multiresource, sustainable forestry: the Heureka research programme at SLU. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33 : 500 508.
26. MacDonald, D., J. R. Grabtree, G. Wiesinger, T. Dax, N. Stamou, P. Fleury, J. Gutiérrez-Lazpita, and A. Gibon. 2000. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management 59 : 47 69.
27. McNeely, J. A. 1995. Expanding partnerships in conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
28. Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405 : 243 253.
29. Mikusiński, G., and P. Angelstam. 1998. Economic geography, forest distribution and woodpecker diversity in central Europe. Conservation Biology 12 : 200 208.
30. Mikusiński, G., P. Angelstam, and U. Sporrong. 2003. Distribution of deciduous stands in villages located in coniferous forest landscapes in Sweden. Ambio 32 : 520 526.
31. Moilanen, A. 2007. Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning. Unifying reserve selection strategies. Biological Conservation 134 : 571 579.
32. Moilanen, A., and H. Kujala. 2006. Zonation Spatial conservation planning framework and software. Version. 1.0. User manual. Edita, Helsinki.
33. Moilanen, A., and B. A. Wintle. 2006. Uncertainty analysis favours selection of spatially aggregated reserve structures. Biological Conservation 129 : 427 434.
34. Moilanen, A., and B. A. Wintle. 2007. The boundary quality penalty-a quantitative method for approximating species responses to fragmentation in reserve selection. Conservation Biology DOI :.
35. Moilanen, A., A. M. A. Franco, R. Early, R. Fox, B. A. Wintle, and C. D. Thomas. 2005. Prioritising multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272 : 1885 1891.
36. Moilanen, A., B. A. Wintle, J. Elith, and M. Burgman. 2006a. Uncertainty analysis for regional-scale reserve selection. Conservation Biology 20 : 1688 1697.
37. Moilanen, A., M. Rung, J. Elith, A. Tyre, Y. Carmel, E. Fegraus, B. A. Wintle, M. Burgman, and Y. Ben-Haim. 2006b. Planning for robust reserve networks using uncertainty analysis. Ecological Modelling 119 : 115 124.
38. Morrison, M. L., B. C. Marcot, and R. W. Manna. 1998. Wildlife-habitat relationships, concepts and applications. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
39. Niemelä, J. 1999. Management in relation to disturbance in the boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management 115 : 127 134.
40. Niemelä, J. 2000. Biodiversity monitoring for decision-making. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37 : 307 317.
41. Niemelä, J., et al. 2005. Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 7 : 877 890.
42. Nilsson, S. G. 1997. Forests in the temperate-boreal transition: natural and man-made features. Ecological Bulletins 46 : 61 71.
43. Nitare, J., and M. Norén. 1992. Woodland key-habitats mapped in a new project of the Swedish National Board of Forestry. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 86 : 219 226 (in Swedish with English abstract).
44. Noss, R. F. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115 : 135 146.
45. Ostermann, O. P. 1998. The need for management of nature conservation sites designated under Natura 2000. Journal of Applied Ecology 35 : 968 973.
46. Peterken, G. F. 1996. Natural woodland: ecology and conservation in northern temperate regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
47. Pressey, R. L., M. Cabeza, M. E. Watts, R. M. Cowling, and K. A. Wilson. 2007. Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends in Ecology & Evolution : in press.
48. Puumalainen, J., P. Kennedy, and S. Folving. 2003. Monitoring forest biodiversity: a European perspective with reference to temperate and boreal forest zone. Journal of Environmental Management 67 : 5 14.
49. Penttilä, R., J. Siitonen, and M. Kuusinen. 2004. Polypore diversity in managed and old-growth boreal Picea abies forests in southern Finland. Biological Conservation 117 : 271 283.
50. Pickett, S., and J. N. Thompson. 1978. Patch dynamics and the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 13 : 27 37.
51. Ranius, T., and N. Jansson. 2000. The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy cover and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biological Conservation 95 : 85 94.
52. Ranius, T., O. Kindvall, N. Kruys, and B. G. Jonsson. 2003. Modelling dead wood in Norway spruce stands subject to different management regimes. Forest Ecology and Management 182 : 13 29.
53. Ranius, T., N. Kruys, and B. G. Jonsson. 2004. Modeling dead wood in Fennoscandian old-growth forests dominated by Norway spruce. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34 : 1025 1034.
54. Rantala, T., and E. Primmer. 2003. Value positions based on forest policy stakeholders' rhetoric in Finland. Environmental Science and Policy 6 : 205 216.
55. Reese, H., M. Nilsson, T. Granqvist Pahlén, O. Hagner, S. Joyce, U. Tingelöf, M. Egberth, and H. Olsson. 2003. Countrywide estimates of forest variables using satellite data and field data from the national forest inventory. Ambio 32 : 542 548.
56. Rodrigues, A. S. L., and K. J. Gaston. 2001. How large do reserve networks need to be? Ecology Letters 4 : 602 609.
57. Rouvinen, S., and T. Kuuluvainen. 2005. Tree diameter distributions in natural and managed old Pinus sylvestris-dominated forests. Forest Ecology and Management 208 : 45 61.
58. SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Sweden's environmental objectives - are we getting there? de Facto 2004. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.
59. Siitonen, J. 2001. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins 49 : 11 42.
60. Stanners, D., and P. Bourdeau, editors. 1995. Europe's environment. The Dobris assessment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
61. Svancara, L. K., R. Brannon, J. M. Scott, C. R. Groves, R. F. Noss, and R. L. Pressey. 2005. Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: a review of political targets and biological needs. BioScience 55 : 989 995.
62. Tikka, P. 2003. Conservation contracts in habitat protection in southern Finland. Environmental Science and Policy 6 : 271 278.
63. Tikkanen, O. P., P. Martikainen, E. Hyvärinen, K. Junninen, and J. Kouki. 2006. Red-listed boreal forest species of Finland: associations with forest structure, tree species, and decaying wood. Annales Zoologici Fennici 43 : 373 383.
64. Tillmann, J. E. 2005. Habitat fragmentation and ecological networks in Europe. Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 14 : 119 123.
65. Tittler, R., C. Messier, and P. J. Burton. 2001. Hierarchical forest management planning and sustainable forest management in the boreal forest. Forestry Chronicle 77 : 998 1005.
66. UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 2000. Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (industrialized temperate/boreal countries). UNECE and Food and Agriculture Organisation Contribution to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Main report. Geneva timber and forest study papers, no. 17. United Nations Publication, New York.
67. UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 2003. Declaration by the environment ministers of the region of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Fifth ministerial conference Environ-environment for Europe. ECE/CEP/94/Rev.1. Available from http://www.rusrec.ru/homepage/ databases/int_law/ece.cep.94.rev.1.e.pdf (accessed June 2007).
68. Wennberg, S., and O. Höjer. 2005. Frequency analysis of areas with high nature conservation value. Report 5466. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm (in Swedish with English summary).
69. World Conservation Union (IUCN). 2006. IUCN Red List of threatened species 2006. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available from http://www.iucn.org/ themes/ssc/redlist2006/redlist2006.htm (accessed June 2007).