Introducing intensively managed spruce plantations in Swedish: Forest landscapes will impair biodiversity decline

Forests

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 610-630

  Strengbom, Joachim ^a   Dahlberg, Anders ^a   Larsson, Artur ^a   Lindelöw, Åke ^a   Sandström, Jonas ^a   Widenfalk, Olof ^b   Gustafsson, Lena ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b THE FORESTRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF SWEDEN   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Boreal forests; Fertilization; Land use change; Plantation forests

Indexed keywords

BOREAL FORESTS; COARSE WOODY DEBRIS; DENSE CANOPY; EXPERT JUDGMENT; FERTILIZATION; FOREST LANDSCAPE; FOREST PRODUCTIVITY; INTENSIVE FORESTRY; LAND-USE CHANGE; LANDSCAPE LEVEL; LANDSCAPE SCALE; LIGHT INTENSITY; LITERATURE DATA; LOW CONSERVATION; MANAGEMENT OPTIONS; NORWAY SPRUCE; PLANNING AND MONITORING; PLANTATION FORESTS; POLICY INSTRUMENTS; POTENTIAL EFFECTS; SHORT ROTATION; SPRUCE PLANTATIONS; STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS; VASCULAR PLANT;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; PLANTS (BOTANY);

FORESTRY;

BIODIVERSITY; BOREAL FOREST; FERTILIZER APPLICATION; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FOREST PRODUCT; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT QUALITY; LAND USE CHANGE; LANDSCAPE; PLANTATION FORESTRY; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; FERTILIZATION; FORESTRY; FORESTS; LAND USE; PLANTATIONS; PLANTS;

SWEDEN;

BRYOPHYTES; HEXAPODA; PICEA; PICEA ABIES; TRACHEOPHYTA;

EID: 84861756483     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19994907     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/f2030610     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Hill, J.; Nelson, E.; Tilman, D.; Olasky, S.; Tiffany, D. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 11206-11210.
2. Marland, G.; Obersteiner, M. Large-scale biomass for energy, with considerations and cautions: An editorial comment. Clim. Change 2008, 87, 335-342.
3. Koh, L.P.; Ghazoul, J. Biofuels, biodiversity, and people: Understanding the conflicts and finding opportunities. Biol. Conservat. 2008, 141, 2450-2460.
4. Tilman, D.; Socolow, R.; Foley, J.A.; Hill, J.; Larson, E.; Lynd, L.; Pacala, S.; Reily, J.; Searchinger, T.; Somerville, C.; Williams, R. Beneficial biofules-The food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science 2009, 325, 270-271.
5. Nabuurs, G.J.; Pussinen, A.; van Brusselen, J.; Schelhaas, M.J. Future harvesting pressure on European forests. Eur. J. Forest Res. 2007, 126, 391-400.
6. Söderholm, P.; Lundmark, R. The development of forest-based biorefineries. Implications for market. Forest Prod. J. 2009, 59, 6-16.
7. Mace, G.; Masundire, H.; Baillie, J. Biodiversity. In Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Current State and Trends: Millennium Ecosystem Assessments; Hassan, R., Scholes, R., Ash, N., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 1, pp. 79-115.
8. Hartmann, H.; Daoust, G.; Bigué, B.; Messier, C. Negative or positive effects of plantation forestry on biodiversity. A matter of scale and perspective. Forest. Chron. 2010, 86, 354-364.
9. FAO. Forest plantation production. In Future Production from Forest Plantations; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010. Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/ac133e/ac133e06.htm (accessed on 29 October 2010).
10. Sedjo, R. The potential of high-yield plantation forestry for meeting timber needs. New Forests 1999, 17, 339-359.
11. Brockerhoff, E.G.; Jactel, H.; Parrotta, J.A.; Quine, C.; Sayer, J. Plantation forests and biodiversity: Oxymoron or opportunity? Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 925-951.
12. Barlow, J.; Gardner, T.A.; Araujo, I.S.; Avila-Pires, T.C.; Bonaldo, A.B.; Costa, J.E.; Esposito, M.C.; Ferreira, L.V.; Hawes, J.; Hernadez, M.I.M.; et al. Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 18555-18560.
13. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Hobbs, R.J.; Salt, D. Plantation forests and biodiversity conservation. Aust. Forest. 2003, 66, 62-66.
14. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Hobbs, R.J. Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests-A review. Biol. Conservat. 2004, 119, 151-168.
15. Official Statistics of Sweden. Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry; Swedish Forest Agency: Jönköping, Sweden, 2011. Available online: http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/en/authority/Statistics/ (accessed on 2 August 2011).
16. Anonymous. Skogsstyrelsens allmänna råd till ledning för hänsyn enligt 30 § skogsvårdslagen (1979:429) vid användning av kvävegödselmedel på skogsmark; Skogsstyrelsens Författningssamling: Jönköping, Sweden, 2007 (in Swedish).
17. Esseen, P.A.; Ehnström, B.; Ericson, L.; Sjöberg, K. Boreal forests. Ecol. Bull. (Copenhagen) 1997, 46, 16-47.
18. Gustafsson, L.; Perhans, K. Biodiversity conservation in Swedish forests. Ways forward for a 30-year-old multi-scaled approach. AMBIO 2010, 39, 546-554.
19. Larsson, S.; Lundmark, T.; Ståhl, G. Möjligheter till intensivodling av skog. In Slutrapport från regeringsuppdrag Jo 2008/1885. SLU Rapport: Uppsala, Sweden, 2009 (in Swedish with English summary). Available online: http://www.futureforests.se or http://www.slu.se (accessed on 2 August 2011).
20. Gustafsson, L.; Kouki, J.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: A review of ecological consequences. Scand. J. Forest. Res. 2010, 25, 295-308.
21. Bergh, J.; Linder, S.; Bergström, J. Potential production of Norway spruce in Sweden. Forest. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 204, 1-10.
22. Bergh, J.; Linder, S.; Lundmark, T.; Elfving, B. The effect of water and nutrient availability on the productivity of Norway spruce in northern and southern Sweden. Forest. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 119, 51-62.
23. Fahlvik, N.; Johansson, U.; Nilsson, U. Skogsskötsel för ökad tillväxt. Faktaunderlag till MINT-utredningen. SLU Rapport: Uppsala, Sweden, 2009 (in Swedish).
24. Linder, S. Foliar analysis for detecting and correcting nutrient imbalances in Norway spruce. Ecol. Bull. (Copenhagen) 1995, 44, 178-190.
25. Nordin, A.; Lundmark, T.; Grip, H.; Nilsson, M.B.; Ericson, L. Miljöanalys av ungskogsgödsling med balanserad näringstillförsel på skogsmark; SLU Rapport: Uppsala, Sweden, 2009 (in Swedish).
26. Hedwall, P.-O.; Nordin, A.; Brunet, J.; Bergh, J. Compositional changes of forest-floor vegetation in young stands of Norway spruce as an effect of repeated fertilisation. Forest. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 2418-2425.
27. Gärdenfors, U. Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2005-The 2005 Red List of Swedish Species; Artdatabanken, SLU: Uppsala, Sweden, 2005.
28. Artportalen. Swedish Species Information Centre: Uppsala, Sweden, 2011. Available online: http://www.artportalen.se (accessed on 3 August 2011).
29. Artdatabanken, Swedish Species Information Centre, Uppsala, Sweden, 2011. Available online: http://www.artdata.slu.se/default.asp (accessed on 8 August 2011).
30. Edenius, L.; Mikusinski, G.; Bergh, J. Can repeated fertilizer application to young Norway spruce enhance avian diversity in intensively managed forests? AMBIO 2011, 40, 521-527.
31. Jonsson, B.G.; Kruys, N.; Ranius, T. Ecology of species living on dead wood-Lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fenn. 2005, 39, 289-309.
32. Mattsson, L.; Li, C.Z. The non-timber value of northern Swedish forests-An economic-analysis. Scand. J. Forest. Res. 1993, 8, 426-434.
33. Baines, D.; Sage, R.B.; Baines, M.M. The implications of red deer grazing to ground vegetation and invertebrate communities of Scottish native pinewoods. J. Appl. Ecol. 1994, 31, 776-783.
34. Gärdenfors, U. Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2010-The 2010 Red List of Swedish Species; Artdatabanken, SLU: Uppsala, Sweden, 2010.
35. Kupfer, J.A.; Malanson, G.P.; Franklin, S.B. Not seeing the ocean for the islands: The mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation processes. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2006, 15, 8-20.
36. Kouki, J.; Väänänen, A. Impoverishment of resident old-growth forest bird assemblages along an isolation gradient of protected areas in eastern Finland. Ornis Fenn. 2000, 77, 145-154.
37. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Franklin, J.F. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscale Approach; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
38. Franklin, J.F.; Berg, D.R.; Thornburgh, D.A.; Tappeiner, J.C. Alternative Silvicutural Approches to Timber Harvesting: Variable Retention Harvest Systems. In Creating Forestry for the 21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management; Kohm, K.A., Franklin, J.F., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; pp. 111-139.
39. Hautala, H.; Jalonen, J.; Laaka-Lindberg, S.; Vanha-Majamaa, I. Impacts of retention felling on coarse woody debris (CWD) in mature boreal spruce forests in Finland. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13, 1541-1554.
40. Gauslaa, Y.; Lie, M.; Solhaug, K.A.; Ohlson, M. Growth and ecophysiological acclimation of the foliose lichen Lobaria pulmonaria in forest with contrasting light climates. Oecologia 2006, 147, 406-416.
41. Gauslaa, Y.; Palmqvist, K.; Solhaug, K.A.; Holien, H.; Hilmo, O.; Nybakken, L.; Myhre, L.C.; Ohlson, M. Growth of epiphytic old forest lichens across climatic and successional gradients. Can. J. Forest. Res. 2007, 37, 1832-1845.
42. Jonsell, M.; Weslien, J.; Ehnström, B. Substrate requirements of red-listed invertebrates in Sweden. Biodivers. Conserv. 1998, 7, 749-764.
43. Lindhe, A.; Lindelöw, Å.; Åsenblad, N. Saproxylic beetles in standing dead wood density in relation to substrate sun-exposure and diameter. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 3033-3053.
44. Seymour, R.S.; Hunter, M.L. Principles of Ecological Forestry. In Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystem; Hunter, M.L., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999; pp. 22-61.
45. Cote, P.; Tittler, R.; Messier, C.; Kneeshaw, D.D.; Fall, A.; Fortin, M.-J. Comparing different forest zoning options for landscape-scale management of the boreal forest: Possible benefits of the TRIAD. Forest. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 418-427.