Ecosystem model analysis of multi-use forestry in a changing climate

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 26, Issue , 2017, Pages 209-224

  Lagergren, Fredrik ^a   Jönsson, Anna Maria ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Climate adaptation; Ecosystem services; Forest management; LPJ GUESS; Sweden

Indexed keywords

EID: 85021697509     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.007     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Agestam, E., Karlsson, M., Nilsson, U., Mixed forests as a part of sustainable forestry in Southern Sweden. J. Sustainable For. 21:2/3 (2005), 101–117.
2. Beland Lindahl, K., et al. The Swedish forestry model: more of everything?. For. Policy Econ., 2015, 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.10.012.
3. Bergh, J., et al. Modelling the short-term effects of climate change on the productivity of selected tree species in Nordic countries. For. Ecol. Manage. 183 (2003), 327–340.
4. Bergh, J., Johansson, U., Nilsson, U., Sallnäs, O., 2012. Är anpassning av skogsskötseln nödvändigt i dagsläget för att minska skogsskador i ett förändrat klimat? Del 1 – Analyser på beståndsnivå, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Institutionen för sydsvensk skogsvetenskap.
5. Berglund, H., Biodiversity in Fragmented Boreal Forests – Assessing the Past, the Present and the Future. 2004, Umeå University, Umeå, 48.
6. Bergquist, J., Ekö, P.-M., Elving, B., Johansson, U., Thuresson, T., 2005. Jämförelse av produktionspotential mellan tall, gran och björk på samma ståndort. Rapport 19. Swedish Forest Agency, p. 32.
7. Cedergren, J., Kontinuitetsskogar och hyggesfritt skogsbruk. Skogsstyrelsen, Meddelande, 1, 2008, 101.
8. Cunha-e-Sá, M.A., Rosa, R., Costa-Duarte, C., Natural carbon capture and storage (NCCS): Forests, land use and carbon accounting. Resour. Energy Econ. 35 (2013), 148–170.
9. Dahlberg, A., 2011. Kontinuitetsskogar och hyggesfritt skogsbruk: Slutrapport för delprojekt naturvärden. Skogsstyrelsen, Rapport 7, p. 96.
10. EASAC, 2017. Multi-functionality and sustainability in the European Union's forests. EASAC Policy Report 32, p. 51.
11. EEA, 2016. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. Mapping and assessing the condition of Europe's ecosystems: Progress and challenges. EEA Technical Report 2016–099.
12. Ekelund, H., Hamilton, G., Skogspolitisk historia. Report 8A-2001, 2001, Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping, 264.
13. Ekö, P.M., A growth simulator for Swedish forests, based on data from the national forest survey. 1985, Department of Silviculture, Umeå, 300.
14. Eriksson, H., et al., 2016. Effekter av klimatförändringar på skogen och behov av anpassning i skogsbruket. Rapport 2 2016. Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping, p. 98.
15. Faustmann, M., Berechnung des Wertes welchen Waldboden sowie noch nicht haubare Holzbestände für die Waldwirtschaft besitzen. Allgemaine Forst- und Jagd- Zeitung 15 (1849), 441–455.
16. FSC, 2010. Swedish FSC Standard for Forest Certification including SLIMF indicators, FSC-STD-SWE-02-02-2010 Sweden Natural, Plantations and SLIMF EN, Uppsala, p. 99.
17. Götmark, F., Fridman, J., Kempe, G., Norden, B., Broadleaved tree species in conifer-dominated forestry: regeneration and limitation of saplings in southern Sweden. For. Ecol. Manage. 214:1–3 (2005), 142–157.
18. Hansen, K., Malmaeus, M., Ecosystem services in Swedish forests. Scand. J. For. Res. 31:6 (2016), 626–640.
19. Hou, Y., Burkhard, B., Müller, F., Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 127 (2013), S117–S131.
20. Hugosson, M., Ingemarson, F., Objectives and motivations of smallscale forest owners; theoretical modelling and qualitative assessment. Silva Fennica 38:2 (2004), 217–231.
21. Hyytiäinen, K., Tahvonen, O., Maximum sustained yield, forest rent or Faustmann: Does it really matter?. Scand. J. For. Res. 18:5 (2003), 457–469.
22. IPCC, Land use, land-use change, and forestry. Watson, R.T., Noble, I.R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N.H., Verardo, D.J., Dokken, D.J., (eds.) Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2000, Cambridge University Press, UK.
23. IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
24. Jonsson, B.G., Jonsell, M., Exploring potential biodiversity indicators in boreal forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 8:10 (1999), 1417–1433.
25. Jönsson, A.M., Lagergren, F., Smith, B., Forest management facing climate change – an ecosystem model analysis of adaptation strategies. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 20 (2015), 201–220.
26. Kellomäki, S., Peltola, H., Nuutinen, T., Korhonen, K.T., Strandman, H., Sensitivity of managed boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive management. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363:1501 (2008), 2341–2351.
27. Kotlarski, S., et al. Regional climate modeling on European scales: a joint standard evaluation of the EURO-CORDEX RCM ensemble. Geosci. Model Dev. 7:4 (2014), 1297–1333.
28. Lagergren, F., Grelle, A., Lankreijer, H., Mölder, M., Lindroth, A., Current carbon balance of the forested area in Sweden and its sensitivity to global change as simulated by Biome-BGC. Ecosystems 9 (2006), 894–908.
29. Lagergren, F., Jönsson, A.M., Blennow, K., Smith, B., Implementing storm damage in a dynamic vegetation model for regional applications in Sweden. Ecol. Model. 247 (2012), 71–82.
30. Mace, G.M., Norris, K., Fitter, A.H., Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27:1 (2012), 19–26.
31. Marklund, L.G., Biomassafunktioner för tall, gran och björk i Sverige (Biomass functions for pine, spruce and birch in Sweden). Report 45, 1988, Department of Forest Survey, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, 73.
32. Mason, W.L., Are irregular stands more windfirm?. Forestry 75:4 (2002), 347–355.
33. Miller, P.A., et al. Exploring climatic and biotic controls on Holocene vegetation change in Fennoscandia. J. Ecol. 96:2 (2008), 247–259.
34. Morales, P., et al. Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes. Glob. Change Biol. 11:12 (2005), 2211–2233.
35. Moss, R.H., et al. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:7282 (2010), 747–756.
36. Nielsen, C.C.N., 1995. Recommendations for stabilisation of Norway spruce stands based on ecological surveys. In: M.P. Coutts, J. Grace (eds.), Wind and Trees, Cambridge Univeristy Press, pp. 424–435.
37. Nilsson, U., 2013. Skogens skötsel. Rapport från Future Forests 2009–2012, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.
38. Nilsson, P., Cory, N., Forestry statistics 2012 – Official Statistics of Sweden. 2012, Arkitektkopia AB, Umeå, 140.
39. Nilsson, P., Cory, N., Forestry Statistics 2013 – Official Statistics of Sweden. 2013, Arkitektkopia AB, Umeå, 162.
40. Nordén, A., Coria, J., Jönsson, A.M., Lagergren, F., Lehsten, V., Divergence in stakeholders’ preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden. Ecol. Econ. 132 (2017), 179–195.
41. Nylund, J.-E., 2009. Forestry legislation in Sweden. Report No 14. The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, Uppsala, p. 43.
42. Oleskog, G., Nilson, K., Wikberg, P.-E., Kontinuitetsskogar och kontinuitetsskogsbruk, Slutrapport för delprojekt skötsel – hyggesfritt skogsbruk. Rapport 22, 2008, Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping, 79.
43. Östlund, L., Zackrisson, O., Axelsson, A.L., The history and transformation of a Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Can. J. For. Res. 27:8 (1997), 1198–1206.
44. Petritsch, R., Hasenauer, H., Pietsch, S.A., Incorporating forest growth response to thinning within biome-BGC. For. Ecol. Manage. 242 (2007), 324–336.
45. Piao, S., et al. Evaluation of terrestrial carbon cycle models for their response to climate variability and to CO2 trends. Glob. Change Biol. 19:7 (2013), 2117–2132.
46. Potschin, M.B., Haines-Young, R.H., Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35:5 (2011), 575–594.
47. Prentice, I.C., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W., Harrison, S.P., Hickler, T., Lucht, W., Sitch, S., Smith, B., Sykes, M.T., Dynamic global vegetation modelling: quantifying terrestrial ecosystem responses to large-scale environmental change. Canadell, J.G., Pataki, D.E., Pitelka, L.F., (eds.) Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World, 2007, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 175–192.
48. Pretzsch, H., Growth relationships and their biometric formulation. Pretzsch, H., (eds.) Forest Dynamics, Growth and Yield: From Measurement to Model, 2009, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 381–422.
49. Pretzsch, H., Grote, R., Reineking, B., Rotzer, T., Seifert, S., Models for forest ecosystem management: a European perspective. Ann. Bot. 101:8 (2008), 1065–1087.
50. Pryor, S., Sustainability of forests in Britain: is it a consensus, or still contentious?. Naturzale – Cuadernos de Ciencias Naturales 15 (2000), 23–29.
51. Ragnarsson, F., 2012. Uttag av kvalitetsvirke av björk – potential och problem (Withdrawal of quality timber of birch – potentials and problems). Skogsmästarprogrammet 13, Skinnskatteberg, p. 40.
52. Refsgaard, J.C., et al. The role of uncertainty in climate change adaptation strategies-A Danish water management example. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 18:3 (2013), 337–359.
53. Reyer, C., et al. Projections of regional changes in forest net primary productivity for different tree species in Europe driven by climate change and carbon dioxide. Ann. For. Sci. 71:2 (2014), 211–225.
54. Saarikoski, H., et al. Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions: the case of boreal forests. Ecosyst. Serv. 14 (2015), 144–157.
55. Secco, L., Pettenella, D., Gatto, P., Forestry governance and collective learning process in Italy: Likelihood or utopia?. For. Policy Econ. 13:2 (2011), 104–112.
56. Settele, J., et al., 2014. Terrestrial and inland water systems. In: C.B. Field, et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 271–359.
57. Skogsstyrelsen, Gallringsmallar Norra Sverige. 1989, Tryckeri AB Småland, Jönköping, 36.
58. Skogsstyrelsen, Gallringsmallar Södra Sverige. 1989, Tryckeri AB Småland, Jönköping, 36.
59. Smith, B., Prentice, I.C., Sykes, M.T., Representation of vegetation dynamics in the modelling of terrestrial ecosystems: comparing two contrasting approaches within European climate space. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 10:6 (2001), 621–637.
60. Smith, B., Knorr, W., Widlowski, J.L., Pinty, B., Gobron, N., Combining remote sensing data with process modelling to monitor boreal conifer forest carbon balances. For. Ecol. Manage. 255:12 (2008), 3985–3994.
61. Swedish Forest Agency, 2009. Sustainable forest management in Sweden. Swedish Forest Agency, p. 10.
62. Triviño, M., et al. Managing a boreal forest landscape for providing timber, storing and sequestering carbon. Ecosyst. Serv. 14 (2015), 179–189.
63. Triviño, M., et al. Optimizing management to enhance multifunctionality in a boreal forest landscape. J. Appl. Ecol. 54:1 (2017), 61–70.
64. UNECE, FAO, The European Forest Sector Outlook Study II 2010–2030. 2011, United Nations, Geneva.
65. Valinger, E., Fridman, J., Models to assess the risk of snow and wind damage in pine, spruce, and birch forests in Sweden. Environ. Manage. 24:2 (1999), 209–217.
66. Valinger, E., Fridman, J., Factors affecting the probability of windthrow at stand level as a result of Gudrun winter storm in southern Sweden. For. Ecol. Manage. 262:3 (2011), 398–403.
67. Plas, F., et al. Jack-of-all-trades effects drive biodiversity-ecosystem multifunctionality relationships in European forests. Nat. Commun., 7, 2016.
68. Wilcke, R.A.I., Bärring, L., Selecting regional climate scenarios for impact modelling studies. Environ. Model. Softw. 78 (2016), 191–201.
69. Wilcke, R.A.I., Mendlik, T., Gobiet, A., Multi-variable error correction of regional climate models. Clim. Change 120:4 (2013), 871–887.
70. Zaehle, S., et al. The importance of age-related decline in forest NPP for modeling regional carbon balances. Ecol. Appl. 16:4 (2006), 1555–1574.
71. Zhang, Y.J., et al. Climate-driven global changes in carbon use efficiency. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23:2 (2014), 144–155.