Effect of Forest Management Choices on Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity at National Scale

Overview

Journal Ambio

Date 2023 Aug 3

PMID 37535310

Authors

Annikki Makela

Francesco Minunno

Heini Kujala

Anna-Kaisa Kosenius

Risto K Heikkinen

Virpi Junttila

Mikko Peltoniemi

Martin Forsius

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Forest management methods and harvest intensities influence wood production, carbon sequestration and biodiversity. We devised different management scenarios by means of stakeholder analysis and incorporated them in the forest growth simulator PREBAS. To analyse impacts of harvest intensity, we used constraints on total harvest: business as usual, low harvest, intensive harvest and no harvest. We carried out simulations on a wall-to-wall grid in Finland until 2050. Our objectives were to (1) test how the management scenarios differed in their projections, (2) analyse the potential wood production, carbon sequestration and biodiversity under the different harvest levels, and (3) compare different options of allocating the scenarios and protected areas. Harvest level was key to carbon stocks and fluxes regardless of management actions and moderate changes in proportion of strictly protected forest. In contrast, biodiversity was more dependent on other management variables than harvesting levels, and relatively independent of carbon stocks and fluxes.

Citing Articles

Modelling the Effects of Forest use Change on Brownification of Finnish Rivers under Atmospheric Pressure.

Rankinen K, Cano Bernal J, Holmberg M, Nordling M, Schulz T, Makela A Environ Manage. 2024; 75(2):205-220.

PMID: 39422758 PMC: 11790703. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-024-02058-1.

Leveraging research infrastructure co-location to evaluate constraints on terrestrial carbon cycling in northern European forests.

Futter M, Dirnbock T, Forsius M, Back J, Cools N, Diaz-Pines E Ambio. 2023; 52(11):1819-1831.

PMID: 37725249 PMC: 10562320. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-023-01930-4.

Integrating carbon sequestration and biodiversity impacts in forested ecosystems: Concepts, cases, and policies.

Alam S, Kivinen S, Kujala H, Tanhuanpaa T, Forsius M Ambio. 2023; 52(11):1687-1696.

PMID: 37715896 PMC: 10562350. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-023-01931-3.

Role of land cover in Finland's greenhouse gas emissions.

Holmberg M, Junttila V, Schulz T, Gronroos J, Paunu V, Savolahti M Ambio. 2023; 52(11):1697-1715.

PMID: 37679659 PMC: 10562319. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-023-01910-8.

Quantification of forest carbon flux and stock uncertainties under climate change and their use in regionally explicit decision making: Case study in Finland.

Junttila V, Minunno F, Peltoniemi M, Forsius M, Akujarvi A, Ojanen P Ambio. 2023; 52(11):1716-1733.

PMID: 37572230 PMC: 10562356. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-023-01906-4.

References

Virkkala R, Leikola N, Kujala H, Kivinen S, Hurskainen P, Kuusela S . Developing fine-grained nationwide predictions of valuable forests using biodiversity indicator bird species. Ecol Appl. 2021; 32(2):e2505. PMC: 9285730. DOI: 10.1002/eap.2505. View

Thom D, Seidl R . Natural disturbance impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity in temperate and boreal forests. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2015; 91(3):760-81. PMC: 4898621. DOI: 10.1111/brv.12193. View

Thom D, Rammer W, Dirnbock T, Muller J, Kobler J, Katzensteiner K . The impacts of climate change and disturbance on spatio-temporal trajectories of biodiversity in a temperate forest landscape. J Appl Ecol. 2017; 54(1):28-38. PMC: 5245768. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12644. View

Forsius M, Holmberg M, Junttila V, Kujala H, Schulz T, Paunu V . Modelling the regional potential for reaching carbon neutrality in Finland: Sustainable forestry, energy use and biodiversity protection. Ambio. 2023; 52(11):1757-1776. PMC: 10562359. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-023-01860-1. View

Valentine H, Makela A . Bridging process-based and empirical approaches to modeling tree growth. Tree Physiol. 2005; 25(7):769-79. DOI: 10.1093/treephys/25.7.769. View

Makinen H, Hynynen J, Siitonen J, Sievanen R . Predicting the decomposition of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch stems in Finland. Ecol Appl. 2006; 16(5):1865-79. DOI: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1865:ptdosp]2.0.co;2. View

Junttila V, Minunno F, Peltoniemi M, Forsius M, Akujarvi A, Ojanen P . Quantification of forest carbon flux and stock uncertainties under climate change and their use in regionally explicit decision making: Case study in Finland. Ambio. 2023; 52(11):1716-1733. PMC: 10562356. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-023-01906-4. View

Monkkonen M, Juutinen A, Mazziotta A, Miettinen K, Podkopaev D, Reunanen P . Spatially dynamic forest management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. J Environ Manage. 2014; 134:80-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.021. View

Kujala H, Minunno F, Junttila V, Mikkonen N, Makela A, Virkkala R . Role of data uncertainty when identifying important areas for biodiversity and carbon in boreal forests. Ambio. 2023; 52(11):1804-1818. PMC: 10562324. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-023-01908-2. View

10.

Asbeck T, Sabatini F, Augustynczik A, Basile M, Helbach J, Jonker M . Biodiversity response to forest management intensity, carbon stocks and net primary production in temperate montane forests. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):1625. PMC: 7810709. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-80499-4. View

11.

Hanski I . Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. Ambio. 2011; 40(3):248-55. PMC: 3357798. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-011-0147-3. View

12.

Gauthier S, Bernier P, Kuuluvainen T, Shvidenko A, Schepaschenko D . Boreal forest health and global change. Science. 2015; 349(6250):819-22. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa9092. View

13.

Mikolas M, Svitok M, Bace R, Meigs G, Keeton W, Keith H . Natural disturbance impacts on trade-offs and co-benefits of forest biodiversity and carbon. Proc Biol Sci. 2021; 288(1961):20211631. PMC: 8527197. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1631. View