Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Oulu, Finland.
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Oulu, Finland.
J Environ Manage. 2024 Nov;370:122438. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122438. Epub 2024 Sep 9.
Forest management is at the crossroads of economic, environmental, and social goals, often requiring strategic trade-offs. As global demands surge, it's vital to employ management strategies fostering multifunctional landscapes, enabling ecosystem integrity while procuring resources. Historically, the boreal forest in Fennoscandia has been intensively managed for timber, causing environmental shifts and conflicts with biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation policies. Application of current management practices while increasing harvests are a threat to both biodiversity and carbon stocks. To explore this issue, we quantify the cost-efficiency of two forest management regimes: rotation forestry (RF) and continuous cover forestry (CCF), considering specific forest attributes like soil type (mineral and peat soils), site type (fertility classes) and tree stand age, which have been underexplored in previous research. We simulated 45,559 forest stands for 100 years in Northern boreal forests of Finland. We proposed two straightforward cost-efficiency indices (CEI) to evaluate the performance of these management regimes, specifically focusing on their impact on economic output, biodiversity conservation (measured as a biodiversity index for six forest vertebrates, including five bird species and one mammal) and carbon stock. Our findings suggest that continuous cover forestry holds the potential to deliver more cost-efficient ecosystem services and maintain greater biodiversity compared to rotation forestry approaches. Continuous cover forestry, however, is not optimal for all at management units, which calls for alternative management options depending on the stand characteristics. The cost-efficiency indices performance of rotation forestry and continuous cover forestry depend on the characteristics of the initial stand which is largely determined by the previous management of the stand. Our results contribute to guiding forest management towards enhanced sustainability and ecological balance. The great variation in stand characteristics suggest a need for diverse management strategies to create multifunctional landscapes. Our proposed cost-efficiency indices could serve as practical tools for decision-making.
森林管理处于经济、环境和社会目标的十字路口,往往需要进行战略性权衡。随着全球需求的激增,采用促进多功能景观的管理策略至关重要,既能确保生态系统的完整性,又能获取资源。历史上,北欧的北方森林一直被密集地用于木材采伐,这导致了环境变化,并与生物多样性保护和气候缓解政策产生冲突。在增加采伐量的同时应用当前的管理实践,对生物多样性和碳储量都是一种威胁。为了探讨这个问题,我们量化了两种森林管理模式的成本效益:轮作林业(RF)和连续覆盖林业(CCF),同时考虑了特定的森林属性,如土壤类型(矿物和泥炭土)、地点类型(肥力等级)和林分年龄,这些在以前的研究中都没有得到充分探讨。我们在芬兰北方北方森林模拟了 45559 个林分,模拟了 100 年的时间。我们提出了两个简单的成本效益指数(CEI)来评估这些管理模式的表现,特别是关注它们对经济产出、生物多样性保护(用六个森林脊椎动物的生物多样性指数来衡量,包括五种鸟类和一种哺乳动物)和碳储量的影响。我们的研究结果表明,与轮作林业方法相比,连续覆盖林业在提供更具成本效益的生态系统服务和维持更高的生物多样性方面具有潜力。然而,连续覆盖林业并不适合所有的管理单位,这需要根据林分的特点,采用替代的管理方法。轮作林业和连续覆盖林业的成本效益指数的表现取决于初始林分的特点,而初始林分的特点在很大程度上取决于林分的先前管理。我们的研究结果有助于指导森林管理朝着提高可持续性和生态平衡的方向发展。林分特征的巨大差异表明,需要采用多样化的管理策略来创建多功能景观。我们提出的成本效益指数可以作为决策的实用工具。