Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 2, 00791 Helsinki Finland.
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 2, 00791 Helsinki Finland.
J Environ Manage. 2024 Dec;371:123124. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123124. Epub 2024 Nov 15.
Natural disturbances may compromise the past and ongoing efforts to increase carbon sequestration and halt biodiversity loss in boreal forests. Measures to minimize the effects of forest disturbances i.e., adaptive management, offer solutions to secure future timber yields. However, the consequences of adaptive management on biodiversity, the climate change mitigation potential of forests, and other ecosystem services are not well understood. In addition, the impact of climate change and disturbances on future forest-based mitigation potential is not well known. We compared the effects of forest management options emphasizing climate change mitigation or adaptation on boreal forests in changing climate and disturbance regimes in southern Finland. We used the process-based forest landscape and disturbance model iLand to dynamically model interactions between climate change and disturbances together with forest management and protection options, and examined the consequent effects on forest carbon storage, berry yields, recreation, and structural attributes important for biodiversity. Mitigation managements resulted in up to one-fifth higher carbon stocks, even after accounting for disturbances by wind and bark beetles, but halved annual harvests over the 80-year simulation period. Adaptive managements reduced bark beetle disturbances, but in some cases the disturbed volumes were even higher than under business-as-usual management due to increased wind damage. The effects of proactive risk management depended on the time horizon considered, the adaptive management option chosen and the climate change scenario. In general, the mitigation managements had positive effects on the biodiversity indicators studied, while the effects of adaptive management were mixed. Our results highlight the complex interactions between disturbance risk prevention, biodiversity, carbon sequestration and storage, and other ecosystem services. The results guide forest managers and policymakers to plan mitigation and adaptation strategies optimizing multiple benefits, and strengthening forest resilience in a changing climate.
自然干扰可能会影响过去和当前增加北方森林碳固存和阻止生物多样性丧失的努力。为了尽量减少森林干扰的影响，即适应性管理，提供了确保未来木材产量的解决方案。然而，适应性管理对生物多样性、森林减缓气候变化的潜力以及其他生态系统服务的影响还没有得到很好的理解。此外，气候变化和干扰对未来基于森林的减缓潜力的影响也不太清楚。我们比较了强调减缓气候变化或适应气候变化的森林管理选择对芬兰南部变化的气候和干扰制度下北方森林的影响。我们使用基于过程的森林景观和干扰模型 iLand 来动态模拟气候变化和干扰与森林管理和保护选择之间的相互作用，并检查了对森林碳储存、浆果产量、娱乐和对生物多样性很重要的结构属性的后果。减缓管理导致碳储量增加了高达五分之一，即使考虑到风灾和树皮甲虫的干扰，但在 80 年的模拟期内，每年的采伐量减少了一半。适应性管理减少了树皮甲虫的干扰，但在某些情况下，由于风害增加，受干扰的体积甚至比常规管理还要高。主动风险管理的效果取决于所考虑的时间范围、选择的适应性管理选项和气候变化情景。总的来说，减缓管理对所研究的生物多样性指标有积极影响，而适应性管理的效果则是混合的。我们的结果强调了干扰风险预防、生物多样性、碳固存和储存以及其他生态系统服务之间的复杂相互作用。这些结果指导森林管理者和决策者规划减缓与适应策略，以优化多种效益，并在气候变化中增强森林的恢复力。
