| Literature DB >> 28236260 |
Adam Felton1, Johan Sonesson2, Urban Nilsson3, Tomas Lämås4, Tomas Lundmark5, Annika Nordin5, Thomas Ranius6, Jean-Michel Roberge7,8.
Abstract
Because of the limited spatial extent and comprehensiveness of protected areas, an increasing emphasis is being placed on conserving habitats which promote biodiversity within production forest. For this reason, alternative silvicultural programs need to be evaluated with respect to their implications for forest biodiversity, especially if these programs are likely to be adopted. Here we simulated the effect of varied rotation length and associated thinning regimes on habitat availability in Scots pine and Norway spruce production forests, with high and low productivity. Shorter rotation lengths reduced the contribution made by production trees (trees grown for industrial use) to the availability of key habitat features, while concurrently increasing the contribution from retention trees. The contribution of production trees to habitat features was larger for high productivity sites, than for low productivity sites. We conclude that shortened rotation lengths result in losses of the availability of habitat features that are key for biodiversity conservation and that increased retention practices may only partially compensate for this. Ensuring that conservation efforts better reflect the inherent variation in stand rotation lengths would help improve the maintenance of key forest habitats in production forests.Entities:
Keywords: Dead wood; Large trees; Rotation length; Thinning; Tree retention
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28236260 PMCID: PMC5347530 DOI: 10.1007/s13280-017-0909-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ambio ISSN: 0044-7447 Impact factor: 5.129
Stand management programs (number and timing of thinnings and length of rotation, harvested volumes (m3 ha−1), and mean annual increment (MAI; m3 ha−1 year−1) for Norway spruce (NS) and Scots pine (SP) stands on sites with low (NS low, SP low) and high (NS high, SP high) site fertilities. Stand management was optimized according to different interest rates (IRs) ranging from 0 to 5%
| Stand | IR | Stand age at intervention (years) | Harvested volume (m3 ha−1) | MAI (m3 ha−1 year−1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Th1 | Th2 | Th3 | FF | Thinning | Final felling | |||
| NS high | 5 | 46 | 56 | 111 | 363 | 8.5 | ||
| 4 | 46 | 56 | 66 | 197 | 396 | 9 | ||
| 3 | 46 | 56 | 66 | 197 | 396 | 9 | ||
| 2 | 51 | 61 | 76 | 230 | 479 | 9.3 | ||
| 1 | 61 | 71 | 86 | 292 | 517 | 9.4 | ||
| 0 | 61 | 71 | 86 | 106 | 418 | 538 | 9 | |
| NS low | 5 | 81 | 0 | 185 | 2.3 | |||
| 4 | 86 | 0 | 206 | 2.4 | ||||
| 3 | 86 | 101 | 69 | 198 | 2.6 | |||
| 2 | 96 | 116 | 83 | 243 | 2.8 | |||
| 1 | 96 | 131 | 84 | 292 | 2.9 | |||
| 0 | 121 | 176 | 115 | 367 | 2.7 | |||
| SP high | 5 | 56 | 66 | 101 | 276 | 5.7 | ||
| 4 | 56 | 71 | 101 | 313 | 5.8 | |||
| 3 | 56 | 71 | 101 | 313 | 5.8 | |||
| 2 | 56 | 76 | 91 | 185 | 357 | 6 | ||
| 1 | 61 | 81 | 106 | 201 | 418 | 5.8 | ||
| 0 | 76 | 96 | 136 | 239 | 482 | 5.3 | ||
| SP low | 5 | 76 | 91 | 58 | 169 | 2.5 | ||
| 4 | 81 | 96 | 64 | 180 | 2.5 | |||
| 3 | 81 | 101 | 64 | 197 | 2.6 | |||
| 2 | 81 | 111 | 126 | 118 | 217 | 2.7 | ||
| 1 | 81 | 111 | 136 | 118 | 242 | 2.7 | ||
| 0 | 131 | 191 | 108 | 322 | 2.3 | |||
Fig. 1Mean density (trees ha−1) of trees with a diameter at breast height above 30 cm (top) and 40 cm (bottom). The total bars represent all trees larger than the diameter limit (including both production trees and retention trees), and the lower dark part of the bars represents the contribution of retention trees. The density of large trees was calculated as an average for simulations with an even age distribution of stands of Norway spruce (NS) or Scots pine (SP) in two site productivity classes (high and low) with optimal management according to interest rates (IRs) varying between 0 and 5%. The different IRs were used in order to achieve a gradient in rotation length from the shortest rotation for IR = 5% to the longest for IR = 0% (see Table 1 for details)
Fig. 2Mean amount of dead wood (m3 ha−1) in the form of dead trees above 10 cm (top) and 30 cm (bottom) in diameter. The total bars represent all dead wood (including the contributions of both production trees and retention trees), and the lower dark part of the bars represents dead wood originating from retention trees. Dead wood was calculated as an average for simulations with even age distribution of stands of Norway spruce (NS) or Scots pine (SP) in two site productivity classes (high and low) with optimal management according interest rates (IRs) varying between 0 and 5%. The different IRs were used in order to achieve a gradient in rotation length from the shortest rotation for IR = 5% to the longest for IR = 0% (see Table 1 for details)
Fig. 3Mean standing volume (m3 ha−1) of all trees (top) and broadleaved trees (bottom). For broadleaves, the total bars represent all broadleaved trees (including both production trees and retention trees), and the lower dark parts of the bars represent retention trees. Standing volume was calculated as an average for simulations with even age distribution of stands of Norway spruce (NS) or Scots pine (SP) in two site fertility classes (high and low) with optimal management according interest rates (IRs) varying between 0 and 5%. The different IRs were used in order to achieve a gradient in rotation length from the shortest rotation for IR = 5% to the longest for IR = 0% (see Table 1 for details)