Browsing by Subject "forest ecosystems"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-3 of 3
  • Myllyviita, Tanja; Sironen, Susanna; Saikku, Laura; Holma, Anne; Leskinen, Pekka; Palme, Ulrika (2019)
    Journal of Cleaner Production 236: 117641
    Impacts of bioeconomy on climate have been much discussed, but less attention has been given to biodiversity deterioration. One approach to assess biodiversity impacts is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Finland is a forested country with intensive forest industries, but only coarse biodiversity LCA methods are available. The aim of this study was to further develop and apply approaches to assess the biodiversity impacts of wood use in Finland. With the species richness approach (all taxons included), biodiversity impacts were higher in Southern than in Northern Finland but impacts in Southern and Northern Finland were lower when mammals, birds and molluscs were included. With the ecosystem indicators approach, if the reference situation were forest in its natural state, biodiversity impacts were higher than in the case where the initial state of forest before final felling was used to derive biodiversity loss. In both cases, the biodiversity impacts were higher in Northern Finland. These results were not coherent as the model applying species richness data assesses biodiversity loss based on all species, whereas the ecosystem indicators approach considers vulnerable species. One limitation of the species richness approach was that there were no reliable datasets available. In the ecosystem indicators approach, it was noticed that the biodiversity of managed Finnish forests is substantially lower than in natural forests. Biodiversity LCA approaches are highly sensitive to reference states, applied model and data. It is essential to develop approaches capable of comparing biodiversity impacts of forest management practices, or when looking at multiple environmental impacts simultaneously with the LCA framework.
  • Kuglerová, Lenka; Jyväsjärvi, Jussi; Ruffing, Claire; Muotka, Timo; Jonsson, Anna; Andersson, Elisabet; Richardson, John S. (American Geophysical Union, 2020)
    Water Resources Research 56 9 (2020)
    Forested riparian buffers are recommended to mitigate negative effects of forest harvesting on recipient freshwater ecosystems. Most of the current best practices of riparian buffer retention aim at larger streams. Riparian protection along small streams is thought to be lacking; however, it is not well documented. We surveyed 286 small streams flowing through recent clearcuts in three timber-producing jurisdictions—British Columbia, Canada (BC), Finland, and Sweden. The three jurisdictions differed in riparian buffer implementation. In BC, forested buffers are not required on the smallest streams, and 45% of the sites in BC had no buffer. The average (±SE) width of voluntarily retained buffers was 15.9 m (±2.1) on each side of the stream. An operation-free zone is mandatory around the smallest streams in BC, and 90% of the sites fulfilled these criteria. Finland and Sweden had buffers allocated to most of the surveyed streams, with average buffer width of 15.3 m (±1.4) in Finland and 4 m (±0.4) in Sweden. Most of the streams in the two Nordic countries had additional forestry-associated impairments such as machine tracks, or soil preparation within the riparian zone. Riparian buffer width somewhat increased with stream size and slope of the riparian area, however, not in all investigated regions. We concluded that the majority of the streams surveyed in this study are insufficiently protected. We suggest that a monitoring of forestry practices and revising present forestry guidelines is needed in order to increase the protection of our smallest water courses.
  • Orsi, Francesco; Ciolli, Marvo; Primmer, Eeva; Varumo, Liisa; Geneletti, Davide (Butterworth Scientific, 2020)
    Land Use Policy 99 : 104840
    Forests cover about 40 % of the European Union (EU), providing a wide spectrum of invaluable ecosystem services to more than half a billion people. In order to protect and harness this crucial asset, EU policies are advancing multifunctional management. This study lays a basis for such an effort by mapping the supply of key forest ecosystem services (FES) across the entire EU: wood, water supply, erosion control, pollination, habitat protection, soil formation, climate regulation and recreation. To further support the operationalization of multifunctionality and targeting of policies, our analysis delineates hotspots, assesses synergies and tradeoffs, and identifies spatial bundles. We generated maps at 1-km resolution starting from existing datasets through simple modelling (Tier 1). Out of these maps, we denoted the highest supplying pixels (i.e. top 20 %) as hotspots, and performed correlation analysis to detect synergies and tradeoffs. Finally, we used cluster analysis to identify FES bundles. Our analysis shows that hotspots of single FES are spread across the entire EU and that forests of mountain regions and Central Europe (particularly France, Germany, Slovakia) supply significant amounts of multiple FES. The cluster analysis resulted in four bundles: “balanced” in the northeast, “wood & water” in the center, “soil carbon” in the north and “rural-recreational” in the south. While a purely quantitative analysis of the produced maps may be misleading because of the strong links between FES supply and climatic and socio-economic conditions, overlaying hotspots and bundles with administrative layers can be a first step to inform about the role of different countries and regions in securing the sustainable supply of European FES.