Continuous cover forestry is a cost-efficient tool to increase multifunctionality of boreal production forests in Fennoscandia

Abstract

Earlier research has suggested that the diversification of silvicultural strategies is a cost-efficient tool to ensure multifunctionality in production forests. This study compared the effects of continuous cover forestry and conventional rotation forestry on ecosystem services and biodiversity in boreal forests in Finland. We simulated over 25,000 commercial forest stands for 100 years under continuous cover and rotation forest management. Forests without management were used as a reference. We compared the effects of silvicultural practices over space and time on ecosystem services, biodiversity indicators and multifunctionality. Our results revealed that continuous cover forestry was better than rotation forest management in terms of timber net present value, carbon sequestration, bilberry production, scenic beauty and the number of large trees. It provided higher habitat availability for indicator species dependent on deciduous trees and mature forest structure. Rotation forest management was better than continuous cover forestry in terms of harvested tree biomass, cowberries, mushrooms, and species dependent on high tree volume. In general, multifunctionality was higher in continuous cover forests than in rotation forest. Therefore, continuous cover forests may have a greater potential to produce simultaneously multiple benefits from forests. However, unmanaged forests often provided the highest levels of services and biodiversity making their role indispensable in delivering forest related ecosystem services and, especially, in the maintenance of biodiversity. Continuous cover forestry does not itself guarantee the maintenance of all ecosystem services and biodiversity in commercial forests but it can be an important part of a successful progression towards more sustainable forestry.

Synergies and Trade-Offs in the Production of NWFPs Predicted in Boreal Forests

“…In optimization, when the weight of timber production is increased, a management schedule(s) which results in the highest increase in timber production with the smallest sacrifice in the production of NWFPs will become optimal for some stand(s). Similar to the result of Peura et al [51], instead of aiming at maximizing the yields of all NWFPs and timber in the same stands, a more feasible approach in holding and landscape level planning is to apply timber production oriented forest management in those stands that never produce high amounts of NWFPs. Further, severe trade-offs can be avoided by appropriate silvicultural measures, for example, by applying continuous cover forest management [13].…”

The significance of retention trees for survival of ectomycorrhizal fungi in clear‐cut Scots pine forests

“…In Fennoscandia, commonly 5%-10% of the trees are retained (Gustafsson et al, 2012). There is also an increasing interest to retain much larger proportions of trees, using continuous cover forestry methods to conserve biodiversity and promote a broader variety of ecosystem services in boreal production forests (Peura, Burgas, Eyvindson, Repo, & Mönkkönen, 2018).…”

Shifting from even-aged management to less intensive forestry in varying proportions of forest land in Finland: impacts on carbon storage, harvest removals, and harvesting costs

“…These choices may convert stands towards uneven-aged forest structures, although converging to a steady-state structure of any kind is not required (Pukkala 2016a). Continuous cover forestry is expected to become more common, because of its potential to supply multiple ecosystem services (Pukkala 2016b; Peura et al 2018) and reduce the financial costs related to regeneration and other silvicultural operations (Pukkala 2016a) compared to even-aged management (see also Knoke 2012;Kuuluvainen et al 2012;Puettmann et al 2015;Nieminen et al 2018).…”

“…Comparisons of alternative forest management systems and subsequent trade-off analyses are typically based on long-term observations (Sutherland et al 2016;Strengbom et al 2018), metamodelling (Lafond et al 2017) or simulations. The latter have been carried out at the forest stand or small forest holding level (Pukkala et al 2011;Pukkala 2016a, b;Carpentier et al 2017), the landscape level (> 100 km 2 ; Triviño et al 2015;Diaz-Balteiro et al 2017;Peura et al 2018), and the regional level (> 1000 km 2 ; Schröter et al 2014;Pang et al 2017). However, long-term experiences or predictions as to how alternative practices may affect national-scale wood production if adopted over very large areas are not known.…”