Trade-offs between wood production and forest grouse habitats in two regions with distinctive landscapes

Abstract

Background: Forest management affects the viability of forest grouse populations, causing alterations to habitat quality. At the regional level, common targets for wood harvesting and safeguarding of specific habitats are negotiated between various stakeholders. Analysing potential trade-offs between forest grouse habitats and wood production in the region could support resource-smart decision making. Methods: In this paper, we compiled trade-off curves represented as production possibility frontiers demonstrating the relationship between forest grouse habitat area and wood removal, using a Finnish forestry dynamics model and the Finnish Multi-Source National Forest Inventory. For the modelling of forest grouse habitats, a landscape-level occurrence model based on nationwide wildlife triangle census data was used. Five alternative forest scenarios in terms of wood removal were compiled for two study areas in Finland representing two different landscape structures. Results and conclusions: Results showed that impacts on forest grouse habitats were case-specific. In the southern study area, increasing the roundwood harvesting rate affected grouse habitats more strongly as forests were already fragmented for other land uses and became more spruce-dominated over time. If the maximum sustainable removal rate was implemented, predicted grouse habitat area was 55% less than in a no-removal scenario. In the eastern study area, a more heavily forested region, the decrease was far lower at 22%. Scenario results were also compared to levels of recorded (business as usual) wood removal and that envisaged by valid regional forestry programmes, and their sustainability in terms of grouse habitat area was discussed. The production possibility frontiers calculated in this study support the evaluation of the loss of suitable habitat caused by different wood harvesting rates, or vice versa, the economic cost of increasing habitat areas.

Economic effects of grouse-friendly forest management

“…However, there are only a few studies in which the economic consequences of game-friendly forest management have been considered (Carley and Grado 2000;Marzluff et al 2002;Davis et al 2017). Haakana et al (2020) calculated trade-off curves represented as production possibility frontiers demonstrating the relationship between the forest grouse habitat area and wood removal using a Finnish forestry dynamics model and the Finnish Multi-Source National Forest Inventory Data at the landscape level. MacMillan and Marshall (2004) predicted the outcomes of alternative harvesting scenarios in terms of habitat quality for capercallie across a wide range of crop types in Scotland.…”

Conditions for cooperative forest management on Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus L.) lekking sites in Finland

“…In recent Finnish studies, game-oriented forest management has also been called gamefriendly forestry (Haakana et al 2020) and grouse-friendly forest management (Rautiainen et al 2017;Haara et al 2021) and is considered as a rather cost-efficient forestry practice for forest owners (Haara et al 2021). Although it may be impossible to create explicit instructions that are suitable for all forest stands, commonly suggested methods include the preservation of game thickets, favouring mixed tree species distribution, and avoidance of excessive clearing of the underbrush (Melin et al 2020).…”

Potential of Carbon Offsets to Promote the Management of Capercaillie Lekking Sites in Finnish Forests

“…Traditionally, revenues for forest owners are accrued from timber sales, which are driven by the intensive management of production forests. However, these management practices usually do not promote biodiversity [15,16] and climate aims. Thus, the maintenance of habitats or maximisation of carbon sequestration [17] may have an influence on forest revenues.…”