Which type of forest management provides most ecosystem services?

Timo Pukkala

doi:10.1186/s40663-016-0068-5

Forest Ecosystems 2016, 3(3): 9 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-016-0068-5

Research |

Open Access | Issue | Published: 15 April 2016

Which type of forest management provides most ecosystem services?

Show Author's Information Hide Author's Information Timo Pukkala(

)

University of Eastern Finland, PO Box 11180101 Joensuu, Finland

Keywords:

Continuous cover forestry, Data envelopment analysis, Production efficiency, Multi-objective management, Multi-functional forestry, Rotation forest management, Any-aged forestry

Cite this article:

Pukkala T. Which type of forest management provides most ecosystem services?. Forest Ecosystems, 2016, 3(3): 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-016-0068-5

Download citation

EndNote(RIS)

BibTeX

489

Views

Downloads

Citations

Crossref

N/A

WoS

Scopus

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article

Abstract

Background

Forest ecosystems are increasingly seen as multi-functional production systems, which should provide, besides timber and economic benefits, also other ecosystem services related to biological diversity, recreational uses and environmental functions of forests. This study analyzed the performance of even-aged rotation forest management (RFM), continuous cover forestry (CCF) and any-aged forestry (AAF) in the production of ecosystem services. AAF allows both even-aged and uneven-aged management schedules. The ecosystem services included in the analyses were net present value, volume of harvested timber, cowberry and bilberry yields, scenic value of the forest, carbon balance and suitability of the forest to Siberian jay.

Methods

Data envelopment analysis was used to derive numerical efficiency ratios for the three management systems. Efficiency ratio is the sum of weighted outputs (ecosystem services) divided by the sum of weighted inputs. The linear programing model proposed by Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes was used to derive the weights for calculating efficiency scores for the silvicultural systems.

Results and conclusions

CCF provided more ecosystem services than RFM, and CCF was more efficient than RFM and AAF in the production of ecosystem services. Multi-objective management provided more ecosystem services (except harvested timber) than single-objective management that maximized economic profitability. The use of low discount rate (resulting in low cutting level and high growing stock volume) led to better supply of most ecosystems services than the use of high discount rate. RFM where NPV was maximized with high discount rate led to particularly poor provision of most ecosystem services. In CCF the provision of ecosystem services was less sensitive to changes in discount rate and management objective than in RFM.

Full text

Abstract

Full text

Outline

About this article

Which type of forest management provides most ecosystem services?

Show Author's information Hide Author's Information Timo Pukkala(

)

University of Eastern Finland, PO Box 11180101 Joensuu, Finland

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results and conclusions

Keywords: Continuous cover forestry, Data envelopment analysis, Production efficiency, Multi-objective management, Multi-functional forestry, Rotation forest management, Any-aged forestry

References(37)

Boncina A (2011) History, current status and future prospects of uneven-aged forest management in the Dinaric region: an overview. Forestry 84(5):467-478

DOI Google Scholar

Chang SJ (1981) Determination of the optimal growing stock and cutting cycle for an uneven-aged stand. Forest Sci 27(4):739-744

Google Scholar

Chang SJ (1990) An economic comparison of even-aged and uneven-aged management of southern pines in the mid-South. In: Hickman CA (ed) Proceedings of the Southern Forest Economics Workshop on Evaluating Even- and All-Aged Timber Management Options for Southern Forest Lands, March 29-30, 1990, Monroe, LA. USDA Forest Service, Southern Experimental Station, New Orleans, pp 45-52

Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (2011) Data envelopment analysis. History, models and interpretations. In: Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (eds) Handbook on data envelopment analysis, International series in Operational Research & Management Science 164, doi: 10.1007/978-1-14419-6151-8_1.SpringerScience+BusinessMedia.pp1-39

Diaci J, Kerr G, O'Hara K (2011) Twenty-first century forestry: integrating ecologically based, uneven-aged silviculture with increased demands on forests. Forestry 84(5):463-465

DOI Google Scholar

Fürstenau C, Badek FW, Lasch P, Lexer MJ, Linder M, Mohr P, Suckow F (2007) Multiple-use forest management in consideration of climate change and the interests of stakeholder groups. Eur J Forest Res 126:225-239

DOI Google Scholar

Gadow Kv, Kurttila M, Leskinen P, Leskinen L, Nuutinen T, Pukkala T (2007) Designing forested landscapes to provide multiple services. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2007 (2), No. 038: 1-15https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-006-0114-x

DOI

Haight RG, Monserud RA (1990) Optimizing any-aged management of mixed-species stands. I. Performance of a coordinate search process. Can J Forest Res 20(1):15-25

DOI Google Scholar

Laasasenaho J (1982) Taper curve and volume equations for pine spruce and birch. Communications Instuti Forestalis Fenniae 108:1-74

DOI Google Scholar

Laiho O, Lähde E, Pukkala T (2011) Uneven- vs. even-aged management in Finnish boreal forests. Forestry 84(5):547-556

Google Scholar

Liski J, Tuomi M, Rasinmäki J (2009) Yasso07 user-interface manual. Finnish Environment Institute. 12 pp+Appendix

Lundmark T, Bergh J, Nordin A, Fahlvik N, Poudel BC (2016) Comparison of carbon balances between continuous-civer and clear-cut forestry in Sweden. Ambio 14(suppl2):203-213

DOI Google Scholar

Miina J, Hotanen J-P, Salo K (2009) Modelling the abundance and temporal variation in the production of bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) in Finnish mineral soil forests. Silva Fennica 43:577-593

DOI Google Scholar

Miina J, Pukkala T, Kurttila M (2016) Optimal multi-product management of stands producing timber and wild berries., Manuscripthttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-016-0972-9

DOI

O'Hara KL (2011) The historical development of uneven-aged silviculture in North America. Forestry 84(5):339-346

DOI Google Scholar

Pukkala T (2004) Dealing with ecological objectives in the Monsu planning system. Silva Lusitana XII, Special issue (2004): 1-15

Pukkala T (2014) Does biofuel harvesting and continuous cover management increase carbon sequestration? Forest Policy Econom 43:41-50

DOI Google Scholar

Pukkala T (2016) Plenterwald, Dauerwald, or clearcut? Forest Policy Econ 62:125-134

DOI Google Scholar

Pukkala T, Lähde E, Laiho O, Salo K, Hotanen J-P (2011) A multifunctional comparison of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in a boreal region. Can J Forest Res 41:851-862

DOI Google Scholar

Pukkala T, Sulkava R, Lähde E, Jaakkola L (2012) Relationships between economic profitability and habitat quality of Siberian jay in uneven-aged Norway spruce forest. Forest Ecol Manage 276:224-230

DOI Google Scholar

Pukkala T, Lähde E, Laiho O (2013) Species interactions in the dynamics of even- and uneven-aged boreal forests. J Sustain Forest 32:1-33

DOI Google Scholar

Puettmann KJ, Wilson S, Baker SC, Donoso PJ, Drössler L, Amente G, Harvey BD, Knoke T, Lu Y, Nocentini S, Putz FE, Yoshida T, Bauhus J (2015) Silvicultural alternatives to conventional even-aged forest management - what limits global adoption? Forest Ecosystems 2: 8https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-015-0031-x

DOI

Repola J (2009) Biomass equations for Scots pine and Norway spruce in Finland. Silva Fennica 43(4):625-647

DOI Google Scholar

Repola J, Ojansuu R, Kukkola M (2007) Biomass functions for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch in Finland. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 53. pp. 28

Rummukainen A, Alanne H, Mikkonen E (1995) Wood procurement in the pressure of change - resource evaluation model till year 2010. Acta Forestalia Fennica 248:1-98

DOI Google Scholar

Salo K (2015) Metsä - Monikäyttö ja ekosysteemipalvelut. Natural Resources Institute Finland. Joensuu, Finland, p. 326

Schütz J-P, Pukkala T, Donoso PJ, Gadow Kv. 2012. Historical emergence and current application if CCF, in: Pukkala, T, von Gadow, K. (eds.), Continuous Cover Forestry. Springer. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, ISBN 978-94-007-2201-9, pp. 1-28https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2202-6_1

DOI

Siiskonen H (2007) The conflict between traditional and scientific forest management in 20^th century Finland. Forest Ecol Manage 249:125-133

DOI Google Scholar

Silvennoinen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O, Pukkala T (2001) Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landscape Urban Plann 56(1-2):11-20

DOI Google Scholar

Silvennoinen H, Pukkala T, Tahvanainen L (2002) Effect of cuttings on the scenic beauty of a tree stand. Scand J Forest Res 17:263-273

DOI Google Scholar

Tahvonen O (2009) Optimal choice between even- and uneven-aged forestry. Nat Res Model 21(4):525-550

Google Scholar

Thompson RG, Langemeier L, Lee C, Lee E, Thrall R (1990) The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. J Econometrics 46:93-108

DOI Google Scholar

Tikkanen O-P, Heinonen T, Kouki J, Matero J (2007) Habitat suitability models of saproxylic red-listed boreal forest species in long-term managements: cost effective measures for multi-species conservation. Biol Conserv 140:359-372

DOI Google Scholar

Tuomi M, Rasinmäki J, Repo A, Vanhala P, Liski J (2011) Soil carbon model Yasso07 graphical user interface. Environ Model Softw 26(11):1358-1362

DOI Google Scholar

Turtiainen M, Miina J, Salo K, Hotanen J-P (2013) Empirical prediction models for the coverage and yields of cowberry in Finland. Silva Fenn 47(3):22

DOI Google Scholar

Wehenkel C, Corral-Rivas JJ, Gadow K (2014) Quantifying differences between ecosystems with particular reference to selection forests in Durango/Mexico. Forest Ecol Manag 316:117-124

DOI Google Scholar

Zhu J (1996) Data envelopment analysis with preference structure. J Operat Rese Soc 47(1):136-150

DOI Google Scholar

About this article

Publication history

Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 23 February 2016

Accepted: 08 April 2016

Published: 15 April 2016

Issue date: September 2016

Copyright

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.