Managing boreal forests for the simultaneous production of collectable goods and timber revenues

Abstract

Highlights• We found a strong conflict between bilberry production and timber revenues, resulting in large losses of timber revenues when increasing bilberry production.• The conflicts between other collectables (cowberry, cep) and timber production were relatively small. • With careful forest planning, there is potential to simultaneously produce high levels of collectable goods and timber revenues in the landscape. AbstractTimber production is an economically important provisioning ecosystem service in forests, but is often in conflict with the provision of other ecosystem services. In multifunctional forestry, the production of timber and non-timber ecosystem services should coexist in the same landscape.To this end, we explored the capacity of a boreal landscape to simultaneously produce collectable goods − bilberry (Vaccimium myrtillus L.), cowberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) and cep (Boletus edulis Bull.) − alongside timber revenues. We also identified optimal forest management plans to achieve this. Furthermore, we analyzed trade-offs between collectable good yields and timber production, as well as between their economic values. We ran forest growth simulations under seven alternative management regimes at a landscape level across 50-year planning horizons. Then, we used multi-objective optimization to explore trade-offs and identify optimal forest management plans. The results showed that the strongest trade-off was between bilberry and timber production, resulting in a large loss in timber revenues for a gain in bilberry production. However, the conflicts between other collectables and timber production were relatively small: it was possible to increase the provision of collectable goods 4-15% with small reductions (3−5%) from timber revenues. With careful forest planning, there is the potential to simultaneously produce high levels of collectable goods and timber revenues in the landscape.

The availability and supply of marketed mushrooms in Eastern Finland

“…The production of B. edulis was largely in synergy with timber production, competing only near the maximal yields (Figure 7, Article II). Similar results were found in a study regarding trade-offs at near-maximal production levels of several NWFPs (including mushrooms) and timber in Finland (Peura et al 2016;Kurttila et al 2018). These results were expected, because in the studies of Peura et al (2016) and Kurttila et al (2018), the model for B. edulis was the same or based on the same data as in this study.…”

“…Similar results were found in a study regarding trade-offs at near-maximal production levels of several NWFPs (including mushrooms) and timber in Finland (Peura et al 2016;Kurttila et al 2018). These results were expected, because in the studies of Peura et al (2016) and Kurttila et al (2018), the model for B. edulis was the same or based on the same data as in this study. In the joint production of timber and mushrooms, the forest owner can prolong the picking period by up to 7 years without remarkably affecting the total SEV (Table 4, Article II).…”

More is more? Forest management allocation at different spatial scales to mitigate conflicts between ecosystem services

“…We used net present income as the measure of timber production. This was calculated by multiplying the recent average prices for different timber assortments (Peltola 2014) by the quantity of each assortment harvested during thinnings and/or final felling. We used a discount rate of 3% to discount income generated in the future.…”

“…These scales reflect real administrative and/or natural boundaries, with increasing numbers of forest owners included within each scale. In Finland, the majority of production forests are privately owned and forest holdings are comparatively small with an average size of approximately 30 ha (Peltola 2014). Large-scale, landscape-level forest management planning may thus require the cooperation of several forest owners and potentially compensation systems that make the plan acceptable for all of them (Kurttila et al 2001).…”

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

“…However, the common practice of RFM focusing solely on timber production reduces carbon storage in boreal forests compared with optimal forest management (Triviño et al, 2016). Focusing on timber production can also be in conflict with other economically beneficial forest uses, such as recreation and harvest of non-timber forest products (e.g., berries and mushrooms) (Peura et al, 2016). Earlier research has shown that diversifying forest management is a cost-efficient tool for enhancing ecosystem services (Miina et al, 2016;Triviño et al, 2015) and biodiversity (Mönkkönen et al, 2014) in production forest landscapes.…”