Wood production and biodiversity conservation are rival forestry objectives in Europe's Baltic Sea Region

Abstract

The policy term green infrastructure highlights the need to maintain functional ecosystems as a foundation for sustainable societies. Because forests are the main natural ecosystems in Europe, it is crucial to understand the extent to which forest landscape management delivers functional green infrastructures. We used the steep west–east gradient in forest landscape history, land ownership, and political culture within northern Europe's Baltic Sea Region to assess regional profiles of benefits delivered by forest landscapes. The aim was to support policy‐makers and planners with evidence‐based knowledge about the current conditions for effective wood production and biodiversity conservation. We developed and modeled four regional‐level indicators for sustained yield wood production and four for biodiversity conservation using public spatial data. The western case study regions in Sweden and Latvia had high forest management intensity with balanced forest losses and gains which was spatially correlated, thus indicating an even stand age class distribution at the local scale and therefore long‐term sustained yields. In contrast, the eastern case study regions in Belarus and Russia showed spatial segregation of areas with forest losses and gains. Regarding biodiversity conservation indicators, the west–east gradient was reversed. In the Russian, Belarusian, and Latvian case study regions, tree species composition was more natural than in Sweden, and the size of contiguous areas without forest loss was larger. In all four case study regions, 54–85% of the total land base consisted of forest cover, which is above critical fragmentation thresholds for forest landscape fragmentation. The results show that green infrastructures for wood production and biodiversity conservation are inversely related among the four case study regions, and thus rival. While restoration for biodiversity conservation is needed in the west, intensified use of wood and biomass is possible in the east. However, a cautious approach should be applied because intensification of wood production threatens biodiversity. We discuss the barriers and bridges for spatial planning in countries with different types of land ownership and political cultures and stress the need for a landscape approach based on evidence‐based collaborative learning processes that include both different academic disciplines and stakeholders that represent different sectors and levels of governance.

Ecosystem Services Related to Carbon Cycling – Modeling Present and Future Impacts in Boreal Forests

“…This would have further implications on C sequestration that need to be explored separately. We did not study the impact of climate change and cutting regimes on biodiversity indicators, such as the amount of dead wood, but others have found significant effects of bioenergy extraction on dead wood levels (e.g., Hof et al, 2018) and conflicting objectives of wood production and biodiversity conservation (Mönkkönen et al, 2014; Angelstam et al, 2019). In their comprehensive review on the retention approach for forestry, Lindenmayer et al (2012) argued that the practice of permanently retaining significant elements of the original forest is crucial for maintaining multiple forest values, such as biodiversity and carbon stocks.…”

Effects of Land Use Intensification on Avian Predator Assemblages: A Comparison of Landscapes with Different Histories in Northern Europe

“…The European continent's West and East provides appropriate gradients in both land use intensity [45,54], and the states and trends of bird populations (e.g., References [19,55]). This is particularly pronounced in the Baltic Sea Region hosting countries with different trajectories of land use intensification in the West and the East, respectively [37,56]. Case study research is a strategy that focuses on understanding a given context [57] and is an essential method to understand the dynamics within both singular and multiple settings [58].…”

LTSER platforms as a place-based transdisciplinary research infrastructure: learning landscape approach through evaluation

“…This is highly relevant both when designing macroecological studies and comparisons of social systems. For example, dose-response studies about landscape patterns such as the effect of habitat amount and configuration on biodiversity (e.g., Roberge et al 2008;Angelstam et al 2018b), and processes such as the effects of large herbivores on trees (Angelstam et al 2017b), demonstrate that the design in terms of the range of variation in independent variables affects the results. Similarly, comparative studies of different governance arrangements illustrate that different societal trajectories require solutions that are regionally adapted to both stakeholder engagement patterns and spatial planning legacies (e.g., Elbakidze et al 2010Elbakidze et al , 2013.…”