Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Avoiding the pitfalls of adaptive management implementation in Swedish silviculture.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature277004
Source
Ambio. 2016 Feb;45 Suppl 2:140-51
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2016
Author
Lucy Rist
Adam Felton
Erland Mårald
Lars Samuelsson
Tomas Lundmark
Ola Rosvall
Source
Ambio. 2016 Feb;45 Suppl 2:140-51
Date
Feb-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Climate change
Conservation of Natural Resources
Environmental Policy
Forestry - methods - trends
Forests
Risk
Sweden
Uncertainty
Abstract
There is a growing demand for alternatives to Sweden's current dominant silvicultural system, driven by a desire to raise biomass production, meet environmental goals and mitigate climate change. However, moving towards diversified forest management that deviates from well established silvicultural practices carries many uncertainties and risks. Adaptive management is often suggested as an effective means of managing in the context of such complexities. Yet there has been scepticism over its appropriateness in cases characterised by large spatial extents, extended temporal scales and complex land ownership-characteristics typical of Swedish forestry. Drawing on published research, including a new paradigm for adaptive management, we indicate how common pitfalls can be avoided during implementation. We indicate the investment, infrastructure, and considerations necessary to benefit from adaptive management. In doing so, we show how this approach could offer a pragmatic operational model for managing the uncertainties, risks and obstacles associated with new silvicultural systems and the challenges facing Swedish forestry.
Notes
Cites: Environ Manage. 2001 Feb;27(2):215-2311116380
Cites: J Environ Manage. 2013 Jan 15;114:461-923195141
Cites: Nat Commun. 2013;4:134023299890
Cites: Ecol Appl. 2012 Dec;22(8):2065-7723387110
Cites: J Environ Manage. 2014 Dec 15;146:69-8325156267
Cites: Ecol Appl. 2006 Dec;16(6):2411-2517205914
Cites: Environ Manage. 2001 Aug;28(2):141-811443379
Cites: Conserv Biol. 2006 Apr;20(2):319-2916903093
Cites: J Environ Manage. 2011 May;92(5):1379-8421112687
Cites: Ambio. 2007 Jun;36(4):304-717626467
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jul 8;100(14):8086-9112777623
PubMed ID
26744049 View in PubMed
Less detail

Replacing monocultures with mixed-species stands: Ecosystem service implications of two production forest alternatives in Sweden.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature277005
Source
Ambio. 2016 Feb;45 Suppl 2:124-39
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2016
Author
Adam Felton
Urban Nilsson
Johan Sonesson
Annika M Felton
Jean-Michel Roberge
Thomas Ranius
Martin Ahlström
Johan Bergh
Christer Björkman
Johanna Boberg
Lars Drössler
Nils Fahlvik
Peichen Gong
Emma Holmström
E Carina H Keskitalo
Maartje J Klapwijk
Hjalmar Laudon
Tomas Lundmark
Mats Niklasson
Annika Nordin
Maria Pettersson
Jan Stenlid
Anna Sténs
Kristina Wallertz
Source
Ambio. 2016 Feb;45 Suppl 2:124-39
Date
Feb-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Climate change
Conservation of Natural Resources
Ecosystem
Fires
Forestry - methods
Pest Control
Sweden
Water Quality
Wind
Abstract
Whereas there is evidence that mixed-species approaches to production forestry in general can provide positive outcomes relative to monocultures, it is less clear to what extent multiple benefits can be derived from specific mixed-species alternatives. To provide such insights requires evaluations of an encompassing suite of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and forest management considerations provided by specific mixtures and monocultures within a region. Here, we conduct such an assessment in Sweden by contrasting even-aged Norway spruce (Picea abies)-dominated stands, with mixed-species stands of spruce and birch (Betula pendula or B. pubescens), or spruce and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris). By synthesizing the available evidence, we identify positive outcomes from mixtures including increased biodiversity, water quality, esthetic and recreational values, as well as reduced stand vulnerability to pest and pathogen damage. However, some uncertainties and risks were projected to increase, highlighting the importance of conducting comprehensive interdisciplinary evaluations when assessing the pros and cons of mixtures.
Notes
Cites: Oecologia. 2011 Jul;166(3):703-1121311911
Cites: Oecologia. 2012 Oct;170(2):411-922437909
Cites: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011 Feb;89(4):971-921132290
Cites: Nat Commun. 2013;4:134023299890
Cites: Q Rev Biol. 2014 Mar;89(1):1-1924672901
Cites: J Anim Ecol. 2013 Jul;82(4):739-4823363076
Cites: J Environ Manage. 2014 Dec 15;146:69-8325156267
Cites: Oecologia. 2007 May;152(2):287-9817356813
Cites: Ecol Lett. 2006 Apr;9(4):485-9816623733
Cites: Oecologia. 2012 Jun;169(2):477-8722159991
Cites: Ecol Lett. 2007 Sep;10(9):835-4817663717
Cites: Ecol Appl. 2007 Dec;17(8):2145-5118213958
Cites: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2010 Nov;85(4):729-5520105153
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Mar 16;107(11):5242-720194739
Cites: Ecol Lett. 2009 Dec;12(12):1394-40419845725
PubMed ID
26744048 View in PubMed
Less detail