Analysis of the changes in forest ecosystem functions, structure and composition in the Black Sea region of Turkey

Abstract

We used geographical information system to analyze changes in forest ecosystem functions, structure and composition in a typical department of forest management area consisting of four forest management planning units in Turkey. To assess these effects over a 25 year period we compiled data from three forest management plans that were made in 1986, 2001 and 2011. Temporal changes in forest ecosystem functions were estimated based on the three pillars of forest sustainability: economics, ecology and socio-culture. We assessed a few indicators such as land-use and forest cover, forest types, tree species, development stage, stand age classes, crown closure, growing stock and its increment, and timber biomass. The results of the case study suggested a shift in forest values away from economic values toward ecological and socio-cultural values over last two planning periods. Forest ecosystem structure improved, due mainly to increasing forest area, decreasing non-forest areas (especially in settlement and agricultural areas), forestation on forest openings, rehabilitation of degraded forests, conversion of even-aged forests to uneven-aged forests and conversion of coppice forests to high forests with greater growing stock increments. There were also favorable changes in forest management planning approaches.

Keywords

Forest management / Ecosystem functions / Geographical information system / Forest planning / Forest structure and composition

References

[1] Angelstam P, Kopylova E, Korn H, Lazdinis M, Sayer JA, Teplyakov V, Törnblom J (2005) Changing forest values in Europe. In: Sayer JA, Maginnis S (eds) Forests in landscapes. Ecosystem approaches to sustainability. Earthscan, London, pp. 59–74

[2] Atmış E, Daşdemir I, Lise W, Yildiran Ö. Factors affecting women’s participation in forestry in Turkey. Ecol Econ, 2007, 60(4): 787-796.

[3] Başkent EZ, Keleş S. Developing alternative forest management planning strategies incorporating timber, water and carbon values: an examination of their interactions. Environ Model Assess, 2009, 14: 467-480.

[4] Başkent EZ, Köse S, Keleş S. Forest management planning system of Turkey: constructive criticism towards the sustainable management of forest ecosystems. Int For Rev, 2005, 7(3): 208-217.

[5] Başkent EZ, Başkaya Ş, Terzioğlu S. Developing and implementing participatory and ecosystem based multiple use forest management planning approach (ETÇAP): Yalnızçam case study. For Ecol Manag, 2008, 256: 798-807.

[6] Başkent EZ, Keleş S, Yolasığmaz HA. Comparing multi-purpose forest management with timber management in incorporating timber, carbon and oxygen values: a case study. Scand J Forest Res, 2008, 23(2): 105-120.

[7] Bengston DN. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Soc Nat Resour, 1994, 7(6): 515-533.

[8] Bengston DN, Webb TJ, Fan DP. Shifting forest value orientations in the United States, 1980–2001: a computer content analysis. Environ Values, 2004, 13(3): 373-392.

[9] Bozali N, Sivrikay F, Akay AE. Use of spatial pattern analysis to assess forest cover changes in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. J Forest Res, 2015, 20(4): 365-374.

[10] Çakır G, Sivrikaya F, Keleş S. Forest cover change and fragmentation using landsat data in Maçka State Forest Enterprise in Turkey. Environ Monit Assess, 2008, 137: 51-66.

[11] Creedy J, Wurzbacher AD. The economic value of a forested catchment with timber, water and carbon sequestration benefits. Ecol Econ, 2001, 38: 71-83.

[12] GDF. The inventory of Turkish Forests, 2012, Ankara: General Directorate of Forestry in Turkey 36

[13] Geray U (2002) Ormancılık Kurumları, FAO Ulusal Ormancılık Programının Hazırlanması (TCP/TUR/0066 (A) Proje Raporu

[14] Günlü A, Kadıoğulları Aİ, Keleş S, Başkent EZ. Spatiotemporal changes of landscape pattern in response to deforestation in Northeastern Turkey: a case study in Rize. Environ Monit Assess, 2009, 148: 127-137.

[15] Guo Z, Xiao X, Gan Y, Zheng Y. Ecosystem functions, services and their values: a case study in Xingshan County of China. Ecol Econ, 2001, 38: 141-154.

[16] Kadıoğulları Aİ, Keleş S, Başkent EZ, Günlü A. Spatiotemporal changes of landscape pattern in response to Forestation in Northeastern Turkey: a case study in Torul. Scott Geogr J, 2008, 124(4): 259-273.

[17] Kadıoğulları Aİ, Sayın MA, Çelik DA, Borucu S, Çil B, Bulut S. Analysing land cover changes for understanding of forest dynamics using temporal forest management plans. Environ Monit Assess, 2013, 186(4): 2089-2110.

[18] Kayacan B, Ucal MŞ, Öztürk A, Balı R, Koçer S, Kaplan E. Modeling and forecasting the demand for industrial roundwood in Turkey: a primary econometric approach. J Food Agric Environ, 2012, 10(2): 1127-1132.

[19] Keleş S, Başkent EZ. Joint production of water and timber: a case study. Water Policy, 2011, 13: 535-546.

[20] Keleş S, Sivrikaya F, Çakır G, Köse S. Urbanization and forest cover change in regional Directorate of Trabzon forestry from 1975 to 2000 using landsat data. Environ Monit Assess, 2007, 140: 1-14.

[21] Keleş S, Sivrikaya F, Çakır G. Temporal changes in forest landscape patterns in Artvin Forest Planning Unit, Turkey. Environ Monit Assess, 2007, 129: 483-490.

[22] Keleş S, Kadıoğulları Aİ, Başkent EZ. The effects of land-use and land-cover changes on carbon storage in forest timber biomass: a case study in Torul, Turkey. J Land Use Sci, 2012, 7(3): 125-133.

[23] Myre P. Changing forest values, forest legislation and management in Canada. For Chron, 1998, 74(2): 236-240.

[24] Nordström EM, Eriksson LO, Öhman K. Multiple criteria decision analysis with consideration to place-specific values in participatory forest planning. Silva Fennica, 2011, 45(2): 253-265.

[25] Ok K. Idea marketing in forestry: some implications from the Turkish forestry experience. Forest Policy Econ, 2005, 7(4): 493-500.

[26] Seidl R, Rammer W, Jager D, Currie WS, Lexer MJ. Assessing trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria. Forest Ecol Manag, 2007, 248: 64-79.

[27] Sinclair AJ, Diduck J, Duinker PN. Elicitation of urban forest values from residents of Winnipeg, Canada. Canad J Forest Res, 2014, 44(8): 922-930.

[28] Sivrikaya F, Çakır G, Kadıoğulları Aİ, Keleş S, Terzioğlu S, Başkent EZ. Evaluating land use/land cover changes and fragmentation in the Camili forest planning unit of Northeastern Turkey from 1972 to 2005. Land Degrad Dev, 2007, 18: 383-396.

[29] Steel BS, List P, Shindler B. Conflicting values about federal forests: a comparison of national and Oregon publics. Soc Nat Resour, 1994, 7(2): 137-153.

[30] Tindall DB. Social values and the contingent nature of public opinion and attitudes about forests. For Chron, 2003, 79(3): 692-705.

[31] Türker MF (2013) Ormancılık İşletme Ekonomisi (Ormancılık ve Tabiatı Koruma Vakfı Yayın Nu.5, Trabzon

[32] Zengin H, Yeşil A, Asan Ü, Bettinger P, Cieszewski C, Siry JP. Evolution of modern forest management planning in the Republic of Turkey. J Forest, 2013, 111(4): 239-248.