Disentangling the effects of management and climate change on habitat suitability for saproxylic species in boreal forests

Abstract

Forest degradation induced by intensive forest management and temperature increase by climate change are resulting in biodiversity decline in boreal forests. Intensive forest management and high-end climate emission scenarios can further reduce the amount and diversity of deadwood, the limiting factor for habitats for saproxylic species in European boreal forests. The magnitude of their combined effects and how changes in forest management can affect deadwood diversity under a range of climate change scenarios are poorly understood. We used forest growth simulations to evaluate how forest management and climate change will individually and jointly affect habitats of red-listed saproxylic species in Finland. We simulated seven forest management regimes and three climate scenarios (reference, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) over 100 years. Management regimes included set aside, continuous cover forestry, business-as-usual (BAU) and four modifications of BAU. Habitat suitability was assessed using a species-specific habitat suitability index, including 21 fungal and invertebrate species groups. “Winner” and “loser” species were identified based on the modelled impacts of forest management and climate change on their habitat suitability. We found that forest management had a major impact on habitat suitability of saproxylic species compared to climate change. Habitat suitability index varied by over 250% among management regimes, while overall change in habitat suitability index caused by climate change was on average only 2%. More species groups were identified as winners than losers from impacts of climate change (52%–95% were winners, depending on the climate change scenario and management regime). The largest increase in habitat suitability index was achieved under set aside (254%) and the climate scenario RCP8.5 (> 2%), while continuous cover forestry was the most suitable regime to increase habitat suitability of saproxylic species (up to + 11%) across all climate change scenarios. Our results show that close-to-nature management regimes (e.g., continuous cover forestry and set aside) can increase the habitat suitability of many saproxylic boreal species more than the basic business-as-usual regime. This suggests that biodiversity loss of many saproxylic species in boreal forests can be mitigated through improved forest management practices, even as climate change progresses.

Keywords

Biodiversity / Simulations / Finland / Forest planning / Habitat suitability / Deadwood

References

[1]	?ij?l? O, Koistinen A, Sved J, Vanhatalo K, V?s?inen P (2014) Hyv?n mets?nhoidon suositukset [Good forest management recommendations]. Forestry Development Center Tapio (In Finnish)
[2]	Blattert C, Eyvindson K, Hartikainen M, Burgas D, Potterf M, Lukkarinen J, Sn?ll T, Tora?o-Caicoya A, M?nkk?nen M (2022) Sectoral policies cause incoherence in forest management and ecosystem service provisioning. For Policy Econ 136:102689. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2022.102689
[3]	Burton PJ, Messier C, Smith DW, Adamowiz WL (2003) Towards sustainable management of the boreal forest. NRC Research Press, Ottawa
[4]	Cajander AK (1949) Forest types and their significance. Silva Fenn 56:7396
[5]	Della Rocca F, Milanesi P (2020) Combining climate, land use change and dispersal to predict the distribution of endangered species with limited vagility. J Biogeogr 47:1427–1438. https://doi.org/10.1111/JBI.13804
[6]	Dyola N, Sigdel SR, Liang E, Babst F, Camarero JJ, Aryal S, Chettri N, Gao S, Lu X, Sun J, Wang T, Zhang G, Zhu H, Piao S, Pe?uelas J (2022) Species richness is a strong driver of forest biomass along broad bioclimatic gradients in the Himalayas. Ecosphere 13:e4107. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4107
[7]	Edenius L, Mikusiński G (2006) Utility of habitat suitability models as biodiversity assessment tools in forest management. Scand J For Res 21:62–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/14004080500486989
[8]	Eyvindson K, Duflot R, Trivi?o M, Blattert C, Potterf M, M?nkk?nen M (2021) High boreal forest multifunctionality requires continuous cover forestry as a dominant management. Land Use Policy 100:104918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104918
[9]	FAO (2010) Global Forests Resources Assessment. Main report, FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i1757e/i1757e.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2021
[10]	Felton A, Sonesson J, Nilsson U, L?m?s T, Lundmark T, Nordin A, Ranius T, Roberge JM (2017) Varying rotation lengths in northern production forests: Implications for habitats provided by retention and production trees. Ambio 46:324–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13280-017-0909-7
[11]	Finnish Forest Centre (2021) Open forest information. Available from www.metsakeskus.fi/fi/avoin-metsa-ja-luontotieto/metsatietoaineistot/metsavaratiedot. Accessed 1 Sept 2021
[12]	Foden WB, Butchart SHM, Stuart SN, Vié JC, Ak?akaya HR, Angulo A, DeVantier LM, Gutsche A, Turak E, Cao L, Donner SD, Katariya V, Bernard R, Holland RA, Hughes AF, O’Hanlon SE, Garnett ST, ?ekercio?lu ?H, Mace GM (2013) Identifying the world’s most climate change vulnerable species: a systematic trait-based assessment of all birds, amphibians and corals. PLoS ONE 8:e65427. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065427
[13]	Gossner MM, Lachat T, Brunet J, Isacsson G, Bouget C, Brustel H, Brandl R, Weisser WW, Müller J (2013) Current near-to-nature forest management effects on functional trait composition of saproxylic beetles in beech forests. Conserv Biol 27:605–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/COBI.12023
[14]	H?m?l?inen A, Kouki J, Lohmus P (2014) The value of retained Scots pines and their dead wood legacies for lichen diversity in clear-cut forests: The effects of retention level and prescribed burning. For Ecol Manag 324:89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2014.04.016
[15]	Harmon ME, Fasth BG, Yatskov M, Kastendick D, Rock J, Woodall CW (2020) Release of coarse woody detritus-related carbon: A synthesis across forest biomes. Carbon Balance Manag 15:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13021-019-0136
[16]	Harmon ME, Sexton J (1996) Guidelines for measurements for of woody detritus in forest ecosystems. Seattle, Washington
[17]	Hautala H, Jalonen J, Laaka-Lindberg S, Vanha-Majamaa I (2004) Impacts of retention felling on coarse woody debris (CWD) in mature boreal spruce forests in Finland. Biodivers Conserv 13:1541–1554
[18]	Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Kellom?ki S, Strandman H, Asikainen A, Ven?l?inen A, Peltola H (2018) Effects of forest management and harvesting intensity on the timber supply from Finnish forests in a changing climate. Can J For Res 48:1124–1134. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0118
[19]	Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Meht?talo L, Asikainen A, Kangas J, Peltola H (2017) Scenario analyses for the effects of harvesting intensity on development of forest resources, timber supply, carbon balance and biodiversity of Finnish forestry. For Policy Econ 80:80–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2017.03.011
[20]	Henttonen HM, N?jd P, Suvanto S, Heikkinen J, M?kinen H (2019) Large trees have increased greatly in Finland during 1921–2013, but recent observations on old trees tell a different story. Ecol Indic 99:118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.12.015
[21]	IPCC (2021) Climate Change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change
[22]	Jaeschke A, Bittner T, Reineking B, Beierkuhnlein C (2013) Can they keep up with climate change? Integrating specific dispersal abilities of protected Odonata in species distribution modelling. Insect Conserv Divers 6:93–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1752-4598.2012.00194.X
[23]	J?nsson AM, Lagergren F, Smith B (2015) Forest management facing climate change ? an ecosystem model analysis of adaptation strategies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 20:201–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11027-013-9487-6/
[24]	Jonsson M, Bengtsson J, Moen J, Gamfeldt L, Sn?ll T (2020) Stand age and climate influence forest ecosystem service delivery and multifunctionality. Environ Res Lett 15:0940a8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abaf1c
[25]	Jonsson R (2013) How to cope with changing demand conditions ? the Swedish forest sector as a case study: An analysis of major drivers of change in the use of wood resources. Can J For Res 43:405–418. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2012-0139
[26]	Juutinen A, M?nkk?nen M, Sippola AL (2006) Cost-Efficiency of decaying wood as a surrogate for overall species richness in boreal forests. Conserv Biol 20:74–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1523-1739.2005.00306.X
[27]	Kellom?ki S (2017) Managing boreal forests in the context of climate change: impacts. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, Adaptation and Climate Change Mitigation
[28]	Kellom?ki S (2022) Successional dynamics of boreal forest ecosystem. In: Kellom?ki S (ed) Management of Boreal Forests: Theories and Applications for Ecosystem Services. Springer, pp 219–278
[29]	Kellom?ki S, Peltola H, Nuutinen T, Korhonen KT, Strandman H (2008) Sensitivity of managed boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive management. Philos Trans R Soc Lond b, Biol Sci 363:2339–2349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2204
[30]	Kouki J, Tikkanen OP (eds) (2007) Uhanalaisten lahopuulajien elinymp?rist?jen turvaaminen suojelualueilla ja talousmetsiss?: Kustannustehokkuus ja ekologiset, ekonomiset sek? sosiaaliset vaikutukset Kitsin seudulla Lieksassa (Conservation of threatened saproxylic species assemblages in eastern Finland: long-term cost-efficient solutions and their ecological, economic and social implications). Suomen Ymp?rist?-Finnish Environment 24:1–104
[31]	Kuuluvainen T, Lindberg H, Vanha-Majamaa I, Keto-Tokoi P, Punttila P (2019) Low-level retention forestry, certification, and biodiversity: case Finland. Ecol Process 8:47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-019-0198-0
[32]	Kuuluvainen T, Tahvonen O, Aakala T (2012) Even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in boreal Fennoscandia: a review. Ambio 41:720–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0289-y
[33]	Lassauce A, Paillet Y, Jactel H, Bouget C (2011) Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: Meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecol Indic 11:1027–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.02.004
[34]	Lehtonen A, Ven?l?inen A, K?m?r?inen M, Peltola H, Gregow H (2016) Risk of large-scale fires in boreal forests of Finland under changing climate. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 16:239–253. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-239-2016
[35]	Lindenmayer DB (2009) Forest wildlife management and conservation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:284–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1749-6632.2009.04148.X
[36]	Mair L, J?nsson M, R?ty M, B?rring L, Strandberg G, L?m?s T, Sn?ll T (2018) Land use changes could modify future negative effects of climate change on old-growth forest indicator species. Divers Distrib 24:1416–1425. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12771
[37]	M?kinen H, Hynynen J, Siitonen J, Siev?nen R (2006) Predicting the decomposition of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch stems in Finland. Ecol Appl 16:1865–1879. https://doi.org/10.2307/40061757
[38]	Matala J, Ojansuu R, Peltola H, Raitio H, Kellom?ki S (2006) Modelling the response of tree growth to temperature and CO2 elevation as related to the fertility and current temperature sum of a site. Ecol Modell 199:39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.06.009
[39]	Matala J, Ojansuu R, Peltola H, Siev?nen R, Kellom?ki S (2005) Introducing effects of temperature and CO2 elevation on tree growth into a statistical growth and yield model. Ecol Modell 181:173–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLMODEL.2004.06.030
[40]	Mazziotta A, Lundstr?m J, Forsell N, Moor H, Eggers J, Subramanian N, Aquilué N, Morán-Ordó?ez A, Brotons L, Sn?ll T (2022) More future synergies and less trade-offs between forest ecosystem services with natural climate solutions instead of bioeconomy solutions. Glob Chang Biol 28(21):6333–6348. https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.16364
[41]	Mazziotta A, M?nkk?nen M, Strandman H, Routa J, Tikkanen OP, Kellom?ki S (2014) Modeling the effects of climate change and management on the dead wood dynamics in boreal forest plantations. Eur J For Res 133:405–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-013-0773-3
[42]	Mazziotta A, Trivi?o M, Tikkanen OP, Kouki J, Strandman H, M?nkk?nen M (2016) Habitat associations drive species vulnerability to climate change in boreal forests. Clim Change 135:585–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1591-z
[43]	Mikkonen S, Laine M, M?kel? HM, Gregow H, Tuomenvirta H, Lahtinen M, Laaksonen A (2015) Trends in the average temperature in Finland, 1847–2013. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 29:1521–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00477-014-0992-2
[44]	M?nkk?nen M, Aakala T, Blattert C, Burgas D, Duflot R, Eyvindson K, Kouki J, Laaksonen T, Punttila P (2022) More wood but less biodiversity in forests in Finland: a historical evaluation. Memo Soc Fauna Flora Fenn 98:1–11
[45]	M?nkk?nen M, Juutinen A, Mazziotta A, Miettinen K, Podkopaev D, Reunanen P, Salminen H, Tikkanen OP (2014) Spatially dynamic forest management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. J Environ Manag 134:80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.021
[46]	Peltola A, R?ty M, Sauvula-Sepp?l? T, Torvelainen J, Uotila E, Vaahtera E, Ylitalo E (2020) Mets?tilastot – Finnish Forest Statistics (In Finnish and English). Luonnonvarakeskus (Luke). Helsinki.
[47]	Penttil? R, Siitonen J, Kuusinen M (2004) Polypore diversity in managed and old-growth boreal Picea abies forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv 117:271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2003.12.007
[48]	Peura M, Burgas D, Eyvindson K, Repo A, M?nkk?nen M (2018) Continuous cover forestry is a cost-efficient tool to increase multifunctionality of boreal production forests in Fennoscandia. Biol Conserv 217:104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2017.10.018
[49]	Pukkala T, L?hde E, Laiho O (2013) Species interactions in the dynamics of even- and uneven-aged boreal forests. J Sustain For 32:371–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.770766
[50]	Rasinm?ki J, M?kinen A, Kalliovirta J (2009) SIMO: An adaptable simulation framework for multiscale forest resource data. Comput Electron Agric 66:76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2008.12.007
[51]	Rassi P, Hyv?rinen E, Juslén A, Mannerkoski I (2010) The 2010 Red List of Finnish Species. Ymp?rist?ministeri? and Suomen ymp?rist?keskus, Helsinki, p 182
[52]	Ruosteenoja K, Jylh? K, K?m?r?inen M (2016) Climate projections for Finland under the RCP forcing scenarios. Geophysica 51:17–50
[53]	Russell MB, Woodall CW, D’Amato AW, Fraver S, Bradford JB (2014) Linking climate change and downed woody debris decomposition across forests of the eastern United States. Biogeosciences 1:6417–6425. https://doi.org/10.5194/BG-11-6417-2014
[54]	Siira-Pietik?inen A, Haimi J (2009) Changes in soil fauna 10 years after forest harvestings: comparison between clear felling and green-tree retention methods. For Ecol Manag 258:332–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2009.04.024
[55]	Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 11–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/20113262
[56]	Siitonen J, Saaristo L (2000) Habitat requirements and conservation of Pytho kolwensis, a beetle species of old-growth boreal forest. Biol Conserv 94:211–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00174-3
[57]	Stokland JN, Siitonen J, Jonsson BG (2012) biodiversity in dead wood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 510
[58]	Subramanian N, Nilsson U, Mossberg M, Bergh J (2019) Impacts of climate change, weather extremes and alternative strategies in managed forests. Ecoscience 26:53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2018.1515597
[59]	Svensson J, Andersson J, Sandstr?m P, Mikusiński G, Jonsson BG (2019) Landscape trajectory of natural boreal forest loss as an impediment to green infrastructure. Conserv Biol 33:152–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13148
[60]	Tikkanen OP, Heinonen T, Kouki J, Matero J (2007) Habitat suitability models of saproxylic red-listed boreal forest species in long-term matrix management: Cost-effective measures for multi-species conservation. Biol Conserv 140:359–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.08.020
[61]	Tikkanen OP, Martikainen P, Hyvarinen E, Junninen K, Kouki J (2006) Red-listed boreal forest species of Finland: associations with forest structure, tree species, and decaying wood. Ann Zool Fennici 43:373–383
[62]	Trivi?o M, Pohjanmies T, Mazziotta A, Juutinen A, Podkopaev D, Le Tortorec E, M?nkk?nen M (2017) Optimizing management to enhance multifunctionality in a boreal forest landscape. J Appl Ecol 54:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12790
[63]	Tuomi M, Laiho R, Repo A, Liski J (2011) Wood decomposition model for boreal forests. Ecol Modell 222:709–718
[64]	van Lierop P, Lindquist E, Sathyapala S, Franceschini G (2015) Global forest area disturbance from fire, insect pests, diseases and severe weather events. For Ecol Manag 352:78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.06.010
[65]	van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hibbard K, Hurtt GC, Kram T, Krey V, Lamarque JF, Masui T, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Smith SJ, Rose SK (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Change 109:5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10584-011-0148-z
[66]	Ven?l?inen A, Lehtonen I, Laapas M, Ruosteenoja K, Tikkanen OP, Viiri H, Ikonen VP, Peltola H (2020) Climate change induces multiple risks to boreal forests and forestry in Finland: a literature review. Glob Chang Biol 26:4178–4196
[67]	Von Salzen K, Scinocca JF, McFarlane NA, Li J, Cole JNS, Plummer D, Verseghy D, Reader MC, Ma X, Lazare M, Solheim L (2013) The Canadian fourth generation atmospheric global climate model (CanAM4). Part I: Representation of physical processes. Atmos Ocean 51:104–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/07055900.2012.755610
[68]	Work TT, Jacobs JM, Spence JR, Volney WJ (2010) High levels of green-tree retention are required to preserve ground beetle biodiversity in boreal mixedwood forests. Ecol Appl 20:741–751. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1463.1
[69]	Yang S, Limpens J, Sterck FJ, Sass-Klaassen U, Cornelissen JHC, Hefting M, van Logtestijn RSP, Goudzwaard L, Dam N, Dam M, Veerkamp MT, van den Berg B, Brouwer E, Chang C, Poorter L (2021) Dead wood diversity promotes fungal diversity. Oikos 130:2202–2216. https://doi.org/10.1111/OIK.08388
[70]	Zubizarreta-Gerendiain A, Pukkala T, Peltola H (2019) Effect of wind damage on the habitat suitability of saproxylic species in a boreal forest landscape. J Forestry Res 30:879–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11676-018-0693-7

Funding

Norwegian University of Life Sciences