4.7 Article

Dead wood availability in managed Swedish forests - Policy outcomes and implications for biodiversity

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 376, 期 -, 页码 174-182

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.06.017

关键词

National Forest Inventory; Saproxylic species; Environmental objectives; Natura 2000; Boreal forest; Western Taiga

类别

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [340-2013-5076]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dead wood is a critical resource for forest biodiversity and widely used as an indicator for sustainable forest management. Based on data from the Swedish National Forest Inventory we provide baseline information and analyze trends in volume and distribution of dead wood in Swedish managed forests during 15 years. The data are based on approximate to 30,000 sample plots inventoried during three periods (1994-1998; 2003-2007 and 2008-2012). The forest policy has since 1994 emphasized the need to increase the amount of dead wood in Swedish forests. The average volume of dead wood in Sweden has increased by 25% (from 6.1 to 7.6 m(3) ha(-1)) since the mid-1990s, but patterns differed among regions and tree species. The volume of conifer dead wood (mainly from Picea abies) has increased in the southern part of the country, but remained stable or decreased in the northern part. Heterogeneity of dead wood types was low in terms of species, diameter and decay classes, potentially negatively impacting on biodiversity. Overall, we found only minor effects of the current forest policy since most of the increase can be attributed to storm events creating a pulse of hard dead wood. Therefore, the implementation of established policy instruments (e.g. legislation and voluntary certification schemes) need to be revisited. In addition to the retention of dead trees during forestry operations, policy makers should consider calling for more large-scale targeted creation of dead trees and management methods with longer rotation cycles. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据