Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biodiversity Conservation in Swedish Forests: Ways Forward for a 30-Year-Old Multi-Scaled Approach

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
AMBIO Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A multi-scaled model for biodiversity conservation in forests was introduced in Sweden 30 years ago, which makes it a pioneer example of an integrated ecosystem approach. Trees are set aside for biodiversity purposes at multiple scale levels varying from individual trees to areas of thousands of hectares, with landowner responsibility at the lowest level and with increasing state involvement at higher levels. Ecological theory supports the multi-scaled approach, and retention efforts at every harvest occasion stimulate landowners’ interest in conservation. We argue that the model has large advantages but that in a future with intensified forestry and global warming, development based on more progressive thinking is necessary to maintain and increase biodiversity. Suggestions for the future include joint planning for several forest owners, consideration of cost-effectiveness, accepting opportunistic work models, adjusting retention levels to stand and landscape composition, introduction of temporary reserves, creation of “receiver habitats” for species escaping climate change, and protection of young forests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aubry, K.B., C.B. Halpern, and D.A. Maguire. 2004. Ecological effects of variable-retention harvests in the northwestern United States: The DEMO study. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 78: 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, B.A., P.G. Lakshminarayan, J. Wu, and D. Zilberman. 1997. Targeting tools for the purchase of environmental amenities. Land Economics 73: 325–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S.C., S.J. Grove, L. Forster, K.J. Bonham, and D. Bashford. 2009. Short-term responses of ground-active beetles to alternative silvicultural systems in the Warra Silvicultural Systems Trial, Tasmania, Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 444–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, J., P. Angelstam, T. Elmqvist, U. Emanuelsson, C. Folke, M. Ihse, F. Moberg, and M. Nyström. 2003. Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32: 389–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergh, J., S. Linder, and J. Bergström. 2005. Potential production of Norway spruce in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 204: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berglund, H., and B.G. Jonsson. 2004. Verifying an extinction debt among lichens and fungi in northern Swedish boreal forests. Conservation Biology 19: 338–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elton, C. 1927. Animal ecology. London, England: Sidgwick and Jackson, 207 pp.

  • Esseen, P.-A., K.-E. Renhorn, and R.B. Pettersson. 1996. Epiphytic lichen biomass in managed and old-growth forests: Effect of branch quality. Ecological Applications 6: 228–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100: 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, P.J. 2003. Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous world. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22: 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fimbel, R.A., A. Grajal, and J.G. Robinson, eds. 2001. The cutting edge. Conserving wildlife in logged tropical forests. New York: Columbia University Press, 808 pp.

  • Franklin, J.F. 1989. Towards a new forestry. American Forests 95: 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fridman, J. 2000. Conservation of forests in Sweden: A strategic ecological analysis. Biological Conservation 96: 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, L. 2002. Presence and abundance of red-listed plant species in Swedish forests. Conservation Biology 16: 377–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, L., A. Dahlberg, M. Green, S. Henningsson, C. Hägerhäll, A. Larsson, Å. Lindelöw, A. Lindhagen, G. Lundh, Å. Ode, T. Ranius, J. Sandström, J. Strengbom, R. Svensson, and O. Widenfalk. 2010. Konsekvenser för kulturarv, friluftsliv, landskapsbild och biologisk mångfald. Faktaunderlag till MINT-utredningen. SLU Rapport. Uppsala, 208 pp. (in Swedish).

  • Hottola, J., and J. Siitonen. 2007. Significance of woodland key habitats for polypore diversity and red-listed species in boreal forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 2559–2577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, G.E. 1978. An introduction to population ecology. New Haven, Connecticut, USA: Yale University Press, 256 pp.

  • Jönsson, M.T., S. Fraver, B.G. Jonsson, M. Dynesius, M. Rydgård, and P.-A. Esseen. 2007. Eighteen years of tree mortality and structural change in an experimentally fragmented Norway spruce forest. Forest Ecology and Management 242: 306–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junninen, K., and J. Kouki. 2006. Are woodland key habitats in Finland hotspots for polypores (Basidiomycota)? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 21: 32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junninen, K., M. Similä, J. Kouki, and H. Kotiranta. 2006. Assemblages of wood-inhabiting fungi along the gradients of succession and naturalness in boreal pine-dominated forests in Fennoscandia. Ecography 29: 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaila, L., P. Martikainen, and P. Punttila. 1997. Dead trees left in clear-cuts benefit saproxylic Coleoptera adapted to natural disturbances in boreal forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, J., H. Brøseth, H. Sand, and H. Andrén. 2007. Predicting occurrence of wolf territories in Scandinavia. Journal of Zoology 272: 276–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, A., and R.M. Cowling. 2007. Embracing opportunism in the selection of priority conservation areas. Conservation Biology 21: 1124–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuuluvainen, T. 2002. Natural variability of forests as a reference for restoring and managing biological diversity in boreal Fennoscandia. Silva Fennica 36: 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, S., T. Lundmark, and G. Ståhl. 2009. Möjligheter till intensivodling av skog. Slutrapport från regeringsuppdrag Jo 2008/1885. Uppsala: Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, 136 pp. (in Swedish).

  • Lazdinis, M., P. Angelstam, and I. Lazdinis. 2007. Maintenance of forest biodiversity in a post-Soviet governance model: Perceptions by local actors in Lithuania. Environmental Management 40: 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer, D.B., J.F. Franklin, and J. Fischer. 2006. General management principles and checklists of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 131: 433–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindhe, A., N. Åsenblad, and H.-G. Toresson. 2004. Cut logs and high stumps of spruce, birch, aspen and oak—nine years of saproxylic fungi succession. Biological Conservation 119: 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindhe, A., and Å. Lindelöw. 2004. Cut high stumps of spruce, birch, aspen and oak as breeding substrates for saproxylic beetles. Forest Ecology and Management 203: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lõhmus, A., and P. Lõhmus. 2010. Epiphyte communities on the trunks of retention trees stabilise in 5 years after timber harvesting, but remain threatened due to tree loss. Biological Conservation 143: 891–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Pastur, G., M.V. Lencinas, J.M. Cellini, P.L. Peri, and R.S. Esteban. 2009. Timber management with variable retention in Nothofagus pumilio forests of Southern Patagonia. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 436–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mather, A. 1992. The forest transition. Area 24: 367–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matveinen-Huju, K., J. Niemelä, H. Rita, and R.B. O’Hara. 2006. Retention-tree groups in clear-cuts: Do they constitute ‘life-boats’ for spiders and carabids? Forest Ecology and Management 230: 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, R., A. Landa, J. van Dijk, J.D.C. Linnell, and R. Andersen. 2006. Impact of infrastructure on habitat selection of wolverines Gulo gulo. Wildlife Biology 12: 285–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGeoch, M.A., M. Schroeder, B. Ekbom, and S. Larsson. 2007. Saproxylic beetle diversity in a managed boreal forest: Importance of stand characteristics and forestry conservation measures. Diversity and Distributions 13: 418–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 86 pp.

  • Naidoo, R., A. Balmford, P.J. Ferraro, S. Polasky, T.H. Ricketts, and M. Rouget. 2006. Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 681–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R.F., C. Carroll, K. Vance-Borland, and G. Wuerthner. 2002. A multicriteria assessment of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 16: 895–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perhans, K., L. Appelgren, F. Jonsson, U. Nordin, B. Söderström, and L. Gustafsson. 2009. Retention patches as potential refugia for bryophytes and lichens in managed forest landscapes. Biological Conservation 142: 1125–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranius, T., and O. Kindvall. 2006. Extinction risk of wood-living model species in forest landscapes as related to forest history and conservation strategy. Landscape Ecology 21: 687–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayfield, B., P.M.A. James, A. Fall, and M.J. Fortin. 2008. Comparing static versus dynamic protected areas in the Quebec boreal forest. Biological Conservation 141: 438–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenvald, R., and A. Lõhmus. 2008. For what, when, and where is green-tree retention better than clear-cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects. Biological Conservation 255: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, M.L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 436 pp.

  • Scott, J.M., F.W. Davis, R.G. McGhie, R.G. Wright, C. Groves, and J. Estes. 2001. Nature reserves: Do they capture the full range of America’s biodiversity? Ecological Applications 11: 999–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sippola, A.-L., J. Siitonen, and P. Punttila. 2002. Beetle diversity in timberline forests: A comparison between old-growth and regeneration areas in Finnish Lapland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 39: 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Söderström, B. 2009. Effects of different levels of green- and dead-tree retention on hemi-boreal forest bird communities in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statens Offentliga Utredningar (SOU). 2006. Mervärdesskog. Del 1 Beslut och ställningstaganden. Slutbetänkande av skogsutredningen 2004. SOU 2006:81. Stockholm: Ministry of Agriculture, 371 pp. (in Swedish).

  • Statistics Sweden and Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Protected nature 2007 (Skyddad natur 31 dec 2007). Statistiska Meddelanden MI 41 SM 0801. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden, 46 pp. (in Swedish).

  • Strange, N., C. Rahbek, J.K. Jepsen, and M. Lund. 2006. Using farmland prices to evaluate cost-efficiency of national versus regional reserve selection in Denmark. Biological Conservation 128: 455–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. 2002. Key habitats in the Norwegian production forest: A case study. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 17: 166–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sverdrup-Thygeson, A., and T. Birkemoe. 2009. What window traps can tell us: Effect of placement, forest openness and beetle reproduction in retention trees. Journal of Insect Conservation 13: 183–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Forest Agency. 2008. Statistical yearbook of forestry 2008. Official statistics of Sweden. Jönköping: Swedish Forest Agency, 393 pp.

  • Swedish Forest Agency. 2009. Regler om användning av främmande trädslag. Meddelande 7. Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping, 138 pp. (in Swedish).

  • Swedish Forest Agency and SLU. 2008. Skogliga konsekvensanalyser. SKA-VB 08. Rapport 25. Jönköping, 146 pp.

  • Thuiller, W., S. Lavorel, M.B. Araujo, M.T. Sykes, and I.C. Prentice. 2005. Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102: 8245–8250.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toivanen, T., and J. Kotiaho. 2007. Burning of logged sites to protect beetles in managed boreal forests. Conservation Biology 21: 1562–1572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanha-Majamaa, I., and J. Jalonen. 2001. Green tree retention in Fennoscandian forestry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 16(suppl. 3): 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R.H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21: 213–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikberg, S., K. Perhans, C. Kindstrand, L.B. Djupström, M. Boman, L. Mattsson, L.M. Schroeder, J. Weslien, and L. Gustafsson. 2009. Cost-effectiveness of implemented conservation strategies in boreal forests: The area selection process. Biological Conservation 142: 614–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Work, T.T., J.R. Spence, W.J.A. Volney, L.E. Morgantini, and J.L. Innes. 2003. Integrating biodiversity and forestry practices in western Canada. Forestry Chronicle 79: 906–916.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Jerry F. Franklin, Reed Noss, and Jan-Olov Weslien who kindly read and commented on the manuscript. Economic support was given by the Swedish Research Council Formas.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7044, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

    Lena Gustafsson

  2. The Ecology Centre, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Karin Perhans

Authors
  1. Lena Gustafsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karin Perhans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lena Gustafsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gustafsson, L., Perhans, K. Biodiversity Conservation in Swedish Forests: Ways Forward for a 30-Year-Old Multi-Scaled Approach. AMBIO 39, 546–554 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0071-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0071-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation