, Volume 46, Issue 7, pp 743–755 | Cite as

Impacts of forestry on boreal forests: An ecosystem services perspective

  • Tähti PohjanmiesEmail author
  • María Triviño
  • Eric Le Tortorec
  • Adriano Mazziotta
  • Tord Snäll
  • Mikko Mönkkönen


Forests are widely recognized as major providers of ecosystem services, including timber, other forest products, recreation, regulation of water, soil and air quality, and climate change mitigation. Extensive tracts of boreal forests are actively managed for timber production, but actions aimed at increasing timber yields also affect other forest functions and services. Here, we present an overview of the environmental impacts of forest management from the perspective of ecosystem services. We show how prevailing forestry practices may have substantial but diverse effects on the various ecosystem services provided by boreal forests. Several aspects of these processes remain poorly known and warrant a greater role in future studies, including the role of community structure. Conflicts among different interests related to boreal forests are most likely to occur, but the concept of ecosystem services may provide a useful framework for identifying and resolving these conflicts.


Conflict Forest management Sustainability Timber production Trade-off 



We are grateful to the Kone Foundation and to the Academy of Finland (Project Number 275329 to M. Mönkkönen) for funding.

Supplementary material

13280_2017_919_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (578 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 579 kb)


  1. Abson, D.J., H. von Wehrden, S. Baumgärtner, J. Fischer, J. Hanspach, W. Härdtle, H. Heinrichs, A.M. Klein, et al. 2014. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecological Economics 103: 29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asselin, H., M. Larouche, and D. Kneeshaw. 2015. Assessing forest management scenarios on an Aboriginal territory through simulation modeling. Forestry Chronicle 91: 426–435. doi: 10.5558/tfc2015-072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atlegrim, O., and K. Sjöberg. 1996. Response of bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) to clear-cutting and single-tree selection harvests in uneven-aged boreal Picea abies forests. Forest Ecology and Management 86: 39–50. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(96)03794-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, E.M., G.D. Peterson, and L.J. Gordon. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12: 1394–1404. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs, R., M. Schlüter, D. Biggs, E.L. Bohensky, S. BurnSilver, G. Cundill, V. Dakos, T.M. Daw, et al. 2012. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 421–448. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradshaw, C.J.A., and I.G. Warkentin. 2015. Global estimates of boreal forest carbon stocks and flux. Global and Planetary Change 128: 24–30. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2015.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradshaw, C.J.A., I.G. Warkentin, and N.S. Sodhi. 2009. Urgent preservation of boreal carbon stocks and biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 541–548. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandt, J.P., M.D. Flannigan, D.G. Maynard, I.D. Thompson, and W.J.A. Volney. 2013. An introduction to Canada’s boreal zone: Ecosystem processes, health, sustainability, and environmental issues. Environmental Reviews 21: 207–226. doi: 10.1139/er-2013-0040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brassard, B.W., and H.Y.H. Chen. 2006. Stand structural dynamics of North American boreal forests. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 25: 115–137. doi: 10.1080/07352680500348857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardinale, B.J., J.E. Duffy, A. Gonzalez, D.U. Hooper, C. Perrings, P. Venail, A. Narwani, G.M. Mace, et al. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486: 59–67. doi: 10.1038/nature11148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter, S.R., H.A. Mooney, J. Agard, D. Capistrano, R.S. DeFries, S. Díaz, T. Dietz, A.K. Duraiappah, et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 1305–1312. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808772106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clason, A.J., P.M.F. Lindgren, and T.P. Sullivan. 2008. Comparison of potential non-timber forest products in intensively managed young stands and mature/old-growth forests in south-central British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management 256: 1897–1909. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.07.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conference Board of Canada. 2013. Use of Forest Resources. Retrieved 23 September, 2015, from
  14. Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duchesne, L.C., and S. Wetzel. 2002. Managing timber and non-timber forest product resources in Canada’s forests: Needs for integration and research. The Forestry Chronicle 78: 837–842. doi: 10.5558/tfc78837-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards, D.P., J.A. Tobias, D. Sheil, E. Meijaard, and W.F. Laurance. 2014. Maintaining ecosystem function and services in logged tropical forests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29: 511–520. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elbakidze, M., K. Andersson, P. Angelstam, G.W. Armstrong, R. Axelsson, F. Doyon, M. Hermansson, J. Jacobsson, et al. 2013. Sustained yield forestry in Sweden and Russia: How does it correspond to sustainable forest management policy? Ambio 42: 160–173. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0370-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Desk reference. FAO, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  19. Fayt, P., M.M. Machmer, and C. Steeger. 2005. Regulation of spruce bark beetles by woodpeckers—A literature review. Forest Ecology and Management 206: 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Filyushkina, A., N. Strange, M. Löf, E.E. Ezebilo, and M. Boman. 2016. Non-market forest ecosystem services and decision support in Nordic countries. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 31: 99–110. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2015.1079643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gamfeldt, L., T. Snäll, R. Bagchi, M. Jonsson, L. Gustafsson, P. Kjellander, M.C. Ruiz-Jaen, M. Fröberg, et al. 2013. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nature Communications 4: 1340. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gauthier, S., P. Bernier, T. Kuuluvainen, A.Z. Shvidenko, and D.G. Schepaschenko. 2015. Boreal forest health and global change. Science 349: 819–822. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa9092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grigal, D.F. 2000. Effects of extensive forest management on soil productivity. Forest Ecology and Management 138: 167–185. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00395-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gundersen, V.S., and L.H. Frivold. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7: 241–258. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gundersen, P., A. Laurén, L. Finér, E. Ring, H. Koivusalo, M. Sætersdal, J.-O. Weslien, B.D. Sigurdsson, et al. 2010. Environmental services provided from riparian forests in the Nordic countries. Ambio 39: 555–566. doi: 10.1007/s13280-010-0073-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haines-Young, R.H., and M.B. Potschin. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In Ecosystems ecology: A new synthesis, ed. D.G. Raffaelli, and C.L.J. Frid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Harrison, P.A., M. Vandewalle, M.T. Sykes, P.M. Berry, R. Bugter, F. de Bello, C.K. Feld, U. Grandin, et al. 2010. Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 2791–2821. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9789-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison, P.A., P.M. Berry, G. Simpson, J.R. Haslett, M. Blicharska, M. Bucur, R. Dunford, B. Egoh, et al. 2014. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services 9: 191–203. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hartmann, M., C.G. Howes, D. VanInsberghe, H. Yu, D. Bachar, R. Christen, R. Henrik Nilsson, S.J. Hallam, et al. 2012. Significant and persistent impact of timber harvesting on soil microbial communities in Northern coniferous forests. The ISME Journal 6: 2199–2218. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2012.84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hyvönen, R., G.I. Ågren, S. Linder, T. Persson, M.F. Cotrufo, A. Ekblad, M. Freeman, A. Grelle, et al. 2007. The likely impact of elevated [CO2], nitrogen deposition, increased temperature and management on carbon sequestration in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems: A literature review. New Phytologist 173: 463–480. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.01967.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jactel, H., B.C. Nicoll, M. Branco, J.R. Gonzalez-Olabarria, W. Grodzki, B. Långström, F. Moreira, S. Netherer, et al. 2009. The influences of forest stand management on biotic and abiotic risks of damage. Annals of Forest Science 66: 701. doi: 10.1051/forest/2009054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jandl, R., M. Lindner, L. Vesterdal, B. Bauwens, R. Baritz, F. Hagedorn, D.W. Johnson, K. Minkkinen, et al. 2007. How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma 137: 253–268. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koricheva, J., H. Vehviläinen, J. Riihimäki, K. Ruohomäki, P. Kaitaniemi, and H. Ranta. 2006. Diversification of tree stands as a means to manage pests and diseases in boreal forests: myth or reality? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 324–336. doi: 10.1139/x05-172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8: 468–479. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00751.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kreutzweiser, D.P., P.W. Hazlett, and J.M. Gunn. 2008. Logging impacts on the biogeochemistry of boreal forest soils and nutrient export to aquatic systems: A review. Environmental Reviews 16: 157–179. doi: 10.1139/A08-006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kurz, W.A., G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, C.C. Dymond, and E.T. Neilson. 2008. Risk of natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada’s forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 1551–1555. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0708133105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuuluvainen, T. 2009. Forest management and biodiversity conservation based on natural ecosystem dynamics in Northern Europe: The complexity challenge. Ambio 38: 309–315. doi: 10.1579/08-A-490.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuuluvainen, T., O. Tahvonen, and T. Aakala. 2012. Even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in boreal Fennoscandia: A review. Ambio 41: 720–737. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0289-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laudon, H., R.A. Sponseller, R.W. Lucas, M.N. Futter, G. Egnell, K. Bishop, A. Ågren, E. Ring, et al. 2011. Consequences of more intensive forestry for the sustainable management of forest soils and waters. Forests 2: 243–260. doi: 10.3390/f2010243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landry, J.-S., and N. Ramankutty. 2015. Carbon cycling, climate regulation, and disturbances in Canadian forests: Scientific principles for management. Land 4: 83–118. doi: 10.3390/land4010083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liski, J., A. Pussinen, K. Pingoud, R. Mäkipää, and T. Karjalainen. 2001. Which rotation length is favourable to carbon sequestration? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 2004–2013. doi: 10.1139/x01-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lutz, D.A., and R.B. Howarth. 2014. Valuing albedo as an ecosystem service: Implications for forest management. Climatic Change 124: 53–63. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1109-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mace, G.M., K. Norris, and A.H. Fitter. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27: 19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maes, J., C. Liquete, A. Teller, M. Erhard, M.L. Paracchini, J.I. Barredo, B. Grizzetti, A. Cardoso, et al. 2016. An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem Services 17: 14–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mattsson, T., L. Finér, P. Kortelainen, and T. Sallantaus. 2003. Brook water quality and background leaching from unmanaged forested catchments in Finland. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 147: 275–297. doi: 10.1023/A:1024525328220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maynard, D.G., D. Paré, E. Thiffault, B. Lafleur, K.E. Hogg, and B. Kishchuk. 2014. How do natural disturbances and human activities affect soils and tree nutrition and growth in the Canadian boreal forest? Environmental Reviews 22: 161–178. doi: 10.1139/er-2013-0057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe). 2002. Improved Pan-European Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management as adopted by the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting 7-8 October 2002, Vienna, Austria. Vienna: MCPFE Liaison Unit.Google Scholar
  48. Miina, J., J.-P. Hotanen, and K. Salo. 2009. Modelling the abundance and temporal variation in the production of bilberry. Silva Fennica 43: 577–593. doi: 10.14214/sf.181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miina, J., T. Pukkala, J.-P. Hotanen, and K. Salo. 2010. Optimizing the joint production of timber and bilberries. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 2065–2071. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.02.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  51. Moen, J., L. Rist, K. Bishop, F.S. Chapin III, D. Ellison, T. Kuuluvainen, H. Petersson, K.J. Puettmann, et al. 2014. Eye on the Taiga: Removing global policy impediments to safeguard the boreal forest. Conservation Letters 7: 408–418. doi: 10.1111/conl.12098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mononen, L., A.-P. Auvinen, A.-L. Ahokumpu, M. Rönkä, N. Aarras, H. Tolvanen, M. Kamppinen, E. Viirret, et al. 2016. National ecosystem service indicators: Measures of social–ecological sustainability. Ecological Indicators 61: 27–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mori, A.S., K.P. Lertzman, and L. Gustafsson. 2016. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in forest ecosystems: A research agenda for applied forest ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 12–27. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mäkelä, A., M. del Río, J. Hynynen, M.J. Hawkins, C. Reyer, P. Soares, M. van Oijen, and M. Tomé. 2012. Using stand-scale forest models for estimating indicators of sustainable forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 285: 164–178. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.07.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mönkkönen, M., P. Reunanen, J.S. Kotiaho, A. Juutinen, O.-P. Tikkanen, and J. Kouki. 2011. Cost-effective strategies to conserve boreal forest biodiversity and long-term landscape-level maintenance of habitats. European Journal of Forest Research 130: 717–727. doi: 10.1007/s10342-010-0461-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mönkkönen, M., A. Juutinen, A. Mazziotta, K. Miettinen, D. Podkopaev, P. Reunanen, H. Salminen, and O.-P. Tikkanen. 2014. Spatially dynamic forest management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Journal of Environmental Management 134: 80–89. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Niemelä, J. 1997. Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conservation Biology 11: 601–610. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.06008.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nybakken, L., V. Selås, and M. Ohlson. 2013. Increased growth and phenolic compounds in bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) following forest clear-cutting. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 28: 319–330. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2012.749941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pan, Y., R.A. Birdsey, J. Fang, R. Houghton, P.E. Kauppi, W.A. Kurz, O.L. Phillips, A. Shvidenko, et al. 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333: 988–993. doi: 10.1126/science.1201609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Parviainen, J. 2015. Cultural heritage and biodiversity in the present forest management of the boreal zone in Scandinavia. Journal of Forest Research 20: 445–452. doi: 10.1007/s10310-015-0499-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Paukkunen, J., J. Heliölä, and M. Kuussaari. 2007. Habitats and population trends of bumblebees in Finnish agricultural environments. In Biodiversity in Farmland, ed. J. Salonen, M. Keskitalo, and M. Segerstedt, 289–312. Jokioinen: MTT Agrifood Research Finland. (in Finnish, English summary).Google Scholar
  62. Potapov, P., A. Yaroshenko, S. Turubanova, M. Dubinin, L. Laestadius, C. Thies, D. Aksenov, A. Egorov, et al. 2008. Mapping the world’s intact forest landscapes by remote sensing. Ecology and Society 13: 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Power, A.G. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 365: 2959–2971. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rametsteiner, E., and M. Simula. 2003. Forest certification—An instrument to promote sustainable forest management? Journal of Environmental Management 67: 87–98. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00191-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., G.D. Peterson, and E.M. Bennett. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 5242–5247. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907284107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Raymond, C.M., G.G. Singh, K. Benessaiah, J.R. Bernhardt, J. Levine, H. Nelson, N.J. Turner, B. Norton, et al. 2013. Ecosystem services and beyond: Using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. BioScience 63: 536–546. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roberge, J.-M., H. Laudon, C. Björkman, T. Ranius, C. Sandström, A. Felton, A. Sténs, A. Nordin, et al. 2016. Socio-ecological implications of modifying rotation lengths in forestry. Ambio 45: S109–S123. doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0747-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rodríguez, A., and J. Kouki. 2015. Emulating natural disturbance in forest management enhances pollination services for dominant Vaccinium shrubs in boreal pine-dominated forests. Forest Ecology and Management 350: 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ruckstuhl, K.E., E.A. Johnson, and K. Miyanishi. 2008. Introduction. The boreal forest and global change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 363: 2245–2249. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sandström, C., A. Lindkvist, K. Öhman, and E.-M. Nordström. 2011. Governing competing demands for forest resources in Sweden. Forests 2: 218–242. doi: 10.3390/f2010218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schelhaas, M.-J., G.-J. Nabuurs, and A. Schuck. 2003. Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Global Change Biology 9: 1620–1633. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00684.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schröter, M., E.H. van der Zanden, A.P.E. van Oudenhoven, R.P. Remme, H.M. Serna-Chavez, R.S. de Groot, and P. Opdam. 2014. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Letters 7: 514–523. doi: 10.1111/conl.12091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schwenk, W.S., T.M. Donovan, W.S. Keeton, and J.S. Nunery. 2012. Carbon storage, timber production, and biodiversity: Comparing ecosystem services with multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecological Applications 22: 1612–1627. doi: 10.1890/11-0864.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sherry, E., R. Halseth, G. Fondahl, M. Karjala, and B. Leon. 2005. Local-level criteria and indicators: An Aboriginal perspective on sustainable forest management. Forestry 78: 513–539. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpi048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Siiskonen, H. 2007. The conflict between traditional and scientific forest management in 20th century Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 249: 125–133. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Spracklen, D.V., B. Bonn, and K.S. Carslaw. 2008. Boreal forests, aerosols and the impacts on clouds and climate. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 366: 4613–4626. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Taki, H., Y. Yamaura, K. Okabe, and K. Maeto. 2011. Plantation vs. natural forest: Matrix quality determines pollinator abundance in crop fields. Scientific Reports 1: 132. doi: 10.1038/srep00132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thompson, I.D., K. Okabe, J.M. Tylianakis, P. Kumar, E.G. Brockerhoff, N.A. Schellhorn, J.A. Parrotta, and R. Nasi. 2011. Forest biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem goods and services: Translating science into policy. BioScience 61: 972–981. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Triviño, M., T. Pohjanmies, A. Mazziotta, A. Juutinen, D. Podkopaev, E. Le Tortorec, and M. Mönkkönen. 2017. Optimizing management to enhance multifunctionality in a boreal forest landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 61–70. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Turtiainen, M., J. Miina, K. Salo, and J.-P. Hotanen. 2013. Empirical prediction models for the coverage and yields of cowberry in Finland. Silva Fennica 47: 1–22. doi: 10.14214/sf.1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), and UNFF (United Nations Forum on Forests Secreteriat). 2009. Vital Forest Graphics. UNEP/GRID-Arendal.Google Scholar
  82. Vanhanen, H., R. Jonsson, Y. Gerasimov, O. Krankina, and C. Messier, ed. 2012. Making boreal forests work for people and nature. IUFRO.Google Scholar
  83. Venier, L.A., I.D. Thompson, R. Fleming, J. Malcolm, I. Aubin, J.A. Trofymow, D. Langor, R. Sturrock, et al. 2014. Effects of natural resource development on the terrestrial biodiversity of Canadian boreal forests. Environmental Reviews 22: 457–490. doi: 10.1139/er-2013-0075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vihervaara, P., T. Kumpula, A. Tanskanen, and B. Burkhard. 2010. Ecosystem services—A tool for sustainable management of human–environment systems. Case study Finnish Forest Lapland. Ecological Complexity 7: 410–420. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Warkentin, I.G., and C.J.A. Bradshaw. 2012. A tropical perspective on conserving the boreal “lung of the planet”. Biological Conservation 151: 50–52. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Webster, K.L., F.D. Beall, I.F. Creed, and D.P. Kreutzweiser. 2015. Impacts and prognosis of natural resource development on water and wetlands in Canada’s boreal zone. Environmental Reviews 23: 78–131. doi: 10.1139/er-2014-0063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wyatt, S. 2008. First Nations, forest lands, and “aboriginal forestry” in Canada: From exclusion to comanagement and beyond. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 171–180. doi: 10.1139/X07-214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zanchi, G., S. Belyazid, C. Akselsson, and L. Yu. 2014. Modelling the effects of management intensification on multiple forest services: A Swedish case study. Ecological Modelling 284: 48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zeng, H., H. Peltola, H. Väisänen, and S. Kellomäki. 2009. The effects of fragmentation on the susceptibility of a boreal forest ecosystem to wind damage. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 1165–1173. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zeng, H., J. Garcia-Gonzalo, H. Peltola, and S. Kellomäki. 2010. The effects of forest structure on the risk of wind damage at a landscape level in a boreal forest ecosystem. Annals of Forest Science 67: 111. doi: 10.1051/forest/2009090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Jyväskylä, Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of JyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Stockholm Resilience CentreStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Swedish Species Information CentreSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)UppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations