Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamics in forest patterns during times of forest policy changes in Latvia

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Forest Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the context of forest management intensification, European countries are attempting to promote the sustainable management of forest landscapes. The aim of this study was to determine the structural dynamics of managed state forest landscapes in the context of changing forest policy. Four landscapes in the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve of northern Latvia were studied for the period between 1988 and 2011. The spatial patterns of clearcuts, regenerating stands and uncut stands were analysed using landscape metrics at the class level. For more comprehensive structural analysis, we additionally analysed the stand age structures and spatial pattern characteristics of over-mature stands and woodland key habitats (small voluntarily set-aside forest stands with high biodiversity values in Nordic and Baltic countries) that existed in 2011. The results indicated a substantial increase in the overall landscape structure complexity (measured by the number of patches, edge density and patch isolation at the class level) in three of the four analysed landscapes. At the class level, clearcut harvesting intensity increased after 2000, with the establishment of a new forest policy and management system in state forests combined with an abundance of timber available for felling. Significant increase in clearcut edge density and aggregation, with a corresponding decline of matrix connectivity, coincided with an increase in allowed felling volume by 4 million m3 for the period between 2009 and 2010 (increase in felling by about 60 % in state forests). Management reform and the introduction of a concentrated felling strategy in state forests also contributed to management intensification. Relatively higher WKH isolation, compared to that of over-mature stands, in all landscapes suggested that setting aside part of these stands could be a means of improving connectivity in the future. We suggest that the integration of landscape ecological principles, such as inclusion of ecological networks or retaining clusters of older stands, into Latvia’s forest management plans is needed and would contribute to more sustainable forest management.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apsey TM, Reed FLC (1996) World timber resources outlook: current perceptions with implications for policy and practice. Commonw For Rev 75(2):155–159

  • Aune K, Jonsson BG, Moen J (2005) Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: is forest policy promoting fragmentation? Biol Conserv 124(1):89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. Brit Med J 310(6973):170

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boutin S, Hebert D (2002) Landscape ecology and forest management: developing an effective partnership. Ecol Appl 12(2):390–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks DJ (1997) The outlook for demand and supply of wood: implications for policy and sustainable management. Commonw For Rev 76(1):31–36

  • Brukas V, Weber N (2009) Forest management after the economic transition—at the crossroads between German and Scandinavian traditions. For Policy Econ 11(8):586–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1993) Contrasting microclimates among clearcut, edge, and interior of old-growth Douglas-fir forest. Agric For Meteorol 63(3):219–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feranec J, Jaffrain G, Soukup T, Hazeu G (2010) Determining changes and flows in European landscapes 1990–2000 using CORINE land cover data. Appl Geogr 30(1):19–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FOREST EUROPE, UNECE and FAO (2011) State of Europe’s forests 2011. Status and Trends in Sustainable Forest, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Forest Sector in Latvia (2012) Zaļās Mājas. https://www.zm.gov.lv/public/ck/files/ZM/mezhi/buklets/MN_2012_EN.pdf

  • Forman RT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF, Forman RT (1987) Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: ecological consequences and principles. Landsc Ecol 1(1):5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grozījumi Ministru kabineta rīkojumā Nr. 655 (2008) Noteikumi par koku ciršanu meža zemēs. http://likumi.lv/ta/id/185839

  • Gustafson EJ (1996) Expanding the scale of forest management: allocating timber harvests in time and space. For Ecol Manag 87(1):27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson L, Baker SC, Bauhus J, Beese WJ, Brodie A, Kouki J, Lindemayer DB, Lohmus A, Martinez Pastur G, Messier C, Neyland M, Palik B, Svedrup-Thygeson A, Volney WJA, Wayne A, Franklin JF (2012) Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. Bioscience 62(7):633–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (2011) Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. Ambio 40(3):248–255

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson L (1994) Vertebrate distributions relative to clear-cut edges in a boreal forest landscape. Landsc Ecol 9(2):105–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargis CD, Bissonette J, Turner DL (1999) The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. J Appl Ecol 36(1):157–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hengeveld GM, Nabuurs GJ, Didion M, van den Wyngaert I, Clerkx APPM, Schelhaas MJ (2012) A forest management map of European forests. Ecol Soc 17(4):53

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl T, Bauhus J (2014) An index of forest management intensity based on assessment of harvested tree volume, tree species composition and dead wood origin. Nat Conserv 7:15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kangas J, Leskinen P (2005) Modelling ecological expertise for forest planning calculations-rationale, examples, and pitfalls. J Environ Manag 76(2):125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozak J, Estreguil C, Vogt P (2007) Forest cover and pattern changes in the Carpathians over the last decades. Eur J For Res 126(1):77–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaGro J (1991) Assessing patch shape in landscape mosaics. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 57:285–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Latvijas meža politika (1998) Latvijas Republikas Saeima. https://www.zm.gov.lv/mezi/statiskas-lapas/nozares-strategijas-politikas-dokumenti/latvijas-meza-politika?nid=328

  • Leitão AB, Ahern J (2002) Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 59(2):65–93

  • Leitão AB, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K (2006) Measuring landscapes: a planner’s handbook. Island Press, Washington

  • Levers C, Verkerk PJ, Müller D, Verburg PH, Butsic V, Leitão PJ, Lindner M, Kuemmerle T (2014) Drivers of forest harvesting intensity patterns in Europe. For Ecol Manag 315:160–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Spies TA (1993) Developing alternative forest cutting patterns: a simulation approach. Landsc Ecol 8(1):63–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfman S, Kouki J (2001) Fifty years of landscape transformation in managed forests of southern Finland. Scand J For Res 16(1):44–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luyssaert S, Hessenmöller D, Von Lüpke N, Kaiser S, Schulze ED (2011) Quantifying land use and disturbance intensity in forestry, based on the self-thinning relationship. Ecol Appl 21(8):3272–3284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Monographs in population biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Madžule L, Brūmelis G, Tjarve D (2012a) Structures determining bryophyte species richness in a managed forest landscape in boreo-nemoral Europe. Biodivers Conserv 21(2):437–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madžule L, Brūmelis G, Tērauds A, Zariņš J (2012b) Time needed to achieve sufficient richness of structural elements and bryophytes in deciduous forest stands. Environ Exp Biol 10:57–66

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K (2014) FRAGSTATS help. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/fragstats.help.4.2.pdf

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

  • Mederski PS, Jakubowski M, Karaszewski Z (2009) The Polish landscape changing due to forest policy and forest management. iFor Biogeosci For 2(4):140–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meža likums (2000) Latvijas Republikas Saeima. http://likumi.lv/ta/id/2825&version_date=17.03.2000

  • Moen J, Jonsson BG (2003) Edge effects on liverworts and lichens in forest patches in a mosaic of boreal forest and wetland. Conserv Biol 17(2):380–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öhman K (2000) Creating continuous areas of old forest in long-term forest planning. Can J For Res 30(11):1817–1823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Par Latvijas PSR Meža kodeksa apstiprināšanu (1979) Latvijas PSRS Augstākā Padome

  • Par meža apsaimniekošanu un izmantošanu (1994) Latvijas Republikas Saeima. http://likumi.lv/ta/id/58061

  • Parviainen J, Frank G (2003) Protected forests in Europe approaches-harmonising the definitions for international comparison and forest policy making. J Environ Manage 67(1):27–36

  • Pojar J, Diaz N, Steventon D, Apostol D, Mellen K (1994) Biodiversity planning and forest management at the landscape scale. In: Huff MH, Norris LK, Nyberg JB, Wilkin NL (eds) Expanding horizons of forest ecosystem management: proceedings of third habitat futures workshop. General technical report PNW-GTR-336, Portland, OR, pp 55–70

  • Potapov PV, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, Krylov AM, McCarty JL, Radeloff VC, Hansen MC (2015) Eastern Europe’s forest cover dynamics from 1985 to 2012 quantified from the full Landsat archive. Remote Sens Environ 159:28–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, Messier C (2009) A critique of silviculture: managing for complexity. Island Press, Washington

  • Rametsteiner E, Mayer P (2004) Sustainable forest management and Pan-European forest policy. Ecol Bull 51:51–57

    Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing

  • Rendenieks Z, Nikodemus O (2012) The old stand patterns of the North Vidzeme biosphere reserve. Balt For 18(2):178–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendenieks Z, Nikodemus O, Brūmelis G (2015) The implications of stand composition, age and spatial patterns of forest regions with different ownership type for management optimisation in northern Latvia. For Ecol Manag 335:216–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE, Miller GL (2000) Ecology, Fourth edn. WH Freeman & Co, New York

  • Saura S, Estreguil C, Mouton C, Rodríguez-Freire M (2011) Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000). Ecol Ind 11(2):407–416

  • Schall P, Ammer C (2013) How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests. Eur J For Res 132(2):379–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schindler S, Poirazidis K, Wrbka T (2008) Towards a core set of landscape metrics for biodiversity assessments: a case study from Dadia National Park, Greece. Ecol Indic 8(5):502–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • State of the World’s Forests 2012 (2012) Food and Agriculture Organization. http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3010e/i3010e.pdf

  • Tērauds A (2011) Ainavas struktūras izmaiņu ainavekoloģiska analīze un vērtējums Ziemeļvidzemes biosfēras rezervātā. Doctoral dissertation, University of Latvia. https://luis.lu.lv/pls/pub/luj.fprnt?l=1&fn=F216762052/Aivars%20Terauds%202011.pdf

  • Tērauds A, Brūmelis G, Nikodemus O (2011) Seventy-year changes in tree species composition and tree ages in state-owned forests in Latvia. Scand J For Res 26(5):446–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371(6492):65–66

  • Timonen J, Siitonen J, Gustafsson L, Kotiaho JS, Stokland JN, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Mönkkönen M (2010) Woodland key habitats in northern Europe: concepts, inventory and protection. Scand J For Res 25(4):309–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinker DB, Resor CA, Beauvais GP, Kipfmueller KF, Fernandes CI, Baker WL (1998) Watershed analysis of forest fragmentation by clearcuts and roads in a Wyoming forest. Landsc Ecol 13(3):149–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler MW, Peterson DL (2004) Effects of forest policy on landscape pattern of late-seral forest of the Western Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Agric Ecosyst Environ 101(2):289–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNECE, FAO (2011) The European Forest Sector. Outlook study II 2010–2030. United Nations, Geneva

  • Valsts meža dienests (2000) Meža inventarizācijas datu sagatavošanas programmatūra. http://www.vmd.gov.lv/doc_upl/INSTRUKC.pdf

  • Valsts meža dienests (2012) Meža statistikas CD. http://www.vmd.gov.lv/valsts-meza-dienests/statiskas-lapas/publikacijas-un-statistika/meza-statistikas-cd?nid=1049#jump

  • Vanwambeke S, Meyfroidt P, Nikodemus O (2012) From USSR to EU: 20 years of rural landscape changes in Vidzeme, Latvia. Landsc Urban Plan 105(3):241–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vierikko K, Vehkamäki S, Niemelä J, Pellikka J, Linden H (2008) Meeting the ecological, social and economic needs of sustainable forest management at a regional scale. Scand J For Res 23(5):431–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vittoz P, Engler R (2007) Seed dispersal distances: a typology based on dispersal modes and plant traits. Bot Helv 117(2):109–124

  • Wallin DO, Swanson FJ, Marks B (1994) Landscape pattern response to changes in pattern generation rules: land-use legacies in forestry. Ecol Appl 4(3):569–580

  • Wilcove DS, McLellan CH, Dobson AP (1986) Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Conserv Biol 6:237–256

    Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf M (2003) Forest policy in the EU and its influence on the plant diversity of woodlands. J Environ Manag 67(1):15–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng H, Peltola H, Talkkari A, Venäläinen A, Strandman H, Kellomäki S, Wang K (2004) Influence of clearcutting on the risk of wind damage at forest edges. For Ecol Manag 203(1):77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Żmihorski M, Chylarecki P, Rejt Ł, Mazgajski TD (2010) The effects of forest patch size and ownership structure on tree stand characteristics in a highly deforested landscape of central Poland. Eur J For Res 129(3):393–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Didzis Elferts for advice regarding statistical analyses. Authors are also grateful to LVM and State Forest Service for the provided data. Research was carried out in the Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences at the University of Latvia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Latvia, Alberta iela 10, Riga, 1010, Latvia

    Zigmārs Rendenieks & Oļģerts Nikodemus

  2. Faculty of Biology, University of Latvia, Kronvalda bulvaris 4, Riga, 1010, Latvia

    Guntis Brūmelis

Authors
  1. Zigmārs Rendenieks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oļģerts Nikodemus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guntis Brūmelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zigmārs Rendenieks.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work was supported by the European Social Fund within the project “Support for Doctoral Studies at University of Latvia” (No. 2009/0138/1DP/1.1.2.1.2/09/IPIA/VIAA/004) and partly by the National Research Programme “The value and dynamic of Latvia’s ecosystems under changing climate—EVIDEnT” and the Latvian Council of Science Grant No. 514/2015.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by Martin Moog.

Electronic supplementary material

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Changes in national forest management regulation during the study periods
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rendenieks, Z., Nikodemus, O. & Brūmelis, G. Dynamics in forest patterns during times of forest policy changes in Latvia. Eur J Forest Res 134, 819–832 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0892-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0892-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation