, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 521–527 | Cite as

Can Repeated Fertilizer Applications to Young Norway Spruce Enhance Avian Diversity in Intensively Managed Forests?

  • Lars Edenius
  • Grzegorz Mikusiński
  • Johan Bergh


Repeated fertilization of forests to increase biomass production is an environmentally controversial proposal, the effects of which we assessed on breeding birds in stands of young Norway spruce (Picea abies), in an intensively managed forest area in southern Sweden. Our results show that fertilized stands had 38% more species and 21% more individuals than unfertilized stands. Compared with stands under traditional management, the further intensification of forestry by repeated applications of fertilizers thus seemed to enhance species richness and abundance of forest birds. We cannot conclude at this stage whether the response in the bird community was caused by changes in food resources or increased structural complexity in the forest canopy due to the skid roads used for the application of the fertilizers. Future studies should focus on structural and compositional effects of fertilization processes during the entire rotation period and at assessing its effects in a landscape context.


Intensive forestry Fertilization Birds Biodiversity Norway spruce 



We gratefully acknowledge the Swedish Energy Agency for funding this study. Thanks to Johan Frisk, Södra, for help in planning the fieldwork, Matts Lindbladh and three anonymous reviewers who provided valuable comments on the manuscript.


  1. Ahti, T., L. Hämet-Ahti, and J. Jalas. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Annales Botanici Fennici 5: 169–211.Google Scholar
  2. Alerstam, T. 1982. Fågelflyttning, 295. Uppsala: Signum (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  3. Allison, S.D., C.A. Hanson, and K.K. Treseder. 2007. Nitrogen fertilization reduces diversity and alters community structure of active fungi in boreal ecosystems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39: 1878–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angelstam, P., J.-M. Roberge, A. Lõhmus, M. Bergmanis, G. Brazaitis, M. Dönz-Breuss, L. Edenius, Z. Kosinski, et al. 2004. Habitat modelling as a tool for landscape-scale conservation–a review of parameters for focal forest birds. Ecological Bulletins 51: 427–453.Google Scholar
  5. Bergh, J., ed. 2000. Fiberskoga report from a research programme on intense forestry. Report no 6, Department for Production Ecology, Faculty of Forestry, SLU, 66. ISSN 1401-5625.Google Scholar
  6. Bergh, J., S. Linder, and J. Bergström. 2005. Potential production of Norway spruce in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 204: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergh, J., U. Nilsson, H. Grip, P.-O. Hedwall, and T. Lundmark. 2008. Effects of frequency of fertilization on production, foliar chemistry and nutrient leaching in young Norway spruce stands in Sweden. Silva Fennica 42: 721–733.Google Scholar
  8. Carey, A.B., and S.M. Wilson. 2001. Induced spatial heterogeneity in forest canopies: Response of small mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 1014–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cramp, S., C.M. Perrins, and D. Brooks. 1994. Handbook of the birds of Europe the Middle East and North Africa. The birds of western palearctic, vol. 6. Oxford, New York: Crows to Finches Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dolnik, V.R. 1982. Population ecology of the Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs). In Proceedings of the zoological Institute, Vol. 90. Leningrad: Nauka. (in Russian with English summary). Google Scholar
  11. Folkard, F.G., and J.N.M. Smith. 1995. Evidence for bottom-up effects in the boreal forest: Do passerine birds respond to large-scale experimental fertilization? Canadian Journal of Zoology 73: 2231–2237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fredén, C. (ed.). 1994. Geology. Stockholm: National Atlas of Sweden.Google Scholar
  13. Garibaldi, L.A., T. Kitzberger, C. Noemí Mazía, and E.J. Chaneton. 2010. Nutrient supply and bird predation additively control insect herbivory and tree growth in two contrasting forest habitats. Oikos 119: 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gjerde, I., and M. Sætersdal. 1997. Effects on avian diversity of introducing spruce Picea spp. plantations in the native pine Pinus sylvestris forests of western Norway. Biological Conservation 79: 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartmann, H., G. Daoust, B. Bigué, and C. Messier. 2010. Negative or positive effects of plantation and intensive forestry on biodiversity: A matter of scale and perspective. Forestry Chronicle 86: 354–364.Google Scholar
  16. Hedwall, P.-O., A. Nordin, J. Brunet, and J. Bergh. 2010. Compositional changes of forest-floor vegetation in young stands of Norway spruce as an effect of repeated fertilization. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 2418–2425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kenk, G., and H. Fischer. 1988. Evidence from nitrogen fertilisation in the forests of Germany. Environmental Pollution 54: 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kneeshaw, D.D., A. Leduc, P. Drapeau, S. Gauthier, D. Pare, R. Carignan, R. Doucet, and C. Messier. 2000. Development of integrated ecological standards of sustainable forest management at an operational scale. Forestry Chronicle 76: 481–493.Google Scholar
  19. Lindberg, N., and T. Persson. 2004. Effects of long-term nutrient fertilisation and irrigation on the microarthropod community in a boreal Norway spruce stand. Forest Ecology and Management 188: 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marquis, R.J., and C.J. Whelan. 1994. Insectivorous birds increase growth of white oak through consumption of leaf-chewing insects. Ecology 75: 2007–2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nabuurs, G.J., A. Pussinen, J. van Brusselen, and M.J. Schelhaas. 2007. Future harvesting pressure on European forests. European Journal of Forest Research 126: 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niemi, G.J., J. Hanowski, P. Helle, R. Howe, M. Mönkkönen, L. Venier, and D.A. Welsh. 1998. Ecological sustainability of birds in boreal systems. Conservation Ecology (online) 2(2): art. 17.
  23. Peter, M., F. Ayer, and S. Egli. 2001. Nitrogen addition in a Norway spruce stand altered macromycete sporocarp production and below-ground ectomycorrhizal species composition. New Phytologist 149: 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raab, B., and H. Vedin (eds.). 1995. Climate, lakes and rivers. Stockholm: National Atlas of Sweden.Google Scholar
  25. Raunikar, R., J. Buongiorno, J.A. Turner, and S. Zhu. 2010. Global outlook for wood and forests with the bioenergy demand implied by scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Forest Policy and Economics 12: 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rochelle, J.A. 1981. The effects of forest fertilization on wildlife. In Proceedings of 1979 forest fertilization conference, ed. S. P. Gessel et al., 164–167. Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution No. 40. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  27. Šálek, M., J. Svobodová, and P. Zasadil. 2010. Edge effects of low-traffic forest roads on bird communities in secondary production forests in central Europe. Landscape Ecology 25: 1113–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Skogsstyrelsen, 2008. Skogliga konsekvensanalyserSKA-VB 08. Swedish Forest Agency Rapport 25/2008, 157. (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  29. Strong, A.M., T.W. Sherry, and R.T. Holmes. 2000. Bird predation on herbivorous insects: Indirect effects on sugar maple saplings. Oecologia 125: 370–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sullivan, T.P., D.S. Sullivan, P.M.F. Lindgren, and D.B. Ransome. 2009. Stand structure and diversity of plants and small mammals in natural and intensively managed forests. Forest Ecology and Management 258S: 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sullivan, T.P., D.S. Sullivan, P.M.F. Lindgren, and D.B. Ransome. 2010. Long-term responses of mammalian herbivores to stand thinning and fertilization in young lodgepole pine forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40: 2302–2312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tamm, C.-O. 1991. Nitrogen in terrestrial ecosystems. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Toms, J.D., F.K.A. Schmiegelow, S.J. Hannon, and M.-A. Villard. 2006. Are point counts of boreal songbirds reliable proxies for more intensive abundance estimators? Auk 123: 438–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Verschuyl, J.P., A.J. Hansen, D.B. McWethy, R. Sallabanks, and R.L. Hutto. 2008. Is the effect of forest structure on bird diversity modified by forest productivity? Ecological Applications 18: 1155–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wallenstein, M.D., S. McNulty, I.J. Fernandez, J. Boggs, and W.H. Schlesinger. 2006. Nitrogen fertilization decreases forest soil fungal and bacterial biomass in three long-term experiments. Forest Ecology and Management 222: 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Edenius
    • 1
  • Grzegorz Mikusiński
    • 2
    • 3
  • Johan Bergh
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental SciencesSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesRiddarhyttanSweden
  3. 3.School for Forest ManagementSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesSkinnskattebergSweden
  4. 4.Southern Swedish Forest Research CentreSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesAlnarpSweden

Personalised recommendations