Advertisement

AMBIO

, Volume 41, Issue 7, pp 720–737 | Cite as

Even-Aged and Uneven-Aged Forest Management in Boreal Fennoscandia: A Review

  • Timo Kuuluvainen
  • Olli Tahvonen
  • Tuomas Aakala
Review Paper

Abstract

Since WWII, forest management in Fennoscandia has primarily been based on even-aged stand management, clear cut harvesting and thinning from below. As an alternative, uneven-aged management, based on selection cutting of individual trees or small groups of trees, has been proposed. In this review we discuss the theoretical aspects of ecology and economics of the two management approaches. We also review peer-reviewed studies from boreal Fennoscandia, which have aimed at comparing the outcomes of uneven-aged and the conventional even-aged forest management. According to a common view the main obstacle of practicing uneven-aged forestry is its low economic performance. However, the reviewed studies did not offer any straightforward support for this view and several studies have found uneven-aged management to be fully competitive with existing even-aged management. Studies on the ecological aspects indicated that selection cuttings maintain mature or late-successional forest characteristics and species assemblages better than even-aged management, at least at the stand scale and in the short term. We conclude that although the number of relevant studies has increased in recent years, the ecological and economic performance of alternative management methods still remains poorly examined, especially for those stands with multiple tree species and also at wider spatial and temporal scales. For future research we advocate a strategy that fully takes into consideration the interdisciplinary nature of forest management and is better connected to social goals and latest theoretical and methodological developments in ecology and economics.

Keywords

Even-aged forestry Uneven-aged forestry Biodiversity Optimal harvesting Forest economics Natural disturbance emulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Ruut Rabinowitsch-Jokinen for help in data analysis and two anonymous reviewers who commented on an earlier version of the manuscript. The research was partly funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as part of the Forest Finnish Biodiversity Programme (METSO). Olli Tahvonen is grateful to the Maj and Tor Nessling foundation and Academy of Finland for financial support.

References

  1. Aakala, T., T. Kuuluvainen, T. Wallenius, and H. Kauhanen. 2009. Contrasting patterns of tree mortality in late-successional Picea abies stands in two areas of northern Fennoscandia. Journal of Vegetation Science 20: 1016–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreassen, K., and B.-H. Øyen. 2002. Economic consequences of three silvicultural methods in uneven-aged mature coastal spruce forests of central Norway. Forestry 75: 483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appelroth, E., O. Heikinheimo, E.K. Kalela, E. Laitakari, J. Lindfors, and R. Sarvas. 1948. Julkilausuma. Metsätaloudellinen Aikakauslehti 65: 315–316 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
  4. Atlegrim, O., and K. Sjöberg. 1996a. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atlegrim, O., and K. Sjöberg. 1996b. Effects of clear-cutting and single-tree selection harvests on herbivorous insect larvae feeding on bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) in uneven-aged boreal Picea abies forests. Forest Ecology and Management 87: 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atlegrim, O., and K. Sjöberg. 2004. Selective felling as a potential tool for maintaining biodiversity in managed forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 1123–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atlegrim, O., K. Sjöberg, and J.P. Ball. 1997. Forestry effects on a boreal ground beetle community in spring: Selective logging and clear-cutting compared. Entomologica Fennica 8: 19–26.Google Scholar
  8. Attiwill, P.M. 1994. The disturbance of forest ecosystems—the ecological basis for conservative management. Forest Ecology and Management 63: 247–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Auvinen, A.-P., M. Hildén, H. Toivonen, E. Primmer, J. Niemelä, K. Aapala, S. Bäck, P. Härmä, et al. 2007. Evaluation of the Finnish National Biodiversity Action Plan 1997–2005. Monographs of the Boreal Environment Research 29: 1–55.Google Scholar
  10. Bare, B.B., and D. Opalach. 1987. Optimizing species composition in uneven-aged forest stands. Forest Science 33: 958–970.Google Scholar
  11. Begon, M., C.R. Townsend, and J.L. Harper. 2011. Ecology: From individuals to ecosystems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Bergeron, Y., A. Leduc, B.D. Harvey, and S. Gauthier. 2002. Natural fire regime: A guide for sustainable forest management of the Canadian boreal forest. Silva Fennica 36: 81–95.Google Scholar
  13. Bollandsås, O.-M., J. Buongiorno, and T. Gobakken. 2008. Predicting the growth of stands of trees of mixed species and size: A matrix model for Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 23: 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang, S.J. 1981. Determination of the optimal growing stock and cutting cycle for an uneven-aged stand. Forest Science 27: 739–744.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, J.S. 1989. Ecological disturbance as a renewal process: Theory and application to fire history. Oikos 56: 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Connell, J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199: 1302–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cyr, D., S. Gauthier, Y. Bergeron, and C. Carcaillet. 2009. Forest management is driving the eastern North American boreal forest outside its natural range of variability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 519–524.Google Scholar
  18. Drever, C.R., G. Peterson, C. Messier, Y. Bergeron, and M. Flannigan. 2006. Can forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 2285–2299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duerr, W.A., and W.E. Bond. 1952. Optimum stocking of a selection forest. Journal of Forestry 50: 12–16.Google Scholar
  20. Esseen, P.-A., B. Ehnström, L. Ericson, and K. Sjöberg. 1997. Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletins 46: 16–47.Google Scholar
  21. Faustmann, M. 1849. Berechnung des Wertes welchen Waldboden sowie noch nicht haubare Holzbestände für die Waldwirtschaft besitzen. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzaitung 15: 441–455.Google Scholar
  22. Franklin, J.F., D.E. Berg, D.A. Thornburgh, and J.C. Tappeiner. 1997. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: Variable retention on harvest systems. In Creating a forestry for the twenty-first century: The science of ecosystem management, ed. K.A. Kohm, and J.F. Franklin, 111–139. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gauthier, S., M.-A. Vaillancourt, A. Leduc, L. DeGarndpre, D. Kneeshaw, H. Morin, P. Drapeau, and Y. Bergeron. 2009. Ecosysterm management in the boreal forest. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
  24. Getz, W.M., and R.G. Haight. 1989. Population harvesting: Demographic models for fish, forest and animal resources. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gobakken, T., N.L. Lexerod, and T. Eid. 2008. A forest simulator for bioeconomic analysis based on models for individual trees. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 23: 250–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gromtsev, A. 2002. Natural disturbance dynamics in the boreal forests of European Russia: A review. Silva Fennica 36(1): 41–55.Google Scholar
  27. Gustafsson, L., and K. Perhans. 2010. Biodiversity conservation in Swedish forests: Ways forward for a 30-year-old multi-scaled approach. AMBIO 39: 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haight, R.G. 1985. A comparison of dynamic and static economic models of uneven-aged stand management. Forest Science 31: 957–974.Google Scholar
  29. Haight, R.G. 1987. Evaluating the efficiency of even-aged and uneven-aged stand management. Forest Science 33: 116–134.Google Scholar
  30. Haight, R.G., and R.A. Monserud. 1990. Optimizing any-aged management of mixed-species stands. II: Effects of decision criteria. Forest Science 36: 125–144.Google Scholar
  31. Hanski, I. 2000. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: Modeling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37: 271–280.Google Scholar
  32. Heikinheimo, O. 1915. Kaskiviljelyksen vaikutus Suomen metsiin [Effect of swidden cultivation on forests in Finland]. Acta Forestalia Fennica 4: 1–264 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
  33. Hunter Jr., M.L., G.L. Jacobson, and T. Webb. 1988. Paleoecology and coarse filter approach in maintaining biological diversity. Conservation Biology 2: 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hynynen, J., R. Ojansuu, H. Hökkä, H. Siipilehto, H. Salminen, and P. Haapala. 2002. Models predicting stand developmement in the MELA system. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 835.Google Scholar
  35. Jalonen, R., I. Hanski, T. Kuuluvainen, E. Nikinmaa, P. Pekonen, P. Puttonen, K. Raitio, and O. Tahvonen. 2006. Uusi metsäkirja [The new forest book]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus (in Finnish).Google Scholar
  36. Jalonen, J., and I. Vanha-Majamaa. 2001. Immediate effects of four different felling methods on mature boreal spruce forest understorey vegetation in southern Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 146: 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keane, R.E., P.F. Hessburg, P.B. Landres, and F.J. Swanson. 2009. The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 1025–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kneeshaw, D., Y. Bergeron, and T. Kuuluvainen. 2011. Forest ecosystem structure and disturbance dynamics across the circimboreal forest. In The Sage handbook of biogeography, ed. A.C. Millington, M.B. Blumler, and U. Schickhoff, 263–280. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Kohm, K.A., and J.F. Franklin (eds.). 1997. Creating a forestry for the twenty-first century: The science of ecosystem management. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  40. Koivula, M. 2002. Alternative harvesting methods and boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Forest Ecology and Management 167: 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koivula, M., and J. Niemelä. 2002. Boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in managed spruce forests—a summary of Finnish case studies. Silva Fennica 36(1): 423–436.Google Scholar
  42. Kolström, T. 1993. Modelling the development of an uneven-aged stand of Picea abies. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8: 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuuluvainen, T. 1994. Gap disturbance, ground microtopography, and the regeneration dynamics of boreal coniferous forests in Finland: A review. Annales Zoologici Fennici 31: 35–51.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Kuuluvainen, T. 2009. Forest management and biodiversity conservation based on natural ecosystem dynamics in northern Europe: The complexity challenge. AMBIO 38: 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuuluvainen, T., and T. Aakala. 2011. Natural forest dynamics in boreal Fennoscandia: A review and classification. Silva Fennica 45: 823–841.Google Scholar
  47. Kuusela, K. 1999. Metsän leiviskät. Jyväskylä: Atena kustannus.Google Scholar
  48. Lähde, E., T. Eskelinen, and A. Väänänen. 2002. Growth and diversity effects of silvicultural alternatives on an old-growth forest in Finland. Forestry 75: 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lähde, E., O. Laiho, and J. Lin. 2010. Silvicultural alternatives in an uneven-sized forest dominated by Picea abies. Journal of Forest Research 15: 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lähde, E., O. Laiho, Y. Norokorpi, and T. Saksa. 1994. Structure and yield of all-sized and even-sized Scots pine-dominated stands. Annals of Forest Science 51: 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9: 1179–1188.Google Scholar
  52. Lexerød, N., and Gobakken, T. 2008. Economic efficiency of selective cutting under different timber price scenarios. In Planning, management and economy of selective cutting in Norway, ed. N. Lexerød (PhD thesis). Ås: Norwegian University of life sciences.Google Scholar
  53. Liang, J., J. Buongiorno, and R.A. Monserud. 2005. Growth and yield of all-aged Douglas-fir—western hemlock forest stands: A matrix model with stand diversity effects. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 2368–2381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lilja, S., and T. Kuuluvainen. 2005. Structure of old Pinus sylvestris dominated forest stands along a geographic and human impact gradient in mid-boreal Fennoscandia. Silva Fennica 39: 407–428.Google Scholar
  55. Lommi, S., H. Berglund, M. Kuusinen, and T. Kuuluvainen. 2009. Epiphytic lichen diversity in late-successional Pinus sylvestris forest along local and regional forest utilization gradients in eastern boreal Fennoscandia. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 883–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Matveinen-Huju, K., and M. Koivula. 2008. Effects of alternative harvesting methods on boreal forest spider assemblages. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 782–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McCarthy, J. 2001. Gap dynamics of forest trees: A review with particular attention to boreal forests. Environmental Reviews 9: 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mikola, P. 1984. Selection forestry. Silva Fennica 18: 293–301.Google Scholar
  59. Niinimäki, S., O. Tahvonen, and A. Mäkelä. 2012. Applying a process based model in Norway spruce management. Forest Ecology and Management 265: 102–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nyland, R.D. 2002. Silviculture. Concepts and applications. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  61. O’Hara, K.L. 2002. The historical development of uneven-aged silviculture in North America. Forestry 75: 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Oliver, C.D., and B.C. Larson. 1990. Forest stand dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Östlund, L. 1995. Logging the virgin forest of northern Sweden in the early 19th century. Forest History and Conservation 39: 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Östlund, L., and S. Roturier. 2011. Forestry historical studies in the province of Västerbotten, Northern Sweden: a review of Lars Tirén (1937). Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 26(Suppl. 10): 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Östlund, L., O. Zackrisson, and A.-L. Axelsson. 1997. The history and transformation of a Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27: 1198–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Östlund, L., O. Zackrisson, and H. Strotz. 1998. Potash production in northern Sweden: History and ecological effects of a pre-industrial forest exploitation. Environment and History 4: 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Perera, A.H., L.J. Buse, and M.G. Weber (eds.). 2004. Emulating natural forest landscape disturbances. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Peterson, C.E., and P.D. Anderson. 2009. Large-scale interdisciplinary experiments inform current and future forestry management options in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 409–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pommerening, A., and S.T. Murphy. 2004. A review of the history, definitions and methods of continuous cover forestry with special attention to afforestation and restocking. Forestry 77: 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Puettman, K.J., K.J. Coates, and C. Messier. 2009. A critique of silviculture: Managing for complexity. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  71. Pukkala, T., and T. Kolström. 1988. Simulation of the development of Norway Spruce stands using a transition matrix. Forest Ecology and Management 25: 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pukkala, T., E. Lähde, and O. Laiho. 2009. Growth and yield models for uneven-sized forest stands in Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pukkala, T., E. Lähde, and O. Laiho. 2010. Optimizing the structure and management of uneven-sized stands in Finland. Forestry 83: 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pullin, A.S., T.M. Knight, and A.R. Watkinson. 2009. Linking reductionist science and holistic policy using systematic reviews: Unpacking environmental policy questions to construct an evidence-based framework. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 970–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pullin, A.S., and G.B. Stewart. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 20: 1647–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rassi, P., E. Hyvärinen, A. Juslén, and I. Mannerkoski, eds. 2010. The 2010 Red List of Finnish Species. Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, 685 p.Google Scholar
  77. Raunio, A., A. Schulman, and T. Kontula, eds. 2008. Assessment of threatened habitat types in Finland. The Finnish Environment 8/2008, Parts 1 and 2, 264 + 572p (in Finnish with English summary).Google Scholar
  78. Raymond, P., S. Bédard, V. Roy, C. Larouche, and S. Tremblay. 2009. The irregular shelterwood system: Review, classification, and potential application to forests affected by partial disturbances. Journal of Forestry 107: 405–413.Google Scholar
  79. Roxburgh, S.H., K. Shea, and J. Bastow Wilson. 2004. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis: Patch dynamics and mechanisms of species coexistence. Ecology 85: 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Runkle, J.R. 1982. Patterns of disturbance in some old-growth mesic forests of eastern North America. Ecology 63: 1533–1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shea, K., S.H. Roxburg, and S.J. Rauschert. 2004. Moving from pattern to process: Coexistence mechanisms under intermediate disturbance regimes. Ecology Letters 7: 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shorohova, E., E. Kapitsa, and I. Vanha-Majamaa. 2008. Decomposition of stumps in a chronosequence after clear-felling vs. clear-felling with prescribed burning in a southern boreal forest in Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 3606–3612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shorohova, E., T. Kuuluvainen, A. Kangur, and K. Jogiste. 2009. Natural stand structures, disturbance regimes and successional dynamics in the Eurasian boreal forests: A review with special reference to Russian studies. Annals of Forest Science 66: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Siira-Pietikäinen, A., and J. Haimi. 2009. Changes in soil fauna 10 years after forest harvestings: Comparison between clear felling and green-tree retention methods. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 332–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Siira-Pietikäinen, A., J. Haimi, A. Kanninen, J. Pietikäinen, and H. Fritze. 2001. Responses of decomposer community to root-isolation and addition of slash. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 33: 1993–2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Siira-Pietikäinen, A., J. Haimi, and J. Siitonen. 2003. Short-term responses of soil macroarthropod community to clear felling and alternative forest regeneration methods. Forest Ecology and Management 172: 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Siiskonen, H. 2007. The conflict between traditional and scientific forest management in the 20th century Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 249: 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sippola, A.-L., T. Lehesvirta, and P. Renvall. 2001. Effects of selective logging on coarse woody debris and diversity of wood-decaying polypores in eastern Finland. Ecological Bulletins 49: 243–254.Google Scholar
  89. Smith, D.M., B.C. Larson, M.J. Kelty, and P.M.S. Ashton. 1997. The practice of silviculture: Applied forest ecology, 9th ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  90. Sousa, W.P. 1984. The role of disturbances in natural communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15: 353–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Surakka, H., and M. Siren. 2004. Selection harvesting: state of the art and future directions (in Finnish). Metsätieteen Aikakauskirja 4: 373–390 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
  92. Tahvonen, O. 2007. Optimal choice between even- and uneven-aged forestry systems. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Working Papers 60.Google Scholar
  93. Tahvonen, O. 2009. Optimal choice between even- and uneven-aged forestry. Natural Resource Modeling 22: 289–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tahvonen, O. 2011. Optimal structure and development of uneven-aged Norway spruce forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41: 2389–2402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Tahvonen, O., T. Pukkala, O. Laiho, E. Lähde, and S. Niinimäki. 2010. Optimal management of uneven-aged Norway spruce stands. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Tahvonen, O., and E.-J. Viitala. 2006. Does Faustmann rotation apply to regulated forests? Forest Science 52: 23–30.Google Scholar
  97. Tapio. 2006. Instructions for good silviculture. Helsinki: Metsäkustannus (in Finnish).Google Scholar
  98. Turner, M.G., R.H. Gardner, and R.V. O’Neill. 2001. Landscape ecology in theory and practice. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  99. Usher, M.B. 1969. A matrix model for forest management. Biometrics 25: 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Valsta, L. 1992. An optimization model for Norway spruce management based on individual-tree growth models. Acta Forestralia Fennica 232: 1–20.Google Scholar
  101. Vanha-Majamaa, I., and J. Jalonen. 2001. Green tree retention in Fennoscandian forestry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 16: 79–90.Google Scholar
  102. Vuokila, Y. 1970. Selection from above in intermediate cuttings. Acta Forestalia Fennica 110: 1–45.Google Scholar
  103. Wikström, P. 2000. A solution method for uneven-aged management applied to Norway spruce. Forest Science 46: 452–463.Google Scholar
  104. Wilson, J.B. 1994. The ‘intermediate disturbance hypothesis’ of species coexistence is based on patch dynamics. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 18: 176–181.Google Scholar
  105. Wintle, B.A., S.A. Bekessy, L.A. Veneir, and J.L. Pearce. 2005. The utility of dynamic landscape meta-population models for sustainable forest management: The Brown Creeper. Conservation Biology 19: 1930–1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timo Kuuluvainen
    • 1
  • Olli Tahvonen
    • 1
  • Tuomas Aakala
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations