Advertisement

Ambio

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 415–429 | Cite as

On the decline of ground lichen forests in the Swedish boreal landscape: Implications for reindeer husbandry and sustainable forest management

  • Per Sandström
  • Neil Cory
  • Johan Svensson
  • Henrik Hedenås
  • Leif Jougda
  • Nanna Borchert
Report

Abstract

Lichens are a bottleneck resource for circumpolar populations of reindeer, and as such, for reindeer husbandry as an indigenous Sami land-use tradition in northern Sweden. This study uses ground lichen data and forest information collected within the Swedish National Forest Inventory since 1953, on the scale of northern Sweden. We found a 71 % decline in the area of lichen-abundant forests over the last 60 years. A decline was observed in all regions and age classes and especially coincided with a decrease of >60 year old, open pine forests, which was the primary explanatory factor in our model. The effects of reindeer numbers were inconclusive in explaining the decrease in lichen-abundant forest. The role that forestry has played in causing this decline can be debated, but forestry can have a significant role in reversing the trend and improving ground lichen conditions.

Keywords

Large-ungulate grazing Long-term monitoring Reindeer lichen Traditional land-use Swedish National Forest Inventory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was undertaken with economic support from PLURAL (Formas), Mapping of lichen-rich forests (Formas), Baltic Landscape (EU Interreg BSR), program funding for NILS and NILS-ESS (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) and program funding for the Swedish NFI (SLU). The data compilation was partially financed by the Sami Parliament of Sweden Eallinbiras-program. We thank S. Adler for a helpful discussion about model selection. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for constructive comments which have greatly improved the manuscript.

Supplementary material

13280_2015_759_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (32 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 32 kb)

References

  1. Berg, A., L. Östlund, J. Moen, and J. Olofsson. 2008. A century of logging and forestry in a reindeer herding area in northern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 256: 1009–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergerud, A.T. 1972. Food habits of Newfoundland caribou. The Journal of Wildlife Management 36: 913–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bråkenhielm, S., and H. Persson. 1980. Vegetation dynamics in developing Scots pine stands in central Sweden. Ecological Bulletins 32: 139–152.Google Scholar
  4. Dettki, H., and P.-A. Esseen. 1998. Epiphytic macrolichens in managed and natural forest landscapes: a comparison at two spatial scales. Ecography 21: 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Esseen, P.-A., B. Ehnström, L. Ericson, and K. Sjöberg. 1997. Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletins 46: 16–47.Google Scholar
  6. Falldorf, T., O. Strand, M. Panzacchi, and H. Tømmervik. 2014. Estimating lichen volume and reindeer winter pasture quality from Landsat imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 140: 573–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fridman, J., S. Holm, M. Nilsson, P. Nilsson, A.H. Ringvall, and G. Ståhl. 2014. Adapting National Forest Inventories to changing requirements—The case of the Swedish National Forest Inventory at the turn of the 20th century. Silva Fennica 48: 1095. doi: 10.14214/sf.1095.
  8. 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
  9. Hahn, T. 1990. Property rights, ethics and conflict resolution—Foundation of the Sami economy in Sweden. SLU Agraria 258.Google Scholar
  10. Hastie, T., T. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. 2013. The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Heggberget, T.M., E. Gaare, and J.P. Ball. 2002. Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) and climate change: Importance of winter forage. Rangifer 22: 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ihaka, R., and R. Gentleman. 1996. R: A statistical language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5: 299–314.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, C. 2011. Multi-state models for panel data: The msm Package for R. Journal of Statistical Software 38: 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson, C. 2015. Package ‘msm’, version 1.5. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/msm/msm.pdf.
  15. Johansson, B., and D. Chen. 2005. Estimation of areal precipitation for runoff modelling using wind data: A case study in Sweden. Climate Research 29: 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jonsson Cabrajic, A.V., J. Moen, and K. Palmqvist. 2010. Predicting growth of mat-forming lichens on a landscape scale—Comparing models with different complexities. Ecography 33: 949–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kardell, L. 1980. Occurrence and production of bilberry, lingonberry and raspberry in Sweden’s forests. Forest Ecology and Management 2: 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kardell, L., and L. Eriksson. 1992. Contortatall och renbete—studier inom Malå skogssamebys marker. Report 51. Department of Environmental Forestry Swedish University of Agricultural science (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  19. Kivinen, S.J., A. Berg Moen, and Å. Eriksson. 2010. Effects of modern forest management on winter grazing resources for reindeer in Sweden. Ambio 39: 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kivinen, S.A., J. Berg, L.Östlund Moen, and J. Olofsson. 2012. Forest fragmentation and landscape transformation in a reindeer husbandry area in Sweden. Environmental Management 49: 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Korosuo, A., P. Sandström, K. Öhman, and L.O. Eriksson. 2013. Impacts of different forest management scenarios on forestry and reindeer husbandry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2013.865782.Google Scholar
  22. Kumpula, J., M. Kurkilahti, T. Helle, and A. Colpaert. 2014. Both reindeer management and several other land use factors explain the reduction in ground lichens (Cladonia spp.) in pastures grazed by semi-domesticated reindeer in Finland. Regional Environmental Change 14: 541–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindenmayer, D.B., and G.E. Likens. 2010. The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biological Conservation 143: 1317–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lundmark, L. 2008. Stulet land. Stockholm: Ordfront Förlag. (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  25. Manker, E. 1953. The Nomadism of the Swedish mountain Lapps: The Siidas and their migratory routes in 1945. Stockholm: Acta Lapponica/Nordiska museet.Google Scholar
  26. Moen, J., and Ö. Danell. 2003. Reindeer in the Swedish mountains: An assessment of grazing impacts. Ambio 32: 397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moen, J., L. Rist, K. Bishop, F.S. Chapin III, D. Ellison, T. Kuuluvainen, H. Pettersson, K.J. Puettmann, et al. 2014. Eye on the Taiga. Removing global policy impediments to safeguard the boreal forest. Conservation Letters 7: 408–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nilsson, M.-C., and D.A. Wardle. 2005. Understory vegetation as a forest ecosystem driver: Evidence from the northern Swedish boreal forest. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nilsson, C., O. Engelmark, J. Cory, A. Forslund, and E. Carlborg. 2008. Differences in litter cover and understorey flora between stands of introduced lodgepole pine and native Scots pine in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 1900–1905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oksanen, J., and T. Ahti. 1982. Lichen-rich pine forest vegetation in Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 19: 275–301.Google Scholar
  31. Olsson, B.A., and O. Keller. 2006. Long-term effects of nitrogen fertilization on ground vegetation in coniferous forests. Forest Ecology and Management 237: 458–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Panzacchi, M., B. Van Moorter, O. Strand, L.E. Loe, and E. Reimers. 2014. Searching for the fundamental niche using individual-based habitat selection modelling across populations. Ecography 38: 659–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Panzacchi, M., B. Van Moorter, O. Strand, M. Saerens, I. Kivimäki, C.C. St Clair, I. Herfindal, and L. Boitani. 2015. Predicting the continuum between corridors and barriers to animal movements using step selection functions and randomized shortest paths. Journal of Animal Ecology. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12386.Google Scholar
  35. Reindeer Husbandry Act. 1971. (Rennäringslag SFS 1971:437).Google Scholar
  36. Roturier, S., and U. Bergsten. 2006. Influence of soil scarification on reindeer foraging and damage to planted Pinus sylvestris seedlings. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 21: 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roturier, S., and U. Bergsten. 2009. Establishment of Cladonia stellaris after artificial dispersal in an unfenced forest in northern Sweden. Rangifer 29: 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sametinget. 2014. Rennäring: Kartor som underlag för planer. Accessed October 20, 2014, from http://sametinget.se/underlag.
  39. Sandström, P. 2015. A toolbox for co-production of knowledge and improved land use dialogues. PhD Thesis, SLU, Umeå.Google Scholar
  40. Sandström, P., T.G. Pahlen, L. Edenius, H. Tømmervik, O. Hagner, L. Hemberg, H. Olsson, K. Baer, et al. 2003. Conflict resolution by participatory management: Remote sensing and GIS as tools for communicating land-use needs for reindeer herding in northern Sweden. Ambio 32: 557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sandström, C., J. Moen, C. Widmark, and Ö. Danell. 2006. Progressing toward co-management through collaborative learning: Forestry and reindeer husbandry in dialogue. The International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 2: 326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Siiskonen, H. 2013. From economic to environmental sustainability: The forest management debate in 20th century Finland and Sweden. Environment, Development and Sustainability 15: 1323–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. SNFI. 2014. Unpublished data. Swedish National Forest Inventory. Department of Forest Resource Management, Umeå, SLU. http://www.slu.se/nfi/.
  44. SOU. 2001. En ny rennäringspolitik. Stockholm: Fritzes: 101 (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  45. SOU. 2006. Gränsdragningskommissionen för renskötselområdet, Jo 2002:01. Statens Planverk 1978 rapport 44 del 5, 1978 (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  46. SOU. 2013. Långsiktigt hållbar markanvändning. Stockholm: Fritzes: 43 (in Swedish, English Summary).Google Scholar
  47. Vors, L.V., and M.S. Boyce. 2009. Global declines of caribou and reindeer. Global Change Biology 15: 2626–2633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walker, M.D., C.H. Wahren, R.D. Hollister, G.H.R. Henry, L.E. Ahlquist, J.M. Alatalo, M.S. Bret-Harte, M.P. Calef, et al. 2006. Plant community response to experimental warming across the tundra biome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103: 1342–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilcove, D.S., and M. Wikelski. 2008. Going, going, gone: Is animal migration disappearing. PLoS Biology 6: 1361–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wood, S.N. 2006. Generalized additive models: An introduction with R. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  51. Wood, S.N. 2015. Package ‘mgcv’. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mgcv/mgcv.pdf.

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Resource Management, Faculty of Forest SciencesSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Forest SciencesSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Swedish Forest AgencyVilhelminaSweden
  4. 4.The Sami ParliamentÖstersundSweden

Personalised recommendations