Metsäntutkimuslaitos Skogsforskningsinstitutet Finnish Forest Research Institute www.metla.fi RESTORE RESTORE – – Resilience and stability in developing tools Resilience and stability in developing tools for sustainable forest management and restoration for sustainable forest management and restoration Ekaterina Shorohova 1,2 & Ilkka Vanha-Majamaa 1 , 1 Metsäntutkimuslaitos, 2 Pietarin Metsä-Akatemia, Venäjä METSO –tutkimusseminaari, 9.11.2010
Transcript
Metsäntutkimuslaitos Skogsforskningsinstitutet Finnish Forest Research Institute www.metla.fi
RESTORE RESTORE –– Resilience and stability in developing tools Resilience and stability in developing tools for sustainable forest management and restorationfor sustainable forest management and restoration
Ekaterina Shorohova1,2 & Ilkka Vanha-Majamaa1,1Metsäntutkimuslaitos, 2 Pietarin Metsä-Akatemia, Venäjä
METSO –tutkimusseminaari, 9.11.2010
15.11.2010 2
RESTOREEU project, MC IIF (2009-2012)
We estimate the stability of boreal forest ecosystems in order to develop tools for sustainable forest management and restoration.
http://www.metla.fi/hanke/8532/index-en.htm
Photo:Alexandr Gladyshev
15.11.2010 3
163 definitions ((GrimmGrimm and and VesselVessel, 1997), 1997)
What is stability?
Photos: Erkki Oksanen, Ekaterina Shorohova
15.11.2010 4
Scientific objectives Scientific objectives 1.1. Formulating the concept of forest ecosystem Formulating the concept of forest ecosystem
stabilitystability for sustainable forest management and for sustainable forest management and restoration purposesrestoration purposes
2.2. Defining the characteristics of ‘Defining the characteristics of ‘reference statereference state’ ’ for Eurasian boreal forest for Eurasian boreal forest
3.3. Estimate relationship between Estimate relationship between stabilitystability and and biodiversitybiodiversity
15.11.2010 5
Definitions
Resistance - remaining essentially unchanged despite the presence of disturbances Resilience - returning to the reference state after a disturbanceElasticity - speed of return to the reference state after a disturbanceSuccessionalSuccessional resilience: intrinsic ecosystem : intrinsic ecosystem property; moving towards ‘property; moving towards ‘reference statereference state’’
15.11.2010 6
Project coordinator at METLA:
Ilkka Vanha-Majamaa (Restoration, ground vegetation, biodiversity and forest management issues)
Fellow
Dr. Ekaterina Shorohova (Generalization of the results, implementation of the concepts)
Research team
Prof. Leena Finér (General supervising, environmental impacts of forestry practices and different silvicultural issues)
Prof. Pekka Kauppi (International forest statistics, carbon dynamics issues)
Prof. Viktor Soloviev (Stability concept, carbon dynamics, coarse woody debris)
Ms. Paula Horne (Forest policy and socio-economic development issues)
Dr. Sauli Valkonen (Stand structure and development, regeneration issues)
Mr. Heikki Kauhanen (Natural disturbances and regeneration issues)
Dr. Eeva Karjalainen (Transfer of knowledge)
Mr. Markku Tamminen (Databases)
Dr. Marjo Palvianen (Mineral cycling)
Dr. Ekaterina Kapitsa (Databases, coarse woody debris decomposition, modelling)
consists of members from relevant organizations working with forestry, research and conservation
FAO, Forestry department (Froylan Castaneda), EU Joint Research Centre (JRC) (Jesus San Miguel), MMM (Marjukka Mähönen), Department of General ecology, Anatomy and Physiology of Plants at FTA (Victor Soloviev),‘Vepssky Forest’ Nature Park (Sergey Knyazev).
15.11.2010 8
Our background, or RESTORE dataset
NFI, 1920-.…
Photos:METLA’s archive,
Erkki Oksanen
15.11.2010 9
Large-scale complex forest management and restoration experiments: 1) MONTA, 1995-...,
Photos: Erkki Oksanen
15.11.2010 10
3) RETREE, 1997-...
Photos: Erkki Oksanen
15.11.2010 11
2) EVO restoration experiment, 2000-...,
Photos: Erkki Oksanen
15.11.2010 12
Long-term studies on dynamics of pristine European boreal forests (defined as never commercially felled) in Russia.
1) Vepssky Forest Nature Park, 1913-...2) Central Biosphere Forest Reserve, 1939 -...
3) Kenozersky National Park, 2004-..,4) Northern Karelian study sites, 2005-....
Photos: Saint-Petersburg Forestry Research Institute’s archive, Anton Kuznetsov, Ekaterina Muradova, A;lexandr Gladyshev, Ilkka Vanha-Majamaa
15.11.2010 13
Air photography (1:12 000, 1:15 000) in 1970, 1981, 1991, and 1996 yrs (VL)Mapping the forest stand age structure types (1:10 000) in connection with mapping the forest types and soils in 1978–1979 yrs (VL)Forest inventory data in 1913, 1961, 1973, 1983, 1994 yrs (VL); 1939, 1972, 1984, 1994 (CF)Regularly placed permanent circular sample plots (74 plots of 0.1 ha each) established in 1991-92 yrs (VL)Permanent transects established in 2000-2005 (VL and CF)Standard permanent (23 in VL and 3 in CF) and temporal (6 in VL and 33 in CF) sample plots of 0.2-0.3 ha established in 1973-2006.Biomass expansion factorsCWD inventory, 5 decay classesLab analyses of the wood and soil samples.Soil profiles
Vepssky Research Programme
15.11.2010 14
Example of resilience calculation:Example of resilience calculation:
Resilience calculations presented are based on 2 case studies:
MONTA - complex forest management and restoration experiment in Finland started in 1995
"Vepssky Forest" - permanent sample plot records from pristine forest stands in Russia inventoried since 1973
15.11.2010 15
Resilience Resilience -- returning to the reference state returning to the reference state after a disturbanceafter a disturbance
e is the intensity of perturbation
XC is the ecosystem parameter in reference ecosystem or before disturbance
XR is the ecosystem parameter after disturbance, XN – parameter of recovered ecosystem at the time tdX - recovery
( )teXfR ,,=
1)()(
(2−
−+−
−=
NCRC
RC
XXXXXX
R
Modified from:
Orwin, K.H., Wardle, D.A. 2004. New indices for quantifying the resistance and resilience of soil biota to exogenous disturbances. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36: 1907-1912
XN
15.11.2010 16
MONTA design
Randomized block design
6 treatments, 8 replicates
Mature (104 years) Picea abies stands
Photo: Erkki Oksanen,
15.11.2010 17
100 m100% residual 70% residual 0% residual, site prep
50% residual, site prep50% residual7% residual, site prep
15.11.2010 18
100 % residual - control
Photo: Erkki Oksanen,
15.11.2010 19
50 % residual
Photo: Erkki Oksanen,
15.11.2010 20
7 % residual
Photo: Erkki Oksanen,
15.11.2010 21
0 % residual
Photo: Erkki Oksanen,
15.11.2010 22
MethodsMethods
Tree stand & coarse woody debris (CWD), 1 ha sample plot, all trees measured 1995 (before the treatment), -96, 98, 2003, 2006
Understorey vegetation, 12 randomized 2 m2 subplots in 50x50 m area, visual coverestimation, all species, inventoried 1995, -96, -97,-98, 2006
Seedlings and saplings, 36 systematic circularsubplots with a radius 1,78 m, inventoried in 1995, -96, 98, 2003, 2006
Photo: Erkki Oksanen,
15.11.2010 23
2*2 m sub-plots
The natural regeneration and ground vegetation dynamics are studied on the permanent sample plots
Photos: Evgeny Lemetti
15.11.2010 24
Norway spruce natural regenerationNorway spruce natural regenerationafter different treatmentsafter different treatments
Spruce regeneration
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
gap selection retention clear
Management method
# pe
r ha Before felling
1 year after felling
3 years after felling
7 years after felling11 years after felling
15.11.2010 25
Resilience of Norway spruce natural Resilience of Norway spruce natural regeneration after different treatmentsregeneration after different treatments
Before disturbance7 years after disturbance with 30% of tree volume removed11 years after disturbance26 years after disturbance
MONTA Vepssky
15.11.2010 27
ConclusionsConclusions for for resilienceresilience exampleexampleManagement intensityManagement intensity affects affects resilience. resilience. The Norway The Norway spruce undergrowth totally recoversspruce undergrowth totally recovers after 7 years since after 7 years since gap and selection felling, whereas after clear and gap and selection felling, whereas after clear and retention felling more than 11 years are needed for retention felling more than 11 years are needed for halfhalf--recovery. recovery. The number of seedlings and saplings is higher in The number of seedlings and saplings is higher in reference mature forests as compared to managed reference mature forests as compared to managed ones.ones.The reaction of undergrowth to canopy opening The reaction of undergrowth to canopy opening depends on successional phase of a stand.depends on successional phase of a stand.Successional resilience Successional resilience of natural regeneration in pristine of natural regeneration in pristine forest stands is higher as compared to that in managed forest stands is higher as compared to that in managed stands.stands.
15.11.2010 28
ExpectedExpected scientificscientific resultsresultsLong-term interrelationships between ecosystem components under different disturbance regimes and management scenarios focusing on limiting factors for biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, resistance and services. The project will give answers to ‘hot’ questions such as:
Which ecosystem components can be used as biodiversity indicators?How different management and restoration treatments affect ecosystem resilience?How much coarse woody debris is enough in terms of biodiversity and carbon budget?
15.11.2010 29
???
Photo: Anton Kuznetsov,
15.11.2010 30
Implications for forest management and Implications for forest management and restorationrestoration
Based on resilience thresholds of each ecosystem type RESTORE defines characteristics of management and restoration treatments a wiz.:
Size, species composition and spatial distribution of retention tree groups,Amount of coarse woody debris to be left and created,Need for prescribed burning in combination with other restoration treatments, Long-term landscape-level ecological planning based on reference landscape dynamics.
15.11.2010 31
Potential use of the project conceptPotential use of the project concept
The project The project conceptconcept cancan bebe appliedapplied in in followfollow--upup studiesstudies for for differentdifferent structuresstructures, , speciesspeciesgroupsgroups and and ecosystemecosystem typestypes to to rankrank the the biodiversitybiodiversity indicatorsindicators. .
Input data: Input data: 1.1. prepre--disturbancedisturbance / / prepre--treatmenttreatment figuresfigures2.2. fewfew yearsyears of of monitoringmonitoring..
15.11.2010 32
Спасибо!Organization of the Vepssky forest reserve and experimental design of Vepssky research programme: Stanislav Dyrenkov†, Viktor Fedorchuk, Sergey Savitsky†Fieldwork and data processing: Stanislav Dyrenkov†, Viktor Fedorchuk, Sergey Savitsky†, Maria Kuznetsova, Anna Schvarts, Denis Moiseev, Leonid Pegov, Alexandr Ignatyev, Svetlana Savitskaya, Raisa Zotikova, Alexey Shorohov, Boris Ryabinin, Alexandr Gladyshev, Oksana Shvedova, Olga Chapkevich, DmitrijDokuchaev†, Anton Kuznetsov, Sergey Tetioukhin, Evgeniy Lemetti, Olga Bystryakova, Yulia Ignatyeva, Ekaterina Kapitsa, Svetlana Stepanova, Ekaterina Trubitsyna, Ekaterina Fedorova, Igor Kazartsev, Kirill Minin, Inga Spalvene, Evgenij Sidorov, Olga Tumasova, Ekaterina Muradova, Olga Shekhaeva, Mikhail Girfanov, VladislavaGirfanova, Sergey Losev, Artur Molev, Dmitryj Malukhin, Olga Lopatnikova, Kirill Minin, Olga Ignatyeva, Maria Evilina, Ekaterina Nikolaeva, Gnitienko Maxim and others.Practical help:
Director of the natural park Sergey Knyazev, forester ValentinButorin, accomodation in Kurba: Antonina Butorina, driver Mikhail Kyurshin†, Director of the Central biosphere Forest Reserve Nikolay NikolayKorablev, Sergey Shaposhnikov, Natalia Shironya,Chief forest engineer of Kenozersky national park Alexandr Kozykin, forester Nikolay Karmyshin, organization of the expedition in 2005 in Kenozersky park: Denis Mirin,
FundingMarie-Curie International Incoming Fellowships (236030), Saint-
Petersburg Forestry Research Institute, Natural Park “Vepssky les”, Government of the Leningrad region, Russian Foundation for BasicResearch (05-04-48476, 06-04-63039, 07-04-00200, 09-04-00209, 09-04-10100), President of Russia, Government of Russia, MK-3550.2004.4
15.11.2010 33
KiitoksiaLand, implementation of the treatments: Metsähallitus, Metsäteolisuus, Metsä-Serla, Metsäteho Ltd., Stora-Enso, UPM-KymmeneGroup, HAMK, the City of Hämeenlinna.
Researchers, fieldwork: Berglund, H., deChantal, M., Enroth, J., Hautala, H., Heikkilä, T., Heikkilä, T., Heinilehto, M.-H., Henttonen, H., Jalonen, J., Kaila, S., Kallonen, S., Koivula, M., Koponen, T., Kuuluvainen, T., Laaka-Lindberg, S., Lilja-Rothsten, S., Lindberg, H., Lindberg, H., Lohtander, K., Lommi, S., Matveinen-Huju, K., Mäkinen, J., Niemelä, J., Ojala, T., Pekkala, M., Penttilä, R., Peterson, C., Piippo, S., Puttonen, P., Raivio, S., Rokkonen, J., Ryömä, R., Sidoroff, K., Siitonen, J., Suolahti, P., Säilä, R., Tamminen, M., Tamminen, P., Taponen, I., Tonteri, T., Vainio, O., Wallenius, T., Vitikainen, O., and others + NFI group
