| 1. |
- Kraxner, Florian, et al.
(författare)
-
Planning the future forests: managing for wildlife in a climate constrained landscape
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Book of Abstracts. - 9783902762887 ; , s. 655-
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Multipurpose functionality is a paradigm when it comes to forest management. This includes sustainability, resilience, stand stability, wildlife management, recreation, clean water and air, or healthy soils - to name a few. The world is aiming at a maximum global warming of 2-deg by 2100, but cumulative emissions are still rising. Higher temperatures are associated with higher risks of extreme events such as storm, flood, droughts, pests and fires etc. - and at the same time, forest systems are key for any mitigation activity to avoid such dangerous climate change. But how will a managed forest look like in the future? How can we understand the underlying dynamics and make our forests fit for the increased need for carbon storage, biomass for energy and sustainable wood and non-wood forest products like game, while maintaining biodiversity, recreational and protected areas. Moreover, we need to address all challenges on limited land and establish action from policy development allthe way to their implementation within a short time frame. Based on Sweden's forests, traditionally considered a role model for successfully bridging a multitude of demands, we present a modeling approach that should serve as a planning tool for enhancing forests' risk resilience and capacity of integrating diverse demands and different ecosystem-services. Guided by the expertise of Sweden's Environmental Protection Agency, national forest and habitat shift models from SLU and KTH will be linked with global land use models and engineering tools from IIASA. Hereby, special emphasis will be put on ecosystem services from wildlife, different scenarios of forest intensification and the optimization of biomass for bioenergy production. First estimates show that spatially explicit modeling can substantially support decision making by optimizing multipurpose use of both managed and protected areas and steering habitat shift for maintaining biodiversity and improving wildlife (game)management.
|
|
| 2. |
- Leppänen, Jussi, et al.
(författare)
-
Return on wood production by tree species
- 2017
-
Ingår i: IUFRO 125th Anniversary Congress 2017. - Baden-Württemberg : Forstliche Versuchs- und Forshungsanstalt (FVA). - 9783902762887 ; , s. 81-
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- What is the cost of producing cubic metre pine? What is the production function? These questions are challenges although cost accounting has been done for years However, the cost accounting is typically applied at the forest holding level. The life of an individual stand, for example, is too long to cope with. In case, the national forest inventory as well as stumpage price and cost statistics are accurate, return on forest ownership by tree species provides a proxy for economic results and comparison. The solutions are extensions of the return on forest ownership results in production for ten years in the statistical service at Natural Resources Institute Finland. The key challenges are the splits of the growing stock e.g. Between non-industrial private forests and the others, between tree species as well as splits of the costs between tree species. A method to split the wood production costs is hard to find. As a proxy, the costs were split using timber sale earnings. It turns out that the average returns 1983-2015 have 2.5% for pine, 3.1 for spruce and 2.6 for birch, spruce being the best choice. Surprisingly, with time period 1993-2015 the respective figures were 4.3%, 4.7% and 3.8% and with 1983-1993 negative because of the recession. The recent results of period 2003-2015 turn with 3.7%, 3.5% and 3.3% pine being the best choice. The standard deviations 10.6%, 10.1% and 10.0% hardly differ from each other. In all, spruce might be the best choice in case the sites suit for spruce. In all, the most dominating driver were price ups like in 2007 and lows in 1990s emphasising the well being of the forest industry.
|
|
