Articles by Hanne K. Sjølie

• Sjølie, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Campus Evenstad, Postboks 400, 2418 Elverum, Norway E-mail: sjoliehannek3@gmail.com

• Sjølie, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Postboks 400, 2418 Elverum, Norway E-mail: hanne.sjolie@inn.no

• López, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, P.O. Box 2400, Koppang, Norway https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6860-3408 E-mail: lucas.lopez@inn.no
• Sjølie, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, P.O. Box 2400, Koppang, Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8099-3521 E-mail: hanne.sjolie@inn.no
• Nabhani, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, P.O. Box 2400, Koppang, Norway E-mail: abbas.nabhani@inn.no
• Aguilar, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Economics, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden E-mail: francisco.aguilar@slu.se

Large parts of the boreal forest ecosystems have been greatly affected by human use, and the current timber-oriented forest management practice that dominates boreal forests is proven to cause biodiversity and ecosystem services declines. These negative effects are mitigated in various ways, including in-situ measures implemented upon harvest. The measures comprise trade-offs between economic and ecological aims; thus, requiring solid knowledge of their effectiveness. However, comprehensive literature review of the effectiveness of such measures is scarce. We aim to fill part of this void by reviewing the scientific literature that have gauged effects of four in-situ conservation measures: green tree retention (GTR), patch retention (PR), dead wood retention (DW) and riparian buffer zones (RB). Two outcomes were considered, species richness and species abundance across taxa.

From a total of 3012 initial papers, 48 met our inclusion criteria that generated 238 unique results. Results were grouped according to control. 178 studies used mature, unlogged forest as control. Out of those, 68% of the findings were not significant, i.e., suggesting no significant impact of harvest with biodiversity measures on species richness and species abundance compared to no harvest. Eighteen percent of the observations showed negative effects and 14% of the observations showed positive effects compared to no harvest. Sixty studies used harvest with no measures as control, of which 45% showed significant positive effects, meaning that compared to harvest with no measures, harvest with conservation measures has positively effects on species richness and abundance. However, 43% of the studies found no significant effect of the implemented conservation measures compared to harvest with no measures taken.

The relatively few significant results reported restrain distinct conclusions on the effectiveness of the assessed conservation measures, but some degree of conservation measure is likely to have positive effects on biodiversity in timber-production forest. However, the scientific basis does not allow for pointing to threshold levels. Higher transparency of study design and statistical results would allow us to include more studies. There is a clear need for more research of effectiveness of common conservation measures in timber-production forests in order to strengthen the knowledge basis. In particular, there are few studies that employ harvest without any conservation measure as control. This is pivotal knowledge for forest managers as well as for policymakers for preserving biodiversity and the ecosystems in forest.

• Tange, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Evenstad, Norway; Glommen Mjøsen Skog SA, Elverum, Norway https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3145-8159 E-mail: ane.tange@inn.no
• Sjølie, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Evenstad, Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8099-3521 E-mail: hanne.sjolie@inn.no
• Austrheim, University Museum Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Natural History, Trondheim, Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3909-6666 E-mail: gunnar.austrheim@ntnu.no

This study compares the responses of two Swedish 5-year predictive stand-level functions with the observed responses in 721 fertilization experiment plots in Norway fertilized with nitrogen (N). All plots are single-species consisting of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.) or Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) fertilized with ammonium nitrate (AN) or urea. The correlations between the observed and the two predicted responses were 0.34–0.40 for all plots taken together. One response function performed well on average, but underestimated the response in pine plots and overestimated the response in spruce plots. The second function overpredicted the response on the full dataset, in spruce plots and old forest, but performed well in pine plots. Both functions overestimated the growth response in high-productive plots. Higher N deposition in Norway than in Sweden may count for parts of the deviations. Testing of fertilization functions on new datasets is rare, but important part of the evaluation of functions. As the functions are not well fit for predicting the growth response in spruce and high-productive plots in our sample, new functions that include N deposition are welcome.

• Sjølie, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NO-1432 Ås, Norway E-mail: hanne.sjolie@nmbu.no
• Sørlie, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NO-1432 Ås, Norway E-mail: hans.asbjorn.sorlie@slf.dep.no
• Tveite, Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, P.O. Box 115, NO-1431 Ås, Norway E-mail: bjorn.tveite@skogoglandskap.no
• Solberg, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NO-1432 Ås, Norway E-mail: birger.solberg@nmbu.no

We draw insights regarding intricacies with spatially explicit data and analyses when studying the vulnerability of forest socio-ecological systems to disruptive abiotic and biotic factors. Common issues associated with data include location precision, spatial delimitation, methodological comparability, and measurement consistency. Spatial data analyses are challenged by issues of interpolation and extrapolation, inferences using data at different spatial scales, and assessment of disruption impacts at detectable spatial scales. The inextricable empirical nature of spatial data and analyses requires carefully conducting and disclosing the sensitivity of findings, and including robustness tests to openly inform decision-makers on issues of uncertainty associated with possible interventions. These considerations might be central to identifying forest socio-ecological hotspots as forest-dominated geographic areas encompassing social and ecological systems vulnerable to disruptions caused by abiotic and biotic factors, but where risks to human wellbeing may be considerably reduced through adaptive interventions.

• Aguilar, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Department of Forest Economics, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0226-4467 E-mail: francisco.aguilar@slu.se
• Lautrup, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark E-mail: ml@ifro.ku.dk
• Kim, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Department of Forest Economics, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1919-3346 E-mail: dohun.kim@slu.se
• Tangen, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 2400, Koppang, Norway https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3145-8159 E-mail: ane.tange@inn.no
• Rautiainen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and environment, Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: aapo.rautiainen@luke.fi
• Brownell, University of Copenhagen, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, Forest and Bioresources, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3798-8783 E-mail: hb@ign.ku.dk
• López, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, P.O. Box 2400, Koppang, Norway https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6860-3408 E-mail: lucas.lopez@inn.no
• Stratton, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6566-2043 E-mail: adhs@ifro.ku.dk
• Glasenapp, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Institute of Forestry, Leuschnerstraße 91, 21031 Hamburg-Bergedorf, Germany E-mail: sebastian.glasenapp@thuenen.de
• Korth, Universidad Nacional de Misiones Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Bertoni 124, Eldorado 3380, Argentina https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3261-8234 E-mail: silviakorth@hotmail.com
• Sjølie, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, P.O. Box 2400, Koppang, Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8099-3521 E-mail: hanne.sjolie@inn.no
• Bredahl Jacobsen, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1313-6228 E-mail: jbj@ifro.ku.dk