Most viewed articles for the last 60 days

• Fridman, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden ORCID ID: – E-mail: jonas.fridman@slu.se
• Holm, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden ORCID ID: – E-mail: soren.holm@slu.se
• Nilsson, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden ORCID ID: – E-mail: mats.nilsson@slu.se
• Nilsson, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden ORCID ID: – E-mail: per.nilsson@slu.se
• Ringvall, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden ORCID ID: – E-mail: Anna.Ringvall@slu.se
• Ståhl, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden ORCID ID: – E-mail: goran.stahl@slu.se

The Nordic and Baltic countries are in the frontline of replacing fossil fuel with renewables. An important question is how forest management of the productive parts of this region can support a sustainable development of our societies in reaching low or carbon neutral conditions by 2050. This may involve a 70% increased consumption of biomass and waste to meet the goals. The present review concludes that a 50–100% increase of forest growth at the stand scale, relative to today’s common level of forest productivity, is a realistic estimate within a stand rotation (~70 years). Change of tree species, including the use of non-native species, tree breeding, introduction of high-productive systems with the opportunity to use nurse crops, fertilization and afforestation are powerful elements in an implementation and utilization of the potential. The productive forests of the Nordic and Baltic countries cover in total 63 million hectares, which corresponds to an average 51% land cover. The annual growth is 287 million m³ and the annual average harvest is 189 million m³ (65% of the growth). A short-term increase of wood-based bioenergy by utilizing more of the growth is estimated to be between 236 and 416 TWh depending on legislative and operational restrictions. Balanced priorities of forest functions and management aims such as nature conservation, biodiversity, recreation, game management, ground water protection etc. all need consideration. We believe that these aims may be combined at the landscape level in ways that do not conflict with the goals of reaching higher forest productivity and biomass production.

• Rytter, The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden (Skogforsk), Ekebo 2250, SE-26890 Svalöv, Sweden ORCID ID: – E-mail: lars.rytter@skogforsk.se
• Ingerslev, Copenhagen University, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark ORCID ID: – E-mail: moi@ign.ku.dk
• Kilpeläinen, Finnish Environment Institute, Joensuu Office, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland; University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland ORCID ID: – E-mail: antti.kilpelainen@ymparisto.fi
• Torssonen, University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland ORCID ID: – E-mail: Piritta.Torssonen@uef.fi
• Lazdina, Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”, 111 Riga str, Salaspils, LV 2169 Latvia ORCID ID: – E-mail: Dagnija.Lazdina@silava.lv
• Löf, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Box 49 SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden ORCID ID: – E-mail: magnus.lof@slu.se
• Madsen, Copenhagen University, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark ORCID ID: – E-mail: pam@ign.ku.dk
• Muiste, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, Dept. Forest Industry, Kreutzwaldi 5, Tartu 51014, Estonia ORCID ID: – E-mail: Peeter.Muiste@emu.ee
• Stener, The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden (Skogforsk), Ekebo 2250, SE-26890 Svalöv, Sweden ORCID ID: – E-mail: Lars-Goran.Stener@skogforsk.se

Land degradation is widespread and a serious threat affecting the livelihoods of 1.5 billion people worldwide of which one sixth or 250 million people reside in drylands. Globally, it is estimated that 10–20% of drylands are already degraded and about 12 million ha are degraded each year. Driven by unsustainable land use practices, adverse climatic conditions and population increase, land degradation has led to decline in provision of ecosystem services, food insecurity, social and political instability and reduction in the ecosystem’s resilience to natural climate variability. Several global initiatives have been launched to combat land degradation, including rehabilitation of degraded drylands. This review aimed at collating the current state-of-knowledge about rehabilitation of degraded drylands. It was found that the prospect of restoring degraded drylands is technically promising using a suite of passive (e.g. area exclosure, assisted natural regeneration, rotational grazing) and active (e.g. mixed-species planting, framework species, maximum diversity, and use of nurse tree) rehabilitation measures. Advances in soil reclamation using biological, chemical and physical measures have been made. Despite technical advances, the scale of rehabilitation intervention is small and lacks holistic approach. Development of process-based models that forecast outcomes of the various rehabilitation activities will be useful tools for researchers and practitioners. The concept of forest landscape restoration approach, which operates at landscape-level, could also be adopted as the overarching framework for rehabilitation of degraded dryland ecosystems. The review identified a data gap in cost-benefit analysis of rehabilitation interventions. However, the cost of rehabilitation and sustainable management of drylands is opined to be lower than the losses that accrue from inaction, depending on the degree of degradation. Thus, local communities’ participation, incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge, clear division of tasks and benefits, strengthening local institutions are crucial not only for cost-sharing, but also for the long-term success of rehabilitation activities.

• Yirdaw, Viikki Tropical Resources Institute (VITRI), Department of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland ORCID ID: – E-mail: eshetu.yirdaw@helsinki.fi
• Tigabu, Sveriges Lantbruks Universitet (SLU), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, P.O. Box 49, SE-230 53, Alnarp, Sweden ORCID ID: – E-mail: Mulualem.Tigabu@slu.se
• Monge, Viikki Tropical Resources Institute (VITRI), Department of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland ORCID ID: – E-mail: adrian.mongemonge@helsinki.fi

Models attempting to predict treeline shifts in changing climates must include the relevant ecological processes in sufficient detail. A previous correlative model study has pointed to nutrients, competition, and temperature as the most important factors shaping the treelines of Pinus sylvestris L., Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. and Betula pubescens Ehrh. in Finnish Lapland. Here, we applied a widely used process-based dynamic vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS) to (i) test its capability to simulate observed spatial and temporal patterns of the main tree species in Finnish Lapland, and (ii) to explore the model representation of important processes in order to guide further model development. A European parameterization of LPJ-GUESS overestimated especially P. abies biomass and the species’ northern range limit. We identified implemented processes to adjust (competition, disturbance) and crucial processes in boreal forests to include (nutrient limitation, forest management) which account for the model’s failure to (edaphically) restrict P. abies in Finnish Lapland and the resulting species imbalance. Key competitive mechanisms are shade and drought tolerance, nutrient limitation, fire resistance, and susceptibility to disturbances (storm, herbivory) which we discussed with respect to boreal ecology and promising model developments to provide a starting point for future model development.

• Schibalski, Institute of Geoecology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Langer Kamp 19c, D-38106 Braunschweig, Germany ORCID ID: – E-mail: a.schibalski@tu-braunschweig.de
• Lehtonen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Management and Production of Renewable Resources, P.O. Box 2, FI-00791 Helsinki, Finland ORCID ID: – E-mail: aleksi.lehtonen@luke.fi
• Hickler, Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F), Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Department of Physical Geography, Goethe University, Altenhöferallee 1, D-60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany ORCID ID: – E-mail: thomas.hickler@senckenberg.de
• Schröder, Institute of Geoecology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Langer Kamp 19c, D-38106 Braunschweig, Germany; Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research BBIB, Altensteinstr. 6, D-14195 Berlin, Germany ORCID ID: – E-mail: boris.schroeder@tu-bs.de

• Szmyt, Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry, Poznań University of Life Sciences, ul. Wojska Polskiego 69, 60-625 Poznań, Poland ORCID ID: – E-mail: jszmyt@up.poznan.pl