Capturing the potential biodiversity effects of forestry …10.1007... · · 2017-06-19Capturing the potential biodiversity effects of forestry ... method of treating the soil to

! 1

Capturing the potential biodiversity effects of forestry practices in life

cycle assessment Vincent Rossi1*, Timo Lehesvirta2, Urs Schenker3, Lars Lundquist3, Oona Koski2, Sokhna Gueye3, Robert Taylor2,

Sebastien Humbert1 1Quantis, EPFL Science Park (PSE-D), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

2UPM Raflatac, FI-33100 Tampere, Finland

3Nestec Ltd., Avenue Nestlé 55, 1800 Vevey, Switzerland

*corresponding author ([email protected], +41-21-353-5916)

7 Supporting information

7.1 Forestry practices description The forestry practices are detailed below.

1) Retention trees in clear-cut areas: preserving a group of a few trees when felling a stand in order to enhance the natural

tree repopulation.

2) Controlled fire in small areas: re-creating the habitat found after a natural blaze, host of some specific species.

3) Identification and protection of valuable habitats (beside long-term retention areas): geolocalization and preservation

of specific hotspots in the forest (rocky outcrop or any particular site hosting a specific biodiversity).

4) Protection of long-term retention areas (including old-growth forest patches): preservation of side areas dedicated to

old trees.

5) Felling type mimicking natural patterns (landscape level variation): re-creating a clear-cut pattern that is not too

monotonous, closer to the way natural events affect the forest. It can also involve a reduction of standard regeneration

felling types in favour of more selective felling in certain areas.

6) Soil preparation (scarification) to promote seed germination: method of treating the soil to recreate the soil opening

that occurs when a stump is naturally lifted when a tree is felled by the wind.

7) Buffer zones from water bodies (lakes and streams): creation of preserved, unexploited strips about 10 to 30 m wide

around any water body.

8) Leaving deadwood on floor in harvested areas: leaving at least the naturally occurring deadwood (felled or standing)

when harvesting, a larger share can be intentionally left.

9) Stump lifting management: balance of stumps left in the ground, lifted but left on the ground, and removed, allowing

variations in flora developing between the harvest and the growth of the next tree generation.

10) Threatened species protection: practice defining the level at which felling threatened tree species in harvested areas is

avoided, in felling areas and among retention trees.

11) Mixed forest stands (several tree species): practice avoiding monoculture and defining the closeness of the planted

species mix to the natural species mix.

12) Water protection methods and erosion control: avoidance of activities affecting the soil and leading to possible

leaching into water bodies, and introduction of protections against such risk.

! 2

13) Use of native tree species: practice excluding the use of alien tree species and defining the closeness of the planted

species mix to the natural species mix.

14) Allowing variation of forest structure (stand level variation): practice allowing variation in age of the trees in a given

stand, like selective cutting or allowing young trees to grow beside older planted trees.

15) Transition zones between peatland and mineral soil: preservation or recreation of transition zones and their natural

species by drain removal and rewetting.

16) Active nature management operations in selected sites: operations consisting in actively modifying the site

(modification of the terrain and/or of the vegetation) restoring the original biotope or creating an artificial biotope with

conservation value.

Supp

ortin

g in

form

atio

n fo

r the

arti

cle

Cap

turi

ng th

e bi

odiv

ersi

ty e

ffect

s of

fore

stry

pra

ctic

es in

life

cyc

le a

sses

smen

t

!3

7.2

Cor

resp

onde

nce

betw

een

the

fore

stry

man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

and

the

biod

iver

sity

stat

e in

dica

tors

Tabl

e S1

: For

estry

pra

ctic

es (o

n th

e le

ft) c

an in

fluen

ce o

ne o

r man

y bi

odiv

ersi

ty st

ate

indi

cato

rs (a

t the

top)

in a

way

that

is d

escr

ibed

her

e.

Bio

dive

rsity

sta

te in

dica

tors

Fore

stry

man

agem

ent

prac

tices

Nat

ive

tree

spe

cies

com

posi

tion

A

dapt

atio

n of

the

plan

ted

trees

, and

the

biod

iver

sity

um

brel

la s

peci

es th

at th

ey

carr

y, to

the

loca

l are

a.

Div

ersi

ty b

alan

ce o

f the

tree

spe

cies

.

Dea

dwoo

d vo

lum

e an

d qu

ality

A

mou

nt o

f dea

dwoo

d st

andi

ng a

nd

on g

roun

d. Q

ualit

y cl

asse

s of

de

adw

ood.

Prot

ecte

d va

luab

le h

abita

ts

Pres

erva

tion

of b

iodi

vers

ity h

otsp

ots

and

biol

ogic

al c

orrid

ors.

Est

ablis

hmen

t of b

uffe

r zo

nes

to p

rote

ct w

ater

bod

ies.

Fore

st s

truc

ture

A

ge c

lass

es p

rese

nt a

t lan

dsca

pe le

vel,

prot

ectio

n of

old

-gro

wth

fore

st p

atch

es,

cont

inui

ty o

f the

fore

sted

are

a an

d qu

ality

of t

he s

tand

edg

es.

Ret

entio

n tre

es in

cle

ar-c

ut

area

s R

eten

tion

trees

are

ofte

n of

rare

spe

cies

, so

they

are

pro

tect

ed a

nd h

elpe

d in

thei

r re

prod

uctio

n. R

eten

tion

trees

con

serv

e th

e um

brel

la fo

r fut

ure

regr

owth

.

Ret

entio

n tre

es' f

ate

is to

die

na

tura

lly, c

reat

ing

larg

e de

adw

ood

(sta

ndin

g, th

en o

n flo

or).

Ret

entio

n tre

es c

an b

e le

ft ne

xt to

val

uabl

e ha

bita

ts a

nd th

us e

nhan

ce th

e pr

otec

tion

of

valu

able

hab

itats

.

Ret

entio

n tre

es a

dd a

var

iatio

n w

ithin

a

stan

d of

a g

iven

age

.

Con

trolle

d fir

e in

sm

all a

reas

-

Cre

ates

div

ersi

ty in

dea

dwoo

d qu

ality

: bur

ned

dead

woo

d ho

sts

diff

eren

t org

anis

ms.

Bur

ned

area

s an

d de

adw

ood

host

diff

eren

t or

gani

sms

from

oth

erw

ise

clea

red

area

s. -

Iden

tific

atio

n an

d pr

otec

tion

of v

alua

ble

habi

tats

(bes

ide

long

-term

rete

ntio

n ar

eas)

Pr

otec

tion

of ra

re tr

ees

and

biot

opes

. Pr

eser

vatio

n of

all

dead

woo

d in

pr

otec

ted

area

s.

Prot

ectio

n of

val

uabl

e ha

bita

ts.

Prot

ecte

d ar

eas

cont

ain

old-

grow

th a

s w

ell a

s yo

unge

r tre

es, i

n na

tura

l pr

opor

tions

, am

ong

area

s of

giv

en a

ge

clas

ses.

Prot

ectio

n of

long

-term

re

tent

ion

area

s (in

cl. o

ld-

grow

th fo

rest

pat

ches

) St

orag

e of

gen

etic

poo

l inc

ludi

ng ra

re tr

ees

Pres

erva

tion

of a

ll de

adw

ood

in

prot

ecte

d ar

eas.

-

Con

tribu

tes

to a

bal

ance

d st

ruct

ure

incl

udin

g ol

d tre

es

Felli

ng ty

pe m

imic

king

na

tura

l pat

tern

s (la

ndsc

ape

leve

l var

iatio

n)

- -

-

Hab

itat f

ragm

enta

tion

is n

ot p

ositi

ve, b

ut

effe

cts

can

be re

duce

d by

app

ro-p

riate

m

anag

emen

t with

sm

all c

uts:

it c

an

crea

te th

e va

riatio

ns a

t lan

dsca

pe le

vel

that

are

mor

e fa

vour

able

to b

iodi

vers

ity

than

larg

e cu

ts.

Soil

prep

arat

ion

(sca

rific

atio

n) to

pro

mot

e se

ed g

erm

inat

ion

Giv

es th

e op

portu

nity

to o

ther

spe

cies

to

emer

ge.

- -

-

Buf

fer z

ones

from

wat

er

bodi

es (l

akes

and

stre

ams)

Pr

otec

ted

area

s w

here

oth

er s

peci

es, i

n pa

rticu

lar s

peci

es a

dapt

ed to

sho

res,

can

de

velo

p.

Pres

erva

tion

of a

ll de

adw

ood

in

prot

ecte

d ar

eas.

Prot

ectio

n of

val

uabl

e ha

bita

ts n

ear w

ater

. Pr

otec

tion

of a

quat

ic b

ioto

pes

and

spec

ies

livin

g in

them

.

Prot

ecte

d ar

eas

cont

ain

old-

grow

th a

s w

ell a

s yo

unge

r tre

es, i

n na

tura

l pr

opor

tions

, am

ong

area

s of

giv

en a

ge

clas

ses.

Supp

ortin

g in

form

atio

n fo

r the

arti

cle

Cap

turi

ng th

e bi

odiv

ersi

ty e

ffect

s of

fore

stry

pra

ctic

es in

life

cyc

le a

sses

smen

t

!4

Leav

ing

dead

woo

d on

floo

r in

har

vest

ed a

reas

-

Incr

ease

s th

e vo

lum

e of

dea

dwoo

d an

d, w

ith ti

me,

allo

ws

the

emer

genc

e of

old

dea

dwoo

d cl

asse

s.

- -

Stum

p lif

ting

man

agem

ent

- D

ecre

ases

dea

dwoo

d vo

lum

e if

stum

ps a

re re

mov

ed

Cre

ates

a b

alan

ce b

etw

een

the

pres

ence

of o

ld

stum

ps (h

ost o

f a c

erta

in b

iodi

vers

ity) a

nd

thei

r abs

ence

in o

ther

are

as (a

llow

ing

anot

her

type

of f

lora

and

faun

a).

-

Thre

aten

ed s

peci

es

prot

ectio

n -

- Pr

otec

tion

of th

reat

ened

spe

cies

is in

som

e ca

ses

also

pro

tect

ion

of th

eir h

abita

ts o

utis

de a

va

luab

le h

abita

t. -

Mix

ed fo

rest

sta

nds

(sev

eral

tre

e sp

ecie

s)

Mor

e lo

cal s

peci

es c

an o

ccup

y a

mix

ed

fore

st s

tand

com

pare

d to

a m

onoc

ultu

ral

stan

ds.

- -

Fore

st s

truct

ure

is m

ore

natu

ral-l

ike

whe

n st

ands

are

gro

wn

as m

ixed

sta

nds

inst

ead

of m

onoc

ultu

re.

Wat

er p

rote

ctio

n m

etho

ds

and

eros

ion

cont

rol

- -

Prot

ectio

n of

val

uabl

e aq

uatic

hab

itats

by

avoi

ding

leac

hing

of m

iner

als

and

orga

nics

pa

rticl

es ru

n-of

f. -

Use

of n

ativ

e tre

e sp

ecie

s Tr

ees

dom

inat

e fo

rest

eco

syst

ems.

By

usin

g na

tive

tree

spec

ies,

the

loca

l bi

odiv

ersi

ty is

pro

mot

ed.

- -

-

Allo

win

g va

riatio

n of

fore

st

stru

ctur

e (s

tand

leve

l va

riatio

n)

- -

-

Fore

st s

truct

ure

is m

ore

natu

ral-l

ike

by

leav

ing

natu

rally

gro

win

g yo

unge

r tre

es

in a

n ex

istin

g st

and

or b

y ot

her m

easu

res

of th

is ty

pe.

Tran

sitio

n zo

nes

betw

een

peat

land

and

min

eral

soi

l Tr

ee s

peci

es c

ompo

sitio

n of

thes

e tra

nsiti

on z

ones

ofte

n di

ffer

from

"pu

re

peat

land

or p

ure

min

eral

soi

ls".

Man

y lo

w-

num

ber t

ree

spec

ies

are

pres

ent i

n th

ese

zone

s.

- Tr

ansi

tion

zone

s ca

n be

in s

ome

case

s co

nsid

ered

as

valu

able

hab

itats

. Tr

ansi

tion

zone

s br

ing

varia

tion

to fo

rest

st

ruct

ure.

Act

ive

natu

re m

anag

emen

t op

erat

ions

in s

elec

ted

site

s -

-

Inst

ead

of to

tal p

rote

ctio

n, a

ctiv

e na

ture

m

anag

emen

t is

som

etim

es n

eede

d to

pro

mot

e an

d m

aint

ain

natu

re v

alue

s of

val

uabl

e ha

bita

ts. F

or e

xam

ple,

sun

-exp

osed

esk

ers

mig

ht n

eed

to b

e op

ened

to m

aint

ain

valu

es.

(thes

e ac

tions

are

of a

sm

all s

cale

, but

wor

th

bein

g m

entio

ned)

.

-

Supporting information for the article Capturing the biodiversity effects of forestry practices in life cycle assessment

! 5

7.3 Biodiversity state indicator and partial biodiversity score calculation: details

7.3.1 Native tree species composition The effect of the worst case and the lower bound are described in Table S2. The proposed partial biodiversity score

function is exponentially decreasing, as illustrated by Figure S1.

Table S2: Worst case and the lowest score for the Native tree species composition state indicator.

What happens if the indicator is suddenly set to its lowest value?

The replacement of native trees by exotic species is an important problem to most of the umbrella species: they are all to a certain extent specifically dependent on their tree species, so the existing umbrellas cannot survive without their trees. Almost all species in the forest are part of one umbrella or are depending on the species of an umbrella

In numbers, what does that mean on biodiversity?

90% of the species could disappear if native trees are replaced by only one exotic species. If they are replaced by several exotic species, the impact is negligibly smaller.

And then? On a longer term, some local species can adapt and recolonize the new habitat. Other species (part of the exotic umbrella) can also colonize the area. From a remaining 10%, biodiversity might regain an additional 20%.

Final impact in worst case 0.7

Lowest state indicator score 0.3

Uncertainty High. Score range considered to be between 0.2 and 0.5.

Figure S1: Proposed partial biodiversity score function for the Native tree species composition state indicator

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Poor////////<111

Partial//b

iodiversity/score/////1111>//////Abundant

Best/practices///////<111 Hemeroby/level////////111>////////Worst/case

Min Native/tree/species/ composition Max


! 6

Table S3: Benchmarks to attribute a hemeroby level to the Native tree species composition state indicator, with the

respective calculated partial biodiversity score.

State indicator description based on forestry practices Hemeroby level

Partial biodiversity score

Native trees represent the full local diversity, carrying the full umbrella. All rarest native tree species are protected.

0 1

A few dominant species are favoured for production purpose. All rarest native tree species are protected.

0.1 0.99

A few dominant species are planted and favoured for production purpose. Some of the rarest native tree species are not protected.

0.3 0.95

Only the three most productive local species are planted. Some of the rarest native tree species are not protected.

0.5 0.88

Exotic species are planted instead of local species. A few native tree species are protected. 0.7 0.75

Monoculture of local species, or use of more than one species, exotic only. Rarest native tree species are not protected

0.9 0.5

Monoculture at stand level. Use of exotic species. Non-adapted umbrella does not strive / no living umbrella / problems of invasive species. Rarest native tree species are not protected.

1.0 0.3

7.3.2 Deadwood volume and quality

Table S4: Worst case and the lowest score for the Deadwood volume and quality state indicator.


Deadwood is the host and/or the feed of a large part of the living organisms in the forest: the living species of the forest that directly depend on the deadwood cannot survive in a forest where all deadwood is removed and will seek refuge in coars wood debris or disappear.


25% of the species cannot live without deadwood. Many other species are indirectly affected by the absence of the dependant species.

And then? The biodiversity reduction is also accompanied by a reduction of number of individuals of the species directly and indirectly depending on deadwood.





! 7

Figure S2: Proposed partial biodiversity score function for the Deadwood volume and quality state indicator

Table S5: Benchmarks to attribute a hemeroby level to the Deadwood volume and quality state indicator, with the respective calculated partial biodiversity score.



The entire amount of naturally occurring deadwood is left on floor (stem wood and dead branches). There is no harvest. All classes are present in balanced quantities.

0 1

About 20% of the stems are harvested and the naturally occurring deadwood is entirely left on floor; all classes are present in balanced quantities.

0.3 0.95

About 70% of the stems are harvested and most of naturally occurring deadwood is left on floor; all classes are present but imbalanced due to lack of young classes (I – III). Some stumps are removed.

0.7 0.87

About 90% of the stems are harvested and the naturally occurring deadwood is almost always removed; old classes (IV and V) are missing. Stumps are frequently removed.

0.9 0.82

No deadwood remains on floor (stems and branches and even stumps are removed since a long time).

1.0 0.75

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Poor////////<111

Partial//b



Min Deadwood/volume/and/quality Max


! 8

7.3.3 Protected valuable habitats

Table S6: Worst case and the lowest score for the Protected valuable habitats state indicator.


Biodiversity specialists estimate that the simple average forest, covering 98% of the total area, only shelters 67% of the total species, while the other 33% are only present in the remaining particular biotopes and habitats, even if these only cover 2% of the total area. These particular areas shelter more than 80% of the threatened species.

Removing protection to these valuable habitats put these species at risk of total extinction.


All the species in particular biotopes and habitats, 33% of the forest species, are condemned.

And then? Most of the valuable habitats will be destroyed and converted into a simple average forest within the time of a forestry cycle, destroying the condemned species.




Figure S3: Proposed partial biodiversity score function for the Protected valuable habitats state indicator

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Poor////////<111

Partial//b



Min Protected/valuable/habitats Max


! 9

Table S7: Benchmarks to attribute a hemeroby level to the Protected valuable habitats state indicator, with the respective calculated partial biodiversity score.



All the valuable habitats are identified and protected. All the native species depending on valuable habitats are under protection.

0 1

About 70% of the estimated valuable habitats are identified; all the native species depending on valuable habitats are under protection.

0.3 0.97

About half of the estimated valuable habitats are identified; 75% of the native species depending on valuable habitats are under protection.

0.7 0.86

About 25% of the estimated valuable habitats are identified; less than 50% of the native species depending on valuable habitats are under protection.

0.9 0.75

The valuable habitats are not identified, hence not protected. 1.0 0.67

7.3.4 Forest structure

Table S8: Worst case and the lowest score for the Forest structure state indicator.


In a reorganized structure, many species will have problems finding the diversity of food sources that they need, or will find themselves in a too-specialized area and a more aggressive competition for survival. A few others will appreciate an increased or improved food source.


80% of the species will face a more difficult environment, with 25% of them being put at risk for survival (hence 20% of disappearance). The other species will take advantage of the new situation, but without allowing the introduction of new species.

And then? By having a more confined spatial extension, genetic diversity reduction also reduces the health of some species.





! 10

Figure S4: Proposed partial biodiversity score function for the Forest structure state indicator

Table S9: Benchmarks to attribute a hemeroby level to the Forest structure state indicator, with the respective calculated

partial biodiversity score.



Structure mimics natural age variations, time is given to various species to colonize and live in each age class, including parts dedicated to old-growth trees (in addition to retention trees), maximizing the biodiversity. Typical stand sizes and size variations allow maximum species extension.

0 1

Structure is similar to the natural age variations, time is given to various species to colonize and live in each age class but limited to the forestry cycle of about 70 years when not included in parts dedicated to old-growth trees. Typical stand sizes and size variations allow good species extension.

0.3 0.94

Structure is not really similar to the natural age variations but is varied. The time given to various species to colonize and live in each age class is limited to a relatively short forestry cycle. Parts dedicated to old-growth trees are seldom. Typical stand sizes and size variations do not allow optimal species extension

0.6 0.88

Structure is not similar to the natural age variations; variations are poor. The time given to various species to colonize and live in each age class is limited to a short forestry cycle. Parts dedicated to old-growth trees are seldom. Typical stand sizes and size variations do not allow good species extension

0.8 0.84

Clear-cut areas are too large, the structure is poorly varied, no old-growth patch is preserved, rotation time is too short for full life establishment.

1.0 0.8

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Poor////////<111

Partial//b



Min Forest/structure/ Max


! 11

7.4 Available data for the case study

7.4.1 General information The model is based on ecoinvent 2.2 Scandinavian pulpwood production (Hischier R. 2007) and modified according to

foreground data provided by UPM.

Table S10: General data used for the Finnish semi-natural forest Data Before 1990 Current 2050

Yield of wood in m3 per ha.a

4,2 m3 / ha /a (Corporate owned forests in Finland, Finnish forest research institute, published 1996)

4,9 m3 / ha / a (all forests) 5,1 m3 / ha / a (productive forest land)

4,8 m3 / a 4,9 m3 / a (productive forest land)

Amount of irrigation water per ha and per year (ha.a)

N/A, purely natural irrigation N/A, purely natural irrigation N/A, purely natural

irrigation Type of irrigating system (justifying the difference and describing the fate of the unused water)

N/A, purely natural irrigation N/A, purely natural irrigation N/A, purely natural

irrigation

Miscellaneous area used for infrastructure or other contribution

Nursery: too small Forest road: included in total area in yield calculation Drying area: not relevant Warehouses: too small

Diesel use for all mechanical activities per ha.a

UPM Estimated to be quite the same as currently. Machines consumed more fuel in 1990, but due to shorter average transportation distance to mills total consumption of logging and transportation doesn’t differ much from current situation.

Diesel use for thinning, logging and long-distance transportation in total 3140 g/m3 (data from 2010). Harvesting from UPM owned forests app. 2,0 mill. m3 / a ! diesel use for logging and transportation in total 6,28 mill. kg ! diesel use for logging and transportation 9,09 kg / ha / a.

Not available UPM Assumption: Less consumption than current practice Quantis assumption: 20% decrease

Use of fertilizers per ha.a

Rough estimates based on national forest statistics data N: 1,0514 kg/ha/a P: 0,09846 kg/ha/a K: 0,11661 kg/ha/a

N: 0,88354 kg/ha/a P: 0,082742 kg/ha/a K: 0,097996 kg/ha/a Urea: in total 352 627 litres (2013) ! 0,51 litres / ha / a

UPM Assumption: to be remained at the same level as current practise

Amount of pesticides used per ha.a (with aspersion mode description)

Pesticides used more than today. Quantis assumption: 30% more than 2014.

Pesticides: Karate-Zeon (active substance lambda-cyhalotrin) is used in the nursery (11,33 litres / a) and seedling winter storages (0,37 litres / a). Chemical pesticide (lambda-cyhalotrin) used in the nursery and seedling winter storages to treat seedlings against Hylobius abietis. In forest environment, no chemical pesticides are used (in very exceptional cases only) Biodegradable and biological root-rot control (urea, harmaaorvakka)

Pesticides not used. Root-rot control: amounts of biodegradable substances to be increased.

Average amount of standing wood per ha (AGB calculation)

96 m3 / ha (Corporate owned forests in Southern Finland, Finnish forest research institute, published 1996)

121,7 m3 / ha / a (all forests) 126,9 m3 / ha (productive forest land)

131,2 m3 /ha 132,8 m3 / ha (productive forest land)


! 12

Average amount of deadwood left on floor per ha.a (SOC calculation)

Data from national forest inventory: 1996 – 2000 Southern Finland 2,8 m3 / ha.

As a main rule, all deadwood is left to the forest. 4,3 m3 / ha (FSC-area) 3,7 m3 / ha (non FSC-area) Mature stands have > 10 m3 of deadwood. More precise results concerning deadwood volumes are coming soon.

6,4 m3 / ha Compared to previous result (10 m3), the big difference in total deadwood volume is explained by adding decaying factor into deadwood accumulation.

Former land use (within 20 years) of an average plantation ha

No change No change No change

Area of peatland preserved per ha

25% of peatlands in Southern Finland unditched (National forest statistics, 1986-1994) Quantis: Default fraction of forestry established on peatland is 21.8%. Preserved peatland not within scope.

Today: drained still in use, some will be restored. Data available All low-productive and non-productive peatlands under protection All valuable peatland habitats under protection Quantis assumption: 20% of forestry on drained peatland. Additional 1.8% area of restored peatland taken into scope.

Not to be decreased, some peatlands to be restored, part of productive peatlands to be left outside of forestry use Quantis assumption: 15% of forestry on drained peatland. Additional 6.8% area of restored peatland taken into scope.

Stump removal, soil breaking and opening, ploughing ! SOC loss and nutrient leaching ! Surface opened per ha.a

This topic is left aside for at this level of the study (considered of minor importance in terms of SOC loss and nutrient leaching) or considered as a deadwood removal.

Nutrients leaching retained by buffer zones

Not available. No buffer zones in use / buffer zones narrower

Buffer zones around water courses vary from 5 m to 30 m based on certification system used and features of the water course and topography. No research data available

UPM Assumption for practice to be: Buffer zones around water courses vary from 10 m to 30 m

Amount of bioenergy substituting fossil sources per ha.a (including description)

Very limited, we can use zero for this.

Description: stumps, small-diameter stemwood, logging residues 2011-2013 average: in total 682 000 MWh / a ! 0,98 MWh/ha/a

UPM Assumption: same as current practise

!


! 13

7.4.2 Biodiversity evaluation data

Table S11: Biodiversity data used for the Finnish semi-natural forest

Data Before 1990 Current 2050

Native tree species composition Adaptation of the planted trees and the biodiversity umbrella species that they carry in the local area Diversity of the tree species

Only native tree species used in forest regeneration (some experiments with foreign tree species such as Pinus contorta) Data from national forest inventory 1986-1994. Forest industry company owned forests in Southern Finland: Pinus sylvestris 48,4 %, Picea abies 36,9 %, Betula pendula / pubescens 12 %, other broadleaves 2,7 %.

Only native tree species used in forest regenration. Tree species distribution by standing volume: Pinus sylvestris 65 %, Picea abies 24 %, Betula pendula / pubescens 10 %, other broadleaves 1 %. Minimum of 10 % broadleaves grown, when present, in conifer-dominated stands. Specified tree species and distinctive single trees valuable to biodiversity are left untouched (certification and legislative basis).

Tree species distribution by standing volume: Pinus sylvestris 61,4 %, Picea abies 31,9 %, Betula pendula / pubescens 6,5 %, other broadleaves 0,2 %. IMPORTANT: Simulation model, that results above are based on, has not any restrictions to minimum share of broadleaves even though current harvesting and silvicultural directions have and thus share of the broadleaves is estimated to increase. So these results are misleading. Work is ongoing, but it’s unsure if this broadleaves issue can be fixed in the simulation model.

Deadwood volume Amount of deadwood standing and on ground

Data from national forest inventory: 1996 – 2000 Southern Finland 2,8 m3 / ha.

4,3 m3 / ha (FSC-area) 3,7 m3 / ha (non FSC-area) As a main rule, all deadwood is left to the forest.

6,4 m3 / ha

Protected valuable habitats Preservation of hotspots, biological corridors, and forest area set aside for old-grown trees; buffer zones for water bodies

Not available. Practice: no forest certification-based protected habitats, legally based protection very limited compared to current practice. No ”obligatory” buffer zones around water courses. Assumed scenario: there is no statutory protected habitats. In practice there has been set-aside valuable habitats also 1990 and before. Quantis

Valuable habitats protected according to forest certification and legislation and by company’s own decision. In total, 33 776 biologically valuable habitats delineated covering 101 624 ha (estimated by Quantis to be 67% of total valuable habitats, based on discovery rate diminution). Buffer zones from 5 to 30 meters are left around waters

UPM Assumption: no decrease in number of habitats and total area of them

Forest structure Age classes present at landscape level

Data from national forest inventory 1986-1994, Southern Finland (all forest owners): 0-20 17,2 %, 21-40 20,3 %, 41-60 15,9 %, 61-80 17,3 %, 81-100 15,3 % 100- + 12,1 % Does not illustrate well UPM’s forests!

Age class distribution by area: 1 – 20 26,2 % 21 – 40 40,4 % 41 – 60 19,9 %, 61 – 80 7,4 %, 81 – 100 3,3 %, 100 – + 2,4 %

Age class distribution by area: 1 – 20 26,0 %, 21 – 40 20,1 %, 41 – 60 17,7 %, 61 – 80 20,4 %, 81 – 100 12,7 %, 100 – + 3,2 %.

!

Capturing the potential biodiversity effects of forestry …10.1007... · · 2017-06-19Capturing the potential biodiversity effects of forestry ... method of treating the soil to

Documents