Relationships between forest ecosystem services – current state of knowledge

Mariusz Ciesielski; Piotr Gołos; Emilia Wysocka-Fijorek; Adam Kaliszewski

doi:10.2478/ffp-2024-0017

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Relationships between forest ecosystem services – current state of knowledge

Folia Forestalia Polonica

Volume 66 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)

By: Mariusz Ciesielski , Piotr Gołos , Emilia Wysocka-Fijorek and Adam Kaliszewski

Open Access

|Sep 2024

Figures & Tables

Scheme for a systematic literature review

Classification of the ecosystem services mentioned in the articles into the three groups of provisioning, regulating and cultural services

Table 1.

Summary of research between the groups of ecosystem services identified in the publications analysed

Ecosystem services	Cultural	Provisioning	Regulating
Cultural	1	2	13
Provisioning	12	27	72
Regulating	7	24	45
Sum	20	53	130

Table 2.

Summary of the relationships between the groups of ecosystem services identified in the publications analysed

Ecosystem services	Cultural		Provisioning		Regulating
Ecosystem services	trade off	synergy	trade off	synergy	trade off	synergy
Cultural		1		1	1	13
Provisioning	11	10	22	22	79	42
Regulating	1	6	27	2	35	18
Sum	12	17	49	25	114	73

Table 3.

Summary of the relationship between non-timber products and timber production in the publications analysed

ES „A:	ES „B”	Study area	Age of stand	Species composition	Time scale	Spatial scale	Relationship between ecosystem services		Source
ES „A:	ES „B”	Study area	Age of stand	Species composition	Time scale	Spatial scale	trade off	synergy	Source
Timber production	Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.	Finland	different	Pinus L., Picea A. Dietr.	2001–2012	whole country	x	x	Turtiainen et al. 2013
Biomass (Pinus L.)	Vaccinium myrtillus L.	Sweden	different	Picea A. Dietr., Pinus L., Betula L., Fagus sylvatica L.		400,000 km²		x	Gamfeldt et al. 2013
Amount of game meat (humting)	Vaccinium myrtillus L.							x
Biomass	Vaccinium myrtillus L.						x
Potential amount of game meat	biomass						x
Timber production	beekeeping	Spain	n/d	mediterranean shrubs and trees species andalmonds	n/d	1 km × 1 km	bundle		García-Nieto et al. 2013
Production of feed for wild ungulates	timber production	USA		Pinus L.			x		Stokely’ego et al. 2021
Biodiversity and non-wood production	timber production	Finland	n/d	different stands	n/d	48,770 ha			Eyvindsona et al. 2018
Timber production	Vaccinium myrtillus L.	Finland	n/d	different stands	n/d	48,770 ha	x
Timber production	milk production	Germany/Netherlands				241/219 km²		x	Hölting et al. 2020
Timber production	Resin						x
Timber production	Vaccinium myrtillus L., Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.							x	Kurttila et al. 2018
Thinning	lichens, Vaccinium myrtillus L.	Sweden	n/d	Pinus L.	n/d	117 field plots		x	Strengbom 2017
Timber production	Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.	Finland				18 forest stands (app. 3 ha each)		x	Granata et al. 2018
Timber production	Vaccinium myrtillus L.	Finland				18 forest stands (app. 3 ha each)	x		Granata et al. 2018

Table 4.

Summary of the relationship between biodiversity and timber production in the publications analysed

ES „A”	ES „B”	Study area	Age of stand	Species composition	Time scale	Spatial scale	Relationship between ecosystem services		Source
ES „A”	ES „B”	Study area	Age of stand	Species composition	Time scale	Spatial scale	trade off	synergy	Source
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Timber production	biodiversity	Czech Republic (simulation)	30 years	Quercus L., beech	60 years	332 ha	x		Sedmák et al. 2020
		Europe (Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Finland)	different	different	n/d	NFI plots – extrapolating	x		van der Plas et al. 2017
		Central Europe	0	beech, Picea A. Dietr.	120 years	stands	x		Duncker et al. 2012
		USA	different	Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia	100 years	533 randomly located site	x	x	Schwenk et al. 2012
		USA	different	Tsuga canadensis, Betula alleghaniensis	100 years	533 randomly located site	x	x	Schwenk et al. 2012
		Norway	n/d	coniferous and boreal deciduous forest	n/d	landscape level	x		Schroter et al., 2014
		Austria	n/d	Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris	100	private forests, 248.7 ha	x	x	Seidl et al. 2007
		Europe	n/d	n/d	2010–2030	n/d	x		Verkerk et al. 2014
		Europe (20 case studies located in Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden)	n/d	depends on country	30 years	600–1,000,000 ha	x	x	Biber et al. 2015
		Lithuania, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Slovakia, Italy, Portugal	n/d	different stands	2050 or 2100	15–3734 ha			Biber et al. 2020
		Sweden, Portugal	n/d					x	Biber et al. 2020
		Turkey	n/d				x		Biber et al. 2020
Timber production	biodiversity	Spain	n/d	Pinus nigra Arn. subsp. Salzman-nii, Pinus sylvestris L.	2001–2100	ca. 40000 ha		x	Morán-Ordóñez et al. 2020
		Switzerland	n/d	Different stands	2013–2106	NFI plots	x		Blatertt et al. 2020
		Finland	n/d	Pinus L., Picea A. Dietr., Betula L.	50 years	68700 ha	x		Triviño et al. 2016
		Finland	n/d	different stands	n/d	48,770 ha	x		Eyvindson et al. 2018
		Sweden	n/d	Pinus L.	n/d	117 field plots	x		Strengbom 2017
		Switzerland	mature stand	Fagus sylvatica L., Picea A. Dietr.	2016–2101	Forest subcompartment	x		Mey et al. 2022
Biodiversity	timber production (expected)	USA		Pinus L.			x		Stokely’ego et al. 2021
Fuelwood production	biodiversity	Sweden	n/d	Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, Betula spp.	2106	NFI plots	x		Blatertt et al. 2020
		Finland, Slovenia	n/d	n/d	n/d	Survey	x		Peters et al. 2015
		Germany, Norway, Spain	n/d	n/d	n/d	Survey	x	x	Peters et al. 2015
Fuelwood production	dead wood	Sweden	different	Picea A. Dietr., Pinus L., Betula L., Fagus sylvatica L.		400 000 km²		x	Gamfeldt et al. 2013

Table 5.

Summary of the relationship between carbon storage and timber production in the publications analysed

ES „A”	ES „B”	Study area	Age of stand	Species composition	Time scale	Spatial scale	Relationship between ecosystem services		Source
ES „A”	ES „B”	Study area	Age of stand	Species composition	Time scale	Spatial scale	trade off	synergy	Source
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Carbon storage	fuelwood production	Finland	n/d	Picea A. Dietr.	2012–2100	1425 km²	x		Akujärvi et al. 2021.
Carbon storage	fuelwood production	Finland, Germany, Norway, Slovenia, Spain	n/d	n/d	n/d	survey	x	x	Peters et al. 2015
Carbon storage	timber production	Sweden	70	Picea A. Dietr.	2100	virtual forest stand	x		Zanchi, Brady 2019
		Sweden	n/d	Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, Betula spp.	2106	NFI plots	x		Blatertt et al. 2020
		Germany	n/d	Picea A. Dietr., Pine, Beech, Quercus L., Betula L., Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco	14 simulations of future climate (2011–2045) plus five simulations of historical climate (1971–2005)	10.37 million hectares	x		Gutsch et al. 2018
		Central Europe	n/d	Fagus sylvatica L., Picea A. Dietr.	120 years	Stands	x		Duncker et al. 2012
		USA	different	Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia, Tsuga canadensis, Betula alleghaniensis	100 years	533 randomly located site	x		Schwenk et al. 2012
		Austria	n/d	Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris	100	Private forests, 248.7 ha	x		Seidl et al. 2007
		Europe (exc. North Europe)	n/d	n/d	2010–2030	n/d	x		Verkerk et al. 2014
		Germany	n/d	Pinus L., Picea A. Dietr.	100 years	2 study areas: 78,000ha, 53,000 ha		x	Schwaiger et al.. 2019.
		Lithuania, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Slovakia, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Portugal, Turkey	n/d	different stands	2050 or 2100	15–3734 ha		x	Biber et al. 2020
		Spain	n/d	Pinus L.	2016–2100 climate model	40,000		x	Morán-OrdóĖez et al. 2020
Carbon storage	timber production	Sweden	n/d	Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, Betula spp.	n/d	NFI plots	x		Blatertt et al. 2020
		Finland	n/d	different stands	n/d	48770 ha	x		Eyvindson et al. 2018
		Switzerland	Pole or Mature stands	Fagus sylvatica L., Picea A. Dietr.	2016–2101	forest subcompartment		x	Mey et al. 2022
		Italy	50	conifer stand	210 years	subcompartment	x		Sacchelli 2018
Fuelwood production	carbon sequestration in soil	Sweden	different	Picea A. Dietr., Pinus L., Betula L., Fagus sylvatica L.		400 000 km²		x	Gamfeldt et al. 2013
Carbon storage	timber production	USA		Pinus L.				x	Stokely’ego et al. 2021

Table 6.

Summary of the relationship between regulating and cultural ecosystem services in the publications analysed

ES „A”	ES „B”	Study area	Age of stand	Species composition	Time scale	Spatial scale	Relationship between ecosystem services		Source
ES „A”	ES „B”	Study area	Age of stand	Species composition	Time scale	Spatial scale	trade off	synergy	Source
Spiritual and religious values	biodiversity	Europe	n/d	n/d	n/d	n/d		x	Motiejūnaitė et al. 2019
Socioeconomic functions	biodiversity	Europe (20 case studies located in Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakiaand Sweden)	n/d	depends on country	30 years	600–1,000,000 ha	weak (region-specific)	weak (region-specific)	Biber et al. 2015
Culturally interesting plants	temperature regulation, carbon storage, nitrification potential	Germany	53 forest type	dominating forest types in Central Europe	n/d	150 forest plots of 100 m × 100 m / NFI to predict		x	Simons et al. 2021
Recreation	carbon sequestration	Italy (mountain forests)	n/d	Picea abies, Larix decidua Mill, Pinus sylvestris L., Fagus sylvatica L.	n/d	n/d	x		Häyhä et al. 2015
Biodiversity	recreation	Europe (exc. North Europe)	n/d	n/d	2010–2030	n/d		x	Verkerk et al. 2014
Regulating ES	recreation	Europe (exc. North Europe)	n/d	n/d	2010–2030	n/d		x	Verkerk et al. 2014
Recreation/aestheti values	carbon storage/biodiversity	Denmark	n/d	n/d	n/d	n/d		x	Sántha, Bentsen, 2020

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ffp-2024-0017 | Journal eISSN: 2199-5907 | Journal ISSN: 0071-6677

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 228 - 248

Submitted on: May 27, 2024

Accepted on: Jul 8, 2024

Published on: Sep 12, 2024

Published by: Forest Research Institute

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

synergy,

carbon,

Related subjects:

© 2024 Mariusz Ciesielski, Piotr Gołos, Emilia Wysocka-Fijorek, Adam Kaliszewski, published by Forest Research Institute
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 66 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)

Relationships between forest ecosystem services – current state of knowledge

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Paradigm

My account