Relationships between forest ecosystem services – current state of knowledge

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

doi:10.2478/ffp-2024-0017

References

Akujärvi, A., Repo, A., Akujärvi, A.M., Liski, J. 2021. Bridging mapping and simulation modelling in the ecosystem service assessments of boreal forests: effects of bioenergy production on carbon dynamics. Forest Ecosystems, 8 (1), 4. DOI: 10.1186/s40663-021-00283-2.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Albrich, K., Rammer, W., Thom, D., Seidl, R. 2018. Trade-offs between temporal stability and level of forest ecosystem services provisioning under climate change. Ecological Application, 28, 1884–1896. DOI: 10.1002/eap.1785.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Anderson, B.J. et al. 2009. Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 888–896.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Azzopardi, E. et al. 2022. What are heritage values? Integrating natural and cultural heritage into environmental valuation. People Nature, 5 (2), 368–383. DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10386.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12, 1394–1404. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Biber, P. et al. 2015. How sensitive are ecosystem services in European forest landscapes to silvicultural treatment? Forests, 6, 1666–1695. DOI: 10.3390/f6051666.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Biber, P. et al. 2020. Forest biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and wood production: modeling synergies and trade-offs for ten forest landscapes across Europe. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 547696. DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2020.547696.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Blasi, S., Menta, C., Balducci, L., Conti, F.D., Petrini, E., Piovesan, G. 2013. Soil microarthropod communities from Mediterranean forest ecosystems in Central Italy under different disturbances. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185, 1637–1655. DOI: 10. 1007/s10661-012-2657-2.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Blattert, C., Lemm, R., Thürig, E., Stadelmann, G., Brändli, U.-B., Temperli, C. 2020. Long-term impacts of increased timber harvests on ecosystem services and biodiversity: A scenario study based on national forest inventory data. Ecosystem Services, 45, 101150. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101150.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boscolo, M., Vincent, J.R. 2003. Nonconvexities in the production of timber, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46, 251–268. DOI: 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00034-7.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bouget, C., Lassauce, A., Jonsell, M. 2012. Effects of fuelwood harvesting on biodiversity — a review focused on the situation in Europe. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42 (8), 1421–1432. DOI: 10.1139/x2012-078.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Casebeer, W.D. 2002. The biology of the masses. Human Nature Review, 2, 144–146.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Decaëns, T., Jiménez, J.J., Gioia, C., Measey, G.J., Lavelle, P. 2006. The values of soil animals for conservation biology. European Journal of Soil Biology, 42, 23–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.07.001.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dominati, E.J. 2013. Natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. In: Ecosystem Services in New Zealand – Conditions and Trends (ed. J.R. Dymond). Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand, 132–142. Available at https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/77039/1_11_Dominati.pdf (access on 5 January 2024).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Duncker, P.S. et al. 2012. How forest management affects ecosystem services, including timber production and economic return : synergies and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17, 50.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dymond, J.R., Ausseil, A.G.E., Ekanayake, J.C., Kirschbaum, M.U.F. 2012 Tradeoffs between soil, water, and carbon – a national scale analysis from New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management, 95 (1), 124–131.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Egli, S., Ayer, F., Peter, M., Eilmann, B., Rigling, A. 2010. Is forest mushroom productivity driven by tree growth? Results from a thinning experiment. Annals of Forest Science, 67 (5), 509. DOI: 10.1051/forest/2010011.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2022 on a new EU Forest Strategy for 2030 – Sustainable Forest Management in Europe (2022/2016(INI)). Available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0310_EN.html (access on 10.03.2024).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eyvindson, K., Repo, A., Mönkkönen, M. 2018. Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio-based economy. Forest Policy and Economics, 92, 119–127. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.04.009.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Felipe-Lucia, M.R. et al. 2018. Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services. Nature Communications, 9, 4839. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gamborg, C., Larsen, J.B. 2003. ‘Back to nature’—a sustainable future for forestry? Forest Ecology and Management, 179, 559–571. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00553-4.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gamfeldt, L. et al. 2013. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nature Communications, 4, 1340. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2328.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Díaz, S., Montes, C. 2011. Can ecosystem properties be fully translated into service values? An economic valuation of aquatic plant services. Ecological Applications, 21, 3083–3103. DOI: 10.1890/10-1744.1.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
García-Nieto, A.P., García-Llorente, M., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Martín-López, B. 2013. Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem Services, 4, 126–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.03.003.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granath, G., Kouki, J., Johnson, S., Heikkala, O., Rodríguez, A., Strengbom, J. 2018. Trade-offs in berry production and biodiversity under prescribed burning and retention regimes in boreal forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 1658–1667. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13098.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gundersen, P. et al. 2010. Environmental services provided from riparian forests in the Nordic countries. Ambio, 39, 555–566. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-010-0073-9.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gundersen, V., Frivold, L. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 7 (4), 241–258. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gutsch, M., Lasch-Born, P., Kollas, C., Suckow, F., Reyer, C.P.O. 2018. Balancing trade-offs between ecosystem services in Germany’s forests under climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 13, 045012. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aab4e5.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES V4.3) – Revised report prepared following consultation on CICES Version 4, EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. 2017. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Häyhä, T., Franzese, P.P., Paletto, A., Fath, B.D. 2015. Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests. Ecosystem Services, 14, 12–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.001.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Häyhä, T., Franzese, P.P., Ulgiati, S. 2011. Economic and environmental performance of electricity production in Finland: A multicriteria assessment framework. Ecological Modelling, 223, 81–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.10.013.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hedwall, P., Brunet, J., Nordin, A., Bergh, J. 2013. Changes in the abundance of keystone forest floor species in response to changes of forest structure. Journal of Vegetation Science, 24 (2), 296–306. DOI: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01457.x.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hengeveld, G.M., Didion, M., Clerkx, S., Elkin, C., Nabuurs, G.-J., Schelhaas, M.-J. 2015. The landscape-level effect of individual-owner adaptation to climate change in Dutch forests. Regional Environmental Change, 15, 1515–1529. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-014-0718-5.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hochmalová, M. et al. 2022. Demand for forest ecosystem services: a comparison study in selected areas in the Czech Republic and China. European Journal of Forest Research, 141, 867–886. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-022-01478-0.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Holland, R.A., Eigenbrod, F., Armsworth, P.R., Anderson, B.J., Thomas, C.D., Gaston, K.J. 2011. The influence of temporal variation on relationships between ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 3285–3294. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-011-0113-1.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Holt, A.R., Mears, M., Maltby, L., Warren, P. 2015. Understanding spatial patterns in the production 1024 of multiple urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 16, 33–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.08.007.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hölting, L. et al. 2020. Including stakeholders’ perspectives on ecosystem services in multifunctionality assessments. Ecosystems and People, 16, 354–368. DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2020.1833986.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hunter, M.L. 1999. Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huston, M.A., Marland, G. 2003. Carbon management and biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Management, 67, 77–86. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00190-1.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hynynen, J., Ahtikoski, A., Siitonen, J., Sievänen, R., Liski, J. 2005. Applying the MOTTI simulator to analyse the effects of alternative management schedules on timber and non-timber production. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 5–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.015.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jopke, C., Kreyling, J., Maes, J., Koellner, T. 2015. Interactions among ecosystem services across Europe: Bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns. Ecological Indicators, 49, 46–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.037.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jönsson, M., Snäll, T. 2020. Ecosystem service multifunctionality of low-productivity forests and implications for conservation and management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57 (4), 695–706. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13569.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krajter Ostoić, S., Marin, A.M., Kičić, M., Vuletić, D. 2020. Qualitative exploration of perception and use of cultural ecosystem services from tree-based urban green space in the city of Zagreb (Croatia). Forests, 11, 876. DOI: 10.3390/f11080876.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kraxner, F. et al. 2013. Global bioenergy scenarios – Future forest development, land-use implications, and trade-offs. Biomass and Bioenergy, 57, 86–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.003.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kurttila, M., Pukkala, T., Miina, J. 2018. Synergies and trade-offs in the production of NWFPs predicted in boreal forests. Forests, 9, 417. DOI: 10.3390/f9070417.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lautenbach, S. et al. 2017. Trade-offs between plant species richness and carbon storage in the context of afforestation – Examples from afforestation scenarios in the Mulde Basin, Germany. Ecological Indicators, 73, 139–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.09.035.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lee, H., Lautenbach, S. 2016. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 66, 340–351. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.004.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MacMillan, D.C., Phillip, S. 2008. Consumptive and non-consumptive values of wild mammals in Britain. Mammal Review, 38, 189–204. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2008.00124.x.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Maes, J. et al. 2020. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services: An EU ecosystem assessment. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. DOI: 10.2760/757183,JRC120383.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Martín-López, B. et al. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One, 7, e38970. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Miina, J., Hotanen, J., Salo, K. 2009. Modelling the abundance and temporal variation in the production of bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) in Finnish mineral soil forests. Silva Fennica, 43 (4), 577–593. DOI: 10.14214/sf.181.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Miina, J., Kurttila, M., Salo, K. 2013. Kauppasienisadot itäsuomalaisissa kuusikoissa – koealaverkosto ja tuloksia vuosilta 2010–2012 (in Finnish with English summary). Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute, 266.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Morán-Ordóñez, A. et al. 2020. Future trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services in Mediterranean forests under global change scenarios. Ecosystem Services, 45, 101174. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101174.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Motiejūnaitė, J. et al. 2019. Cultural ecosystem services provided by the biodiversity of forest soils: a European review. Geoderma, 343, 19–30.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nielsen, A., Olsen, S.B., Lundhede, T. 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80, 63–71.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nielsen, A., Heyman, E., Richnau, G. 2012. Liked, disliked and unseen forest attributes: Relation to modes of viewing and cognitive constructs. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 456–466.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Niemi, R.M. et al. 2014. Variability of soil enzyme activities and vegetation succession following boreal forest surface soil transfer to an artificial hill. Nature Conservation, 8, 1–25.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ndong, G.O., Therond, O., Cousin, I. 2020. Analysis of relationships between ecosystem services: A generic classification and review of the literature. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101120. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101120.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Orsi, F., Ciolli, M., Primmer, E., Varumo, L., Geneletti, D. 2020. Mapping hotspots and bundles of forest ecosystem services across the European Union. Land Use Policy, 99, 104840. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104840.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pedroli, B. et al. 2013. Is energy cropping in Europe compatible with biodiversity? – Opportunities and threats to biodiversity from land-based production of biomass for bioenergy purposes. Biomass and Bioenergy, 55, 73–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.09.054.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Penttilä, R., Lindgren, M., Miettinen, O., Rita, H., Hanski, I. 2006. Consequences of forest fragmentation for polyporous fungi at two spatial scales. OIKOS, 114 (2), 225–240. DOI: 10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14349.x.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Peters, D.M. et al. 2015. Energy wood from forests—stakeholder perceptions in five European countries. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 5, 17. DOI: 10.1186/s13705-015-0045-9.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Peura, M., Burgas, D., Eyvindson, K., Repo, A., Mönkkönen, M. 2018. Continuous cover forestry is a cost-efficient tool to increase multifunctionality of boreal production forests in Fennoscandia. Biological Conservation, 217, 104–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.10.018.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Piaggio, M., Siikamäki, J. 2021. The value of forest water purification ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Science of The Total Environment, 789, 147952. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147952.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pohjanmies, T., Triviño, M., Le Tortorec, E., Mazziotta, A., Snäll, T., Mönkkönen, M. 2017. Impacts of forestry on boreal forests: An ecosystem services perspective. Ambio, 46, 743–755. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-017-0919-5.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pullin, A., Stewart, G. 2009. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 20, 1647–1656.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Referowska-Chodak, E. 2015. Ludowe zwyczaje związane z grzybami w Polsce [Folk traditions traditions connected to mushrooms in Poland]. Studia i Materiały CEPL w Rogowie, 44, 200–217.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ring, I., Schröter-Schlaack, C. 2011. Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roces-Díaz, J.V. et al. 2018. The spatial level of analysis affects the patterns of forest ecosystem services supply and their relationships. Science of the Total Environment, 626, 1270–1283. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.150.1016.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sacchelli, S. et al. 2014. Matching socio-economic and environmental efficiency of wood-residues energy chain: a partial equilibrium model for a case study in Alpine area. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 431–442. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.059.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sacchelli, S., De Meo, I., Paletto, A. 2013. Bioenergy production and forest multifunctionality: A tradeoff analysis using multiscale GIS model in a case study in Italy. Applied Energy, 104, 10–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.11.038.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sacchelli, S. 2018. A decision support system for trade-off analysis and dynamic evaluation of forest ecosystem services. IForest, 11, 171–180. DOI: 10.3832/ifor2416-010.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sántha, E., Bentsen, N.S. 2020. Ecosystem service benefits and trade-offs—selecting tree species in Denmark for bioenergy production. Forests, 11 (3), 277. DOI: 10.3390/f11030277.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Scheidl, C. et al. 2020. Assessing the protective role of alpine forests against rockfall at regional scale. European Journal of Forest Research, 139, 969–980. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-020-01299-z.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schröter, M., Rusch, G.M., Barton, D.N., Blumentrath, S., Nordén, B. 2014. Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity. PLoS One, 9, e112557. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112557.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schwaiger, F., Poschenrieder, W., Biber, P., Pretzsch, H. 2019. Ecosystem service trade-offs for adaptive forest management. Ecosystem Services, 39, 100993. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100993.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schwenk, W.S., Donovan, T.M., Keeton, W.S., Nunery, J.S. 2012. Carbon storage, timber production, and biodiversity: comparing ecosystem services with multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecological Applications, 22, 1612–1627. DOI: 10.1890/11-0864.1.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sedmák, R. et al. 2020. Optimizing the tending of forest stands with interactive decision maps to balance the financial incomes and ecological risks according to owner demands: case study in Rakovník, the Czech Republic. Forests, 11, 730. DOI: 10.3390/f11070730.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Seidl, R., Rammer, W., Jäger, D., Currie, W.S., Lexer, M.J. 2007. Assessing trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria. Forest Ecology and Management, 248, 64–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.035.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Selkimäki, M., González-Olabarria, J.R., Trasobares, A., Pukkala, T. 2020. Trade-offs between economic profitability, erosion risk mitigation and biodiversity in the management of uneven-aged Abies alba Mill. stands. Annals of Forest Science, 77, 12. DOI: 10.1007/s13595-019-0914-z.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Seymour, R., Hunter, M. 1992. New Forestry in Eastern Spruce-Fir Forests: Principles and Applications to Maine. University of Maine, Orono.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Seymour, R.S., Hunter, M.L. 1999. Principles of ecological forestry. In: Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems (ed. M.L. Hunter). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 22–62.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Simons, N.K. et al. 2021. National Forest Inventories capture the multifunctionality of managed forests in Germany. Forest Ecosystems, 8, 5. DOI: 10.1186/s40663-021-00280-5.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stokely, T.D. et al. 2021. Experimental evaluation of herbicide use on biodiversity, ecosystem services and timber production trade-offs in forest plantations. Journal of Apllied Ecology, 59 (1), 52–66. DOI 10.1111/1365-2664.13936.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tahvainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ilhalainen, M., Vuorela, N., Kolehmainen, O. 2001. Forest management and public perceprions – visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53, 53–70.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Teben’kova, D.N. et al. 2020. Multifunctionality and biodiversity of forest ecosystems. Contemporary Problems of Ecology, 13, 709–719. DOI: 10.1134/S1995425520070136.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Temperton, V.M. et al. 2019. Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: how a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration. Restoration Ecology, 27, 705–719. DOI: 10.1111/rec.12989.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thom, D. et al. 2017. The impacts of climate change and disturbance on spatio-temporal trajectories of biodiversity in a temperate forest landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 28–38. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12644.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thrippleton, T. et al. 2023. Balancing disturbance risk and ecosystem service provisioning in Swiss mountain forests: an increasing challenge under climate change. Regional Environmental Change, 23, 29. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-022-02015-w.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Triviño, M. et al. 2015. Managing a boreal forest landscape for providing timber, storing and sequestering carbon. Ecosystem Services, 14, 179–189. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.003.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Triviño, M. et al. 2017. Optimizing management to enhance multifunctionality in a boreal forest landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 61–70. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12790.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Turner, K.G., Odgaard, M.V., Bøcher, P.K., Dalgaard, T., Svenning, J.C. 2014. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: Trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 89–104. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.007.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Turtiainen, M., Miina, J., Salo, K., Hotanen, J. 2013. Empirical prediction models for the coverage and yields of cowberry in Finland. Silva Fennica, 47 (3), 1005. DOI: 10.14214/sf.1005.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tyrväinen, L. 2001. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 62, 75–92.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ulicsni, V., Svanberg, I., Molnár, Z. 2016. Folk knowledge of invertebrates in Central Europe – folk taxonomy, nomenclature, medicinal and other uses, folklore, and nature conservation. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 12, 47. DOI: 10.1186/s13002-016-0118-7.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van der Plas, F. et al. 2018. Continental mapping of forest ecosystem functions reveals a high but unrealised potential for forest multifunctionality. Ecology Letters, 21 (1), 31–42. DOI: 10.1111/ele.12868.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verkerk, P.J., Lindner, M., Zanchi, G., Zudin, S. 2011. Assessing impacts of intensified biomass removal on deadwood in European forests. Ecological Indicators, 11, 27–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.04.004.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verkerk, P.J., Zanchi, G., Lindner, M. 2014. Tradeoffs between forest protection and wood supply in Europe. Environmental Management, 53 (6), 1085–1094. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-014-0265-3.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zanchi, G., Brady, M.V. 2019. Evaluating the contribution of forest ecosystem services to societal welfare through linking dynamic ecosystem modelling with economic valuation. Ecosystem Services, 39, 101011. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101011.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Relationships between forest ecosystem services – current state of knowledge

References

Paradigm

My account