Macroecological Research in Boreal Forest Reveals the Effects of Moose on Economically and Ecologically Important Tree Species

УДК

630*451

DOI:

10.17238/issn0536-1036.2018.4.9

Аннотация

How to manage the impact of a large moose population on the economically important Scots pine, and on ecologically important mature aspen, rowan and willow trees as habitat for lichen, moss, insect and bird species, are hot topics in Fennoscandia for forest and wildlife managers. To understand if the study design affects conclusions about the impact of moose browsing damage on young trees of economic and ecological importance we used three macroecological approaches: (1) a comparison of Swedish forest landscapes managed for intensive coniferous wood production, (2) a natural experiment approach that compared forests with different abundance of moose in Sweden, and (3) a comparison of browsing damage across six countries in northern Europe from Norway in the west to Russia in the east. The results show that Sweden had high moose densities across all landscapes studied, high overall rates of browsing damage, and therefore a weak relationship between moose density and browsing damages. A comparison between managed forest landscapes and urban forest areas, which are less accessible to moose, showed a clear effect of moose density on tree damage of both economically and ecologically important tree species. Finally, across 10 landscapes in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Latvia, Belarus and Russia we found that moose had a strong effect on damage to both groups of tree species. Research design affects the conclusions about the role of moose density for browsing damage on economically and ecologically valuable tree species. Macroecological studies in landscapes, representing different contexts on the European continent’s West and East, form a valuable approach to produce new knowledge. We discuss the need for integration of the management of moose and their predators (including man) as well as forest management and biodiversity conservation planning.

Сведения об авторах

Per Angelstam^{1, 2}, PhD, Professor
Simen Pedersen² , Associate Professor
Michael Manton³, Research Officer
¹Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 43, SE-739 21, Skinnskatteberg, Sweden; e-mail: per.angelstam@slu.se
²Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Campus Evenstad, N-2480, Koppang, Norway; e-mail: simen.pedersen@inn.no
³Institute of Forest Biology and Silviculture, Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Studentu, 13, Akademija, Kauno, LT-53362, Lithuania; e-mail: michael.manton@asu.lt

Ключевые слова

boreal forest, moose, biodiversity conservation, forest landscape management, green infrastructure, landscape restoration, macroecology, spatial planning trophic interactions

Для цитирования

Angelstam P., Pedersen S., Manton M. Macroecological Research in Boreal Forest Reveals the Effects of Moose on Economically and Ecologically Important Tree Species. Lesnoy zhurnal [Forestry journal], 2018, no. 4, pp. 9–18. DOI: 10.17238/issn0536-1036.2018.4.9

Литература

1. Abaturov B.D., Smirnov K.A. Effects of Moose Population Density on Development of Forest Stands in Central European Russia. Alces, 2002, vol. 38, pp. 1‒5.
2. Angelstam P., Andersson K., Axelsson R., Elbakidze M., Jonsson B.G., Roberge J.-M. Protecting Forest Areas for Biodiversity in Sweden 1991‒2010: the Policy Implementation Process and Outcomes on the Ground. Silva Fennica, 2011, vol. 45(5), pp. 1111–1133.
3. Angelstam P., Elbakidze M. Forest Landscape Stewardship for Functional Green Infrastructures in Europe’s West and East: Diagnosing and Treating Social-Ecological Systems. The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship. Ed. by C. Bieling, T. Plieninger. Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 124–144.
4. Angelstam P., Manton M., Pedersen S., Elbakidze M. Disrupted Trophic Interactions Affect Recruitment of Boreal Deciduous and Coniferous Trees in Northern Europe. Ecological Applications, 2017, vol. 27(4), pp. 1108–1123.
5. Angelstam P., Naumov V., Elbakidze M., Manton M., Priednieks J., Rendenieks Z. Wood Production and Biodiversity Conservation are Rival Forestry Objectives in Europe’s Baltic Sea Region. Ecosphere, 2018, vol. 9(3), article e02119.
6. Angelstam P., Pedersen S., Manton M., Garrido P., Naumov V., Elbakidze M. Green Infrastructure Maintenance is More than Land Cover: Large Herbivores Limit Recruitment of Key-Stone Tree Species in Sweden. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2017, vol. 167, pp. 368–377.
7. Angelstam P., Wikberg P.E., Danilov P., Faber W.E., Nygrén K. Effects of Moose Density on Timber Quality and Biodiversity Restoration in Sweden, Finland and Russian Karelia. Alces, 2000, vol. 36, pp. 133–145.
8. Bergeron D.H., Pekins P.J., Jones H.F., Leak W.B. Moose Browsing and Forest Regeneration: a Case Study in Northern New Hampshire. Alces, 2011, vol. 47, pp. 39‒51.
9. Brown J.H. Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, 1995. 284 p.
10. Elbakidze M., Angelstam P., Dawson L., Shushkova A., Naumov V., Rendenieks Z., Liepa L., Trasūne L., Ustsin U., Yurhenson N., Uhlianets S., Manton M., Irbe A., Yermokhin M., Grebenzshikova A., Zhivotov A., Nestsiarenka M. Towards Functional Green Infrastructure in the Baltic Sea Region: Knowledge Production and Learning Across Borders. Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscapes: Broadscale Considerations. Ed. by A. Perera, U. Peterson, G. Pastur, L. Iverson. Springer, 2018, pp. 57‒87.
11. Elbakidze M., Angelstam P., Sandström C., Axelsson R. Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Russian and Swedish Model Forest Initiatives: Adaptive Governance Toward Sustainable Forest Management? Ecology and Society, 2010, vol. 15, iss. 2, p. 14.
12. Elbakidze M., Dawson L., Andersson K., Axelsson R., Angelstam P., Stjernquist I., Teitelbaum S., Schlyter P., Thellbro C. Is Spatial Planning a Collaborative Learning Process? A Case Study from a Rural-Urban Gradient in Sweden. Land Use Policy, 2015, vol. 48, pp. 270‒285.
13. Elbakidze M., Hahn T., Mauerhofer V., Angelstam P., Axelsson R. Legal Framework for Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites for Sustainable Development: a Comparative Analysis of Ukraine and Sweden. AMBIO, 2013, vol. 42, iss. 2, pp. 174‒187.
14. Lindqvist S., Sandström C., Bjärstig T., Kvastegård E. The Changing Role of Hunting in Sweden ‒ from Subsistence to Ecosystem Stewardship? Alces, 2014, vol. 50, pp. 53‒66.
15. Naumov V., Manton M., Elbakidze M., Rendenieks Z., Priedniek J., Uhlianets S., Yamelynets T., Zhivotov A., Angelstam P. How to Reconcile Wood Production and Biodiversity Conservation? The Pan-European Boreal Forest History Gradient as an “Experiment”. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018, vol. 218, pp. 1‒13.
16. Nordberg M., Angelstam P., Elbakidze M., Axelsson R. From Logging Frontier towards Sustainable Forest Management: Experiences from Boreal Regions of North-West Russia and North Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2013, vol. 28, iss. 8, pp. 797‒810.
17. Ripple W.J., Beschta R.L. Hardwood Tree Decline Following Large Carnivore Loss on the Great Plains, USA. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2007, vol. 5, iss. 5, pp. 241–246.
18. Ripple W.J., Beschta R.L. Large Predators Limit Herbivore Densities in Northern Forest Ecosystems. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 2012, vol. 58, iss. 4, pp. 733‒742.
19. Ripple W.J., Estes J.A., Beschta R.L., Wilmers C.C., Ritchie E.G., Hebblewhite M., Berger J., Elmhagen B., Letnic M., Nelson M.P., Schmitz O.J., Smith D.W., Wallach A.D., Wirsing A.J. Status and Ecological Effects of the World's Largest Carnivores. Science, 2014, vol. 343, iss. 6167, pp. 151‒162. doi: 10.1126/science.1241484
20. Triviño M., Juutinen A., Mazziotta A., Miettinen K., Podkopaev D., Reunanen P., Mönkkönen M. Managing a Boreal Forest Landscape for Providing Timber, Storing and Sequestering Carbon. Ecosystem Services, 2015, vol. 14, pp. 179‒189.

Received on April 24, 2018

Ссылка на английскую версию:

Macroecological Research in Boreal Forest Reveals the Effects of Moose on Economically and Ecologically Important Tree Species

УДК 630*451
DOI: 10.17238/issn0536-1036.2018.4.9

МАКРОЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ В БОРЕАЛЬНОМ ЛЕСУ: ВЫЯВЛЕНИЕ ВЛИЯНИЯ ПОПУЛЯЦИИ ЛОСЕЙ НА ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИ И ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКИ ЗНАЧИМЫЕ ПОРОДЫ ДРЕВОСТОЕВ

П. Ангельстам^{1, 2}, д-р наук, проф.
С. Педерсен², доц.
М. Мантон³, науч. сотр.
¹Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 43, SE-739 21, Skinnskatteberg, Sweden; e-mail: per.angelstam@slu.se
²Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Campus Evenstad, N-2480, Koppang, Norway; e-mail: simen.pedersen@inn.no
³Institute of Forest Biology and Silviculture, Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Studentu, 13, Akademija, Kauno, LT-53362, Lithuania; e-mail: michael.manton@asu.lt

Управление воздействием большой популяции лосей на экономически важные древостои сосны обыкновенной и экологически значимые спелые насаждения осины, рябины и ивы – среду обитания лишайников, мхов и птиц – является актуальной проблемой для работников лесного хозяйства и охраны живой природы в исторической области Фенноскандия. План исследования, позволяющего сделать выводы о влиянии ущерба от обгладывания лосями подроста на древостои, имеющие экономическую и экологическую ценность, основан на трех макроэкологических подходах: (1) – сравнение шведских лесных ландшафтов, используемых для интенсивного воспроизводства хвойной древесины; (2) – эксперимент в естественных условиях по сравнению участков лесов Швеции с разной численностью лосей; (3) – сопоставление ущерба от обгладывания деревьев на территории шести стран Северной Европы (от Норвегии на западе до России на востоке). Результаты исследования в Швеции выявили высокую плотность популяций лосей на всех изученных территориях при повсеместном высоком уровне ущерба и, как следствие, слабую связь между этими факторами. Сравнение эксплуатационных лесов и пригородных лесных участков, где доступ лосей ограничен, показало явную зависимость числа поврежденных деревьев экономически и экологически значимых пород от численности лосей. В заключение установлено существенное влияние численности лосей на количество поврежденных деревьев обеих групп пород на всех 10 опытных площадях в Швеции, Норвегии, Финляндии, Латвии, Белоруссии и России. Исследование дает основания для выводов о влиянии плотности популяций лосей на степень ущерба от обгладывания деревьев экономически и экологически значимых пород. Макроэкологические исследования на разнообразных участках лесов запада и востока Европы позволяют сформировать содержательный подход к приобретению новых знаний. Авторы обсуждают необходимость интеграции управления численностью лосей и их природных противников (включая человека) с управлением лесами и планированием сохранения биоразнообразия.
  
Ключевые слова: бореальный лес, лось, сохранение биоразнообразия, управление лесным ландшафтом, зеленая инфраструктура, восстановление ландшафта, макроэкология, трофические взаимодействия в пространственном планировании.
  
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Abaturov B.D., Smirnov K.A. Effects of Moose Population Density on Development of Forest Stands in Central European Russia // Alces. 2002. Vol. 38. Pp. 1‒5.
2. Angelstam P., Andersson K., Axelsson R., Elbakidze M., Jonsson B.-G., Roberge J.-M.
Protecting Forest Areas for Biodiversity in Sweden 1991‒2010: Policy Implementation Process and Outcomes on the Ground // Silva Fennica. 2011. Vol. 45(5). Pp. 1111–1133.
3. Angelstam P., Elbakidze M. Forest Landscape Stewardship for Functional Green Infrastructures in Europe’s West and East: Diagnosing and Treating Social-Ecological Systems // The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship / Ed. by C. Bieling, T. Plieninger. Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. 124–144.
4. Angelstam P., Manton M., Pedersen S., Elbakidze M. Disrupted Trophic Interactions Affect Recruitment of Boreal Deciduous and Coniferous Trees in Northern Europe // Ecological Applications. 2017. Vol. 27(4). Pp. 1108–1123.
5. Angelstam P., Naumov V., Elbakidze M., Manton M., Priednieks J., Rendenieks Z.
Wood Production and Biodiversity Conservation are Rival Forestry Objectives in Europe’s Baltic Sea Region // Ecosphere. 2018. Vol. 9(3). Article e02119.
6. Angelstam P., Pedersen S., Manton M., Garrido P., Naumov V., Elbakidze M. Green Infrastructure Maintenance is More than Land Cover: Large Herbivores Limit Recruitment of Key-Stone Tree Species in Sweden // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2017. Vol. 167. Pp. 368–377.
7. Angelstam P., Wikberg P.E., Danilov P., Faber W.E., Nygrén K. Effects of Moose Density on Timber Quality and Biodiversity Restoration in Sweden, Finland and Russian Karelia // Alces. 2000. Vol. 36. Pp. 133–145.
8. Bergeron D.H., Pekins P.J., Jones H.F., Leak W.B. Moose Browsing and Forest Regeneration: a Case Study in Northern New Hampshire // Alces. 2011. Vol. 47. P. 39‒51.
9. Brown J.H. Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, 1995. 284 p.
10. Elbakidze M., Angelstam P., Dawson L., Shushkova A., Naumov V., Rendenieks Z., Liepa L., Trasūne L., Ustsin U., Yurhenson N., Uhlianets S., Manton M., Irbe A., Yermokhin M., Grebenzshikova A., Zhivotov A., Nestsiarenka M. Towards Functional Green Infrastructure in the Baltic Sea Region: Knowledge Production and Learning Across Borders // Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscapes: Broadscale Considerations / Ed. by A. Perera, U. Peterson, G. Pastur, L. Iverson. Springer, 2018. Pp. 57‒87.
11. Elbakidze M., Angelstam P., Sandström C., Axelsson R. Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Russian and Swedish Model Forest Initiatives: Adaptive Governance Towards Sustainable Forest Management? // Ecology and Society. 2010. Vol. 15(2). P. 14.
12. Elbakidze M., Dawson L., Andersson K., Axelsson R., Angelstam P., Stjernquist I., Teitelbaum S., Schlyter P., Thellbro C. Is Spatial Planning a Collaborative Learning Process? A Case Study from a Rural-Urban Gradient in Sweden // Land Use Policy. 2015. Vol. 48. Pp. 270‒285.
13. Elbakidze M., Hahn T., Mauerhofer V., Angelstam P., Axelsson R. Legal Framework for Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites for Sustainable Development: a Comparative Analysis of Ukraine and Sweden // AMBIO. 2013. Vol. 42(2). Pp. 174‒187.
14. Lindqvist S., Sandström C., Bjärstig T., Kvastegård E. The Changing Role of Hunting in Sweden ‒ from Subsistence to Ecosystem Stewardship? // Alces. 2014. Vol. 50. Pp. 53‒66.
15. Naumov V., Manton M., Elbakidze M., Rendenieks Z., Priedniek J., Uglyanets S., Yamelynets T., Zhivotov A., Angelstam P. How to Reconcile Wood Production and Biodiversity Conservation? The Pan-European Boreal Forest History Gradient as an “Experiment” // Journal of Environmental Management. 2018. Vol. 218. Pp. 1‒13.
16. Nordberg M., Angelstam P., Elbakidze M., Axelsson R. From Logging Frontier towards Sustainable Forest Management: Experiences from Boreal Regions of North-West Russia and North Sweden // Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 2013. Vol. 28(8). Pp. 797‒810.
17. Ripple W.J., Beschta R. Hardwood Tree Decline Following Large Carnivore Loss on the Great Plains, USA // Front Ecol. Environ. 2007. Vol. 5(5). Pp. 241–246.
18. Ripple W.J., Beschta R. Large Predators Limit Herbivore Densities in Northern Forest Ecosystems // European Journal of Wildlife Research. 2012. Vol. 58(4). Pp. 733‒742.
19. Ripple W.J., Estes J.A., Beschta R.L., Wilmers C.C., Ritchie E.G., Hebblewhite M., Berger J., Elmhagen B., Letnic M., Nelson M.P., Schmitz O.J., Smith D.W., Wallach A.D., Wirsing A.J. Status and Ecological Effects of the World's Largest Carnivores // Science. 2014. Vol. 343(6167). Pp. 151‒162. doi: 10.1126/science.1241484
20. Triviño M., Juutinen A., Mazziotta A., Miettinen K., Podkopaev D., Reunanen P., Mönkkönen M. Managing a Boreal Forest Landscape for Providing Timber, Storing and Sequestering Carbon // Ecosystem Services. 2015. Vol. 14. Pp. 179‒189.

Поcтупила 24.04.18

---

Для цитирования: Ангельстам П., Педерсен С., Мантон М. Макроэкологические исследования в бореальном лесу: выявление влияния популяции лосей на экономически и экологически значимые породы древостоев // Лесн. журн. 2018. № 4. С. 9–18. (Изв. высш. учеб. заведений). DOI: 10.17238/issn0536-1036.2018.4.9