Reforestation challenges in Scandinavia

Main Article Content

Anders Mattsson

Abstract

In the keynote, major reforestation challenges in Scandinavia will be highlighted. The following countries make up Scandinavia: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. For Iceland, with only a forest cover of 2%, a major reforestation challenge is the deforestation and overgrazing in combination with land degradation and extensive soil erosion. The challenges include the conflicts with livestock farmers. For centuries the commons were used for sheep and horse grazing. However, more and more of farmer grazing land have been fenced up, allowing the regeneration of birch and plantations of other species to increase. With a forest cover of 37% and 69% respectively, for decades a major reforestation challenge in Norway and Sweden has been the risk of seedling damages from the pine weevil. Unprotected seedlings can have a survival rate of less than 25% after being planted. Pine weevils feed on the bark of planted young seedlings at regeneration sites. If the seedling is girdled, it will not survive. In Sweden, and soon in Norway, pesticides have been forbidden. In the keynote, new methods and technology will be presented based on non-chemical protection. In Finland, with a forest cover of 75%, a major reforestation challenge is linked to the forest structure. The structure of Finnish forestry includes many private forests in combination with small regeneration sites. This implies a situation where logistics and methods for lifting and field storage provide a major challenge in order to preserve seedling quality until the planting date. Due to this situation, new logistic systems and technologies are being developed in Finland, including new seedling cultivation programs (including cultivation under Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs)) to match the access of fresh planting stock to different planting dates. In Denmark, with a forest cover of 13%, a major reforestation challenge is the possibility of future plantations based on a wide range of relevant species. For this to become a realistic option, new methods and technology have to be developed in reforestation activities that support this possibility. These methods and technology should make it possible to not be limited to certain species due to problems and restrictions during field establishment. This due to the prospect of establishing stable, healthy, and productive stands of various forest species that can be adapted to future climate change.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
MATTSSON, Anders. Reforestation challenges in Scandinavia. REFORESTA, [S.l.], n. 1, p. 67-85, june 2016. ISSN 2466-4367. Available at: <http://journal.reforestationchallenges.org/index.php/REFOR/article/view/6>. Date accessed: 21 apr. 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.1.05.5.
Section
Articles

References

Arnalds O, Barkarson B H (2003) Soil erosion and land use policy in Iceland in relation to sheep grazing and government subsidies. Environmental Science and Policy, volume 6, Issue 1: 105-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(02)00115-6
Bolte A, Ammer C, Löf M, Madsen P, Nabuurs G-J, Schall P, Spathelf P, Rock J (2009) Adaptive forest management in central Europe: Climate change impacts, strategies and integrative concepts. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 24: 473-482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827580903418224
Eidmann H H, Lindelöw Å (1997) Estimates and measurements of pine weevil feeding on conifer seedlings: their relationships and application. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27: 1068-1073. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x97-047
Eysteinsson T (2013) Forestry in a treeless land. Iceland Forest Service, Egilsstadir.
Giurca A, von Stedingk H (2014) FSC report Pesticides policy in Sweden, 16 pp. http://se.fsc.org/download-box.763.htm
Halldorsson G, Oddsdottir E S, Sigurdsson B D (2008) AFFORNORD Effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development. Tema Nord, The Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, pp 15-28.
Hanssen K H (2010) Pine weevil damage in the west and north part of Norway. Report from Skog og landskap: 13 pp (In Norwegian with English summary).
Hanssen K H (2011) Pine weevil damage in the east and south part of Norway. Report from Skog og landskap: 14 pp (In Norwegian with English summary).
Hernandez Velasco M, Mattssom A (2014) Silvicultural practices to facilitate forest restoration: a new seedling cultivation technology for regeneration establishment. in: Parrotta J A, Moser C F, Scherzer A J, Koerth N E, Lederle D R (eds). Sustaining Forests, Sustaining People: The role of Research. XXIV World Congress, 5-11 October 2014, Salt Lake City, USA. The Commonwealth Forestry Association, www.cfa-international.org 16 (5), pp 129. http://www.zephyr-project.eu/
Jacobs D F, Oliet J T, Aronson J, Bolte A, Bullock J M, Donoson P J, Landhausser S M, Madsen P, Peng S, Rey-Benayas J M, Weber J C (2015) Restoring forest: What constitutes success in the twenty-first century? New Forests 46: 601-614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11056-015-9513-5
Kohmann K (1999) Side-effects on formulations of permethrin and fenvalerate insecticides on frost resistance and field performance of Picea abies seedlings. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Volume 14, Issue 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827589950152674
Landis T D, Pinto J R, Dumroese R K (2013) Light-emitting diodes (LED): applications in forest and native plant nurseries. Forest Nursery Notes 33: 5-13.
Leppänen J, Nouro P (2006) Results and implications from a comparative study of Swedish and Finnish forest sectors. Scandinavian Forest Economics 41: 147-159.
Lilja A, Poteri M, Petäistö R-L, Rikala R, Kurkela T, Kasanen R (2010) Fungal diseases in forest nurseries in Finland. Silva Fennica 44(3): 525-545. http://dx.doi.org/10.14214/sf.147
Lindström A, Mattsson A (1994) Cultivation of containerized seedlings in Sweden, ISHS Acta Horticulturae 361. Nordic Forest Owners´ Association www.nordicforestry.org
Långström B, Day K R (2004) Damage, control and management of weevil pests, especially Hylobius abietis. in: Lieutier F, Day K R, Battisti A, Grégoire J-C and Evans H F (eds.) Bark and wood boring insects in living trees in Europe, a synthesis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. pp 415-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2241-8_19
Nilsson U, Luoranen J, Kolström T, Örlander G, Puttonen P (2010) Reforestation with planting in northern Europe. Scandinavian Journal of Forest research 25(4): 283-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2010.498384
Norlander G, Hellqvist C, Johansson K, Nordenhem H (2011) Regeneration of European boreal forests: Effectiveness of measures against seedling mortality caused by the pine weevil Hylobius abietis. Forest Ecology and Management 262: 2354-2363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.033
Petersson M, Örlander G (2003) Effectiveness of combinations of shelterwood, scarification and feeding barriers to reduce pine weevil damage. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 64-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x02-156
Samset I (1985) Winch and cable system. Forestry Sciences, Vol. 18, pp 540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3684-8
Stanturf J A, Palik B A, Williams M A, Dumroese R K, Madsen P (2014) Forest restoration paradigms. Journal of sustainable forestry 33: 161-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2014.884004
Torgersen H, Lisland T (2002) Excavator-based cable logging and processing system: A Norwegian case study. Journal of forest engineering, Vol. 13 nr 1.
Valkonen S, Valsta L (2001) Productivity and economics of mixed two-storied spruce and birch stands in southern Finland simulated with empirical models. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 140, Issues 2-3: 133-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00321-2
von Sydow F (1997) Abundance of pine weevils (Hylobius abietis) and damage to conifer seedlings in relation to silvicultural practices. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 12: 157-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827589709355397