Keeping mixtures of Norway spruce and birch in production forests: insights from survey data

References

• Agestam E, Karlsson M, Nilsson U. 2006. Mixed forests as a part of sustainable forestry in southern Sweden. J Sustain Forest. 21:101–117. doi:10.1300/J091v21n02_07.
   Google Scholar
• Bergquist J, Edlund S, Fries C, Gunnarsson S, Hazell P, Karlsson L, Lomander A, Näslund B, Rosell S, Stendahl J. 2016. Knowledge platform for forest production/Kunskapsplattform för skogsproduktion Tillståndet i skogen, problem och tänkbara insatser och åtgärder. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen. p. 180.
   Google Scholar
• Bergquist J, Fries C, Svensson L. 2017. Skogsstyrelsens återväxtuppföljning Resultat från 1999–2016. Swedish Forest Agency. In Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Brandel G. 1990. Volymfunktioner för enskilda träd: tall, gran och björk. [Volume functions for individual trees: Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), Norway spruce (Picea abies) and birch (Betula pendula & Betula pubescens)]. In: Dept of For. Yield Res. Garpenberg: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; p. 183.
   Google Scholar
• Bravo-Oviedo A, Pretzsch H, Ammer C, Andenmatten E, Barbati A, Barreiro S, Brang P, Bravo F, Coll L, Coronal P. 2014. European mixed forests: Definition and research perspectives. Forest Systems. 23:518–533. doi:10.5424/fs/2014233-06256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunner A, Forrester DI. 2020. Tree species mixture effects on stem growth vary with stand density – an analysis based on individual tree responses. For Ecol Manag. 473:118334. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannon JB, Tinkham WT, DeAngelis RK, Hill EM, Battaglia MA. 2019. Variability in mixed conifer spatial structure changes understory light environments. Forests. 10:1015. doi:10.3390/f10111015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drössler L. 2010. Tree species mixtures – a common feature of southern Swedish forests. Forestry. 83:433–441. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpq025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahlvik N, Agestam E, Ekö PM, Linden M. 2011. Development of single-storied mixtures of Norway spruce and birch in southern Sweden. Scand J Forest Res. 26:36–45. doi:10.1080/02827581.2011.564388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahlvik N, Agestam E, Nilsson U, Nystrom K. 2005. Simulating the influence of initial stand structure on the development of young mixtures of Norway spruce and birch. For Ecol Manag. 213:297–311. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahlvik N, Eko PM, Petersson N. 2015. Effects of precommercial thinning strategies on stand structure and growth in a mixed even-aged stand of Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch in southern Sweden. Silva Fenn. 49:17. English.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felton A, Lindbladh M, Brunet J, Fritz Ö. 2010. Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: an assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in Northern Europe. For Ecol Manag. 260:939–947. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felton A, Löfroth T, Angelstam P, Gustafsson L, Hjältén J, Felton AM, Simonsson P, Dahlberg A, Lindbladh M, Svensson J, et al. 2020. Keeping pace with forestry: multi-scale conservation in a changing production forest matrix. Ambio. doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01248-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felton A, Nilsson U, Sonesson J, Felton A, Roberge J-M, Ranius T, Ahlström M, Bergh J, Björkman C, Boberg J. 2016. Replacing monocultures with mixed-species stands: ecosystem service implications of two production forest alternatives in Sweden. Ambio. 45:124–139. doi:10.1007/s13280-015-0749-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester DI. 2019. Linking forest growth with stand structure: tree size inequality, tree growth or resource partitioning and the asymmetry of competition. For Ecol Manag. 447:139–157. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.05.053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fridman J, Holm S, Nilsson M, Nilsson P, Ringvall A, Ståhl G. 2014. Adapting National Forest Inventories to changing requirements – the case of the Swedish National Forest Inventory at the turn of the 20th century.
   Google Scholar
• FSC. 2010. Swedish FSC standard for forest cerification including SLIMF indicators. Forest Stewardship Council, p. 95.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson L, Perhans K. 2010. Biodiversity conservation in Swedish forests: ways forward for a 30-year-old multi-scaled approach. Ambio. 39:546–554. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0071-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedwall P-O, Holmström E, Lindbladh M, Felton A. 2019. Concealed by darkness: How stand density can override the biodiversity benefits of mixed forests. Ecosphere. 10:e02835. doi:10.1002/ecs2.2835.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmström E, Ekö PM, Hjelm K, Karlsson M, Nilsson U. 2016a. Natural regeneration on planted clearcuts – the easy way to mixed forest? Open Journal of Forestry. 6:281–294. doi:10.4236/ojf.2016.64023.
   Google Scholar
• Holmström E, Gålnander H, Petersson M. 2019. Within-site variation in seedling survival in Norway spruce plantations. Forests. 10. doi:10.3390/f10020181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmström E, Hjelm K, Johansson U, Karlsson M, Valkonen S, Nilsson U. 2015. Pre-commercial thinning, birch admixture and sprout management in planted Norway spruce stands in South Sweden. Scand J Forest Res. 1–10. doi:10.1080/02827581.2015.1055792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmström E, Hjelm K, Karlsson M, Nilsson U. 2016b. Scenario analysis of planting density and pre-commercial thinning: will the mixed forest have a chance? Eur J For Res. 1–11. doi:10.1007/s10342-016-0981-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmström E, Karlsson M, Nilsson U. 2017. Modeling birch seed supply and seedling establishment during forest regeneration. Ecol Modell. 352:31–39. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.02.027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huuskonen S, Domisch T, Finér L, Hantula J, Hynynen J, Matala J, Miina J, Neuvonen S, Nevalainen S, Niemistö P. 2021. What is the potential for replacing monocultures with mixed-species stands to enhance ecosystem services in boreal forests in Fennoscandia? For Ecol Manag. 479:118558. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hynynen J, Niemisto P, Vihera-Aarnio A, Brunner A, Hein S, Velling P. 2010. Silviculture of birch (Betula pendula Roth and Betula pubescens Ehrh) northern Europe. Forestry. 83:103–119. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpp035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keren S, Svoboda M, Janda P, Nagel TA. 2020. Modeling tree species count data in the understory and canopy layer of two mixed old-growth forests in the dinaric region. Forests. 11:531. doi:10.3390/f11010004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latif QS, Truex RL, Sparks RA, Pavlacky DC. 2020. Dry conifer forest restoration benefits colorado front range avian communities. Ecol Appl. doi:10.1002/eap.2142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindbladh M, Axelsson A-L, Hultberg T, Brunet J, Felton A. 2014. From broadleaves to spruce – the borealization of southern Sweden. Scand J Forest Res. 29:686–696. doi:10.1080/02827581.2014.960893.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundmark JE. 1974. Use of site properties for assessing site index in stands of Scots Pine and Norway Spruce. Rapporter och Uppsatser, Institutionen for Vaxtekologi och Marklara, pp. 298. In Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Maleki K, Kiviste A. 2016. Individual tree mortality of silver birch (Betula pendula Roth) in Estonia. iForest – Biogeosciences and Forestry. 9:643–651. doi:10.3832/ifor1672-008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manso R, Morneau F, Ningre F, Fortin M. 2015. Effect of climate and intra- and inter-specific competition on diameter increment in beech and oak stands. Forestry Int J Forest Res. 88:540–551. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpv020.
   Google Scholar
• Naslund M. 1947. [Empirical formulae and tables for determining the volume of standing trees: Scots Pine, Norway Spruce and Birch in southern Sweden and in the whole of the country]. Meddelanden fran Statens Skogsforskningsinstitut 36, pp. 81. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson P. 2012. Skogsdata: aktuella uppgifter om de svenska skogarna från Riksskogstaxeringen. 2012, Tema: Skogsodling, skogsvård och avverkning. Umeå: Institutionen för skoglig resurshushållning, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson P. 2013. Skogsdata: aktuella uppgifter om de svenska skogarna från Riksskogstaxeringen. 2013, Tema: Olika mått på skogens ålder och trädslagssammansättning Institutionen för skoglig resurshushållning. Umeå: Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson U, Luoranen J, Kolstrom T, Orlander G, Puttonen P. 2010. Reforestation with planting in Northern Europe. Scand J Forest Res. 25:283–294. doi:10.1080/02827581.2010.498384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• SMHI. 2015. Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute In.
   Google Scholar
• Söderberg U. 1986. Funktioner för skogliga produktionsprognoser: tillväxt och formhöjd för enskilda träd av inhemska trädslag i Sverige = Functions for forecasting of timber yields: increment and form height for individual trees of native species in Sweden. Uppsala: Functions for forecasting of timber yields. SLU.
   Google Scholar
• Vanhellemont M, Van Acker J, Verheyen K. 2016. Exploring life growth patterns in birch (Betula pendula). Scand J Forest Res. 31:561–567. doi:10.1080/02827581.2016.1141978.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar