Publications
NIBIOs employees contribute to several hundred scientific articles and research reports every year. You can browse or search in our collection which contains references and links to these publications as well as other research and dissemination activities. The collection is continously updated with new and historical material.
2023
Authors
Mireia Pecurul-Botines Laura Secco Laura Bouriaud Alex Giurca Maria Brockhaus Vilis Brukas Marjanke Hoogstra-Klein Agata Konczal Lenka Marcinekova Krzysztof Niedzialkowski Knut Øistad Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh Niina Pietarinen Jeanne-Lazya Roux Bernhard Wolfslehner Georg WinkelAbstract
What is at stake? The new Forest Strategy for 2030 for the European Union (EU) was adopted in July 2021, creating a new drive for forest policymaking on an EU level. Its main reference is the European Green Deal that puts forests in the light of a decarbonised society until 2050, and emphasises carbon sequestration, biodiversity protection, and forest restoration. The strategy aims to improve the quality and quantity of EU forests, enhance their multifunctionality and resilience, and address challenges linked to the increasing strain on forests through human activities and natural processes, including climate change. The Strategy’s priorities include: 1. supporting the socio-economic forest functions and boosting bioeconomy within its sustainability boundaries; 2. protecting, restoring and enlarging forests in the EU; 3. ensuring a strategic forest monitoring, reporting and data collection and 4. encouraging dialogue and stakeholder engagement. Compared to earlier versions, the new EU Forest Strategy has become more concrete and comprehensive in its vision and tries to tie in different objectives of the plethora of EU forest-related policies (such as e.g., bioeconomy enhancement, biodiversity protection, climate mitigation and adaptation etc.). The implementation of the new EU Forest Strategy and meeting its goals has therefore potentially larger implications for national authorities than earlier ones, through its stronger embedding in the overall political framework of the EU, although the Strategy as such is not legally binding. What are the study’s aims? This study assesses whether and to what extent national and regional policy developments meet the EU Forest Strategy goals. It analyses those policies in 15 countries in and outside the EU, as well as in three regions in Spain. The countries are: Austria (AT), Czech Republic (CZ), Finland (FI), Germany (DE), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Lithuania (LT), the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Poland (PL), Romania (RO), Slovakia (SK), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES), and Sweden (SE). Although not a member of the EU, Norway was included into this study as it is closely related through the EEA agreement and a bilateral agreement on cooperation with the EU to fulfil the 2030 climate target. What patterns emerge? There is a striking diversity of socio-economic, environmental and political settings for forests and forestry in Europe and even within countries, which affect the impact of the Forest Strategy. Differences related to both ecological site conditions (determining the type of forest), basic socioeconomic factors (such as ownership), societal demands and needs as well as private sector interests, and urban or rural forest settings determine past and current forest governance and management practices in European countries. At the same time, there are common issues for forest governance and management across Europe, relating to: • a considerable divide of forestry and conservation interests found in all studied countries; • the increasing impact of climate change and related forest disturbances (with regionally different consequences for forests and forestry); and • the embeddedness of European forest governance and markets within larger structures, for example related to (global) energy and resource trade and investment patterns. Other patterns relate to ‘silences’ in member states’ policies, e.g., missing references to forest-sector specific internal threats to biodiversity, as well as to the risk (and reality) of conversion of old growth forests, or missing action and strategies to collect data that is not (yet) part of ‘traditional’ monitoring and reporting activities and systems. ...........................
Authors
Kjersti Holt Hanssen Viktor J. Bruckman Michael Gundale Aigars Indriksons Morten Ingerslev Marju Kaivapalu Dagnija Lazdina Kristaps Makovskis Adam O’Toole Katri Ots Marjo Palviainen Jogeir N. Stokland Iveta Varnagiryte-KabasinskieneAbstract
This report summarizes the status of biochar in forestry in the Nordic-Baltic countries today. Biochar is charred material formed by pyrolysis of organic materials. In addition to improving soil physical and chemical properties and plant growth, biochar is a promising negative emission technology for storing carbon (C) in soils. The report gives an overview of current and potential uses, production methods and facilities, legislation, current and future research as well as biochar properties and effects. Forests are both a source of feedstock for biochar production and a potential beneficiary for biochar use. Production is still limited in the Nordic-Baltic countries, but commercial production is on the rise and several enterprises are in the planning or start-up phase. In this report different biochar production technologies are described. As the (modern) use of biochar for agricultural and especially forestry purposes is relatively new, in many countries there are no specific legislation regulating its use. Sometimes the use of biochar is regulated through more general laws and regulations on e.g. fertilizers or soil amendment. However, both inside and outside EU several documents and standards exist, listing recommended physical and chemical limit values for biochar. So far, most biochar studies have been conducted on agricultural soils, though research in the forestry sector is starting to emerge. The first biochar field experiments in boreal forests support that wood biochar promotes tree growth. Also, studies on the use of biochar as an additive to the growing medium in tree nurseries show promising results. Because biochar C content is high, it is recalcitrant to decomposition, and application rates to soil can be high, biochar is a promising tool to enhance the C sequestration in boreal forests. However, available biomass and production costs may be barriers for the climate change mitigation potential of biochar. When it comes to effects on biodiversity, few field-based studies have been carried out. Some studies from the Nordic region show that biochar addition may affect microbial soil communities and vegetation, at least on a short time scale. There is clearly a need for more research on the effects of biochar in forestry in the Nordic-Baltic region. Long-term effects of biochar on e.g., forest growth, biodiversity, soil carbon and climate change mitigation potential should be studied in existing and new field experiments.
Abstract
Purpose: Laser diffraction (LD) for determination of particle size distribution (PSD) of the fine earth fraction appeared in the 1990s, partly substituting the Sieving and Sedimentation Method (SSM). Whereas previous comparison between the two methods predominantly encompasses agricultural soils, less attention has been given to forest soils, including pre-treatment requirements related to their highly variable contents of carbon and Alox+ Feox. In this small collaborative learning study we compared (1) national SSM results with one type/protocol of LD analysis (Coulter), (2) LD measurements performed on three different LD instruments / laboratories, and (3) the replication error for LD Coulter analysis of predominantly sandy and loamy forest soils. Methods: We used forest soil samples from Denmark, Norway and Lithuania and their respective national SSM protocols / results. LD analyses were performed on Malvern Mastersizer 2000, Sympatec HELOS version 1999, and Coulter LS230, located at University of Copenhagen, Aarhus University and Helsinki University, respectively. The protocols differed between laboratories, including the use of external ultrasonication prior to LD analysis. Results: The clay and silt fractions content (<20 μm) from the LD analysis were not comparable with SSM results, with differences ranging from −0.5 to 22.3 percentage points (pp) for clay. Preliminary results from loamy samples with spodic material suggested inconsistent effects of external ultrasonication to disperse aggregates. The comparison between the three LD instruments showed a range in the clay and silt fractions content of 1.9–5.3 and 6.2–8.1 pp, respectively. Differences may be related to the instruments, protocols, and content of a given particle size fraction. The replication error of the Coulter LD protocol was found to be <3 pp in sandy soils, but up to 10 pp in loamy soils. Conclusion: Differences in the clay fraction results partly affected the classification of soil types. The fast replication of the LD analysis enables more quality control of results. The pedological evaluation of non-silicate constituents and optional pre-treatment steps (e.g., soil organic matter or sesquioxides) remains the same for LD and SSM. For comparison of results, detailed descriptions of the analytical protocol including pre-treatments are needed irrespective of instrument and theoretical approach.
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Gunnhild SøgaardAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Gunnhild SøgaardAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Gunnhild SøgaardAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
O. Janne Kjønaas Ryan Bright Gro Hylen Teresa Gómez de la Bárcena Jørn-Frode Nordbakken Tonje Ingeborg Økland Sunil Mundra Håvard Kauserud Mette Hansen Morten Simonsen Carlo Leandro AallAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Jyrki Jauhiainen Juha Heikkinen Nicholas Clarke Hongxing He Lise Dalsgaard Kari Minkkinen Paavo Ojanen Lars Vesterdal Jukka Alm Aldis Butlers Ingeborg Callesen Sabine Jordan Annalea Lohila Ülo Mander Hlynur Óskarsson Bjarni D. Sigurdsson Gunnhild Søgaard Kaido Soosaar Åsa Kasimir Brynhildur Bjarnadóttir Andis Lazdins Raija LaihoAbstract
We compiled published peer-reviewed CO2, CH4, and N2O data on managed drained organic forest soils in boreal and temperate zones to revisit the current Tier 1 default emission factors (EFs) provided in the IPCC (2014) Wetlands Supplement: to see whether their uncertainty may be reduced; to evaluate possibilities for breaking the broad categories used for the IPCC EFs into more site-type-specific ones; and to inspect the potential relevance of a number of environmental variables for predicting the annual soil greenhouse gas (GHG) balances, on which the EFs are based. Despite a considerable number of publications applicable for compiling EFs being added, only modest changes were found compared to the Tier 1 default EFs. However, the more specific site type categories generated in this study showed narrower confidence intervals compared to the default categories. Overall, the highest CO2 EFs were found for temperate afforested agricultural lands and boreal forestry-drained sites with very low tree stand productivity. The highest CH4 EFs in turn prevailed in boreal nutrient-poor forests with very low tree stand productivity and temperate forests irrespective of nutrient status, while the EFs for afforested sites were low or showed a sink function. The highest N2O EFs were found for afforested agricultural lands and forestry-drained nutrient-rich sites. The occasional wide confidence intervals could be mainly explained by single or a few highly deviating estimates rather than the broadness of the categories applied. Our EFs for the novel categories were further supported by the statistical models connecting the annual soil GHG balances to site-specific soil nutrient status indicators, tree stand characteristics, and temperature-associated weather and climate variables. The results of this synthesis have important implications for EF revisions and national emission reporting, e.g. by the use of different categories for afforested sites and forestry-drained sites, and more specific site productivity categories based on timber production potential.
Authors
Marta Vergarechea Rasmus Astrup Knut Øistad Carolin Fischer Clemens Blattert Markus Hartikainen Kyle Eyvindson Fulvio Di Fulvio Nicklas Forsell Daniel Burgas Astor Toraño-Caicoya Mikko Mönkkönen Clara Antón FernándezAbstract
No abstract has been registered