AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Forest Ecosystems Article
PDF (973 KB)
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Review | Open Access

Conceptual models of forest dynamics in environmental education and management: keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler

Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, Helsinki FIN-00014, Finland
Show Author Information

Abstract

Background

Conceptual models of forest dynamics are powerful cognitive tools,which are indispensable for communicating ecological ideas and knowledge,and in developing strategic approaches and setting targets for forest conservation,restoration and sustainable management. Forest development through time is conventionally described as a directional,or "linear",and predictable sequence of stages from "bare ground" to old forest representing the "climax-state". However,this simple view is incompatible with the current knowledge and understanding of intrinsic variability of forest dynamics.

 Hypothesis

Overly simple conceptual models of forest dynamics easily become transformed into biased mental models of how forests naturally develop and what kind of structures they display. To be able to communicate the essential features and diversity of forest dynamics,comprehensive conceptual models are needed. For this end, Kuuluvainen (2009) suggested a relatively simple conceptual model of forest dynamics,which separates three major modes of forest dynamics,and incorporates state changes and transitions between the forest dynamics modes depending on changes in disturbance regime.

Conclusions

Conceptual models of forest dynamics should be comprehensive enough to incorporate both long-term directional change and short-term cyclic forest dynamics,as well as transitions from one dynamics mode to another depending on changes in the driving disturbance regime type. Models that capture such essential features of forest dynamics are indispensable for educational purposes,in setting reference conditions and in developing methods in forest conservation,restoration and ecosystem management.

Keywords

Forest restorationForest successionNatural forestForest disturbanceForest age structureForest conservationSustainable management

References

 

Aakala T, Kuuluvainen T, Wallenius T, Kauhanen H (2009) Contrasting patterns of tree mortality in late-successional Picea abies stands in two areas of northern Fennoscandia. J Veg Sci 20:1016-1026
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Angelstam P, Andersson L (2001) Estimates of the needs for forest reserves in Sweden. Scand J For Res Suppl 3:38-51
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Angelstam P, Kuuluvainen T (2004) Boreal forest disturbance regimes, successional dynamics and landscape structures - a European perspective. In: Angelstam P, Dönz-Breuss M, Roberge J-M (eds) Targets and tools for the maintenance of forest biodiversity, vol 51, Ecol Bull., pp 117-136
 
Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL (2006) Ecology. From individuals to ecosystems. 4th edition. Blackwell Publishing, USA, 738p
 

Belleau A, Leduc A, LeComte N, Bergeron Y (2011) Forest succession rate and pathways on different surface deposit types in the boreal forest of northwestern Quebec. Ecosci 18(4):329-340
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Bengtsson J, Angelstam P, Elmqvist T, Emanuelsson U, Folke C, Ihse M, Moberg F, Nyström M (2003) Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio 23(6):389-396
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Bergeron Y, Fenton NJ (2012) Boreal forests of eastern Canada revisited: old growth, nonfire disturbances, forest succession, and biodiversity. Botany 90:509-523
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Bergeron Y, Leduc A, Harvey BD, Gauthier S (2002) Natural fire regime: a guide for sustainable management of the Canadian boreal forest. Silva Fenn 36:81-95
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Bormann FH, Likens GE (1979) Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem. Springer, New Yorkhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-6232-9
Crossref
 
Bunnell FL, Johnson F (eds) (1999) Policy and practices for biodiversity in managed forests, The living dance. UBC Press, Vancouver
 
Burton P (2013) Exploring complexity in boreal forests. In: Messier C, Puettmann KJ, Coates KD (eds) Managing forests as complex adaptive systems. Building resilience to the challenge of global change. Routledge, London, pp 79-109
 
Burton PJ, Bergeron Y, Bogdanski BEC, Juday GP, Kuuluvainen T, McAfee BJ, Ogden A, Teplyakov VK, Alfaro RI, Francis DA, Gauthier S, Hantula J (2010) Sustainability of boreal forests and forestry in a changing environment. In: Mery G, Katila P, Galloway G, Alfaro RI, Kanninen M, Lobovikov M, Varjo J (eds) Forests and Society - Responding to Global Drivers of Change. International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), Vienna, Austria, pp 249-282
 

Cajander AK (1926) The theory of forest types. Acta For Fenn 29:1-108
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Christensen NL Jr (2014) A historical perspective on forest succession and its relevance to ecosystem restoration and conservation practice in North America. For Ecol Manage 330:312-322
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Clements FE (1916) Plant succession: An analysis of the development of vegetation. Garnegie institute of Washington Publications, No. 242. Washington, DChttps://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.56234
Crossref
 

Cowles HC (1911) The causes of vegetation cycles. Botanical Gazette 51:161-183
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Donato DC, Campbell JL, Franklin JF (2012) Multiple successional pathways and precocity in forest development: can some forests be born complex? J Veg Sci 23: 576-584https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2011.01362.x
Crossref
 
Drever CR, Peterson G, Messier C, Bergeron Y, Flannigan M (2006) Can forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Can J For Res 36: 2285-2299https://doi.org/10.1139/x06-132
Crossref
 

Forcier LK (1975) Reproductive strategies in the co-occurrence of climax tree species. Science 189:808-810
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Franklin JF, Spies TA, Van Pelt R, Carey AB, Thornburgh DA, Rae Berg D, Kindenmayer DB, Harmon ME, Keeton WS, Shaw DC, Bible K, Chen J (2002) Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management 155:399-423
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Fraver S, Jonsson BG, Jönsson M, Esseen P-A (2008) Demographies and disturbance history of a boreal old-growth Picea abies forest. J Veg Sci 19:789-798
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Gauthier S, Vaillancourt M-A, Leduc A, De Grandpré L, Kneeshaw D, Morin H, Drapeau P, Bergeron Y (2009) Ecosystem management in the boreal forest. Les Presses de l'Université du Québec, Québec, p 568
 
Glenn-Lewin DC, van der Maarel E (1992) Patterns and processes of vegetation dynamics. In: Peet RK, Veblen TT (eds) Glenn-Lewin DC. Plant succession - theory and application, Chapham & Hall, pp 11-59
 
Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) (2002) Panarchy, Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington
 

Halme P, Allen KA, Aunins A, Bradshaw RHW, Brumelis G, Cada V, Clear JL, Eriksson A-M, Hannon G, Hyvärinen E, Ikauniece S, Iršėnaitė R, Jonsson BG, Junninen K, Kareksela S, Komonen A, Kotiaho JS, Kouki J, Kuuluvainen T, Mazziotta A, Mönkkönen M, Nyholm K, Olden A, Shorohova E, Strange N, Toivanen T, Vanha-Majamaa I, Wallenius T, Ylisirniö A-L, Zin E (2013) Challenges of ecological restoration : Lessons from forests in northern Europe. Biol Cons 167:248-256
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4:390-405
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Holling S, Meffe GK (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Cons Biol 10:328-37
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Ilvessalo Y (1937) Growth of natural normal stands in central North-Suomi. Acta For Fenn 24(2):1-168
Google Scholar
 
Johnson EA (1996) Fire and vegetation dynamics: studies from the North American boreal forest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
 

Johnstone JF, Chapin SF III (2006) Effects of soil burn severity on post-fire tree recruitment in boreal forest. Ecosystems 9:14-31
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Kneeshaw D, Bergeron Y, Kuuluvainen T (2011) Forest ecosystem structure and disturbance dynamics across the circimboreal forest. In: Millington AC, Blumler MB, Schickhoff U (eds) The Sage Handbook of Biogeography. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 263-280
 

Kuuluvainen T (1994) Gap disturbance, ground microtopography, and the regeneration dynamics of boreal coniferous forests in Finland: a review. Ann Zool Fenn 31:35-51
Google Scholar
 

Kuuluvainen T (2009) Forest management and biodiversity conservation based on natural ecosystem dynamics in northern Europe: The complexity challenge. Ambio 38:309-315
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Kuuluvainen T, Aakala T (2011) Natural forest dynamics in boreal Fennoscandia: a review and classification. Silva Fenn 45(5):823-841
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Kuuluvainen T, Syrjänen K, Kalliola R (1998) Structure of a pristine Picea abies forest in northwestern Europe. J Veg Sci 9:563-574
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Kuuluvainen T, Tahvonen O, Aakala T (2012) Even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in boreal Fennoscandia: a review. AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0289-yhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0289-y
Crossref
 
Kuuluvainen T, Bergeron Y, Coates KD (2015) Restoration and ecosystem-based management in the circumboreal forest: Background, challenges, and opportunities. In: Stanturf JA (ed.) Restoration of boreal and temperate forests. 2nd edition, CRC Press
 

Kuuluvainen T, Wallenius TH, Kauhanen H, Aakala T, Mikkola K, Demidova N, Ogibin B (2014) Episodic, patchy disturbances characterize an old-growth Picea abies dominated forest landscape in northeastern Europe. For Ecol Manage 320:96-103
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Landres PB, Morgan P, Swanson FJ (1999) Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecol Appl 9:1179-1188
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Larsen AR, Chen HYH (2011) Multiple successional pathways of boreal forest stands in central Canada. Ecography 34:208-219
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Lassila I (1920) Tutkimuksia mäntymetsien synnystä ja kehityksestä pohjoisen napapiirin pohjoispuolella. Acta For Fenn 14(3): 95, in Finnishhttps://doi.org/10.14214/aff.7036
Crossref
 

Lõhmus A, Kohv K, Palo A, Viilma K (2004) Loss of old-growth, and the minimum need for strictly protected forests in Estonia. Ecol Bull 51:401-411
Google Scholar
 

McCarthy J (2001) Gap dynamics of forest trees: a review with particular attention to boreal forests. Environ Rev 9:1-59
Crossref Google Scholar
 

McInerny GJ, Chen M, Freeman R, Gavaghan D, Mayer M, Rowland F, Spiegelhalter D, Stefaner M, Tessarolo G, Hortal J (2014) Information visualization for science and policy: engaging users and avoiding bias. Trends Ecol Evol 29(3):148-155
Crossref Google Scholar
 
McIntosh RP (1981) Succession and ecological theory. In: West DC, Shugart HH Botkin DB (eds) Forest succession. Concepts and applications. Springer, New York, pp 10-23https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5950-3_3
Crossref
 

Moen J, Rist L, Bishop K, Chapin FS III, Ellison D, Kuuluvainen T, Petersson H, Puettmann KJ, Rayner J, Warkentin IG, Bradshaw CJA (2014) Eye on the taiga: removing global policy impediments to safeguard the boreal forest. Cons Lett 7(4):408-418. doi:10.1111/conl.12098
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Oliver CD (1980) Forest development in North America following major disturbances. For Ecol Manage 3:153-168. doi:10.1016/0378-1127(80)90013-4
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Payette S (1992) Fire as a controlling process in the North American boreal forest. In: Leemans R, Bonan GB (eds) Shugart HH. New-York, Cambridge University Press, pp 144-169https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511565489.006
Crossref
 
Peet RK (1981) Changes in biomass and production during secondary forest succession. In: West et al. (eds) Forest succession. Springer-Verlag, New Yorkhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5950-3_20
Crossref
 

Pennanen J (2002) Forest age distribution under mixed-severity fire regimes - a simulation-based analysis for middle boreal Fennoscandia. Silva Fenn 36(1):2113-231
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Pickett STA, White PS (eds) (1985) The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic, New York
 

Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Meiners SJ (2008) Ever since Clements: from succession to vegetation dynamics and understanding to intervention. Appl Veg Sci 12:9-21
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Podlaski R (2008) Dynamics of Central European near-natural Abies-Fagus forests: Does the mosaic-cycle provide an appropriate model. J Veg Sci 19:173-182
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, Messier C (2008) A Critique of Silviculture: Managing For Complexity. Island Press, Washington, DC
 

Pukkala T (2016) Plenterwald, Dauerwald or clearcut? For Pol Econ 62:125-134
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Rämö J, Tahvonen O (2014) Economics of harvesting uneven-aged forest stands in Fennoscandia. Scand J For Res 29:777-792
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Remmert H (1991) The mosaic-cycle concept of ecosystems, Ecological Studies 85. Springer, Berlinhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75650-4
Crossref
 

Schoener TW (2011) The newest synthesis: understanding the interplay of evolutionary and ecological dynamics. Science 331:426-429
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Seymour RS, White AS, de Maynadier PG (2002) Natural disturbance regimes in northeastern North America: Evaluating silvicultural systems using natural scales and frequencies. For Ecol Manage 155:357-367
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Shorohova E, Kuuluvainen T, Kangur A, Jogiste K (2009) Natural stand structures, disturbance regimes and successional dynamics in the Eurasian boreal forests: a review with special reference to Russian studies. Ann For Sci 66. 201.https://doi.org/10.1051/forest/2008083
Crossref
 

Sirén G (1955) The development of spruce forest on raw humus sites and its ecology. Acta For Fenn 62:1-363
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Sprugel DG, Bormann FH (1981) Natural disturbance and the steady state in high-altitude balsam fir forests. Science 211:390-393
Crossref Google Scholar
 

Syrjänen K, Kalliola R, Puolasmaa A, Mattson J (1994) Landscape structure and forest dynamics in subcontinental Russian taiga. Ann Zool Fenn 31:19-34
Google Scholar
 

Taylor AR, Chen HYH (2011) Multiple successional pathways of boreal forest stands in central Canada. Ecography 34:208-219
Crossref Google Scholar
 
Turner MG, Dale VH (1998) Comparing large, infrequent disturbances: What have we learned? Ecosystems 1: 493-496https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900045
Crossref
 

Worrall JJ, Lee TD, Harrington TC (2005) Forest dynamics and agents that initiate and expand canopy gaps in Picea-Abies forests of Crawford Notch, New Hampshire, USA. J Ecol 93:178-190
Crossref Google Scholar
Forest Ecosystems
Volume 3 Issue 4,
December 2016
Article number: 18
DOI: 10.1186/s40663-016-0075-6
Cite this article:
Kuuluvainen T. Conceptual models of forest dynamics in environmental education and management: keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler. Forest Ecosystems, 2016, 3(4): 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-016-0075-6

488

Views

8

Downloads

18

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

21

Scopus

0

CSCD

Altmetrics
Received: 26 April 2016
Accepted: 30 June 2016
Published: 05 August 2016
© 2016 The Author(s).

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Return