Impact of Climate Change on the Boreal Forest in

Finland and Sweden

Authors: Riikka Kinnunen1, Ilari Lehtonen

1, Judith Kas

2,1,

Riina Järvelä1, Helinä Poutamo

1, Christian Wenzlaff

3,1, and Jessica Latus

1

[1] {University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland}

[2] {Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands}

[3] {Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen, Germany}

University of Helsinki

HENVI Workshop 2013: Interdisciplinary approach to forests and climate change

2

Abstract

Climate change is foreseen to affect the boreal forests of Finland and Sweden in many ways.

Temperatures are projected to rise and more precipitation is expected, especially in winter. This

may have a substantial impact on many abiotic and biotic factors, which influence the boreal

forests. It is likely that insect pests, fungal diseases and forest fire potential may increase while the

risk for snow induced forest damages are likely to diminish. Simultaneously, the lengthening of the

growing season will increase the growing stock of the boreal forests as well as contribute to the

increase of deciduous trees.

One of the direct impacts of climate change is to the phenology of the boreal forest, with the

obvious effect being earlier onset of ontogenic development. Climate change is also having an

impact on forest insects and pathogens due to the increased frequency of storms, warmer

temperatures, and more frequent windfall events, which enable pest insects, such as bark beetles, to

increase their living ranges. These pests have started producing two generations per year, and

therefore their populations are rapidly increasing, and this poses a serious problem to future forest

management.

Climate change is impacting many soil properties, such as pH, nitrogen and carbon circle as well as

soil organic content and soil bacteria content. No changes are expected on the nitrogen cycle, but

the carbon cycle, however, will increase strongly due to higher concentrations of CO2. It is unclear

if and how soil carbon content will change.

The volume of growing stock in Finnish forests has been increasing and is predicted to increase

even more in the future due to longer growing periods and higher effective temperature sums. Even

though climate change affects mostly in northern Finland, it has not been assessed whether or not

the forest line will react to warmer temperatures. Different tree species react to climate change

differently, but forest management will ultimately decide the tree species distribution in the future.

In both Finland and Sweden, forest management practices need to be altered due to the projected

future impacts resulting from climate change. Wood harvesting is becoming more challenging and

additionally there are challenges for water protection. Furthermore, the changes in species

composition and biodiversity are affecting management practices as well. There are also increased

risks for abiotic and biotic damages in the forests. The choice of tree species will need to be

carefully thought out in the future to try to maintain forest health. The EU forest policy provides a

framework for sustainable forest management, yet the 27 Member States are responsible for the

implementation of it. The Finnish forest policy focuses on increasing wood production in a

sustainable way while securing biodiversity in the forests. Yet, there is still an ongoing discussion

about the best ways to manage the forests.

3

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 4

II. Effect of Climate Change on the Forest Fire Potential 6

III. Impacts of Climate Change on the Snow-Induced and Wind-Induced Forest

Damages

8

IV. Impacts of Climate Change on Boreal Forest Phenology 9

V. Climate Change Effects on Insects with Focus on Spruce Bark Beetle (Ips

typographus)

12

VI. Tree Species Distribution in Finnish Forests Now and In the Future 15

VII. Climate Change Effects on Soil Contents in Finland and Sweden 18

VIII. Forests and Management 20

IX. Predictions that are the Possible Effects of Climate Change in Forest

managements in Finland

21

X. Forestry Policy 22

XI. Conclusion 25

XII. Discussion Questions 26

References 27

4

I. Introduction

The Boreal Forest, also known as the Taiga, spans the northern hemisphere across three continents

and ten different countries. In Finland most of the country is covered by coniferous Boreal Forest,

as is Norway and Sweden. In the mountain areas of all three countries there is similar elevation,

terrain and vegetation. The Taiga, which spans across Finland, Sweden, and Norway, is divided into

oceanus and continental zones.

Hemiboreal is the area within the Taiga where the forest transitions from temperate deciduous forest

to coniferous forest. The southwestern part of Finland is considered to be hemiboreal, and this area

is favorable to growing hardwood, such as oak (Quercus robur), ash (Faxinus excelsior) and Forest

linden (Tilia cordata). The southern boreal zone covers most of southern Finland, the middle boreal

zone covers the areas of Ostrobothnia and Kainuu, and the northern boreal zone covers northern

Lapland.

Boreal forest tree species belong to four conifer genera: spruce (Picea), pine (Pinus), fir (Abies) and

larch (Larix). The boreal zone, in addition, is home to a number of deciduous tree genera such as

birch (Betula), aspens (Populus), alders (Alnus), willow (Salix) and mountain ash (Sorbus).

Additionally, the northern border of Fennoscandia (the Scandinavian Peninsula, Finland, Karelia,

and the Kola Peninsula) is formed by the forest subspecies of downy birch, mountain birch (Betula

pubescens ssp. czerepanovii)

The transition area of the Boreal Forest affects the average temperatures with more infrequent

exceptional temperatures, either cold or hot. Furthermore, the transitional zones also define the

extent of cross-species survival. The northern Boreal Forest border is dynamic and highly sensitive

to the weather conditions. The large annual fluctuations in temperature, as a result of climate

change, are also affecting the forest dynamic.

The projected extent of climate change may have a significant impact on boreal forest ecosystems

in Fennoscandia. Currently, the growth of boreal forests in northern Europe is limited by a

particularly short growing season. However, by 2100, the annual mean temperature in northern

Europe, and Finland, is projected to increase by 2–6 °C (Christensen et al. 2007; Jylhä et al. 2009);

the projected warming is to be greater in winter than in summer. As a result of the projected rise in

summer temperatures this will lead to a prolongation of the growing season in Finland by up to 40–

50 days by the end of the 21st century (Ruosteenoja et al., 2011). Simultaneously, the effective

temperature sum would on average double in northern Finland and increase 1.5-fold in southern

Finland. Thus, conditions currently prevailing in southern Finland would be seen in Lapland.

In addition to the projected increase in temperature as a result of climate change, annual

precipitation is projected to increase in northern Europe as well (e.g. Christensen et al. 2007;

Christensen and Christensen 2007; Jylhä et al. 2009; Nikulin et al. 2011). Similar to the resulting

effect on temperature, the projected increase for precipitation is greatest in the winter, and only

small changes in mean precipitation are expected in summer; in southern Scandinavia it is uncertain

whether mean precipitation in summer will increase or decrease. Additionally, heavy precipitation

5

events are projected to intensify in every season, and dry spells in summer might also become

prolonged; because evaporation is enhanced in a warmer climate, these occasional droughts will

probably become more severe in the future. Lastly, climate projections indicate that interannual

variability of precipitation may increase in the future (Räisänen 2002; Giorgi and Coppola 2009). In

summation, both episodes of heavy precipitation and severe droughts are likely to become more

common in the future as a result of climate change.

These anticipated changes in climatic conditions have many possible impacts on the boreal forests.

For example, forest growth and timber production are likely to increase, tree species composition

may change (Kellomäki et al. 2008), and phenological events will take place earlier (Chmielewski

and Rötzer 2001). Additionally, various abiotic risks to forests and forestry may increase, for

example, forest fire potential is projected to increase (Kilpeläinen et al. 2010a) and risk for wind

and snow induced damages may change. Concurrently, the risks of damages caused by insects may

increase. Ideally, EU and Finnish policy can help to mitigate for some of the damage, and

additionally prevent future damages, yet the future is always uncertain.

Some of the impacts of climate change can also be mitigated by increasing the ability of plants and

animals to disperse through protected areas, or increasing the size of protected areas through habitat

corridors and planned new reserves. Figure 1 shows protected areas in Finland. (Loarie et al. 2009).

Figure 1. National parks and nature parks in Finland 2012 (Statistics Finland 2012).

6

II. Effect of Climate Change on the Forest Fire Potential

Along with wind storms, forest fires are one of the largest natural hazards boreal forests have to

cope with. On the other hand, fire is a natural phenomenon and an important factor in the process of

natural forest regeneration maintaining the biodiversity in forests (e.g. Esseen et al. 1997). The fire

danger is determined by the moisture content of the fuel in forests, and is thus reliant on climatic

factors. In predicting forest fire danger, various weather-based indices describing this moisture

content are used. These include, for example, the widely used Canadian fire weather index system

(Van Wagner 1987) and the Finnish forest fire risk index model (Venäläinen and Heikinheimo

2003).

In the future, temperature is projected to increase in Northern Europe (Christensen et al. 2007;

Jylhä et al. 2009). Concurrently precipitation is projected to increase slightly even in summer, albeit

the greatest increase is projected for winter. As higher temperatures enhance evaporation and thus

forest fire potential and heavier rainfalls have an opposite effect, estimation of the impact of climate

change on the forest fire danger is not a straightforward issue. The magnitude of climate change is

also uncertain and dependent on the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, several

studies have indicated that the fire risk in the northern high-latitude forests will increase during the

forthcoming decades (e.g. Stocks et al. 1998; Flannigan et al. 2005a, 2005b; Wotton et al. 2010).

Kilpeläinen et al. (2010a) studied the forest fire potential in Finland under high-emission A2 GHG

scenario and found the same conclusion to hold true in Finland. Based on their results, the criteria

for a forest fire warning were fulfilled on an average of 60 to 100 days annually in the late 20th

century in the coastal and southern parts of the country where the forest fire potential in Finland is

highest (Fig. 2). The fire potential decreases inland and towards the north, being less than 20 days

per year at its lowest level in eastern and northern Lapland. Until the end of the current century, the

number of forest fire alarm days is projected to increase up to 30% or more. It is expected that this

will yield an increase of 20% in the actual number of forest fires in Finland. However, there exists

great interannual variability in forest fire risk in Finland. Typically, almost 1000 forest fires occur

annually in Finland but the burnt area is relatively small because of active fire suppression

(Tanskanen and Venäläinen 2008). Nevertheless, the dry and warm summer of 2002 manifested

2522 fires and in the extreme dry summer of 2006 over 6200 wildfires occurred in Finland.

Consequently, the large interannual variability in the forest fire danger may overwhelm the

plausible increase, at least in the near future. For the present, no significant change in the fire

proneness of Finnish forests has been found, although a statistically significant increase in the mean

temperature of the forest fire season has been observed (Mäkelä et al. 2012).

Besides weather, many other issues affect the actual number of fires ignited. These include possible

changes in human behavior as the large majority of forest fires are human-caused, resulting mostly

from careless handling of fire. The only natural source of ignition in boreal conditions, lightning,

causes less than 15% of all forest fires in Finland (Larjavaara et al. 2005). Seasonal fire activity

peaks in the open season for elk (Tanskanen and Venäläinen, 2008) when hunters and berry and

mushroom pickers light numerous campfires in forest, even though it is not a risky time of the year

for forest fires based on typical meteorological conditions. Fire danger also varies substantially

between different forest stands (Tanskanen et al. 2005). According to e.g. Wallenius (2002) and

7

Pitkänen et al. (2003), Norway-spruce-dominated forests have vastly longer natural fire intervals

compared to Scots-pine-dominated forests. On the other hand, Norway-spruce-dominated forests,

though resistant to ignition, are more susceptible to high-intensity crown-fires compared to Scots

pine stands (Lindberg et al. 2011).

Figure 2. Mean annual number of days with forest fire potential in Finland (a) for the past (1961–

1990), (b) present day (1990–2020), (c) near-term (2021‒ 2050) and (d) long-term (2070–2099)

30-year periods (Kilpeläinen et al. 2010a).

8

III. Impacts of Climate Change on the Snow-Induced and Wind-Induced

Forest Damages

Within managed forests in Europe, almost one million cubic meters of wood is damaged annually

on average by snow, accounting 3% of the total damage caused by natural disturbances (Schelhaas

et al. 2003). When the soil is frozen, the most common form of snow damage is stem breakage or

bending while trees can also be uprooted if the soil is unfrozen (Solantie 1994; Nykänen et al.

1997). Optimal conditions for snow damages develop when wet snow accumulates on trees with

near-zero temperatures. In addition, snow-induced damages occur in close interaction with wind-

induced damages.

In the future, snow season is projected to shorten in Northern Europe (Räisänen and Eklund 2012).

Simultaneously, precipitation in winter is projected to increase and hence snowfall amounts during

the midwinter months are likely to increase as well in the northern parts of Fennoscandia. This

could possibly increase the risk for snow-induced forest damages. Studying the impact of climate

change on snow-induced forest damages is, however, somewhat intricate, because occurrence of

these snow-induced damages is spatially and temporally rather coincidental and limited within

certain weather conditions. Furthermore, climate model outputs usually provide only daily averages

of temperature, precipitation and other variables, which is somewhat unsatisfactory when searching

favorable conditions for snow-induced damages. In spite of these restrictions, there exist some

studies dealing with this issue. Kilpeläinen et al. (2010b) conducted that the risk of snow-induced

forest damage will decrease in the future (Fig. 3). However, Gregow et al. (2011) estimated that

heavy snow loads in southern and central Finland would become more common in the future. In any

case, more research would be needed to obtain broader picture of uncertainties related to different

climate scenarios and alternative methods in estimating the changes in the snow-induced forest

damages.

The current knowledge of expected changes in storms and strong winds is somewhat unsatisfactory

due to large scatter among predictions by various models. Nevertheless, projected changes for wind

speed in northern Europe are in general fairly modest (Gregow et al. 2012). When considering

wind-induced damages to forests, more relevant is thus the fact that the duration of soil frost is

expected to decrease in southern Finland approximately from 4–5 months to 2–3 months

(Kellomäki et al. 2010). Increase in the length of unfrozen soil period decreases tree anchorage

during winter which is the windiest time of the year. Consequently, the risk for wind-induced

damages and particularly for uprooting is expected to increase in the future (Peltola et al. 2010).

9

Figure 3. The number of snow damage risk days per year (a) for the past (1961–1990), (b) present

day (1990–2020), (c) near-term (2021–2050) and (d) long-term (2070–2099) 30-year periods

(Kilpeläinen et al. 2010b).

IV. Impacts of Climate Change on Boreal Forest Phenology

Earlier bud burst and flowering time as a result of climate change, and more specifically global

warming, will have many impacts on the boreal forest. This change in phenology will impact all of

the species inhabiting the boreal forest, which includes the trees, fungi, birds, and pollinators. As a

result of the increased lengthening of the green cover period the forest will uptake more carbon

dioxide and similarly it will increase the emission of biogenic volatile organic compounds

10

(Peñuelas et al. 2009). In other words, as a result of an increased green cover period, the forests

will aid in cooling the environment by sequestering more carbon dioxide than before, unless;

however, droughts and dry periods become more prevalent, hindering the evapotranspiration effects

(Peñuelas et al. 2009). If droughts do become more prevalent, hindering evapotranspiration, then

decomposition might accelerate, and therefore overrule the previously mentioned potential for

greater carbon sequestration. Peñuelas et al. have suggested that the extreme hot and dry summers

that Europe has experienced as of late could be from the increased period of evapotranspiration,

because this reduces soil moisture, which increases surface temperature. The general trend,

therefore, is unclear as to whether or not an increased green cover period will either exacerbate or

mitigate the effects of global warming.

It is suggested that phenological changes as a result of climate change are some of the most

sensitive ecological responses, and this can be displayed in a number of ways (Kauserud et al.

2008). Kauserud et al. state that the growing period has actually increased by a total of 11 days

since the 1960s, and Peñuelas et al. project an increase of 3 to 4 days a decade. As an example, the

fruiting period of mushroom species has expanded substantially over the past 20 years, but

interestingly the period is lengthening at the end of the season, rather than at the beginning

(Kauserud et al. 2008). As a result of this warming, and ―spring‖ being extended, most fruiting

plants are seeing their period of fruiting expanded (Kauserud et al. 2008). Table 1. above shows the

results of a study conducted in eastern Fennoscandia, and what is shocking is the effect that a

Table 1: Blooming and temperature correlation.

11

warmer spring-summer of only 3-4 C0

can already result in budding times being earlier than average

(Adrianova).

Of primary focus is the interaction between phenology fluxes and the presence of pollinators. It is

unknown in many instances whether or not the presence of pollinators is dependent on when a

plant’s nectar starts flowing, or if these are independent events. Regardless of whether or not some

pollinators are dependent on the maturity of the flowering species, the impacts of climate change

will undoubtedly affect the species. What is most uncertain, and worrisome, is whether or not

climate change will impact pollinators and plants differently, potentially resulting in the two falling

out of sync, and in turn posing many problems (Lindsey 2007). This would subsequently result in

the possibility of some species of plants suffering due to the lack of pollinators during peak season

(United States). A NASA scientist has proposed using satellite imaging to map flowering times in

order to ―make predictions about what is happening to nectar flows and the species that depend on

them …‖ (Lindsey 2007). Ideally this mapping would allow interested parties all over the globe to

track the impact of climate change to pollinators and plan accordingly.

The changes in temperature, which are resulting from climate change, are posing dramatic effects to

the Boreal forest, and while the exact impact is uncertain, the predicted impacts to phenology are

grave. The onset of ontogenic development of both plant and animal species could potentially be

thrown completely off balance, resulting in many negative impacts (Linkosalo 2000). There is a

potential for many trees to suffer from frost damage, due to their earlier onset of ontogenic

development, when the potential for late seasonal frosts still exists; however, scientists are not

necessarily agreed on this and some argue the impacts of climate change will not be significant

(Linkosalo 2000). It is possible that this risk of frost damage might only be present to the early

bloomers, but it will be curious to see the ultimate result of the lengthened growing period on all

tree species.

Conservation biologists are said to have a good chance at conserving the Boreal forest from the

impacts of climate change if they act now and act aggressively (Dudley el al. 1996). Due to the

limited species of the Boreal forest, and the current healthy state of the system, there is still time to

implement aggressive mitigation methods; it will be interesting to see if scientists can come

together to save the Taiga from the potential catastrophic damages posed by climate change. How

conservation strategies will affect phenology is unique, because for example, by simply creating

more protected areas this will not be sufficient to maintain currently phenology functioning. What is

more important with regards to phenology is the maintenance of the temperature, and this relies on

a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. As has been suggested by Dudley et al., there needs to be

a ―decrease of pollution below damage thresholds, as measured by critical loads.‖ Only time will be

able to tell if there will be dramatic fluxes in the phenology of the Boreal forest, but without a

concerted effort to mitigate for climate change it seems rather inevitable.

12

V. Climate Change Effects on Insects with Focus on Spruce Bark Beetle (Ips

typographus)

As insects have short life cycles and are sensitive to temperature variances, even a small change in

climate has the potential to influence their distribution and abundance. An increase in temperature

and precipitation can affect both their reproductive potential and their dispersal (Ayres and

Lombardero, 2000). Some insects utilise dead or damaged trees as breeding grounds and with the

right environmental conditions their numbers can drastically increase causing an epidemic that can

become economically devastating, especially for the forest industry (Jönsson and Barring,

2010).This is the case especially when considering some herbivorous insect species such as bark

beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae), which prefer mature, large diameter host trees.

Bark beetles are also known to act as host to several fungus species, some of which can also be

damaging to the economic value of the trees. Large bark beetle outbreaks generally happen after

storms or strong winds cause lot of windfall, offering the beetles plenty of suitable breeding places

(Jönsson and Barring, 2010). When windfall happens in conjunction with an increase in

temperature, as predicted by climate chance projections, beetle numbers can be expected to rapidly

increase as the insects go on to produce two generations per year instead of current one generation

per year.

The ecology and impacts on forests of bark beetle and other common pests and pathogens

Bark beetles have an important role in the forest ecosystem. In the Eurasia region the spruce bark

beetle (Ips typographus) (See Figure 4. below) is one of the most common and one of the most

widely distributed pests of Norway spruce (Picea abies). It uses the phloem tissue of the inner bark

of dead or weakened trees as breeding material helping in renewing the forest by killing old trees

and helping in the decomposition of dead wood, releasing nutrients back into the ecosystem

(Caccianiga, Payette and Filion, 2007). Caccianiga et al. (2007) showed in their study that bark

beetle attacks are usually only occasional and often concentrated on single tree individuals. One

such individual tree was attacked 31 times from 1745-1951. Ips typographus can however also

become a biotic disturbance factor that has the potential to affect boreal ecosystem in a detrimental

way (Caccianiga, Payette and Filion, 2007).

Bark beetles have an adaptive response called reproductive diapause where unfavourable

environmental factors such as day length and temperature initiate a state of dormancy and delay in

development, helping the insect to avoid unsuccessful reproduction. These day length and

temperature requirements can rapidly adjust to changes in climate making the bark beetle a fast

adaptor for new climatic conditions by dispersal and natural selection (Jönsson and Barring, 2010).

13

The activity level of bark beetles has been shown to fluctuate depending on environmental factors,

the availability of suitable trees for reproduction, stand conditions and the abundance of bark beetle

parasites and predators (Jenkins, et al. 2008). Although all of these factors have a role determining

bark beetle outbreak level, especially stand conditions such as drought, have been shown to be

important (Kučerová et al. 2008).

Neodiprion sertifer, the European pine sawfly, is another common pest of Pinus sp. found in

Northern Europe. Studies have shown the expected effects of climate change on the European saw

fly to be similar as on the bark beetle (Virtanen et al.1996). Increases in temperature are expected to

cause range shifts to higher latitudes and elevations and more towards eastern Finland, and the

incidence of cold winters (below the critical level for egg mortality of -36 degrees Celcius) is the

factor that most affects the outbreak numbers of this insect currently or in the future (Virtanen et

al.1996).

Another factor to consider regarding bark beetles is their association with a group of

phytopathogens (Ceratocystis, Ophiostoma, Leptographium) called blue-stain fungi. These fungi

commonly use bark beetles as their carrying vector from one tree to another and colonises galleries

dug by the insect, leaving the sap wood stained with blue markings (Linnakoski ja Niemelä, 2011).

The interaction between bark beetles and the pathogen is very complex and dynamic depending on

the specific species involved and predictions for future are therefore hard to make (Linnakoski ja

Niemelä, 2011).

Figure 4. Adult, larva, pupa and galleries of the European

spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus. (Source: Bugwood.org/1292025/R. Dzwonkowski)

14

Climate change and its effects on forest insects

Climate change projections predict increasing temperatures, drought, changes in atmospheric

concentration and solar radiation as well as other climatic anomalies that are expected to affect

boreal forests altering tree physiology and possibly weakening the defence mechanisms of the trees

making them increasingly susceptible to insect outbreaks (Ayres and Lombardero 2000; Marini et

al. 2012).

Changes in climate and the accompanying effects on forest insects and pathogens can in turn have

an impact on forest biodiversity, forest industry, the recreational and property value of the affected

area and water quality (Ayres and Lombardero, 2000). The change in mean annual temperature has

been shown to be higher at higher latitudes and has to be taken into an account when considering

Nordic countries (Kantola et al. 2010). The effects of this can be beneficial as decrease in snow

cover can increase winter mortality of certain pests (Ayres and Lombardero, 2000), but on the other

hand warmer winters can also have a positive effect on insects and increase insect survival over

winter (Virtanen et al., 1996). Study conducted by Tran et al. (2007) showed the most relevant

climatic factor to affect bark beetle winter survival to be the minimum temperature on the coldest

night. With right environmental conditions bark beetle numbers can rapidly increase as warmer

temperatures enable them to reproduce faster and produce two generations per year instead of the

current one (Jönsson, 2011; Linnakoski ja Niemelä, 2011).

Climate change can also promote the establishment of exotic species outside their natural living

ranges (Vanhanen 2008). Species generally restricted to southern regions can suddenly invade

northern locations previously out of their reach due to low winter temperatures. Temperatures at

winter time are expected to raise more than summer temperatures in the boreal zone, allowing

species that overwinter as eggs or adults to gain an advantage and increase in numbers (Virtanen

and Neuvonen, 1998). This can concern both native and exotic species.

Climate change projections for Scandinavia also predict a shift in the geographical distribution of

Norway spruce and with this a shift in the distribution of its pests (Williams and Liebhold, 2002).

According to these predictions, the living range of Ips typographus has the potential to move 600

km north of its current range (Lange et al. 2006). A change in forest composition and structure can

in some cases lead to a high percentage of susceptible mature, large host trees and decreased overall

heterogeneity (Jenkins, et al. 2008). And if increased temperatures lead to increased insect activity

in boreal forests, and this in turn leads to increase in forest fires one worrying outcome of this

would be fire induced release of carbon from the ecosystem and thus an aggravation of further

climate warming (Ayres and Lombardero, 2000).To prevent outbreaks caused by native or exotic

pests in Finland, several cautionary measures have been made. These include thorough inspection

of imported wood and other goods; quarantine measures; and risk assessments drafted for any high

risk species (Vanhanen, 2008). Other recommended action would be to focus on forest management

and to avoid planting spruce trees or other trees highly susceptible to insect outbreaks outside of

their natural climatic ranges (Wermelinger 2002), or on unfavourable soil where the trees would

undergo high stress e.g. spruce on dry soil.

15

VI. Tree Species Distribution in Finnish Forests Now and In the Future

Finnish wood stock

According to the first three years of the 11th National Forestry inventory (2009-2011), Finland has

2305 million cubic meters of wood, and the annual growth of the wood is 104,0 million cubic

meters. Half of the forest cover is pine (Pinus sylvestris), about a third is spruce (Picea abies), 12%

is downy birch (Betula pubescens), 4% is silver birch (Betula pendula) and the rest is other species,

such as aspens (Populus), alders (Alnus), willows (Salix) and mountain ashes (Sorbus). Comparing

this and the previous NFI tells us that the volume of the wood stock, as well as the annual growth of

wood have both increased by 5% (from 2004 to 2011). NFIs have been conducted in Finland since

1920’s and show us e.g. the area of forests and the increment and volume of wood stocks (Figures 5

and 6).

Figure 5: Volume of growing stock by tree species groups in 1922–2011 (Metla, 11.9.2012)

Figure 6: Annual increment in different inventories and drain in Finland in 1921–2011 (Metla,

11.9.2012)

16

The northern forest line

The forest line started to develop after the last ice-age receded in about 11 500 B.C. and has been in

its current shape from 1000 B.C. (Kallio et al. 1985).During that time the mean temperature has

varied a lot, the hottest being 2-3 degrees Celsiuswarmer than now (Seppä et al. 2009, Salonen et al.

2011). At the time tree species such as oaks (Quercus), common ashes (Fraxinus) and lindens

(Tilia) grew in far more northern regions than today, and common tree species such as birch and

pine also formed their forest lines in (far) more northern regions than they do today (Kallio et al.

1985).

In northernmost regions the forest line moves by strengthening small tree populations’ size and

vitality, rather than pushing forward as a single, unified frontline (Väliranta et al. 2011). This is why

the forest line is not sharp, but consists of up to 100km wide (north to south) shifting area where

tundra and boreal forest patches create the landscape (Virtanen et al. 2004) (Figure 7).

Fennoscandia’s forest line has a few special features that differ from the forest line in Eurasia: in

Fennoscandia spruce does not reach as far as pine, whereasin Eurasia spruce has spread further than

pine; and whilst larch is completely absent from the Finnish forest line, it abounds in the Eurasian

forest line (Kallio et al. 1985).

Finnish wood stock in the future

Mean temperatures rise because of the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

In worst case scenarios, representing the largest GHG emissions, climate in Finnish Lapland will

start to resemble the climate in southern Finland, and the conditions in southern Finland will start to

resemble those of central Europe (Ruosteenoja et al., 2010). According to the previous study, the

effective temperature sum will double in northern Finland and increase 1.5-fold in the south. Thus

most of the changes in the Finnish forests are expected to happen in the northernmost forests.

Figure 7: The northern limits of

Norway Spruce and Scots Pine

forests (Kallio et al. 198).

17

Because of the lengthening of growing seasons, total forest growth may increase up to 44% in

Finland. In northern Finland the growth may increase up to 70-100%, while in southern regions the

growth increase is expected to be only about 10–20% (S. Kellomäki et al., 2008) (Figure 8).

Figure 8: "Integrated growth of all tree species -- a) total current growth (m3ha

-1yr

-1); percentage

of total growth change for b) 1991-2020, c) 2021-2050 and d) 2070-2099". S. Kellomäki et al. 2008

As the growing stock increases, so does the variance in tree species distribution. In northern Finland

pine will become more dominant, while spruce and birch will diminis, spruce more drastically than

birch. In the south, pine and birch will become more dominant, and the distribution of spruce will

18

continue to decrease (Kellomäki et al., 2008, Peltola et al., 2010) (Table 2). Spruce is thought to

suffer more from climate change than other species because of its requirement for moist land.

However, it is unlikely that forest owners will reduce the planting of spruce as dramatically as

studies predict, due to the increased damage that elks cause to pine saplings and the risen price of

spruce timber.

Forest line movement in the future

As noted earlier the forest line follows the July isotherm of +10°C (Köppen, 1931). Later studies

found that this coincided line is very coarse and partly follows isotherms up to +13°C (Tuhkanen

1999, Virtanen et al. 2004). However, air temperature is not the only factor affecting forest line

movement; soil composition and moisture also have a great influence (Sveinbjörnsson 2000, Skre et

al. 2002).

The trees of the forest line react to warmer climates by producing more seeds. These seeds can fly

north and produce saplings, but it can take decades for the new saplings to reproduce new seeds.

This is why the forest line moves very slowly (Heikki Kauhanen, Outa 2/2010). New saplings

outside forests are more exposed to abiotic stresses like wind or snowloads than saplings in the

cover of older trees, and therefore their mortality rate is high. This is why the northernmost forests

have been noted to get denser and bushier, rather than moving northward (Tape et al. 2006).

VII. Climate Change Effects on Soil Contents in Finland and Sweden

There is a strong relationship between soil, climate and vegetation (Blume a. Brümer, 2010). Both

Finland and Sweden are dominated by boreal forests, of which the Northern border is defined by at

least 30 days of temperatures exceeding 10°C, while the Southern border is defined by less than 120

days with temperatures greater than 10°C. The soils of Finland and Sweden are strongly influenced

by the last ice age. The soils of Sweden mostly consist of unconsolidated glacial deposits, and

Finnish soils also consist of unconsolidated glacial deposits, but in northern Finland glacial deposits

Table 2: "Tree species composition

in per cent of the total stocking."

Northern Finland is above 63°N and

Southern below 63°N. S. Kellomäki et

al. 2008

19

are detached by organic soils. Soil textures in both countries are a result of small clay particles, and

over time the soil developed into different textures as a result of climate and vegetation (Blume,

Hans – Peter et al., 2010). Due to the similar climate in the two countries, the soil composition is

also similar. Podzols dominate the soil landscape of Finland. More specifically, Histosols and

Glysols dominate northern Finland, and Cambisols can occasionally be found in southern Finland.

Similarly, Podzols dominate the soil texture of Sweden, and in the south Cambisols can be found,

while in the north the area which borders Finland has an increasing amount of Histosols (-,-, 2013).

Due to the predicted rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and subsequently the strong

relationship between the climate and vegetation, it is expected that soil properties will be altered by

climate change. The nitrogen cycle of boreal forests is very little; the only amount of nitrogen

which enters the soil of the boreal is from the atmosphere. Normally, 1–2 kg N/a/ha of atmospheric

decomposition enters boreal wood (Lukac a. Godbold, 2011). High nitrogen input increases NOx

production, which is also a greenhouse gas (Blume a. Brümer, 2010). It is shown that increasing

amounts of nitrogen in the soil decreases the organic carbon content (Kuzyakov a.

Schneckenberger, 2004), while a high amount of nitrogen increases the total amount of biomass but

decreases the relative amount of roots resulting in a higher shoot-to-root ratio (Kuzyakov et.al,

2010). It is expected that there will be no human input of nitrogen in the form of nitrogen fertilizers

during the next decades, therefore the amount of nitrogen which circulates in the boreal forests is

expected to remain the same (Hari a. Kulmala, 2008). This will further contribute to the small

amount of nitrogen decomposition.

The total carbon content in the first meter of soil in the boreal forest is around 338 Pg of pure

carbon. Globally, soils store twice as much carbon as the atmosphere, rendering them a very

important carbon sink (Amendolara, 2013). Higher temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations

enable trees to produce more organic matter, such as leaves, but also bigger roots to store carbon

and nutrients; approximately 42% of soil Corg content is stored in in the roots.. For the soil, which

was studied by Karhu et al. (2010), an increasing temperature was shown to decrease the carbon

content by 30 – 45%, given that there are no changes of in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The

CO2 content of the atmosphere needs to increase by 100 – 120% if the soil carbon is to remain the

same.

Conifer leaves are richer in cellulose and lignin than deciduous leaves. As aforementioned, most

trees in the boreal forest are conifers and birches. Due to the large amount of conifers, the bacteria

and worms need a lot of time to decompose the needles. The growth of soil bacteria depends on

temperature, moisture, enzyme activity and nutrient availability (Amendolara, -,-, Blume, Hans –

Peter et al., 2010). As a result of climate change the trees produce more leaves, however it is not

certain if the organic horizon of Podzols will stay the same, increase or decrease (Lukac a. Godbold,

2011). Yet, it is certain that the pH value of Podzols will increase as a result of the decomposition

producing organic acids, which reduce the pH value.

Several studies show that with increasing temperatures, the decomposition of soil organic matter

will be faster, but with an increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration, the production of litter in the

form of leaves and conifers would be higher. Furthermore, the production of CO2 by roots and soil

20

organisms could increase (Raich, J.W. a. W.H. Schlesinger, 1992). Increased CO2 amounts could

also shift the amount, structure and activity of microbial communities (Blagodatskaya et al., 2010).

Yet it is possible that bacteria could alter their metabolism, and therefore return to the

decomposition rates seen before.

The Podzols in Finland and Sweden will either experience the organic matter decreasing or

increasing, but it is uncertain which; this is why it is hard to say how the typical organic layer (O

horizon) will change,. Nevertheless, the carbon circle in boreal forests will increase. No changes are

expected in nitrogen content due to there being no human inputs of nitrogen. Additionally, Podzols

are not expected to change their different soil layers because Podzol is a final, developed soil

(Blume a. Brümer, 2010). Cambisols in Sweden and Finland will develop to Podzol during the next

centuries because of typical soil processes, which means that there will be higher production of

NOx.

It is unclear how Histols will develop during the next decades. Locally, Histols could change

depending on water fluxes, aerobic and anaerobic conditions and influxes of organic material.

The only thing that is certain to change during the next decades is a higher formation of biomass

and therefore an increase of the carbon circle. Additionally, changes in the pH, nitrogen cycle and

the amount and composition of soil bacteria are likely to occur (Blume, 2011).

VIII. Forests and Management

Climate change may increase forests stemwood growth in mineral soils in Finland, an average of

10% by 2020, 29% by 2050 and 44% by 2100 compared to current (2012) climate, over the same

examination period, if forest management is done by the current forest management guidelines that

are drawn up the Forestry Development Centre Tapio. Tree growth relative increase is much higher

in northern Finland than in Southern Finland. The other hand, growth is expected to spruce up the

declining southern Finland by the year 2100 with permeable habitat types, where the drought limits

spruce growth (Kellomäki et al. 2008 and Päivinen et al. 2011).

Especially in southern Finland birches displace spruces but also partly pines, if not actively

controlled the species relationships in the desired direction in forest managements. This is due to the

fact that birch benefits most from a warming climate (Kellomäki et al. 2008).

Climate change will improve the potential for more cutting and logging in Finland by about 4% in

2020, 52% by 2050 and 82% by 2100 compared to current climate. Estimates assume that the forest

management are in current level in forest management guidelines of trees reduction and reform.

Climate warming will also improve the natural regeneration of forest trees, especially in northern

Finland. There, in the present climate, low temperature limits the amount of seed greening

(Kellomäki et al. 2008).

Forests future growth and possible changes in forest structure, age and tree species, are affecting

together the impact of climate change and the forest management, e.g. thinning intensity and

frequency of rotation. Tillage, that is made when forest is regenerated, changes the environmental

21

conditions and thus contributes to the success of the various plant species. Also same effects occur

when energy biomass is harvested. Climate change may also have an indirect impact to forests soil

minerals by accelerating the mineralization of nitrogen, which promotes the growth of trees, grass

and hays. Various disturbances are causing the new large open areas in the forests allowing the

spread of new species (Vapaavuori et al. 2012).

Necessary management actions in the forests are: careful choice of tree species depending what

kind is the habitat and soil, forest carbon sequestration increasing, destruction of risks taken into

account in the forest management, the forest hygiene management, the biodiversity protection,

forest biomass utilization in the energy production and wood products, logging development (Jylhä

et al. 2009 ; MMM 2012 ; Päivinen et al. 2011). Use of climate adapted and processed material

makes it possible to respond more quickly to climate change than using seeds collected from stands

(MMM, 1/2005).

Different destruction risks increase due to logging may increase because of the growth has

improved. Various destruction risks is an important factor in forest management, forest planning

and harvesting (Vapaavuori et al. 2012 and MMM 2012). For example, root rot control should be

intensified. The new clear-cutting areas next to stands of mature trees increase the wind destruction

risks. Especially old-grown spruces, but also just thinned stands of trees are susceptible to wind

disasters, regardless of the types of tree species. Strong winds and large snow deposit frequency

risks, the prevailing wind direction, as well as the non-frost taken into account in the design of

forest destruction contribute to the risk management (Peltola et al. 2010 and MMM 2012).

In the future forests can be used more intensively and perhaps to new uses. For example, a new kind

of wood construction and increase the use of renewable energy (e.g., forest biomass), also

completely new forest-based products are expected. Utilization of various ecosystem services would

become more important, such as berry and mushroom reserves, even wild herbs (MMM 2012 and

Metsähallitus, Antti Otsamo).

IX. Predictions that are the Possible Effects of Climate Change in Forest

managements in Finland

This chapters predictions are made by summarizing and synthesizing many articles (Main articles:

IPCC 2007; Nabuurs 2007; Stern 2007; IPCC, 2012; Metsähallitus; MMM). Wood harvesting is

becoming more challenging, and challenges also for water protection are expected. There are

coming changes in species composition and biodiversity when forests are changing, increased risk

for abiotic and biotic damages in the forests, choices of tree species changes.

Wood harvesting is becoming more challenging. This is happening because of soils are not properly

frozen in wintertime; there is less snow and unexpected temperature changes. These problems occur

especially on peatlands. There are coming problems in transportation, in wood storage and timing of

activities. New machinery is needed also to work in different kinds of circumstances and forest

types.

22

Changes in forests are causing challenging water protection requirements. The causes are increased

rains, summertime harvesting is becoming more difficult, soil and nutrients leaching are increasing

to waters. Biggest problems are coming in peatland forestry. There are coming problems also for

restoration activities.

Predictions to changes in tree species composition are: all current tree species probably survive also

in the future, Norway spruce might suffer, if summers become drier, deciduous trees are probably

more successful. Certain threatened species may disappear, and some new species invade forests.

Generalist species take advantage of changed environment easily.

In the future there is an increased risk for abiotic and biotic damages. Increased storms are coming

all year around. More wind damages, both in small and large scale, are expected. There will be

more floods. Abiotic damages easily lead to biotic damages, so new and better pest management is

needed. If some new pests come, there need to be action plans for that and private forest owners

need more knowledge.

Choices of tree species: existing tree species will survive, tree species composition may gradually

change, deciduous species may become more common, and tree improvement may partly answer

challenges, introducing the new tree species are not the only answer in the future forests. If there are

taken new kinds of trees to growing, there need to be long period tests before to going the real

forests.

X. EU Forestry Policy

Chapter 1: EU Forestry policy

The European Union has an extended policy to support and steer agriculture and rural development.

There are less regulations and subsidies for forestry and forest industries. Most of the policy is

focused on sustainable development. In the first part of this chapter, the past and future

development of the EU policy will be described. The second part is about national forest policies in

Finland. The last part discusses the effect these policies might have on the environment.

Creation of forest policy in the European Union.

The Member States of the European Union have a long history of national and regional forestry

laws. Still, forest policies are being implemented by the Member States and not by the European

Union. However, since 1995, the European Union has developed a common forestry policy that

mainly focuses on sustainable forest management. In 1998, the Resolution of a Forestry Strategy

was adopted. It took into account commitments made by the EU and its Member States in

international processes and it underlines the multifunctional roles of forests (European Union,

1999). The aim of the Resolution is not to regulate the market, but to improve coordination,

communication and cooperation. The instruments that are used are national and sub-national forest

programmes, but the EU can contribute by implementing certain common policies and active

participation in forest-related international processes (European Union, 1999).

23

The Resolution provided a framework for forest policies, and in 2005 the European Commission

wrote a follow-up report about the implementation of it (Commission of the European Communities

,2005). They evaluated what had been done until then and they paid attention to the implementation

of the Millennium Development Goals in the Forest Strategy. The Member States have prepared

and implemented the policies and there was a reference framework for monitoring these

developments. At European level, the rural development policy that was created with the reforms of

the Common Agricultural Policy (2003), has been the main instrument for implementation of the

Forestry Strategy on Community level. There is a coordination system based on agreement and not

on enforcement by law (European Commission, 2011). A proposal of the European Commission

stresses more integration of forestry policy in rural development policy. The Member States want to

ensure that the national forest programmes are embedded in national sustainability initiatives

(European Commission, 2011).

Summarized, because the European forests and their uses differ substantially, the European Forestry

Policy is less extended than the Common Agricultural Policy. The European Union provides a

framework for sustainable forest management, but the Member States are responsible for the

implementation and the integration with their environmental goals and the adjustments to their local

economies.

Future

In 2011, the European Commission gathered in Brussels to discuss the European Forestry Strategy.

Their conclusions were that the Strategy should be balanced between complementing and

influencing national policies; areas where common action could add value to the strategy should be

found. Already good knowledge about sustainable forest management should be further improved

(European Commission, 2011).

Finnish Forestry Policy

The Finnish Forestry Policy focuses, like the European Policy, on the multiple uses of forests.

Forests are used both for industrial and recreational goals. The Finnish Forestry Policy exists since

the 19th

century. The First Forest Law stresses that the forest shall not be destroyed or used in a way

that prevents renewal. During the 1990s, the forest legislation has been completely reformed, in

order to meet requirements of the EU and to harmonize environmental regulation and forestry

regulation (FAO, 2013). The forest policy now focuses on a broad range of aspects. In addition to

economic and ecological aspects, social and cultural features are included. The aims were to

increase forestry production and export by ensuring competitive conditions for the forest industry.

Ecosystem management in forests should secure ecological sustainability.

The new forest policy started with the Forest and Park Service Act (1994), the Act on Forestry

Centres and Forest Development Centre (1996) and continued with the Forest Act (1997). In this

act, certain habitats that require special attention and guidelines to manage these habitats are

defined (FAO, 2013). In the same year, the Nature Conservation Act to harmonize European and

Finnish forest legislation and the Act on Financing of Sustainable Forestry were adopted. The latter

guarantees state subsidies for forest management that would be unprofitable for private landowners.

24

Originally, the total Forest Program was focused on a period of 10 years (FOA, 2013), but in 2008

the program was extended until 2015. The Forest Program was enlarged with the development of

the Forest Biodiversity Program for Southern Finland (METSO). METSO’s aim is to halt the

decline in forest habitats and species, based on voluntary actions by landowners. What is special

about the programme is that it is a collaboration between the Finnish government, the Finnish

Environment Institute and the Forest Development Centre Tapio (Ministry of the Environment and

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2013).

Future

At the moment, the Finnish government is revising and clarifying the Forest Act. The new act

proposes to increase the options for silviculture for forest owners. Instead of exact directions about

how to manage the forest, the forest owners have more freedom to adopt the strategy they want,

within certain boundaries. The current policy focuses on small forests stands with trees of the same

age. The habitat that is to be maintained is indicated per area, depending on the ecological structure

(Ministry of the Environments and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2013). Forest must be

regenerated within a reasonable time, depending on the tree species and geographic area. Dead and

decaying trees are left in the forests, to provide a habitat for certain animal and plan species

(Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2010). In the future,forest owners have more freedom to cut

their forest independent of its age and tree size and they are allowed to apply uneven-aged

management that was banned before. The new act is planned to come into force in the beginnen of

next year.

Environmental effects

Forests can play an important role in climate change, as described in the previous chapters.

Conservation of forests gets attention in national and European Forestry Policies. By cooperating

with its member states, the EU can provide general policies for forestry with stronger environmental

regulations. The member states can decide upon instruments that fit their forests and forest industry

to reach these targets.

The forest policies in Finland take into account both environmental and commercial uses of forests.

Although forest globally is decreasing, the Finnish forest area has increased since the 1950s

(Seppälä. 1998). The new forest policies focus on increasing forestry production and environmental

sustainability. Attention is paid to exchange of knowledge about sustainable forest management.

Increased harvesting may lead to decreased biodiversity, but the METSO programme has a positive

effect on biodiversity and biodiversity rich sites are better taking into account nowadays, with the

help of modern technology. Many researchers have argued that the new Forest Act would decrease

forest biodiversity. The Act is still under process in the parliament and it may still change.

Summarized, the EU forest policy is likely to remain quite general, because the situations in the

different Member States differ a lot. The Finnish policy is in line with the EU regulations, but has a

more direct impact on forestry and the environmental effects of changes in the forest management.

It is hard to predict what would be the best policy for Finland to maintain biodiversity and slow

down climate change, there is an ongoing debate among researchers about the best forest

management methods.

25

XI. Conclusion

The projected climate change is expected to have both positive and negative effects on boreal

forests. These impacts may also differ between different locations, e.g., between northern and

southern Fennoscandia. Forests are expected to benefit from longer growing seasons especially in

Lapland where low summer temperatures and short growing season restrict the forest growth more

than in southern locations. In addition, the increasing risk of summer droughts is most prominent in

southern Scandinavia. Some risks, such as the risk for snow-induced forest damages, will most

likely become less relevant in the future, whereas? there are plenty of abiotic and biotic stress

factors expected to affect boreal forests (more frequently) in the future.

The predicted fluxes in phenology could prove to be catastrophic for some species; however, there

is still hope that with the aggressive conservation and legislation (that) the forest can maintain

normal functioning. If not, the result is likely to be that some species will flourish, while others

possibly perish; this will be a direct result of the increase in seasonal temperatures, as well as the

inappropriate timing of pollinators.

It will be vital for forest management practices to be altered so as to navigate the projected impacts

of climate change. Forest management will need to be advanced to meet future needs. The choice of

tree species and management actions will need to be thought of carefully in an effort to try and

minimize the impact of climate change. Figure 9 shows the interactions between forest, forest

management, climate change and the ecosystem.

Figure 9. Multidimensional picture showing the interactions related to(?)forest and climate

Change. Forest environment, humans, the ecosystem itself andactions and plans made for forests

are affecting climate change and its impacts. All different aspects play their part influencing(?)

climate change (Riina Järvelä).

26

Climate change is expected to have an effect on forest insects by resulting in increased numbers of

harmful pest and pathogens due to an expanded living range, which will likely result in effects on

forest biodiversity, forest industry, the recreational and property value of the affected area and water

quality. To prevent possible large scale outbreaks of native or exotic insect pests in the future,

attention must be given to the impacts of imported wood and other goods, quarantine measures and

risk assessments, and forest management practises.

Higher effective temperature and longer growing season has affected Finnish forests by increasing

the (volume of) growing stock of all main tree species. It is predicted that pine and birch will

benefit more from climate change than spruce, andthat spruce numbers will therefore decline , but

in the end it is the forest owners decision what they want to grow in their forests. In the future the

wood stock continues to increase, with the largest increase happening in northern Finland.

However, the northern forest line is not expected to react to warmer temperatures very fast and

therefore the forest line is not predicted to move northwards within the next few decades.

Soil properties are also expected to changebecause of climate change. Largestchanges are expected

on carbon fluxes because of higher temperatures and higher amount of carbon dioxide in the air

which is used by plants for producing litter? and wooden products then decomposed by bacteria.

The effects of climate change on bacteria are unclear; on the one hand decomposition rates could

increase because of higher temperatures but it is unknown if and how bacterial metabolism changes

over time. Water is also needed for decomposition and it is uncertain whether there will be enough

of it during the months withhighest decomposition rates.

The EU forest policy is and is likely to remain quite general, because the situations in the different

Member States differ a lot. The Finnish policy is in line with the EU regulations, but has a more

direct impact on forestry and the environmental effects of changes in the forest management. It is

hard to predict what will be the best policy for Finland to maintain biodiversity and slow down

climate change and there still is an ongoing debate among researchers about the best forest

management methods.

XII. Discussion Questions

1. How should forest management deal with the fact that different species react to climate change

differently?

2. How can we prepare the public to understand the gravity of climate change and its impacts on

the boreal forest?

3. What do you foresee as being the biggest, most consequential, impact to the boreal forest as a

result of climate change?

27

References

Amendolara, Tabiatha 2013. Soil Microorganisms and Global Climate Change.

Ayres, M.P. & Lombardero, M.J. 2000. Assessing the consequences of global change for forest

disturbance from herbivores and pathogens, Science of the Total Environment, vol.

262, no. 3, pp. 263.

Berghäll, Jonna and Minna Pesu 2008. Climate Change and the Cultural Environment, Recognized

Impacts and Challenges in Finland, Ministry of the Environment, The Finnish

Environment 4en/2008.

Blagodatskaya, Evgenia et al 2009. Elevated atmospheric CO2 increases microbial growth rates in

soil: results of three CO2 enrichment experiments, Global Change Biology (2010) 16,

836–848.

Blume, Hans – Peter .2011. Global Climate Change Effects on Soils, Bullentin of the Georgian

National Academy of Sciences, vol.5, no.2, 2011.

Blume, Hans – Peter et al. 2010. Scheffer/Schachtschabel: Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde, 16. Auflage,

came out at Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.

Caccianiga, M., Payette, S. & Filion, L. 2008, Biotic Disturbance in Expanding Subarctic Forests

along the Eastern Coast of Hudson Bay, New Phytologist, vol. 178, no. 4, pp. 823–

834.

Chmielewski F-W & Rötzer T. 2001. Response of tree phenology to climate change across

Europe. Agr. Forest Meteorol., 108, 101–112.

Christensen JH & Christensen OB. 2007. A summary of the PRUDENCE model projections of

changes in European climate by the end of this century. Clim. Change, 81, 7–30.

Christensen JH, Hewitson B, Busuioc A, Chen A, Gao X, Held I, Jones R, Kolli RK, Kwon W-T,

Laprise R, Magaña Rueda V, Mearns L, Menéndez CG, Räisänen J, Rinke A, Sarr A

& Whetton P. 2007. Regional Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon S, Qin D,

Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M & Miller HL (eds.)].

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Commission of the European Communities 2005. Communication from the commission to the

council and the European Parliament. Reporting on the implementation of the EU

Forestry Strategy. Brussels.

Dudley, Nigel, Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud, and Adam Markham 1996.. Conservation in Boreal Forests

under Conditions of Climate Change. Silva Fennica 30.2–3 (1996): 379–83. Web.

Ellenberg, Heinz and Christoph Leuschner 2010. Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen: In

28

ökologischer, dynamischer und historischer Sicht, 6.Auflage, came out at UTB

Verlag, Stuttgart.

European Commission 2003. Sustainable forestry and the European Union. Initiatives of the

European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities.

European Commission 2011. Report on the Workshop for the review of the EU Forestry Strategy.

Brussels.

European Council 1999. Council Resolution on a forestry strategy for the European Union. Official

Journal of the European Communities. C56/1.

Esseen PA, Ehrnström B, Ericson L & Sjöberg K. 1997. Boreal forests. Ecol. Bull., 46, 16–47.

FAO (2013). Forestry policies, institutions and programmes Finland. Last updates February 19,

2010.

Finland. Ministry of the Environment 2013. Finnish Environment Institute. Plant Phenology in

Slightly Disturbed Forests of Northern Taiga. By Olga Adrianova. The Finnish

Environment, http://www.ym.fi/fi-FI, last access on 07.04.2013

Finnish Forest Association 2013. Forest.fi,

http://www.forest.fi/smyforest/foresteng.nsf/0/8FA1E4B65E99F35BC2256F3100439

976?Opendocument, last access on 7.04.2013

Flannigan MD, Amiro BD, Logan KA, Stocks BJ & Wotton BM. 2005a. Forest fires and climate

change in the 21st century. Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Chang., 11, 847–859.

Flannigan MD, Logan KA, Amiro BD, Skinner WR & Stocks BJ. 2005b. Future area burned in

Canada. Clim. Change, 72, 1–16.

Giorgi F & Coppola E. 2009. Projections of twenty-first century climate over Europe. Eur. Phys.

J. Conferences, 1, 29–46.

Gregow H, Ruosteenoja K, Pimenoff N & Jylhä K. 2012. Changes in the mean and extreme

geostrophic wind speeds in Northern Europe until 2100 based on nine global climate

models. Int. J. Climatol., 32, 1834–1846.

Gregow H, Peltola H, Laapas M, Saku S & Venäläinen A. 2011. Combined occurrence of wind,

snow loading and soil frost with implications for risks to forestry in Finland under the

current and changing climatic conditions. Silva Fenn., 45, 35–54.

Hari, Pertti and Liisa Kulmala 2008. Advance in global change research 34, Boreal Forest and

Climate Change, came out at Springer Netherlands.

.

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III

29

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva,

Switzerland, 104 pp.

IPCC, 2012: Summary for Policymakers. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters

to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin,

D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M.

Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–19.

Jenkins, M.J. 2008, Bark beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management in the

Intermountain West, Forest Ecology and Management, 2008, Vol.254(1), pp.16–34,

vol. 254, no. 1, pp. 16–34.

Jylhä K, Ruosteenoja K, Räisänen J, Venäläinen A, Tuomenvirta H, Ruokolainen L, Saku S &

Seitola T. 2009. The Changing Climate in Finland: Estimates for Adaptation Studies.

ACCLIM project report 2009 (in Finnish, with an extended abstract in English).

Reports 2009: 4. Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland. 102 p.

Jönsson, A.M., Appelberg, G., Harding, S. & Bärring, L. 2009, Spatio-temporal impact of climate

change on the activity and voltinism of the spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus,

Global Change Biology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 486.

Jönsson, A.M. 2011, Future climate impact on spruce bark beetle life cycle in relation to

uncertainties in regional climate model data ensembles. (Report), Tellus A, Jan, 2011,

Vol.63, p.158(16), vol. 63, pp. 158.

Kallio, P., Hurme, H., Eurola, S., Norokorpi, Y., Sepponen, P. 1985. Research activities on the

Forest Line in Northern Finland. Arctic, vol. 39 no. 1 p. 52–58

Kantola,T., Vastaranta, M., Yu, X., Lyytikainen-Saarenmaa, P., Holopainen,M., Talvitie,

M.,Kaasalainen, S., Solberg, S. & Hyyppa, J. 2010, Classification of Defoliated

Trees Using Tree-Level Airborne Laser Scanning Data Combined with Aerial

Images., Remote Sensing. Vol. 2, no.12, pp. 2665–2679.

Karku, Kristiina et al. 2010. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon fractions in boreal forest soil,

Ecology, 91(2), 21, pp. 370–376.

Khai Tran, J. 2007, Impact of minimum winter temperatures on the population dynamics of

Dendroctonus frontalis, Ecological Applications, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 882–899.

Kauhanen, H. Outa 2/2010.

http://www.outa.fi/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=261&

Itemid=78

Kauserud, H., Leif C. Stige, Jon O. Vik, Rune H. Okland, Klaus Hoiland, and Nils Chr. Stenseth.

30

"Mushroom Fruiting and Climate Change." Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences 105.10 (2008): 3811–814. Print.

Kellomäki S, Maajärvi M, Strandman H, Kilpeläinen A & Peltola H. 2010. Model computations

on the climate change effects on snow cover, soil moisture and soil frost in the boreal

conditions over Finland. Silva Fenn., 44, 213–233.

Kellomäki, S., Peltola, H., Nuutinen, T., Korhonen, K. T. & Strandman, H. 2008. Sensitivity of

managed boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive

management. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

363(1501):2341–2351.

Kellomäki S, Peltola H, Nuutinen T, Korhonen KT & Strandman H. 2008. Sensitivity of managed

boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive

management. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 363, 2341–2351.

Kilpeläinen A, Kellomäki S, Strandman H & Venäläinen A. 2010a. Climate change impacts on

forest fire potential in boreal conditions in Finland. Clim. Change, 103, 383–398.

Kilpeläinen A, Gregow H, Strandman H, Kellomäki S, Venäläinen A & Peltola H. 2010b. Impacts

of climate change on the risk of snow-induced forest damage in Finland. Clim.

Change, 99, 193–209.

Kučerová, A., Rektoris, L., Táňa Štechová, T. & Bastl, M. 2008, Disturbances on a Wooded Raised

Bog—How Windthrow, Bark Beetle and Fire Affect Vegetation and Soil Water

Quality?, Folia Geobotanica, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 49–67.

Kuzyakow, Yakow et.al 2010. Growth rates of rhizosphere microorganisms depend on competitive

abilities of plants and N supply, Plant Biosystems, Vol.144, No 2, June 2010, pp.408–

413.

Kuzyakow, Yakow and K.Schneckenberger 2004. Review of estimation of plant rhizodeposition

and their contribution to soil organic matter formation, Archives of Agronomy and

Soil Schiences, February 2004, Vol.40, pp.115–132.

Köppen W. 1931. Grundriss der Klimakunde. Berlin: De Gruyer.

Lange, H., Bjørn, Ø. & Krokane, P. 2006, Thresholds in the life cycle of the spruce bark beetle

under climate change, Int. J. Complex Syst., 1648 (2006), pp. 1–10.

Larjavaara M, Kuuluvainen T & Rita H. 2005. Spatial distribution of lightning-ignited forest fires

in Finland. Forest Ecol. Manag., 208, 177–188.

Lindberg H, Heikkilä TV & Vanha-Majamaa I. 2011. Suomen metsien paloainekset – kohti

parempaa tulen hallintaa. Vantaa, Finland. 104 p [in Finnish]

Lindsey, Rebecca 2007. "Buzzing about Climate Change : Feature Articles." Earth Observatory.

31

NASA, 7 Sept. 2007. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Bees/ Last access on

07.04.2013.

Linkosalo, Tapio. Analyses of the Spring Phenology of Boreal Trees and Its Response to Climate

Change. Diss. University of Helsinki, 2000. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Linnakoski, R. & Niemelä, P.2011, Kaarnakuoriaisten kuljettamat sinistäjäsienet Suomessa,

Metsätieteen aikakauskirja, vol.3.

Loarie, S., Duffy, P., Hamilton, H., Asner, G., Field, C. & Ackerly, D. 2009. The velocity of

climate change. Nature 462, 1052-1055 (24 December 2009) |

doi:10.1038/nature08649; Received 27 August 2009; Accepted 3 November 2009

Lukac, Martin and Douglas L.GOdbold 2011. Soil Ecology in Northern Countries, A Belowground

View of a Changing World, Cambridge University Press.

Marini, L. 2012, Climate affects severity and altitudinal distribution of outbreaks in an eruptive

bark beetle, Climatic Change, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 327–341.

B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds) 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of

Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and

New York, NY, USA.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (1999). Finland’s National Forest Programme 2010.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2010). Forest management practices.

http://www.mmm.fi/en/index/frontpage/forests/sustainable_forest_management/forest

_management_practices.html, last access on 07.04.2013

Ministry of the Environments and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2013) METSO programme

www.metsonpolku.fi, last access on 07.04.2013

MMM. 2012. Miten väistämättömään ilmastonmuutokseen voidaan varautua? – yhteenveto

suomalaisesta sopeutumistutkimuksesta eri toimialoilla. Maa- ja

metsätalousministeriö. Reija Ruuhela (editor). 177 p.

MMM, 1/2005. Ilmastonmuutoksen kansallinen sopeutumistrategia. Marttila, V. Granholm, H.,

Laanikari, J., Yrjölä, T., Aalto, A., Heikinheimo, P., Honkatuki, J., Järvinen, H., Liski,

J., Merivirta, R. & Paunio, P. Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö 2005.

Mäkelä HM, Laapas M & Venäläinen A. 2012. Long-term temporal changes in the occurrence of

a high forest fire danger in Finland. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1–11.

Nabuurs, G.J., O. Masera, K. Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boer, M. Dutschke, E. Elsiddig, J.

Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O. Krankina, W.A. Kurz, M.

Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H. Ravindranath, M.J. Sanz Sanchez, X. Zhang,

2007: Forestry. In Climate Change

Nikulin G, Kjellström E, Hansson U, Strandberg G & Ullerstig A. 2011. Evaluation and future

32

projections of temperature, precipitation and wind extremes over Europe in an

ensemble of regional climate simulations. Tellus A, 63, 41–55.

Nykänen M-L, Peltola H, Quine C, Kellomäki S & Broadgate M. 1997. Factors affecting snow

damage of trees with particular reference to European conditions. Silva Fenn., 31,

193–213.

Peltola H, Ikonen V-P, Gregow H, Strandman H, Kilpeläinen A, Venäläinen A & Kellomäki S.

2010. Impacts of climate change on timber production and regional risks of wind-

induced damage to forests in Finland. Forest Ecol. Manag., 260, 833–845.

Peñuelas, Josep, This Rutishauser, and Iolanda Filella. "Phenology Feedbacks on Climate Change."

Science 324.887 (2009): 887-88. Science. American Association for the

Advancement of Science,, 15 May 2009. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

Pitkänen A, Huttunen P, Tolonen K & Jungner H. 2003. Long-term fire frequency in the

spruce-dominated forests of the Ulvinsalo strict nature reserve, Finland. Forest Ecol.

Manag., 176, 305–319.

Päivinen, J. Björkqvist, N., Karvonen, L., Kaukonen, M., Korhonen, K-M., Kuokkanen, P.,

Lehtonen, H. & Tolonen, A. (edit.): Metsähallituksen metsätalouden ympäristöopas.

Metsähallituksen metsätalouden julkaisuja 67. 215 s.

Raich, J.W. and W.H. Schlesinger 1992. The global dioxide flux in soil respiration and its

relationship to vegetation and climate, Tellus (1992), 44B, 81–99.

Räisänen J & Eklund J. 2012. 21st century changes in snow climate in Northern Europe: a

high-resolution view from ENSEMBLES regional climate models. Clim. Dyn., 38,

2575–2591.

Räisänen J. 2002. CO2-induced changes in interannual temperature and precipitation variability in

19 CMIP2 experiments. J. Clim., 15, 2395–2411.

Ruosteenoja K, Räisänen J & Pirinen P. 2011. Projected changes in thermal seasons and the

growing season in Finland. Int. J. Climatol., 31, 1473–1487.

Salemaa M. 2009. Kasvit 3, Luonnossa. WEILIN+GÖÖS.

Salonen, J., Seppä, H., Väliranta, M., Jones, V., Self, A., Heikkilä, M. & Kultti, S. 2011. Holocene

and lateglacial temperature changes and associated treeline dynamics in NE Russia.

Quaternary Research 75, 501–511.

Schelhaas M-J, Nabuurs G-J & Schuck A. 2003. Natural disturbances in the European forests in

the 19th and 20th centuries. Global Change Biol., 9, 1620–1633.

Seppä, H., Bjune, A.E., Telford, R., Birks, H.J.B. & Veski, S. 2009. Last nine-thousand years of

temperature variability in Northern Europe. Climate of the Past 5, 523–535.

Seppälä, J., Melanen, M., Jouttijärvi, T., Kauppi, L., Leikola, N. (1998). Forest industry and the

33

environment: a life cycle assessment study from Finland. Resources, Conservation

and Recycling, 23 (1–2), 87–105.

Skre, O., Baxter, R., Crawford, R. M. M., Callaghan, T. V. & Fedorkov, A. 2002. How will tundra-

taiga interface respond to climate change? Ambio Special Report 12: 37–46

Solantie R. 1994. Effect of weather and climatological background on snow damage of forests in

Southern Finland in November 1991. Silva Fenn., 28, 203–211.

Statistics Finland. 2012. Environment statistics, Yearbook 2012. Environment and Natural

Resources 2012. Leena Storgårds, Director, Business Structures.

Stern, N. 2007. The economics of climate change : Stern review on the economics of climate

change. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Stocks BJ, Fosberg MA, Lynham TJ, Mearns L, Wotton BM, Yang Q, Jin J-Z, Lawrence K,

Hartley GR, Mason JA & McKenney WD. 1998. Climate change and forest fire

potential in Russian and Canadian boreal forests. Clim. Change, 38, 1–13.

Sveinbjörnsson, B. 2000. North American and European treelines: external forces and internal

processes controlling position. Ambio 29: 388–395

Tanskanen H & Venäläinen A. 2008. The relationship between fire activity and fire weather

indices at different stages of the growing season in Finland. Bor. Env. Res., 13, 285–

302.

Tanskanen H, Venäläinen A, Puttonen P & Granström A. 2005. Impact of stand structure on

surface fire ignition potential in Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris forests in southern

Finland. Can. J. For. Res., 35, 410‒ 420.

Tape, K. D., M. Sturm, and C. Racine 2006. The evidence for shrub expansion in Northern Alaska

and the Pan-Arctic. Global Change Biology 12, 686–702.

Tuhkanen, S. 1999. The northern timberline in relation to climate. Publication: Kankaanpää, S.,

Tasanen, T. & Sutinen, M.-L. (edit.). Sustainable development in northern timberline

forests. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 734: 29–61.

United States. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research

Station. Forest Service. By Jessica E. Halofsky, David L. Peterson, Kathy A.

O’Halloran, and Catherine Hoffman. N.p., Aug. 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

Vanhanen, H.M. 2008. Invasive insects in Europe - the role of climate change and global trade.,

Dissertationes Forestales 57. 33p.

Vapaavuori, E., Pulkkinen, P., Haapanen, M., Helmisaari, H.-S., Ilvesniemi, H., Korpela, L., Kubin,

E., Leppälammi-Kujansuu, J., Mikkola, K., Pasanen, J., Poikolainen, J., Rautio, P.,

Repo, T., Roitto, M., Rousi, M., Salemaa, M., Tamminen, M., Tamminen, P., Tonteri,

T. & Varis, S. 2012. Metsäpuiden ja -kasvien sopeutuminen nyt ja tulevaisuudessa.

Käsikirjoitus julkaisuun ’Suomen metsät energia- ja hiilitaloudessa’. METLAn BIO-

ja MIL-ohjelmien synteesiraportti.

34

Van Wagner CE. 1987. Development and structure of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index

System. Canadian Forestry Service – Forestry Technical Report 35, Ottawa. 37 p.

Venäläinen A & Heikinheimo M. 2003. The Finnish forest fire index calculation system. In:

Zschau J & Kuppers A (eds.), Early warning system for natural disaster reduction,

Springer, pp. 645–648.

Virtanen, T., Mikkola, K., Nikula, A., Christensen, J.H., Mazhitova, G.G., Oberman, N.G. &

Kuhry, P. 2004. Modeling the location of forest line in northeast European Russia with

remotely sensed vegetation and GIS-based climate and terrain data. Arctic, Antarctic,

and Alpine Research 36, 314–322.

Virtanen, T., Neuvonen, S., Nikula, A., Varama, M. & Niemelä, P. 1996, Climate change and the

risks of Neodiprion sertifer outbreaks on Scots pine., Silva Fennica, vol. 30, no. 2-3,

pp. 169-177. Virtanen, T. & Neuvonen, S. 1998, Climate change and

macrolepidopteran biodiversity in Finland, Chemosphere: Global Change Science,

vol.1, pp. 439±448

Väliranta, M., Kaakinen, A., Kuhry, P., Kultti, S., Salonen, S. & Seppä, H. 2010. Scattered late-

glacial and early- Holocene tree populations as dispersal nuclei for forest development

in NE European Russia. Journal of Biogeography 38, 922–932.

Wallenius T. 2002. Forest age distribution and traces of past fires in a natural boreal landscape

dominated by Picea abies. Silva Fenn., 36, 201–211.

Wermelinger, B. 2002, Development and distribution of predators and parasitoids during two

consecutive years of an Ips typographus (Col., Scolytidae) infestation, Journal of

Applied Entomology, vol. 126, no. 10, pp. 521-527.

Wotton BM, Nock CA & Flannigan MD. 2010. Forest fire occurrence and climate change in

Canada. Int. J. Wildland Fire, 19, 253–271.

Ylitalo, Esa 2012. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2011.

-,- 2013. European Digital Archieve on Soil Maps of the World,

http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/eudasm/indexes/europe.htm, last access

on 02.04.2013.

-,- 2007. Sweden Facing Climate Change – threats and opportunities, final report from the Swedish

Commission on Climate and Vulnerability.