Global Change Biology (XXXX) XX, XXX–XXX, doi: 10.1111/gcb.XXXXX
ERRATA CORRIGE
Applying a framework for landscape planning under climate change for the conservation of biodiversity in the Finnish boreal forest
Adriano Mazziotta1, Maria Triviño1, Olli-Pekka Tikkanen2,3, Jari Kouki3, Harri Strandman3, Mikko Mönkkönen1
1University of Jyväskylä,Department of Biological and Environmental Science, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Finland, 2Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Unit, P.O. Box 68, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland, 3School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland
Correspondence: Adriano Mazziotta, tel.: +358-40-373-1001, fax: +358-14-617-239, e-mail:
In the paper by Mazziotta et al.Applying a framework for landscape planning under climate change for the conservation of biodiversity in the Finnish boreal forest, 21, 637-651, we found a critical calculation mistakeconcerning the calculation of the climate vulnerability index. The mistake is the following one: when we calculated the scaled Climate Vulnerability (CV) (page 643, second equation in the “Climate Vulnerability” paragraph of the “Materials and Methods” section) we made the mistake of multiplying original CV value by the stand conservation capacity (SCC) calculated for the first three simulated decades (years 2010-2039), while CV should have been multiplied (as specified in the article) by the SCC for the last three simulated decades (years 2070-2099).
As a consequence of the new Climate Vulnerability values, there was a change in the distribution of forest patches into the climate change response categories. The new results still indicate that a high proportion of the landscape is likely to be either susceptible or sensitive, thereby still increasing uncertainty for landscape managers in the choice of conservation strategies. On the other hand and contrarily with the original results, the Finnish landscape will mainly be represented by a high proportion of resistant and resilient forest patches given the reduction in stand Climate Vulnerability under climate change. This mistake hadsome effects on several sections, tables and figures of the manuscript and in the next pages we include the new text that should replace the previous version of the manuscript. However the landscape approach we proposed to evaluate the proportion of climate change response categoriesis still valid.We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
Abstract (this should replace previous text on Page 637)
The representation in theFinnish landscapein the four climate change response categories among three IPCC emission scenarios (B1,low-; A1B,intermediate-; A2,high-emissions) changed from the original version as follows: i) susceptible from ‘(B1=24.7%, A1B=26.4%, A2=26.2%)’ to ‘(B1=7.5%, A1B=7.0%, A2=6.9%)’,ii) resilient from ‘(B1=2.2%, A1B=0.5%, A2=0.6%)’ to ‘(B1=19.4%, A1B=19.9%, A2=20.0%)’,iii) resistant from ‘(B1=6.7%, A1B=0.8%, A2=1.1%)’ to ‘(B1=53.3%, A1B=53.7%, A2=55.1%)’, iv) sensitive from ‘(B1=66.4%, A1B=72.3%, A2=72.0%)’ to ‘(B1=19.9%, A1B=19.5%, A2=18.0%)’.The last sentence of the abstract ‘Our results indicate that the Finnish landscape islikely to be dominated by a very high proportion of sensitive and susceptible forest patches, thereby increasing uncertaintyfor landscape managers in the choice of conservation strategies.’ changed in ‘Our results indicate that the Finnish landscape is likely to be dominated by a very high proportion of resistant,resilient and sensitive forest patches,thereby increasing uncertainty for landscape managers in the choice of conservation strategies.’
Materials and methods
Climate Vulnerability(this should replace previous text on Page 643)
In this section the five scaledCVscategories, in which the NFI stands in Finland for each climate change scenario are divided and mapped, changedfrom ‘(i) -1.00 ≤ CV ≤ 0.00; (ii) 0.00 < CV ≤ 0.25; (iii) 0.25 < CV ≤ 0.50; (iv) 0.50 < CV ≤ 0.75; (v) 0.75 < CV ≤ 1.00’ as follows: ‘(i) -1.00 ≤ CV ≤ 0.50; (ii) -0.50 CV ≤ -0.25; (iii) -0.25 CV ≤ 0.00; (iv) 0.00 < CV ≤ 0.25; (v) 0.25 < CV ≤ 1.00’. Figgs. 2b─d and Table 1 changed accordingly.
Fig. 2Maps of Stand conservation Capacity (SCC,a) and Climate Vulnerability (CV) for three IPCC climate change scenarios of increasing emissions (from B1 (b) to A1B (c)to A2 (d)) for the National Forest Inventory sample plots in Finland.The thresholds for separating SCC and CV categories were chosen using the Jenks natural breaks classification method. For CVreference threshold valuesfor B1 (b) are used for comparison with the other two scenarios. The borders of the four vegetation zonesoccurring in Finland are included in the maps. Box plots show the distribution of values (mean, interquartile range, outliers) of plots for SCC and CVfor each vegetation zone (codes for zones: Hb = hemiboreal; Sb = Southern boreal; Cb = Central boreal; Nb = Northern boreal).
Table 1 Proportions of plots of the Finnish National Forest Inventory(total N = 2816) included in each range of values for Stand Conservation Capacity (SCC) and Climate Vulnerability (CV). For CV the proportions are reported for each IPCC climate change scenario of increasing emissions (from B1 to A1B to A2).
SCC Range / % / CV Range / B1 / A1B / A20.00 ‒ 0.10 / 11.6 / -1.00 ‒ -0.50 / 11.4 / 12.5 / 15.4
>0.10 ‒ 0.25 / 16.7 / -0.25 ‒ -0.50 / 11.0 / 12.0 / 14.7
>0.25 ‒ 0.50 / 44.7 / 0.00 ‒ -0.25 / 61.2 / 61.1 / 59.7
>0.50 ‒ 0.75 / 24.4 / >0.00 ‒ 0.25 / 23.9 / 22.8 / 21.1
>0.75 ‒ 1.00 / 2.5 / >0.25 ‒ 1.00 / 3.5 / 3.7 / 3.8
Results
Climate Vulnerability(this should replace previous text on Pages 643-644)
The results for this section changed according to the new ranges of CV values. The following paragraph totally replaces the original Climate Vulnerabilityparagraph as follows.
‘At the end of the 21st century under all the emission scenarios considered, the conservation capacity decreased (CV > 0) in about a quarter of the NFI plots studied irrespective of the emission scenario (Table 1). The fraction of stands with a high decrease (CV > 0.25) in conservation capacity slightly increasedwith increasing emissions (from B1 to A2) (Fig. 2b─d; Table 1). Towards the end of the 21st century, an increase in conservation capacity (CV< 0) occurred for a very high fraction of the NFI plots (for about three quarters of the NFI plots) irrespective of the emission scenario (Table 1). In this case, the fraction of stands with a high increase (CV -0.50) in conservation capacity increasedalso with increasing emissions (from B1 to A2) (Fig. 2b─d; Table 1). The mean values of climatic vulnerability differed among boreal forest zones (Wald Chi-square (d.f. = 3, all P0.001): (B1) = 38.4, (A1B) = 63.4, (A2) =39.9) (Fig. 2b─d). For all of the emission scenarios, mean climate vulnerability was significantly higher in the hemiboreal and southern boreal zones than in the central and northern boreal zones.’
Climate change response categories(this should replace previous text on Pages 646-647)
The whole text in this paragraph changed respect to the original version along with Figs. 3-4 and Table 2. The changes concern the proportion and response values of the four response categoriesamong the emission scenarios and the vegetation zones. The text is replaced as follows:
‘1.Susceptible (B1=7.5%, A1B=7.0%, A2=6.9%) plots were infrequent (less than 10%) in the Finnish forest irrespective of the emission scenario. The mean response values of susceptible plots did not significantly differ among the emission scenarios (Wald =1.3, d.f. = 2, P = 0.533). In all the emission scenarios, the mean response values of susceptible plots did not significantly differ among boreal forest zones ((B1) = 1.2; (A1B) = 2.0; (A2) = 1.3; in all cases d.f. = 3, P0.5).
2.Resilient (B1=19.4%, A1B=19.9%, A2=20.0%) plots represented about 20% of the Finnish forest landscape. The mean response values of resilient plots did not significantly differ among the emission scenarios (Wald =3.7, d.f. = 2, P = 0.160).In all emission scenarios, the mean response values of resilientplots did not significantly differ among boreal forest zones ((B1) = 2.2; (A1B) = 2.4; (A2) = 1.0; in all cases d.f. = 3, P 0.4).
3.Resistant (B1=53.3%, A1B=53.7%, A2=55.1%) plots represented the majority (more than half) of the stands under all the emission scenarios. The mean response values of resistant plots differed among the emission scenarios (Wald = 6.0, d.f. = 2, P= 0.050); they were higherin the low- (B1) than in the high- (A2) emission scenario.The mean response values of resistant plots for both the low- and high emission scenarios(B1, Wald = 16.8, d.f. = 3, P = 0.001; A2, Wald =11.5, d.f. = 3, P= 0.009) were significantly higher in the northern boreal than in the central and southern boreal zones, but not in the intermediate-emissions scenario (A1B, Wald =7.2, d.f. = 3, P= 0.065).
4.Sensitive (B1=19.9%, A1B=19.5%, A2=18.0%) plotsrepresented almost 20% of the Finnish forest landscape under all the emission scenarios. The mean response values of sensitive plots did not significantly differ among the emission scenarios (Wald =3.1, d.f. = 2, P = 0.218). In all emission scenarios, the mean response values of sensitive plots differed among boreal forest zones ((B1) = 12.9; (A1B) = 33.4; (A2) = 11.7; in all cases d.f. = 3, P0.01).Under all the emission scenarios, the mean response values of sensitive plots were significantly higher in the southern boreal than in the northern boreal vegetation zone. Moreover, under the intermediate- (A1B) scenario, the response values of sensitive stands werealso significantly higher in the hemi- and central- boreal zones than in the northern boreal zone.’
Fig. 3Biplots for each IPCC climate change scenario of increasing emissions (from B1 to A1B to A2) categorizing the National Forest Inventory sample plots in Finland according to their values for Stand Conservation Capacity (SCC) (y-axes) and Climate Vulnerability (CV) (x-axes) with the % of stands included in each response category to climate change indicated.Response categories are indicated in the small table with, in parentheses, the management actions suggested for the selected stands to halt the loss of biodiversity.
Fig. 4 Map of the values of the four response categories to climate change (susceptible, resilient, resistant, sensitive) across all the National Forest Inventory sample plots in Finland for three climatic scenarios of increasing emissions (from B1 to A1B to A2). Response values were separated into five classes (very low, low, intermediate, high, very high) whose thresholds were based on natural breaks (Jenks). For each response category the threshold values were the same across the three emission scenarios. Boundaries are drawn for the four Finnish vegetation zones.
Table 2Summary statistics for eachresponse category to climate change (according to the definition of Gillson) calculated for each vegetation zone (Zone) and in total under three IPCC climate change scenario of increasing emissions (from B1 to A1B to A2). We report the number of plots in the Finnish National Forest Inventory allocated in each category (N) and themeansof the response for each category and zone.
Category / Zone / B1 / A1B / A2N / Mean / N / Mean / N / Mean
Susceptible / Hemiboreal / 14 / 0.097 / 17 / 0.095 / 13 / 0.104
S boreal / 125 / 0.073 / 120 / 0.069 / 121 / 0.080
C boreal / 60 / 0.078 / 45 / 0.085 / 50 / 0.086
N boreal / 13 / 0.084 / 15 / 0.079 / 11 / 0.071
Total / 212 / 0.076 / 197 / 0.076 / 195 / 0.082
Resilient / Hemiboreal / 22 / -0.086 / 19 / -0.091 / 23 / -0.077
S boreal / 296 / -0.075 / 301 / -0.080 / 300 / -0.087
C boreal / 167 / -0.084 / 182 / -0.088 / 177 / -0.087
N boreal / 60 / -0.081 / 58 / -0.085 / 62 / -0.082
Total / 545 / -0.079 / 560 / -0.083 / 562 / -0.086
Resistant / Hemiboreal / 46 / -0.044 / 46 / -0.045 / 42 / -0.060
S boreal / 561 / -0.050 / 560 / -0.051 / 595 / -0.054
C boreal / 517 / -0.048 / 517 / -0.047 / 521 / -0.051
N boreal / 264 / -0.038 / 279 / -0.043 / 285 / -0.044
Total / 1388 / -0.047 / 1402 / -0.048 / 1443 / -0.051
Sensitive / Hemiboreal / 20 / 0.044 / 20 / 0.054 / 24 / 0.040
S boreal / 292 / 0.045 / 293 / 0.046 / 258 / 0.043
C boreal / 171 / 0.033 / 171 / 0.040 / 167 / 0.035
N boreal / 70 / 0.028 / 55 / 0.022 / 49 / 0.024
Total / 553 / 0.039 / 539 / 0.042 / 498 / 0.038
Discussion
Conservation capacity and climate vulnerability(this should replace previous text on Page 647)
Our discussion changed accordingly with the new results on climate vulnerability.
The following original sentences:
‘Conservation capacity will probably remain low if additional actions such as restoration measures are not taken to increase it in the future. The low current conservation capacity of Finland’s forests was particularly prominent for forests in the northern boreal zone. Indeed, forests in the southern vegetation zones are currently characterized by a larger proportion of deciduous trees, harbouring higher habitat diversity, and hence by greater potential to host species than forests in the north (Tikkanenet al., 2009). The low current conservation capacity of these forests and the very strong decrease in conservation capacity expected by the end of the 21st century are of concern because they confirm earlier research findings that climate change effects on biodiversity will probably be stronger in landscapes subject to intensive human land use (Travis, 2003; Bomhardet al., 2005; Brook et al., 2008; Barbet-Massinet al., 2012).’
were replaced by the following sentences:
‘Conservation capacity will likely increase in the future for the majority of the Finnish landscape.Climate change offers wide margins to increase the low current conservation capacity of these forests by increasing habitat for deadwood associated species. This is explained by the future projections of enhanced timber production and consequent deadwood accumulation as a consequence of speeding up forest growth in Finland (Mazziotta et al. 2014) and generally in northern Europe (Eggers et al., 2008; Lindner et al., 2010; Hickleret al., 2012). On more in Finland the proportion of broadleaved deciduous trees and their representation northward (Kellomäkiet al., 2008) will further increase habitat diversity. On the other hand the fact that about a quarter of the landscape will still reduce its conservation capacity by the end of the 21st centuryis of concern because this confirms earlier research findings that climate change effects on biodiversity will likely be stronger in landscapes subject to intensive human land use (Travis, 2003; Bomhardet al., 2005; Brook et al., 2008; Barbet-Massinet al., 2012).’
Climate change response categories and adaptation strategies(this should replace previous text on Page 648)
Our discussionchangedaccordinglywith the newresultsonthe representation of the response categories in four sections of the paragraph as follows.
In the first section, the followingoriginalsentences:
‘In synthesis, our results indicate that, irrespective of the emission scenario, the Finnish landscape will probably be dominated by a very high proportion of sensitive and susceptible forest patches, whereas resilient and resistant patches are likely to be relatively rare in the landscape. This means that most forests, irrespective of their conservation capacity, will be vulnerable to climate change, strongly reducing the potential for species persistence and adaptation to new climates. This increased fragility of the landscape translates into a higher uncertainty for landscape managers in the choice of conservation strategies.’
were replaced by the following sentences:
‘In synthesis, our results indicated that, irrespective of the emission scenario, despitethreequarters of the Finnishlandscapearelikelytobedominatedby a veryhighproportion of resistantandresilient forest patches, a quarter of the landscapeislikelytobeeithersusceptibleorsensitive. This means that most forests, irrespective of their conservation capacity, will have low vulnerability to climate change, strongly increasing the potential for species persistence and adaptation to new climates. However most of these forests (the resistant ones) still have at present a low conservation capacity that may be improved through restoration projects (Halmeet al., 2013). The resistant stands are expected to be more common under low emission scenarios and have a higher conservation capacity in the northern boreal zone than in the south, likely as a consequence of the higher future increase in forest growth. On the other hand the increased fragility of a large part of the landscape, with higher stand sensitivity in the southernmost boreal zones than in the north, translates into a higher uncertainty for landscape managers in the choice of conservation strategies in these areas.’
In the second section, the following original sentences:
‘Our results show that the frequency of such [resilient] forests in current landscapes is very low irrespective of the emission scenario; thus, alternative conservation actions are needed to improve the situation. In the few resilient forest patches, which can act as important climate refugia, conservation actions ranging from selective logging to full protection (set-aside) (Chapin et al., 2007) for maintaining and monitoring high landscape conservation capacity should be delivered (Heller & Zavaleta, 2009; Gillsonet al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013) across all the vegetation zones under both the low- (B1) and high- (A2) emission scenarios and should be pursued more aggressively in the southernmost boreal zones under intermediate (A1B) emissions. In susceptible patches, conservation actions for maintaining high conservation capacity and enhancing heterogeneity (and thereby resilience) by permanently or temporarily protecting biodiverse forest reserves are recommended (Mönkkönenet al., 2011).’
were replaced by the following sentences:
‘Our results show that the frequency of such [resilient] forests in current landscapes is limited irrespective of the emission scenario; thus, alternative conservation actions are needed to improve the situation. In the resilient forest patches, which can act as important climate refugia, conservation actions ranging from selective logging to full protection (set-aside) (Chapin et al., 2007) for maintaining and monitoring high landscape conservation capacity should be delivered (Heller & Zavaleta, 2009; Gilssonet al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013) across all the vegetation zones and should be pursued more aggressively in the southernmost boreal zones. In the few susceptible patches, conservation actions for maintaining high conservation capacity and enhancing heterogeneity (and thereby resilience) by permanently or temporarily protecting biodiverse forest reserves are recommended (Mönkkönenet al., 2011).’
In the third section, the following original sentences:
´Forests requiring restoration to improve SCC and management for heterogeneity to reduce vulnerability would be more common under a low- (B1) emission scenario, especially in the northern boreal zone. At the opposite end of the continuum are the highly sensitive areas, which are very vulnerable and possess low conservation capacity. These are particularly common under the intermediate- (A1B) emission scenario and in the southernmost boreal zones.´
Were replaced by the following sentences:
´Forests requiring restoration to improve SCC and management for heterogeneity to reduce vulnerability would be more common in the northern boreal zone. At the opposite end of the continuum are the highly sensitive areas, which are very vulnerable and possess low conservation capacity. These are particularly common in the southernmost boreal zones.´
In the fourth section, the following original sentences:
´In any case, increased investment in conservation actions pursued at the ecosystem level could be required to improve landscape conservation capacity, thus buffering the increasingly negative effect of cli-mate change on the persistence of forest species (Mori et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013).´
Were replaced by the following sentences:
´In any case, increased investment in conservation actions pursued at the ecosystem level could be required to protect dead wood resources needed for threatened boreal species where conservation capacity is increasing under climate change and limit habitat loss where there is habitat degradation (Mori et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013).´
References
Barbet-Massin M, Thuiller W, Jiguet F (2012) The fate of European breeding birds under climate, land-use and dispersal scenarios. Global Change Biology, 18, 881-890.
Bomhard B, Richardson DM, Donaldson JS et al. (2005) Potential impacts of future land use and climate change on the Red List status of the Proteaceae in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Global Change Biology, 11, 1452–1468.
Brook BW, Sodhi NS, Bradshaw CJA (2008) Synergies among extinction drivers under global change.Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 453-460.
Chapin FS III, Danell K, Elmqvist T, Folke C, Fresco N (2007) Managing climate change impacts to enhance the resilience and sustainability of Fennoscandian forests. Ambio, 36, 528-533.
Eggers J, Lindner M, Zudin S, Zaehle S, Liski J (2008) Impact of changing wood demand, climate and land use on European forest resources and carbon stocks during the 21st century. Global Change Biology, 14, 2288-2303.