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:
adriano.mazziotta@jyu.fi
1
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
mistake concerning 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 had some 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 categories is still valid. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
Abstract (this should replace previous text on Page 637)
The representation in the Finnish landscape in 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 is likely to be dominated by a very high proportion of sensitive and
2
susceptible forest patches, thereby increasing uncertainty for 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 scaled CVs categories, in which the NFI stands in Finland for each climate
change scenario are divided and mapped, changed from ‘(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. 2 Maps 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 CV reference threshold values for B1
(b) are used for comparison with the other two scenarios. The borders of the four vegetation zones
occurring in Finland are included in the maps. Box plots show the distribution of values (mean,
interquartile range, outliers) of plots for SCC and CV for each vegetation zone (codes for zones: Hb =
hemiboreal; Sb = Southern boreal; Cb = Central boreal; Nb = Northern boreal).
3
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
0.00 ‒ 0.10
>0.10 ‒ 0.25
>0.25 ‒ 0.50
>0.50 ‒ 0.75
>0.75 ‒ 1.00
%
11.6
16.7
44.7
24.4
2.5
CV Range
-1.00 ‒ -0.50
<-0.25 ‒ -0.50
<0.00 ‒ -0.25
>0.00 ‒ 0.25
>0.25 ‒ 1.00
B1
11.4
11.0
61.2
23.9
3.5
A1B
12.5
12.0
61.1
22.8
3.7
A2
15.4
14.7
59.7
21.1
3.8
Results
Climate Vulnerability (this should replace previous text on Pages 643-644)
4
The results for this section changed according to the new ranges of CV values. The following paragraph
totally replaces the original Climate Vulnerability paragraph 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
increased with 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 increased also 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 P < 0.001): (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 categories among 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, P > 0.5).
2. Resilient (B1 = 19.4%, A1B = 19.9%, A2 = 20.0%) plots represented about 20% of the Finnish forest
5
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 resilient plots 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 higher in 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%) plots represented 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, P < 0.01). 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 were also significantly higher in the hemi- and
central- boreal zones than in the northern boreal zone.’
Fig. 3 Biplots 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
6
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
7
(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.
8
9
Table 2 Summary statistics for each response 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 the means of the response for each
category and zone.
Category
Zone
Susceptible Hemiboreal
S boreal
C boreal
N boreal
Total
Resilient Hemiboreal
S boreal
C boreal
N boreal
Total
Resistant Hemiboreal
S boreal
C boreal
N boreal
Total
Sensitive Hemiboreal
S boreal
C boreal
N boreal
Total
B1
N
14
125
60
13
212
22
296
167
60
545
46
561
517
264
1388
20
292
171
70
553
Mean
0.097
0.073
0.078
0.084
0.076
-0.086
-0.075
-0.084
-0.081
-0.079
-0.044
-0.050
-0.048
-0.038
-0.047
0.044
0.045
0.033
0.028
0.039
A1B
N
17
120
45
15
197
19
301
182
58
560
46
560
517
279
1402
20
293
171
55
539
Mean
0.095
0.069
0.085
0.079
0.076
-0.091
-0.080
-0.088
-0.085
-0.083
-0.045
-0.051
-0.047
-0.043
-0.048
0.054
0.046
0.040
0.022
0.042
A2
N
13
121
50
11
195
23
300
177
62
562
42
595
521
285
1443
24
258
167
49
498
Mean
0.104
0.080
0.086
0.071
0.082
-0.077
-0.087
-0.087
-0.082
-0.086
-0.060
-0.054
-0.051
-0.044
-0.051
0.040
0.043
0.035
0.024
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.
10
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 (Tikkanen et 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; Bomhard et al., 2005; Brook et al., 2008; Barbet-Massin et 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; Hickler et al., 2012). On more in Finland the proportion of broadleaved deciduous
trees and their representation northward (Kellomäki et 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 century is 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; Bomhard et al., 2005; Brook et al., 2008; Barbet-Massin et al., 2012).’
11
Climate change response categories and adaptation strategies (this should replace previous text on Page
648)
Our discussion changed accordingly with the new results on the representation of the response
categories in four sections of the paragraph as follows.
In the first section, the following original sentences:
‘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, despite three quarters of
the Finnish landscape are likely to be dominated by a very high proportion of resistant and resilient
forest patches, a quarter of the landscape is likely to be either susceptible or sensitive. 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 (Halme et 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
12
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;
Gillson et 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 (Mönkkönen et 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; Gilsson
et 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 (Mönkkönen et al.,
2011).’
13
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).´
14
References
Barbet-Massin M, Thuiller W, Jiguet F (2012) The fate of European breeding birds under climate, landuse 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.
Gillson L, Dawson TP, Jack S, McGeoch MA (2013) Accommodating climate change contingencies in
conservation strategy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28, 135-142.
Halme P, Allen KA, Auninš A et al. (2013) Challenges of ecological restoration: les sons from forests in
northern Europe. Biological Conservation, 167, 248–256
Heller NE, Zavaleta ES (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22
years of recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142, 14-32.
15
Hickler T, Vohland K, Feehan J et al. (2012) Projecting the future distribution of European potential
natural vegetation zones with a generalized, tree species-based dynamic vegetation model. Global
Ecology and Biogeography, 21, 50-63.
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. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, 2339-2349.
Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S et al. (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and
vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 259, 698-709.
Mazziotta A, Mönkkönen M, Strandman H, Routa J, Tikkanen O-P, Kellomäki S (2014) Modeling the
effects of climate change and management on the dead wood dynamics in boreal forest
plantations. European Journal of Forest Research, 133, 405-421. DOI 10.1007/s10342-013-07733.
Mazziotta, A., Triviño, M., Tikkanen, O.-P., Kouki, J., Strandman, H., Mönkkönen, M., 2015. Applying
a framework for landscape planning under climate change for the conservation of biodiversity in
the Finnish boreal forest. Global Change Biology 21, 637-651.
Mönkkönen M, Reunanen P, Kotiaho JS, Juutinen A, Tikkanen O-P, Kouki J (2011) Cost-effective
strategies to conserve boreal forest biodiversity and long-term landscape-level maintenance of
habitats. European Journal of Forest Research, 130, 717-727.
Mori AS, Spies TA, Sudmeier-Rieux K, Andrade A (2013) Reframing ecosystem management in the era
of climate change: Issues and knowledge from forests. Biological Conservation, 165, 115-127.
Tikkanen O-P, Punttila P, Heikkilä R (2009) Species-area relationships of red-listed species in old
boreal forests: a large scale data analysis. Diversity and Distributions, 15, 852-862.
16
Travis JMJ (2003) Climate change and habitat destruction: a deadly anthropogenic cocktail.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B ; 270, 467–473.
Watson JEM, Iwamura T, Butt N (2013) Mapping vulnerability and conservation adaptation strategies
under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3, 989-994.
17