A Linear Programming Model to Biophysically Assess Some Ecosystem Service Synergies and Trade-Offs in Two Irish Landscapes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of CSAs
2.1.1. Western Peatlands
2.1.2. Newmarket
2.2. Decision Support System and Model
2.3. Coillte Collaboration
2.4. Remsoft Model Setup
2.5. Management Prescriptions
2.6. GIS Setup
2.7. Quantifying Ecosystem Service Provision Levels
- Assign ratings out of 10 for permanence (i.e., frequency of likely disturbance) and botanical diversity that are unrelated to the ES scores.
- Group land-uses with similar characteristics into functional groups based on Step 1.
- Complete the biodiversity matrix. The scores were determined relatively to the habitat ratings of the forestry land-uses. If a non-forest land-use was considered to be more suitable for a given ES, all ratings were re-scaled so that the most suitable land-use type received a rating of 10. This scaling is reflected in all tables.
2.8. Area Scaling, Species Mixtures and Open Space
2.9. Biophysical Model and Scenario Objective
3. Results
3.1. The Provision of ESs at the Beginning of the Planning Period
3.2. Ecosystem Services Trends Throughout the Planning Period
3.3. Comparing the Trade-Offs between ESs
4. Discussion
Caveats
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
ES | Ecosystem Service |
DSS | Decision Support System |
CSA | Case Study Area |
WP | Western Peatlands |
NM | Newmarket |
NPV | Net Present Value |
CCF | Continuous Cover Forestry |
Appendix
Management Intervention | Conifer | Broadleaf |
---|---|---|
Fertilising | 69 | 14 |
Fencing | 89 | 204 |
Mounding | 435 | 409 |
Planting | 800 | 1108 |
Weevil control | 211 | 41 |
Vegetation control | 228 | 376 |
Inspection | 10 | 10 |
Road maintenance | 1.50€·m−3 |
GPC | Title | €·ha−1·year−1 |
---|---|---|
3 | 10% diverse | 427 |
4 | Diverse | 454 |
5 | Broadleaf | 481 |
6 | Oak | 515 |
7 | Beech | 515 |
8 | Alder | 481 |
Product | Price (€·m−3) |
---|---|
Pulp | 26 |
Stake | 41 |
Small sawlog | 53 |
Large sawlog | 61 |
Firewood (broadleaf) | 42 |
Land-Use Category | €·ha−1·year−1 |
---|---|
Mixed livestock | |
Marginal | 415 |
Profitable | 885 |
Tillage land | 979 |
Land-Use Type | Ground Vegetation | Nesting Birds |
---|---|---|
Ash native woodland | 10.00 | 8.33 |
Oak native woodland | 6.42 | 8.33 |
Ash pre-thicket | 3.46 | 6.78 |
Ash thicket stage | 4.92 | 6.78 |
Ash closed maturing | 6.78 | 6.25 |
Ash commercially maturing | 5.57 | 5.73 |
Ash commercially mature | 5.91 | 8.33 |
SS pre-thicket | 5.93 | 6.78 |
SS thicket stage | 3.44 | 6.78 |
SS closed maturing | 3.19 | 6.25 |
SS commercially mature | 6.58 | 5.73 |
1st Rotation | Subsequent Rotation | ||
---|---|---|---|
Age | Habitat Rating | Age | Habitat Rating |
0 to 7 | 7.00 | 0 to 6 | 7.00 |
8 | 5.83 | 7.00 | 5.25 |
9 | 4.67 | 8.00 | 3.50 |
10 | 3.50 | 9.00 | 1.75 |
11 | 2.33 | ||
12 | 1.17 | ||
13 | 0.00 | 10.00 | 0.00 |
Aggregate | Species | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Small seeded broadleaves | Alder | Ash | Sycamore | Birch | Norway maple | |
Salix sp. | Poplar | Rowan | Hornbeam | |||
Big seeded broadleaves | Cherry | Beech | Hazel | Oak | Spanish chestnut | |
JL | Hybrid larch | Japanese larch | Lawson cypress | Western hemlock | Western red cedar | European larch |
NS | Douglas fir | Noble fir | Grand fir | Norway spruce | Other conifer | |
LP | Corsican pine | Lodgepole pine | ||||
SS | Sitka spruce | |||||
SP | Scots pine |
Age Range | Conifers | Broadleaves | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(years) | SS | NS | SP | LP | JL. | SSBL | BSBL |
0–14 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
15–20 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 1.00 |
21–30 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 6.00 | 1.00 |
31–40 | 1.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 6.00 | 1.00 |
41–50 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 7.00 | 8.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 3.00 |
51–60 | 1.00 | 6.00 | 10.00 | 7.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 3.00 |
61–80 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 7.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 3.00 |
>80 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 7.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 |
Land-Use | NB | GV | DF | DC | RS | HH | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non-forest | Scrub | 9.17 | 4.66 | 4.82 | 7.14 | 1.67 | 10.00 |
Bog | 5.00 | 5.33 | 4.27 | 4.29 | 0.00 | 10.00 | |
Short rotation coppice | 4.17 | 2.00 | 3.09 | 4.29 | 1.67 | 0.00 | |
Grassland | Low-intensity grassland | 9.17 | 5.33 | 4.22 | 1.43 | 0.00 | 9.00 |
Intensive grassland | 10.00 | 3.33 | 6.40 | 0.71 | 0.00 | 3.00 | |
Tillage | Spring cereals | 10.00 | 2.00 | 2.32 | 8.57 | 0.00 | 10.00 |
Winter cereals | 8.33 | 1.33 | 3.35 | 10.00 | 0.00 | 10.00 | |
Winter root crops | 8.33 | 1.33 | 3.33 | 2.86 | 0.00 | 10.00 | |
Winter sown cover crops | 8.33 | 2.00 | 3.33 | 2.86 | 0.00 | 10.00 |
Broadleaf | Conifer | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age Range | Cover | Forage | Age Range | Cover | Forage |
0–10 | 1.43 | 6.67 | 0–5 | 1.43 | 6.67 |
11–20 | 5.71 | 5.33 | 6–10 | 5.71 | 2.67 |
21–30 | 4.29 | 4.00 | 10–15 | 7.14 | 1.33 |
41–50 | 2.86 | 2.67 | 16–20 | 5.71 | 2.67 |
51–60 | 1.43 | 1.33 | 21–30 | 4.29 | 1.33 |
61–70 | 1.43 | 1.33 | 31–40 | 1.43 | 2.67 |
71–80 | 2.86 | 2.67 | 41–45 | 2.86 | 4.00 |
81–90 | 4.29 | 4.00 | 46–50 | 4.29 | 5.33 |
91–100 | 4.29 | 5.33 | 51–100 | 5.71 | 6.67 |
111–120 | 4.29 | 6.67 | |||
121–130 | 4.29 | 6.67 | |||
131–200 | 5.71 | 6.67 |
Land-Use | Co-Efficient | Description |
---|---|---|
Agricultural land | 0.010 | Any land used for agriculture (grassland or tillage) |
Cleared forest | 0.040 | Forest sites cleared in the last 4 years, this includes restocked sites and the first two years of afforested sites |
Undisturbed forest | 0.005 | Any existing forest site that is 3 years or older |
Scrubland | 0.004 | Land not used for agriculture or forestry e.g., scrubland or bog |
Native Woodland Site | CCF | Plantation Forestry | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (years) | Conifer | BL | Mixed | Conifer | BL | Mixed | Conifer | BL | Mixed |
1 to 5 | 3.00 | 3.50 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 | 3.50 | 1.00 | 2.50 | 2.50 |
6 to 15 | 3.00 | 6.00 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 2.00 | 3.50 | 4.00 |
16 to 50 | 5.00 | 8.00 | 8.00 | 6.00 | 7.50 | 6.50 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
51 or older | 7.00 | 10.00 | 9.00 | 6.50 | 8.00 | 8.50 | 4.50 | 6.00 | 6.00 |
Land-Use | Forest Type (Species Type) | Forest Stage | Forest Land-Use Score |
---|---|---|---|
Agricultural land (grassland or tillage) | Plantation (BL) | Establishment | 2.50 |
Bufferzone (scrubland) | Native woodland (BL) | Young | 6.00 |
Bog | Native woodland (Mixed) | Young | 5.00 |
References
- Forest Service. National Forest Inventory—Epublic of Ireland—Results; Forest Service: Wexford, Ireland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Barrett, F.; Somers, M.J.; Nieuwenhuis, M. Practisfm—An Operational Multi-Resource Inventory Protocol for Sustainable Forest Management; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2007; pp. 224–237. [Google Scholar]
- Nieuwenhuis, M.; Tiernan, D. The impact of the introduction of sustainable forest management objectives on the optimisation of PC-based forest-level harvest schedules. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 689–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, B.J.; Chikumbo, O.; Davey, S.M. Optimisation modelling of sustainable forest management at the regional level: An australian example. Ecol. Model. 2002, 153, 157–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcamo, J.; Bennett, E.M. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment; Island Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez-Baggethun, E.; de Groot, R.; Lomas, P.L.; Montes, C. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1209–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, R.T. Wildlife and management. N. Y. Stake Conserv. 1966, 20, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
- Westman, W.E. How much are nature’s services worth? Science 1977, 197, 960–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MEA. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Available online: http://www.unep.org/maweb/en/index.aspx (accessed on 5 Octorber 2015).
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Peterson, G.D.; Bennett, E.M. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5242–5247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fléchard, M.-C.; Carroll, M.S.; Cohn, P.J.; Ní Dhubháin, Á. The changing relationships between forestry and the local community in rural northwestern Ireland. Can. J. For. Res. 2007, 37, 1999–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiernan, D. Redesigning Afforested Western Peatlands in Ireland: (published in): After Wise Use—the Future of Peatlands; Irish Peatland Society: Jyväskylä, Finland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Cregan, M.; Murphy, W. A Review of Forest Recreation Research Needs in Ireland; COFORD: Dublin, Ireland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Ní Dhubháin, Á.; Fléchard, M.-C.; Moloney, R.; O’Connor, D. Stakeholders’ perceptions of forestry in rural areas—Two case studies in ireland. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 695–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nieuwenhuis, M.; Williamson, G.P. Harvesting coillte’s forests: The right tree at the right time. Irish For. 1993, 50, 122–133. [Google Scholar]
- McDonagh, M. (Resource Planning Team Leader Coillte); Corrigan, E. (Ph.D candidate, University College Dublin). Personal Communication, 2012.
- Forest Service. Irish National Forest Standard; Magner Communications: Dublin, Ireland, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Walters, K.R. Design and development of a generalised forest management system: Woodstock. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Systems Analysis and Management Decisions in Forestry, Valdivia, Chile, 9–12 March 1993; Remsoft Inc.: Valdivia, Chile, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Farrelly, N.; Ní Dhubháin, Á.; Nieuwenhuis, M. Site index of sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) in relation to different measures of site quality in Ireland. Can. J. For. Res. 2011, 41, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horgan, T.; Keane, M.; McCarthy, R.; Lally, M.; Thompson, D. A Guide to Forest Tree Species Selection and Silviculture in Ireland; COFORD: Dublin, Ireland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Forest Service. Native Woodland Scheme—Establishment; Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Johnstown Castle Estate: Wexford, Ireland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- BFC. Yield Models for Forest Management; Forestry Commission: Alice Holt Lodge, UK, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Matthews, R.W.; Mackie, E.D. Forest Mensuration: A Handbook for Practitioners, 2nd ed.; Forestry Commission: Edinburgh, Ireland, 2006; p. 330. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, M.; Gittings, T.; O’Halloran, J.; Kelly, T.; Pithon, J. The Distribution of Hen Harriers in Ireland in Relation to Land-Use Cover, Particularly Forest Cover; COFORD: Dublin, Ireland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, M.; Irwin, S.; O’Donoghue, B.; Kelly, T.; O’Halloran, J. The Use of Forested Landscapes by Hen Harriers in Ireland; COFORD: Dublin, Ireland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Forest Service. Forest Service Appropriate Assessment Procedure—Appendix B Appropriate Assessment Procedure (AAP) Requirements Regarding Hen Harrier Spas and Afforestation; Forest Service: Wexford, Ireland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Fennessy, J. The Collection Storage, Treatment and Handling of Broadleaved Tree Seed; COFORD: Dublin, Ireland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Fennessy, J. The Collection, Storage, Treatment and Handling of Conifer Tree Seed; COFORD: Dublin, Ireland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Bryce, J.M.; Macdonald, D.W. Projected changes in red squirrel habitats in craigvinean forest. Scott. For. 2000, 54, 87–90. [Google Scholar]
- Flaherty, S.; Patenatue, G.; Close, A.; Lurz, P.W.W. The impact of forest stand structure on red squirrel habitat use. Forestry 2012, 85, 437–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waters, C.; Lawton, C. Red squirrel translocation in Ireland. In Irish Wildlife Manuals; Marnell, F., Kingston, N., Eds.; National Parks and Wildlife Service: Dublin, Ireland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Mysterud, A.; Østbye, E. Cover as a habitat element for temperate ungulates: Effects on habitat selection and demography. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1999, 27, 385–394. [Google Scholar]
- Rodgers, M.; O’Connor, M.; Connie, O.D.; Asam, Z.-U.-Z.; Muller, M.; Xiao, L. Phosphorus Release from Forest Harvesting on an Upland Blanket Peat; COFORD: Dublin, Ireland, 2012; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Eriksson, L.O.; Löfgren, S.; Öhman, K. Implications for forest management of the eu water framework directive's stream water quality requirements—A modeling approach. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 13, 284–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hutton, S.A.; Harrison, S.S.C.; O’Halloran, J. An Evaluation of the Role of Forests and Forest Practices in the Eutrophication and Sedimentation of Receiving Waters; University College Cork: Cork, Ireland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Ryder, L.; de Eyto, E.; Gormally, M.; Sheehy Skeffington, M.; Dillane, M.; Poole, R. Riparian zone creation in established coniferous forests in Irish upland peat catchments: Physical, chemical and biological implications. Biol. Environ. Proc. R. Ir. Acad. 2011, 111, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moorkens, E.A. Conservation management of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. In Irish Wildlife Manuals; The Heritage Service: Dublin, Ireland, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Mitsova, H.; Mitas, L. Modeling soil detachment with RUSLE3D using GIS. Available online: http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/gmslab/denix/usle.html (accessed on 6 March 2016).
- Sivertun, Å.; Prange, L. Non-point source critical area analysis in the gisselö watershed using GIS. Environ. Model. Softw. 2003, 18, 887–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, D.M.; Jay, M.; Jensen, F.S.; Lucas, B.; Marzano, M.; Montagné, C.; Peace, A.; Weiss, G. Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecol. Soc. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncker, P.S.; Barreiro, S.M.; Hengeveld, G.M.; Lind, T.; Mason, W.L.; Ambrozy, S.; Spiecker, H. Classification of forest management approaches: A new conceptual framework and its applicability to European forestry. Ecol. Soc. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levy, P.E.; Hale, S.E.; Nicoll, B.C. Biomass expansion factors and root: Shoot ratios for coniferous tree species in Great Britain. Forestry 2004, 77, 421–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teobaldelli, M.; Somogyi, Z.; Migliavacca, M.; Usoltsev, V.A. Generalized functions of biomass expansion factors for conifers and broadleaved by stand age, growing stock and site index. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257, 1004–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cairns, M.A.; Brown, S.; Helmer, E.H.; Baumgardner, G.A. Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests. Oecologia 1997, 111, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Annex 3a.1biomass Default Tables for Section 3.2 Forest Land; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, J.E.; Heath, L.S.; Jenkins, J.C. Forest Volumeto-Biomass Models and Estimates of Mass for Live and Standing Dead Trees of U.S. Forests; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Biber, P.; Borges, J.; Moshammer, R.; Barreiro, S.; Botequim, B.; Brodrechtová, Y.; Brukas, V.; Chirici, G.; Cordero-Debets, R.; Corrigan, E.; et al. How sensitive are ecosystem services in European forest landscapes to silvicultural treatment? Forests 2015, 6, 1666–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baskent, E.Z.; Keles, S. Spatial forest planning: A review. Ecol. Model. 2005, 188, 145–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J. Evaluating Tradeoffs among Ecosystem Services in the Management of Public Lands; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Forest Service. Forestry Schemes Manual; Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Johnstown Castle Estate, Wexford, Ireland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Connolly, L.; Kinsella, A.; Quinlan, G.; Moran, B. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2007; Teagasc: Athenry, Ireland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Connolly, L.; Kinsella, A.; Quinlan, G.; Moran, B. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2008; Teagasc: Athenry, Ireland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Connolly, L.; Kinsella, A.; Quinlan, G.; Moran, B. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2009; Teagasc: Athenry, Ireland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hennessy, T.; Kinsella, A.; Moran, B.; Quinlan, G. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2010; Teagasc: Athenry, Ireland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hennessy, T.; Kinsella, A.; Moran, B.; Quinlan, G. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2011; Teagasc: Athenry, Ireland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, G.; O’Donoghue, S.; Iremonger, S.; Gittings, T.; Pithon, J.; O’Halloran, J.; Wilson, M.; O’Donnell, V.; Kelly, D.; French, L.; et al. Assessment of Biodiversity at Different Stages of the Forest Cycle; University College Cork: Cork, Ireland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- O’Halloran, J.; Irwin, S.; Kelly, D.; Kelly, T.; Mitchell, F.; Coote, L.; Oxbrough, A.; Wilson, M.; Martin, R.; Moore, K.; et al. Management of Biodiversity in a Range of Irish Forest Types; University College Cork: Cork, Ireland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Barrett, F.; Nieuwenhuis, M.; Doyle, M. The practisfm multi-resource inventory protocol and decision support system: A model to address the private forest resource information gap in Ireland. Ir. For. 2009, 64, 5–20. [Google Scholar]
- | Western Peatlands | Newmarket |
---|---|---|
Area (approximately in ha) | 1,060,000 | 188,000 |
Forested area (approximately in ha) | 116,000 | 32,000 |
Average temperature (°C) | 11–12 | 8–9 |
Typical annual rainfall (mm) | West: 2000 | 1200–1400 |
East: 1200–1400 | ||
Forested land only (as of 2012) | ||
Forest ownership | ||
Coillte | 64% | 68% |
Private | 36% | 32% |
Yield potential | ||
Productive forestry | 82% | 85% |
Unproductive forestry | 18% | 15% |
Age class distribution 0–10 years | 26% | 14% |
11–20 years | 36% | 36% |
21–30 years | 19% | 28% |
31–40 years | 13% | 14% |
41–50 years | 5% | 6% |
51 years or over | 1% | 2% |
Soil type | ||
Brown earths and brown podzolics | 5% | 58% |
Lithosols | 12% | 9% |
Gleys/peaty gleys and gleyed grey brown podzolics | 17% | 26% |
Flushed blanket peat | 48% | 7% |
Cutaway raised bogs | 18% | 0% |
Elevation | ||
Less than 200 m | 93% | 26% |
Distance to watercourse | ||
Less than 200 m | 56% | 27% |
Between 200 and 400 m | 26% | 28% |
400 m or greater | 19% | 45% |
Management Prescription | Site and Stand Condition(s) for Eligibility of Management Prescription |
---|---|
Retention | No anthropogenic intervention takes place. Forests are allowed to mature until the next year of the model. |
Site Preparation | |
Mounding | A requirement to prepare a site for establishment on infertile peats. Not prescribed to native woodland sites. |
Fencing | An entire site was fenced for afforestation and half of this cost was assumed for fence maintenance at reforestation. This is based on area rather than perimeter. |
Fertilising | Sites which have supported a previous yield class of 14 m3·ha−1·year−1 or less for conifers, or 6 m3·ha−1·an−1 or less for broadleaves, receive 2 fertilisation applications (one at establishment and one at year 5) to ensure establishment. Sites whose forest productivity needs to be determined (i.e., agricultural sites) were assessed for fertilisation based on a fertility model adapted from Farrelly, et al. [21]. |
Forestation | |
The grant premium categories for afforestation as outlined by the Irish Forest Service in 2012 were used for afforestation and reforestation (reforestation was not grant aided although the options provide a suitable variety of restocking options); with the addition of a reforestation option for WP. Species suitability was determined based on soil type and elevation. Any species with a moderate to optimal suitability for a particular soil type according to Horgan, et al. [22] was considered suitable to be planted under the soil type criterion. Species which had a tolerance of 3–5 according to Horgan, Keane, McCarthy, Lally and Thompson [22] were considered suitable for elevations up to 150 m for broadleaves and 200 m for conifers, while species tolerant of exposure (a rating of 2 or less) were also considered suitable for elevations up to 300 m. Only lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) was considered suitable for elevations above 300 m for the purpose of reforestation. It is assumed that weevil and vegetation control is applied to all sites on which forest is established (afforestation or reforestation) and that these sites are manually inspected by a forester to ensure that establishment has been successful. | |
Native woodland | Species selection is based on a site’s soil type as describe in Forest Service [23]; a site must be capable of growing trees without the requirement for fertilisation at establishment. |
Harvesting | |
The species with the highest productivity dictates the thinning regime. Conifer stands must be suitably productive for thinning to be an option (i.e., YC ≥ 10). Conifers can begin thinning on a 5-year cycle (for a total of two or four thinnings) at the age of 16 or 22 years (the optimisation chooses the optimal). The thinning interval and potential start ages for broadleaves is YC specific. For a broadleaf species with a YC of 12, thinning takes place at 5 years intervals starting ages of 10 or 16, YC of 10: 10 years intervals starting at ages 12, 20 or 23, YC of 8: 15 years intervals starting at ages 20 or 25, YC of 6: 20 years intervals starting at ages 23, 28 or 33 and YC of 4: 25 years intervals starting at ages 30, 40 or 45. Thinning for CCF can begin at the age of 19 or 42 years (both ages are choices in for the optimisation) and thinnings take place at 5-year intervals for the duration of the planning period. | |
Clearfell | Clearfelling is an option when the species in a stand with the highest proportion of area is a conifer and exceeds 18 m in mean height or if the species is broadleaf and its age is ≥ 60 years. |
Agricultural Land-Use | |
The agricultural land-use and the associated practices are maintained, i.e., ruminant or tillage production (Newmarket only). |
GIS Layer(s) | Source |
---|---|
Coillte Sub-Compartments | Coillte |
Coillte Forests and Old Woodland Sites | Coillte |
County Council Roads (Data Collected by Coillte) | Coillte |
Wind Zones | Coillte |
Irish Land Divisions | Central Statistics Office |
Electoral Divisions | Central Statistics Office |
Single Farm Payment (SFP) Land Parcels | Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine |
Rivers, Lakes and Ponds | Environmental Protection Agency |
Teagasc Soil Survey | Environmental Protection Agency |
Catchments and Sub-Catchments | Environmental Protection Agency |
Private Forests (Forestry07) | Forest Service |
Natura 2000 and Native Woodland Sites | National Parks and Wildlife Service |
Digital Terrain Model | University College Dublin Urban Institute |
Ecosystem Service | Abbreviation | Newmarket | Western Peatlands |
---|---|---|---|
Deer cover (1–10) | deerc | 4.84 | 4.76 |
Deer forage (1–10) | deerf | 3.34 | 3.21 |
Hen harrier (1–10) | hh | 2.29 | 2.60 |
Water sedimentation risk (0–100) | h2o | 4.50 | 3.62 |
Carbon (T C) | carbon | 45.74 | 50.28 |
Red squirrel (1–10) | rsquirrel | 1.38 | 2.05 |
Nesting birds (1–10) | bird | 6.67 | 6.59 |
Ground vegetation (1–10) | gveg | 4.21 | 4.27 |
Recreation (1-10) | rec | 3.11 | 3.05 |
Newmarket | Western Peatland | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Ecosystem service | 2012 | Average score | 2012 | Average score |
Deer cover (1–10) | 1.87 | 5.77 | 4.76 | 6.44 |
Deer forage (1–10) | 4.91 | 5.57 | 3.21 | 5.39 |
Hen harrier (1–10) | 4.25 | 7.14 | 2.59 | 8.09 |
Water sedimentation risk (0–100) | 6.13 | 3.98 | 3.61 | 3.26 |
Carbon (t) | 1,264,216 | 16,016,810 | 4,596,937 | 10,350,971 |
Red squirrel (1–10) | 0.18 | 4.41 | 2.05 | 4.00 |
Nesting birds (1–10) | 8.81 | 9.37 | 6.59 | 8.49 |
Ground vegetation (1–10) | 3.60 | 4.86 | 4.26 | 5.54 |
Recreation (1-10) | 2.61 | 6.37 | 3.05 | 5.98 |
ES Level in More Desirable 50% of Biophysical Range | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ES Optimised | Bird | Carbon | deerc | deerf | gveg | h2o | hh | NPV | Recreation | Rsquirrel | Timber | Total (WP, NM) |
bird | X | X | 1 | X | X | 4, 5 | ||||||
carbon | 2 | X | 1 | X | 3, 3 | |||||||
deerc | 2 | 2 | X | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4, 3 | |||||
deerf | X | 2 | X | 2 | 1 | X | X | 2 | 7, 5 | |||
gveg | X | 2 | 1 | X | X | X | 5, 5 | |||||
h2o | 2 | 2 | 2 | X | X | X | X | 2 | X | 9, 5 | ||
hh | X | X | X | 1 | X | 4, 5 | ||||||
NPV | X | 2 | 1 | X | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6, 3 | ||||
recreation | X | X | 2 | 2 | 4, 2 | |||||||
rsquirrel | X | 2 | 2 | 3, 1 | ||||||||
timber | 2 | 2 | 2, 1 |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Corrigan, E.; Nieuwenhuis, M. A Linear Programming Model to Biophysically Assess Some Ecosystem Service Synergies and Trade-Offs in Two Irish Landscapes. Forests 2016, 7, 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7070128
Corrigan E, Nieuwenhuis M. A Linear Programming Model to Biophysically Assess Some Ecosystem Service Synergies and Trade-Offs in Two Irish Landscapes. Forests. 2016; 7(7):128. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7070128
Chicago/Turabian StyleCorrigan, Edwin, and Maarten Nieuwenhuis. 2016. "A Linear Programming Model to Biophysically Assess Some Ecosystem Service Synergies and Trade-Offs in Two Irish Landscapes" Forests 7, no. 7: 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7070128