Trade-offs between Ecosystem Services

Studying trade-offs between ecosystem services in mountain forests: a simulation study based on the Pareto front approach Valentine Lafond 1/2, Thomas Cordonnier 1, Zhun Mao 1 and Benoît Courbaud 1 1

Pour mieux affirmer ses missions, le Cemagref devient Irstea

www.irstea.fr

IRSTEA Grenoble, Université de Grenoble, France 2 ETH Zürich, Forest Ecology Group, Switzerland

Perth III: Mountains of Our Future Earth Perth, Scotland – October 4-8th 2015

2

Ecosystem services in forests 

Mountain forests provide numerous services     



Production Protection against natural hazards Recreation … Biodiversity conservation

Uneven-aged forests favorable to this multifunctionality?  Continuous forest cover (Diaci et al. 2011; O'Hara et Ramage 2013; Spiecker 2003)  Diversity of structure => diversity of niches (Moning & Muller 2008)  Large and very large trees => microhabitats (Larrieu & Cabanettes 2012; Vuidot et al. 2011)

3

Multiple ES assessment 

Examples of (simulation) studies Trade-offs characterization? Management Studies

Baskent et al. 2008 & 2009

Prod.

Ø

EA

UA

Others

X

X

X

Shelterwood

Bradford & D'Amato (2012)

X

X

C

Biodiversity

X

O2

H20

Soil fertility

X

Multi-criteria technique $

X

Large trees, heterogeneity

RMSE

X

X

Large trees

Optim.

X

Buongiorno et al. 2012

Protec.

Duncker et al. 2012

X

X

Close to nature, Biomass

X

X

DeadW, large trees, composition, habitat

Seidl et al. 2007

X

X

Diam. limit, conv.

X

X

DeadW, compo. “naturality”

$

Schwenk et al. 2012

X

X

X

X

SR birds

Max. « Utility »

X

X

DW, large trees, compos., “maturity”

Incompatibility ?

Temperli et al. 2012

Shelterwood

X

X

Synergy Trade-offs

X

X

PCA, visual

4



Trade-off characterization?  Generally intuitive 

Utility (%)

Multiple ES assessment Biodiversity Timber C storage

No optimum scenario (or vary/ES) (e.g .Schwenk et al 2012) Scenarios

 Attempts to quantify / visualize 

Correlations, PCA (e.g. Duncker et al. 2012)

 A more explicit treatment of trade-offs is required (Charpentier 2015)

Charpentier 2015



Using Pareto fronts



Full exploration of scenarios

Duncker et al 2012

5

Objectives 

Detect and analyze trade-offs and synergies between  Timber production  Biodiversity conservation (deadwood, large trees, understory)  Protection (rockfalls, avalanches, landslides)



Exploring the whole range of uneven-aged management practices  i.e. varying  Harvesting / thinning intensity  Spatial aggregation (individual tree selection, small groups, large groups)  Retention of natural attributes (deadwood, large trees)

6

Methodological framework  Courbaud et al. (2015) Ecol. Model.



Western (French) Alps  



Uneven-aged stands Picea abies, Abies alba

Forest dynamics model : Samsara2   



Individual-based Spatially explicit Competition for light

Simulation platform :

 Dufour-Kowalski et al. (2012) Ann.For.Sci

7

Methodological framework Zilliox & Gosselin 2014

Lafond et al. 2014

Holeksa et al. 2008

Management parameters

Timber production : volume, size & quality

Initial state Dynamics model (Samsara2) Demographic parameters

Biodiversity models

Time (years)

Protection models

Courbaud et al. 2015

Structure & composition

Berger et al. 1994, 2007… Frehner et al 2005

Biodiversity : dead wood & floristic diversity

Output variables

Input factors

Stock (G, m²/ha)

Silviculture algorithm

Protection : rockfalls, avalanches, erosion

Sensitivity analysis & regression approach => META-MODELS of ES indicators (Lafond et al. 2014, PhD thesis; Lafond et al. 2015, Env. Model.)

8

Methodological framework 

Pareto fronts technique

 

Metamodels of ES indicators

 Illustration with 2 ES indicators:

Efficient (˝non dominated˝) scenarios ● → Pareto front

1)

Patterns (trade-off / synergy)

2)

Analysis of efficient management scenarios

3)

Assessment of “current” scenarios (e.g. Business As Usual Management, BAUM)

Dead wood volume (m3/ha)

Analysing Pareto front (3 steps)

Biodiversity conservation



(1) Trade-off

? ? ▀

(3) BAUM

Timber production

(mean cut volume, m3/ha/10 years)

(Lafond et al., in prep)

9

Analyzing trade-offs between ES

TIMBER PRODUCTION

TIMBER PRODUCTION

Harvested volume (m3/ha/10 years)

Thinning proportion (%) Harvesting proportion

+GRADIENT

Sd. quantity to cut (m2/ha)

-GRADIENT HIGH

Thinning diameter (cm) Harvesting diameter (m)

Cut quantity

Large gaps

PROTECTION

LOW LOW

Dead trees harvesting (%) Large trees retention (n/ha) Gap size (m2)


Rockfall protection index

(2) MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS ALONG THE PARETO FRONT +GRADIENT -GRADIENT -GRADIENT

Large gaps

PROTECTION

 Synergies


 Trade-offs

BIODIVERSITY

(1) PATTERNS:


Cut quantity

BIODIVERSITY Dead wood volume (m3/ha)

10

PROTECTION


BIODIVERSITY


Analyzing trade-offs between ES

AM

AM

BAUM

BAUM

TIMBER PRODUCTION

TIMBER PRODUCTION


 •

BAUM : Business As Usual Manag. AM: Alternative Manag.

Harv. Diam.

Harv. Intens. (%max)

Thin. intens. (%max)

DeadW retent.

L tree Retent. (/ha)

57.5cm

80%

30%

10%

1

50%

5%

30%

3

PROTECTION

(3) ASSESSMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES



AM BAUM

BIODIVERSITY Dead wood volume (m3/ha)

11

Discussion 

Trade-offs between Ecosystem Services  Production vs biodiversity 

Negative impact of management intensity (Lafond et al. 2015; Duncker et al. 2012)



Compensation by retention measures (deadwood, large trees) ? (Bauhus et al. 2009)  Efficiency ? (e.g. Lafond et al. 2015)

 Protection vs production 

Optimum for moderate management intensity ?

 Protection vs biodiversity





Young stands (dense) > mature forests (gaps) ? (Dorren et al. 2004)



Protection function of large logs ! (Fuhr et al. 2015)

Analysis of management scenarios  Several management factors involved  Better compromise if ↓ harvesting & thinning intensity ?

12

Discussion Pareto front technique 

Identification of efficient management scenario 

Focus analysis (Charpentier 2015)



Good visualization of trade-offs and synergies (Kennedy et al 2008)



Assessment of current scenarios (Groots et al 2012)

Objective 2

 Advantages

Improvement

Current scenario

Objective 1

 Limits 

(Borges et al 2014)

Analyses become complex if more than 3-4 indicators 

-> For a fixed timber production (4)

Representation for > 3 indicators ? (e.g. Borges et al 2014)



Computation time



Scenario can be complex for decision makers 

Representation = research challenge ! (Kennedy et al 2008, Gettinger et al 2013)



Optimization techniques based on a posteriori preferences ? -

e.g. weighted sum (see Schwenk et al 2012)

Carbon (2)



(Groots et al 2012)

NPV (3)

Cork (1)

13

References - modelling framework            

Berger F, Dorren LKA (2007) Principles of the tool Rockfor.net for quantifying the rockfall hazard below a protection forest. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Forstwesen 158:157-165 Courbaud B., Lafond V, Lagarrigues G, Vieilledent G, Cordonnier T, Jabot F, de Coligny F. (2015) Applying ecological model evaludation: lessons learned with the forest dynamics models Samsara2. Ecol Model. Courbaud B., de Coligny F. & Cordonnier T. (2003) Simulating radiation distribution in a heterogeneous Norway spruce forest on a slope. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 116 :1-18. Courbaud B., Goreaud F., Dreyfus P. et Bonnet F.R. (2001) Evaluating thinning strategies using a Tree Distance Dependent Growth Model: Some examples based on the CAPSIS software "Uneven-Aged Spruce Forests" module. Forest Ecology and Management, 145:15-28. Dufour-Kowalski S., B. Courbaud, P. Dreyfus, C. Meredieu and F. de Coligny, (2012) Capsis: an open software framework and community for forest growth modelling. Ann. For. Sci. 69(2): 221-233. Frehner, M., Wasser B., Schwitter, R. (2005) Nachhaltigkeit und Erfolgskontrolle im Schutzwald. Wegleitung für Pflegemassnahmen in Wäldern mit Schutzfunktion. © OFEV, Berne. Holeksa J, Zielonka T, Zywiec M, (2008) Modeling the decay of coarse woody debris in a subalpine Norway spruce forest of the West Carpathians, Poland. Can J For Res-Rev Can Rech For 38:415-428 Lafond V, Lagarrigues G, Cordonnier T, Courbaud B (2014) Uneven-aged management options to promote forest resilience for climate change adaptation: effects of group selection and harvesting intensity. Ann For Sci 71:173-186 Lafond V, Cordonnier T, Courbaud B (2015). Reconciling biodiversity conservation and timber production in mixed uneven-aged mountain forests: identification of ecological intensification pathways. Env Manag. Lafond V, Mao Z, Courbaud B, Cordonnier T (in prep). Tradeoffs and synergies between timber production, protection and biodiversity conservation in uneven-aged mountain forests in the Alps. Lagarrigues G, Jabot F, Lafond V, Courbaud B (2015) Approximate Bayesian computation to recalibrate individual-based models with population data: Illustration with a forest simulation model. Ecol Model 306:278-286 Zilliox C, Gosselin F (2014). Tree species diversity and abundance as indicators of understory diversity in French mountain forests: Variations of the relationship in geographical and ecological space. For Ecol Manag 321:105-116

14

References              

Baskent EZ, Keleş S (2009) Developing alternative forest management planning strategies incorporating timber, water and carbon values: An examination of their interactions. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 14:467-480 Baskent EZ, Keles S, Yolasigmaz HA (2008) Comparing multipurpose forest management with timber management, incorporating timber, carbon and oxygen values: A case study. Scand J Forest Res 23:105-120 Bauhus J, Puettmann K, Messier C (2009) Silviculture for old-growth attributes. For Ecol Manage 258:525-537 Borges JG, Garcia-Gonzalo J et al. (2014) Addressing multicriteria forest management Pareto frontier methods: An application in Portugal. For Sci 60 (1): 63-72 Bradford JB, D'Amato AW (2012) Recognizing trade-offs in multi-objective land management. Front Ecol Environ 10:210-216 Buongiorno J, Halvorsen EA, et al. (2012) Optimizing management regimes for carbon storage and other benefits in uneven-aged stands dominated by Norway spruce, with a derivation of the economic supply of carbon storage. Scand J Forest Res 27:460-473 Charpentier (2015) Insights from life history theory for an explicit treatment of trade-offs in conservation biology. Cons Biol Diaci J, Kerr G, O'Hara K (2011) Twenty-first century forestry: integrating ecologically based, uneven-aged silviculture with increased demands on forests. Forestry 84:463-465 Dorren L K A, Berger F, et al. (2004). Integrity, stability and management of protection forests in the European Alps. For Ecol Manage 195(1-2): 165-176. Duncker PS, Raulund-Rasmussen K, et al. (2012) How forest management affects ecosystem services, including timber production and economic return: synergies and trade-offs. Ecol Soc 17 Fuhr M, Bourrier F, Cordonnier T (2015). Protection against rockfall along a maturity gradient in mountain forests. For Ecol Manage 354: 224-231. Gettinger, J., E. Kiesling, et al. (2013). A comparison of representations for discrete multi-criteria decision problems. Decis Sup Syst 54(2): 976-985. Groot J, Oomen G, Rossing A (2012) Multi-objective optimization and design of farming systems. Agri Syst 110 63–77 Kennedy M, Ford D et al. (2008). Informed multi-objective decision-making in environmental management using Pareto optimality, J Appl Ecol 45: 181-192

15

References           

Larrieu L, Cabanettes A (2012) Species, live status, and diameter are important tree features for diversity and abundance of tree microhabitats in subnatural montane beech-fir forests. Can J For Res-Rev Can Rech For 42:1433-1445 Lassauce A, Paillet Y, Jactel H, Bouget C (2011) Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: Meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecol Indic 11:1027-1039 Moning C, Müller J (2008) Environmental key factors and their thresholds for the avifauna of temperate montane forests. For Ecol Manage 256:1198-1208 Müller J, Bussler H, Kneib T (2008) Saproxylic beetle assemblages related to silvicultural management intensity and stand structures in a beech forest in Southern Germany. J Insect Conserv 12:107-124 O'Hara KL, Ramage BS (2013) Silviculture in an uncertain world: utilizing multi-aged management systems to integrate disturbance. Forestry 86:401-410 Paillet Y, Berges L, et al. (2010) Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol 24:101-112 Schwenk WS, Donovan TM, Keeton WS, Nunery JS (2012) Carbon storage, timber production, and biodiversity: comparing ecosystem services with multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecol Appl 22:1612-1627 Seidl R, Rammer W, Jager D, Currie WS, Lexer MJ (2007) Assessing trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria. For Ecol Manage 248:64-79 Spiecker H (2003) Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe-temperate zone. J Environ Manage 67:55-65 Temperli C, Bugmann HKM, Elkin C (2012) Adaptive management for competing forest goods and services under climate change. Ecol Appl Vuidot A, Paillet Y, Archaux F, Gosselin F (2011) Influence of tree characteristics and forest management on tree microhabitats. Biol Conserv 144:441-450

16

Thank you for your attention !

ANNEXES Pour mieux affirmer ses missions, le Cemagref devient Irstea

www.irstea.fr

18

2 steps sensitivity analysis

Factors

Management 15

(1) Morris’ screening method

Demographic

Initial state

42

5

Step 1 : selection of influential factors

OAT sampling

12

(Morris 1991; Campolongo et al. 2007; Ciric et al. 2012

2 4

3

Step 2 : regression approach

(2) Meta-modelling approach a

Intensive sampling (OA-LHS)

b

c

(Owen 1992; Tang 1993)

Meta-model

Multiple linear regression

Y = f(S1, S2, … Sa, D1, …, Db, EI1, …, EIb)

Sensitivity Indices

Response Function

Response Surface

 Lafond et al. in press. Environ Manag Magnitude

Sign

IS +

0 Factors

A

B

C

Shape

Interactions

19

Sensitivity analysis results 

Impact of management factors and trade-offs / synergies between ES? Biodiversity => diversity of:

Management Drivers

↓

Dead wood

Tree size

Intensity

-

-

Gap size

(+)

Large trees R Dead wood R Minor sp. R

Production Protection

 Factor effects?

Tree Understory Timber Timber sp. sp. Vol. quality

-

-

(-/+)

++ -

-

(-)

(+)

(-)

+ ++

(+)

++

+ -

- ++ ++

+

Increasing harvesting intensity : -

-

Retention measures : +

-

 Relation between indicators?

+

 Opposed response ⇒ Trade-offs ?  Similar response ⇒ Synergies ?

 Lafond et al. in press. Environ Manag