Financial comparison between rotation forestry (RF) and continuous cover forestry (CCF) on spruce-dominated peatlands

To date there are no studies comparing RF and CCF on peatlands with stand-level optimization. This study fills this gap and introduces the effect of genetic gain into analyses, covering different locations and two site types on peatlands. Two different data sets are applied: (1) six experimental plo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research
Main Authors: Ahtikoski, Anssi, Siipilehto, Jouni, Repola, Jaakko, Hökkä, Hannu, Lehtonen, Mika, Kärkkäinen, Katri, Hynynen, Jari
Other Authors: orcid:0000-0002-3799-3013, orcid:0000-0003-1658-3813, orcid:0000-0002-5661-8972, orcid:0000-0001-7086-0549, orcid:0000-0003-2426-0539, 4100110310, 4100210410, Luonnonvarakeskus
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis
Subjects:
Online Access:https://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/556200
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2025.2481831
_version_ 1830571851403755520
author Ahtikoski, Anssi
Siipilehto, Jouni
Repola, Jaakko
Hökkä, Hannu
Lehtonen, Mika
Kärkkäinen, Katri
Hynynen, Jari
author2 orcid:0000-0002-3799-3013
orcid:0000-0003-1658-3813
orcid:0000-0002-5661-8972
orcid:0000-0001-7086-0549
orcid:0000-0003-2426-0539
4100110310
4100210410
Luonnonvarakeskus
author_facet Ahtikoski, Anssi
Siipilehto, Jouni
Repola, Jaakko
Hökkä, Hannu
Lehtonen, Mika
Kärkkäinen, Katri
Hynynen, Jari
author_sort Ahtikoski, Anssi
collection Natural Resources Institute Finland: Jukuri
container_start_page 1
container_title Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research
description To date there are no studies comparing RF and CCF on peatlands with stand-level optimization. This study fills this gap and introduces the effect of genetic gain into analyses, covering different locations and two site types on peatlands. Two different data sets are applied: (1) six experimental plots which had been treated by conducting thinnings from below (RF management) and (2) identical locations and site types to those six plots representing bare land cases. A stand-level optimization was applied to achieve maximum net present value according to CCF and RF. The results demonstrated the superiority of RF with genetic gains to other options: RF without genetic gain and CCF when the starting point was an ongoing rotation. The results were valid regardless of location (southern, northern Finland), site type (Vaccinium myrtillus type I, herb-rich) and interest rate (3%, 5%). When starting from a bare land in northern Finland CCF became financially more profitable than RF (with or without genetic gain) with a 5% interest rate. This is mainly due to poorer growth potential in northern compared to southern Finland and the fact that the stand establishment costs associated with RF differ only slightly between southern and northern Finland.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
genre Northern Finland
genre_facet Northern Finland
id ftluke:oai:jukuri.luke.fi:10024/556200
institution Open Polar
language English
op_collection_id ftluke
op_container_end_page 12
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2025.2481831
op_relation Scandinavian journal of forest research
10.1080/02827581.2025.2481831
0282-7581
1651-1891
https://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/556200
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2025.2481831
op_rights CC BY 4.0
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format openpolar
spelling ftluke:oai:jukuri.luke.fi:10024/556200 2025-04-27T14:33:51+00:00 Financial comparison between rotation forestry (RF) and continuous cover forestry (CCF) on spruce-dominated peatlands Ahtikoski, Anssi Siipilehto, Jouni Repola, Jaakko Hökkä, Hannu Lehtonen, Mika Kärkkäinen, Katri Hynynen, Jari orcid:0000-0002-3799-3013 orcid:0000-0003-1658-3813 orcid:0000-0002-5661-8972 orcid:0000-0001-7086-0549 orcid:0000-0003-2426-0539 4100110310 4100210410 Luonnonvarakeskus 12 p. true https://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/556200 https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2025.2481831 en eng Taylor & Francis Scandinavian journal of forest research 10.1080/02827581.2025.2481831 0282-7581 1651-1891 https://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/556200 https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2025.2481831 CC BY 4.0 stand-level optimization peatlands rotation forestry continuous cover forestry spruce genetic gain publication fi=A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä|sv=A1 Originalartikel i en vetenskaplig tidskrift|en=A1 Journal article (refereed), original research| fi=Publisher's version|sv=Publisher's version|en=Publisher's version| ftluke https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2025.2481831 2025-03-30T23:59:44Z To date there are no studies comparing RF and CCF on peatlands with stand-level optimization. This study fills this gap and introduces the effect of genetic gain into analyses, covering different locations and two site types on peatlands. Two different data sets are applied: (1) six experimental plots which had been treated by conducting thinnings from below (RF management) and (2) identical locations and site types to those six plots representing bare land cases. A stand-level optimization was applied to achieve maximum net present value according to CCF and RF. The results demonstrated the superiority of RF with genetic gains to other options: RF without genetic gain and CCF when the starting point was an ongoing rotation. The results were valid regardless of location (southern, northern Finland), site type (Vaccinium myrtillus type I, herb-rich) and interest rate (3%, 5%). When starting from a bare land in northern Finland CCF became financially more profitable than RF (with or without genetic gain) with a 5% interest rate. This is mainly due to poorer growth potential in northern compared to southern Finland and the fact that the stand establishment costs associated with RF differ only slightly between southern and northern Finland. Article in Journal/Newspaper Northern Finland Natural Resources Institute Finland: Jukuri Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 1 12
spellingShingle stand-level optimization
peatlands
rotation forestry
continuous cover forestry
spruce
genetic gain
Ahtikoski, Anssi
Siipilehto, Jouni
Repola, Jaakko
Hökkä, Hannu
Lehtonen, Mika
Kärkkäinen, Katri
Hynynen, Jari
Financial comparison between rotation forestry (RF) and continuous cover forestry (CCF) on spruce-dominated peatlands
title Financial comparison between rotation forestry (RF) and continuous cover forestry (CCF) on spruce-dominated peatlands
title_full Financial comparison between rotation forestry (RF) and continuous cover forestry (CCF) on spruce-dominated peatlands
title_fullStr Financial comparison between rotation forestry (RF) and continuous cover forestry (CCF) on spruce-dominated peatlands
title_full_unstemmed Financial comparison between rotation forestry (RF) and continuous cover forestry (CCF) on spruce-dominated peatlands
title_short Financial comparison between rotation forestry (RF) and continuous cover forestry (CCF) on spruce-dominated peatlands
title_sort financial comparison between rotation forestry (rf) and continuous cover forestry (ccf) on spruce-dominated peatlands
topic stand-level optimization
peatlands
rotation forestry
continuous cover forestry
spruce
genetic gain
topic_facet stand-level optimization
peatlands
rotation forestry
continuous cover forestry
spruce
genetic gain
url https://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/556200
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2025.2481831