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...
Published in: | Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Other Authors: | , , , , , , , |
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 |