Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26744048›Full record

ArticleAmbio2016

Replacing monocultures with mixed-species stands: Ecosystem service implications of two production forest alternatives in Sweden.

Adam Felton, Urban Nilsson, Johan Sonesson, Annika M Felton, Jean-Michel Roberge, Thomas Ranius, Martin Ahlström, Johan Bergh, Christer Björkman, Johanna Boberg and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Trade-offs between temporal stability and level of forest ecosystem services provisioning under climate change.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Adam FeltonSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden. adam.felton@slu.se.
Urban NilssonSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden. urban.nilsson@slu.se.
Johan SonessonSkogforsk, Science Park, 751 83, Uppsala, Sweden. johan.sonesson@skogforsk.se.
Annika M FeltonSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden. annika.felton@slu.se.
Jean-Michel RobergeDepartment of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, SLU, 901 83, Umeå, Sweden. jean-michel.roberge@slu.se.
Thomas RaniusDepartment of Ecology, SLU, Box 7044, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden. thomas.ranius@slu.se.
Martin AhlströmSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden. martin.ahlstrom@slu.se.
Johan BerghDepartment of Forestry and Wood Technology, Linnaeus University, 351 95, Växjö, Sweden. johan.bergh@lnu.se.
Christer BjörkmanDepartment of Ecology, SLU, Box 7044, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden. christer.bjorkman@slu.se.
Johanna BobergDepartment of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, SLU, Box 7026, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden. johanna.boberg@slu.se.
Lars DrösslerSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden. lars.drossler@slu.se.
Nils FahlvikSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden. nils.fahlvik@slu.se.
Peichen GongDepartment of Forest Economics, SLU, Skogsmarksgränd, 901 83, Umeå, Sweden. peichen.gong@slu.se.
Emma HolmströmSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden. emma.holmstrom@slu.se.
E Carina H KeskitaloDepartment of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden. carina.keskitalo@umu.se.
Maartje J KlapwijkDepartment of Ecology, SLU, Box 7044, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden. maartje.klapwijk@slu.se.
Hjalmar LaudonSLU, Skogsmarksgränd, 901 83, Umeå, Sweden. hjalmar.laudon@slu.se.
Tomas LundmarkSLU, Skogsmarksgränd, 901 83, Umeå, Sweden. tomas.lundmark@slu.se.
Mats NiklassonSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, Box 49, Rörsjöv 1, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden. mats.niklasson@nordensark.se.
Annika NordinSLU, Skogsmarksgränd, 901 83, Umeå, Sweden. annika.nordin@slu.se.
Maria PetterssonDepartment of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, 971 87, Luleå, Sweden. maria.pettersson@ltu.se.
Jan StenlidDepartment of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, SLU, Box 7026, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden. jan.stenlid@slu.se.
Anna SténsDepartment of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden. anna.stens@umu.se.
Kristina WallertzAsa Research Station, SLU, 360 30, Lammhult, Sweden. kristina.wallertz@slu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whereas there is evidence that mixed-species approaches to production forestry in general can provide positive outcomes relative to monocultures, it is less clear to what extent multiple benefits can be derived from specific mixed-species alternatives. To provide such insights requires evaluations of an encompassing suite of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and forest management considerations provided by specific mixtures and monocultures within a region. Here, we conduct such an assessment in Sweden by contrasting even-aged Norway spruce (Picea abies)-dominated stands, with mixed-species stands of spruce and birch (Betula pendula or B. pubescens), or spruce and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris). By synthesizing the available evidence, we identify positive outcomes from mixtures including increased biodiversity, water quality, esthetic and recreational values, as well as reduced stand vulnerability to pest and pathogen damage. However, some uncertainties and risks were projected to increase, highlighting the importance of conducting comprehensive interdisciplinary evaluations when assessing the pros and cons of mixtures.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesClimate ChangeEcosystemFiresForestryPest ControlSwedenWater QualityWindClimate change adaptationEcosystem servicesForestryMixed-forest standPolycultureResilience

Identifiers

PMID26744048
PMCPMC4705065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.