UNIVERSITY OF COPENH AGEN FACULTY OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCI ENCES AND NATURAL RE SOURCE MANAGEMENT Master Thesis Anders Meinhard Hallund (vfn124) Close-to-nature forest management in Gribskov An evaluation of land use distribution and biomass occurrence Supervisor: Vivian Kvist Johannsen Submitted on: 02 September 2019 University: University of Copenhagen Faculty: Faculty of Science Name of department: Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management Education Master of Science (MSc) in Forest and Nature Management Author: Anders Meinhard Hallund (vfn124) Title and subtitle: Close-to-nature forest management in Gribskov An evaluation of land use distribution and biomass occurrence Supervisor: Vivian Kvist Johannsen Submitted on: 02 September 2019 Number of study units: 30 ECTS Cover photo: Naturstyrelsen: https://naturstyrelsen.dk/naturoplevelser/naturguider/gribskov/aaret-rundt/ II Preface This master thesis is developed as the final assignment of the MSc in Forest and Nature Management at the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen. The idea for the project was developed in cooperation with senior researcher and head of Division Forest, Nature and Biomass Vivian Kvist Johannsen. The project is an addition to the limited empirical knowledge of the implementation of close-to-nature forest management in Denmark. Even though the project is produced for academic purposes, I believe that it will be of relevance to anyone with interest in state forest management in Denmark. Further, it is my hope that professionals working within state forest management in Denmark will find the results of this thesis enriching, and the methodological approach to the evaluation inspiring. I am thankful for the guidance and constructive feedback during the process provided by my supervisor Vivian Kvist Johannsen. I would also like to thank the Nature Agency’s local unit in North Zealand for providing data for this thesis, and a special thanks to Anna Thormann in this regard. III Abstract For centuries the Danish forests have been adapted and managed primarily for wood production. But declining health and lack of stability of the forests as well as growing concerns about environmental sustainability has led to an increasing interest in nature-based forestry. To accommodate the environmental concerns, the Danish state forests have been managed according to close-to-nature forestry principles since 2005. Gribskov is one of the largest state-owned forest complexes in Denmark and has had continuous forest cover for 10.000 years. Gribskov is a productive forest but it also holds great natural, cultural and recreational values. Even though the transition to close-to-nature management has only been in progress for 14 years, a large share of Gribskov is now to be managed according to another regime as it is appointed by the Agreement on the Nature Package. This means that Gribskov will be managed as biodiversity forest and untouched forest already from 2019. Therefore, it is relevant to evaluate the impact that the close-to-nature management regime has had in Gribskov. This thesis evaluates changes in land use distribution in Gribskov by compiling data from forest resource maps from 2005 and 2017 provided by the Nature Agency. Through an analysis of this data, it is examined how well the recorded land use changes correlate with the principles of close-to-nature forest management. Additionally, the occurrence and change of aboveground biomass is examined, by comparing data from airborne laser scanning conducted in 2006/2007 and 2014/2015. The biomass occurrence is evaluated both for the entire forest and for the individual land uses. The results in this thesis show, that there have been widespread land use transformations in Gribskov between 2005 and 2017. The transformations are in compliance with close-to-nature principles such as reducing the area covered by tree species considered unstable and non-native, mainly Norway spruce, improving the conditions for biodiversity by increasing areas with forested and non-forested nature types such as grazing forest, untouched forest, grasslands and wetlands and planning and implementing forest development types to create a stable and diverse forest. Despite the increase of non-forested areas in Gribskov, the occurrence of aboveground biomass has increased slightly. The results indicate that this is due to buildup of biomass in the some very productive forest stands of especially Norway spruce. IV Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background for the evaluation of close-to-nature forestry in Gribskov ........................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of the evaluation and delimitation ...................................................................................... 2 2 Close-to-nature forestry in the Danish state-owned forests .................................................................... 3 2.1 Historical development of Danish forestry ........................................................................................ 3 2.2 Aim and purpose of the Danish state-owned forests........................................................................ 5 2.3 Close-to-nature forestry .................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Looking ahead: The National Forest Program and the Agreement on the Nature Package ............. 9 3 Case area and Methods ........................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Gribskov ........................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.1 Historical events that formed Gribskov ................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Current management plan ...................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Methods and data ........................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Land use ................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.2 Forest Development Types ...................................................................................................... 20 3.2.3 Biomass .................................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.4 Age-class distribution .............................................................................................................. 22 4 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Land use ........................................................................................................................................... 23 4.2 Forest Development Types .............................................................................................................. 36 4.3 Biomass ............................................................................................................................................ 48 4.4 Forest development types and biomass ......................................................................................... 55 4.5 Age class distribution ....................................................................................................................... 64 5 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 66 5.1 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 66 5.2 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 73 5.2.1 Land use ................................................................................................................................... 73 5.2.2 Biomass .................................................................................................................................... 75 6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 80 7 Perspective .............................................................................................................................................. 82 8 References ............................................................................................................................................... 83 9 Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 87 V List of figures Figure 1: Forest development type 51: Spruce with beech and maple.. .......................................................... 7 Figure 2: Map of the appointed areas of Gribskov in The Agreement on the Nature Package…... ................ 10 Figure 3: The Gribskov forest complex with forest names .............................................................................