More future synergies and less trade‐offs between forest ecosystem services with natural climate solutions instead of bioeconomy solutions

To reach the Paris Agreement, societies need to increase the global terrestrial carbon sink. There are many climate change mitigation solutions (CCMS) for forests, including increasing bioenergy, bioeconomy, and protection. Bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions use climate-smart, intensive management to generate high quantities of bioenergy and bioproducts. Protection of (semi-)natural forests is a major component of “natural climate solution” (NCS) since forests store carbon in standing biomass and soil. Furthermore, protected forests provide more habitat for biodiversity and non-wood ecosystem services (ES). We investigated the impacts of different CCMS and climate scenarios, jointly or in isolation, on future wood ES, non-wood ES, and regulating ES for a major wood provider for the international market. Specifically, we projected future ES given by three CCMS scenarios for Sweden 2020–2100. In the long term, fulfilling the increasing wood demand through bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will decrease ES multifunctionality, but the increased stand age and wood stocks induced by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations will partially offset these negative effects. Adopting bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will have a greater negative impact on ES supply than adopting NCS. Bioenergy or bioeconomy solutions, as well as increasing GHG emissions, will reduce synergies and increase trade-offs in ES. NCS, by contrast, increases the supply of multiple ES in synergy, even transforming current ES trade-offs into future synergies. Moreover, NCS can be considered an adaptation measure to offset negative climate change effects on the future supplies of non-wood ES. In boreal countries around the world, forestry strategies that integrate NCS more deeply are crucial to ensure a synergistic supply of multiple ES

Kosovska mitrovica as two parallel cities in the twenty-first century

After the war in 1999, Kosovska Mitrovica located in the north of Kosovo, became a part of the group of politically and ethnically divided cities. The process of division began in June 1999 when Serbs from the parts located south of the Ibar River were forced to flee. In the following years, antagonism between local Albanians and Serbs intensified. Since 2000, the northern part of Kosovska Mitrovica and later the whole municipality has been developing rapidly, becoming an administrative, educational and cultural centre for the Serbian community in Kosovo. In accordance with arrangements of the Brussels Agreement (2013), two municipalities and two settlements emerged: North Mitrovica with Serb majority and South Mitrovica with Albanian majority. The Ibar River is a natural boundary of the two cities. This study deals with the causes and the consequences of the splitting of Kosovska Mitrovica, which has been developing into two separate (parallel) cities since the beginning of the twenty-first century. Spatial divisions of post-war development of the Kosovska Mitrovica’s urban space are discussed in their symbolic, ethno-demographic and institutional dimensions

How fire interacts with habitat loss and fragmentation

Biodiversity faces many threats and these can interact to produce outcomes that may not be predicted by considering their effects in isolation. Habitat loss and fragmentation (hereafter 'fragmentation') and altered fire regimes are important threats to biodiversity, but their interactions have not been systematically evaluated across the globe. In this comprehensive synthesis, including 162 papers which provided 274 cases, we offer a framework for understanding how fire interacts with fragmentation. Fire and fragmentation interact in three main ways: (i) fire influences fragmentation (59% of 274 cases), where fire either destroys and fragments habitat or creates and connects habitat; (ii) fragmentation influences fire (25% of cases) where, after habitat is reduced in area and fragmented, fire in the landscape is subsequently altered because people suppress or ignite fires, or there is increased edge flammability or increased obstruction to fire spread; and (iii) where the two do not influence each other, but fire interacts with fragmentation to affect responses like species richness, abundance and extinction risk (16% of cases). Where fire and fragmentation do influence each other, feedback loops are possible that can lead to ecosystem conversion (e.g. forest to grassland). This is a well-documented threat in the tropics but with potential also to be important elsewhere. Fire interacts with fragmentation through scale-specific mechanisms: fire creates edges and drives edge effects; fire alters patch quality; and fire alters landscape-scale connectivity. We found only 12 cases in which studies reported the four essential strata for testing a full interaction, which were fragmented and unfragmented landscapes that both span contrasting fire histories, such as recently burnt and long unburnt vegetation. Simulation and empirical studies show that fire and fragmentation can interact synergistically, multiplicatively, antagonistically or additively. These cases highlight a key reason why understanding interactions is so important: when fire and fragmentation act together they can cause local extinctions, even when their separate effects are neutral. Whether fire-fragmentation interactions benefit or disadvantage species is often determined by the species' preferred successional stage. Adding fire to landscapes generally benefits early-successional plant and animal species, whereas it is detrimental to late-successional species. However, when fire interacts with fragmentation, the direction of effect of fire on a species could be reversed from the effect expected by successional preferences. Adding fire to fragmented landscapes can be detrimental for species that would normally co-exist with fire, because species may no longer be able to disperse to their preferred successional stage. Further, animals may be attracted to particular successional stages leading to unexpected responses to fragmentation, such as higher abundance in more isolated unburnt patches. Growing human populations and increasing resource consumption suggest that fragmentation trends will worsen over coming years. Combined with increasing alteration of fire regimes due to climate change and human-caused ignitions, interactions of fire with fragmentation are likely to become more common. Our new framework paves the way for developing a better understanding of how fire interacts with fragmentation, and for conserving biodiversity in the face of these emerging challenges