Search

Source at https://vkm.no/

Recent global warming affects species compositions at an unprecedented rate. To predict climate-induced changes in species assemblages, a better understanding of the link between species occurrence and climate is needed. Macrofungal fruit body assemblages are correlated with the thermal environment at the European scale. However, it is still unknown whether macrofungal communities are also phylogenetically structured by thermal environments. Thermal environments are characterized by annual temperature means but also by intra-annual temperature variability (hereafter termed temperature seasonality), which are both considered in this study. Here, we used distribution data of 2882 species based on fruit body records across Europe to address two main questions: 1) are mushroom assemblages at the extremes of the mean (warm and cold) and seasonal (high intra-annual variability, i.e. continental) climate gradient phylogenetically more similar than expected (phylogenetic alpha diversity); 2) are mushroom assemblages, that are subject to different mean and seasonal temperature conditions, composed of different lineages (phylogenetic beta diversity). Our phylogenetic alpha diversity analysis shows that mushroom assemblages are phylogenetically structured by warm and cold environments, indicating that phylogenetically related species with similar traits thrive under more extreme conditions. In contrast, assemblages are phylogenetically more dissimilar (overdispersed) in temperature seasonal environments, indicating limiting similarity. Phylogenetic beta diversity was significantly correlated with mean and seasonal temperature differences, a response mainly driven by a few genera. Our results show that macrofungal assemblages are phylogenetically structured by temperature across Europe, suggesting phylogenetically constrained specialization towards temperature extremes. Predicted anthropogenic warming is likely to affect species composition and phylogenetic diversity with additional consequences for the carbon- and nutrient cycles. assembly processes, climate change, fungal diversity, null models, regional

Jepsen, J.U., Speed, J.D.M., Austrheim, G., Rusch, G., Petersen, T.K., Asplund, J., Bjerke, J.W., Bjune, A.E., Eide, N.E., Herfindal, I., Ims, R.A., Israelsen, M.F., Kapfer, J., Kolstad, A.L., Nordén, J., Sandercock, B., Stien, J., Tveito, O.E., Yoccoz, N.G. 2022. Panel-based Assessment of Ecosystem Condition – a methodological pilot for four terrestrial ecosystems in Trøndelag. NINA Report 2094. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. The panel-based assessment of ecosystem condition (PAEC) is an evidence-based approach to assess the condition of Norwegian ecosystems. The assessment is carried out by an expert panel with broad expertise in the ecosystems to be assessed and is inspired by approaches used in international assessments such as IPCC and IPBES. The assessment follows an earlier developed protocol. In this report, PAEC is piloted for major terrestrial ecosystems in the county of Trøndelag; forest, alpine, open-lowlands, and wetlands. For each ecosystem, a list of indicators of change in ecosystem condition in response to anthropogenic drivers is developed. The indicators fall within seven main ecosystem characteristics: primary production, biomass distribution among trophic levels, functional groups within trophic levels, functionally important species, biological diversity, landscape ecological patterns, and abiotic factors. The expected change in indicators in response to anthropogenic drivers are termed phenomena, and their selection is based on published literature, including reference to the confidence of a change being observed in response to anthropogenic drivers and the mechanism leading to a deterioration in ecosystem state. Datasets to quantify each indicator are identified and collated and the quality of each dataset is assessed in terms of its spatial and temporal appropriateness. In the first assessment step, the validity (VP) of each phenomenon is scored and used to infer confidence in the causal relationship between changes in the indicator and anthropogenic drivers. The next step is an evaluation of the biological and statistical significance of the evidence for the occurrence of each phenomenon, termed evidence (EP) of the phenomenon. The third step is a consolidated assessment of the ecological state based on the associated indicators and phenomena, first for each ecosystem characteristic, and subsequently for the ecosystem as a whole. The assessment is based on the validity, the quality of the evidence, and the data quality for each phenomenon. This provides a qualitative assessment of deviation from the reference condition of “no deviation”, “limited deviation” or “substantial deviation”. The assessments are each supported by narrative accounts. The pilot assessment involved analysis of 24 datasets documenting 41 indicators. Several indicators were included in multiple ecosystems. In total there were 27 indicators used for forest ecosystems, 24 for alpine ecosystems, and 16 in each of wetlands and open lowlands. In the forest ecosystems, substantial deviation from the reference condition was identified for five of the ecosystem characteristics. The two exceptions were primary productivity where there was a limited deviation from the reference condition, and biological diversity where there was no deviation from the reference condition (but the latter was based on a single indicator and hence an entirely inadequate indicator coverage). The deviations were found primarily in climatic variables, cervids and their forage and predators, and dead wood. Overall, the forest ecosystem was assessed as having a substantial deviation from the reference condition. In the alpine ecosystems, substantial deviation from the reference condition was identified for the abiotic ecosystem characteristic, largely attributed to indicators associated with temperature, seasonality, and snow. Limited deviation from the reference condition was assessed for functionally important species and primary productivity (both based on a partially adequate indicator coverage) and for biological diversity, functional groups within trophic levels and landscape ecological patterns (but these were based on an inadequate indicator coverage). For the ecosystem characteristic biomass distribution among trophic levels, the quality of evidence was insufficient to conclude regarding the condition of the single indicator involved, and no overall assessment of this ecosystem characteristic could be undertaken. Overall, the alpine ecosystem was assessed as having limited deviation from the reference condition. For both open lowland and wetland ecosystems, several ecosystem characteristics were not assessed due to a lack of relevant indicator datasets. For this reason, no overall assessment of the ecosystems as a whole could be undertaken. However, for both ecosystems, there was a substantial deviation from the reference condition for abiotic factors (temperature, seasonality, and snow). In open lowlands, there was a substantial deviation in functionally important species (ungulates) and limited deviation in primary productivity and biological diversity. In wetlands, there was a limited deviation from the reference condition in primary productivity, biological diversity, and landscape ecological patterns. Most challenges encountered during this pilot assessment related to the inadequacy of the datasets for assessing ecosystem condition. Reasons behind this include that ecosystem extents are not adequately mapped, particularly those characterised by small and fragmented patches, and a taxonomic or geographical limitation of datasets and environmental monitoring. The report suggests further development of indicators for operational application. Finally, the report also suggests knowledge needs and prioritisation for further research to support the future implementation of ecosystem assessments in Norway. Norwegian Environment Agency: M-2190 | 2021

Bartlett, J., Rusch, G.M., Kyrkjeeide, M.O., Sandvik, H. & Nordén, J. 2020. Carbon storage in Norwegian ecosystems (revised edition). NINA Report 1774b. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. This report discusses approximate estimations of the carbon budgets within Norway’s mainland ecosystems. It stands as an initial overview of the natural potential of carbon storage and sequestration in Norwegian ecosystems. We describe carbon cycling in five key ecosystem groups: forest, alpine and cryosphere, agriculture and grassland, wetland, and freshwater and nearshore ecosystems. We emphasise the vital ecosystem service that Norwegian landscapes and ecosystems provide in sequestering carbon, and how climate change and management practices may aggravate or mitigate this function. We find that the largest stores of carbon in Norway are in the forests (32%) which also cover 38% of the total land area. Wetlands and permafrost cover 9% and 3% of the total land mass respectively, yet are storing over 2.2 Pg C, 31% of the nation’s carbon. These two ecosystems are the most carbon dense ecosystems per km2, with 53 and 48 kg C m−2 for wetlands and permafrost respectively. The next densest storage of carbon can be found in freshwater lake sediments, with 45 kg C m−2, amounting to 13% of all carbon stores. Forests and low-mid alpine zones sequester the most carbon on an annual basis (5.5 and 5.3 Tg C yr−1, respectively), with soils in alpine heathlands contributing the most to alpine carbon stores. In considering the carbon stored in key ecosystems, we find that Norway contains approximately 0.18% of all global carbon stocks, with a land mass that is 0.07% of the planet. This high carbon-to-area ratio is likely due to the large proportion of the country that is carbon rich peatlands (alpine and lowland) and boreal forest. Since ratifying the Paris Agreement, Norway has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2050, yet is presently one of the highest CO2/CO2-e emitters per capita in Europe, and within the top 20% of emitters globally. The main terrestrial ecosystems that are included in the emissions reporting system for Norway include forest, arable land and farm grazing land, infrastructure areas, and a small portion of the total area of mire, as well as land-use changes among these areas. However, a large portion of the remaining land area in Norway is to a limited extent included in the accounting, although its carbon emissions and sink capacity can be significantly affected by management practices and/or conversion. Currently non-managed areas such as wetlands, alpine zones, freshwater sediments, habitats included in non-agricultural open lowland classes, and the cryosphere including permafrost, are not adequately considered in carbon reporting, especially due to limitations in area representation and knowledge gaps concerning carbon uptake, storage and emissions in these systems, and concerning the consequences of land use change on carbon stocks. These areas account for more than half of the land cover of Norway and could account for approximately 68% of the nation’s carbon stores. Additionally, coastal ecosystems, such as kelp forests are also not included, yet play a key role in both carbon budgets and bio-diversity measures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that the conservation and enhancement of carbon sinks and natural carbon stores is one of the surest ways for us to com-bat the extremes of climate change. The most efficient and cost-effective process is by using existing ecosystems. Current national inventories do consider the changes in land use, and how this may impact carbon emissions. However, much of the regularly assessed land types are biased towards managed ecosystems, and there is currently no framework for how to incorporate impacts on biodiversity. The loss of biodiversity is accelerating, and that has negative consequences for populations, species, communities and ecosystems, and thus ecosystem services, including those underpinning the capacity for climate mitigation and adaptation. The recent reports from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Global Assessment 2019) and the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC Land Report 2019) both point to biodiversity and ecosystems as underpinning climate actions. They also emphasise the necessity of developing mixes of instruments that make best use of synergistic opportunities that can motivate land-owners and other decision-makers to make decisions that both conserve biodiversity and ecosystem integrity and deliver high levels of ecosystem services. The latter includes reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased removals. Ensuring a diverse portfolio of healthy ecosystems, either through conservation of already existing ones or by restoring degraded ones, will have the greatest value of ecosystem services and ensure the highest chance of adaptability to climate change pressures in the future. The ability of non-managed and seemingly unproductive ecosystems, such as alpine landscapes, to sequester and store carbon is significant. We suggest that, in addition to a ‘Klimakur’ (“climate cure”), there is a need for a ‘Naturkur’ (“nature cure”) to implement a strategy for biodiversity and ecosystem services following-up the findings and recommendations from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Bio-diversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the new international commitments under the Bio-diversity Convention (CBD), and the national implementation of the Norwegian “Nature for Life” white paper (Meld. St. 14 (2015-2016), Ministry of Climate and Environment 2015). A Naturkur would emphasise the value of maintaining a diverse portfolio of ecosystems at a national level, ecosystems that are inextricably interlinked with carbon storage, sequestration capacity and bio-diversity itself, and of finding solutions that can help achieve multiple objectives by proposing synergistic measures. Or rather, a harmonized Klima-Naturkur, where actions for climate mitigation and adaptation, and for biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation are not designed independently, but address societal challenges in a coordinated manner, are synergistic, and reinforce each other to achieve multiple benefits. Bartlett, J., Rusch, G., Kyrkjeeide, M.O., Sandvik, H. & Nordén, J. 2020. Karbonlagring i norske økosystemer (revidert utgave). NINA Rapport 1774b. Norsk institutt for naturforskning. Denne rapporten presenterer omtrentlige estimater av karbonbudsjettene i Fastlands-Norges økosystemer. Den gir en innledende oversikt over det naturlige potensialet for karbonopptak og -lagring i norske økosystemer. Vi beskriver karbonkretsløpet i fem viktige økosystemgrupper: skog, fjell (inkl. kryosfære), åpent lavland (inkl. jordbruksareal), våtmark og ferskvann/kyst. Vi fremhever den viktige økosystemtjenesten som norske landskap og økosystemer yter ved å lagre og binde karbon, og hvordan klimaendringer og forvaltningspraksis kan forverre eller dempe denne funksjonen. Våre estimater viser at det største karbonlageret i Norge ligger i skog (32 %), som også dekker 38 % av det totale landarealet. Våtmark og permafrost dekker henholdsvis 10 % og 3 % av den totale landmassen, men lagrer allikevel over 2,2 Pg C, som tilsvarer 31 % av landets karbon. Disse to økosystemene er de mest karbontette økosystemene per km2, med henholdsvis 53 og 48 kg C m−2 for våtmarker og permafrost. I innsjøsedimenter finnes 45 kg C m−2, som utgjør 13 % av all karbonlagring. Skog og lav- og mellomalpin sone tar opp mest karbon på årsbasis (henholdsvis 5,5 og 5,3 Tg C per år), med alpine lyngheier som natur-typen som bidrar mest i fjellets karbonlager. Våre estimater viser at Norge totalt har omtrent 0,18 % av de globale karbonlagrene, med en landmasse som tilsvarer 0,07 % av jordoverflaten. Dette skyldes sannsynligvis den høye dekningen av karbonrike myrer og boreale skoger. Siden godkjenningen av Parisavtalen har Norge forpliktet seg til å bli karbonnøytral innen 2050, men har i dag et av de høyeste CO2(-ekvivalent)-utslippene per innbygger i Europa og er dermed blant de 20 % av verdens land med høyest utslipp. Utslippsrapporteringssystemet for Norge omfatter (bruksendringer i) produktiv skog, jordbruks- og beitemark, infrastrukturområder og en liten del av det totale myrområdet. En stor del av Norges øvrige arealer er bare i begrenset grad omfattet av karbonregnskapet, selv om forvaltning og/eller bruksendringer har stor betydning for deres karbonutslipp og -opptaksevne. For øyeblikket tar f.eks. ikke karbonrapportering og areal-statistikk tilstrekkelig høyde for ikke-forvaltede arealer, fordi det ikke finnes noen systematiske målinger av karbon for hele økosystemet, og fordi størrelsen på endringene i økosystemenes karbon som skyldes bruksendringer, er dårlig kjent. Dettet gjelder bl.a. våtmarker, permafrost, alpine soner, ferskvannssedimenter eller åpent lavland utenom landbruksareal. Disse områdene utgjør mer enn halvparten av Norges areal og kan utgjøre omtrent 68 % av landets karbonlager. Heller ikke kystøkosystemer som tareskog er inkludert, selv om disse spiller en nøkkelrolle for både karbonbudsjetter og biologiske mangfold. Ifølge FNs klimapanel (IPCC) er bevaring og forbedring av naturlige karbonfangere og karbonlagre en av de sikreste måtene å bekjempe de mest ekstreme klimaendringene på. Den mest kostnadseffektive måten er ved å bruke eksisterende økosystemer. Nåværende nasjonale karbonregnskap vurderer kun endringer i arealbruk og hvordan disse kan påvirke karbonutslipp. Ikke-forvaltede økosystemer er dermed sterkt underrepresentert, og deres betydning for naturmangfold blir heller ikke tatt høyde for. Tapet av biologisk mangfold er akselererende og har negative konsekvenser for bestander, arter, samfunn, økosystemer og dermed økosystem-tjenester. Å sikre et mangfold av økosystemer med god tilstand, enten ved å bevare uberørte naturtyper eller ved å restaurere degradert natur, vil sikre den største verdien av økosystem-tjenester og tilpasningsevnen til klimaendringer. Ikke-forvaltede og tilsynelatende uproduktive økosystemer, som alpine naturtyper og våtmarker, har en betydelig evne til å binde og lagre karbon. Vi foreslår at det i tillegg til klimakur utredes en tilsvarende naturkur. Målet bør være å implementere norsk handlingsplan for naturmangfold (Meld. St. 14 (2015-2016)), følge opp funn og anbefalinger fra det internasjonale naturpanelet (IPBES) og de nye globale målene som skal vedtas av konvensjonen om biologisk mangfold (CBD) i oktober 2020. En naturkur vil kunne bidra til at Norge opprettholder et mangfold av økosystemer i god økologisk tilstand, noe som er svært viktig for lagring og opptak av karbon. Naturkur bør blant annet inneholde en oversikt over tiltak og løsninger som er bra for både naturmangfold og klima. En slik utredning bør inneholde særskilte kapitler som kombinerer klima- og naturkur, hvor tiltak for klimatilpasning og bevaring av biologisk mangfold og økosystemtjenester ses i sammenheng, gir synergier og forsterker hverandre. En norsk oppsummering av rapporten er publisert i NINA Temahefte 76b (https://hdl.handle.net/ 11250/2655582).

Bartlett, J., Rusch, G.M., Kyrkjeeide, M.O., Sandvik, H. & Nordén, J. 2020. Carbon storage in Norwegian ecosystems. NINA Report 1774. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. This report discusses approximate estimations of the carbon budgets within Norway’s mainland ecosystems. It stands as an initial overview of the natural potential of carbon storage and sequestration in Norwegian ecosystems. We describe carbon cycling in five key ecosystem groups: forest, alpine and cryosphere, agriculture and grassland, wetland, and freshwater and near-shore ecosystems. We emphasise the vital ecosystem service that Norwegian landscapes and ecosystems provide in sequestering carbon, and how climate change and management practices may aggravate or mitigate this function. We find that the largest stores of carbon in Norway are in the forests (32%) which also cover 38% of the total land area. Wetlands and permafrost cover 9% and 3% of the total land mass respectively, yet are storing over 2.2 Pg C, 31% of the nation’s carbon. These two ecosystems are the most carbon dense ecosystems per km2, with 53 and 48 kg C m−2 for wetlands and permafrost respectively. The next densest storage of carbon can be found in freshwater lake sediments, with 45 kg C m−2, amounting to 13% of all carbon stores. Forests and low-mid alpine zones sequester the most carbon on an annual basis (5.5 and 5.3 Tg C yr−1, respectively), with soils in alpine heathlands contributing the most to alpine carbon stores. In considering the carbon stored in key ecosystems, we find that Norway contains approximately 0.18% of all global carbon stocks, with a land mass that is 0.07% of the planet. This high carbon-to-area ratio is likely due to the large proportion of the country that is carbon rich peatlands (alpine and lowland) and boreal forest. Since ratifying the Paris Agreement, Norway has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2050, yet is presently one of the highest CO2/CO2-e emitters per capita in Europe, and within the top 20% of emitters globally. Terrestrial ecosystems that are included in the emissions reporting system for Norway include productive forest and land-use changes therein, arable land and farm grazing land, infrastructure areas, and a small portion of the total area of mire. However, a large portion of the remaining land area in Norway is not included in the accounting, but whose carbon emissions and sink capacity can be significantly affected by management practices and/or conversion. Currently non-managed areas such as wetlands, alpine zones, mountain forest, freshwater sediments, habitats included in non-agricultural open lowland classes, and the cryosphere including permafrost, are not considered in carbon reporting, or accurate land cover estimates. These areas account for more than half of the land cover of Norway and could account for approximately 68% of the nation’s carbon stores. Additionally, coastal ecosystems, such as kelp forests are also not included, yet play a key role in both carbon budgets and biodiversity measures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that the conservation and enhancement of carbon sinks and natural carbon stores is one of the surest ways for us to combat the extremes of climate change. The most efficient and cost-effective process is by using existing ecosystems. Current national inventories do consider the changes in land use, and how this may impact carbon emissions. However, much of the regularly assessed land types are biased towards managed ecosystems, and there is currently no framework for how to incorporate impacts on biodiversity. The loss of biodiversity is accelerating, and that has negative consequences for populations, species, communities and ecosystems, and thus ecosystem services, including those underpinning the capacity for climate mitigation and adaptation. The recent reports from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Global Assessment 2019) and the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC Land Report 2019) both point to biodiversity and ecosystems as underpinning climate actions. They also emphasise the necessity of developing mixes of instruments that make best use of synergistic opportunities that can motivate land-owners and other decision-makers to make decisions that both conserve biodiversity and ecosystem integrity and deliver high levels of ecosystem services. The latter includes reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased removals. Ensuring a diverse portfolio of healthy ecosystems, either through conservation of already existing ones or by restoring degraded ones, will have the greatest value of ecosystem services and ensure the highest chance of adaptability to climate change pressures in the future. The ability of non-managed and seemingly unproductive ecosystems, such as alpine landscapes, to sequester and store carbon is significant. We suggest that, in addition to a ‘Klimakur’ (“climate cure”), there is a need for a ‘Naturkur’ (“nature cure”) to implement a strategy for biodiversity and ecosystem services following-up the findings and recommendations from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Bio-diversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the new international commitments under the Bio-diversity Convention (CBD), and the national implementation of the Norwegian “Nature for Life” white paper (Meld. St. 14 (2015-2016), Ministry of Climate and Environment 2015). A Naturkur would emphasise the value of maintaining a diverse portfolio of ecosystems at a national level, ecosystems that are inextricably interlinked with carbon storage, sequestration capacity and biodiversity itself, and of finding solutions that can help achieve multiple objectives by proposing synergistic measures. Or rather, a harmonized Klima-Naturkur, where actions for climate mitigation and adaptation, and for biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation are not designed independently, but address societal challenges in a coordinated manner, are synergistic, and reinforce each other to achieve multiple benefits. Bartlett, J., Rusch, G., Kyrkjeeide, M.O., Sandvik, H. & Nordén, J. 2020. Karbonlagring i norske økosystemer. NINA Rapport 1774. Norsk institutt for naturforskning. Denne rapporten presenterer omtrentlige estimater av karbonbudsjettene i Fastlands-Norges økosystemer. Den gir en innledende oversikt over det naturlige potensialet for karbonopptak og -lagring i norske økosystemer. Vi beskriver karbonkretsløpet i fem viktige økosystemgrupper: skog, fjell (inkl. kryosfære), åpent lavland (inkl. jordbruksareal), våtmark og ferskvann/kyst. Vi fremhever den viktige økosystemtjenesten som norske landskap og økosystemer yter ved å lagre og binde karbon, og hvordan klimaendringer og forvaltningspraksis kan forverre eller dempe denne funksjonen. Våre estimater viser at det største karbonlageret i Norge ligger i skog (32 %), som også dekker 38 % av det totale landarealet. Våtmark og permafrost dekker hen-holdsvis 10 % og 3 % av den totale landmassen, men lagrer allikevel over 2,2 Pg C, som tilsvarer 31 % av landets karbon. Disse to økosystemene er de mest karbontette økosystemene per km2, med henholdsvis 53 og 48 kg C m−2 for våtmarker og permafrost. I innsjøsedimenter finnes 45 kg C m−2, som utgjør 13 % av all karbonlagring. Skog og lav- og mellomalpin sone tar opp mest karbon på årsbasis (henholdsvis 5,5 og 5,3 Tg C per år), med alpine lyngheier som natur-typen som bidrar mest i fjellets karbonlager. Våre estimater viser at Norge totalt har omtrent 0,18 % av de globale karbonlagrene, med en landmasse som tilsvarer 0,07 % av jordoverflaten. Dette skyldes sannsynligvis den høye dekningen av karbonrike myrer og boreale skoger. Siden godkjenningen av Parisavtalen har Norge forpliktet seg til å bli karbonnøytral innen 2050, men har i dag et av de høyeste CO2(-ekvivalent)-utslippene per innbygger i Europa og er dermed blant de 20 % av verdens land med høyest utslipp. Utslippsrapporteringssystemet for Norge om-fatter (bruksendringer i) produktiv skog, jordbruks- og beitemark, infrastrukturområder og en liten del av det totale myrområdet. En stor del av Norges øvrige arealer er imidlertid ikke omfattet av karbonregnskapet, selv om forvaltning og/eller bruksendringer har stor betydning for deres kar-bonutslipp og -opptaksevne. For øyeblikket tar f.eks. ikke karbonrapportering og arealstatistikk høyde for ikke-forvaltede arealer, slik som våtmarker, permafrost, alpine soner, fjellskog, fersk-vannssedimenter eller åpent lavland utenom landbruksareal. Disse områdene utgjør mer enn halvparten av Norges areal og kan utgjøre omtrent 68 % av landets karbonlager. Heller ikke kystøkosystemer som tareskog er inkludert, selv om disse spiller en nøkkelrolle for både karbon-budsjetter og biologiske mangfold. Ifølge FNs klimapanel (IPCC) er bevaring og forbedring av naturlige karbonfangere og karbon-lagre en av de sikreste måtene å bekjempe de mest ekstreme klimaendringene på. Den mest kostnadseffektive måten er ved å bruke eksisterende økosystemer. Nåværende nasjonale kar-bonregnskap vurderer kun endringer i arealbruk og hvordan disse kan påvirke karbonutslipp. Ikke-forvaltede økosystemer er dermed sterkt underrepresentert, og deres betydning for natur-mangfold blir heller ikke tatt høyde for. Tapet av biologisk mangfold er akselererende og har negative konsekvenser for bestander, arter, samfunn, økosystemer og dermed økosystemtje-nester. Å sikre et mangfold av økosystemer med god tilstand, enten ved å bevare uberørte na-turtyper eller ved å restaurere degradert natur, vil sikre den største verdien av økosystemtjenes-ter og tilpasningsevnen til klimaendringer. Ikke-forvaltede og tilsynelatende uproduktive økosys-temer, som alpine naturtyper og våtmarker, har en betydelig evne til å binde og lagre karbon. Vi foreslår at det i tillegg til klimakur utredes en tilsvarende naturkur. Målet bør være å imple-mentere norsk handlingsplan for naturmangfold (Meld. St. 14 (2015-2016)), følge opp funn og anbefalinger fra det internasjonale naturpanelet (IPBES) og de nye globale målene som skal vedtas av konvensjonen om biologisk mangfold (CBD) i oktober 2020. En naturkur vil kunne bidra til at Norge opprettholder et mangfold av økosystemer i god økologisk tilstand, noe som er svært viktig for lagring og opptak av karbon. Naturkur bør blant annet inneholde en oversikt over tiltak og løsninger som er bra for både naturmangfold og klima. En slik utredning bør inneholde særskilte kapitler som kombinerer klima- og naturkur, hvor tiltak for klimatilpasning og bevaring av biologisk mangfold og økosystemtjenester ses i sammenheng, gir synergier og forsterker hverandre. En norsk oppsummering av rapporten er publisert i NINA Temahefte 76 (https://hdl.handle.net/ 11250/2650166).

The extensive spatial and temporal coverage of many citizen science datasets (CSD) makes them appealing for use in species distribution modeling and forecasting. However, a frequent limitation is the inability to validate results. Here, we aim to assess the reliability of CSD for forecasting species occurrence in response to national forest management projections (representing 160,366 km2) by comparison against forecasts from a model based on systematically collected colonization–extinction data. We fitted species distribution models using citizen science observations of an old-forest indicator fungus Phellinus ferrugineofuscus. We applied five modeling approaches (generalized linear model, Poisson process model, Bayesian occupancy model, and two MaxEnt models). Models were used to forecast changes in occurrence in response to national forest management for 2020-2110. Forecasts of species occurrence from models based on CSD were congruent with forecasts made using the colonization–extinction model based on systematically collected data, although different modeling methods indicated different levels of change. All models projected increased occurrence in set-aside forest from 2020 to 2110: the projected increase varied between 125% and 195% among models based on CSD, in comparison with an increase of 129% according to the colonization–extinction model. All but one model based on CSD projected a decline in production forest, which varied between 11% and 49%, compared to a decline of 41% using the colonization–extinction model. All models thus highlighted the importance of protected old forest for P. ferrugineofuscus persistence. We conclude that models based on CSD can reproduce forecasts from models based on systematically collected colonization–extinction data and so lead to the same forest management conclusions. Our results show that the use of a suite of models allows CSD to be reliably applied to land management and conservation decision making, demonstrating that widely available CSD can be a valuable forecasting resource. deadwood-dependent fungi, forestry, global biodiversity information facility, habitat change, land use change, opportunistic data, volunteer recording

Functional traits are widely recognized as a useful framework for testing mechanisms underlying species community assemblage patterns and ecosystem processes. Functional trait studies in the plant and animal literature have burgeoned in the past 20 years, highlighting a need for standardized ways to measure ecologically meaningful traits across taxa and ecosystems. However, standardized measurements of functional traits are lacking for many organisms and ecosystems, including fungi. Basidiomycete wood fungi occur in all forest ecosystems world-wide, where they are decomposers and also provide food or habitat for other species, or act as tree pathogens. Despite their major role in the functioning of forest ecosystems, the understanding and application of functional traits in studies of communities of wood fungi lags behind other disciplines. As the research field of fungal functional ecology is growing, there is a need for standardized ways to measure fungal traits within and across taxa and spatial scales. This handbook reviews pre-existing fungal trait measurements, proposes new core fungal traits, discusses trait ecology in fungi and highlights areas for future work on basidiomycete wood fungi. We propose standard and potential future methodologies for collecting traits to be used across studies, ensuring replicability and fostering between-study comparison. Combining concepts from fungal ecology and functional trait ecology, methodologies covered here can be related to fungal performance within a community and environmental setting. This manuscript is titled “a start with” as we only cover a subset of the fungal community here, with the aim of encouraging and facilitating the writing of handbooks for other members of the macrofungal community, for example, mycorrhizal fungi., Functional Ecology, 33 (3), ISSN:0269-8463, ISSN:1365-2435