Benefits in Eating Blueberries for Diabetes

Author
by WHITNEY HOPLER

Blueberries are small fruits, but they contain a lot of power to help you do the big job of managing diabetes. The American Diabetes Association names blueberries as a "diabetes superfood" because blueberries are packed with nutrients, such as fiber and antioxidant vitamins, which provide several key benefits for dealing with diabetes.

Processing Glucose Efficiently

Blueberries may help your body process glucose for energy efficiently, both increasing its sensitivity to insulin and managing blood sugar, which can help you fight diabetes. A University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center study presented April 19, 2009 at the Experimental Biology convention in New Orleans notes that laboratory rats that were fed blueberries crushed into a powder showed improved insulin sensitivity, even when eating a high-fat diet along with the blueberries. Since most people with type 2 diabetes struggle with insulin resistance, greater sensitivity to insulin can help manage the disease. The University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center study also showed that laboratory rats that ate a powder made from crushed blueberries had lower blood sugar than they did prior to eating the blueberry powder, and researchers noted that their genes changed to allow their bodies to process glucose more efficiently than previously. If you suffer from type 2 diabetes, you may be able to lower your blood sugar by consuming plenty of high-fiber foods like blueberries, Joslin Diabetes Center notes.

Advertisement

 

Powered By 

Losing Weight

Since blueberries are low in calories yet high in nutrients, they may help you lose weight, which may help you fight diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that a 1-cup serving of blueberries contains just 83 calories and recommends replacing high-calorie snacks like chips with low-calorie fruits like blueberries as well as including blueberries in some of your meals. For example, you can mix blueberries with yogurt to enjoy a berry parfait for dessert. When laboratory rats in the University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center study were fed blueberry powder, their body weight and total fat mass decreased. Researchers noted that the rats' genes related to fat burning and storage were changed to help their bodies process fat more efficiently than before they ate blueberries, thereby reducing the rats' risk of diabetes.

Losing Belly Fat

Eating blueberries may help you lose belly fat, which is an important part of fighting diabetes, since excess abdominal fat increases your risk of diabetes. Fat cells in your belly produce hormones that can promote insulin resistance, which then can lead to diabetes. When the laboratory rats in the University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center study ate powder made from crushed blueberries as just 2 percent of their diets over 90 days, their amounts of abdominal fat decreased.

For further information log on website :
http://www.livestrong.com/article/350862-benefits-in-eating-blueberries-for-diabetes/

Comparing modern and presettlement forest dynamics of a subboreal wilderness: Does spruce budworm enhance fire risk?

Author

Sturtevant, Brian R; Miranda, Brian R; Shinneman, Douglas J; Gustafson, Eric J; Wolter, Peter T.

Year Published

2012

Publication

Ecological Applications. 22: 1278-1296.

Abstract

Insect disturbance is often thought to increase fire risk through enhanced fuel loadings, particularly in coniferous forest ecosystems. Yet insect disturbances also affect successional pathways and landscape structure that interact with fire disturbances (and vice-versa) over longer time scales. We applied a landscape succession and disturbance model (LANDIS-II) to evaluate the relative strength of interactions between spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) outbreaks and fire disturbances in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) in northern Minnesota (USA). Disturbance interactions were evaluated for two different scenarios: presettlement forests and fire regimes vs. contemporary forests and fire regimes. Forest composition under the contemporary scenario trended toward mixtures of deciduous species (primarily Betula papyrifera and Populus spp.) and shade-tolerant conifers (Picea mariana, Abies balsamea, Thuja occidentalis), with disturbances dominated by a combination of budworm defoliation and high-severity fires. The presettlement scenario retained comparatively more "big pines" (i.e., Pinus strobus, P. resinosa) and tamarack (L. laricina), and experienced less budworm disturbance and a comparatively less-severe fire regime. Spruce budworm disturbance decreased area burned and fire severity under both scenarios when averaged across the entire 300-year simulations. Contrary to past research, area burned and fire severity during outbreak decades were each similar to that observed in non-outbreak decades. Our analyses suggest budworm disturbances within forests of the BWCA have a comparatively weak effect on long-term forest composition due to a combination of characteristics. These include strict host specificity, fine-scaled patchiness created by defoliation damage, and advance regeneration of its primary host, balsam fir (A. balsamea) that allows its host to persist despite repeated disturbances. Understanding the nature of the three-way interaction between budworm, fire, and composition has important ramifications for both fire mitigation strategies and ecosystem restoration initiatives. W

Citation

Sturtevant, Brian R; Miranda, Brian R; Shinneman, Douglas J; Gustafson, Eric J; Wolter, Peter T. 2012. Comparing modern and presettlement forest dynamics of a subboreal wilderness: Does spruce budworm enhance fire risk? Ecological Applications. 22: 1278-1296.

For further details log on website
https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/40930

Host range specificity of Scymnus camptodromus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), a predator of hemlock woolly adelgid (Hemiptera: Adelgidae)

Author

Limbu, Samita; Cassidy, Katie; Keena, Melody; Tobin, Patrick; Hoover, Kelli

Year Published

2015

Publication

Environmental Entomology. 45(1): 94-100.

Abstract

Scymnus (Neopullus) camptodromus Yu and Liu (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) was brought to the United States from China as a potential biological control agent for hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae Annand) (Hemiptera: Adelgidae). Scymnus camptodromus phenology is closely synchronized with that of A. tsugae and has several characteristics of a promising biological control agent. As a prerequisite to field release, S. camptodromus was evaluated for potential nontarget impacts. In host range studies, the predator was given the choice of sympatric adelgid and nonadelgid prey items. Nontarget testing showed that S. camptodromus will feed to some degree on other adelgid species, but highly prefers A. tsugae. We also evaluated larval development of S. camptodromus on pine bark adelgid (Pineus strobi (Hartig)) (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) and larch adelgid (Adelges laricis Vallot) (Hemiptera: Adelgidae); a small proportion of predator larvae was able to develop to adulthood on P. strobi or A. laricis alone. Scymnus camptodromus showed no interest in feeding on woolly alder aphid (Paraprociphilus tessellatus Fitch) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) or woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann)) (Hemiptera: Aphididae), and minimal interest in cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii Glover) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in choice and no-choice experiments. Scymnus camptodromus females did not oviposit on any host material other than A. tsugae-infested hemlock. Under the circumstances of the study, S. camptodromus appears to be a specific predator of A. tsugae, with minimal risk to nontarget species. Although the predator can develop on P. strobi, the likelihood that S. camptodromus would oviposit on pine hosts of this adelgid is small.

Citation

Limbu, Samita; Cassidy, Katie; Keena, Melody; Tobin, Patrick; Hoover, Kelli. 2016. Host range specificity of Scymnus camptodromus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), a predator of hemlock woolly adelgid (Hemiptera: Adelgidae). Environmental Entomology. 45(1): 94-100. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv174.

For further details log on website :
https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/50374

Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Considerations into Forest Management Planning in the Boreal Forest

International Forestry Review 9(3):713-733. 2007 
https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.9.3.713

Incorporer des considérations d'adaptation au changements climatiques dans l'organisation de la gestion forestière dans la forêt boréale
Incorporación de ideas sobre la adaptación al cambio climático en la planificación de la gestión forestal en los bosques boreales

A.E. Ogden

 and 

J. Innes

[-] Author & Article Info

Author Affiliations

A.E. Ogden

Sustainable Forest Management Laboratory, Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, CanadaForest Management Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Government of Yukon, CanadaEmail: aynslie.ogden@gov.yk.ca and john.innes@ubc.ca

J. Innes

Sustainable Forest Management Laboratory, Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, CanadaEmail: aynslie.ogden@gov.yk.ca and john.innes@ubc.ca

SUMMARY

Climate change will pose increasing challenges to forest managers working to achieve sustainable forest management in the boreal forest. To date, discussions around when, where and how to consider adaptation in forest management plans for the boreal forest have been limited. As a starting point, specific objectives for climate change adaptation need to be articulated, which we consider to be synonymous with the criteria for conservation and sustainable management of boreal forests as defined by the Montréal Process. Secondly, because forest management plans are hierarchal — there are higher level strategic plans and lower level operational plans — it is important to distinguish at which planning level adaptation options are most appropriately considered. The purpose of this paper is to put forward a range of alternative adaptation options that forest managers working in the boreal zone could consider during the development of strategic and operational forest management plans in order to achieve sustainability as defined by the Montréal Process.

Le changement climatique va poser des défis croissants aux gestionnaires cherchant à accomplir une gestion forestière durable dans la forêt boréale. Les discussions visant à décider quand, où, et comment considérer l'adaptation dans les plans de gestion forestiers pour la forêt boréale ont été jusqu' à présent limitées. Il faut que des objectifs spécifiques pour l'adaptation au changement climatique soient articulés pour commencer, lesquels, nous le pensons, sont synonymes avec les critères pour la conservation et la durabilité de la gestion des forêts boréales définis par le processus de Montréal. Par la suite, et du fait que les plans de gestion sont hiérarchiques (les plans stratégiques des haut-niveau et les plans opérationnels de bas-niveau), il est important de discerner à quel niveau de planification de la gestion les options d'adaptation seront considérés de la manière la plus appropriée. Le but de cet article est de mettre en avant des options d'adaptation alternatives que les gestionnaires forestiers travaillant dans la zone boréale pourraient considérer pendant le développement de plans stratégiques et opérationnels de gestion forestière, afin de pouvoir obtenir la durabilité comme elle est définie par le processus de Montréal.

El cambio climático creará desafíos cada vez mayores para los manejadores de bosques que trabajan para lograr una gestión sostenible en el bosque boreal. Hasta ahora han sido limitados los debates sobre cuándo, dónde y cómo tratar la adaptación en los planes de gestión para bosques boreales. Como punto de partida, hace falta desarrollar objetivos específicos para la adaptación al cambio climático. Estos objetivos pueden ser considerados como sinónimos de los criterios para la conservación y gestión sostenible del bosque boreal del como han sido definidas por el Proceso de Montreal. Los planes de gestión forestal tienen su jerarquía, y existen planes estratégicos de alto nivel y planes operacionales a menor nivel, y por eso resulta importante diferenciar el nivel de planificación más apropiado para considerar las opciones para la adaptación. El objetivo de este estudio consiste en proponer una gama de alternativas de adaptación que los manejadores de bosque que trabajan en la zona boreal podrían considerar durante el desarrollo de planes de gestión estratégicos y operacionales, en aras de lograr la sostenibilidad tal como ha sido definida por el Proceso de Montreal.

Keywords: climate change, adaptation, boreal forest, Montréal Process, forest management plans

REFERENCES

Alekseev, A.S. and Soroka, A.R. 2002. Scots pine growth trends in northwestern Kola Peninsula as an indicator of positive changes in the carbon cycle. Climatic Change 55 (½):183–196. Crossref

Alsek Renewable Resource Council (ARRC). 2004. Strategic Forest Management Plan: Community Directions for a Sustainable Forest. Whitehorse, Yukon.

Apps, M.J., and Marsden, J. (eds.) 2000. The Role of Boreal Forests and Forestry in the Global Carbon Budget.Abstracts of the International Science Conference May 8–12, 2000. Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada. Edmonton, Alberta. 326 pp.

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Overview Report. Cambridge University Press, UK. 139 pp.

Arseneault, D. and Sirois, L. 2004. The millennial dynamics of a boreal forest stand from buried trees. Journal of Ecology 92 (3):490–504. Crossref

Ayres, M.P. and Lombardero, M.J. 2000. Assessing the consequences of global change for forest disturbance from herbivores and pathogens. Science of the Total Environment 262 (3):263–286. Crossref

Barber, V., Juday, G. and Finney, B. 2000. Reduced growth of Alaska white spruce in the twentieth century from temperature-induced drought stress. Nature 405:668–672. Crossref

Barber, V., Juday, G., Finney, B. and Wilmking, M. 2004. Reconstruction of summer temperatures in interior Alaska from tree-ring proxies: evidence for changing synoptic climate regimes. Climatic Change 63:91–120.Crossref

Bergsten, U., Goulet, F., Lundmark, T. and Lofvenius, M.O. 2001. Frost heaving in a boreal soil in relation to soil scarification and snow cover. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31 (6):1084–1092. Crossref

Bhatti, J.S., Van Kooten, G.C., Apps, M.J., Laird, L.D., Campbell, I.D., Campbell, C., Turetsky, M.R., Yu, Z. and Banfield, E. 2003. Carbon balance and climate change in boreal forests. In Burton, P.J., Messier, C., Smith, D.W. and Adamowicz, W.L. (eds.) Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 799–855.

Biringer, J. 2003. Forest ecosystems threatened by climate change: promoting long-term forest resilience. In Hansen, L.J., Biringer, J. and Hoffman, J.R. (eds.) Buying Time: A User's Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems., World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 41–69.

Bott, R., Murphy, P. and Udell, R. 2003. Learning From the Forest. Fifth House, Calgary. 242 pp.

Briceño-Elizondo, E., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Peltola, H., Matala, J. and Kellomäki, S. 2006. Sensitivity of growth of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and silver birch to climate change and forest management in boreal conditions.Forest Ecology and Management 232 (1/3):152–167. Crossref

British Columbia Ministry Of Forests and Range (BCMOF). 2006. Preparing for Climate Change: Adapting to Impacts on British Columbia's Forest and Range Resources. Province British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 80pp.

Burton, P.J., Messier, C., Smith, D.W. and Adamowicz, W.L. (eds). 2003. Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 1039 pp.

Canadian Council Of Forest Ministers (CCFM). 2006. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada: National Status Report 2005. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 162 pp.

Carey, A.B. 2003. Restoration of landscape function: reserves or active management? Forestry 76:221–230.Crossref

Carroll, A.L., Taylor, S.W. and Regniere, J. 2004. Effects of climate change on range expansion by the Mountain Pine Beetle in British Columbia. 2004. In Shore, T.L., Brooks, J.E. and Stone, J.E. (eds.) Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions. October 30–31, 2003, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Information Report BC-X-399. pp. 223–232.

Chapin, F.S. III, Peterson, G., Berkes, F., Callaghan, T.V., Angelstam, P., Apps, M., Beier, C., Bergeron, Y., Crépin, A.-S., Danell, K., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Forbes, B., Fresco, N., Juday, G., Niemelä, J., Shvidenko, A. and Whiteman, G. 2004. Resilience and vulnerability of northern regions to social and environmental change.Ambio 33 (6):344–349. BioOne

Chapin, F.S. III, Rupp, T.S., Starfield, A.M., Dewilde, L., Zavaleta, E.S., Fresco, N., Henkelman, J. and McGuire, A.D. 2003. Planning for resilience: modeling change in human—fire interactions in the Alaskan boreal forest.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1 (5):255–261. Crossref

Cohen, S.J. 1997. What is and so what in Northwest Canada: Could climate change make a difference to the future of the Mackenzie Basin? Arctic 50 (4):293–307. Crossref

Columbo, S.J. 1998. Climate warming and its effect on bud burst and risk of frost damage to white spruce in Canada. Forestry Chronicle 74 (4):567–577. Crossref

Conard, S.G., Sukhinin, A.I., Stocks, B.J., Cahoon, D.R., Davidenko, E.P. and Ivanova, G.A. 2002. Determining effects of area burned and fire severity on carbon cycling and emissions in Siberia. Climatic Change 55 (½):197–211. Crossref

Dale, V.H, Joyce, L.A., McNulty, S., Neilson, R.P., Ayres, M.P., Flannigan, M.D., Hanson, P.J., Irland, L.C., Lugo, A.E., Peterson, C.J., Simberloff, D., Swanson, F.J., Stocks, B.J. and Wotton, B.M. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience 51:723–734. BioOne

Drake, B.G., Gonzalez-Meler, M.A., and Long, S.P. 1997. More efficient plants: a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 48:609–639. Crossref

Easterling, W.E., Hurd, W.H. and Smith, J.B. 2004. Coping with global climate change: the role of adaptation in the United States., Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA. 40 pp.

Farnum, P. 1992. Forest adaptation to global climate change through silvicultural treatments and genetic improvement. In: Wall, G. (ed.) Implications of Climate Change for Pacific Northwest Forest Management., Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont. Occasional Paper No. 15, pp. 81–84.

Flannigan, M.D, Logan, K.A., Amiro, B.D., Skinner, W.R. and Stocks, B.J. 2005. Future area burned in Canada.Climatic Change 72:1–16. Crossref

Fleming, R.A., Candau, J.-N. and McAlpine, R.S. 2002. Landscape-scale analysis of interactions between insect defoliation and forest fire in central Canada. Climatic Change 55 (½):251–272. Crossref

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L. and Holling, C.S. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:557–581. Crossref

Garcia-Conzalo, J., Peltola, H., Briceño-Elizondo, E. and Kellomäki, S. 2007. Changed thinning regimes may increase carbon stock under climate change: a case study from a Finnish boreal forest. Climatic Change 81 (3/4):431–454. Crossref

Gitay, H., S. Brown, W. Easterling and B. Jallow 2001. Ecosystems and their goods and services. Chapter 5 In J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White (eds.). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York. 1042 p.

Gitay, H., Suarez, A., Dokken, D.J. and Watson, R.T. (eds.) 2002. Climate change and biodiversity.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Technical Paper V. 77 pp.

Goff, H. Le, Leduc, A., Bergeron, Y., and Flannigan, M. 2005. The adaptive capacity of forest management to changing fire regimes of the boreal forest of Quebec. Forestry Chronicle 81 (4):582–592. Crossref

Goulden, M.L, Wofsy, S.C., Harden, J.W., Trumbore, S.E., Crill, P.M., Gower, S. T., Fries, T., Daube, B.C., Fan, S.M., Sutton, D.J., Bazzaz, A., and Munger, J.W. 1998. Sensitivity of boreal forest carbon balance to soil thaw.Science 297:214–217. Crossref

Gottschalk, K.W. 1995. Using silviculture to improve health in northeastern conifer and eastern hardwood forests. In: Eskew, L.G. (compiler) Forest health through silviculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colo. General Technical Report RM-267, pp. 219–226.

Gregory, R., McDaniels, T.L. and Fields, D. 2001. Decision-aiding not dispute resolution: creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20 (3):415–432.Crossref

Halsey, L.A., Vitt, D.H. and Zoltai, S.C. 1995. Disequilibrium response of permafrost in boreal continental western Canada to climate change. Climatic Change 30 (1):57–73. Crossref

Hauer, G. 2001. Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture and Forestry Land Use Patterns: Developing and Applying an Integrated Impact Assessment Model. Unpublished report. Natural Resources Canada, Climate Change Action Fund.

Hauer, G., Williamson, T. and Renner, M. 1999. Socio-Economie Impacts and Adaptive Responses to Climate Change: a Canadian forest perspective. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre. Edmonton, Alberta. Informal Report NOR-XS-373.

Hickey, G.M. and Innes, J.L. 2005. Scientific review and gap analysis of sustainable forest management criteria and indicator initiatives. FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership Series 17. FORREX, Kamloops, BC, Canada.

Hogg, E.H., Brandt, J.P. and Kochtubajda, B. 2002. Growth and dieback of aspen forests in northwestern Alberta, Canada, in relation to climate and insects. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32 (5):823–832.Crossref

Hogg E.H. and Wein, R.W. 2005. Impacts of drought on forest growth and regeneration in the southwestern Yukon, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35 (9):2141–2150. Crossref

Holling, C.S. (ed.) 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Wiley, Chichester, New York. 377 pp.

Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4:390–405. Crossref

Houghton, J. 2004. Global Warming. The Complete Briefing. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 351 pp. Crossref

Innes, J. L. and Nitschke, C. R. 2005. The application of forest zoning as an alternative to multiple-use forestry. In Innes, J.L. (ed.) Forestry and Environmental Change: Socioeconomic and Political Dimensions. Report No.5 of the IUFRO Task Force on Environmental Change. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2000. Land use, land-use change and forestry. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. 377 pp.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate change 2001: Synthesis Report: Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York. 397 pp.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. Climate Change 2007 -The Physical Science Basis.Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Crossref

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007b. Climate Change 2007 -Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Crossref

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007c. Climate Change 2007 -Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Crossref

Iverson, L.R. and Prasad, A.M. 2001. Potential changes in tree species richness and forest community types following climate change. Ecosystems 4 (3):186–199. Crossref

Johnson, E.A., Morin, H., Miyanishi, K., Gagnon, R. and Greene, D.F. 2003. A process approach to understanding disturbance and forest dynamics. In: Burton, P.J., Messier, C., Smith, D.W. and Adamowicz, W.L. (eds.) Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. National Research Council of Canada Research Press. Ottawa, Ontario, pp. 261–306.

Johnston, M., Williamson, T., Price, D., Wellstead, A., Gray, P., Scott, D., Askew, S., Webber, S. 2006. Adapting Forest Management to the Impacts of Climate Change in Canada. BIOCAP Research Integration Program Synthesis Paper. 96 pp.

Johnstone, J.F. and Chapin, F.S. 2006. Fire interval effects on successional trajectory in boreal forests of northwest Canada. Ecosystems 9 (2):268–277. Crossref

Jones, R. and Boer, R. 2005. Assessing Current Climate Risks. In Lim, B. and E. Spanger-Siegfried (eds). Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. United Nations Development Programme. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. 258 pp.

Jorgenson, M.T., Racine, C.H., Walters, J.C. and Osterkamp, T.E. 2001. Permafrost degradation and ecological changes associated with a warming climate in central Alaska. Climatic Change 48 (4):551–579. Crossref

Juday, G.P. Barber, V.,Duffy, P., Linderhorm, H., Rupp, S., Sparrow, S., Vaganov, E. and Yarie, J. 2005. Forests, land management and agriculture. In: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment: Scientific Report. Cambridge University Press, UK. pp. 781–862.

Juday, G.P. and Barber, V.A. 2005. Alaska Tree Ring Data: Long-Term Ecological Research. Bonanza Creek LTER Database, Fairbanks, Alaska, http://www.lter.uaf.edu

Karnosky, D.F., Scarascia-Munozza, G.E., Ceulemans, R. and Innes, J.L. 2001. Knowledge gaps in the study of the impacts of elevated atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases on forest ecosystems. In: Karnosky, D.F., Scarascia-Munozza, G.E., Ceulemans, R. and Innes, J.L. (eds.) The Impact of Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases on Forest Ecosystems. CAB Publishing, Wallingford. pp. 325–340.

Kellomäki, S., Hänninen, H. and Kolström, M. 1995. Computations on forest damage to Scots pine under climatic warming in boreal conditions. Ecological Applications 5: 42–52. Crossref

Kellomäki, S. and KolströM, M. 1994. The Influence of climate change on the productivity of Scots pine, Norway spruce, Pendula birch, and Pubescent birch in southern and northern Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 65: 201–217. Crossref

Kellomäki, S. and Väisänen, H. 1996. Model computations on the effect of rising temperature on soil moisture and water availability in forest ecosystems dominated by Scots pine in the Boreal zone of Finland. Climatic Change 32: 423–445. Crossref

Kellomaki, S., Peltola, H., Bauwens, B., Dekker, M., Mohreh, F., Badeck, F.W., Gracia, C., Sanchez, A., Pla, E., Sabate, S., Lindner, M., Pussinen, A. 2005. European Mitigation and Adaptation Potentials: Conclusions and Recommendations. In Kellomaki, S., and Leinonen, S. (editors). SilviStrat: Management of European Forests under Changing Climatic Conditions. Tiedonantoja Research Notes No. 163. University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry. 427 pp.

Krankina, O.N., Dixon, R.K., Kirilenko, A.P. and Kobak, K.I. 2004. Global climate change adaptation: examples from Russian boreal forests. Climatic Change 36 (1/2):197–215. Crossref

Kuusela, K. 1990. The dynamics of boreal coniferous forests. Finnish National Fund for Research and Development, Helsinki. 172 pp.

Lemmen, D. and Warren, F. (eds.) 2004. Climate change impacts and adaptation: A Canadian perspective.Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Directorate, Natural Resources Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Crossref

Lempert, R.J., Popper, S.W., and Bankes, S.C. 2003. Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis. RAND, Santa Monica, California.

Lieffers, S.M., Lieffers, V.J., Silins, U. and Bach, L. 2001 Effects of cold temperatures on breakage of lodgepole pine and white spruce twigs. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31 (9):1650–1653. Crossref

Lim, B. and Spanger-Siegfried. E. (eds). 2005. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. United Nations Development Programme. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. 258 pp.

Lindner. M., Lasch, P., and Erhard, M. 2000. Alternative forest management strategies under climate change: prospects for gap model applications in risk analyses. Silva Fennica 34: 101–111. Crossref

Liu, G.L., Nelson, J.D. and Wardman, C.W. 2000. A target-oriented approach to forest ecosystem design — changing the rules of forest planning. Ecological Modelling 127 (2/3):269–281. Crossref

Long, S.P., Ainsworth, E.A., Rogers, A. and Ort, D.R. 2004. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide: plants face the future. Annual Review of Plant Biology 55: 591–628. Crossref

MacIntire, E.J.B., Duchesneau, R. and Kimmins, J.P. 2005. Seed and bud legacies interact with fire regimes to drive long-term dynamics of boreal forest communities. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35 (11):2765–2773. Crossref

Malcolm, J. and Markham, A. 2000. Global warming and terrestrial biodiversity decline. World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland. 34 pp.

Malcolm, J., Markham, A., Neilson, R.P. and Garaci, M. 2002. Estimated migration rates under scenarios of global climate change. Journal of Biogeography 29 (7):835–850. Crossref

McCullough, D.G., Werner, R.A. and Neumann, D. 1998. Fire and insects in northern and boreal ecosystems of North America. Annual Review of Entomology 43: 107–127. Crossref

McGuire, A.D. and Chapin, F.S. 2006. Climate feedbacks in the Alaskan boreal forest. Chapter 19 in Chapin, F.S. et al., (eds). Alaska's Changing Boreal Forest. Oxford University Press. 354 pp.

Mike, J. 2001. Provincial governments and First Nations perspectives. In: Forestry Climate Change and Adaptation Workshop: Proposed Forestry Network within C-CIARN. Prepared for Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network by Summu Consultants.

Montréal Process Working Group. 1999. The Montréal Process - Explanatory brochure of the Montréal Process.http://www.mpci.org/rep-pub/1995/santiago_e.html (accessed June 20, 2007).

Mote, P.E., Parson, E.A., Hamlot, A.F., Ideker, K.N., Keeton, W.S., Lettenmaier, D.P., Mantua, N.J., Miles, E.L., Peterson, D.W., Peterson, D.L., Slaughter, R. and Snover, A.K. 2003. Preparing for climate change: the water, salmon and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic change 61: 45–88. Crossref

Namkoong, G. 1984. Strategies for gene conservation. In: Yeatman, C.W., Kafton, D. and Wilkes, G. (eds.) Plant Gene Resources: A Conservation Imperative., American Association for the Advancement of Science, Selected Symposium 87, Boulder, Col. pp. 79–89.

Nelson, F.E., Anisimov, O.A. and Shiklomanov, N.I. 2002. Climate change and hazard zonation in the circum-Arctic permafrost regions. Natural Hazards 26 (3):203–225. Crossref

Nitschke, C.R. and Innes, J.L. 2006. Interactions between fire, climate change and forest biodiversity: a review.Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 1 (60):1–9.

Nitschke, C.R. and Innes, J.L. In press. A tree and climate assessment tool for modeling ecosystem response to climate change. Ecological Modelling, in press.

Noss, R.F. 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid climate change. Conservation Biology 15: 578–590. Crossref

Ogden, A.E. and Innes, J.L. 2007. Perspectives of forest practitioners on climate change adaptation in the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada. Forestry Chronicle 00(0):00–00.

Ohlson, D.W., McKinnon, G.A. and Hirsch, K.G. 2005. A structured decision-making approach to climate change adaptation in the forest sector. Forestry Chronicle 81 (1):97–103. Crossref

Osterkamp, T.E., Viereck, L., Shur, Y., Jorgenson, M.T., Racine, C., Doyle, A., and Boone, R.D. 2000. Observations on thermokarst and its impact on boreal forests on Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 32: 303–315. Crossref

Papadopol, C.S. 2000. Impacts of climate warming on forests in Ontario: options for adaptation and mitigation.Forestry Chronicle 76: 139–149. Crossref

Parker, W.C., Colombo, S.J., Cherry, M.L., Flannigan, M.D., Greifenhagen, S., McAlpine, R.S., Papadopol, C. and Scarr, T. 2000. Third millennium forestry: what climate change might mean to forests and forest management in Ontario. Forestry Chronicle 76: 445–463. Crossref

Pastor, J., Solin, J., Bridgham, S.D., Updegraff, K., Harth, C., Weishampel, P. and Dewey, P. 2003. Global warming and the export of dissolved organic carbon from boreal peatlands. Oikos 100: 380–386. Crossref

Peters, R.L. 1990. Effects of global warming on forests. Forest Ecology and Management 35: 13–33. Crossref

Peterson, D.L. and Johnson, D.R. 1995. Human ecology and climate change. People and resources in the Far North. Taylor and Francis, Washington DC. 337 pp.

Price, D.T., Peng, C.H., Apps, M.J. and Halliwell, D.H. 1999. Stimulating effects of climate change on boreal ecosystem carbon pools in central Canada. Journal of Biogeography 26 (6):1237–1248. Crossref

Raivio, S., Normark, E., Pettersson, B. and Salpakivi-Salomaa, P. 2001. Science and the management of boreal forest biodiversity — forest industries' views. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Supplement 3: 99–104.Crossref

Rehfeldt, G.E., Ying, C.C., Spittlehouse, D.L. and Hamilton, D.A. 1999. Genetic responses to climate for Pinus contorta: niche breadth, climate change, and reforestation. Ecological Monographs 69: 375–407. Crossref

Rupp, T.S., Starfield, A.M., Chapin, F.S. III and Duffy, P. 2002. Modeling the impact of black spruce on the fire regime of Alaskan boreal forest. Climatic Change 55 (1/2):213–233. Crossref

Ryu, S.R., Chen, J.Q., Crow, T.R. and Saunders, S.C. 2004. Available fuel dynamics in nine contrasting forest ecosystems in North America. Environmental Management 33 (Suppl. 1): S87–S107. Crossref

Schindler, D.W., Bayley, S.E., Parker, B.R., Beaty, K.G., Cruikshank, D.R., Fee, E.J., Schindler, E.U. and Stainton, M.P. 1996. The effects of climatic warming on the properties of boreal lakes and streams at the Experimental Lakes Area, northwestern Ontario. Limnology and Oceanography 41 (5):1004–1017. Crossref

Serreze, M.C., Walsh, J.E., Chapin, E.S. III, Osterkamp, T., Dyurgerov, M., Romanovsky, V., Oechel, W.C., Morison, J., Zhang, T. and Barry, R.G. 2000. Observational evidence of recent change in the northern high-latitude environment. Climatic Change 46: 159–207. Crossref

Shore, T.L., Brooks, J.E. and Stone, J.E. (eds.) 2004. Mountain pine beetle symposium: challenges and solutions. October 30–31, 2003, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Information Report BC-X-399. 298 pp.

Siry, J.P., Cubbage, F.W. and Ahmed, M.R. 2005. Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities. Forest Policy and Economics 7 (4):551–561. Crossref

Smith, D.M., Larson, B.C., Kelty, M.J. and Ashton, P.M.S.1997. The practice of silviculture: applied forest ecology. 9th edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y. 537 pp.

Spittlehouse, D.L. and Stewart, R.B. 2003. Adaptation to climate change in forest management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 4 (1):1–11.

Spittlehouse, D.L. 2005. Integrating climate change adaptation into forest management. Forestry Chronicle 81 (5):691–695. Crossref

Stewart, R.B., Wheaton, E., and Spittlehouse, D.L. 1998. Climate change: implications for the boreal forest. In: Legge, A.H. and Jones, L.L. (eds.) Emerging air issues for the 21st century: the need for multidisciplinary management., Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, pp. 86–101.

Stocks, B.J., Fosberg, M.A., Lynham., T.J., Mearns, L., Wotton, B.M., Yang, Q., Jin, J.Z., Lawrence, K., Hartley, G.R., Mason, J.A. and McKenney, D.W. 1998. Climate change and forest fire potential in Russian and Canadian boreal forests. Climatic Change 38: 1–13. Crossref

Strömgren, M. and Linder, S. 2002. Effects of nutrition and soil warming on stemwood production in a boreal Norway spruce stand. Global Change Biology 8 (12):1195–1204. Crossref

Sulkava, P. and Huhta, V. 2003. Effects of hard frost and freeze-thaw cycles on decomposer communities and N mineralisation in boreal forest soil. Applied Soil Ecology 22 (3), 225–239. Crossref

Sykes, M.T. and Prentice, I.C. 1995. Boreal forest futures: modelling the controls on tree species range limits and transient responses to climate change. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 82: 415–428. Crossref

Sykes, M.T. and Prentice, I.C. 1996. Climate change, tree species distributions and forest dynamics: a case study in the mixed conifer/northern hardwoods zone of Northern Europe. Climatic Change 34, 161–177.Crossref

Van Kooten, G.C. 1995. Climate change and Canada's boreal forest. Socio-economic issues and implications for land use. Climatic Change 43 (1):133–148.

Venevsky, S. 2006. A method for integrated assessment of vulnerability to climate change in Siberian forests: example of Larch area. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11 (1):241–268. Crossref

Volney, W.J.A. and Fleming, R.A. 2000. Climate change and impacts of boreal forest insects. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 (1/3):283–294. Crossref

Volney, W.J.A. and Hirsch, K.G. 2005. Disturbing forest disturbances. Forestry Chronicle 81 (5):662–668.Crossref

Wang, Z.M., Lechowicz, M.J. and Potvin, C. 1995. Responses of black spruce seedlings to simulated present versus future seedbed environments. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25: 545–554. Crossref

Wargo, P.A. and Harrington, T.C.1991. Host stress and susceptibility. In: Shaw, C.G. and Kile, G.A. (eds.) Armillaria root disease. Agriculture Handbook No. 691. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Weber, M.G. and Flannigan, M.D. 1997. Canadian boreal forest ecosystem structure and function in a changing climate: impact on fire regimes. Environmental Reviews 5: 145–166. Crossref

Weber, M.G. and Stocks, B.J. 1998. Forest fires and sustainability in the boreal forests of Canada. Ambio 27: 545–550.

Wheaton, E. 2001. Changing fire risk in a changing climate: A literature review and assessment. Saskatchewan Research Council, Saskatoon, Sask. Publ. No. 11341–2E01.

White, T. and Kurz, W. 2003. Carbon credits afforestation. Canadian Silviculture Winter: 13–15.

Yarie, J. and Billings, S. 2002. Carbon balance of the taiga forest within Alaska: present and future. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32 (5):757–767. Crossref

Yoshikawa, K. and Hinzman, L.D. 2003. Shrinking thermokarst ponds and groundwater dynamics in discontinuous permafrost near Council, Alaska. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 14 (2):151–160. Crossref

Young, O. R. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale., MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Cited by

M.R. Guariguata, B. Locatelli and F. Haupt. (2012) Adapting Tropical Production Forests to Global Climate Change: Risk Perceptions and Actions. International Forestry Review 14:1, 27-38.
Online publication date: 24-Mar-2012.

Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (118 KB) : Rights & Permissions 

For further details log on website  :
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1505/ifor.9.3.713