People and pines 1555–1910: integrating ecology, history and archaeology to assess long-term resource use in northern Fennoscandia

16Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Context: Past human land use has received increasing attention as an important driver of ecosystem change also in seemingly natural landscapes. Quantification of historical land use is therefore critical for assessing the degree of human impact and requires integration of ecology, history and archaeology. Objective: This study aims to assess and compare levels of resource use by different actors during 355 years across a large landscape of northern Sweden. Method: Data on resource use derived from case studies were extrapolated using demographic data to estimate harvested resources at the landscape scale. Here, we examined the use of the key-specie Scots pine by native Sami peoples and farmers and through commercial logging, and reconstructed historical forest conditions in order to interpret harvest levels and sustainability. Results: We show that (1) the pre-industrial use of Scots pine resources in Pite Lappmark was sustainable from a landscape perspective, and (2) that the early commercial logging, in contrast, was not sustainable. Large and old Scots pine trees were logged at a very high rate, reaching up to 300 % of the annual ingrowth. Conclusion: We suggest that historical landscape studies should incorporate analysis at different spatial scales, as such an approach can mirror the overall use of resources. Only then can land use data be applied across larger spatial scales, function as reference values and be compared to those of other regions, time-periods and types of human impact.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rautio, A. M., Josefsson, T., Axelsson, A. L., & Östlund, L. (2016). People and pines 1555–1910: integrating ecology, history and archaeology to assess long-term resource use in northern Fennoscandia. Landscape Ecology, 31(2), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0246-9

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free