DSpace https://erepo.uef.fi
Rinnakkaistallenteet Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta
2019
Safe places: Increasing Finnish waterfowl resilience through
human-made wetlands
Mustonen, Tero
Elsevier BV
Tieteelliset aikakauslehtiartikkelit
© Elsevier B.V. and NIPR.
CC BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polar.2019.05.007
https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/7816
Downloaded from University of Eastern Finland's eRepository
Accepted Manuscript
Safe places: Increasing Finnish waterfowl resilience through human-made wetlands Tero Mustonen, Harri Kontkanen
PII: S1873-9652(18)30142-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polar.2019.05.007 Reference: POLAR 467
To appear in: Polar Science Received Date: 8 July 2018
Revised Date: 29 November 2018 Accepted Date: 24 May 2019
Please cite this article as: Mustonen, T., Kontkanen, H., Safe places: Increasing Finnish waterfowl resilience through human-made wetlands, Polar Science (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.polar.2019.05.007.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
Safe places: Increasing Finnish waterfowl resilience through human-made wetlands 1
Tero Mustonena,*, Harri Kontkanenb 2
3
Abstract 4
5
Loss of boreal wetlands in Finland has negative consequences for waders, ducks and local socio- 6
ecological systems. These changes result from over 70-years of human-made alterations to land and 7
waterscapes. Climate change and associated extreme events are expected to be further drivers of 8
negative change. In order to build resilience and seek answers to these challenges, a five-year 9
monitoring of Linnunsuo, a 120-hectare human-made wetland was conducted. Wood sandpiper 10
(Tringa glareola) and Northern pintail (Anas acuta) were the indicator species. Analysis of co- 11
management complemented the review. Results indicate that the creation of well-designed wetlands 12
has the potential to increase resilience of these socio-ecological systems. They are cost-effective 13
and can be replicated across the boreal region to address the need of habitat loss and climate 14
impacts.
15 16
Keywords: Ecological restoration, Finland, Linnunsuo, Northern pintail, Socio-ecological 17
systems, Wood sandpiper 18
19 20
a Adjunct professor at the Department of Geography and History at the University of Eastern 21
Finland-Joensuu. He also works at Snowchange Cooperative. His research interests include 22
Indigenous land use and occupancy, Finnish and Indigenous traditional knowledge and biodiversity, 23
Arctic, and fisheries issues. Address: PL 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland 24
b A staff member of Snowchange Cooperative, an independent research organization based in North 25
Karelia, Finland.
26 27
Authors’ Information 28
*Corresponding author. E-mail address: tero@snowchange.org , Telephone: + 358 407372424 29
(Tero Mustonen) 30
harri.kontkanen66@gmail.com (Harri Kontkanen) 31
32 33 34
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
1. Introduction 35
36
In the past 70 years a large portion of natural wetlands, marsh-mires and bogs have been lost in 37
Finland (Tanskanen, 2000; Mustonen 2017). The main reason for this has been the rapid expansion 38
of timber industries and peat production (for energy) as part of the modernisation of Finland in the 39
Post-WW2 era. Combined with losses in the boreal ecosystems, these twin drivers have caused 40
tremendous habitat losses for various species, including fish, birds and mammals (e.g. Kaakinen et 41
al., 2008a, 2008b; Fraixedas et al., 2018; Ministry of the Environment, 2017; Rassi et al., 2010).
42
They have also had consequences for rural socio-ecological systems (Mustonen 2016b, Mustonen 43
2017).
44 45
Overarching context for the boreal ecosystems will be also rapidly proceeding climate change 46
(Erwin 2009; Arctic Council 2016; IPCC 2018). It is providing a range of impacts on wetlands and 47
subsequently on birds dependent on them including extreme rain events and floods, droughts, early 48
or unexpected snow and ice melt to name a few examples. All of these drivers will bring a new 49
level of uncertainty to wetland ecosystems, especially human-made. The past climate system 50
provided for the adaptation capacity of those waterfowl and wader species that have specialized in 51
boreal wetlands. Both the observed and projected changes in climate will constitute a major driver 52
to which habitat restoration may be a partial alleviating tool.
53 54
In this article we focus on attempts to reverse these trends for the duck and wader birds by utilizing 55
a rather new ecological restoration tool – the creation of human-made wetlands. By looking at the 56
case of Linnunsuo, a ‘safe place’ consisting of a 120-hectare southern boreal wetland, created in 57
2013, we demonstrate resilience for specific wader and duck species. We also show how creating 58
Linnunsuo has altered governance and land use patterns, leading to wider positive impacts. Our 59
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
assessment of increased resilience (Arctic Council, 2016; Folke, 2006; Hollings and Chambers, 60
1973: Erwin 2009) rests on a dual approach – field surveys of populations of Wood sandpiper 61
(Tringa glareola) and Northern pintail (Anas acuta) as indicator species at Linnunsuo, as well as a 62
geographical-governance analysis of co-management results.
63 64
(Figure 1. Map of the location of Linnunsuo in Eastern Finland. Map by Johanna Roto, 65
Snowchange) 66
67
While the draining of wetlands has decreased since the heyday of these practices in the 1970s and 68
1980s (Mustonen 2017); the ecological impacts of these habitat alterations continue to affect the 69
birds and other species. On the other hand, many of the peat production sites, which were formerly 70
marsh-mires and wetlands, are reaching the end of their production cycles. This means that a crucial 71
question is emerging – what will be done with these large former boreal ecosystems in the post- 72
production context?
73 74
We have investigated the Linnunsuo site, located in North Karelia, Finland, for a period of five 75
years since its creation, from a dual analytical viewpoint. First, we have undertaken field surveys of 76
key bird species. Second, we have conducted rigorous geographical-governance analysis of the 77
management (Berkes, 2009; Howitt, 2001) of the site to investigate the impact of post-production 78
sites from the viewpoint of resilience.
79 80
Linnunsuo is a 120 hectares area and is located in the catchment area of the Jukajoki River. This 81
river system suffers from severe ecological problems resulting from human-made ditching.
82
Ditching has released acidic, sulphuric, waters into the system, affecting water quality. In 2010 and 83
2011 fish in the river died due to the discharge of acidic waters (Mustonen 2013) from the 84
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
Linnunsuo peat production site. The then-owner of the site, Vapo, decided to create a large human- 85
made wetland of three ponds, with a total water territory of 60 hectares, to control the acidity by 86
submerging the soils.
87 88
For five field seasons between 2013-2016 we conducted field surveys and analyzed the succession 89
of the human-made wetland both as a bird habitat (a side effect of the submersion and the wetland 90
units) and a site for the evolution of new governance (Berkes, 2012b, 2009) in the form of co- 91
management. The architecture of this co-management approach has seen local villagers, bird 92
watchers, companies, hunters and other stakeholders jointly manage the Linnunsuo site and its 93
functions between 2012-2016.
94 95
The success of Linnunsuo as a bird habitat has surprised all stakeholders (see management options 96
in Erwin 2009). This was not initially envisioned for the restoration. Primary aim was action against 97
acidity. However early surveying revealed that Linnunsuo is becoming an ecological hotspot 98
especially for birds. The ponds lack fish that would compete for food resources with the birds. They 99
are also primary production sites of invertebrates and insects the birds can utilize.
100 101
The acidity of the sulphuric soils can, for the most part, only be controlled through re-submerging 102
them. This method has been used in other areas besides Linnunsuo, for example on the tropical 103
sulphuric soils found in Queensland, Australia (East Trinity Reserve; Mustonen 2016). Incidentally, 104
these sites have also emerged as globally relevant habitats for wading birds.
105 106
The loss of bird habitats in Finland has consequences for birds in other countries. Due to its 107
northern location Finland is an important flyway for migratory birds on their way to the Arctic in 108
the Spring and back to southern climates in Autumn. Many of the bird habitats in Finland are 109
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
experiencing severe losses (Tanskanen, 2000; Wahlström et al., 1996). The negative trend continues 110
(Howitt, 2001). National funding for addressing this issue of bird habitat loss has been cut. There 111
are no resources from the European Union for this purpose either.
112 113
The example of Linnunsuo is potentially important for several reasons. It provides a habitat for rare 114
and endangered species. These human-made wetlands could potentially secure key habitats for 115
migratory birds as staging and migratory areas. For Finland few such areas have emerged in the 116
same scale (Aalto and Siira, 2006). Therefore the experiences and results from Linnunsuo can 117
provide a cost-effective model for addressing habitat losses especially for waders and duck species.
118 119
New style governance (Howitt, 2001) which includes traditional-local knowledge (Berkes, 2012a, 120
2012b, 2009) and collaborative management addresses equity and environmental conflict issues.
121
Local hunters from the village of Selkie are important stakeholders on the site. They harvest a small 122
number of birds (<20-30 / annually) in the vicinity of Linnunsuo. The inclusion of the hunters as a 123
stakeholder group helps to address the overpredation of birds by local predators including mink and 124
raccoon dogs.
125 126
In this article Linnunsuo is reviewed through a rigorous methodology combining governance 127
(Howitt, 2001) and biological field surveys to seek solutions to the problem of habitat loss. We 128
approach Linnunsuo therefore as a socio-ecological system (Arctic Council, 2016; Mustonen 2017) 129
and review its resilience (Arctic Council, 2016; Holling and Chambers, 1973) against this backdrop.
130 131
1.1. Linnunsuo as an ecological site and bird habitat 132
133
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
The reasons behind how various duck species choose their particular living and reproduction areas 134
are still relatively unknown in the boreal. There are several factors for these parameters of duck 135
behaviour. In particular the nesting and environmental choices of the Anatinae dabbling duck and 136
issues surrounding survival rates of the species ducklings and breeding habitat are rather unclear.
137
Further research is needed on the impacts of human-induced drivers.
138 139
High-quality living environments such as beaver ponds are very significant for the breeding duck 140
species of the boreal. Flood plains are relatively scarce in the boreal landscape. It is assumed that 141
climate change will further reduce their quality and numbers (Erwin 2009; Holopainen, 2015).
142 143
The Linnunsuo wetland is a human-constructed floodplain with a very low pH (below 4.0 pH).
144
Aluminum and iron concentrations are very high (Laventure, 2017). In spite of that just in its first 145
year of operation Linnunsuo emerged as an optimal living environment for birds. This is based on 146
the high primary production of Chironomidae (Mustonen 2014, Laventure, 2017) that tolerate 147
acidity. The role of insects in the numbers and population trends of swifts and swallows in other 148
parts of Europe is important to note here. As Hallmann et al. (2017) correctly point a collapse of 149
flying insect biomass is real on continental scale and partly results from habitat loss. Therefore the 150
interconnected role of insects in an ecosystem like Linnunsuo is important indicator and action 151
point.
152
(Figure 2. Northern Pintail, Anas acuta. Photo: Wikicommons) 153
We provide an overview of this habitat for birds in general and then we focus on two indicator 154
species of the site: Northern Pintail (Anas acuta; hereafter; Pintail) and Wood Sandpiper (Tringa 155
glareola). These two indicator species are analyzed to assess conservation value and needs of 156
Linnunsuo and similar human-made wetlands in Finland.
157
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
(Figure 3. Wood Sandpiper, Tringa glareola at Linnunsuo Photo: Mika Honkalinna, used with 158
permission) 159
In North America (NA) Pintail serves as a useful model species to examine integrating harvest and 160
habitat management for waterfowl (Mattsson et al., 2012). In Finland Pintail is a threatened and 161
little researched species. New methods should be developed to assess its conservation status and 162
trends. These new methods should also be used to review sites like Linnunsuo as potential breeding 163
habitats for Pintail. Wood Sandpiper is an example of species that acts as an indicator and 164
demonstrates the relevance of Linnunsuo as a staging area for migrating waders.
165 166
In the first year after the completion of the wetland (2013) over 120 species of birds visited the site.
167
20 of them were breeding there (Kontkanen et al. 2014). Currently (in 2017), the number of bird 168
species is up to 185, with 27 nesting species. Various ducks, waders, certain passerines and gull 169
species act as pioneer species, utilizing the ample invertebrate populations. As vegetation 170
succession proceeds, the avifauna present at Linnunsuo will change.
171 172
For example Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus) is not yet a breeding bird there but one couple has 173
reserved the area as their territory. Western Marsh Harriers (Circus aeruginosus; hereafter; Marsh 174
Harrier) hunt daily. It can be expected that they will soon breed as the reeds expand on the pools. In 175
the summer of 2016, the first Spotted Crake (Porzana porzana) was observed, a potential indicator 176
of an incoming ‘influx’ of rails (Ralliade). One unanswered question is why the horned grebe 177
(Podiceps auritus) has been absent from the site between 2012 and 2016. The working hypothesis 178
was that the grebe would utilize the habitat quickly. However, this has not been the case.
179 180
Amounts of nesting and visiting water birds during the first year were considerable. They peaked in 181
2014-2016. However in 2016 due to lower numbers of Chironomidae emerging from the ponds the 182
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
numbers have started to drop (Tiira DB). Most abundant breeding waterfowl species is Teal (Anas 183
crecca; hereafter; Teal).
184 185
Linnunsuo is also an important moulting area for the Teal. Between July and August the number of 186
Teals on the site is nearly 500. Two-thirds of the birds are moulting. The rest are local fledglings 187
with hens. The largest number of Teals reported on a single day is 3,900. This event occurred on 188
23rd September 2013 when, during the autumn migration, one large flock of Teal came to rest.
189
During spring migration the largest daily count of Teals have been 300 individuals.
190 191
A larid colony (one of the largest in North Karelia, NK); consisting of 400 nesting pairs (in 2015) of 192
Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus) and approximately 50 nesting pairs (in 2015) of Little Gull 193
(Hydrocoloeus minutus), has been established. This colony acts as a protection for breeding ducks 194
and waders. The Black-headed Gull fledglings hatched have been amongst the best in the province 195
with at least 310 juveniles in 2015. For the Little Gull the site has been the best nesting area in the 196
province for over two decades with at least 109 juveniles reported in 2015.
197 198
In rainy and cold weather birds gather to catch the emerging Chironomidae at Linnunsuo. Examples 199
of the highest observed numbers include 1,500 Common Swifts (Apus apus), 1,600 Barn Swallows 200
(Hirundo rustica), 700 Common House Martins (Delichon urbicum), and 400 Sand Martins 201
(Riparia riparia).
202 203
In the autumn the Linnunsuo site is a major resting and over-nighting area, with observed amounts 204
in brackets:
205
• Whooper Swan [145 ind.: 27.9.2013]
206
• Barnacle Goose (Branta leucopsis) [20 000 ind.: 2.10.2016]
207
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
• Common Crane (Grus grus) [220 ind.: 23.9.2013]
208 209
Another indicator for the attractiveness of the site is the number of rare visiting birds:
210
• Ruddy Shelduck (Tadorna ferruginea) 211
• Green-winged Teal (Anas carolinensis) 212
• Great Egret (Egretta alba) 213
• Pallid Harrier (Circus macrourus) [several]
214
• Greater Spotted Eagle (Aquila clanga) 215
• Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) [3 times]
216
• Terek Sandpiper (Xenus cinereus) [yearly]
217
• Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris) 218
• Citrine Wagtail (Motacilla citreola) 219
220
2. Materials and Methods 221
222
Linnunsuo was surveyed for birds between April and early November almost daily between 2013- 223
2016. We have chosen two birds, Wood sandpiper (Tringa glareola) and Northern pintail (Anas 224
acuta) as indicator species to measure resilience and success. Both suffer nationally from the acute 225
loss of habitats. Pressures on Northern pintail include loss of staging areas, hunting and competition 226
with other species. Climate change may be a potential driver of negative impacts (e.g. Erwin 2009;
227
Osnas et al., 2016; Pavón-Jordán et al., 2017).
228 229
The bird populations have been monitored since the wetland’s inception. Scientific monitoring has 230
not been carried out – the observations have been recorded in the early years by volunteer bird 231
watchers. However a professional ornithologist has carried out these observations. In 2016 active 232
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
volunteer scientific monitoring was carried out. Focus was placed on resting waders and age 233
classes, as well as numbers of adult and duckling amount of duck species. Each observer recorded 234
their monitoring and added the results to the Finnish national bird database Tiira (Tiira DB).
235
Observations have been carried out several times a week since 2013 and daily in summer 2016. Due 236
to the collection methods and pilot characteristics of the site statistical analysis has not been carried 237
out.
238 239
2.1. Indicator study species 240
241
2.1.1. About Wood Sandpiper 242
243
All three pools were circled on foot daily so that all individuals could be observed. Despite scarce 244
vegetation, the wood sandpipers can easily hide amongst the existing brush and plants. Mean two- 245
hour monitoring period can be considered to be adequate to detect waders. A wader will fly a short 246
distance or change its location on its own or having detected a predator in this time. Therefore they 247
can be easily observed using this method. During the migration of waders the proportional part of 248
different age groups was monitored.
249 250
2.1.2. About Pintail 251
252
The surveys were conducted according to officially established monitoring norms (Koskimies, 253
1994; Koskimies and Väisänen, 1991). For juvenile duck broods three main age groups were 254
monitored: I those birds with down, II those birds with feathers and down and III fully feathered, 255
but whose wing feathers have not yet grown to measurement of a young bird (Pirkola and 256
Högmander, 1974).
257
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
258
The two first age classes (I; II) can be divided into three sub-classes (Ia;Ib;Ic; IIa;IIb;IIc) based on 259
the duckling size and development of feathers. This allows the Pintail family groups to be identified 260
relatively easily and individually based on the number of fledglings and age of brood. The family 261
groups can hide well amongst the vegetation but thanks to a number of visits all family groups can 262
be observed at least once and most of the groups several times.
263 264
2.1.3. Social Conflict and Coooperation on Linnunsuo.
265 266
Linnunsuo has been a contested sites. Opinions on peat production range vastly in Finland and the 267
loss of the original marshmire to industrial land use constitutes the primary conflict in the area 268
(Mustonen 2017). This left a lingering, slow-burning equity issue on the site. When the fish death 269
took place as a result of the acidic discharge (Mustonen 2013) the conflict burst into open, including 270
a backlog of dismissed environmental complaints that the local landowners, fishermen and 271
associations had issued on the negative impacts of the peat production on Linnunsuo. The turn for 272
the better was the end of the production on Linnunsuo (Mustonen 2013; 2017) that opened the 273
window for a range of discourses on the use of the area. This in its turn gave the rise to the local 274
stakeholders to reach an equity solution of co-management that would ‘allow’ multiple land uses 275
and interests to be included, instead of a large industrial land user dominating the area.
276 277
For the governance analysis, a literature review was conducted on the potential of collaborative 278
management (Berkes, 2009, 2012b; OPOE, 2016). A number of results have emerged from 279
applying co-management and the inclusion of local-traditional knowledge in the Jukajoki River 280
Basin as a part of the ecological restoration (Mustonen 2013; 2017). These documents, combined 281
with published interviews, participant observation and field notes from the co-management council 282
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
meetings and decisions, will be used to compare Linnunsuo with a ‘traditional’, top-down managed 283
area (Mustonen 2016b).
284 285
3. Results 286
287
3.1. Wood Sandpiper 288
289
The yearly number of couples on the site has been observed to be 1-2 pairs. The number of 290
migratory Sandpipers is represented in Figure 4.
291 292
3.2. Pintail 293
294
The greatest number of Pintails resting has been 40 individuals (15.4.2014). There was one 295
breeding pair in the first year after restoration (2013) and over the next three years the number of 296
breeding pairs stabilized between 4-6. We did not actively search for nests, but in the summer of 297
2015 three nests, in incubation stage, were discovered on the dam banks. The nests were located in 298
50-200 meters from the Gull colony. Linnunsuo pools are 60 hectares, so the breeding density after 299
the first year has been 6,7–10,0 breeding pairs/km2. Hen success (proportion of hens that hatch a 300
clutch) has been 60–100 % (average 81,3 %/year).
301 302
Total amount of broods was at least thirteen (n=13). Approximately 11 broods (in age class II and 303
III) were estimated surviving until fledglings (Table I). Brood survival was therefore estimated to 304
be at 84,6%. When calculating productivity, combined data from age classes II and III were used, 305
because results from age class III were partly lacking. In this age group the young birds may be 306
hard to distinguish from adult females. Therefore all findings for age class III birds could not be 307
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
included. This, however, does not cause great divergence as most of the broodling death happens 308
during the first weeks of life (age class I). Beyond this time, the survival improves significantly 309
(Guyn, 2000; Mauser et al., 1994; Nummi and Pöysä, 1997; Paasivaara and Pöysä, 2004; Peterson, 310
1999).
311 312
Two broods were lost during age class I, which partly explains why brood size was the lowest in 313
age subclass Ic (Table 1). A similar trend can be detected in most duck species data, where, on 314
average, brood losses manifest mostly in age groups Ic and IIa subclasses (Kontkanen 2009a).
315
There the average brood size is lowest. Duckling survival couldn’t be estimated because broods 316
couldn’t be followed individually from hatching to fledgling.
317 318
Productivity (number of fledged juveniles/breeding pair) was calculated by using combined data 319
from age classes II and III (see explanation above), so the total number of broods for counting 320
productivity was 11 and average brood size 4,4 (Table 1). Combining data of age classes II and III 321
is a regularly used method (see Nummi and Pöysä, 1997 for review). Thus pintail productivity was 322
estimated to be 3,0.
323 324
3.3. Results of Co-Management 325
326
Co-management of the site (Berkes, 2012a; OPOE, 2016) can summarized to be working well.
327
Linnunsuo is the second ‘official’ collaborative management site in Finland. Between 2010-2011 328
the local hunters and fishermen detected the fish deaths in the river Jukajoki which is downstream 329
from Linnunsuo itself (Mustonen 2013; 2017). This went undetected by the local officials and the 330
company. Use of traditional-local knowledge, including oral histories, has therefore had a great 331
positive impact in monitoring and ecological restoration (Mustonen 2013).
332
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
333
In the co-management hunters (OPOE, 2016) are important stakeholders. They agreed to a later 334
duck harvest after 15th September to allow waders to leave. Additionally, they have agreed to yearly 335
reviews of the number of ducks that will be harvested.
336 337
Co-management (Berkes, 2012a) period is from April to mid-September/October. In other parts of 338
the year the hunters are primary users. This includes sanctioned harvesting of mammals. The 339
positive inclusion of the hunters and their traditional knowledge into the management has produced 340
conflict resolution over potential equity issues.
341 342
Additionally the hunters are contributing to the harvest of introduced minks and raccoon dogs. This 343
decreases predation of waders and ducks. Similar measures have proven to be relevant in the East 344
Trinity Reserve, Queensland, Australia (Mustonen 2016a). There the local traditional owners, 345
Indigenous Australians, are maintaining a ranger programme to remove harmful, introduced 346
species, such as feral pigs using traps.
347 348
4. Discussion 349
350
Old peat production sites exist throughout Finland. Few human-made wetlands have been 351
constructed that match the natural floodplain created by a beaver in nature. But they are important 352
as water protection measures and an excellent habitat for birds (Vikberg, 1998).
353 354
One such human-made wetland is located in Liminka, Finland. It is called Hirvineva (Aalto and 355
Siira, 2006). The early development was not so different from Linnunsuo. Prior to the establishment 356
of Hirvineva wetland (a 140-hectare pond) the birdlife in the area was rather scarce. Only a few 357
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
species utilized the bottom of the peat production site. Immediately after the creation a large 358
number of birds arrived there.
359 360
Breeding was relatively low in the first year (9 pairs) but rose subsequently quite fast up to peak on 361
the fifth year (60 pairs). After that the amount of breeding pairs dropped down to a stabilized level 362
of 30 pairs. Also, the number of nesting and migrating waders was at its highest in the first five-to- 363
seven years, after which the vegetation succession proceeded and the suitable shorelines for wader 364
feeding diminished, leading to a drop in wader visits.
365 366
As floodplains, these wetlands are excellent living environments for broods, especially during the 367
first four to eight years thanks to the insect larvae, for example large amount of Chironomidae 368
available as a food source (Nummi et al., 1999). Teals have been observed to react quickly in 369
response to new floodplain. Observations have also been made regarding teal broods surviving well 370
on these floodplains and doing better than in other environments (Nummi et al., 1999).
371 372
Ducks share the aquatic environment with invertebrate-eating fish. Thus, competitive interactions 373
may take place. It appears that diving ducks such as Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula, 374
hereafter, Golden eye); which forage in open water, are the most affected by fish. Teal are 375
intermediately affected whereas Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), which forage among the shore 376
vegetation, are little affected (Nummi et al., 2016). The lack of any fish in Linnunsuo is most likely 377
the greatest driver of the success of the site.
378 379
Protection provided by the gull colony to other species has also proven to be significant for the 380
ducks (Väänänen et al., 2016). According to Hildén (1964) both the abundance and constancy 381
values of Pintail exhibit a fairly clear correlation with density of the larids, and he don’t know of 382
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
cases of a Pintail nesting on islets without larids. Predators visiting Linnunsuo have been observed 383
to mostly harvest the chicks of gulls: 1 Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), 2 Wolverines, 2–4 Marsh Harriers, 384
breeding pair of Herring Gull (Larus argentatus)), and waders (predators: 2–3 Eurasian 385
Sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus) and 2–3 Merlins (Falco columbarius). Marsh Harriers have also 386
actively tried to catch ducklings, but successful hunt results have not yet been observed so far.
387 388
On the Hirvineva site Vapo has allowed the hunt to start on the 20th August. The number of hunters 389
has been 12-19 individuals. The yearly take of the water bird population has been 9-26%, which is 390
estimated to be equivalent to 11-28% of the potential production of young birds. Hunting also 391
causes secondary disturbance by forcing birds to leave the site. Only 5-31% of birds remain on the 392
pools on the day after the hunt (Aalto and Siira, 2006).
393 394
On Linnunsuo, according to the co-management steps (Berkes, 2009) put in place, the local hunters 395
started the hunt on 15th September. This allowed the most of rare as well as many common 396
waterfowl species to start their migration. After this date only a few persons hunted on the site. This 397
sporadic hunting did not significantly disturb the remaining birds.
398 399
4.1. Wood Sandpiper 400
401
Sandpipers, especially young birds, need plenty of good resting and staging areas for their 402
migratory journey (Wichmann et al., 2004). Linnunsuo is a good resting area for these birds due to 403
its strong primary production of invertebrates. This can be observed in the numbers of Wood 404
Sandpipers and other waders regularly resting on the site (Fig 4.) 405
406
4.2. Pintail 407
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
408
In Europe Pintail has been defined as a vulnerable (VU) species. The biggest long-term losses of the 409
breeding population of Pintail have happened in Finland and in Russia (BirdLife International, 410
2015). The main threats to Pintail in the EU are identified as (1) habitat destruction/modification, 411
(2) hunting (in particular for the group that winters in northwestern Europe), (3) disturbance, and 412
(4) pollution/poisoning (Jensen, 2007).
413 414
In North America there is also considerable conservation concern for this species (Miller et al., 415
2001; as cited in Mattsson et al., 2012). Miller and Duncan (1999; as cited in Richkus, 2002) 416
reviewed several explanations for poor pintail status and concluded that declining reproductive 417
success was probably the greatest impediment to Pintail population growth.
418 419
Prior to losses Pintail population in Finland was estimated at 20 000–35 000 pairs (Hyytiä et al., 420
1983; Väisänen et al., 1998). Today the population is estimated to be only 8 000–15 000 pairs 421
(Valkama et al., 2011). Pintail population diminished by 65% between 1986-2012 (Lehikoinen et 422
al., 2013). In North Karelia, Pintails suffered 70 % losses between 1983-2008, which is understood 423
to be a result of extremely low productivity (Kontkanen 2009a). In the most recent vulnerability 424
survey for Finland, Pintail was categorized as endangered (EN). The main reasons for this are 425
hunting and habitat losses outside Finland (Tiainen et al., 2016).
426 427
Water bird populations of the eutrophic wetlands are in serious trouble. The likely cause of 428
substantial habitat-specific declines in Finnish water bird populations is decreased food availability 429
in eutrophic wetlands. The Pintail, a specialist of eutrophic wetlands, has declined more 430
significantly in the southern than in the northern part of Finland (Lehikoinen et al., 2016).
431 432
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
Ringing results from North America show that Pintail have a low probability of return to breeding 433
areas, but a high propensity to respond opportunistically to available wetlands (Johnson and Grier, 434
1988; as cited in Jensen, 2007). There is limited data to prove that the same holds true for the 435
European population, but the species has a reputation for sporadic breeding in suitable habitats 436
(Jensen, 2007; Zwarts, 2009).
437 438
Ringing data results are unclear. One nesting female ringed in Porvoo in 1986 returned to the same 439
place to nest in 1987 and 1989 (Saurola et al., 2013). In North Karelia the yearly fluctuations of 440
nesting couples in those aquatic habitats that are monitored point to a considerable variation 441
(Kontkanen 2009a). This would also seem to point to the low site fidelity to nest in a particular 442
place.
443 444
Pintail is most abundant in the central boreal Finland, with its plethora of mires and dyseutrophic 445
lakes. Here Pintail use Carex and Equisetum beds around large mixotrophic and eutrophic lakes, 446
favouring open grassy margins of more eutrophic, Phragmites-dominated waters (Haapanen and 447
Nilson, 1979; as cited in Jensen, 2007).
448 449
Majority of Pintails live both in the southern and northern Finland, in eutrophic wetlands. The 450
density continues to be rather low even though it is much higher here than in oligotrophic lakes and 451
other water ecosystems. On average there are 1–2 breeding pairs pairs per km2 in Southern Finnish 452
lakes and 1–5 breeding pairs per km2 in Northern Finland (Table II).
453 454
In southern Finland, at its best Pintails account for approximately 5% of all breeding waterfowl. In 455
northern Finland, the same ratio is found to be between 5–9% (Väisänen et al., 1998). However, for 456
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
North Karelia, following the population crash of Pintail, this ratio was down to 2% between 2005- 457
2008 (Kontkanen 2009a).
458 459
Pintail clutch size is normally 7–9 (Austin and Miller, 2014; Jensen, 2007; Krapu et al., 2004).
460
Pintail nest success in NA is highly variable (0–75% of nests hatched young) according to year, 461
area, and habitat, owing largely to predation and variable weather conditions. Brood size at hatch 462
averaged 6.9 ducklings and brood survival (highest on managed wetlands) ranged from 17.6–
463
88.2%.
464 465
Duckling survival observed in NA ranged from 17–65%. No reliable measure of productivity 466
(number of fledged juveniles/breeding pair) is available, other than age ratio in harvest (Austin and 467
Miller, 2014; Guyn and Clark, 1999; Peterson, 1999; Richkus, 2002). In one study, hen success was 468
estimated at 37.8% (Flint and Grand, 1996a; as cited in Austin and Miller, 2014).
469 470
There are no European-wide monitoring schemes of Pintail (Jensen, 2007) as has been done in NA 471
(Flint et al., 1998). In Finland there are very few statistics to describe the productivity of the Pintail.
472
In Hildén’s (1964) study nest success was 76 %. Clutch sizes have been reported only in a few 473
research reports (Table 1). Other data is from the monitoring of wetlands in North Karelia 474
(Kontkanen 2009a), where hen success was, at a minimum, 10 % and productivity on regular 475
monitoring sites was on average 0,31 ducklings per breeding pair. In eutrophicated wetlands the 476
surveying of clutches is not easy. This may partly explain the poor results in North Karelia 477
(Kontkanen 2009a). Pintail clutches are one of the hardest to observe out of the duck species 478
present (Rumble and Flake, 1982; as cited in Suchy and Anderson, 1987).
479 480
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
Pintail breeding density in Linnunsuo (6,7–10,0 breeding pairs/km2 per year) is high compared to 481
densities in Finnish lakes (Table 2). There are very few published results of Pintail breeding success 482
in Europe and no published results of productivity to our knowledge, except this study and data 483
from other North Karelian lakes (Kontkanen 2009a). Thus, we will compare our result also to the 484
NA figures presented above. Brood size of Pintail in Linnunsuo in age class I is quite low for 485
unknown reasons, but in subsequent age classes (II and III) it is better than in other North Karelian 486
lakes (Table 1).
487 488
Hen success (81,3%) and brood survival (84,6%) in Linnunsuo are very high. Productivity (3,0 489
fledged juveniles/breeding pair) in Linnunsuo is exceptionally good compared to average figure in 490
other North Karelian lakes (0,31), although it may be an underestimate (see above). Pintail 491
productivity at Linnunsuo seems very good, even when we compare it to productivity of some 492
common duck species in Finland: 1,51 for Teal, 1,40 for Eurasian Wigeon (Anas penelope) and 493
1,31 for Goldeneye (Nummi and Pöysä, 1997).
494 495
Insufficient food resources would increase duckling mortality (Gunnarsson et al., 2006, 2004; as 496
cited in Holopainen, 2015). Ducklings consume a greater proportion of emerging insects; whereas 497
the adult diet at this time consists mainly of seeds and free-swimming or benthic invertebrates.
498 499
Plants form part of the diet of the young Pintail. In particular, the seeds of Carex are an important 500
food source for both hens and ducklings. This is known despite the fact that knowledge about the 501
diet of breeding ducks and ducklings is limited in all species. The low number of studies and the 502
small sample sizes increase sampling biases and mean that few general conclusions can be drawn, 503
which is especially apparent in Pintail (Dessborn et al., 2011) 504
505
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
As they mature, Pintail ducklings shift from surface feeding to bottom feeding in shallow water ≤31 506
cm deep (Sugden,, 1973; as cited in Suchy and Anderson 1987). Pintail broods are often found in 507
wetlands with extensive emergent vegetation (Mack and Flake, 1980; as cited in Suchy and 508
Anderson, 1987), and also seek vegetation as cover when alarmed (Rumble and Flake, 1982; as 509
cited in Suchy and Anderson, 1987).
510 511
Pintail brood survival tended to decrease with increasing initial brood size. Duckling survival was 512
positively correlated with seasonal wetland use. None of the survival estimates were correlated with 513
wetland density, average size, or average perimeter (Peterson, 1999).
514 515
In Linnunsuo good productivity of Pintail is obviously a result of locally abundant food resources 516
(especially chironomids) and relatively low predation in this early stage. Also, the protection 517
provided by the gull colony and the plentiful vegetation in places around the wetland provided a 518
shelter against predators. Combined with the harvest of minks, raccoon dogs and other small 519
predators by humans, these are some of the drivers of success for Pintail. Even though the data sets 520
are still rather small, the early results indicate a very encouraging trend for the Pintail and other 521
vulnerable bird stocks.
522 523
4.3. Implications for Management 524
525
Across Finland the improvement of conserved aquatic bird habitats is urgently needed. However, it 526
has been severely under-funded, partly due to very expensive management costs. Bird species 527
dependent on chironomids and benthic fauna suffer most from this situation (Ellermaa and Lindén, 528
2011).
529 530
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
Duck–fish interactions are important to take into account when planning wetland creation and 531
restoration for ducks. There is also an urgent need to mitigate the effects of fish introductions in 532
wetlands (Nummi et al., 2016). The biomass for duck species is the greatest on small, fishless and 533
eutrophicated pools (Sammalkorpi et al., 2005). In terms of management, a targeted harvest of those 534
fish species (roach, bream) that are the drivers of eutrophication in bird aquatic habitats and/or 535
establishment of wetlands that do not have any fish are central policy recommendations 536
(Sammalkorpi et al., 2014).
537 538
The restoration of nesting areas for Pintail is one of the central targets that the EU has given to its 539
member states (Jensen, 2007). As there are no national resources to maintain and improve the 540
situation of protected bird aquatic habitats, the example of Linnunsuo offers a cost-effective 541
measure to establish important bird habitats with high species biodiversity in decommissioned peat 542
sites. Such fishless wetlands may play a key role in providing nesting and resting areas for Pintail as 543
well as other vulnerable species (Sammalkorpi et al., 2014).
544 545
By including the hunters and their traditional knowledge into the co-management system (Berkes, 546
2009), equity issues of conservation have been solved. The hunters contribute to the monitoring of 547
the site. Secondly, they are contributing to the success of rearing wader and duck chicks on the site 548
through the sustained harvests of mink and raccoon dog. This lessens the predation effect on the site 549
and its birds (see more in Niemczynowicz et al. 2017).
550 551
The original release of acidic waters from Linnunsuo was partly triggered by substantial rains 552
following severe thunderstorms (Mustonen 2013). These extreme rains and other flash flood events 553
are predicted to increase, according to forecasts of the impacts of climate. This, in turn, could have 554
a number of negative impacts for the aquatic ecosystems.
555
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
556
For fish in the basin, increased rain will trigger further loading of humus and organic matter into 557
lakes and rivers darkening water colour and advancing eutrophication (Mustonen 2016b). Darker 558
water colours, due to the organic and nutrient loading, attract and trap more sunlight and warm the 559
temperature of the lakes and rivers faster and thus are beneficial to species that thrive in warmer 560
habitats. This process has negative consequences for species that require cold streams and habitats.
561 562
Large wetland units, such as in Linnunsuo, can act as human-made ‘reservoirs’ that buffer and 563
mitigate these negative impacts by storing water during peak events. They also trap nutrients and 564
organic loading and lessen erosion. If these sites are ‘re-wilded’, they could slowly, over centuries, 565
return to wetlands found prior to peat production.
566 567
The risks involved in the creation of these wetlands are few but are in need of addressing. The 568
design of the sites has to happen in relation to the adjacent basin and catchment area involved. The 569
outflow from these sites needs to be limnologically measured at least for the first decade after 570
construction to avoid any downstream releases of harmful substances. Sediment sampling may be 571
needed to investigate the development of invertebrates and to determine the ecological health of 572
these new wetlands.
573 574
Managers of the sites must be aware of the need to engage with local stakeholders over a long 575
period of time, to make sure the hunters, bird watchers, villagers and other key groups in rural areas 576
feel their traditional knowledge (Berkes, 2012a) carry weight. The resilience of a socio-ecological 577
system (Arctic Council, 2016) requires the improved health and well being of both the local humans 578
as well as ecosystems (Folke, 2006). A ranger programme or a voluntary patrol and monitoring 579
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
regime from the local hunter/villager society may make sense, especially during ice cover season 580
and for predator control (Mustonen 2016a).
581 582
5. Conclusions 583
584
Holopainen (2015) underlines the importance of high quality habitats for breeding duck 585
populations. The existence of these habitats depends substantially on human actions, such as 586
managing beaver populations and preserving seasonal pond habitats.
587 588
Well-established wetlands, such as Linnunsuo, provide a similar example, especially for protection 589
of Pintail. Linnunsuo is also providing an important habitat for a number of other bird and non-bird 590
species. The value of the site emerges also through its utility as a water protection measure to 591
control acidity. Equally, other various meanings and values, such as a space for hunting, recreation 592
and research, cannot be emphasized enough.
593 594
Climate change will have negative impacts for waders and duck species in the boreal (Erwin 2009;
595
Pecl et al. 2017). Finland’s southern and central boreal have simultaneously suffered from 596
significant ecosystem losses over the past 70 years (Wahlström et al., 1996; Mustonen 2017).
597 598
These factors contribute to uncertainty and climate risks (Beck, 1999; Erwin 2009; King et al., 599
2015). These risks have partially manifested already in the loss of habitats but are expected to 600
worsen due to the loss of resilience in natural and socio-ecological systems (see also Wahlström et 601
al., 1996). Good quality water fowl habitats are rather scarce in Finland despite the conservation 602
actions in the SPA areas belonging into the Natura 2000 areas. This is mostly due to the loading 603
from the catchment areas that have changed the quality of these areas (Sammalkorpi et al., 2017).
604
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
605
New approaches and solutions are therefore urgently needed (Berkes, 2012a; Folke, 2006, see the 606
need of protected areas as a measure to combat climate impacts in Lehikoinen et al. 2018). In this 607
paper we have surveyed one potential model for increasing the resilience of waders and ducks as a 608
part of the socio-ecological systems using the case of the Linnunsuo wetland. Over the past five 609
years we have reviewed the trends, populations and nesting of two indicator species, Wood 610
Sandpiper (Tringa glareola) and Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) in a human-made aquatic ecosystem.
611
Simultaneously we have reviewed the traditional, local knowledge and the collaborative 612
management (Berkes, 2009) to seek novel approaches to solving conflicts. This has taken place in 613
the context of reviewing the socio-ecological resilience of a pilot site.
614 615
The results indicate that the Linnusuo model seems to work as a novel ecosystem. It provides much- 616
needed new habitats for key species that are suffering from the human-made land use alterations.
617
The large wetland also provides a control mechanism for extreme events (King et al., 2015), acidic 618
discharges, nutrient and organic loading and control of erosion. The site also has the potential to 619
emerge as an ecosystem for horned grebe (Podiceps auritus) and under-threat amphibians such as 620
the great-crested newt (Triturus cristatus), even though these species have not yet been detected by 621
monitoring efforts.
622 623
In the coming decades, large areas of current peat production sites will be decommissioned. These 624
former marsh-mires and wetland habitats can potentially, using cost-effective measures as in 625
Linnunsuo, be converted to sites that address biodiversity loss and increase resilience. They have 626
also potential to function as carbon sinks (Erwin 2009) provided that the land use disturbances are 627
minimized.
628 629
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
By installing new styles of management, such as joint and co-governance (Berkes, 2009), equity 630
issues and potential conflicts in rural areas can be to a large extent avoided (Mustonen 2017). Erwin 631
(2009) and Pecl et al. (2017) explicitly call for “dynamic governance under rapid climate change”.
632
These emerging sites should be seen as socio-ecological systems where the local, traditional 633
knowledge (Berkes, 2012a) of rural stakeholders, such as hunters, is an important community-based 634
monitoring mechanism. This goes beyond the implementation of citizen science (Bonney et al., 635
2016) due to the fact that a positive engagement with such groups will produce benefits such as 636
predator control and complementary monitoring that has the potential to reach beyond standard 637
monitoring data (Mustonen 2013).
638 639
As nesting, staging and migratory areas restored and human-made ecosystems will also the address 640
Finland’s role as a fly-way for migratory birds. Thus these ecosystems will benefit the health of bird 641
species well beyond Finland’s national border. Therefore such solutions can be seen to have wider 642
regional and European benefits.
643 644
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
Acknowledgements:
645
This was supported by the SOVIKO Project (Nessling Foundation Grant 2018). We are thankful to 646
Kaisu Mustonen and Hannibal Rhoades for helpful comments and proofreading during the writing 647
of the manuscript. We are also very thankful to the reviewers for their helpful comments.
648 649
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
650
References 651
652
Aalto P, Siira J (2006) Turvetuotantoalueesta lintujärveksi – Limingan Hirvinevan 653
tekojärven linnusto. Linnut-vuosikirja 2005, 113-119. (Summary: From a peat 654
production area to the bird lake) 655
Apgar M, Mustonen T, Lovera S, Lovera M (2016) Moving Beyond Co-Construction of 656
Knowledge to Enable Self-Determination. Ids. Bull-I. Dev. Stud. 47, 55-72. DOI: 10.19088/1968- 657
2016.199 658
Austin JE, Miller MR (2014) Northern pintail (Anas acuta). Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
659
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/163 660
Arctic Council (2016) Arctic Resilience Report.
661
Beck U (1999) World at risk. Malden: Polity Press.
662
Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation; bridging 663
organizations and social learning. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 1692- 664
1702, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001 665
Berkes F (2012a) Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource 666
Management. 3rd edition. Taylor and Francis; Philadelphia.
667
https://books.google.se/books/ about/Sacred_Ecology.html?id=5b8RAgZtxxIC.
668
Berkes F (2012b) Implementing ecosystem-based management: evolution or revolution?
669
Fish and Fisheries 13, 465-476. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00452.x.
670
BirdLife International (2015) European Red List of Birds. Anas acuta (Northern Pintail);
671
Supplementary Material. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European 672
Communities. http://datazone.birdlife.org/userfiles/file/Species/erlob/supplementarypd 673
fs/22680301_anas_acuta.pdf 674
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
Bonney R, Phillips T, Ballard H, Enck J (2016) Can citizen science enhance public 675
understanding of science? Public Underst. Sci. 25, 2-16, DOI:
676
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406 677
Dessborn L, Brochet AL, Elmberg J, Legagneux P, Gauthier-Clerc M, Guillemain M 678
(2011) Geographical and temporal patterns in the diet of pintail Anas acuta; wigeon Anas 679
penelope; mallard Anas platyrhynchos and teal Anas crecca in the Western Palearctic.
680
European Journal of Wildlife Research 57, 1119–1129.
681
Ellermaa M, Lindén A (2011) Suomen linnustonsuojelualueiden tila: suojelu on 682
unohdettu ja linnut voivat huonosti. Linnut-vuosikirja 2010, 143–168. (Summary: IBA- 683
monitoring tells us: birds are not taken seriously in Finnish bird protection areas) 684
Erwin, K.L., 2009. Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a 685
changing world. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17, p.71-84, DOI: DOI 686
10.1007/s11273-008-9119-1 687
Flint PL, Grand JB, Rockwell RF (1998) A Model of Northern Pintail Productivity and 688
Population Growth Rate. J. Wildlife Manage. 62, 1110–1118.
689
http://research.amnh.org/users/rfr/flint98.pdf 690
Folke C (2006) Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems 691
analyses. Global Environ. Chang. 16, 253–67. DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
692
2006.04.002.
693
Fraixedas S, Lindén A, Meller K, Lindström Å, Keišs O, Kålås JA, Husby M, Leivits A, Leivits M, 694
Lehikoinen A (2017) Substantial decline of Northern European peatland bird 695
populations: Consequences of drainage. Biological Conservation 214: 223-232.
696
Guyn KL (2000) Breeding ecology of northern pintails: nesting ecology; nest-site selection;
697
nutrient reserve use and brood ecology. PhD, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, 698
Canada. https://ecommons.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/etd-10212004- 699
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
002353/NQ63873.pdf 700
Guyn KL and Clark RG (1999) Factors affecting survival of northern pintail ducklings in 701
Alberta. Condor 101, 369–377.
702
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v101n02/p0369-p0377.pdf 703
Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, et al. (2017) More than 75 704
percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12 705
(10): e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 706
Hildén O (1964) Ecology of duck populations in the island group of Valassaaret, Gulf of 707
Bothnia. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 1, 153-279.
708
Holling CS, Chambers AD (1973) Resource science: the nurture of an infant.
709
BioScience. 23, 3–21.
710
Holopainen S (2015) Duck habitat use and reproduction in boreal wetlands: importance of 711
habitat quality and population density. PhD, University of Helsinki, Faculty of 712
Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Forest Sciences. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978- 713
951-651-469-0 714
Howitt R (2001) Rethinking Resource Management. Routledge.
715
Hyytiä K, Koistinen J, Kellomäki E. (Eds.) (1983) Suomen Lintuatlas. SLY:n Lintutieto Oy, 716
Helsinki. (The First Finnish Breeding Bird Atlas; In Finnish) 717
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018). Global Warming of 1.5 C. Available from 718
www.ipcc.ch 719
Jensen FP (2007) Management plan for Pintail (Anas acuta) 2007–2009. European 720
Commission Technical Report – 004 – 2007. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications 721
of the European Communities.
722
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/docs/pintai 723
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
l.pdf 724
Kaakinen E, Kokko A, Aapala K, Kalpio S, Eurola S, Haapalehto T, Heikkilä R, Hotanen JP, 725
Kondelin H, Nousiainen H, Ruuhijärvi R, Salminen P, Tuominen S, Vasander H, Virtanen K, 726
(2008a) Suot, in: Raunio, A., Schulman, A., Kontula, T. (Eds.), Suomen 727
luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus. Osa 1. Tulokset ja arvioinnin perusteet. Suomen 728
ympäristö 8/2008. pp. 75–109. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/37930 729
Kaakinen E, Kokko A, Aapala K, Kalpio S, Eurola S, Haapalehto T, Heikkilä R, Hotanen JP, 730
Kondelin H, Nousiainen H, Ruuhijärvi R, Salminen P, Tuominen S, Vasander H, Virtanen K, 731
(2008b) Suot, in: Raunio, A., Schulman, A., Kontula, T. (Eds.), Suomen 732
luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus. Osa 2. Luontotyyppien kuvaukset. Suomen ympäristö 733
8/2008. pp. 143–256. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/37930 734
King D, Schrag D, Dadi Z, Ye Q, Ghosh A, (2015) Climate Change: A Risk Assessment.
735
Cambridge University Press.
736
Kontkanen, H. 2009a. Pohjois-Karjalan lintuvedet – linnuston tila ja kunnostustarve 737
lintuvesiensuojeluohjelman kohteilla. Pohjois-Karjalan ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 4/2009.
738
(Summary: The wetlands of North Karelia – the state of the bird fauna and management need on the 739
Areas of National Programme for the Protection of Aquatic Birds) 740
http://hdl.handle.net/10138/43024 741
Kontkanen, H. 2009b. Monitoring bird populations on lake Hovinlampi and lake Juurikkajärvi in 742
2009. Unpublished survey report for North Karelia Regional Environment Centre. (In Finnsh) 743
Kontkanen, H. 2013. Monitoring bird populations on lake Kalliojärvi and lake Solanlampi in 2013.
744
Unpublished survey report for Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment.
745
(In Finnish) 746
Koskimies P, Väisänen RA (1991) Monitoring bird populations – a manual of methods 747
applied in Finland. – Zoological Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History, University 748
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
of Helsinki. http://koivu.luomus.fi/seurannat/methods.htm 749
Koskimies P (1994): Linnustonseuranta ympäristöhallinnon hankkeissa. Ohjeet alueelliseen 750
seurantaan. Vesi- ja ympäristöhallinnon julkaisuja - sarja B18, 1–82.
751
Krapu GL, Reynolds RE, Sargeant GA, Renner, RW (2004) Patterns of Variation in 752
Clutch Sizes in a Guild of Temperate-Nesting Dabbling Ducks. The Auk 121, 695–706.
753
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045andcontext=usgsnpwr 754
755 c
Laventure M (2017) Linnunsuo. Rapport de Stage de 2éme année de Master. Mutualisé entre 756
l’Université de Lille 1 et l’Université du Littoral Côte d’Opale. (In English) 757
758
Lehikoinen A, Pöysä H, Rintala J, Väisänen RA (2013) Suomen sisävesien vesilintujen 759
kannanvaihtelut 1986–2012. Linnut-vuosikirja 2012, 95-101. (Summary: Population 760
changes of 20 waterbird species in Finnish lakes in 1986–2012) 761
Lehikoinen A, Rintala J, Lammi E, Pöysä H (2016). Habitat-specific population 762
trajectories in boreal waterbirds: alarming trends and bioindicators for wetlands.
763
Animal Conservation 19, 88–95.
764
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acv.12226/full 765
Lehikoinen P, Santangeli A, Jaatinen K, Rajasärkkä A & Lehikoinen A (2018) Protected areas act 766
as a buffer against detrimental effects of climate change — Evidence from large-scale, 767
long-term abundance data. Global Change Biology 2018:1–10.
768
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14461 769
Mattsson BJ, Runge MC, Devries JH, Boomer GS , Eadie, JM, Haukos, DA, Fleskes JP , Koons 770
DN, Thogmartin WE , Clark RG (2012) A modelling framework for integrated 771
harvest and habitat management of North American waterfowl: Case-study of northern 772
pintail metapopulation dynamics. Ecol. Model. 225, 146–158 773
M AN US CR IP T
AC CE PT ED
Mauser DM, Jarvis RL, Gilmer DS (1994) Survival of radio-marked Mallard ducklings 774
in northeastern California. J.Wildlife Manage. 58, 82-87.
775
Ministry of the Environment (2017) Action plan for protection of threatened species.
776
Suomen ympäristö 2/2017. (in Finnish with English summary) 777
http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-11-4724-1 778
Mustonen, T. (2013) Power discourses of fish death: case of Linnunsuo peat production.
779
Ambio 43(2) 234–243. doi:10.1007/s13280-013-0425-3 780
(a) Mustonen, T. 2016. Snowchange Discussion Paper #10, available at 781
(b) http://www.snowchange.org/pages/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Snowchange-Discussion- 782
Paper-10.pdf , cited 7th March 2017.
783
(b) Mustonen, T. 2016. Kotoperäinen maailma: Kuivasjärven ympäristöhistoriaa. OSK 784
Lumimuutos, Kontiolahti.
785
Mustonen, T. 2017. Endemic time-spaces of Finland: from wilderness lands to ‘vacant production 786
spaces’. Fennia 195: 1, ISSN 1798-5617. DOI: 10.11143/58971 787
Nadasdy P (2003) Hunters and Bureaucrats: Power, Knowledge and Aboriginal-State 788
Relations in the Southwest Yukon. Vancouver, UBC Press.
789
Niemczynowicz A, Świętochowski P, Brzeziński M, Zalewski A (2017). Non-native predator 790
control increases the nesting success of birds: American mink preying on wader nests.
791
Biological Conservation 212: 86-95.
792
Nummi P, Pöysä H (1997) Sorsakantojen poikastuotanto Evolla (Summary: Brood 793
production of ducks in southern Finland). Suomen Riista 43, 65-71.
794
Nummi P, Pienmunne E, Haapanen P (1999) Pienet tulva-altaat sorsien 795
poikueympäristöjen hoidossa. Suomen Riista 45, 44-51. (Summary: Use of small 796
flowages as duck habitat management practice) 797
http://www.helsinki.fi/metsatieteet/tutkimus/hankkeet/riistahankkeet/pdf/SR45.pdf 798
