Simulating the cumulative effects of multiple forest management strategies on landscape measures of forest sustainability
- 257 Downloads
While the cumulative effects of the actions of multiple owners have long been recognized as critically relevant to efforts to maintain sustainable forests at the landscape scale, few studies have addressed these effects. We used the HARVEST timber harvest simulator to predict the cumulative effects of four owner groups (two paper companies, a state forest and non-industrial private owners) with different management objectives on landscape pattern in an upper Michigan landscape managed primarily for timber production. We quantified trends in landscape pattern metrics that were linked to Montreal Process indicators of forest sustainability, and used a simple wildlife habitat model to project habitat trends. Our results showed that most trends were considered favorable for forest sustainability, but that some were not. The proportion of all age classes and some forest types moved closer to presettlement conditions. The trend for the size of uneven-aged patches was essentially flat while the average size of patches of the oldest and youngest age classes increased and the size of patches of the remaining age classes decreased. Forest fragmentation generally declined, but edge density of age classes increased. Late seral forest habitat increased while early successional habitat declined. The owners use different management systems that cumulatively produce a diversity of habitats. Our approach provides a tool to evaluate such cumulative effects on other landscapes owned by multiple owners. The approach holds promise for helping landowner groups develop and evaluate cooperative strategies to improve landscape patterns for forest sustainability.
KeywordsTimber management Multiple owner landscapes Landscape pattern HARVEST simulation model Sustainable forestry Biodiversity Forest products industry
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Sue Lietz provided technical support to prepare, conduct and analyze the simulations. Brian Sturtevant and Pat Zollner provided thoughtful insights into the study design. This study was made possible with the collaboration of Charlie Becker (Escanaba Timber LLC), Nick Monkevich and Mike Young (International Paper Co.), Craig Albright, Eric Thompson and Dan McNamee (Michigan Department of Natural Resources), and Al Lucier (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement). The paper was improved by critical reviews by Tom Crow, Tom Spies and two anonymous reviewers. Funding was provided through an Agenda 2020 grant from the North Central Research Station.
- Comer PJ, Albert DA, Wells HA, Hart BL, Raab JB, Price DL, Kashian DM, Corner RA, Schuen DW (1995) Michigan’s presettlement vegetation as interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816–1856. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MIGoogle Scholar
- Davis MB (1981) Quaternary history and stability of forest communities. In: West DC, Shugart HH, Botkin DB (eds) Forest succession: concepts and application. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, pp 132–153Google Scholar
- Davis MB, Calcote RR, Sugita S, Takahara H (1998) Patchy invasion and the origin of a hemlock-hardwoods forest mosaic. Ecology 79:2641–2659Google Scholar
- Doepker RL, Thomasma L, Thomasma S (2000) MIWILD: Michigan Wildlife Habitats. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. Two by Two Wildlife Consulting, Grand Rapids, MI, USAGoogle Scholar
- Frelich LE (2002) Forest dynamics and disturbance regimes: studies from temperate evergreen–deciduous forests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- Gustafson EJ (1999) HARVEST: a timber harvest allocation model for simulating management alternatives. In: Klopatek J, Gardner RH (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, pp 109–124Google Scholar
- Gustafson EJ, Crow TR (1999) HARVEST: linking timber harvest strategies to landscape patterns. In: Mladenoff DJ, Baker WL (eds). Spatial modeling of forest landscapes: approaches and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 309–332Google Scholar
- Gustafson, E.J. and Rasmussen, L.V. 2005. HARVEST for Windows v6.1: User’s guide. Published on the Internet by the USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. URL http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4153/harvest/v61/documentation/default.asp.
- Jordan, J.K., Padley, E.A. and Cleland, D.T. 2002. Landtype associations: concepts and development in Lake States National Forests. In: Smith M-L (ed) Proceedings, land type associations conference: development and use in natural resources management, planning and research, Madison, WI, April 24–26 2001. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-294. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
- Keys J Jr, Carpenter C, Hooks S, Koenig F, McNab WH, Russell W, Smith ML (1995) Ecological units of the eastern United States: first approximation. USDA Forest, Service Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia, USAGoogle Scholar
- Knight RL, Landres PB (eds) (1998) Stewardship across boundaries. Island Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
- Kurttila M, Pukkala T, Kangas J (2001) Composing landscape level forest plans for forest areas under multiple private ownership. Boreal Environ Res 6:285–296Google Scholar
- Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2001. IFMAP/GAP Upper Peninsula Land Cover. Published on internet server http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/spatialdatalibrary/metadata/2000_slp_landcover.htm. [Last accessed August 19, 2005.]
- Mladenoff, D.J. and DeZonia, B. 2004. APACK 2.23 analysis software: User’s guide. Published on Internet server http://www.landscape.forest.wisc.edu/projects/apack/
- Montreal Process Working Group. 1999. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. Edition 2. Published on Internet server http://www.mpci.org/rep-pub/1999/ci_e.html
- Peterson A, Reznick R, Hedin S, Hendges M, Dunlap D (1998) Guidebook of best management practices for Michigan watersheds. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, East Lansing, MI, USA. Accessed at http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-nps-WholeGuidebook.pdf on 8/3/05
- Reice SR (1994) Nonequilibrium determinants of biological community structure. Am Scient 82:424–435Google Scholar
- Schulte LA, Mladenoff DJ (2001) The original U.S. Public Land Office records: their use and limitations in reconstructing presettlement vegetation. J Forestry 99:5–10Google Scholar
- Swanson FJ, Jones JA, Wallin DO, Cissel JH (1994) Natural variability-implications for ecosystem management. In: Jensen ME, Bourgeron PS (Technical coordinators), Ecosystem management: principles and␣applications, vol 2 Eastside Forest Health Assessment. US Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-318, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, USAGoogle Scholar