Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 141–156 | Cite as

Simulating the cumulative effects of multiple forest management strategies on landscape measures of forest sustainability

  • Eric J. Gustafson
  • David E. Lytle
  • Randy Swaty
  • Craig Loehle
Research Article


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.


Timber management Multiple owner landscapes Landscape pattern HARVEST simulation model Sustainable forestry Biodiversity Forest products industry 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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.


  1. Alverson WS, Waller DM, Solheim SL (1988) Forests too deer: edge effects in northern Wisconsin. Conserv Biol 2:348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Frelich LE (2002) Forest dynamics and disturbance regimes: studies from temperate evergreen–deciduous forests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Grumbine RE (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conserv Biol 8:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Gustafson EJ, Rasmussen LV (2002) Assessing the spatial implications of interactions among strategic forest management options using a Windows-based harvest simulator. Comput Electron Agric 33:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Hansen AJ, Spies TA, Swanson FJ, Ohmann JL (1991) Conserving biodiversity in managed forests: lessons from natural forests. BioScience 41:382–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harper KA, MacDonald SE, Burton PJ, Chen J, Brosofske KD, Saunders SC, Euskirchen ES, Roberts D, Jaiteh MS, Esseen PA (2005) Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 19:768–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Knight RL, Landres PB (eds) (1998) Stewardship across boundaries. Island Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Kurttila M, Pukkala T (2003) Combining holding-level economic goals with spatial landscape-level goals in the planning of multiple ownership forestry. Landscape Ecol 18:529–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kurttila M, Uuttera J, Mykra S, Kurki S, Pukkala T (2002) Decreasing the fragmentation of old forests in landscapes involving multiple ownership in Finland: economic, social and ecological consequences. Forest Ecol Manage 166:69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucier AA, Shepard JP (1997) Certification and regulation of forestry practices in the United States: implications for intensively managed plantations. Biomass Bioenergy 13:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2001. IFMAP/GAP Upper Peninsula Land Cover. Published on internet server [Last accessed August 19, 2005.]
  22. Mladenoff, D.J. and DeZonia, B. 2004. APACK 2.23 analysis software: User’s guide. Published on Internet server
  23. Mladenoff DJ, Stearns F (1993) Eastern hemlock regeneration and deer browsing in the northern Great Lakes region: a re-examination and model simulation. Conserv Biol 7:889–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Moore MM, Covington WW, Fulé PZ (1999) Reference conditions and ecological restoration: a southwestern ponderosa pine perspective. Ecologic Appl 9:1266–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parkhurst GM, Shogren JF, Bastian C, Kivi P, Donner J, Smith RBW (2002) Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation. Ecologic Econ 41:305–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 on 8/3/05
  28. Polasky S, Nelson E, Lonsdorf E, Fackler P, Starfield A (2005) Conserving species in a working landscape: land use with biological and economic objectives. Ecologic Appl 15:1387–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reice SR (1994) Nonequilibrium determinants of biological community structure. Am Scient 82:424–435Google Scholar
  30. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Wootton JT (2001) Causes of species diversity differences: a comparative analysis of Markov models. Ecol Lett 4:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B. V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric J. Gustafson
    • 1
  • David E. Lytle
    • 2
    • 5
  • Randy Swaty
    • 3
  • Craig Loehle
    • 4
  1. 1.USDA Forest Service, North Central Research StationRhinelanderUSA
  2. 2.USDA Forest Service, North Central Research StationGrand RapidsUSA
  3. 3.The Nature Conservancy, Upper Peninsula Conservation OfficeMarquetteUSA
  4. 4.National Council for Air and Stream ImprovementNapervilleUSA
  5. 5.The Nature Conservancy, Ohio ChapterDublinUSA

Personalised recommendations