Abstract
Landscapes are characterized by their structure (the spatial arrangement of landscape elements), their ecological function (how ecological processes operate within that structure), and the dynamics of change (disturbance and recovery). Thus, understanding the dynamic nature of landscapes and predicting their future dynamics of landscapes are of particular emphasis. Landscape change is difficult to study because controlled experiments at landscape scales often are not feasible for political, economic, social and logistical reasons. Opportunistic studies of change (e.g., after a large fire) are often confounded by uncontrolled factors. For these reasons, changes in landscape pattern are often studied using simulation models. This lab will.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Note: An asterisk preceding the entry indicates that it is a suggested reading.
References and Recommended Readings
Note: An asterisk preceding the entry indicates that it is a suggested reading.
Andren H, Angelstam P (1988) Elevated predation rates as an edge effect in habitat islands: experimental evidence. Ecology 69:544–547
Brittingham MC, Temple SA (1983) Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? BioScience 33:31–35
Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1992) Vegetation responses to edge environments in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecol Appl 2:387–396
Chew JD, Stalling C, Moeller K (2004) Integrating knowledge for simulating vegetation change at landscape scales. Western J Appl Forestry 19(2):102–108
DellaSalla DA, Rabe DL (1987) Response of least flycatchers Empidonax minimus to forest disturbances. Biol Conserv 41:291–299
*Franklin JF, Forman RTT (1987) Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: ecological consequences and principles. Landsc Ecol 1:5–18. This paper was among the first to use a simulation model to investigate the landscape pattern effects of timber harvesting.
*Gustafson EJ (1996) Expanding the scale of forest management: allocating timber harvests in time and space. Forest Ecol Manag 87:27–39. In this paper HARVEST was used to simulate several clustered cutting strategies on a real landscape encompassing the entire Hoosier National Forest in Indiana. Results showed that the area harvested could be increased while also increasing the amount of forest interior when a clustered strategy was used.
Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156
Gustafson EJ, Crow TR (1994) Modeling the effects of forest harvesting on landscape structure and the spatial distribution of cowbird brood parasitism. Landsc Ecol 9:237–248
Gustafson EJ, Crow TR (1996) Simulating the effects of alternative forest management strategies on landscape structure. J Environ Manage 46:77–94
Gustafson EJ, Crow TR (1999) HARVEST: linking timber harvesting strategies to landscape patterns. In: Mladenoff DJ, Baker WL (eds) Spatial modeling of forest landscapes: approaches and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 309–332
Gustafson EJ, Shifley SR, Mladenoff DJ et al (2000) Spatial simulation of forest succession and timber harvesting using LANDIS. Can J For Res 30:32–43
Gustafson EJ, Murphy NL, Crow TR (2001) Using a GIS model to assess terrestrial salamander response to alternative forest management plans. J Environ Manage 63:281–292
Gustafson EJ, Rasmussen LV (2005) HARVEST for Windows v6.1: User’s guide. http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4153/Harvest/v61/documentation/. Accessed 8 Nov 2007
*Gustafson EJ, Lytle DE, Swaty R et al (2007) Simulating the cumulative effects of multiple forest management strategies on landscape measures of forest sustainability. Landsc Ecol 22:141–156. HARVEST was used 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. The authors studied trends in landscape pattern metrics that were linked to Montreal Process indicators of forest sustainability. The diversity of management approaches produced a diversity of habitat conditions such that most trends pointed to a positive outcome on sustainability.
*Gustafson EJ, Shvidenko AZ, Scheller RM (2011) Effectiveness of forest management strategies to mitigate effects of global change in south central Siberia. Canad J Forest Res 41:1405–1421. The authors used the LANDIS-II disturbance and succession model to study how alternative timber cutting strategies affect forests under climate change in Siberia. Strategies were discovered that resulted in greater forest biomass, increased abundance of species predicted to grow well under future climates, and reduced fragmentation, but they did not concurrently reduce losses by disturbance. No single strategy appears able to achieve all possible forest management objectives.
Haefner JW (1996) Modeling biological systems: principles and applications. Chapman and Hall, New York (An excellent introduction to simulation modeling)
Hewison AJM, Vincent JP, Joachim J et al (2001) The effects of woodland fragmentation and human activity on Roe Deer distribution in agricultural landscapes. Can J Zool 79:679–689
Karplus WJ (1983) The spectrum of mathematical models. Perspect Comput 3:4–14
King DI, Griffin CR, DeGraaf RM (1997) Effect of clearcut borders on distribution and abundance of forest birds in northern New Hampshire. Wilson Bull 109:239–245
Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967
Li H, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ et al (1993) Developing alternative forest cutting patterns: a simulation approach. Landsc Ecol 8:63–75
Litvaitis JA (1993) Response of early successional vertebrates to historic changes in land use. Conserv Biol 7:866–873
Paton PW (1994) The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? Conserv Biol 8:17–26
Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197
Van Horn MA, Gentry RM, Faaborg J (1995) Patterns of ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) pairing success in Missouri forest tracts. Auk 112:98–106
*Wallin DO, Swanson FJ, Marks B (1994) Landscape pattern response to changes in pattern generation rules: land-use legacies in forestry. Ecol Appl 4:569–580. The authors used a harvest simulation model to show that landscape patterns produced by dispersed disturbances are difficult to erase, persisting in some form for a long time.
*Zollner PA, Roberts LJ, Gustafson EJ et al (2008) Influence of forest planning alternatives on landscape pattern and ecosystem processes in northern Wisconsin, USA. Forest Ecol Manage 254:429–444. The authors simulated harvest and succession for 250 years in response to eight alternative timber management plans drafted for the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin, USA. These plans varied in the amount of clearcutting relative to timber harvest methods that leave some trees behind. Most habitat variables sorted across the plans along a gradient of the amount of clearcutting specified in each plan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer-Verlag New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gustafson, E.J. (2017). Simulating Management Actions and Their Effects on Forest Landscape Pattern. In: Gergel, S., Turner, M. (eds) Learning Landscape Ecology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6374-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6374-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6372-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-6374-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)