Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling Landscape Management

  • Chapter
Compatible Forest Management

Part of the book series: Managing Forest Ecosystems ((MAFE,volume 8))

  • 188 Accesses

Abstract

The second question we asked in the opening chapter was: How do different approaches to forest management affect relatively large and complex ecosystems? This calls for a landscape analysis of the constituent stands. The goal is to expand information on the options that may increase the compatibility between wood production and other societal values derived from forest-lands (Haynes and Monserud 2002). The nature of the problem focuses our attention on multidisciplinary solutions across a broad area (large scale). Planning based on single-resource issues can prove costly, or, in some cases, infeasible (Barrett et al. 2000). Forest planning models typically predict forest inventory, harvest levels, and economic outputs over time. Some landscape forest planning models also predict the spatial configuration of stand vegetation and other resources over time. Such models can then make spatially dependent predictions such as insect contagion effects, habitat availability for wildlife species, potential fire risk, aesthetics, or reduction in timber yields because of management constraints on adjacent land (Barrett 1997).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, D.M., and Haynes, R.W. 1980. The 1980 timber assessment market model: structure, projections, and policy simulations. Forest Science Monograph 22. Forest Science, 26(3): 64 p.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ager, A., and McGaughey, R.J. 1997. UTOOLS: Microcomputer software for spatial analysis and landscape visualization. PNW-GTR-397. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Air Sciences. 2002. Fire Effects Tradeoff Model: FETM 4 user manual. Denver, CO: Air Sciences, Inc. 115 p. plus appendices.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aplet, G.H., Johnson, N., Olson, J.T., and Sample, V.A. 1993. Defining sustainable forestry. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barrett, T.M. 1997. Voronoi tessellation methods to delineate harvest units for spatial forest planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 27: 903–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barrett, T.M. 2001. Models of vegetation change for landscape planning: a comparison of FETM, LANDSUM, SIMPPLLE, and VDDT. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-76-WWW. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 14 p.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barrett, T.M., Jones, J.G., and Wakimoto, R.H. 2000. Adapting forest planning decision support systems for prescribed fire treatments. In: L.F. Neuenschwander, and K.C. Ryan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Fire Science conference and workshop, crossing the millennium: integrating spatial technologies and ecological principles for a new age in fire management. (Vol. 1, pp. 12–17). Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

    Google Scholar 

  8. BC Ministry of Forests, and BC Environment. 1995. Interior watershed assessment procedure guidebook (IWAP): Level I analysis. Forest practices code of British Columbia. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests and British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 82 p.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bergen, S.D., McGaughey, RJ., and Fridley, J.L. 1998. Data-driven simulation, dimensional accuracy and realism in a landscape visualization tool. Landscape and Urban Planning, 40(4): 283–.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bettinger, P., Boston, K., and Sessions, J. 1999. Combinatorial optimization of elk habitat effectiveness and timber harvest volume. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 4: 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bettinger, P., Johnson, K.N., and Sessions, J. 1996. Forest planning in an Oregon case study: defining the problem and attempting to meet goals with a spatial-analysis technique. Environmental Management, 20(4): 565–577.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bettinger, P., Johnson, K.N., and Sessions, J. 1998a. Evaluating the association between alternative measures of cumulative watershed effects on a forested watershed in eastern Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 13(1): 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bettinger, P., Johnson, K.N., and Sessions, J. 1998b. Improving aquatic habitat conditions over time while producing wood products: an examination of options. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 34(4): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bettinger, P., Sessions, J., and Boston, K. 1997. Using TABU search to schedule timber harvests subject to spatial wildlife goals for big game. Ecological Modelling, 94: 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bettinger, P., Sessions, J., and Johnson, K.N. 1998c. Ensuring the compatibility of aquatic habitat and commodity production goals in eastern Oregon with a TABU search procedure. Forest Science, 44(1): 96–112.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Beukema, S.J., Greenough, J.A., Robinson, D.C.E., Kurz, W.A., Smith, E.L., and Eav, B.B. 1997. The Westwide Pine Beetle Model: a spatially-explicit contagion model. In: R. Teck, M. Moeur, and J. Adams (Comps.), Proceedings: Forest Vegetation Simulator conference (pp. 126–130). General Technical Report INT-GTR-373. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Beukema, S.J., and Kurz, W.A. 1998. Vegetation dynamics development tool: user’s guide, version 3.0. Vancouver, BC: ES SA Technologies Ltd. 104 p.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Beukema, S.J., Reinhardt, E.D., Kurz, W.A., Crookston, N.L. 2000. An overview of the Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. In: L.F. Neuenschwander, and K.C. Ryan (Tech. eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Fire Science conference and workshop—crossing the millennium: integrating spatial technologies and ecological principles for a new age in fire management. (Vol. 2, pp. 80–85). Moscow, ID: University of Idaho and the International Association of Wildland Fire.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Boston, K., and Bettinger, P. 2002. Combining Tabu search and genetic algorithm heuristic techniques to solve spatial harvest scheduling problems. Forest Science, 48: 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Boyland, M. 2002. Simulation and optimization in harvest scheduling models. ATLAS/SIM FOR project extension report. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. 10 p.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Budyko, M.I. 1974. Climate and life. New York: Academic Press. 508 p.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Camenson, D., Sleavin, K., and Greer, K. 1995. Spectrum: an analytical tool for building natural resource management models. In: R. Päivinen, L. Roihuvuo, and M. Siitonen (Eds.), Proceedings. Large-scale forestry scenario models: experiences and requirements (5: 133–142). Joensuu, Finland: European Forestry Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ceder, K.R., and Marzluff, J.M. 2002. Linking tools of forest and wildlife managers: wildlife habitat evaluation using the landscape management system. In: N.L. Crookston, and R.N. Havis (Comps.), Second Forest Vegetation Simulator conference proceedings (pp. 200–208). RMRS-P-25. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chew, J.D. 1995. Development of a system for simulating vegetative patterns and processes at landscape scales. Missoula, MX: University of Montana. 182 p. Ph.D. Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Church, R.L., Murray, A.T., and Figueroa, M.A. 1995. Regional Ecosystems and Land Management Decision Support System (RELMdss) user’s manual. Santa Barbara, CA: Department of Geography, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Crookston, N.L. 1990. User’s guide to the Event Monitor: part of Prognosis Model version 6. General Technical Report INT-275. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 21 p.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Crookston, N.L., and Havis, R.N. (Comps.). 2002. Second Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) conference proceedings RMRS-P-25. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 208 p.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Crookston, N.L., and Stage, A.R. 1991. User’s guide to the Parallel Processing Extension of the Prognosis Model. General Technical Report INT-281. Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Faber, B.G., Watts, R., Hautaluaoma, J.E., Knutson, J., Wallace, W.W., and Wallace, L. 1994. A groupware-enabled GIS. In: GIS applications in natural resources 2. Fort Collins, CO: GIS World Books.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Greenough, J.A., Beukema, S.J., Robinson, D.C.E., Kurz, W.A., Densmore, N., Winter, R., and Snowdon, B. 2002. Prognosis EI: a detailed watershed-level environmental indicators model. In: N.L. Crookston, and R.N. Havis (Comps.), Second Forest Vegetation Simulator conference proceedings (pp. 122–125). RMRS-P-25. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Greenough, J.A., Robinson, D.C.E., Beukema, S.J., and Kurz, W.A. 1999a. Prognosis environmental indicators model: WADF case study methodology. Vancouver, BC: ES SA Technologies Ltd. 24 p.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Greenough, J.A., Robinson, D.C.E., Kurz, W.A., Beukema, S.J., Densmore, N., Winter, R., and Snowdon, B. 1999b. Use of the prognosis EI model in balancing timber and environmental values at the watershed-level. Vancouver, BC: ESSA Technologies Ltd. 30 p.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gustafson, E.J., Shifley, S.R., Mladenoff, D.J., Nimerfro, K.K., and He, H.S. 2000. Spatial simulation of forest succession and timber harvesting using LANDIS. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 30: 32–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hann, D.W., Hester, A.S., and Olsen, C.L. 1997. ORGANON User’s Manual. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, College of Forestry.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Haynes, R.W., Adams, D.M., and Mills, J.R. 1995. The 1993 RPA timber assessment update. General Technical Report RM-259. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 66 p.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Haynes, R.W., and Monserud, R.A. 2002. A basis for understanding compatibility among wood production and other forest values. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-529, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hoganson, H.M., and Borges, J.G. 1998. Using dynamic programming and overlapping sub-problems to address adjacency in large harvest scheduling problems. Forest Science, 44(4): 526–538.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Johnson, K.N., and Scheurman, H.L. 1977. Techniques for prescribing optimal timber harvest and investment under different objectives—discussion and synthesis. Forest Science Monograph, 18: 31.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jones, J.G., and Chew, J.D. 2000. Applying simulation and optimization to evaluate the effectiveness of fuel treatments for different fuel conditions at landscape scales. In: L.F. Neuenschwander, and K.C. Ryan (Eds.), Proceedings from the joint fire science conference and workshop (Vol. 2, pp. 89–96). Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jones, J.G., Hyde, J.F.C., III, and Meacham, M.L. 1986. Four analytical approaches for integrating land management and transportation planning on forest lands. Research Paper INT-361. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 33 p.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kallio, M., Dykstra, D.P., and Binkley, C.S. 1987. The global forest sector: an analytical perspective. New York: Wiley & Sons. 703 p.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Keane, R.E., Long, D.G., Basford, D., and Levesque, B.A. 1997. Simulating vegetation dynamics across multiple scales to assess alternative management strategies: proceedings for GIS 1997. Fort Collins, CO: GIS World Books. 640 p.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Keane, R.E., Long, D.G., Menakis, J.P., Hann, W.J., and Bevins, C.D. 1996. Simulating coarse-scale dynamics using the Columbia River Basin Succession Model—CRBSUM. General Technical Report INT-GTR-340. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 50 p

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kienner, W., Kurz, W.A., and Beukema, S.J. 2000. Habitat patterns in forested landscapes: management practices and the uncertainty associated with natural disturbances. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 27: 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Laacke, R.J. 1995. Building a decision support system for ecosystem management: KLEMS experience. AI Applications, 9(3): 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Larson, R.W., and Goforth, M.H. 1974. TRAS: a timber volume projection model. Technical Bulletin 1508. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 15 p.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Leemans, R., and van den Born, G.J. 1994. Determining the potential global distribution of natural vegetation, crops and agricultural productivity. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 76: 133–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lippke, B., and Oliver, C.D. 1993a. How can management for wildlife habitat, biodiversity, and other values be most cost-effective? Journal of Forestry, 91: 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lippke, B., and Oliver, C. 1993b. An economic tradeoff system for ecosystem management. In: M.E. Jensen, and RS. Bourgeron (Tech eds.), Ecosystem management: principles and applications. (Vol. 2., pp. 337–345). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  50. McCarter, J.B. 1997. Integrating forest inventory, growth and yield, and computer visualization into a landscape management system. In: R. Teck, M. Moeur, and J. Adams (Comps.), Proceedings of the forest vegetation simulator conference (pp. 159–167). General Technical Report INT-GTR-373. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  51. McCarter, J.B., Wilson, J.S., Baker, P.J., Moffett, J.L., and Oliver, C.D. 1998. Landscape management through integration of existing tools and emerging technologies. Journal of Forestry, 96(6): 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  52. McDill, M.E., and Braze, J. 2000. Comparing adjacency constraint formulations for randomly generated forest planning problems with four age-class distributions. Forest Science, 46(3): 423–436.

    Google Scholar 

  53. McGaughey, R.J. 1997. Visualizing forest stand dynamics using the stand visualization system. In: Proceedings of the 1997 ACSMIASPRS annual convention and exposition (Vol. 4, 248–257). Bethesda, MD: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.

    Google Scholar 

  54. McGaughey, R.J. 1998. Techniques for visualizing the appearance of forestry operations. Journal of Forestry, 96(6): 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  55. McGaughey, R.J. 2000. Stand visualization system. Retrieved April 4, 2003 from http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/svs.

    Google Scholar 

  56. McGaughey, R.J. 2001. The En Vision environmental visualization system. Retrieved April 4, 2003 from http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/envision.

    Google Scholar 

  57. McGaughey, R.J. 2002. Creating visual simulations of fuel conditions predicted by the fire and fuels extension to the forest vegetation simulator. In: N.L. Crookston, and R.N. Havis (Comps.), Second Forest Vegetation Simulator conference proceedings (pp. 8–13). RMRS-P-25. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  58. McGaughey, R.J. [In press]. Seeing the forest and the trees: visualizing stand and landscape conditions. In: Proceedings of Views From The Ridge: considerations for planning at the landscape level. Portland, OR: Western Forestry and Conservation Association and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Miller, R.E., and Blair, P.D. 1985. Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mills, J.R. 1990. Developing ATLAS growth parameters from forest inventory plots. In: V.J. LaBau, and T. Cunia (Tech. eds.), State-of-the-art methodology of forest inventory: a symposium proceedings (pp. 112–118). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-263. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Mills, J.R., and Kincaid, J.C. 1992. The aggregate timberland assessment system—ATLAS: a comprehensive timber projection model. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-281. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 160 p.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Mladenoff, D.J., and Baker, W.L. (Eds.). 1999. Spatial modeling of forest landscape change: approaches and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Mladenoff, D.J., and He, H.S. 1999. Design and behavior of LANDIS, an object-oriented model of forest landscape disturbance and succession. In: D.J. Mladenoff, and W.L. Baker (Eds.), Spatial modeling of forest landscape change: approaches and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Monserud, R.A., and Tchebakova, N. 1996. A vegetation model for the Sayan Mountains, Southern Siberia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 26: 1055–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Mowrer, H.T. (Tech. comp.). 1997. Decision support systems for ecosystem management: an evaluation of existing systems. General Technical Report RM-GTR-296. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 154 p.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Nabuurs, G.J., Nuutinen, T., Bartelink, H., and Korhonen, M. (Eds.). 1998. Forest scenario modeling for ecosystem management at landscape level. EFI Proc. No. 19. Joensuu, Finland: European Forestry Institute. 382 p.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Navon, D.I. 1971. Timber RAM: A long-range planning method for commercial timber lands under multiple-use management. Research Paper PSW-70. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Prentice, I.C., Cramer, W., Harrison, S.P., Leemans, R., Monserud, R.A., and Solomon, A.M. 1992. A Global Biome Model based on plant physiology and dominance, soil properties and climate. Journal of Biogeography, 19: 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Rauscher, H.M. 1999. Ecosystem management decision support for federal forests in the United States: a review. Forest Ecology and Management, 114: 173–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Schaaf, M.D., Wiitala, M., Carlton, D., Snell, K., and Ottmar, R. 1998. Modeling the tradeoffs between prescribed fire and wildfire emissions in forest and range land ecosystems. In: Proceedings, 3rd International conference on forest fire research and 14th conference on fire and forest meteorology (Vol. 2, pp. 1673–1685). Luso, Portugal: University of Coimbra.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Sessions, J., and Sessions, J. 1991. Tactical forest planning using SNAP II. In: Proceedings, Challenges and solutions for forestry operations in the nineties (pp. 12–16). Nanaimo, BC: Council on Forest Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sheppard, S.R.J. 1989. Visual simulation: a user’s guide for architects, engineers, and planners. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Stage, A.R. 1973. Prognosis model for stand development. Research Paper INT-137. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Tchebakova, N., Monserud, R., Leemans, R., and Golovanov, S. 1993. A global vegetation model based on the climatological approach of Budyko. Journal ofBiogeography, 20: 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Tchebakova, N.M., Monserud, R.A., and Nazimova, D. 1994. A Siberian vegetation model based on climatic parameters. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 24: 1597–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Teck, R., Moeur, M., and Adams, J. (Eds.). 1997. Proceedings: Forest Vegetation Simulator conference. General Technical Report INT-GTR-373. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 222 p.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Twery, M.J., Rauscher, H.M., Bennett, D.J., Thomasma, S.A., Stout, S.L., Palmer, J.F., Hoffman, R.E., DeCalesta, D.S., Gustafson, E., Cleveland, H., Grove, J.M., Nute, D., Kim, G., and Kollasch, R.P. 2000. NED-1: integrated analyses of forest stewardship decisions. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 27: 167–193. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1988. The South’s fourth forest: alternatives for the future. Forest Resources Report 24. Washington, DC. 512 p.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C., and Moss, R.H. (Eds.). 1995. Climate change 1995: impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses. Contribution of working group II to the second assessment of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 878 p.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Weintraub, A., Church, R.L., Murray, A.T., and Guignard, M. 2000. Forest management models and combinatorial algorithms: analysis of state of the art. Annals of Operations Research, 96: 271–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Weintraub, A., and Navon, D. 1976. A forest management planning model integrating silvi-cultural and transportation activities. Management Science, 22(12): 1299–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Weise, D.R, and Kimberlin, R. 1999. A risk based comparison of potential fuel treatment tradeoff models. Retrieved April 4, 2003 from: http://www.rfl.psw.fs.fed.us/jfs/index.html.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Weise, D.R., Kimberlin, R., Arbaugh, M., Chew, J., Jones, G., Merzenich, J., Wiitala, M., Keane, R., Schaaf, M., and Van Wagtendonk, J. [In press]. Comparing potential fuel treatment trade-off models: initial results. In: G.J. Arthaud, and T.M. Barrett (Eds.), Systems analysis in forest resources, proceedings of the eighth symposium. Managing Forest Ecosystems. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Williams, S.B., Roschke, D.J., and Holtfrerich, D.R. 1995. Designing configurable decision-support software: Lessons learned. AI Applications, 9(3): 103–114.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Wood, D.B., and Dewhurst, M. 1998. A decision support system for the Menominee Legacy Forest. Journal of Forestry, 96(11): 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Wykoff, W.R., Crookston, N.L., and Stage, A.R. 1982. User’s guide to the stand prognosis model. General Technical Report GTR-INT-133. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR, 97205, USA

    Robert A. Monserud

Authors
  1. Robert A. Monserud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research, Portland, Oregon, USA

    Robert A. Monserud  & Richard W. Haynes  & 

  2. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research, Juneau, AK, USA

    Adelaide C. Johnson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Monserud, R.A. (2003). Modeling Landscape Management. In: Monserud, R.A., Haynes, R.W., Johnson, A.C. (eds) Compatible Forest Management. Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0309-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0309-3_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6388-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0309-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation