Ecological impacts of energy-wood harvests: Lessons from whole-tree harvesting and natural disturbance

Alaina L. Berger; Brian Palik; Anthony W. D’Amato; Shawn Fraver; John B. Bradford; Keith H. Nislow; David King; Robert T. Brooks

doi:10.5849/jof.12-020

USGS · 70046794

Ecological impacts of energy-wood harvests: Lessons from whole-tree harvesting and natural disturbance

Alaina L. Berger·Brian Palik·Anthony W. D’Amato·Shawn Fraver·John B. Bradford·Keith H. Nislow·David King·Robert T. Brooks

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recent interest in using forest residues and small-diameter material for biofuels is generating a renewed focus on harvesting impacts and forest sustainability. The rich legacy of research from whole-tree harvesting studies can be examined in light of this interest. Although this research largely focused on consequences for forest productivity, in particular carbon and nutrient pools, it also has relevance for examining potential consequences for biodiversity and aquatic ecosystems. This review is framed within a context of contrasting ecosystem impacts from whole-tree harvesting because it represents a high level of biomass removal. Although whole-tree harvesting does not fully use the nonmerchantable biomass available, it indicates the likely direction and magnitude of impacts that can occur through energy-wood harvesting compared with less-intensive conventional harvesting and to dynamics associated with various natural disturbances. The intent of this comparison is to gauge the degree of departure of energy-wood harvesting from less intensive conventional harvesting. The review of the literature found a gradient of increasing departure in residual structural conditions that remained in the forest when conventional and whole-tree harvesting was compared with stand-replacing natural disturbance. Important stand- and landscape-level processes were related to these structural conditions. The consequence of this departure may be especially potent because future energy-wood harvests may more completely use a greater range of forest biomass at potentially shortened rotations, creating a great need for research that explores the largely unknown scale of disturbance that may apply to our forest ecosystems.

Explore related subjects

Journal of Forestry Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Alaina L. Berger, Brian Palik, Anthony W. D’Amato, Shawn Fraver, John B. Bradford, Keith H. Nislow, David King, Robert T. Brooks. 2013. Ecological impacts of energy-wood harvests: Lessons from whole-tree harvesting and natural disturbance. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-020

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2019

Hydrologic modifications challenge bottomland hardwood forest management

Bottomland hardwoods are floodplain forests along rivers and streams throughout the southeastern United States. The interrelations among hydrology, soils, geomorphic landforms, and tree species composition are the foundation of forest management in bottomland hardwoods, and historically their correspondence has allowed for somewhat predictable forest responses based upon the hydrogeomorphic setting. However, extensive hydrologic and geomorphic modifications in floodplains have disrupted these interrelations and, on many sites, have created novel disturbance regimes resulting in unpredictable forest responses. Reduced or altered timing of surface flooding and groundwater declines are common in the region and have favored increases in stem densities, particularly of species less tolerant of flooding and more tolerant of shade. In these highly modified systems, more process-level understanding of floodplain hydrology, soil moisture dynamics, interspecific tree competition, and regeneration is needed to develop more effective management prescriptions and for forestry to be represented in integrated water-resource management decisions.

Journal of Forestry↗

USGS2016

A review and synthesis of recreation ecology research supporting carrying capacity and visitor use management decisionmaking

Resource and experiential impacts associated with visitation to wilderness and other similar backcountry settings have long been addressed by land managers under the context of “carrying capacity” decisionmaking. Determining a maximum level of allowable use, below which high-quality resource and experiential conditions would be sustained, was an early focus in the 1960s and 1970s. However, decades of recreation ecology research have shown that the severity and areal extent of visitor impact problems are influenced by an interrelated array of use-related, environmental, and managerial factors. This complexity, with similar findings from social science research, prompted scientists and managers to develop more comprehensive carrying capacity frameworks, including a new Visitor Use Management framework. These frameworks rely on a diverse array of management strategies and actions, often termed a “management toolbox,” for resolving visitor impact problems. This article reviews the most recent and relevant recreation ecology studies that have been applied in wildland settings to avoid or minimize resource impacts. The key findings and their management implications are highlighted to support the professional management of common trail, recreation site, and wildlife impact problems. These studies illustrate the need to select from a more diverse array of impact management strategies and actions based on an evaluation of problems to identify the most influential factors that can be manipulated.

Journal of Forestry↗

USGS2016

Where the wild things are: A research agenda for studying wildlife-wilderness relationship

We explore the connection between US designated wilderness areas and wildlife with the goal of establishing a research agenda for better understanding this complex relationship. Our research agenda has two components. The first, “wildlife for wilderness,” considers the impact of wildlife on wilderness character. Whereas studies show that wildlife is important in both the perception and actual enhancement of wilderness character, the context and particulars of this relationship have not been evaluated. For instance, is knowing that a rare, native species is present in a wilderness area enough to increase perceptions of naturalness (an important wilderness quality)? Or does the public need to observe the species or its sign (e.g., tracks) for this benefit? The second part of our research agenda, “wilderness for wildlife,” considers the types of research needed to understand the impact of wilderness areas on wildlife and biodiversity conservation. Several studies show the effect of one area being designated wilderness on one wildlife species. Yet, there has been no research that examines how the networks of wilderness areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) are used by a species or a community of species. Furthermore, we found no studies that focused on how the NWPS affects ecological or trophic interactions among species. We hope that by providing a research agenda, we can spur multiple lines of research on the topic of wildlife and wilderness.

Journal of Forestry↗