Me too, and I have to be brief. I second Malcolm's points, but despite "all the stuff out there," I seriously question whether or not "indicators" are really up to the task. I yearn for definitions of "forest health," not because I can't think of any, but because I can think of too many.
I also question whether or not this question can be reduced to truly relevant factors that can be measured to any high degree of accuracy. I also think that a "healthy" forest can be recognized by those with sufficient experience, and even described--but only in very rough terms, festooned with qualifiers. I have seen "virgin" forests that were literally nothing but conifers with zero understory; I have seen disturbed forests that are much more diverse. The former was "healthy," but not inherently resilient. The latter was "unhealthy" but exhibiting an apparent trend toward a diverse assemblage of species. I have also seen clear-cuts that had not recovered for more than 25 years--and counting. (If anyone wants to study this, there are some records that hadn't been destroyed a couple of years ago, and I can assist researchers in locating the area.) It seems to me that what is termed "resiliency" is more to the point, but that definition is pretty squishy too, at least in my view. Comments? WT At 11:11 AM 10/19/2007, Malcolm McCallum wrote: >Sorry for the late response to this. > >Use of indicators must be done very very carefully because the ecological >constraints of those physical and chemical indicators or that control the >biological indicators are very often system specific. Check into the >ecotoxicology literature, especially under bioassessment protocols and >such. There is a lot of stuff out there. USGS, EPA, USFWS, etc. have >standardized protocols for much bioassessment work and can be used as a >framework to design the protocols you are interested in should they not >already exist. > >Malcolm L. McCallum > >On Fri, October 19, 2007 12:38 pm, Warren W. Aney wrote: > > Liesel, I've been thinking about your request for National Forest > > ecological > > health indicators. To me, it would seem obvious that many could be > > related > > to the old Forest Service multiple use mission, e.g., water, timber, > > wildlife, minerals, and recreation. So you would have indicators such as > > high water quality maintained in streams and lakes, stable production of > > timber and other forest products, productive and stable populations of > > utilized wildlife, etc. Then there are factors such as keystone species, > > indicator species, ecosystem engineers, biodiversity (particularly species > > and structural diversity), complexity and stability, listed or sensitive > > species, etc. These would support a more holistic evaluation. > > > > I wonder if you've considered two particularly practical approaches to > > defining and selecting ecological health indicators? One is to try looking > > at what the National Forest ecosystem looked like pre-settlement. Another > > is to ask the National Forest managers to describe what they would like > > the > > forest ecosystems to look like in 100 years -- what they would hope to see > > if they could visit the forest 100 years from now and see some results of > > their management. In either case, you could then select indicators that > > would portray that condition. And, of course, you could use both of these > > approaches since they can be seen as complementary. > > > > There is a practical advantage for involving National Forest managers -- > > it > > gives them some ownership in your research and its results. > > > > > > Warren W. Aney > > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > > 9403 SW 74th Ave > > Tigard, OR 97223 > > (503) 246-8613 phone > > (504) 539-1009 mobile > > (503) 246-2605 fax > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Liesel Turner > > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:26 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Question: Ecological indicators for National Forest Health > > > > > > I am doing research on forest level policy outcomes and am wondering if > > anyone is aware of, or can suggest any, long term outcome measures for > > ecological health indicators of national forests (as close to 100 years as > > possible). I am looking for actual ecological outcome measures versus > > management application measures. > > > > Any input would be appreciated. > > > > Liesel Turner > > Ph.D. Applicant > > Drexel University > > Philadelphia, PA > > > > >Malcolm L. McCallum >Assistant Professor of Biology >Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology >http://www.herpconbio.org >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
