Wayne Tyson's comment regarding the query by Liesel Turner includes the phrase: "there are some records that hadn't been destroyed a couple of years ago", which reminds me of what I consider the most troubling and I can only say, criminal feature of the 2004 Forest Service rules written by the Bush administration: the option of "the responsible official" to destroy whatever records, data and maps that he choses to destroy. For Liesel's task, consideration of existing records should be part of the process of describing the condition of a forest - resiliency seems to be a very important characteristic of a properly functioning ecosystem, and how can resiliency be determined without history?
Mike Marsh Washington Native Plant Society ECOLOG-L automatic digest system wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > ECOLOG-L Digest - 19 Oct 2007 to 20 Oct 2007 (#2007-285) > From: > ECOLOG-L automatic digest system <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: > Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:00:04 -0400 > To: > [email protected] > > To: > [email protected] > > > There are 7 messages totalling 433 lines in this issue. > > Topics of the day: > > 1. Ecology Indicators Forest Health Re: Question: Ecological indicators > for National Forest Health > 2. Ecosystem Health Indicators Forests Re: Question: Ecological > indicators > for National Forest Health > 3. Heads up: The new Global Warming Denial Front (5) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Ecology Indicators Forest Health Re: Question: Ecological indicators > for National Forest Health > From: > Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: > Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:06:08 -0700 > > > 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, , 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 >> > >>
