Hello Ecolog,
=20
I think an indicator approach to forest health can succeed, as long as =
it
is done intelligently. There is obviously no one measure that can
encapsulate forest health, or forest integrity, but a conceptual =
modeling
approach that identifies representative indicators can go a long way
towards providing a reliable tool for documenting forest health. My
program has been working with SUNY-ESF to develop an ecological =
integrity
reporting framework for National Park Service forests, and I presented =
our
approach and preliminary results at the last ESA meeting. Our abstract =
is
below, and I would be happy to send the presentation (with speaker =
notes)
to anyone who would like more details.
=20
Title: Reporting the Forest Ecological Integrity of Northeastern =
National
Parks
=20
Abstract: In 2006, the National Park Service's Northeast Temperate =
Network
initiated long-term monitoring of forests at 8 park units, from =
Morristown
National Historical Park in New Jersey to Acadia National Park in Maine.
The monitoring program is establishing 310 permanent plots that will be
visited on a four-year rotation. During each plot visit, researchers
collect information about a suite of metrics that collectively assess =
the
ecological integrity of forest resources. The methods and metrics are
modified from the US Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis
program, and specific metrics address structure (e.g., coarse woody =
debris
volume), composition (e.g., understory exotic species ratio), and =
function
(e.g., acid stress and nitrogen saturation from soil chemistry data). We
have established levels for each metric ("Good", "Caution", or
"Significant Concern") that are based on acceptable or desired ranges of
variation. These levels were derived from knowledge of the natural or
historical range of variation for each metric, and they will be reviewed
and updated as new information becomes available. A scorecard format =
will
be used to clearly and concisely report the integrity of Northeast
Temperate Network forests to multiple audiences, including park managers
and decision-makers. We have been collaborating with other eastern NPS
Inventory and Monitoring networks and park units, and our model shows
promise as a basis for reporting on the ecological integrity of eastern
forests.
=20
Sincerely,
=20
Brian Mitchell
=20
--
Brian R. Mitchell
Inventory and Monitoring Coordinator
Northeast Temperate Network
National Park Service
54 Elm Street
Woodstock, VT 05091
802-457-3368 x37=20
802-457-3405 (fax)
=20
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:06:08 -0700
From: Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Ecology Indicators Forest Health Re: Question: Ecological
indicators for National Forest Health
Me too, and I have to be brief. I second Malcolm's points, but=20
despite "all the stuff out there," I seriously question whether or=20
not "indicators" are really up to the task. I yearn for definitions=20
of "forest health," not because I can't think of any, but because I=20
can think of too many.
I also question whether or not this question can be reduced to truly=20
relevant factors that can be measured to any high degree of=20
accuracy. I also think that a "healthy" forest can be recognized by=20
those with sufficient experience, and even described--but only in=20
very rough terms, festooned with qualifiers.
I have seen "virgin" forests that were literally nothing but conifers=20
with zero understory; I have seen disturbed forests that are much=20
more diverse. The former was "healthy," but not inherently=20
resilient. The latter was "unhealthy" but exhibiting an apparent=20
trend toward a diverse assemblage of species. I have also seen=20
clear-cuts that had not recovered for more than 25 years--and=20
counting. (If anyone wants to study this, there are some records=20
that hadn't been destroyed a couple of years ago, and I can assist=20
researchers in locating the area.)
It seems to me that what is termed "resiliency" is more to the point,=20
but that definition is pretty squishy too, at least in my view.
Comments?
WT
