And I also second Brian's comments. A good test of any "model" might
be whether or not a virgin, closed-canopy Site I conifer forest as
well as a diverse disturbed one, could survive the
number-crunching. To me the TREND is the important thing, and
recognizing the wide variety of compositions that make up a "healthy" forest.
WT
At 09:07 AM 10/21/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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
