Environmental Management

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 155–164 | Cite as

Oak Conservation and Restoration on Private Forestlands: Negotiating a Social-Ecological Landscape

  • Tricia G. Knoot
  • Lisa A. Schulte
  • Mark Rickenbach
Article

Abstract

In the midwestern United States, oak (Quercus spp.) forests are considered critical habitat for conserving biodiversity and are a declining resource. Ecological conditions, such as deer herbivory and competition from more mesic broad-leaved deciduous species, have been linked to poor oak regeneration. In the Midwest, where up to 90% of forestland is privately owned, a greater understanding of social dimensions of oak regeneration success is especially critical to designing effective restoration strategies. We sought to determine factors that serve as direct and indirect constraints to oak restoration and identify policy mechanisms that could improve the likelihood for restoration success. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 32 natural resource professionals working in the Midwest Driftless Area. We found that most professionals anticipate that oak will remain only a component of the future forest. Furthermore, they identified the general unwillingness of landowners to adopt oak restoration practices as a primary driving force of regional forest change. The professionals pointed to interdependent ecological and social factors, occurring at various scales (e.g., economic cost of management, deer herbivory, and exurban residential development) as influencing landowner oak restoration decisions. Professionals emphasized the importance of government cost-share programs and long-term personal relationships to securing landowner acceptance of oak restoration practices. However, given finite societal resources, ecologically- and socially-targeted approaches were viewed as potential ways to optimize regional success.

Keywords

Biodiversity conservation Humanized landscapes Oak forests Parcelization Private forest ownerships 

References

  1. Abrams MD, Nowacki GJ (1992) Historical variation in fire, oak recruitment, and post- logging accelerated succession in central Pennsylvania. Bull Torrey Bot Club 119:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert DA (1995) Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. General Technical Report NC-178. USDA Forest Service, St. Paul, MN, 250 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen EB (2003) New directions and growth of restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 11:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Askins RA (2001) Sustaining biological diversity in early successional communities: the challenge of managing unpopular habitats. Wildl Soc Bull 29:407–412Google Scholar
  5. Balmford A, Cowling RM (2006) Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology. Conserv Biol 20:692–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baughman MJ, Jacobs RD (1992) Woodland owners’ guide to oak management. Pub-FO-05938. Minnesota Extension Service. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  7. Bliss JC (2000) Public perceptions of clearcutting. J For 98(12):4–9Google Scholar
  8. Bliss JC, Martin AJ (1989) Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Science 35:601–622Google Scholar
  9. Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. J For 102:4–9Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter SR, DeFries R, Dietz T, Mooney HA, Polasky S, Reid WV, Scholes RJ (2006) Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science 314:257–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crow TR, Host GE, Mladenoff DJ (1999) Ownership and ecosystem as sources of spatial heterogeneity in a forested landscape, Wisconsin, USA. Landscape Ecol 14:449–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1999) Managing Earth’s ecosystems: an interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 2:277–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daily GC, Söederqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Ehrlich PR, Folke C, Jansson A-M, Jansson B-O, Kautsky N, Levin S, Lubchenco J, Mäler K-G, Simpson D, Starrett D, Tilman D, Walker B (2000) The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289:395–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Esterberg KG (2002) Qualitative methods in social research. McGraw-Hill, Boston 256 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer AP, Bliss JC (2008) Behavioral assumptions of conservation policy: conserving oak habitat on family-forest land in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Conserv Biol 22:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fralish JS (2004) The keystone role of oak and hickory in the central hardwood forest. In: Spetich MA (ed) Upland oak ecology symposium: history, current conditions, and sustainability. General Technical Report SRS-73. USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NC, pp 78–87Google Scholar
  17. Fralish JS, Crooks FB, Chambers JL, Harty FM (1991) Comparison of presettlement, second- growth and old-growth forest on six site types in the Illinois Shawnee Hills. Am Midl Nat 125:294–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gass RJ, Rickenbach M, Schulte LA, Zeuli K (2009) Cross-boundary coordination on forested landscapes: investigating alternatives for implementation. Environ Manage 43:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gobster PH (1999) An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal 18:54–64Google Scholar
  20. Gobster PH, Rickenbach MG (2004) Private forestland parcelization and development in Wisconsin’s Northwoods: perceptions of resource-oriented stakeholders. Landscape and Urban Planning 69:165–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hilty J, Merenlender AM (2003) Studying biodiversity on private lands. Conserv Biol 17:132–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobbs RJ (2007) Setting effective and realistic restoration goals: key directions for research. Restor Ecol 15:354–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobbs RJ, Harris JA (2001) Restoration ecology: repairing the Earth’s ecosystems in the new millennium. Restor Ecol 9:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hull RB, Robertson DP, Buhyoff GJ (2004) “Boutique” forestry: new forest practices in urbanizing landscapes. J For 102:14–19Google Scholar
  25. Huntsinger L, Buttolph R, Hopkinson P (1997) Ownership and management changes on California hardwood rangelands: 1985 to 1992. J Range Manag 50:423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (2005) Forest Stewardship spatial analysis project. Accessed 15 Jan 2009: http://www.fs.fed.us/na/sap/products/ia.shtml
  27. Kendra A, Hull RB (2005) Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. For Sci 51:142–154Google Scholar
  28. Kittredge DB (2004) Extension/outreach implications for America’s family forest owners. J For 102:15–18Google Scholar
  29. Kittredge DB (2005) The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: international examples and potential application in the United States. For Policy Econ 7:671–688Google Scholar
  30. Litvaitis JA (1993) Response of early successional vertebrates to historic changes in land use. Conserv Biol 7:866–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McShea WJ, Healy WM (2002) Oaks and acorns as a foundation for ecosystem management. In: McShea WJ, Healy WM (eds) Oak forest ecosystems: ecology and management for wildlife. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  32. Miller R, Hobbs RJ (2007) Habitat restoration–do we know what we’re doing? Restor Ecol 15:382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Motzkin G, Foster DR (2002) Grasslands, heathlands and shrublands in coastal New England: historical interpretations and approaches to conservation. J Biogeogr 29:1569–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neuman WL (2003) Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA 592 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Nowacki GJ, Abrams MD (2008) The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. Bioscience 58:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nowacki GJ, Abrams MD, Lorimer CG (1990) Composition, structure, and historical development of northern red oak stands along an edaphic gradient in north-central Wisconsin. For Sci 36:276–292Google Scholar
  37. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA 688 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Povak NA, Lorimer CG, Guries RP (2008) Altering successional trends in oak forests: 19 year experimental results of low- and moderate-intensity silvicultural treatments. Can J For Res 38:2880–2895Google Scholar
  39. Prior JC (1991) Landforms of Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA 168 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. QSR International (2006) NVivo 7. QSR International, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  41. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI (2005) Rural and suburban sprawl in the U.S. Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and its relation to forest fragmentation. Conserv Biol 19:793–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rickenbach M, Zeuli K, Sturgess-Cleek E (2005) Despite failure: the emergence of “new” forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. Scand J For Res 20:503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rizzo DM, Garbelotto M (2003) Sudden oak death: endangering California and Oregon forest ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 1:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robinson JG (2006) Conservation Biology and real-world conservation. Conserv Biol 20:658–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rodewald AD, Abrams MD (2002) Floristics and avian community structure: implications for regional changes in eastern forest composition. For Sci 48:267–272Google Scholar
  46. Rooney TP, Waller DM (2003) Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 181:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sampson N, DeCoster L (2000) Forest fragmentation: implications for sustainable private forests. J For 98(3):4–8Google Scholar
  48. Schneider A, Ingram H (1990) Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. J Politics 52:510–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA 272 ppGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor SO, Lorimer CG (2003) Loss of oak dominance in dry-mesic deciduous forests predicted by gap capture methods. Plant Ecol 167:71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Theobald DM (2005) Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society 10:32. Accessed 15 Jan 2009: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32/
  52. USDA Forest Service (2005) Forest inventory and analysis data base retrieval system. Accessed online 15 Jan 2009: http://www.ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/fim21/wcfim21.asp
  53. West PC, Fly JM, Blahna DJ, Carpenter EM (1988) The communication and diffusion of NIPF management strategies. North J Appl For 5:265–270Google Scholar
  54. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (2005) Wisconsin’s strategy for wildlife species of greatest conservation need. Pub-ER-641, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tricia G. Knoot
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lisa A. Schulte
    • 1
  • Mark Rickenbach
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resource Ecology and ManagementIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations