Ecosystems

, Volume 10, Issue 8, pp 1261–1277 | Cite as

The Effects of Spatial Legacies following Shifting Management Practices and Fire on Boreal Forest Age Structure

  • Patrick M. A. James
  • Marie-Josée Fortin
  • Andrew Fall
  • Dan Kneeshaw
  • Christian Messier
Article

Abstract

Forest age structure and its spatial arrangement are important elements of sustainable forestry because of their effects on biodiversity and timber availability. Forest management objectives that include specific forest age structure may not be easily attained due to constraints imposed by the legacies of historical management and natural disturbance. We used a spatially explicit stochastic model to explore the synergetic effects of forest management and fire on boreal forest age structure. Specifically, we examined (1) the duration of spatial legacies of different management practices in the boreal forest, (2) how multiple shifts in management practices affect legacy duration and the spatial trajectories of forest age structure, and (3) how fire influences legacy duration and pattern development in combination with harvesting. Results based on 30 replicates of 500 years for each scenario indicate that (1) spatial legacies persist over 200 years and the rate at which legacies are overcome depends on whether new management targets are in synchrony with existing spatial pattern; (2) age specific goals were met faster after multiple management shifts due to the similar spatial scale of the preceding management types; (3) because large fires can erase the spatial pattern created by smaller disturbances, scenarios with fire had shorter lags than scenarios without fire. These results suggest that forest management goals can be accelerated by applying management at a similar spatial scale as existing spatial patterns. Also, management planning should include careful consideration of historical management as well as current and likely future disturbances.

Keywords

stochastic spatially explicit model landscape pattern metrics ordination simulation modeling landscape legacies forest disturbance forest management forest age structure 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work was funded through NSERC PGS-A and CFS-NSERC supplement to PJ and Sustainable Forest Management Network NCE grants to CM and others and DK and others. We would also like to acknowledge the help of B. Rayfield and two anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly improved the quality of manuscript.

REFERENCES

  1. Baker WL. 1992. The landscape ecology of large disturbances in the design and management of nature reserves. Landsc Ecol 7:181–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergeron Y, Leduc A, Harvey BD, Gauthier S. 1999. Forest management guidelines based on natural disturbance dynamics: stand- and forest-level considerations. For Chron 75:49–54Google Scholar
  3. Bergeron Y, Gauthier S, Kafka V, Lefort P, Lesieur D. 2001. Natural fire frequency for the eastern Canadian boreal forest: Consequences for sustainable forestry. Can J For Res 31:384–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergeron Y, Leduc A, Harvey BD, Gauthier S. 2002. Natural fire regime: a guide for sustainable management of the Canadian boreal forest. Silva Fennica 36:81–95Google Scholar
  5. Bergeron Y, Flannigan M, Gauthier S, Leduc A, Lefort P. 2004a. Past, current and future fire frequency in the Canadian boreal forest: Implications for sustainable forest management. Ambio 33:356–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergeron Y, Gauthier S, Flannigan M, Kafka V. 2004b. Fire regimes at the transition between mixedwood and coniferous boreal forest in northwestern Quebec. Ecology 85:1916–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouchard M, Kneeshaw DD, Messier C. 2007. Forest dynamics following spruce budworm outbreaks in the northern and southern mixedwoods of central Quebec. Can J For Res 37:763–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boychuk D, Perera AH, Ter-Mikaelian M, Martell DL, Li C. 1997. Modelling the effect of spatial scale and correlated fire disturbance on forest age distribution. Ecol Modell 95:145–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burton PJ, Kneeshaw DD, Coates KD. 1999. Managing forest harvesting to maintain old growth in boreal and sub-boreal forests. For Chron 75:623–31Google Scholar
  10. D’Eon RG, Glenn SM. 2005. The influence of forest harvesting on landscape spatial patterns and old-growth-forest fragmentation in southeast British Columbia. Landsc Ecol 20:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Didion M, Fortin MJ, Fall A. 2007. Forest age structure as indicator of boreal forest sustainability under alternative management and fire regimes: a landscape level sensitivity analysis. Ecol Modell 200:45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahrig L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fall A, Fall J. 2001. A domain specific language for models of landscape dynamics. Ecol Modell 141:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fall A, Fortin M-J, Kneeshaw DD, Yamasaki SH, Messier C, Bouthillier L, Smith C. 2004. Consequences of various landscape-scale ecosystem management strategies and fire cycles on age-class structure and harvest in boreal forests. Can J For Res 34:310–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fortin M-J, Dale MRT. 2005. Spatial analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Franklin JF, Forman RTT. 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: ecological consequences and principles. Landsc Ecol 1:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman SK, Reich PB. 2005. Regional legacies of logging: Departure from presettlement forest conditions in northern Minnesota. Ecol Appl 15:726–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galindo-Leal C, Bunnell FL. 1995. Ecosystem management: implications and opportunities of a new paradigm. For Chron 71:601–6Google Scholar
  19. Gray DR, Régnière J, Boulet B. 2000. Analysis and use of historical patterns of spruce budworm defoliation to forecast outbreak patterns in Quebec. For Ecol Manage 127:217–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gustafson EJ. 1998. Clustering timber harvests and the effect of dynamic forest management policy on forest fragmentation. Ecosystems 1:484–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gustafson EJ, Crow TR. 1996. Simulating the effects of alternative forest management strategies on landscape pattern. J Environ Manage 46:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gustafson EJ, Zollner PA, Sturtevant BR, He HS, Mladenoff DJ. 2004. Influence of forest management alternatives and land type on susceptibility to fire in northern Wisconsin, USA. Landsc Ecol 19:327–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. He HS, Mladenoff DJ. 1999. Spatially explicit and stochastic simulation of forest-landscape fire disturbance and succession. Ecology 80:81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hessburg PF, Salter RB, Smith BG. 1999. Detecting change in forest spatial patterns from reference conditions. Ecol Appl 9:1232–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hunter ML. 1993. Natural fire regimes as spatial models for managing boreal forests. Biol Conserv 65:115–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson DA. 1993. Stopping rules in principal components analysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74:2204–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. James PMA, Rayfield BR, Fortin M-J, Fall A, Farley G. 2005. Reserve network design combining spatial graph theory and species’ spatial requirements. Geomatica 59:323–33Google Scholar
  28. Johnson EA. 1992. Fire and vegetation dynamics: Studies from the North American boreal forest. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson EA, Van Wagner CE. 1985. The theory and use of two fire history models. Can J For Res 15:214–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson EA, Miyanishi K, Bridge SRJ. 2001. Wildfire regime in the boreal forest and the idea of suppression and fuel buildup. Conserv Biol 15:1554–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jongman RHJ, Ter Braak CJF, van Tongeren OFR, Eds. 1987. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Pucdoc, Wageningen: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  32. Kneeshaw DD, Leduc A, Drapeau P, Gauthier S, Pare D, Carignan R, Doucet R, Bouthillier L, Messier C. 2000. Development of integrated ecological standards of sustainable forest management at an operational scale. For Chron 76:481–93Google Scholar
  33. Lefort P, Gauthier S, Bergeron Y. 2003. The influence of fire weather and land use on the fire activity of the lake Abitibi area, eastern Canada. For Sci:509–21Google Scholar
  34. Li C, Ter-Mikaelian M, Perera AH. 1997. Temporal fire disturbance patterns on a forest landscape. Ecol Modell 99:137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li H, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Spies TA. 1993. Developing alternative cutting patterns: a simulation approach. Landsc Ecol 8:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGarigal K, Marks BJ. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. In: USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW–351Google Scholar
  37. Messier C, Kneeshaw DD. 1999. Thinking and acting differently for sustainable forest management. The Forestry Chronicle 75:929–38Google Scholar
  38. Nelson JD, Finn ST. 1991. The influence of cut block size and adjacency rules on harvest levels and road networks. Can J For Res 21:595–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nonaka E, Spies TA. 2005. Historical range of variability in landscape structure: A simulation study in Oregon, USA. Ecol Appl 15:1727–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Brien D, Manseau M, Fall A, Fortin M-J. 2006. Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biol Conserv 130:70–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Neil RV, Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, Jackson B, DeAngelis DL, Milne BT, Turner MG, Zygmunt B, Christensen SW, Dale VH, Graham RL. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 1:153–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paine RT, Tegner MJ, Johnson EA. 1998. Compounded perturbations yield ecological surprises. Ecosystems 1:535–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peres-Neto PR, Jackson DA, Somers KM. 2003. Giving meaningful interpretation to ordination axes: assessing loading significance in principal component analysis. Ecology 84:2347–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pielou EC. 1984. The interpretation of ecological data. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  45. R Development Core Team. 2005. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing ViennaGoogle Scholar
  46. Remmel TK, Csillag F. 2003. When are two landscape pattern indices significantly different? J Geogr Syst 5:331–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rowe JS. 1972. Forest regions of Canada. Ottawa: Information CanadaGoogle Scholar
  48. Schröder A, Persson L, De Roos AM. 2005. Direct experimental evidence for alternative stable states: a review. Oikos 110:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stocks BJ, Mason JA, Todd JB, Bosch EM, Wotton BM, Amiro BD, Flannigan MD, Hirsch KG, Logan KA, Martell DL, Skinner WR. 2002. Large forest fires in Canada, 1959–1997. J Geophys Res 108:8149. doi:8110.1029/2001JD000484 [printed 000108(D000481), 002003]
  50. Van Wagner CE. 1978. Age-class distribution and the forest fire cycle. Can J For Res 8:220–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wallin DO, Swanson FJ, Marks B. 1994. Landscape pattern response to changes in pattern generation rules: land-use legacies in forestry. Ecol Appl 4:569–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wallin DO, Swanson FJ, Marks B, Cissel JH, Kertis J. 1996. Comparison of managed and pre-settlement landscape dynamics in forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA. For Ecol Manage 85:291–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zollner PA, Gustafson EJ, He HS, Radeloff VC, Mladenoff DJ. 2005. Modeling the influence of dynamic zoning of forest harvesting on ecological succession in a northern hardwoods landscape. Environ Manage 35:410–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick M. A. James
    • 1
  • Marie-Josée Fortin
    • 2
  • Andrew Fall
    • 3
  • Dan Kneeshaw
    • 4
  • Christian Messier
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of ForestryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Gowlland Technologies LtdVictoriaCanada
  4. 4.Centre d’Étude de la forêt (CEF)Université du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations