Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 179–187 | Cite as

The effect of Appalachian mountaintop mining on interior forest

  • J. D. Wickham
  • K. H. Riitters
  • T. G. Wade
  • M. Coan
  • C. Homer
Report

Abstract

Southern Appalachian forests are predominantly interior because they are spatially extensive with little disturbance imposed by other uses of the land. Appalachian mountaintop mining increased substantially during the 1990s, posing a threat to the interior character of the forest. We used spatial convolution to identify interior forest at multiple scales on circa 1992 and 2001 land-cover maps of the Southern Appalachians. Our analyses show that interior forest loss was 1.75–5.0 times greater than the direct forest loss attributable to mountaintop mining. Mountaintop mining in the southern Appalachians has reduced forest interior area more extensively than the reduction that would be expected based on changes in overall forest area alone. The loss of Southern Appalachian interior forest is of global significance because of the worldwide rarity of large expanses of temperate deciduous forest.

Keywords

Appalachian mountains Coal mining Edge effects Forest loss Interior forest 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper has been subjected to the US Environmental Protection Agency peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication. The work was performed at the USFS/USEPA Center for Landscape Pattern Analysis. We thank Dave Bradford, Taylor Jarnagin and two anonymous reviewers for their comments of an earlier draft of the paper.

References

  1. Beaulac MN, Reckhow KH (1982) Examination of land use-nutrient export relationships. Water Resources Bull 18:1013–1024Google Scholar
  2. Burns SLS (2005) Bringing down the mountains: The impact of mountaintop removal surface coal mining on southern West Virginia communities, 1970–2004. Ph.D. Dissertation. West Virginia University, Morgantown, West VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groots R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fahrig L (2002) Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold. Ecol Appl 12:346–353Google Scholar
  5. Foster DR, Motzkin G, Slater B (1998) Land-use history as long-term broad-scale disturbance: regional forest dynamics in central New England. Ecosystems 1:96–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fox J (1999) Mountaintop removal in West Virginia. Organ Environ 12:163–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frink CR (1991) Estimating nutrient exports to estuaries. J Environ Qual 20:717–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fry J (2005) Land-cover change detection – a comparison of two datasets National Land Cover Database Project and Land Cover Trends Project Internal Report. Science Applications International Corporation, United States Geological Survey, EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls SD, p 105Google Scholar
  9. Harper KA, MacDonald SE, Burton PJ et al (2005) Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 19:768–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hayden BP (1998) Ecosystem feedbacks on climate at the landscape scale. Philos Trans R Soc London B 353:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hinkle CR, McComb WC, Safely JM et al (1993) Mixed mesophytic forests. In: Martin WH, Boyce SG, Echternacth AC (eds) Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States Upland Terrestrial Communities. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Homer C, Huang C, Yang L et al (2004) Development of a 2001 national land-cover database for the United States. Photogrammet Eng Remote Sens 70:829–840Google Scholar
  13. Jones KB, Neale AC, Nash MS et al (2001) Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: A multiple watershed study from the United States mid-Atlantic region. Landsc Ecol 16:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Vasconcelos HL et al (2002) Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conserv Biol 16:605–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marshall CH, Pielke RA Sr, Steyaert LT et al (2004) The impact of anthropogenic land-cover change on the Florida peninsula sea breezes and warm season sensible weather. Month Weather Rev 132:28–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. O’Neill RV and Kahn JR (2000) Homo economus as a keystone species. Bioscience 50:333–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pickering J, Kays R, Meier A et al(2003) The Appalachians. In: Gil PR, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, et al (eds), Wilderness Earth’s Last Wild Places. Conservation International, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Pielke RA Sr, Marland G, Betts RA et al (2002) The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases. Philos Trans R Soc London A 360:1705–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ramaharitra T (2006) The effects of anthropogenic disturbances on the structure and composition of rain forest vegetation. Trop Resource Bull 25:32–37Google Scholar
  20. Riitters KH, Coulston JW, Wickham JD (2003) Localizing national fragmentation statistics with forest type maps. J Forestry 101:18–22Google Scholar
  21. Riitters KH, Wickham JD, O’Neill RV et al (2000). Global scale patterns of forest fragmentation. Conserv Ecol 4(2):3 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss2/art3/ Google Scholar
  22. Riitters KH, Wickham JD, O’Neill RV et al (2002) Fragmentation of continental United States forests. Ecosystems 5:815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robinson SK, Thompson FR III, Donovan TM et al (1995) Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory songbirds. Science 267:1987–1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. SAMAB (Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere) (1996) The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Technical Report. Report 5 of 5 US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA (4 August 2006; http://www.samab.org/saa/saa_reports.html)
  25. Skole D, Tucker C (1993) Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science 260:1905–1910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott JM, Jennings MD (1998) Large-area mapping of biodiversity. Ann Mo Bot Gard 85:34–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slonecker ET, Lacerte MJ (2001) Remote sensing and mountaintop mining. Remote Sens Rev 20:293–322Google Scholar
  28. Szwilski TB, Dulin BE, Hooper JW (2001) An innovative approach to managing the impacts of mountaintop coal mining in West Virginia. Int J Surf Mining, Reclam Environ 15: 73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. TLPJ (Trial Lawyers for Public Justice) (1999) (4 August 2006; http://www.tlpj.org/briefs/mountpi.htm.)
  30. US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2005) Mountaintop mining/valley fills in Appalachia: final programmatic environmental impact statement (FPEIS). Philadelphia, PA Report no. EPA 9-03-R-05002. [Publication EPA 9-03-R-05002 contains only the comments on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) and ancillary information. Technical information is contained in the DPEIS [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency Mid-Atlantic Mountaintop Mining (4 August 2006; http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/eis.htm)
  31. Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Larson CR et al (2001) Completion of the 1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States from Landsat Thematic Mapper data and ancillary data sources. Photogrammet Eng Remote Sens 67:650–662Google Scholar
  32. Weakland CA, Wood PB (2005) Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) microhabitat and landscape-level habitat characteristics in southern West Virginia. The Auk 122:497–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weathers KC, Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2001) Forest edges as nutrient and pollutant concentrators: potential synergisms between fragmentation, forest canopies, and the atmosphere. Conserv Biol 15:1506–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Westman WE (1977) How much are nature’s services worth? Science 197:960–964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wickham JD, Riitters KH, Wade TG et al (2005) Evaluating the relative roles of ecological regions and land-cover composition for guiding establishment of nutrient criteria. Landsc Ecol 20:791–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. D. Wickham
    • 1
  • K. H. Riitters
    • 2
  • T. G. Wade
    • 1
  • M. Coan
    • 3
  • C. Homer
    • 3
  1. 1.National Exposure Research LaboratoryU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle Park (E243-05)USA
  2. 2.U.S. Forest ServiceSouthern Forest Research StationResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  3. 3.Science Applications International CorporationU.S. Geological Survey, EROS Data CenterSioux FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations