Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 1–9 | Cite as

A national approach to leverage the benefits of tree planting on public lands

  • R. Kasten DumroeseEmail author
  • Nicole Balloffet
  • John W. Crockett
  • John A. Stanturf
  • Lucas E. Nave
Article
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

The number of global initiatives for forest restoration, and the scope of these initiatives, continues to increase. An important tool for meeting objectives of these global initiatives is reforestation, achieved by natural processes or by tree planting. Worldwide, organizations are challenged to most efficiently and effectively direct resources to the most critical reforestation needs. Currently in the United States, the reforestation efforts of the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, are challenged by changes in policy, funding, climate change, and mega-fires, to name a few, and identifying strategies for timely successful reforestation at scale is needed. A 2016 conference brought together reforestation experts from across North America to discuss potential benefits of reforestation activities in the face of mounting challenges from invasive species, wildfires, diseases, and climate change. As a result of that effort, here we provide background on the challenges confronting successful reforestation on lands managed by the Forest Service, and describe the six manuscripts in this special issue and their foci: barriers to natural regeneration, when to actively plant trees or not to ensure a heterogeneous landscape, ecological and economic concerns when reforestation is delayed, employing traditional and novel silvicultural techniques in support of reforestation, leveraging reforestation to improve resilience of species affected by introduced pests, and the potential carbon sequestration benefits of a robust reforestation program.

Keywords

Natural regeneration Tree planting Wildfire Climate change Diversity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the attendees and presenters that participated in the Reforestation Matters conference, the authors that contributed to this Special Issue, and the reviewers and editors of the articles within this Special Issue. We also thank Deborah M. Finch, James M. Guldin, Diane L. Haase, and Jonathan W. Long for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References

  1. Al-Hawija BN, Wagner V, Hensen I (2014) Genetic comparison between natural and planted populations of Pinus brutia and Cupressus sempervirens in Syria. Turk J Agric For 38:267–280.  https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-1211-24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernal B, Murray LT, Pearson TRH (2018) Global carbon dioxide removal rates from forest landscape restoration activities. Carbon Balance Manage 13:22.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-018-0110-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingham RT (1983) Blister rust resistant western white pine for the Inland Empire: The story of the first 25 years of the research and development program. USDA Forest Service, lntermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report INT-146, OgdenGoogle Scholar
  4. Burch F (2005) Twenty years of nursery history—a Forest Service perspective. In: Dumroese RK, Riley LE, Landis TD tech coords (eds) National proceedings: forest and conservation nursery associations—2004. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Proceedings RMRS-P-35: 69–72, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  5. Dennison PE, Brewer SC, Arnold JD, Moritz MA (2014) Large wildfire trends in the western United States, 1984–2011. Geophys Res Lett 41:2928–2933.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dey DC, Knapp BO, Battaglia ML, Deal RL, Hart JL, O’Hara KL, Schweitzer CJ, Schuler TM (2019) Barriers to natural regeneration in temperate forests across the USA. New For.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-09694-6 Google Scholar
  7. Dumroese RK, Landis TD, Barnett JP, Burch F (2005) Forest Service nurseries: 100 years of ecosystem restoration. J Forest 103:241–247.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/103.5.241 Google Scholar
  8. Dumroese RK, Williams MI, Stanturf JA, St Clair JB (2015) Considerations for restoring temperate forests of tomorrow: forest restoration, assisted migration, and bioengineering. New For 46:947–964.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-015-9504-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dumroese RK, Landis TD, Pinto JR, Haase DL, Wilkinson KM, Davis AS (2016) Meeting forest restoration challenges: using the Target Plant Concept. Reforesta 1:37–52.  https://doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.1.03.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fargione JE, Steven Bassett S, Boucher T et al (2018) Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci Adv 4:eaat1869.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat1869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW et al (2017) Natural climate solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:11645–11650.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guldin JM (2019) Silvicultural options in forests of the southern United States under changing climatic conditions. New For.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9656-2 Google Scholar
  13. Haase DL, Davis AS (2017) Developing and supporting quality nursery facilities and staff are necessary to meet global forest and landscape restoration needs. Reforesta 4:69–93.  https://doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.4.06.45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2011) The Global Restoration Initiative and the Bonn Challenge: restoring 150 million hectares by 2020. IUCN, Washington. http://www.bonnchallenge.org/content/united-states. Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  15. Iverson LR, Schwartz MW, Prasad AM (2004) Potential colonization of newly available tree-species habitat under climate change: an analysis for five eastern US species. Landscape Ecol 19:787–799.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-3990-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacobs DF, Dalgleish HJ, Nelson CD (2013) A conceptual framework for restoration of threatened plants: the effective model of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) reintroduction. New Phytol 197:378–393.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keyser AR, Westerling AL (2019) Predicting increasing high severity area burned for three forested regions in the western United States using extreme value theory. For Ecol Manage 432:694–706.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liang J, Crowther TW, Picard N, Wiser S, Zhou M, Alberti G (2016) Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354: aaf8957.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8957
  19. Liu Y, Goodrick SL, Stanturf JA (2013) Future U.S. wildfire potential trends projected using a dynamically downscaled climate change scenario. For Ecol Manage 294:120–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.06.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Locatelli B, Catterall CP, Imbach P, Kumar C, Lasco R, Marín-Spiotta E, Mercer B, Powers JS, Schwartz N, Uriarte M (2015) Tropical reforestation and climate change: beyond carbon. Restor Ecol 23:337–343.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nave LE, Walters BF, Hofmeister KL, Perry CH, Mishra U, Domke GM, Swanston CW (2019) The role of reforestation in carbon sequestration. New For.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9655-3 Google Scholar
  22. North MP, Stevens JT, Greene DF et al (2019) Reforestation for resilience in dry western U.S. forests. Forest Ecol Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.007 Google Scholar
  23. Odion DC, Frost EF, Strittholt JR, Jiang H, DellaSala DA, Moritz MA (2004) Patterns of fire severity and forest conditions in the western Klamath Mountains, California. Conserv Biol 18:927–936.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00493.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parrotta JA, Wildburger C, Mansourian S (eds) (2012) Understanding relationships between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people: the key to achieving REDD + objectives, vol 31. International Union of Forest Research Organizations, IUFRO World Series, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  25. Paul KI, Cunningham SC, England JR, Roxburgh SH, Preece ND, Lewis T, Brooksbank K, Crawford DF, Polglase PJ (2016) Managing reforestation to sequester carbon, increase biodiversity potential and minimize loss of agricultural land. Land Use Policy 51:135–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pawson SM, Brin A, Brockerhoff EG, Lamb D, Payn TW, Paquette A, Parrotta JA (2013) Plantation forests, climate change and biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 22:1203–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0458-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sample VA (2017) Potential for additional carbon sequestration through regeneration of nonstocked forest land in the United States. J Forest 115:309–318.  https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.2016-005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schoettle AW, Jacobi WR, Waring KM, Burns KS (2019) Regeneration for resilience framework to support regeneration decisions for species with populations at risk of extirpation by white pine blister rust. New For.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9679-8 Google Scholar
  29. Seidl R, Spies TA, Peterson DL, Stephens SL, Hicke JA (2016) Searching for resilience: addressing the impacts of changing disturbance regimes on forest ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 53:120–129.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silva LN, Freer-Smith P, Madsen P (2018) Production, restoration, mitigation: a new generation of plantations. New For.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9644-6 Google Scholar
  31. Stanturf JA, Palik BJ, Dumroese RK (2014) Contemporary forest restoration: a review emphasizing function. Ecology and Management 331:292–323.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.07.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stanturf JA, Kant P, Lillesø J-PB, Mansourian S, Kleine M, Graudal L, Madsen P (2015) Forest landscape restoration as a key component of climate change mitigation and adaptation, vol 34. International Union of Forest Research Organizations, IUFRO World Series, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  33. Stanturf JA, Madsen P, Sagheb-Talebi K, Hansen OK (2018) Transformational restoration: novel ecosystems in Denmark. Plant Biosystems 152:536–546.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2018.1435586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2016) Fact sheet: USDA’s building blocks for climate smart agriculture and forestry. USDA, Washington. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/building-blocks-implementation-plan-progress-report.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  35. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) (2005) A strategic assessment of forest biomass and fuel reduction treatments in Western States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-149, Fort Collins.  https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-149
  36. Valladares F, Matesanz S, Guilhaumon F et al (2014) The effects of phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation on forecasts of species range shifts under climate change. Ecol Lett 17:1351–1364.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. White MW, Long JW (2019) Understanding ecological contexts for active reforestation following wildfires. New For.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9675-z Google Scholar
  38. Williams GW (2000) The USDA forest service—the first century. USDA Forest Service, Washington. FS-650: 31‒33Google Scholar
  39. Williams MI, Dumroese RK (2013) Preparing for climate change: forestry and assisted migration. J Forest 111:287–297.  https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.13-016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Williams JW, Jackson ST (2007) Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises. Front Ecol Environ 5:475–482.  https://doi.org/10.1890/070037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang D (2019) Costs of delayed reforestation and failure to reforest. New For.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9676-y Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Kasten Dumroese
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nicole Balloffet
    • 2
  • John W. Crockett
    • 2
  • John A. Stanturf
    • 3
  • Lucas E. Nave
    • 4
  1. 1.U.S. Department of AgricultureForest Service, Rocky Mountain Research StationMoscowUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Department of AgricultureForest Service, Forest and Rangeland Management and Vegetation Ecology, National Forest SystemWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Chair of Forest Management Planning and Wood Processing TechnologiesEstonian University of Life SciencesTartuEstonia
  4. 4.Biological Station and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganPellstonUSA

Personalised recommendations