Environmental Management

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 479–485 | Cite as

Restoring naturalness to national parks

  • Thomas M. Bonnicksen
  • Edward C. Stone


National park resource management planning requires ecological information describing the objectives to be achieved. This information must be quantitative and unambiguous. Since most acts creating United States national parks, beginning with the Yellowstone National Park Act of 1872, specify that these parks should be maintained in a natural condition, resource management objectives for each national park must be defined in terms of quantitative standards of naturalness. Such quantitative standards of naturalness do not yet exist for any national park in the United States. Although this article focuses on US national parks, the same problem exists in national parks, reserves, and wilderness areas throughout the world. The physical evidence needed to develop quantitative standards of naturalness is rapidly disappearing because of the effects of management fires, wildfires, decomposition, successional changes, and other disturbances. Therefore, a nationwide “rescue ecology” program is recommended to recover as much remaining ecological information as possible before it is lost. This information is essential for developing quantitative standards to restore naturalness to national parks.

Key words

National parks Management fire Rescue ecology Standards for naturalness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Barrett, S. W., and S. F. Arno. 1982. Indian fires as an ecological influence in the northern Rockies.Journal of Forestry 80:647–651.Google Scholar
  2. Bonnicksen, T. M., and E. C. Stone. 1981. The giant sequoiamixed conifer forest community characterized through pattern analysis as a mosaic of aggregations.Forest Ecology and Management 3:307–328.Google Scholar
  3. Bonnicksen, T. M., and E. C. Stone. 1982a. Managing vegetation within U.S. national parks: a policy analysis.Environmental Management 6:101–102 and 109–122.Google Scholar
  4. Bonnicksen, T. M., and E. C. Stone. 1982b. Reconstruction of a presettlement giant sequoia-mixed conifer forest community using the aggregation approach.Ecology 63:1134–1148.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, D. E., C. H. Lowe, and C. P. Page. 1980. A digitized systematic classification for ecosystems with an illustrated summary of the natural vegetation of North America. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mt. Forest and Range Experiment Station, general technical report RM-73. 93 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Daubenmire, R., and J. Daubenmire. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Pullman, WA: Washington Agricultural Experiment Station technical bulletin 60. 104 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Gramann, J. H. 1979. Current issues in archaeological resource management.Journal of Man 11:3–40.Google Scholar
  8. Kilgore, B. M. 1983. Fire management programs in national parks and wilderness. Pages 61–91in Proceedings, symposium on fire: its field effects, Jackson, WY, 20–22 October 1982.Google Scholar
  9. Kilgore, B. M. 1984. What is “natural” in wilderness fire management? Proceedings, wilderness fire symposium, Missoula, MO, 15–18 November 1983.Google Scholar
  10. Kilgore, B. M., and D. Taylor. 1979. Fire history of a sequoia-mixed conifer forest.Ecology 60:129–142.Google Scholar
  11. Layser, E. F. 1974. Vegetative classification: its application to forestry in the northern Rocky Mountains.Journal of Forestry 72:354–357.Google Scholar
  12. Leopold, A. S., S. A. Cain, C. M. Cottam, I. N. Gabrielson, and T. L. Kimball. 1963. Wildlife management in the national parks.American Forests 69:32–35 and 61–63.Google Scholar
  13. Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia. 574 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Parsons, D. J., D. M. Graber, J. K. Agee, and J. W. van Wagtendonk. 1984. Natural fire management in national parks.Environmental Management (in press).Google Scholar
  15. Pfister, R. D., B. L. Kovalchik, S. F. Arno, and R., C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Ogden, VT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, general technical report INT-34. 174 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Potter, M. W., and S. R. Kessell. 1980. Predicting mosaics and wildlife diversity resulting from fire disturbance to a forest ecosystem.Environmental Management 4:247–254.Google Scholar
  17. Stone, E. C. 1965. Preserving vegetation in parks and wilderness.Science 150:1261–1267.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas M. Bonnicksen
    • 1
  • Edward C. Stone
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ForestryUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forestry and Resource ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations