Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Assessing the Effects of Fire Disturbances and Timber Management on Carbon Storage in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accurate characterization of Carbon (C) consequences of forest disturbances and management is critical for informed climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. While research into generalized properties of the forest C cycle informs policy and provides abstract guidance to managers, most management occurs at local scales and relies upon monitoring systems that can consistently provide C cycle assessments that explicitly apply to a defined time and place. We used an inventory-based forest monitoring and simulation tool to quantify C storage effects of actual fires, timber harvests, and forest regeneration conditions in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Results show that (1) the 1988 fires had a larger impact on GYE’s C storage than harvesting during 1985–2011; (2) continuation of relatively high harvest rates of the region’s National Forest land, which declined after 1990, would have shifted the disturbance agent primary importance on those lands from fire to harvest; and (3) accounting for local heterogeneity of post-disturbance regeneration patterns translates into large regional effects on total C storage. Large fires in 1988 released about 8.3 ± 0.3 Mg/ha of C across Yellowstone National Park (YNP, including both disturbed and undisturbed area), compared with total C storage reductions due to harvest of about 2.3 ± 0.3 Mg/ha and 2.6 ± 0.2 Mg/ha in adjacent Caribou-Targhee and Gallatin National Forests, respectively, from 1985–2011. If the high harvest rates observed in 1985–1989 had been maintained through 2011 in GYE National Forests, the C storage effect of harvesting would have quintupled to 10.5 ± 1.0 Mg/ha, exceeding the immediate losses associated with YNP’s historic fire but not the longer-term net loss of carbon (16.9 ± 0.8 Mg/ha). Following stand-replacing disturbance such as the 1988 fires, the actual regeneration rate was slower than the default regional average rate assumed by empirically calibrated forest growth models. If regeneration following the 1988 fire had reached regionally average rates, either through different natural circumstances or through more active management, YNP would have had approximately 4.1 Mg/ha more forest carbon by year 2020. This study highlights the relative effects of fire disturbances and management activities on regional C storage, and demonstrates a forest carbon monitoring system that can be both applied consistently across the US and tailored to questions of specific local management interest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson N, Young J, Stockmann K, Skog K, Healey S, Loeffler D, Jones JG, Morrison J (2013) Regional and forest-level estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from the United States Forest Service Northern Region, 1906–2010. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, p 114

  • Bachelet D, Ferschweiler K, Sheehan TJ, Sleeter BM, Zhu ZL (2015) Projected carbon stocks in the conterminous USA with land use and variable fire regimes. Glob Change Biol 21:4548–4560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyers JL (2004) Postfire seeding for erosion control: effectiveness and impacts on native plant communities. Conserv Biol 18:947–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond WJ, Woodward FI, Midgley GF (2005) The global distribution of ecosystems in a world without fire. New Phytol 165:525–538

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boryan C, Yang Z, Mueller R, Craig M (2011) Monitoring US agriculture: the US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cropland Data Layer Program. Geocarto Int 26:341–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford JB, Fraver S, Milo AM, D'Amato AW, Palik B, Shinneman DJ, (2012) Effects of multipleinteracting disturbances and salvage logging on forest carbon stocks. Forest Ecology and Management 267:209–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burroughs RH, Clark TW (1995) Ecosystem management: a comparison of Greater Yellowstone and Georges Bank. Environ Manag 19:649–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspersen JP, Pacala SW, Jenkins JC, Hurtt GC, Moorcroft PR, Birdsey RA (2000) Contributions of land-use history to carbon accumulation in US forests. Science 290:1148–1151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Chen J, Cihlar J (2000) An integrated terrestrial ecosystem carbon-budget model based on changes in disturbance, climate, and atmospheric chemistry. Ecol Modell 135:55–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DeFries R (2008) Terrestrial vegetation in the coupled human-earth system: contributions of remote sensing. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:369–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugan AJ, Birdsey R, Healey SP, Pan Y, Zhang F, Mo G, Chen J, Woodall CW, Hernandez AJ, McCullough K, McCarter JB, Raymond CL, Dante-Wood K (2017) Forest sector carbon analyses support land management planning and projects: assessing the influence of anthropogenic and natural factors. Clim Change 144:207–220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2015) Global forest resources assessment 2015: how have the world’s forests changed? Rome, Italy

  • Franks S, Masek JG, Turner MG (2013) Monitoring forest regrowth following large scale fire using satellite data-A case study of Yellowstone National Park, USA. Eur J Remote Sens 46:551–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French NH, Goovaerts P, Kasischke ES (2004) Uncertainty in estimating carbon emissions fromboreal forest fires. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 109(D14)

  • Girod C, Hurtt G, Frolking S, Aber J, King A (2007) The tension between fire risk and carbon storage: evaluating US carbon and fire management strategies through ecosystem models. Earth Interact 11:1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu H, Williams CA, Ghimire B, Zhao F, Huang CQ (2016) High-resolution mapping of time since disturbance and forest carbon flux from remote sensing and inventory data to assess harvest, fire, and beetle disturbance legacies in the Pacific Northwest. Biogeosciences 13:6321–6337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey SP, Yang Z, Cohen WB, Pierce DJ (2006) Application of two regression-based methods to estimate the effects of partial harvest on forest structure using Landsat data. Remote Sens Environ 101:115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey SP, Raymond CL, Lockman IB, Hernandez AJ, Garrard C and Huang C (2016) Root disease can rival fire and harvest in reducing forest carbon storage. Ecosphere 7

  • Healey SP, Urbanski SP, Patterson PL, Garrard C (2014) A framework for simulating map error in ecosystem models. Remote Sens Environ 150:207–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurtt G, Pacala S, Moorcroft P, Caspersen J, Shevliakova E, Houghton R, Moore B (2002) Projecting the future of the US carbon sink. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:1389–1394

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hurtt GC, Dubayah R, Drake J, Moorcroft PR, Pacala SW, Blair JB, Fearon MG (2004) Beyond potential vegetation: combining lidar data and a height-structured model for carbon studies. Ecol Appl 14:873–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashian DM, Romme WH, Tinker DB, Turner MG, Ryan MG (2006) Carbon storage on landscapes with stand-replacing fires. Bioscience 56:598–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashian DM, Romme WH, Tinker DB, Turner MG, Ryan MG (2013) Postfire changes in forest carbon storage over a 300‐year chronosequence of Pinus contorta‐dominated forests. Ecol Monogr 83:49–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane RE, Ryan KC, Veblen TT, Allen CD, Logan JA and Hawkes B (2002) Cascading effects of fire exclusion in Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature review. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p 24.

  • Liu S, Bond-Lamberty B, Hicke J, Vargas R, Zhao S, Chen J, Edburg S, Hu Y, Liu J, McGuire A, Xiao J, Keane R, Yuan W, Tang J, Luo Y, Potter C and Oeding J (2011) Simulating the impacts of disturbances on forest carbon cycling in North America: Processes, data, models, and challenges J Geophys Res Biogeosci 116

  • Marland E, Domke G, Hoyle J, Marland G, Bates L, Helms A, Jones B, Kowalczyk T, Ruseva TB and Szymanski C (2017) Understanding and analysis: the California Air Resources Board Forest Offset Protocol. Springer

  • McGuire AD, Sitch S, Clein JS, Dargaville R, Esser G, Joos F, Heimann M, Joos F, Kaplan J, Kicklighter DW, Meier RA, Melillo JM, Moore III B, Prentice I, Ramankutty N, Reichenau T, Schloss A, Tian H, Williams LJ, Wittenberg U (2001) Carbon balance of the terrestrial biosphere in the twentieth century: analyses of C02, climate and land use effects with four process-based ecosystem models. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 15:183–206

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meng R, Dennison PE, Huang C, Moritz MA, D’Antonio C (2015) Effects of fire severity and post-fire climate on short-term vegetation recovery of mixed-conifer and red fir forests in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Remote Sens Environ 171:311–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng R, Wu J, Schwager KL, Zhao F, Dennison PE, Cook BD, Brewster K, Green TM, Serbin SP (2017) Using high spatial resolution satellite imagery to map forest burn severity across spatial scales in a Pine Barrens ecosystem. Remote Sens Environ 191:95–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng R, Wu J, Zhao F, Cook BD, Hanavan RP, Serbin SP (2018) Measuring short-term post-fire forest recovery across a burn severity gradient in a mixed pine-oal forest using multi-sensor remote sensing techniques. Remote Sens Environ 210:282–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng R, Zhao F (2017) Remote sensing characterization of burn effects—burned area and burn severity. In: G. Petropoulos & T. Islam, Remote sensing of hydrometeorological hazards. Taylor and Francis, Clevland, OH, pp 261–281.

  • Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl 17:2145–2151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North M, Stephens S, Collins B, Agee J, Aplet G, Franklin J, Fule PZ (2015) Reform forest fire management. Science 349:1280–1281

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell BM, Conkling BL, Wilson AM, Burrill EA, Turner JA, Pugh SA, Christiansen G, Ridley T, Menlove J (2017) The forest inventory and analysis database: database description and user guide version 7.0 for Phase 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, p 830

  • Ouzts J, Kolb T, Huffman D, Meador AS (2015) Post-fire ponderosa pine regeneration with and without planting in Arizona and New Mexico. For Ecol Manag 354:281–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell JG (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CL, Healey SP, Peduzzi A, Patterson PL (2015) Representative regional models of post-disturbance forest carbon accumulation: Integrating inventory data and a growth and yield model. For Ecol Manag 336:21–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robichaud PR, Lewis SA, Brown RE, Ashmun LE (2009) Emergency post-fire rehabilitation treatment effects on burned area ecology and long-term restoration. Fire Ecol Spec Issue 5:115–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Running SW and Hunt ER (1993) Generalization of a forest ecosystem process model for other biomes, BIOME-BGC, and an application for global-scale models. In J. R. Ehleringer and C. B. Field (eds): Scaling physiological processes: leaf to globe. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, pp 141–158.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smithwick EAH, Ryan MG, Kashian DM, Romme WH, Tinker DB and Turner MG (2009) Modeling the effects of fire and climate change on carbon and nitrogen storage in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Glob Change Biol 15: 535-548

  • Smithwick EAH, Westerling AL, Turner MG, Romme WH and Ryan MG (2011) Questioning greater Yellowstone’s future: climate, land use, and invasive species. In: Anderson C (ed) Proceedings of the 10th biennial scientific conference on the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, 11–13 October, Yellowstone National Park: Yellowstone Center for Resources

  • Stockmann KD, Anderson NM, Skog KE, Healey SP, Loeffler DR, Jones G, Morrison JF (2012) Estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from the United States forest service northern region, 1906–2010. Carbon Balance Manag 7:1–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas RQ, Hurtt GC, Dubayah R, Schilz MH (2008) Using lidar data and a height-structured ecosystem model to estimate forest carbon stocks and fluxes over mountainous terrain. Can J Remote Sens 34:S351–S363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JR, Spies TA and Ganio LM (2007) Reburn severity in managed and unmanaged vegetation in a large wildfire. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104: 10743-10748

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, MG, Romme, WH, Gardner, RH (1999) Prefire heterogeneity, fire severity, and early postfire plant reestablishment in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. International Journal of Wildland Fire 9(1): 21-36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner DP, Ritts WD, Kennedy RE, Gray AN, Yang Z (2015) Effects of harvest, fire, and pest/pathogen disturbances on the West Cascades ecoregion carbon balance. Carbon Balance Manag 10:12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turner DP, Ritts WD, Yang Z, Kennedy RE, Cohen WB, Duane MV, Thornton PE, Law BE (2011) Decadal trends in net ecosystem production and net ecosystem carbon balance for a regional socioecological system. For Ecol Manag 262:1318–1325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Whitby TG, Tinker DB, Romme WH (2016) Twenty‐four years after the Yellowstone fires: are postfire lodgepole pine stands converging in structure and function? Ecology 97:1260–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. (2012) National Forest System Land Management Planning.Washington, DC

  • Williams CA, Collatz GJ, Masek J and Goward SN (2012) Carbon consequences of forest disturbance and recovery across the conterminous United States. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 26

  • Williams CA, Gu H, MacLean R, Masek JG, Collatz GJ (2016) Disturbance and the carbon balance of US forests: a quantitative review of impacts from harvests, fires, insects, and droughts. Glob Planet Change 143:66–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao F, Huang C, Zhu Z (2015a) Use of vegetation change tracker and support vector machine to map disturbance types in greater Yellowstone ecosystems in a 1984-2010 landsat time series IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 12:1650–1654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao F, Keane R, Zhu Z, Huang C (2015b) Comparing historical and current wildfire regimes in the Northern Rocky Mountains using a landscape succession model For Ecol Manag 343:9–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao F, Meng R, Huang C, Zhao M, Zhao F, Gong P, Yu L, Zhu Z (2016) Long-term post-disturbance forest recovery in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem analyzed using landsat time series stack. Remote Sens 8:898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng D, Heath LS, Ducey MJ and Smith JE (2011) Carbon changes in conterminous US forests associated with growth and major disturbances: 1992–2001. Environ Res Lett 6(1):014012

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by US Geological Survey LandCarbon Program, and we also would like to thank the Inventory and Monitoring Program of the Rocky Mountain Research Station and NASA’s Applied Science and Carbon Monitoring System (16-CMS16-0065) programs for additional support. The authors would like to thank Dr. Alexander Hernandez from Utah State University for sharing his experience in mapping of initial C condition and disturbance magnitudes, Dr. Jin Wu and Dr. Ran Meng from Brookhaven National Laboratory for discussion, and Dr. Kathrine Rice and Dr. Kim Ely for proof reading.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feng Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, F., Healey, S.P., Huang, C. et al. Assessing the Effects of Fire Disturbances and Timber Management on Carbon Storage in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Environmental Management 62, 766–776 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1073-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1073-y

Keywords

Navigation