Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Predicting altered connectivity of patchy forests under group selection silviculture

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Group selection silviculture creates canopy openings that can alter connectivity in patchy forests, thereby affecting wildlife movement and fire behavior. We examined effects of group selection silviculture on percolation (presence of continuously forested routes across a landscape) in Sierra Nevada East-side pine forest in northern California, USA. Four ~ 250 ha project areas were analyzed at three map resolutions in three ways: analyzing forest cover maps for percolation before and after group-selection treatment, placing simulated group openings in forest cover maps until fragmentation occurred, and comparing project areas to neutral maps that varied in forest cover and self-adjacency. Two project areas were fragmented (i.e., did not percolate) prior to treatment, one resisted fragmentation, and the other became fragmented by treatment when analyzed at 30 m cell resolution. Median simulated openings required to create fragmentation agreed well with the actual number. There was a well-defined transition between percolating and non-percolating neutral maps; increased aggregation of forest lowered the critical value at which forests percolated. A logistic model based on these maps predicted percolation behavior of the project areas effectively, but alternative generating algorithms gave slightly different predictions. A graph of this model provides a straightforward way to visualize how close a landscape is to fragmentation based on its forest cover and aggregation. In East-side Sierran landscape, fragmentation from group-selection openings may make the landscape less hospitable to the American marten but more resistant to crown fire.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Anderson SR, Family F (1988) Percolation in an interactive cluster-growth model. Phys Rev A 38(8):6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevers M, Omi PN, Hof J (2004) Random location of fuel treatments in wildland community interfaces: a percolation approach. Can J Forest Res 34:164–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell J, Troyer JD (2004) Record of decision: Sierra Nevada forest plan amendment final supplemental environmental impact statement. USDA forest service management bulletin R5-MB-046, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California

  • Boswell GP, Britton NF, Franks NR (1998) Habitat fragmentation, percolation theory and the conservation of a keystone species. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1921–1925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2(10):529–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • California Interagency Wildlife Task Group (2005) Users manual for version 8.1 of the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System and Bioview. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaway RM, DeLucia EH, Moore D et al (1994) Competition and facilitation: contrasting effects of Artemisia tridentata on desert vs. montane pines. Ecology 77(7):2131–2140

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapin TG, Harrison DJ, Katnik DD (1998) Influence of landscape pattern on habitat use by American marten in an industrial forest. Conserv Biol 12:196–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chayes JT, Chayes L, Durret R (1988) Connectivity properties of Mandelbrot’s percolation process. Probab Theory Rel 77:307–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLucia EH, Schlesinger WH, Billings WD (1988) Water relations and the maintenance of Sierran conifers on hydrothermally altered rock. Ecology 69:303–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyre FH (ed) (1980) Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (1997) Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. J Wildlife Manage 61:603–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finney MA (2001) Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior. Forest Sci 47(2):219–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF, Forman RT (1987) Creating landscape patterns by cutting: ecological consequences and principles. Landscape Ecol 1:5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF, Graber D, Johnson KN et al (1997) Alternative approaches to conservation of late-successional forest in the Sierra Nevada and their evaluation. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: status of the Sierra Nevada: final report to congress: Addendum, Wildland Resource Center Report No. 40. University of California, Davis, pp 53–70

  • Godbaut G, Ouellet J-P (2008) Habitat selection of American marten in a logged landscape at the southern fringe of the boreal forest. Ecoscience 15(3):332–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ (2003) Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landscape Ecol 18(7):687–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinnell J, Dixon J, Linsdale JM (1937) Fur-bearing mammals of California. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ, Parker GR (1992) Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecol 7(2):101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL (1998) The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 13:167–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove WW, Gardner RH, Turner MG et al (2000) Simulating fire patterns in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Model 135:243–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He FL, Hubbell SP (2003) Percolation theory for the distribution and abundance of species. Phys Rev Lett 91:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms JA (1980) The California region. In: Barrett JW (ed) Regional silviculture of the United States. Wiley, New York, pp 391–446

    Google Scholar 

  • HFQLG (1998) The Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. P.L. 103–354, Section 401(j), Oct 1998

  • Hilborn R, Mangel M (1997) The ecological detective: confronting models with data. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Keitt TH (2000) Spectral representation of neutral landscapes. Landscape Ecol 15:479–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmins H (1992) Balancing act: environmental issues in forestry. UBC Press, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk TA, Zielinski WJ (2009) Developing and testing a landscape habitat suitability model for the American marten (Martes americana) in the Cascades mountains of California. Landscape Ecol 24:759–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucera TE, Zielinski WJ, Barrett RH (1995) Current distribution of the American marten, Martes americana, in California. California Fish and Game 81(3):96–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudenslayer WF, Darr HH, Smith S (1989) Historical effects of forest management practices on eastside pine communities in northeastern California. Multiresource Management of Ponderosa pine forest. RMRS-GTR-185, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station

  • Leak WB, Filip SM (1977) Thirty-eight years of group selection in New England northern hardwoods. J Forest 75:641–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiberg JB (1902) Forest conditions in the northern Sierra Nevada, California. Forestry. Professional Paper No. 8, Series H, Forestry, 5, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC

  • Li BL (2001) Applications of fractal geometry and percolation theory to landscape analysis and assessments. In: Jensen ME, Bourgeron PS (eds) A guidebook for integrated ecological assessments. Springer, New York, pp 200–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ et al (1993) Developing alternative forest cutting patterns: a simulation approach. Landscape Ecol 8(1):63–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Fischer J (2006) General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 131(3):433–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald PM, Fiddler GO et al (2009) Naturally seeded versus planted ponderosa pine seedlings in group-selection openings. West J Appl For 24(1):48–54

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey KS, Weatherspoon CP (1992) Projected trends in owl habitat. In: Verner J, McKelvey KS, Noon BR, et al (eds) The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California, pp 261–273

  • Metzger JP, Decamps H (1997) The structural connectivity threshold: an hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecol 18(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller C, Urban DL (2000) Connectivity of forest fuels and surface fire regimes. Landscape Ecol 15:145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne BT, Johnson AR, Keitt TH et al (1996) Detection of critical densities associated with piñon-juniper woodland ecotones. Ecology 77(3):805–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mönkkönen M, Reunanen P (1999) On critical thresholds in landscape connectivity: a management perspective. Oikos 84(2):302–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahmias J, Tephany H, Duarte J et al (2000) Fire spreading experiments on heterogeneous fuel beds. Applications of percolation theory. Can J Forest Res 30:1318–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1991) Landscape connectivity: different functions at different scales. In: Hudson WE (ed) Landscape linkages and biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, pp 27–39

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1992) A hierarchical neutral model for landscape analysis. Landscape Ecol 7(1):55–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson GD (2002) Estimating resilience across landscapes. Conservation Ecology 6(1):17. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art17/

    Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar D (2008) Lattice: multivariate data visualization with R. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer WD, Barrett RH, Zielinski WJ (1983) Marten habitat preferences in the northern Sierra Nevada. J Wildlife Manage 47(4):1181–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spyratos V, Bourgeron PS, Ghil M (2007) Development at the wildland-urban interface and the mitigation of forest-fire risk. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:14272–14276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stauffer D, Aharony A (1985) Introduction to percolation theory. Taylor and Francis, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Szymura JM, Barton NH (1986) Genetic analysis of a hybrid zone between the firebellied toads near Cracow in southern Poland. Evolution 40(6):1141–1159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Romme WH (1994) Landscape dynamics in crown fire ecosystems. Landscape Ecol 9(1):59–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallin DO, Swanson FJ, Marks B (1994) Landscape pattern response to changes in pattern generation rules: land-use legacies in forestry. Ecol Appl 4(3):569–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Schooley RL, Weeks RD (1997) Patch landscapes and animal movements: do beetles percolate? Oikos 78(2):257–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With KA (1997) The application of neutral landscape models in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 11(5):1069–1080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With KA (2002) Using percolation theory to assess landscape connectivity and effects of habitat fragmentation. In: Gutzwiller K (ed) Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer, New York, pp 105–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Zielinski WJ, Truex RL, Schlexer FV et al (2005) Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. J Biogeogr 32(8):1385–1407

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Patti Millet of the Plumas National Forest staff encouraged our interest in group selection silviculture in East-side pine types. Wendell Cropper suggested simulating placement of group selection openings. Programming assistance was provided by the True Basic users’ forum and Lora Murphy. Michael Papaik and two anonymous reviewers provided comments that improved the manuscript. Research was funded by the Joint Fire Sciences Program and Region 5 of The Forest Service.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 1731 Research Park Drive, Davis, CA, 95618, USA

    Seth W. Bigelow

  2. Aldo Leopold Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 790 E. Beckwith Ave, Missoula, MT, 59801, USA

    Sean A. Parks

Authors
  1. Seth W. Bigelow
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sean A. Parks
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seth W. Bigelow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bigelow, S.W., Parks, S.A. Predicting altered connectivity of patchy forests under group selection silviculture. Landscape Ecol 25, 435–447 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9421-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9421-1

Keywords