Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Collaborative scenario modeling reveals potential advantages of blending strategies to achieve conservation goals in a working forest landscape

Abstract

Context

Broad-scale land conservation and management often involve applying multiple strategies in a single landscape. However, the potential outcomes of such arrangements remain difficult to evaluate given the interactions of ecosystem dynamics, resource extraction, and natural disturbances. The costs and potential risks of implementing these strategies make robust evaluation critical.

Objectives

We used collaborative scenario modeling to compare the potential outcomes of alternative management strategies in the Two Hearted River watershed in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to answer key questions: Which management strategies best achieve conservation goals of maintaining landscape spatial heterogeneity and conserving mature forests and wetlands? And how does an increase in wildfire and windthrow disturbances influence these outcomes?

Methods

Scenarios were modeled using the VDDT/TELSA state-and-transition modeling suite, and resulting land cover maps were analyzed using ArcGIS, FRAGSTATS, and R statistical software.

Results

Results indicate that blending conservation strategies, such as single-ownership forest reserves and working forest conservation easements in targeted areas of the landscape, may better achieve these goals than applying a single strategy across the same area. However, strategies that best achieve these conservation goals may increase the sensitivity of the landscape to changes in wildfire and windthrow disturbance regimes.

Conclusions

These results inform decision-making about which conservation strategy or combination of strategies to apply in specific locations on the landscape to achieve optimum conservation outcomes, how to best utilize scarce financial resources, and how to reduce the financial and ecological risks associated with the application of innovative strategies in an uncertain future.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Baker M, Kusel J (2003) Community forestry in the United States: learning from the past, crafting the future. Island Press, Washington, DC

  2. Beyer DE, Homan L, Ewert DN (1997) Ecosystem management in the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan: a case history. Landsc Urban Plan 38:199–211. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00034-0

  3. Block A, Hartigan K, Heiser R, Horner G, Lewandowski L, Mulvihill-kuntz J, Thorn S (2004) Trends in easement language and status of current monitoring on working forest conservation easements. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. http://www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt//pubs/wfce/wfcecomplete.pdf

  4. Boutin S, Herbert D (2002) Landscape ecology and forest management: developing an effective partnership. Ecol Appl 12:390–397

  5. Cardille JA, Ventura SJ, Turner MG (2001) Environmental and social factors influencing wildfires in the Upper Midwest, USA. Ecol Appl 11:111–127

  6. Cheng CS, Lopes E, Fu C, Huang Z (2014) Possible impacts of climate change on wind gusts under downscaled future climate conditions: updated for Canada. J Clim 27:1255–1270. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00020.1

  7. Cleland DT, Avers PE, McNab WH, Jensen ME, Bailey RG, King T, Russell WE (1997) National hierarchical framework of ecological units. In: Boyce MS, Haney A (eds) Ecosystem management: applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, London, pp 181–200

  8. Cleland DT, Crow TR, Saunders SC, Dickmann DI, Maclean AL, Jordan JK, Watson RL, Sloan AM, Brosofske KD (2004) Characterizing historical and modern fire regimes in Michigan (USA): a landscape ecosystem approach. Landscape Ecol 19:311–325

  9. Cleland DT, Freeouf JA, Keys JE, Nowacki GJ, Carpenter CA, McNab WH (2007) Ecological subregions: sections and subsections of the conterminous United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-76B. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

  10. Comer P, Faber-Langendoen D, Evans R, Gawler S, Josse C, Kittel G, Menard S, Pyne M, Reid M, Schulz K, Snow K, Teague J (2003) Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA

  11. Coniglio MC, Stensrud DJ (2004) Interpreting the climatology of derechos. Weather Forecast 19:595–605

  12. Core Team R (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

  13. Coreau A, Pinay G, Thompson JD, Cheptou P-O, Mermet L (2009) The rise of research on futures in ecology: rebalancing scenarios and predictions. Ecol Lett 12:1277–1286

  14. Costanza JK, Hulcr J, Koch FH, Earnhardt T, McKerrow AJ, Dunn RR, Collazo JA (2012) Simulating the effects of the southern pine beetle on regional dynamics 60 years into the future. Ecol Modell 244:93–103. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.06.037

  15. Costanza JK, Abt RC, McKerrow AJ, Collazo JA (2015a) Linking state-and-transition simulation and timber supply models for forest biomass production scenarios. AIMS Environ Sci 2:180–202. doi:10.3934/environsci.2015.2.180

  16. Costanza JK, Terando AJ, McKerrow AJ, Collazo JA (2015b) Modeling climate change, urbanization, and fire effects on Pinus palustris ecosystems of the southeastern U.S. J Environ Manag 151:186–199. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.032

  17. Côté P, Tittler R, Messier C, Kneeshaw DD, Fall A, Fortin MJ (2010) Comparing different forest zoning options for landscape-scale management of the boreal forest: possible benefits of the TRIAD. For Ecol Manag 259:418–427. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.038

  18. Crow TR, Buckley DS, Nauertz EA, Zasada JC (2002) Effects of management on the composition and structure of northern hardwood forests in Upper Michigan. For Sci 48:129–145

  19. Cuddington K, Fortin M-J, Gerber LR, Hastings A, Liebhold A, O’Connor M, Ray C (2013) Process-based models are required to manage ecological systems in a changing world. Ecosphere 4: art20. doi: 10.1890/ES12-00178.1

  20. Cushman SA, McKenzie D, Peterson DL, Littell J, McKelvey KS (2007) Research agenda for integrated landscape modeling. Gen. Techn. Report RMRS-GTR-194. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp 1–53

  21. Dale VH, Joyce LA, McNulty S, Neilson RP, Ayres MP, Flannigan MD, Hanson PJ, Irland LC, Lugo AE, Peterson CJ, Simberloff D, Swanson FJ, Stocks BJ, Wotton BM (2001) Climate change and forest disturbances. Bioscience 51:723–734

  22. Daniel C, Frid L (2012) Predicting landscape vegetation dynamics using state-and-transition simulation models. In: Kerns BK, Shlisky AJ, Daniel CJ (eds) Proceedings of the first landscape state-and-transition simulation modelling conference, June 14–16, 2011. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-869. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, pp 5–22

  23. Daniels SE, Walker GB (2001) Working through environmental conflict: the collaborative learning approach. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT

  24. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912

  25. Diffenbaugh NS, Scherer M, Trapp RJ (2013) Robust increases in severe thunderstorm environments in response to greenhouse forcing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:16361–16366. doi:10.1073/pnas.1307758110

  26. Drescher M, Perera A, Buse L, Ride K, Vasiliauskas S (2008) Uncertainty in expert knowledge of forest succession: a case study from boreal Ontario. For Chron 84:194–209

  27. Drever CR, Bergeron Y, Drever MC, Flannigan M, Logan T, Messier C (2009) Effects of climate on occurrence and size of large fires in a northern hardwood landscape: historical trends, forecasts, and implications for climate change in Temiscamingue, Quebec. Appl Veg Sci 12:261–272

  28. Drobyshev I, Goebel P, Bergeron Y, Corace R (2012) Detecting changes in climate forcing on the fire regime of a North American mixed-pine forest: a case study of Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Michigan. Dendrochronologia 30:137–145

  29. Duveneck MJ, Scheller RM, White MA (2014a) Effects of alternative forest management on biomass and species diversity in the face of climate change in the northern Great Lakes region (USA). Can J For Res 44:700–710

  30. Duveneck MJ, Scheller RM, White MA, Handler SD, Ravenscroft C (2014b) Climate change effects on northern Great Lake (USA) forests : a case for preserving diversity. Ecoshpere 5:1–26. doi:10.1890/ES13-00370.1

  31. ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute) (2008) ArcGIS: Release 9.3 [software]. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA

  32. Fairfax SK, Gwin L, King MA, Raymond L, Watt LA (2005) Buying nature: the limits of land acquisition as a conservation strategy, 1780–2004. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p 360

  33. Fassnacht KS, Bronson DR, Palik BJ, Amato AWD, Lorimer CG, Martin KJ (2015) Accelerating the development of old-growth characteristics in second-growth northern hardwoods. Gen. Tech. Report NRS-144. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA

  34. Flannigan M, Stocks B, Turetsky M, Wotton M (2009) Impacts of climate change on fire activity and fire management in the circumboreal forest. Glob Chang Biol 15:549–560

  35. Forbis TA, Provencher L, Frid L, Medlyn G (2006) Great basin land management planning using ecological modeling. Environ Manag 38:62–83

  36. Franklin JF, Mitchell RJ, Palik BJ (2007) Natural Disturbance and stand development principles for ecological forestry, Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA

  37. Gibson CC, McKean MA, Ostrom E (2000) People and forests: communities, institutions, and governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  38. Gregory R, Ohlson D, Alvai J (2006) Deconstructing adaptive management: criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecol Appl 16:2411–2425

  39. Gustafson EJ (2013) When relationships estimated in the past cannot be used to predict the future: using mechanistic models to predict landscape ecological dynamics in a changing world. Landscape Ecol 28:1429–1437. doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9927-4

  40. Gustafson EJ, Sturtevant B, Fall A (2006a) A collaborative, iterative approach to transferring modeling technology to land managers. In: Perera A, Buse L, Crow T (eds) Forest landscape ecology: transferring knowledge to practice. Springer, New York, pp 43–64

  41. Gustafson EJ, Lytle DE, Swaty R, Loehle C (2006b) Simulating the cumulative effects of multiple forest management strategies on landscape measures of forest sustainability. Landscape Ecol 22:141–156

  42. Gustafson EJ, Sturtevant BR, Shvidenko AZ, Scheller RM (2011) Using landscape disturbance and succession models to support forest management. In: Li C, Lafortezza R, Chen J (eds) Landscape ecology in forest management and conservation: challenges and solutions in a changing globe. Springer, New York, pp 99–118

  43. Guyette RP, Thompson FR, Whittier J, Stambaugh MC, Dey DC (2014) Future fire probability modeling with climate change data and physical chemistry. For Sci 60:862–870

  44. Halofsky JE, Hemstrom MA, Conklin DR, Halofsky JS, Kerns BK, Bachelet D (2013) Assessing potential climate change effects on vegetation using a linked model approach. Ecol Modell 266:131–143. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.07.003

  45. Halofsky JS, Halofsky JE, Burcsu T, Hemstrom MA (2014) Dry forest resilience varies under simulated climate-management scenarios in a central Oregon, USA landscape. Ecol Appl 24:1908–1925

  46. Hanson JJ, Lorimer CG, Halpin CR, Palik BJ (2012) Ecological forestry in an uneven-aged, late-successional forest: simulated effects of contrasting treatments on structure and yield. For Ecol Manag 270:94–107. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.01.017

  47. He HS (2008) Forest landscape models: definitions, characterization, and classification. For Ecol Manag 254:484–498

  48. Hemstrom MA, Merzenich J, Reger A, Wales B (2007) Integrated analysis of landscape management scenarios using state and transition models in the upper Grande Ronde River Subbasin, Oregon, USA. Landsc Urban Plan 80:198–211. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.10.004

  49. Hulse DW, Branscomb A, Payne SG (2004) Envisioning alternatives: using citizen guidance to map future land and water use. Ecol Appl 14:325–341

  50. Janowiak MK, Iverson LR, Mladenoff DJ, Peters E, Wythers KR, Xi W, Brandt LA, Butler PR, Handler SD, Shannon PD, Swanston C, Parker LR, Amman AJ, Bogaczyk B, Handler C, Lesch E, Reich PB, Matthews S, Peters M, Prasad A, Khanal S, Liu F, Bal T, Bronson D, Burton A, Ferris J, Fosgitt J, Hagan S, Johnston E, Kane E, Matula C, O’Connor R, Higgins D, St. Pierre M, Daley J, Davenport M, Emery MR, Fehringer D, Hoving CL, Johnson G, Neitzel D, Notaro M, Rissman A, Rittenhouse C, Ziel R (2014) Forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis for Northern Wisconsin and Western Upper Michigan: a report from the Northwoods climate change response framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-136. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA

  51. Karamanski TJ (1989) Deep woods frontier: a history of logging in Northern Michigan. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI

  52. Keane RE, Holsinger LM, Parsons RA, Gray K (2008) Climate change effects on historical range and variability of two large landscapes in western Montana, USA. For Ecol Manag 254:375–389. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.08.013

  53. Kerns BK, Hemstrom MA, Conklin D, Yospin GI, Johnson B, Bachelet D, Bridgham S (2012) Approaches to incorporating climate change effects in state and transition simulation models of vegetation. In: Kerns BK, Shlisky AJ, Daniel CJ (eds) Proceedings of the first landscape state-and-transition simulation modeling conference, June 14–16, 2011. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-869. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, pp 161–172

  54. Kimmins JP, Blanco JA, Seely B, Welham C, Scoullar K (2008) Complexity in modelling forest ecosystems: how much is enough? For Ecol Manag 256:1646–1658. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.03.011

  55. Kurz WA, Beukema SJ, Klenner W, Greenough JA, Robinson DCE, Sharpe AD, Webb TM (2000) TELSA: the tool for exploratory landscape scenario analyses. Comput Electron Agric 27:227–242

  56. LANDFIRE (2007a) Homepage of the LANDFIRE Project. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, http://www.landfire.gov/index.php

  57. LANDFIRE (2007b) LANDFIRE National Vegetation Dynamics Models. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, http://landfire.gove/NationalProductDescriptions24.php

  58. Low G, Provencher L, Abele S (2010) Enhanced conservation action planning: assessing landscape condition and predicting benefits of conservation strategies. J Conserv Plan 6:36–60

  59. ESSA Technologies Ltd (2007) Vegetation dynamics development tool user guide, Version 6.0. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC. Available at the following web site: http://www.essa.com/documents/vddt/VDDT-60-User-Guide.pdf

  60. ESSA Technologies Ltd (2008) TELSA: tool for exploratory landscape scenario analyses, model description, Version 3.6. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC. Available at the following web site: http://www.essa.com/documents/telsa/ModelDescription.pdf

  61. Mahmoud M, Liu Y, Hartmann H, Stewart S, Wagener T, Semmens D, Stewart R, Gupta H, Dominguez D, Dominguez F, Hulse D, Letcher R, Rashleigh B, Smith C, Street R, Ticehurst J, Twery M, van Deldenp H, Waldick R, White D, Winter L (2009) A formal framework for scenario development in support of environmental decision-making. Environ Model Softw 24:798–808

  62. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Available at the following web site: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats

  63. McGowan D (2010) The big UP deal. The nature conservancy, Washington, DC. Available at the following web site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdcCiUP6FIA

  64. Merenlender AM, Huntsinger L, Guthey G, Fairfax SK (2004) Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom? Conserv Biol 18:65–75

  65. Meyer SR, Johnson ML, Lilieholm RJ, Cronan CS (2014) Development of a stakeholder-driven spatial modeling framework for strategic landscape planning using bayesian networks across two Urban-rural gradients in maine. Ecol Model 291:42–57. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.06.023

  66. Michigan-DNR (2009) Sustainable soil and water quality practices on forest land, IC4011. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI

  67. Michigan-DNR (2012) Draft eastern upper peninsula regional state forest management plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI

  68. Michigan-DNR (2014a) Commercial forest program. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. Available at the following web site: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-30301_34240_68191—,00.html

  69. Michigan-DNR (2014b) Qualified forest program. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. Available at the following web site:http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1599_28740—,00.html

  70. Mladenoff DJ, Hotchkiss S (2009) Bracing for Impact: Climate Change and Wisconsin Forest Ecosystems. Wisconsin Public Television, Madison, WI

  71. Nassauer JI, Corry RC (2004) Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 19:343–356

  72. National Research Council (2014) Advancing land change modeling: opportunities and research requirements. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

  73. Nixon K, Silbernagel J, Price J, Miller N, Swaty R (2014) Habitat availability for multiple avian species under modeled alternative conservation scenarios in the Two Hearted River watershed in Michigan, USA. J Nat Conserv 22:302–317

  74. Ostrom E, Nagendra H (2006) Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:19224–19231

  75. Peterson CJ (2000) Catastrophic wind damage to North American forests and the potential impact of climate change. Sci Total Environ 262:287–311

  76. Peterson GD, Cumming GS, Al E (2003) Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv Biol 17:358–366

  77. Pilkey OH, Pilkey-Jarvis L (2007) Useless arithmetic: why environmental scientists can’t predict the future. Columbia University Press, New York, NY

  78. Plummer R, FitzGibbon J (2007) Connecting adaptive co-management, social learning, and social capital through theory and practice. In: Armitage DR, Berkes F, Doubleday NC (eds) Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, pp 38–61

  79. Pretty J (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302:1912–1914

  80. Price J, Silbernagel J, Miller N, Swaty R, White M, Nixon K (2012) Eliciting expert knowledge to inform landscape modeling of conservation scenarios. Ecol Modell 229:76–87

  81. Provencher L, Anderson T (2011) Climate change revisions to Nevada’s Wildlife Action Plan: vegetation mapping and modeling report to the Nevada Department of Wildlife. The Nature Conserv, Reno, NV

  82. Provencher L, Forbis T, Frid L, Medlyn G (2007) Comparing alternative management strategies of fire, grazing, and weed control using spatial modeling. Ecol Modell 209:249–263

  83. Radeloff VC, Mladenoff DJ, Gustafson EJ, Scheller RM, Zollner PA, He HS, Akçakaya HR (2006) Modeling forest harvesting effects on landscape pattern in the Northwest Wisconsin Pine Barrens. For Ecol Manag 236:113–126

  84. Rissman AR, Sayre NF (2012) Conservation outcomes and social relations: a comparative study of private ranchland conservation easements. Soc Nat Resour 25:523–538

  85. Rissman A, Bihari M, Hamilton C, Locke C, Lowenstein D, Motew M, Price J, Smail R (2013) Land management restrictions and options for change in perpetual conservation easements. Environ Manage 52:277–288

  86. Scheller RM, Mladenoff DJ (2007) An ecological classification of forest landscape simulation models: tools and strategies for understanding broad-scale forested ecosystems. Landscape Ecol 22:491–505

  87. Scheller RM, Mladenoff DJ (2008) Simulated effects of climate change, fragmentation, and inter-specific competition on tree species migration in northern Wisconsin, USA. Clim Res 36:191–202

  88. Schulte LA, Mladenoff DJ (2005) Severe wind and fire regimes in northern forests: historical variability at the regional scale. Ecology 86:431–445

  89. Schulte LA, Mladenoff DJ, Crow TR, Merrick LC, Cleland DT (2007) Homogenization of northern US Great Lakes forests due to land use. Landscape Ecol 22:1089–1103

  90. Seymour RS, Hunter MLJ (1992) New forestry in eastern spruce-firt forests: principles and applications to Maine, Miscellaneous Publication 716, Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. University of Maine, Orono, ME

  91. Silbernagel J, Price J, Swaty R, Miller N (2011) The next frontier: projecting the effectiveness of broad-scale forest conservation strategies. In: Li C, Lafortezza R, Chen J (eds) Landscape ecology in forest management and conservation: challenges and solutions in a changing globe. Springer, New York, pp 209–230

  92. Stueve KM, Perry CH, Nelson MD, Healey SP, Hill AD, Moisen GG, Cohen WB, Gormanson DD, Huang C (2011) Ecological importance of intermediate windstorms rivals large, infrequent disturbances in the northern Great Lakes. Ecosphere 2: art2. doi: 10.1890/ES10-00062.1

  93. Taylor PJ (2005) Unruly complexity: ecology, interpretation, Engagement. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

  94. TNC (2005) Michigan: Northern great lakes forest project. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC. Available at the following web site: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/michigan/placesweprotect/northern-great-lakes-forest-project.xml

  95. TNC (2010) Big UP deal finally done! largest conservation project in Michigan’s history successfully closes. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC. Available at the following web site: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/michigan/newsroom/the-nature-conservancy-in-michigan-big-up-deal-finally-done-largest-con.xml

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

  97. WICCI (2011) Wisconsin’s changing climate: impacts and adaptation. Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI

  98. Winkler JA, Arritt RW, Pryor SC (2012) Climate projections for the midwest: availability, interpretation and synthesis. In: Winkler J, Andresen J, Hatfield J et al. (coordinators) US National Climate Assessment Midwest Technical Input Report. Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessment (GLISA) Center, Ann Arbor, MI

  99. Wisconsin-DNR (2012) Silviculture and forest aesthetics handbook. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI

  100. Zhang Q, Pregitzer KS, Reed DD (1999) Catastrophic disturbance in the presettlement forests of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Can J For Res 29:106–114. doi:10.1139/x98-184

  101. Zollner PA, Roberts LJ, Gustafson EJ, He HS, Radeloff V (2008) Influence of forest planning alternatives on landscape pattern and ecosystem processes in northern Wisconsin, USA. For Ecol Manag 254:429–444

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded with support from The Nature Conservancy’s Rodney Johnson/Katherine Ordway Stewardship Endowment grant, USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry Redesign, the Doris Duke Conservation Fellowship Program sponsored by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the NSF IGERT Fellowship Program (DGE- 0,549,407), and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Special thanks to Melissa Motew for help with climate data analysis, to all of the experts that contributed to this project, and to Eric Gustafson and four anonymous reviewers for critical feedback that improved this manuscript.

Author information

Correspondence to Janet Silbernagel.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 303422 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Price, J.M., Silbernagel, J., Nixon, K. et al. Collaborative scenario modeling reveals potential advantages of blending strategies to achieve conservation goals in a working forest landscape. Landscape Ecol 31, 1093–1115 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0321-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Landscape scenarios
  • Forest landscape modeling
  • State and transition modeling
  • Working forest conservation easement
  • Conservation planning
  • Stakeholder engagement