Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Oak Conservation and Restoration on Private Forestlands: Negotiating a Social-Ecological Landscape

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the midwestern United States, oak (Quercus spp.) forests are considered critical habitat for conserving biodiversity and are a declining resource. Ecological conditions, such as deer herbivory and competition from more mesic broad-leaved deciduous species, have been linked to poor oak regeneration. In the Midwest, where up to 90% of forestland is privately owned, a greater understanding of social dimensions of oak regeneration success is especially critical to designing effective restoration strategies. We sought to determine factors that serve as direct and indirect constraints to oak restoration and identify policy mechanisms that could improve the likelihood for restoration success. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 32 natural resource professionals working in the Midwest Driftless Area. We found that most professionals anticipate that oak will remain only a component of the future forest. Furthermore, they identified the general unwillingness of landowners to adopt oak restoration practices as a primary driving force of regional forest change. The professionals pointed to interdependent ecological and social factors, occurring at various scales (e.g., economic cost of management, deer herbivory, and exurban residential development) as influencing landowner oak restoration decisions. Professionals emphasized the importance of government cost-share programs and long-term personal relationships to securing landowner acceptance of oak restoration practices. However, given finite societal resources, ecologically- and socially-targeted approaches were viewed as potential ways to optimize regional success.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams MD, Nowacki GJ (1992) Historical variation in fire, oak recruitment, and post- logging accelerated succession in central Pennsylvania. Bull Torrey Bot Club 119:19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert DA (1995) Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. General Technical Report NC-178. USDA Forest Service, St. Paul, MN, 250 pp

  • Allen EB (2003) New directions and growth of restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 11:1–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askins RA (2001) Sustaining biological diversity in early successional communities: the challenge of managing unpopular habitats. Wildl Soc Bull 29:407–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Cowling RM (2006) Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology. Conserv Biol 20:692–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baughman MJ, Jacobs RD (1992) Woodland owners’ guide to oak management. Pub-FO-05938. Minnesota Extension Service. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss JC (2000) Public perceptions of clearcutting. J For 98(12):4–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss JC, Martin AJ (1989) Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Science 35:601–622

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. J For 102:4–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, DeFries R, Dietz T, Mooney HA, Polasky S, Reid WV, Scholes RJ (2006) Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science 314:257–258

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crow TR, Host GE, Mladenoff DJ (1999) Ownership and ecosystem as sources of spatial heterogeneity in a forested landscape, Wisconsin, USA. Landscape Ecol 14:449–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1999) Managing Earth’s ecosystems: an interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 2:277–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Söederqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Ehrlich PR, Folke C, Jansson A-M, Jansson B-O, Kautsky N, Levin S, Lubchenco J, Mäler K-G, Simpson D, Starrett D, Tilman D, Walker B (2000) The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289:395–396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Esterberg KG (2002) Qualitative methods in social research. McGraw-Hill, Boston 256 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer AP, Bliss JC (2008) Behavioral assumptions of conservation policy: conserving oak habitat on family-forest land in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Conserv Biol 22:275–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fralish JS (2004) The keystone role of oak and hickory in the central hardwood forest. In: Spetich MA (ed) Upland oak ecology symposium: history, current conditions, and sustainability. General Technical Report SRS-73. USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NC, pp 78–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Fralish JS, Crooks FB, Chambers JL, Harty FM (1991) Comparison of presettlement, second- growth and old-growth forest on six site types in the Illinois Shawnee Hills. Am Midl Nat 125:294–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gass RJ, Rickenbach M, Schulte LA, Zeuli K (2009) Cross-boundary coordination on forested landscapes: investigating alternatives for implementation. Environ Manage 43:107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH (1999) An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal 18:54–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH, Rickenbach MG (2004) Private forestland parcelization and development in Wisconsin’s Northwoods: perceptions of resource-oriented stakeholders. Landscape and Urban Planning 69:165–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilty J, Merenlender AM (2003) Studying biodiversity on private lands. Conserv Biol 17:132–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ (2007) Setting effective and realistic restoration goals: key directions for research. Restor Ecol 15:354–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ, Harris JA (2001) Restoration ecology: repairing the Earth’s ecosystems in the new millennium. Restor Ecol 9:239–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull RB, Robertson DP, Buhyoff GJ (2004) “Boutique” forestry: new forest practices in urbanizing landscapes. J For 102:14–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntsinger L, Buttolph R, Hopkinson P (1997) Ownership and management changes on California hardwood rangelands: 1985 to 1992. J Range Manag 50:423–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (2005) Forest Stewardship spatial analysis project. Accessed 15 Jan 2009: http://www.fs.fed.us/na/sap/products/ia.shtml

  • Kendra A, Hull RB (2005) Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. For Sci 51:142–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittredge DB (2004) Extension/outreach implications for America’s family forest owners. J For 102:15–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittredge DB (2005) The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: international examples and potential application in the United States. For Policy Econ 7:671–688

    Google Scholar 

  • Litvaitis JA (1993) Response of early successional vertebrates to historic changes in land use. Conserv Biol 7:866–873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McShea WJ, Healy WM (2002) Oaks and acorns as a foundation for ecosystem management. In: McShea WJ, Healy WM (eds) Oak forest ecosystems: ecology and management for wildlife. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller R, Hobbs RJ (2007) Habitat restoration–do we know what we’re doing? Restor Ecol 15:382–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motzkin G, Foster DR (2002) Grasslands, heathlands and shrublands in coastal New England: historical interpretations and approaches to conservation. J Biogeogr 29:1569–1590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman WL (2003) Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA 592 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowacki GJ, Abrams MD (2008) The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. Bioscience 58:123–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowacki GJ, Abrams MD, Lorimer CG (1990) Composition, structure, and historical development of northern red oak stands along an edaphic gradient in north-central Wisconsin. For Sci 36:276–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA 688 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Povak NA, Lorimer CG, Guries RP (2008) Altering successional trends in oak forests: 19 year experimental results of low- and moderate-intensity silvicultural treatments. Can J For Res 38:2880–2895

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior JC (1991) Landforms of Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA 168 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • QSR International (2006) NVivo 7. QSR International, Victoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI (2005) Rural and suburban sprawl in the U.S. Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and its relation to forest fragmentation. Conserv Biol 19:793–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickenbach M, Zeuli K, Sturgess-Cleek E (2005) Despite failure: the emergence of “new” forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. Scand J For Res 20:503–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo DM, Garbelotto M (2003) Sudden oak death: endangering California and Oregon forest ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 1:197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JG (2006) Conservation Biology and real-world conservation. Conserv Biol 20:658–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodewald AD, Abrams MD (2002) Floristics and avian community structure: implications for regional changes in eastern forest composition. For Sci 48:267–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooney TP, Waller DM (2003) Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 181:165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson N, DeCoster L (2000) Forest fragmentation: implications for sustainable private forests. J For 98(3):4–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A, Ingram H (1990) Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. J Politics 52:510–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA 272 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SO, Lorimer CG (2003) Loss of oak dominance in dry-mesic deciduous forests predicted by gap capture methods. Plant Ecol 167:71–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theobald DM (2005) Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society 10:32. Accessed 15 Jan 2009: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32/

  • USDA Forest Service (2005) Forest inventory and analysis data base retrieval system. Accessed online 15 Jan 2009: http://www.ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/fim21/wcfim21.asp

  • West PC, Fly JM, Blahna DJ, Carpenter EM (1988) The communication and diffusion of NIPF management strategies. North J Appl For 5:265–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (2005) Wisconsin’s strategy for wildlife species of greatest conservation need. Pub-ER-641, Madison, WI

Download references

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank the research participants for sharing their experiences. Project guidance and insightful review comments were provided by R. Atwell, B. Danielson, N. Grudens-Schuck, L. Merrick, J. Miller, B. Palik, A. Pierce, and J. Tyndall. W. Throop and two anonymous reviewers offered valuable suggestions on previous manuscript drafts. C. Eberle, B. Jan, A. MacDonald, K. Smith, and M. Boyd participated in transcribing interviews. We received funding from the USDA Forest Service – Northern Research Station and Iowa State University. T. Knoot was a research fellow with the U.S. EPA – STAR Graduate Fellowship Program. EPA has not officially endorsed this publication and the views expressed herein may not reflect the views of EPA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, 339 Science II, Ames, IA, 50011, USA

    Tricia G. Knoot & Lisa A. Schulte

  2. Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Tricia G. Knoot & Mark Rickenbach

Authors
  1. Tricia G. Knoot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa A. Schulte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Rickenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tricia G. Knoot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knoot, T.G., Schulte, L.A. & Rickenbach, M. Oak Conservation and Restoration on Private Forestlands: Negotiating a Social-Ecological Landscape. Environmental Management 45, 155–164 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9404-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9404-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation