Literature DB >> 16922213

Preemptive and salvage harvesting of New England forests: when doing nothing is a viable alternative.

David R Foster1, David A Orwig.   

Abstract

One unexpected consequence of natural disturbances in forested areas is that managers often initiate activities that may impose greater ecosystem impacts than the disturbances themselves. By salvage logging areas affected by windstorms or other impacts, by harvesting host trees in advance of insect infestation or disease, or by preemptively harvesting forests in an attempt to improve their resilience to future disturbances and stresses, managers initiate substantial changes in the ecosystem structure and function. Much of this activity is undertaken in the absence of information on the qualitative and quantitative differences between disturbance impacts and harvesting. To provide insight for such decisions we evaluated the ecosystem consequences of two major disturbance processes in New England (US.A.)--intense windstorms and invasive pests and pathogens-and contrasted them with impacts from preemptive and salvage harvesting. Despite dramatic physical changes in forest structure resulting from hurricane impacts and insect infestation, little disruption of biogeochemical processes or other ecosystem functions typically follows these disturbances. Indeed, the physical and organic structures produced by these disturbances are important natural features providing habitat and landscape heterogeneity that are often missing due to centuries of land use. From an ecosystem perspective there are strong arguments against preemptive and salvage logging or the attempt through silvicultural means to improve the resistance or resilience of forests to disturbance and stress. There are often valid motivations for salvage or preemptive logging including financial considerations, human safety, and a desire to shape the long-term composition and resource-production characteristics of forests. Nonetheless, there are many ecological benefits derived from leaving forests alone when they are affected or threatened by disturbances and pest and pathogen outbreaks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16922213     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00495.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  7 in total

1.  Perspectives on disconnects between scientific information and management decisions on post-fire recovery in Western US.

Authors:  Xiaoli Chen; Nathan Emery; Elizabeth S Garcia; Erin J Hanan; Heather E Hodges; Tyronne Martin; Matthew A Meyers; Lindsey E Peavey; Hui Peng; Jaime Sainz Santamaria; Kellie A Uyeda; Sarah E Anderson; Christina Tague
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in US forests.

Authors:  Songlin Fei; Randall S Morin; Christopher M Oswalt; Andrew M Liebhold
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Not all kinds of revegetation are created equal: revegetation type influences bird assemblages in threatened Australian woodland ecosystems.

Authors:  David B Lindenmayer; Amanda R Northrop-Mackie; Rebecca Montague-Drake; Mason Crane; Damian Michael; Sachiko Okada; Philip Gibbons
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-06       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Four centuries of change in northeastern United States forests.

Authors:  Jonathan R Thompson; Dunbar N Carpenter; Charles V Cogbill; David R Foster
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Dynamic Responses of Ground-Dwelling Invertebrate Communities to Disturbance in Forest Ecosystems.

Authors:  Kayla I Perry; Daniel A Herms
Journal:  Insects       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 2.769

6.  Interacting factors driving a major loss of large trees with cavities in a forest ecosystem.

Authors:  David B Lindenmayer; Wade Blanchard; Lachlan McBurney; David Blair; Sam Banks; Gene E Likens; Jerry F Franklin; William F Laurance; John A R Stein; Philip Gibbons
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Foundation species loss affects vegetation structure more than ecosystem function in a northeastern USA forest.

Authors:  David A Orwig; Audrey A Barker Plotkin; Eric A Davidson; Heidi Lux; Kathleen E Savage; Aaron M Ellison
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 2.984

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.