New Hybrid Protected Lands Layer for Vermont Conservation Design Analysis (February 2019)

This shapefile (.shp) is a hybrid of the March 2017 Edition of the Vermont Center for Geographic Information\u27s (VCGI) Vermont Protected Lands Database (VPLD), the Vermont Land Trust\u27s February 2019 Protected Lands database, and The Nature Conservancy\u27s Secured Areas (SA 2018+) database. The VLT and SA 2018+ datasets were used as the scaffolding for the hybrid protected lands layer, with some VCGI VPLD polygons retained if they contained unique contributions. These datasets were combined by C.D. Loeb because each input dataset was missing some protected lands polygons in the state of Vermont. Additionally, the VCGI VPLD dataset contained many overlapping polygons, making it unusable for the area calculations of interest to our study on the overlap between formally protected lands and Vermont Conservation Design landscape-level targets (see publication reference). This hybrid protected lands layer creates a more complete snapshot of Vermont’s protected lands for our study’s purposes than any other known, publicly available dataset as of February 2019, and also corrects for all improperly overlapping polygons. However, we know that this hybrid product still does not capture all of Vermont\u27s protected lands. Specifically, some Upper Valley Land Trust-protected parcels are missing from this hybrid protected lands layer, and there are probably other protected parcels that could not be captured by the input datasets. Thus, our hybrid product will likely underrepresent actual protections. This layer was created to intersect with Vermont Conservation Design targets for input into the software Tableau. Its purpose was to perform cross tabulations to compare Vermont Conservation Design targets with protected lands in Vermont to-date, and to calculate acreages of protected lands that are also design targets by primary protecting agency. All parcel attributes and delineations in the hybrid output are only as good as the parent datasets. In areas where parcels were digitized differently between parent datasets, “slivers” may have been generated by merging them. Our study objectives originally included an analysis of the GAP Status of protected lands in Vermont (reflected in this layer\u27s metadata); however, some serious errors were detected in parent datasets with regards to GAP Status, so GAP Status was discarded as an analysis object. Please note author-identified GAP Status issues if using this dataset. Please see the shapefile\u27s metadata for detailed creation steps. The user implies knowledge of the limitations of this dataset. This dataset should not be used to ascertain boundaries or legal acreages for any parcels. Note: This version of the hybrid protected lands layer does not have county boundaries embedded in it nor waterbodies excluded from it, since it was created to capture all formally protected lands in the state of Vermont to the best of the authors’ abilities. Prior to use in our analysis, this layer was modified to exclude waterbodies and to introduce county boundaries. To obtain the same hybrid protected lands layer with county boundaries embedded in it and waterbodies excluded from it, please contact C. D. Loeb at [email protected]

In Memoriam: John H. Mansfield

I met John Mansfield in 1968 at the house of a mutual friend. A few months later I started Harvard Law School and was pleased to find I had been assigned to his section of Torts. I had some pretty good teachers that year - Lon Fuller for Contracts, Lloyd Weinreb for Criminal Law, and the great Jack Dawson for Development of Legal Institutions - but I think John was the best of them. (Right up there with Dawson, anyway.) His method was not like anything I had expected from law school. He would have us look at a case one or two pages long and examine every sentence of it, teaching us patiently, by trial and error - mostly error, as it happened - to speak precisely when we spoke, to make sure we got the meaning, or the range of possible meanings, exactly right. I was initially baffled by this method because my interest in law was, and remains, primarily sociological and historical: I want to know what causes legal change, and what happens in social life as a result of that change. John\u27s internal point of view and exacting textual and logical approach to legal doctrine struck me as awfully dry and rather alien. One of the best decisions I ever made was not to fight the approach but to swim along with it and learn to practice it. I never got to be as good at it as John was, but I still hear his voice speaking through mine when I teach first-year Contracts and ask students for better and sharper approximations of what they are trying to say. What John\u27s example taught was to look at every recital of facts, every statement of a legal premise or conclusion, every policy judgment, with fresh eyes - even if one has seen it a hundred times before and thinks he knows what it means. Nothing was too familiar, banal, seemingly obvious, or seemingly absurd to escape that gimlet gaze and probing scalpel. I worked as his research assistant in the summer after my first year, helping him put together historical materials for what became his course on Church and State: he gave me a lot of rope and was fascinated by everything we found. With John one learned what it means to recover radical innocence as a state of mind before an idea or a text

Long-Term Soil Productivity Study: 25-Year Vegetation Response to Varying Degrees of Disturbance in Aspen-Dominated Forest Spanning the Upper Lake States

Installations of the Long-Term Soil Productivity Study were established in northern Minnesota and Michigan at the Chippewa, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests (NFs) in the early 1990s and have since provided a wealth of data for assessing the response of aspen-dominated forest ecosystems to varying levels of organic matter removal and soil compaction. An assessment of 25-year standing woody biomass indicates that neither whole-tree harvest nor whole-tree harvest combined with forest floor removal reduced forest productivity on silt-loam soils compared with conventional, stem-only harvest; however, moderate and heavy compaction did negatively impact aspen biomass and stem densities. In contrast, whole-tree harvest reduced standing biomass of aspen and all species combined on sandy soils at the Huron NF while compaction had no discernable impact. Neither treatment factor affected vegetation response at the Ottawa NF (clay soils), but reduced sample size at this site may have increased variability. Over all, the response of standing biomass and forest structure to organic matter removal and compaction treatments demonstrate that the sustainability of practices such as whole-tree harvesting and associated potential for soil impacts varies with site conditions, even when stands are dominated by the same species (e.g., Populus tremuloides)

Influence of Mature Overstory Trees on Adjacent 12-Year Regeneration and the Woody Understory: Aggregated Retention versus Intact Forest

Retention harvesting, an approach that intentionally retains legacy features such as mature overstory trees, provides options for achieving ecological objectives. At the same time, retained overstory trees may compete with the nearby recovering understory for resources, and much remains to be learned about potential trade-offs with regeneration objectives, particularly over extended time periods. We assessed the influence of aggregated retention (reserved mature overstory and understory patches) versus intact forest on structure and productivity (standing biomass) of the adjacent woody understory and regeneration 12 years after harvest in northern Minnesota, USA. Each site was dominated by Populus tremuloides Michx., a species that regenerates prolifically via root sprouts following disturbance. Overall, fewer differences than expected occurred between the effects of intact forest and aggregated retention on regeneration, despite the small size (0.1 ha) of aggregates. Instead, harvest status and distance from harvest edge had a greater influence on structure and standing woody biomass. Proximity to aggregates reduced large sapling biomass (all species, combined) relative to open conditions, but only up to 5 m into harvested areas. This suggests the trade-off for achieving productivity objectives might be minimal if managers use retention aggregates in this region to achieve ecological objectives and meet management guidelines

Challenges facing gap-based silviculture and possible solutions for mesic northern forests in North America

Gap-based silvicultural systems were developed under the assumption that richness, and diversity of tree species and other biota positively respond to variation in size of harvest-created canopy gaps. However, varying gap size alone often does not meet diversity objectives and broader goals to address contemporary forest conditions. Recent research highlights the need to consider site factors and history, natural disturbance models, within-gap structure and recruitment requirements in addition to light resources for desired tree diversity. This synthesis brings together silvicultural developments and ecological literature on gap-based management, highlighting interactions with other factors such as microsite conditions, non-tree vegetation and more. We pose a revised concept for managers and researchers to use in prescriptions and studies focused on integrated overstory and understory manipulations that increase structural complexity within and around canopy openings

Harvest residue removal and soil compaction impact forest productivity and recovery: Potential implications for bioenergy harvests

Understanding the effects of management on forest structure and function is increasingly important in light of projected increases in both natural and anthropogenic disturbance severity and frequency with global environmental change. We examined potential impacts of the procurement of forest-derived bioenergy, a change in land use that has been suggested as a climate change mitigation strategy, on the productivity and structural development of aspen-dominated ecosystems. Specifically, we tested the effects of two factors: organic matter removal (stem-only harvest, whole-tree harvest, whole-tree harvest plus forest floor removal) and soil compaction (light, moderate, and heavy) over time. This range of treatments, applied across three sites dominated by aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) but with different soil textures, allowed us to characterize how disturbance severity influences ecosystem recovery. Disturbance severity significantly affected above-ground biomass production and forest structural development with responses varying among sites. At the Huron National Forest (sandy soils), the removal of harvest residues reduced above-ground biomass production, but no negative effect was observed following whole-tree harvest at the Ottawa and Chippewa National Forests (clayey and loamy soils, respectively) relative to stem-only harvest. Maximum diameter and the density of stems greater than 5 cm DBH exhibited negative responses to increased disturbance severity at two sites, indicating that structural development may be slowed. Overall, results suggest that disturbance severity related to procuring harvest residues for bioenergy production may impact future productivity and development, depending on site conditions and quality

Response of the soil microbial community and soil nutrient bioavailability to biomass harvesting and reserve tree retention in northern Minnesota aspen-dominated forests

Intensive forest biomass harvesting, or the removal of harvesting slash (woody debris from tree branches and tops) for use as biofuel, has the potential to negatively affect the soil microbial community (SMC) due to loss of carbon and nutrient inputs from the slash, alteration of the soil microclimate, and increased nutrient leaching. These effects could result in lowered forest productivity and threaten the long-term sustainability of forest management. Retaining organic material post-harvest, including greater amounts of harvesting slash and live trees, within harvested areas may ameliorate some negative effects of biomass harvesting on soil processes. We evaluated the effects of biomass harvests with reserve tree and slash retention on the SMC and soil nutrient bioavailability (assessed using plant-root simulator probes) in trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) forests in northern Minnesota during the spring and summer, 1–3 years after harvest. Variable biomass removal levels tested include complete removal (whole tree harvest of boles and branches), complete slash retention (bole only harvest), and 20% slash retention (amount suggested by regional biomass harvesting guidelines). Compared to the unharvested control, biomass harvests had no effect on the multivariate SMC composition or microbial biomass, but did result in a 1–4% increase in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal abundance and reduced bacterial stress two and three years after harvest. Additionally, biomass harvesting increased NH4 bioavailability during year one, and reduced NO3 bioavailability during year two when compared to unharvested controls. Among the three biomass harvests with differing levels of slash removal there were few differences in overall SMC composition, microbial biomass, and soil nutrients; however, the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, gram positive and actinomycete bacteria were significantly higher in harvested treatments with more slash retained. These results are specific to single rotation biomass harvesting in aspen stands due to the unique relationships between plants and their associated SMCs, and may not be directly applicable to forest biomass harvesting of other commercial forest tree species, or multiple rotations