Forest processes from stands to landscapes: exploring model forecast uncertainties using cross-scale model comparison

Forest management practices conducted primarily at the stand scale result in simplified forests with regeneration problems and low structural and biological diversity. Landscape models have been used to help design management strategies to address these problems. However, there remains a great deal of uncertainty that the actual management practices result in the desired sustainable landscape structure. To investigate our ability to meet sustainable forest management goals across scales, we assessed how two models of forest dynamics, a scaled-up individual-tree model and a landscape model, simulate forest dynamics under three types of harvesting regimes: clearcut, gap, and uniform thinning. Althougth 50– 100 year forecasts predicted average successional patterns that differed by less than 20% between models, understory dynamics of the landscape model were simplified relative to the scaled-up tree model, whereas successional patterns of the scaled-up tree model deviated from empirical studies on the driest and wettest landtypes. The scale dependencies of both models revealed important weaknesses when the models were used alone; however, when used together, they could provide a heuristic method that could improve our ability to design sustainable forest management practices

Can forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience?

Given the increasingly global stresses on forests, many ecologists argue that managers must maintain ecological resilience: the capacity of ecosystems to absorb disturbances without undergoing fundamental change. In this review we ask: Can the emerging paradigm of natural-disturbance-based management (NDBM) maintain ecological resilience in managed forests? Applying resilience theory requires careful articulation of the ecosystem state under consideration, the disturbances and stresses that affect the persistence of possible alternative states, and the spatial and temporal scales of management relevance. Implementing NDBM while maintaining resilience means recognizing that (i) biodiversity is important for long-term ecosystem persistence, (ii) natural disturbances play a critical role as a generator of structural and compositional heterogeneity at multiple scales, and (iii) traditional management tends to produce forests more homogeneous than those disturbed naturally and increases the likelihood of unexpected catastrophic change by constraining variation of key environmental processes. NDBM may maintain resilience if silvicultural strategies retain the structures and processes that perpetuate desired states while reducing those that enhance resilience of undesirable states. Such strategies require an understanding of harvesting impacts on slow ecosystem processes, such as seed-bank or nutrient dynamics, which in the long term can lead to ecological surprises by altering the forest's capacity to reorganize after disturbance

Integrated assessment and the relation between land-use change and climate change

Integrated assessment is an approach that is useful in evaluating the consequences of global climate change. Understanding the consequences requires knowledge of the relationship between land-use change and climate change. Methodologies for assessing the contribution of land-use change to atmospheric CO{sub 2} concentrations are considered with reference to a particular case study area: south and southeast Asia. The use of models to evaluate the consequences of climate change on forests must also consider an assessment approach. Each of these points is discussed in the following four sections

Managing forests as ecosystems: A success story or a challenge ahead?

To manage forests as ecosystems, the many values they hold for different users must be recognized, and they must be used so that those assets are not destroyed. Important ecosystem features of forests include nutrient cycling, habitat, succession, and water quality. Over time, the ways in which humans value forests have changed as forest uses have altered and as forests have declined in size and quality. Both ecosystem science and forest ecology have developed approaches that are useful to manage forests to retain their value. A historical perspective shows how changes in ecology, legislation, and technology have resulted in modern forest-management practices. However, current forest practices are still a decade or so behind current ecosystem science. Ecologists have done a good job of transferring their theories and approaches to the forest manager classroom but have done a poor job of translating these concepts into practice. Thus, the future for ecosystem management requires a closer linkage between ecologists and other disciplines. For example, the changing ways in which humans value forests are the primary determinant of forest-management policies. Therefore, if ecologists are to understand how ecosystem science can influence these policies, they must work closely with social scientists trained to assess human values