Beschta, Robert L.

Crisafulli, Charles M.

DellaSala, Dominick A.

Franklin, Jerry F.

Hutto, Richard L.

Lindenmayer, David B.

Swanson, Frederick J.

Swanson, Mark E.

English

University of Montana

University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Biological Sciences Faculty Publications Biological Sciences 8-2011 A Reply to King et al. Mark E. Swanson Jerry F. Franklin Robert L. Beschta Charles M. Crisafulli Dominick A. DellaSala See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/biosci_pubs  Part of the Biology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Swanson, Mark E.; Franklin, Jerry F.; Beschta, Robert L.; Crisafulli, Charles M.; DellaSala, Dominick A.; Hutto, Richard L.; Lindenmayer, David B.; and Swanson, Frederick J., "A Reply to King et al." (2011). Biological Sciences Faculty Publications. 282. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/biosci_pubs/282 This Response or Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact scholarworks@mso.umt.edu. Authors Mark E. Swanson, Jerry F. Franklin, Robert L. Beschta, Charles M. Crisafulli, Dominick A. DellaSala, Richard L. Hutto, David B. Lindenmayer, and Frederick J. Swanson This response or comment is available at ScholarWorks at University of Montana: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/biosci_pubs/282 319© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.orgWrite BackFigure 1. Annual increase in number of references (416 altogether) resulting from aWeb of Science search, conducted on 16 Mar 2011, for “(early AND succession ANDconservation) OR Topic = (early AND seral AND conservation) OR Topic = (earlyAND succession AND ecosystem)”.    world. We suggested planning for“off world” colonization as a lastresort and as a precautionaryresponse to an unstoppable redesignof the Earth.Holl and Loik argue that the largemonetary sums needed for such colo-nization could be better spentdirectly on solving environmentalproblems here on Earth. It’s hard toargue with that sentiment in theshort term. A major increase inresources directed toward goals suchas K–12 education and empoweringwomen globally would be of greatvalue, both environmentally andeconomically.Yet, when we proposed the drasticstep of considering space coloniza-tion, we were musing about the longterm – because we believe that thedeployment and extent of noveltechnologies will happen so fast, andmay arrive with such intensity, thatpeople may not have time torespond adequately. The increase intechnological “progress” in the 21stcentury has been estimated to be ofthe same order of magnitude as thatof the last 20 000 years (at today’srate of technological change; Kurz-weil 2003). Under this scenario oftechnological transformation, oursuggestion of a “couple of centuries”for deployment of humans to spacemight be too long.The bulk of our editorial focusedon the world today and in the nearfuture. That’s where we’d like thefocus to remain, because no one hasthe remotest idea of what the con-tinued emergence of the neoenvi-ronment will mean for us, for soci-eties, and for the rest of life onEarth. However, it’s time we alsostarted thinking about the distantfuture, which really may not be sofar away.Peter Haff and Rob Jackson*Duke University, Durham, NC*(jackson@duke.edu)Kurzweil R. 2003. Promise and peril. In:Lightman A, Sarewitz D, and Desser C(Eds). Living with the genie: essays ontechnology and the quest for humanmastery. Washington, DC: Island Press.doi:10.1890/11.WB.015Early-successional forestecosystems: far from“forgotten”  In their article (Front Ecol Environ2011; 9[2]: 117–25), Swanson et al.provided an interesting review of theecological characteristics of early-suc-cessional forests, but their implicationthat these forests are a frontier in termsof research, conservation, and man-agement should be more closely exam-ined. There is substantial evidencethat the focus of research and conser-vation has shifted over the past decadefrom mature to early-successionalforests. For example, a Web of Sciencesearch on “early, succession, and con-servation; or early, seral, and conserva-tion; or early, succession, and ecosys-tem” returned 416 citations publishedbetween 2001 and 2010. In contrast,this same search with “late” substitutedfor “early” returned only 254 refer-ences. Furthermore, the annual num-ber of publications on this topic hasincreased ~300% over the past decade(Figure 1).The extent of early-successionalforest over much of North America –as indicated by historical accountsand paleoecological data – hasdecreased many fold during the pastcentury on account of land-usechanges and suppression of naturaldisturbances (DeGraaf and Miller1996; Askins 2000). Consequently,the concentrated and increased inter-est in this topic has resulted innumerous symposia, reviews, andscholarly books, as well as the scien-tific articles referred to above, on thehistory of disturbance in forest ecosys-tems, the effect of disturbance on nat-ural systems, and their importance tothe conservation of birds, mammals,and invertebrates (eg DeGraaf andMiller 1996; Askins 2000; Thompsonand DeGraaf 2001; Litvaitis 2003;Schlossberg and King 2007).As a result, the conservation status ofspecies that depend on early-succes-sional forest is now widely appreciatedby natural resource management agen-cies. Early-successional forest is identi-fied as important in the WildlifeAction Plans of all nine New Englandstates. State and federal agencies, aswell as NGOs, spend millions of dollarsannually to create or maintain early-successional habitat. Continental re-search and management plans havebeen developed for early-successionalforest species, such as American wood-cock (Scolopax minor) and golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera).With respect to outlining thebroad range of ecological character-istics and processes, Swanson andcolleagues do an admirable job.However, their focus on western706050404030201002000          2002           2004          2006          2008           2010YearNumber of references320www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of AmericaWrite BackNorth American ecosystems affectstheir assessment of the conservationcontext of early-successional forests.Specifically, several of the conserva-tion and management issues theypoint out are specific to regions withhigh relief, dominated by conifers,and where assisted regeneration is ageneral requirement. The inclusionof eastern temperate forests illus-trates how the effects of manage-ment vary as a function of environ-mental context, which provides avaluable additional component ofthis kind of broad integrative review.David I King1*, Keith H Nislow1,Robert T Brooks1, Richard MDeGraaf1,2, and Mariko Yamasaki11USDA Forest Service, NorthernResearch Station, Amherst, MA*(dking@fs.fed.us); 2EmeritusAskins RA. 2000. Restoring NorthAmerica’s birds: lessons from landscapeecology. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-versity Press.DeGraaf RM and Miller RI (Eds). 1996.Conservation of faunal diversity inforested landscapes. New York, NY:Chapman and Hall.Litvaitis JA (Ed). 2003. Special issue –shrublands and early-successionalforests: critical habitats dependent ondisturbance in the northeastern UnitedStates. Forest Ecol Manag 185: 1–216.Schlossberg SR and King DI. 2007. Ecologyand management of scrub–shrub birds inNew England: a comprehensive review.ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/nri/ceap/schlossbergkingreport.pdf. Viewed01 Jul 2011.Thompson III FR and DeGraaf RM. 2001.Special coverage – conservation ofwoody, early-successional habitats andwildlife in the eastern United States.Wildlife Soc B 29: 407–94.doi:10.1890/11.WB.016A reply to King et al. King et al. are correct in their assess-ment of an increase in research andmanagement interest in early-succes-sional stages after disturbance. Buttheir claim that “...the conservationstatus of species that depend onearly-successional forest is nowwidely appreciated by naturalresource management agencies”merits further reflection. In numer-ous areas in which we have worked(the Pacific Northwest, northernRockies, Australia, temperate SouthAmerica, and elsewhere), we still seean abundance of management activ-ity designed to eliminate the distinc-tive characteristics associated withearly-successional stages throughintentional spraying, planting, andcutting to speed “recovery” to latersuccessional stages. Thus, holisticecosystem management that in-cludes broad recognition of the valueof complex early seral conditions isstill very much a management fron-tier. In the mountain ash (Euca-lyptus regnans) region of Australia,for example, the post-fire salvagelogging operations are rapidlydestroying many valuable early-suc-cessional habitats that were createdafter the 2009 wildfires. There arealso numerous examples of nega-tive ecological effects of post-fire sal-vage-logging from western NorthAmerica. Furthermore, several chal-lenges remain to be met in manyregions, even where the need forcomplex early seral forest is recog-nized. These include unbalancedpredator–prey systems (eg over-abundant white-tailed deer [Odocoi-leus virginianus] in the eastern US),which detrimentally affect earlyseral vegetation, and the potentialfor exotic plants to capitalize onnatural or artificially created earlyseral areas.We applaud the fact that NewEngland is relatively advancedregarding this important stage of suc-cession, due in part to the efforts ofresearchers such as King et al.However, much remains to be donein both research and managementregionally and internationally toaddress the many factors that havecaused the decline in early seral con-ditions that we discuss in our article,and in the thoughtful response sub-mitted by King et al.Mark E Swanson1*, Jerry FFranklin2, Robert L Beschta3,Charles M Crisafulli4, Dominick ADellaSala5, Richard L Hutto6,David B Lindenmayer7, andFrederick J Swanson81Washington State University, Pullman,WA *(markswanson@wsu.edu);2University of Washington, Seattle,WA; 3Oregon State University,Corvallis, OR; 4USFS PacificNorthwest Research Station, Amboy,WA; 5National Center forConservation Science and Policy,Ashland, OR; 6University ofMontana, Missoula, MT; 7AustralianNational University, Canberra,Australia; 8USDA Forest Service,Corvallis, ORdoi:10.1890/11.WB.017Threats to Sri Lanka’surban wetlands Sri Lanka’s tropical ecosystemsinclude several biodiversity hotspotsfeaturing rich assemblages of endemicand endangered species (Myers et al.2000; Meegaskumbura et al. 2002).Urbanization and other anthro-pogenic impacts, however, increas-ingly threaten the viability of remain-ing natural areas on many parts of theisland. Particularly affected are wet-lands within the western coastal beltof Sri Lanka, where the nation’s capi-tal – Colombo – and other large urbanenclaves are located. These wetlands,among others on the island, are breed-ing grounds and resting areas for a hostof indigenous and migratory birdspecies. However, because of weakregulations, lapses in enforcement,and perceived low economic value,wetlands are often readily exploitedand reclaimed for building sites with-out concern for ecological or otherenvironmental consequences. A par-ticularly disconcerting issue is the fre-quent use of wetlands for municipalgarbage disposal (Van Horen 2004;Wattage and Mardle 2005; Kotagamaand Bambaradeniya 2006). Despitedecades of effort to implement a sus-tainable municipal waste manage-ment system, Sri Lanka still lacks anyproperly engineered sanitary landfills(Bandara and Hettiaratchi 2010). Inthe absence of such proper infrastruc-ture, thousands of tons of municipalwaste are discarded daily in wetlandsand floodplains (Figure 1). Amongthe severely affected wetlands is the

A Reply to King et al.

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&amp;context=biosci_pubs

A Reply to King et al.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Montana