Today I received the June Research Digest from Forest Service R&D. You can read it here and sign up for it to come to your inbox.
This is part of the “FS R&D does indeed produce useful research” push back to the verbiage in the President’s budget. Also, I believe FS R&D has open access for all authored publications so that everything it does is available to the public.
******************
Given our discussion yesterday about the definition of clearcutting, the below piece seems timely on different entities define forest measurements differently. See the paper below with the heading “In Forestry Words Matter.” The paper comes to the conclusion that when people add things up based on different definitions, it leads to numbers that can’t really be interpreted. Which, if studies are used in policy, means that policy is based on potentially bogus numbers. So like Sean said in the comments, using the same definitions is important for scientists, but becomes a bit more murky at the science/policy interface. If you want to use science in policy, and scientists tell us consistent definitions are important, shouldn’t consistent definitions also help policy by way of using the science that has consistent definitions? It’s a conundrum.
Here’s an excerpt from that paper:
Primary forest
Many international forest reporting efforts include the area of primary forests as a reporting category (e.g., FAO FRA, Sustainable Development Goal [SDG] 15 (Goal 15: Life on land n.d.), the UN Forum on Forests Global Forest Goals [GFGs] (FAO and CPF, 2022)). Yet the concept of primary forests is highly value-based and emphasizes the so-called “natural” state of forests in the absence of post-settlement human alteration. The FAO defines primary forest as “Naturally regenerating forest of native tree species, where there are no clearly visible indications of human activities and the ecological processes are not significantly disturbed” and that it “[i]ncludes forests where Indigenous Peoples and local communities engage in traditional forest stewardship and management/use activities that meet the definition” (FAO, 2023c). While the FAO definition is generally adopted by reporting countries, its lack of measurable thresholds makes objective and repeatable primary forest reporting challenging, undermining the ability to obtain globally coherent estimates (Bernier et al., 2017; Morales-Hidalgo et al., 2015).
Historically, the US quantified primary forest area for FAO reporting as the aggregate of: (1) areas designated under the “Roadless Area Conservation Rule” (66 Federal Register 3244, January 12, 2001) (i.e., Roadless Areas on USDA Forest Service lands which are subject to limitations on road construction and timber harvesting (Riddle and Vann, 2020)); (2) reserved forest (i.e., forest land where timber extraction is prohibited); (3) 80 percent of the state of Alaska’s unreserved natural forest; and (4) Land Trust forest (i.e., forest land managed and owned by major organizations entrusted to preserve and conserve it). This coarsely delineated forest land where primary forests may occur but was not based on measurable physical attributes that indicate “primary-ness” (e.g., native species assemblages; lack of specific visual indications of human activity).</blockquote
I looked at the grizzly one also, here’s an excerpt:
Our stakeholder groupings are simplistic but still highlight the need to move beyond assumptions about how people with particular identities will feel about reintroducing grizzly bears or other large carnivore recovery projects (Heneghan & Morse, 2018; Hughes & Nielsen, 2019; Nesbitt et al., 2023). Such assumptions can drive further polarization between stakeholder groups and turn constructive conflicts into pathological ones that result in gridlocks (Harrison & Loring, 2020; Madden & McQuinn, 2014). To successfully balance agencies’ legal mandates of grizzly bear recovery and other responsibilities to the public, it will be crucial to facilitate open and honest conversations; build trust, tolerance, and understanding between stakeholder groups; and share knowledge in ways that create space for diverse perspectives to be heard, deliberated, and addressed (Consorte-McCrea et al., 2022; Hiroyasu et al., 2019; Hughes & Nielsen, 2019; Lafon et al., 2004; Lorimer et al., 2015; Nesbitt et al., 2023).
Their identification of a pragmatic view
Here, the pragmatic viewpoint (Factor 2) was more concerned with the actual capacity of agencies to manage such an endeavor and its overall practicality, especially in the face of many other conservation and management priorities, such as trail maintenance or the recovery of threatened species still extant in the ecosystem (#32, +5; #3, +2; Table 3). At the same time, this perspective did not necessarily indicate strong feelings of support or opposition to the restoration of bears itself.
Reminds me of some of the current discussions around wolf reintroduction here in Colorado.
Anyway, here’s the rest… thank you, FS R&D folks!
Mechanical Treatments Best in the West;
Prescribed Fire Best in the EastForest treatments work, confirm agency scientists running a study of forest types across the nation , especially when repeated and adapted to changing goals and conditions. Over the past two decades, researchers tested how prescribed fire and mechanical treatments promote fire-adapted species, reduce fire hazard, and improve understory diversity in Montana, California, North Carolina, and Ohio forests. While all treatments benefited each site, western forests responded better to mechanical treatments, and eastern forests responded better to prescribed fires. The researchers note their ongoing project — unparalleled in both duration and scope — keeps up with the times, showing managers how best practices may evolve with changing forests.
In Forestry, Words Matter
Many groups around the world monitor forests, but not all report their findings in the same terms. Case in point: the minimum threshold for “forest land” used by scientists in the United States is 0.1 hectares smaller than the threshold used by the United Nations. Over large landscapes, this difference adds up — and complicates forest reporting. Agency scientists emphasize the need for transparency in reporting and conversation among those making forest-related decisions.
Southern Waterways May See More Pollution,
But Forests Can HelpLevels of nitrogen may increase by over 300 percent and levels of sediment by over 200 percent in a southern waterway over the next 50 years, say agency scientists, though preserving or expanding upstream forest cover may mitigate the issue. When modeling water quality scenarios at sites in Georgia and Alabama’s Middle Chattahoochee watershed, scientists saw higher pollutant levels downstream of highly developed lands and lower levels downstream of thriving forests. Study authors note that — without efforts to preserve and expand forests — land development likely will continue to reduce forest cover in the area. Additionally, they note rural communities in particular may lack the tools to manage this pollution.
Grizzly Bears: Oh My!
By analyzing arguments on grizzly bear reintroduction in the North Cascades, agency scientists found common ground among differing opinions. While reintroducing carnivores like grizzlies often helps restore biodiversity, many people fear the animals may threaten lives, livestock, and recreation. Though the opinions of study participants varied, people in different camps often shared similar, pragmatic concerns. Additionally, seemingly straightforward opinions had nuances often overlooked in heated debate. Study authors stressed that identifying and validating various concerns helps managers build trust and develop reintroduction plans that work.
A grizzly bear and her cub in the Flathead River System, Montana. USDA Forest Service/Northern Region
Use the bioTIME 2.0 database to monitor long-term biodiversity trends. Answer your risk- and exposure-related questions about forest and fuels management using the Fireshed Registry dashboard.
Ensure your techniques for assessing in-service wood products are up to date with the third edition of the Wood and Timber Condition Assessment Manual.
Track wildlife through your yard with Lights, Camera, Tracks, the newest article from the Natural Inquirer program meant for learners of all ages.
This email was sent by: USDA Forest Service Research and Development
201 14th St SW Washington, DC, 20227, USA
Anyone think the FS will ever learn the findings of “Prescribed Burning works best in the East and Mechanical Treatments work best in the West”? Been that way since time began, or at least since 1900, but folks will argue with you ‘til the cows come home!