Evaluating carbon storage, timber harvest, and habitat possibilities for a Western Cascades (USA) forest landscape

Abstract

Forest policymakers and managers have long sought ways to evaluate the capability of forest landscapes to jointly produce timber, habitat, and other ecosystem services in response to forest management. Currently, carbon is of particular interest as policies for increasing carbon storage on federal lands are being proposed. However, a challenge in joint production analysis of forest management is adequately representing ecological conditions and processes that influence joint production relationships. We used simulation models of vegetation structure, forest sector carbon, and potential wildlife habitat to characterize landscape‐level joint production possibilities for carbon storage, timber harvest, and habitat for seven wildlife species across a range of forest management regimes. We sought to (1) characterize the general relationships of production possibilities for combinations of carbon storage, timber, and habitat, and (2) identify management variables that most influence joint production relationships. Our 160 000‐ha study landscape featured environmental conditions typical of forests in the Western Cascade Mountains of Oregon (USA). Our results indicate that managing forests for carbon storage involves trade‐offs among timber harvest and habitat for focal wildlife species, depending on the disturbance interval and utilization intensity followed. Joint production possibilities for wildlife species varied in shape, ranging from competitive to complementary to compound, reflecting niche breadth and habitat component needs of species examined. Managing Pacific Northwest forests to store forest sector carbon can be roughly complementary with habitat for Northern Spotted Owl, Olive‐sided Flycatcher, and red tree vole. However, managing forests to increase carbon storage potentially can be competitive with timber production and habitat for Pacific marten, Pileated Woodpecker, and Western Bluebird, depending on the disturbance interval and harvest intensity chosen. Our analysis suggests that joint production possibilities under forest management regimes currently typical on industrial forest lands (e.g., 40‐ to 80‐yr rotations with some tree retention for wildlife) represent but a small fraction of joint production outcomes possible in the region. Although the theoretical boundaries of the production possibilities sets we developed are probably unachievable in the current management environment, they arguably define the long‐term potential of managing forests to produce multiple ecosystem services within and across multiple forest ownerships.

Near‐future forest vulnerability to drought and fire varies across the western United States

“…Forests in the western United States support high species diversity (Halpern & Spies, 1995;Kline et al, 2016) and include some of the highest carbon-density forests on earth (Law & Waring, 2015;Law et al, 2018). Some of these forests are under increasing stress from accelerated rates of drought-related mortality (Allen et al, 2010;Anderegg et al, 2015;van Mantgem et al, 2009) and wildfires (Littell, Mckenzie, Peterson, & Westerling, 2009), bringing urgency to the question of where are forests likely to be most vulnerable to mortality under future climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.…”

Long-Term Impacts of China’s New Commercial Harvest Exclusion Policy on Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity in the Temperate Forests of Northeast China

“…Forests provide many ecosystem services that benefit the population, such as carbon storage and timber. Forests are managed with multiple objectives, such as carbon storage, timber harvesting, and biodiversity conservation [1][2][3]. However, these goals are often conflicting [4,5].…”

Managing Forests for Both Downstream and Downwind Water

“…The science also shows that native forests are particularly important for water supplies (e.g., Alvarez-Garreton et al, 2019). Native forests can store carbon while sustaining water (Kline et al, 2016;Yu et al, 2018). However, native forests and their water ecosystem services are vulnerable to climate change (e.g., through increases in fire and pests and alterations in precipitation and temperature regimes) and human impacts on the land (e.g., FIGURE 2 | Forest cover changes affect regional, continental and global hydrological cycles and thus downwind and downstream water resources.…”