2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.04.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Simulated effects of forest management alternatives on landscape structure and habitat suitability in the Midwestern United States

Abstract: Understanding the cumulative effects and resource trade-offs associated with forest management requires the ability to predict, analyze, and communicate information about how forest landscapes (1000s to >100,000 ha in extent) respond to silviculture and other disturbances. We applied a spatially explicit landscape simulation model, LANDIS, and compared the outcomes of seven forest management alternatives including intensive and extensive even-aged and uneven-aged management, singly and in combination, as well … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
53
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 78 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
53
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the effect of management on biodiversity patterns at the landscape scale has been comparatively less analysed as a factor also promoting heterogeneity. Shifley et al (2006) simulated the effects of management on landscape structure in the Midwestern United States, concluding that management alternatives with similar levels of disturbances produced similar landscape composition but different landscape pattern, with potential relevant implications for the associated forest biodiversity. Gustafson et al (2007) also remarked the important effect of management on landscape structure, as evaluated through certain landscape configuration metrics.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the effect of management on biodiversity patterns at the landscape scale has been comparatively less analysed as a factor also promoting heterogeneity. Shifley et al (2006) simulated the effects of management on landscape structure in the Midwestern United States, concluding that management alternatives with similar levels of disturbances produced similar landscape composition but different landscape pattern, with potential relevant implications for the associated forest biodiversity. Gustafson et al (2007) also remarked the important effect of management on landscape structure, as evaluated through certain landscape configuration metrics.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gustafson et al (2007) also remarked the important effect of management on landscape structure, as evaluated through certain landscape configuration metrics. This kind of analyses and approaches can benefit a more comprehensive forest planning by deepening the understanding of the effect of silvicultural alternatives on biodiversity at broader scales (Rescia et al, 1994;Shifley et al, 2006;. Likewise, they could be useful as additional information to interpret the state and trends in biodiversity conservation in a certain forested region (Lindenmayer et al, 2000), considering these relationships between management and biodiversity indicators at large scales.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The effect of management-caused changes in structure on landscape functioning has been addressed through modeling and simulation for wildlife habitat suitability (Hansen et al 1992, Larson et al 2004, H.B. Li et al 2000, Shifley et al 2006, plant succession and disturbance (He et al 2002, Kurz et al 2000, metapopulation dynamics (Akcakaya et al 2004), and hydrological processes (Azevedo et al 2005).…”
Section: Changes In Forest Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There were five species groups tracked in the simulations: white oak (assembly of white oak and post oak), black oak (assembly of black oak and scarlet oak), shortleaf pine, sugar maple (assembly of red maple, sugar maple and associated mesic tree species), and a generic grass species on associated pastures and other open land. Life history attributes for each species group (Table 2) were parameterized in previous studies (Shifley et al, , 2006Shang et al, 2007;Yang et al, 2008).…”
Section: Model Parameterizationmentioning
confidence: 99%