Social and Biophysical Correlates of Change in Forest Landscapes of the Interior Columbia Basin, Usa

Black, Arthur D.; Morgan, Penelope; Hessburg, Paul F.

doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0051:sabcoc]2.0.co;2

Cited by 21 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in forested landscapes of the interior Columbia Basin, the social system constrained the influence of the biophysical factors on landscape changes (Black et al 2003). Land ownership systems, economic market structure, and cultural value systems dominated changes in this landscape (Black et al 2003). Understanding the spatiotemporal dynamics of many landscapes requires understanding the drivers of human land use.…”

Section: The Present: the Focus Of Landscape Ecology In North Americamentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape Ecology in North America: Past, Present, and Future

Turner

2005

Ecology

201

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape ecology offers a spatially explicit perspective on the relationships between ecological patterns and processes that can be applied across a range of scales. Concepts derived from landscape ecology now permeate ecological research across most levels of ecological organization and many scales. Landscape ecology developed rapidly after ideas that originated in Europe were introduced to scientists in North America. Key research questions put forth in the early 1980s that catalyzed landscape‐level research focused on the formative processes that produce spatial pattern; effects of spatial heterogeneity on the spread of disturbance and fluxes of organisms, material, and energy; and potential applications of landscape ecology in natural resource management. This article describes the development of landscape ecology in North America, discusses current questions and new insights that have emerged, and comments on future directions that are likely to produce new ecological insights. Ecology faces a broad array of challenging questions that require a plurality of approaches and creative insights. Landscape ecology should continue to push the limits of understanding of the reciprocal interactions between spatial patterns and ecological processes and seek opportunities to test the generality of its concepts across systems and scales.

show abstract

Section: The Present: the Focus Of Landscape Ecology In North Americamentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape Ecology in North America: Past, Present, and Future

Turner

2005

Ecology

201

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Forest change is rarely a result of a single factor acting alone. The causes of land cover change vary across complex landscapes and multiple potential drivers should be considered (Black et al 2003). The attribution of forest cover change to specific natural and anthropogenic factors, at sufficient timescales to observe both abrupt losses and gradual recovery, is likely to improve conservation planning and the understanding of global change.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aerial surveys of agricultural and forested lands began throughout the United States in the 1930s (Matthews 2005) and these photographs provide extensive records of land cover at a high (<2 m) spatial resolution (Morgan et al 2010). These data have been used in quantitative assessments of historical forest change in the western United States (Hessburg et al 1999, Coop and Givnish 2007, Lydersen and Collins 2018 and of the anthropogenic and biophysical factors influencing these changes (Asner et al 2003, Black et al 2003.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildfire activity and land use drove 20th‐century changes in forest cover in the Colorado front range

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent shifts in global forest area highlight the importance of understanding the causes and consequences of forest change. To examine the influence of several potential drivers of forest cover change, we used supervised classifications of historical (1938–1940) and contemporary (2015) aerial imagery covering a 2932‐km2 study area in the northern Front Range (NFR) of Colorado and we linked observed changes in forest cover with abiotic factors, land use, and fire history. Forest cover in the NFR demonstrated broad‐scale changes 1938–2015 and overall cover increased 7.8%, but there was notable spatial variability and many sites also experienced Forest Loss. Recent (1978–2015) wildfire was the largest single driver of Forest Loss, with fires burning 14.3% of the total study area. Recently burned areas showed net losses of 36.9% forest cover. Reasons for Forest Gain were more complex, with elevation, past mining density, fire history, and topographic heat load index being the strongest predictors of increases in forest cover. Historical mining activity is one of the dominant anthropogenic impacts in ecosystems in the NFR and it had a complex, non‐linear relationship with 20th‐century changes in forest cover. Subalpine stands originating after stand‐replacing fires circa mid‐1800s to early 1900s showed some of the greatest gains in forest cover, indicative of slow and continuous post‐fire recovery through the 20th century. We also investigated factors such as land ownership, road density, forest management activities, and development intensity, which played detectable, but more minor roles in observed change. Twentieth‐century changes in forest cover throughout the NFR are a result of ecological disturbances and anthropogenic influences operating at varying timescales and overlaid upon variability in the abiotic environment.

show abstract

“…At the bioregional scale, ownership patterns explain much of the variation in land management practices, current patterns of vegetation cover types, and trajectories of land cover change (Turner et al 1996, Radeloff et al 2001, Cohen et al 2002, Stanfield et al 2002, Black et al 2003, Wimberly and Ohmann 2004). However, the unique contributions of different ownerships, especially private lands, to biodiversity values have rarely been explicitly examined in regional assessments (but see , Lovett‐Doust and Kuntz 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Environment, Disturbance, and Ownership on Forest Vegetation of Coastal Oregon

Ohmann

Gregory

Spies

2007

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information about how vegetation composition and structure vary quantitatively and spatially with physical environment, disturbance history, and land ownership is fundamental to regional conservation planning. However, current knowledge about patterns of vegetation variability across large regions that is spatially explicit (i.e., mapped) tends to be general and qualitative. We used spatial predictions from gradient models to examine the influence of environment, disturbance, and ownership on patterns of forest vegetation biodiversity across a large forested region, the 3-million-ha Oregon Coast Range (USA). Gradients in tree species composition were strongly associated with environment, especially climate, and insensitive to disturbance, probably because many dominant tree species are long-lived and persist throughout forest succession. In contrast, forest structure was strongly correlated with disturbance and only weakly with environmental gradients. Although forest structure differed among ownerships, differences were blurred by the presence of legacy trees that originated prior to current forest management regimes. Our multi-ownership perspective revealed biodiversity concerns and benefits not readily visible in single-ownership analyses, and all ownerships contributed to regional biodiversity values. Federal lands provided most of the late-successional and old-growth forest. State lands contained a range of forest ages and structures, including diverse young forest, abundant legacy dead wood, and much of the high-elevation true fir forest. Nonindustrial private lands provided diverse young forest and the greatest abundance of hardwood trees, including almost all of the foothill oak woodlands. Forest industry lands encompassed much early-successional forest, most of the mixed hardwood-conifer forest, and large amounts of legacy down wood. The detailed tree- and species-level data in the maps revealed regional trends that would be masked in traditional coarse-filter assessment. Although abundant, most early-successional forests originated after timber harvest and lacked legacy live and dead trees important as habitat and for other ecological functions. Many large-conifer forests that might be classified as old growth using a generalized forest cover map lacked structural features of old growth such as multilayered canopies or dead wood. Our findings suggest that regional conservation planning include all ownerships and land allocations, as well as fine-scale elements of vegetation composition and structure.

show abstract

Social and Biophysical Correlates of Change in Forest Landscapes of the Interior Columbia Basin, Usa

Cited by 21 publications

References 39 publications

Landscape Ecology in North America: Past, Present, and Future

Landscape Ecology in North America: Past, Present, and Future

Wildfire activity and land use drove 20th‐century changes in forest cover in the Colorado front range

Influence of Environment, Disturbance, and Ownership on Forest Vegetation of Coastal Oregon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About