Timber, carbon storage, and habitat production possibilities. Jeff Kline USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station

Transcription

1 Timber, carbon storage, and habitat production possibilities Jeff Kline USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station

2 Co-authors Tom Spies USDA Forest Service Mark Harmon Oregon State University Brenda McComb Oregon State University Frank Schnekenberger Oregon State University Anita Morzillo University of Connecticut Rob Pabst Oregon State University Blair Csuti Oregon State University Keith Olsen Oregon State University

3 Forest Service management paradigms, World War II to present Ecosystem management Dominant use Multiple use Ecosystem services

4 Spotted owls B A Timber Production possibilities and social preference when ecological and socioeconomic information is perfect

5 Spotted owls B C A Timber Production possibilities and social preference when ecological and socioeconomic information is limited

6 Time Landscape Landscape conditions Landscape conditions conditions Management actions Postdisturbance Post Duringdisturbancdisturbance Pre During Predisturbance Postdisturbance disturbance During disturbance disturbance Predisturbance Natural Natural disturbance Natural disturbance disturbance Conceptual model of forest land management

7 Landscape conditions Ecosystem services Management actions During disturbance Postdisturbance Predisturbance Management costs Natural disturbance Disturbance costs Ecosystem services associated with landscape conditions

8 Landscape conditions Landscape conditions Landscape conditions Landscape conditions Landscape conditions Landscape conditions Ecosystem services Ecosystem services Ecosystem services Ecosystem services Ecosystem services Year i Year 5 Ecosystem services Spotted owls Year 2 Year 1 Year 3 Year 4 Ecosystem services trajectory as management outcome

9 Spotted owls Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Time Spotted owls Year 5 Year 4 Year 3 Year 2 Timber Year 1 Timber Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Time

10 LANDTRENDR FIA, LIDAR FVS FUTURE SCENARIOS Stakeholders Biomass Validation Stand Structure, Carbon Dynamics, Silvicultural Treatments HISTORICAL TREND CARBON WOOD LANDSCAPE/ CLIMATE DYNAMICS LANDCARB ALTERNATIVE FUTURES CARBON WOOD TRADEOFF ANALYSIS BIODIVERSITY BIODIVERSITY HABITAT MODELS Model evaluation Hindcasting

11 Study area and focal landscapes 3,200 km 2 Douglas fir, western hemlock, silver fir Mixed federal and private ownership Intensive timber production to oldgrowth

12 Management variables Management variable Values Live tree harvest interval (yr) 25, 37, 50, 62, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 250, 500, infinite Harvest size (ha) 10, 100, 500, 1,000 Harvest intensity (% cell cut) 25, 50, 100 Harvested wood utilization (%) 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 Snag felling at harvest Prescribed fire Yes, no Yes, no Salvage (%) 0, 100 Salvage interval (yr) 10, 20, 40 Salvage snags Yes, no

13 Habitat suitability indices Species Pacific marten Variables Diameter diversity, volume down logs, snags Mule deer Average diameter, canopy closure, canopy layers Olive-sided flycatcher Canopy closure, snags, live trees, edge contrast Pileated woodpecker Volume down logs, snags, live trees Red tree vole Northern spotted owl Canopy closure, diameter diversity, quadratic mean diameter, Douglas fir density Diameter diversity, large trees Western bluebird Canopy closure, snags

14 Carbon versus timber harvest

15 Carbon versus timber harvest Harvest intensity Rotation length

16 Carbon versus timber harvest

17 Carbon versus northern spotted owl

18 Carbon versus red tree vole

19 Carbon versus western bluebird

20 Timber harvest versus pileated woodpecker

21 Timber harvest versus American marten

22 Red tree vole versus northern spotted owl

23 Northern spotted owl versus western bluebird

24 Conclusions 1. Could be useful to inform manager discourse with stakeholders and public; 2. Enables managers and stakeholders to see where their ideas would take us, what may be possible or not; 3. Makes tradeoffs among multiple ecosystem services more explicit; Not an argument about one service versus another;

25 Funding: NASA-Carbon Cycle Science Program National Science Foundation Andrews Long Term Ecological Research