Forest Restoration and Management in a Changing Climate: Implications for North Shore Watersheds Mark A. White, Meredith Cornett The Nature Conservancy Matthew Duveneck and Robert Scheller, Portland State University, Portland OR.
Introduction TNC Forest Restoration: forest, watershed, and riparian zone goals Range of natural variation (RNV) and forest restoration Forest restoration and climate change Beyond RNV-climate adaptive management
Conifer Restoration Sites Chris Dunham-TNC Northeast Minnesota Plant 200,000 300,000 trees/ year Browse protection on 2500 ac/ year Release 500 acres per year Spend $250,000 per year
Forest and Stream Goals Mesic Hardwoods Selective management Maintain continuous canopy cover Plant white pine, cedar, spruce in gaps Less sediments delivered Better maintenance of LWD inputs Riparian Forest Upland Fire Dependent Plant conifers in riparian zone gaps Plant conifers in recent harvests away from streams Be er maintenance of LWD inputs, shade Sub basin, long term: attenuate runoff damp peak flows
MN, USA Source: White and Host 2000 Natural Variability and Biodiversity Conservation Boreal hardwood-conifer Dry-mesic jack pine-black spruce Dry-mesic white pine-red pine Lowland conifer Mesic birch-aspen-spruce-fir Mesic white pine-red pine Northern Hardwood-conifer Objectives: RNV Historical reference conditions - Species Diversity - Structural Complexity - Spatial Pattern Water Quality + Quantity Climate Change?
Approach: Use spatially dynamic model that incorporates climate, disturbance and seed dispersal LANDIS II Forest restoration in a mixed ownership landscape under climate change Ravenscroft, C., Scheller, R.M., Mladenoff, D.J. White, M.A. 2010. Ecological Applications. 20:327-346 Understand relative influence of climate and disturbance on regional species composition trends
Potential Climatic Changes (Ravenscroft et al. 2010) Low Emissions: Restoration can maintain boreal speciesincrease in Acer spp. High Emissions: Loss of boreal spp. regardless of management Loss of forest: mismatch between climate & management Large increase in red maple Oak/hickory: dispersal limited
Model Climate Adaptive Management Resilience-Increase Adaptive Capacity Mix uneven/even-aged, higher retention Manage for species tolerant of future climate-overcome migration limits Red oak, bur oak, yellow birch, basswood, white pine Response diversity-life history traits Favorable response-environmental change Resistance: Increase area of forest reserves-buffer riparian corridors- 1500 m
Above ground biomass Species Diversity
Temperate Boreal
Summary Low Emissions Resistance and resilience-maintain boreal species Both maintain or increase species diversity High Emissions Resistance not effective in maintaining boreal species Lower resilience-less diversity, productivity, ecosystem services Resilience-increased productivity and diversitymaintain ecosystem services-water quality-quantity Duveneck, M, Scheller R., White M. 2014. Effects of forest management resistance and resilience strategies in the face of climate change in the northern Great Lakes region. In press, Canadian Journal of Forest Research Duveneck, M, Scheller R., White M., Handler, S, Ravenscroft, C. 2014. Climate change effects on northern Great Lake (USA) forests: A case for preserving diversity. In press, Ecosphere.
Adaptation Forestry in Minnesota s North Woods Plant climate tolerant species in NSU with stock from different seed zones Tree Species White pine, Bur oak, Red oak, Basswood Structural Treatments Gap, shelterwood w/reserves, thinning, clearcut w/reserves
Adaptation Forestry 88,000 seedlings 2013 2014 bur oak, red oak, white pine, basswood northern and southern seed zones 21 sites, 4 native plant communities 34 research plots, 120 seedlings: red oak, bur oak, and white pine 2 seed zones Compare suitability: growth, mortality, phenology
Collaborators TNC Meredith Cornett, Director of Science Chris Dunham, NEMN Forest Manager Kim Hall, Climate Change Ecologist Mark White, Forest Ecologist University of MN Duluth Julie Etterson, Associate Professor Laura Kavajecz, MS Candidate Northern Institute of Applied Climate Support: Wildlife Conservation Society-Climate Adaptation Fund Science through Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Chris Swanston, Director Conservation Partners Legacy-MN Stephen Handler, Northwoods Coordinator National Science Foundation Cox Family Fund for Science and Research University of Minnesota-Duluth
Wrap-up Short term-resistance strategies can help maintain watershed functions-flow regimes, sediments, LWD inputs Longer term: high uncertainty, increased risk-forest change/loss-degraded watershed-riparian zone functions high emissions Adaptive management-resistance + resilience Monitor forest and watershed change Research: impacts of climate change, land use change, forest changes on watershed functions
Questions? Mark_white@tnc.org