Balancing multiple forest management objectives under climate change in central Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Forest managers must balance multiple objectives and consider tradeoffs when developing a management plan. Complex interactions between successional dynamics and natural disturbances make it challenging, especially when decisions play out under the deep and dynamic uncertainties associated with clim...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Trees, Forests and People |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666719323000924 |
| _version_ | 1797448002772664320 |
|---|---|
| author | Melissa S. Lucash Neil G. Williams Vivek Srikrishnan Klaus Keller Robert M. Scheller Casey Hegelson Robert E. Nicholas Erica A.H. Smithwick |
| author_facet | Melissa S. Lucash Neil G. Williams Vivek Srikrishnan Klaus Keller Robert M. Scheller Casey Hegelson Robert E. Nicholas Erica A.H. Smithwick |
| author_sort | Melissa S. Lucash |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Forest managers must balance multiple objectives and consider tradeoffs when developing a management plan. Complex interactions between successional dynamics and natural disturbances make it challenging, especially when decisions play out under the deep and dynamic uncertainties associated with climate change. Here we explored a suite of management strategies to maximize multiple management objectives and minimize tradeoffs under future climate projections and quantified the greatest sources of uncertainty. We used a spatially-explicit forest simulation model (LANDIS-II) to simulate the effects of wind, management, and climate change in central Wisconsin and calculated benefits and tradeoffs among six management objectives (maximize aboveground carbon (C), soil C, harvested C, C stored in species of cultural importance to the Menominee tribe, tree diversity, and age diversity). We found that uneven-aged management achieves more ecosystem benefits (except for harvested C) than the other harvest strategies, but it was the business-as-usual harvest scenario that minimized tradeoffs among objectives. Climate change made it more difficult to store C in soils and have diverse forests and the management strategies we considered were unable to regain these lost benefits. Climate change reduced harvested C and C stored in culturally-important species, but the management strategies were able to at least partially compensate for this effect. The uncertainty surrounding the climate projections generated the largest variation in all benefits except harvested C. Managers seeking to maximize benefits and minimize tradeoffs should consider a range of silvicultural strategies while recognizing that climate change may shrink the operating space for achieving foresters’ management goals. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T14:04:06Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-92543e9896ea4170b130e34d51b857ef |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2666-7193 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T14:04:06Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Trees, Forests and People |
| spelling | doaj.art-92543e9896ea4170b130e34d51b857ef2023-11-30T05:11:41ZengElsevierTrees, Forests and People2666-71932023-12-0114100460Balancing multiple forest management objectives under climate change in central Wisconsin, U.S.A.Melissa S. Lucash0Neil G. Williams1Vivek Srikrishnan2Klaus Keller3Robert M. Scheller4Casey Hegelson5Robert E. Nicholas6Erica A.H. Smithwick7Environmental Studies Program, Department of Geography, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97405, United States; Corresponding author.USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT 59808, United States; Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, United StatesDepartment of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, United StatesThayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, United StatesDepartment of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, United StatesEarth and Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States; Department of Philosophy, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United StatesEarth and Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States; Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United StatesEarth and Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States; Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United StatesForest managers must balance multiple objectives and consider tradeoffs when developing a management plan. Complex interactions between successional dynamics and natural disturbances make it challenging, especially when decisions play out under the deep and dynamic uncertainties associated with climate change. Here we explored a suite of management strategies to maximize multiple management objectives and minimize tradeoffs under future climate projections and quantified the greatest sources of uncertainty. We used a spatially-explicit forest simulation model (LANDIS-II) to simulate the effects of wind, management, and climate change in central Wisconsin and calculated benefits and tradeoffs among six management objectives (maximize aboveground carbon (C), soil C, harvested C, C stored in species of cultural importance to the Menominee tribe, tree diversity, and age diversity). We found that uneven-aged management achieves more ecosystem benefits (except for harvested C) than the other harvest strategies, but it was the business-as-usual harvest scenario that minimized tradeoffs among objectives. Climate change made it more difficult to store C in soils and have diverse forests and the management strategies we considered were unable to regain these lost benefits. Climate change reduced harvested C and C stored in culturally-important species, but the management strategies were able to at least partially compensate for this effect. The uncertainty surrounding the climate projections generated the largest variation in all benefits except harvested C. Managers seeking to maximize benefits and minimize tradeoffs should consider a range of silvicultural strategies while recognizing that climate change may shrink the operating space for achieving foresters’ management goals.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666719323000924Carbon storageForest managementForest simulation modelLANDIS-IITradeoffs |
| spellingShingle | Melissa S. Lucash Neil G. Williams Vivek Srikrishnan Klaus Keller Robert M. Scheller Casey Hegelson Robert E. Nicholas Erica A.H. Smithwick Balancing multiple forest management objectives under climate change in central Wisconsin, U.S.A. Trees, Forests and People Carbon storage Forest management Forest simulation model LANDIS-II Tradeoffs |
| title | Balancing multiple forest management objectives under climate change in central Wisconsin, U.S.A. |
| title_full | Balancing multiple forest management objectives under climate change in central Wisconsin, U.S.A. |
| title_fullStr | Balancing multiple forest management objectives under climate change in central Wisconsin, U.S.A. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Balancing multiple forest management objectives under climate change in central Wisconsin, U.S.A. |
| title_short | Balancing multiple forest management objectives under climate change in central Wisconsin, U.S.A. |
| title_sort | balancing multiple forest management objectives under climate change in central wisconsin u s a |
| topic | Carbon storage Forest management Forest simulation model LANDIS-II Tradeoffs |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666719323000924 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT melissaslucash balancingmultipleforestmanagementobjectivesunderclimatechangeincentralwisconsinusa AT neilgwilliams balancingmultipleforestmanagementobjectivesunderclimatechangeincentralwisconsinusa AT viveksrikrishnan balancingmultipleforestmanagementobjectivesunderclimatechangeincentralwisconsinusa AT klauskeller balancingmultipleforestmanagementobjectivesunderclimatechangeincentralwisconsinusa AT robertmscheller balancingmultipleforestmanagementobjectivesunderclimatechangeincentralwisconsinusa AT caseyhegelson balancingmultipleforestmanagementobjectivesunderclimatechangeincentralwisconsinusa AT robertenicholas balancingmultipleforestmanagementobjectivesunderclimatechangeincentralwisconsinusa AT ericaahsmithwick balancingmultipleforestmanagementobjectivesunderclimatechangeincentralwisconsinusa |