Management Effects on Growth, Production and Sustainability of Managed Forest Ecosystems_Past Trends...

8/19/2019 Management Effects on Growth, Production and Sustainability of Managed Forest Ecosystems_Past Trends and Fu…

1/12

Management effects on growth, production and sustainability of managed forest ecosystems: Past trends and future directions

James A. Burger *

Department of Forestry (0324), 228 Cheatham Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States

1. Introduction

Humans have been hunting and gathering wood and other

forest products in North America for heat, shelter, and sustenance

since their migration from Siberia and before the retreat of the

Wisconsin continental glacier 20,000 years ago (Morell, 1995). We

still hunt andgather,but only withinthe past 100 years have we,as

recent immigrants to this continent, made a concerted effort to

manage the composition and productivity of North American

forests. There is evidence that Native American tribes purposely

manipulated forest composition for habitat enhancement using

fire (Perlin, 1991), but it was not until the mid-20th century,

following several natural resource catastrophes including near-

total exploitationof thevirginforests in the East, forest clearing for

agriculture and land abandonment due to severe water erosion in

most of the Atlantic states and provinces, and the dust bowl period

during the 1930s, that forest management replaced forest

exploitation as the predominant cultural mindset for human

interaction with our nations’ forests.

One of the earliest manifestations of management effects on

growth, production, and sustainability in the United States (U.S.)

was reforestation and landstabilizationof wind- and water-eroded

land wrought by abusive agriculture that began before the U.S.

Civil War in the early 1800s and lasted until after the Great

Depression during the 1930s. National public works projects,

including the Civilian Conservation Corp and the Works Progress

Administration (Morris and Morris, 1996), resulted in millions of

acres of land reforested and protected by windbreaks and other

conservation measures.The 1940s and1950s marked a surge in the

development of the wood and paper industries which resulted in

the establishment and management of plantation forests on lands

purchased by the forest industry. This was also the 30-year period

in which the National Forest System was greatly expanded by the

U.S. Congress, which led to forest restoration and management of

millions of acres of cut-over and damaged and exploited public

land.

These reforestation and forest management activities required

basic and applied knowledge of soils and forest biology and

prompted early research on soil productivity, tree nursery

production, and plantation management. In 1958, after a decade

or two of forest soils research among scientists at universities and

federal and state agencies, the 1st North American Forest Soils

Conference (NAFSC) was held at Michigan State University ‘‘to

bring together scientists interested in forest soil relationships,

discuss the results of completed research and encourage future

work in the field’’ (Stevens and Cook, 1958).

Forest management, the intentional manipulation of the forest

ecosystem to influence its composition, productivity and nature of

Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 2335–2346

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 30 September 2008

Received in revised form 4 March 2009Accepted 9 March 2009

Keywords:

Sustainable forest management

Soil productivity

Site-specific management

Ecosystem restoration

A B S T R A C T

Only within the past 100 years have we, as recent immigrants to this continent, made a concerted effort

to restore and manage the composition and productivity of North American forests. One of the earliest

manifestations of management effects on growth, production, and sustainability was reforestation and

land stabilization of wind- and water-eroded land wrought by abusive agriculture. In the past 50 years,

basic and applied research has greatly increased forest productivity of desired species on many sites by

integrating intensive forest management practices. Forest management was further enhanced by site-

specific prescriptions made possible by finely honed soil and land classification systems interpreted

specifically for forestry uses. Managers of our private and public forests are facing new challenges

caused, in part, by public expectations that forests provide a myriad of services along with products;

servicesthat have been taken forgranted andare poorlymonetized.Managingforests simultaneouslyfor

wood, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, energy, water quality, flood control, habitat, and recreation is

the 21st century challenge for foresters who need scienceto underpin their prescriptions. This paper is a

review of forest management effects on growth, production, and sustainability of forest ecosystems.

2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Tel.: +1 540 231 7680; fax: +1 540 231 3330.

E-mail address: [email protected].

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Ecology and Management

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / f o r e c o

0378-1127/$ – see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.015

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03781127http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.015http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.015http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03781127mailto:[email protected]


2/12

the products and services that it provides, is one of several major

research areas studied by forest soils scientists over the past 50

years. This 11th NAFSC held in 2008 is a celebration of 50 years of

work in five major research areas: (1) forest site evaluation and

mapping, (2) fertility and tree nutrition, (3) soil ecology and

biogeochemistry, (4) linkages between forest soils and water

quality and quantity, and (5) management effects on growth,

production, and sustainability of forest ecosystems. The purpose of

this paper is to provide an overview of topic 5 on management

effects, to include the evolution of management research and its

connections to the other four topics, the major milestones of

research progress, the state of the art and science, and issues and

challenges associated with forestmanagementresearch. I will do it

largely from a U.S. perspective because of my greater familiarity

with U.S. forest soils research and forestry; however, there are

many parallels with the Canadian experience.

2. Evolution of forest soils management research

Dr. Charles E. Kellogg, who at the time was assistant

administrator for the National Soil Survey, gave the keynote

address at the 1st NAFSC, and, in many ways, gave the keynote for

this 50-year period of forest research and practice (Kellogg, 1958).

Dr. Kellogg was expert in many areas of soil science and was

renowned for his ability to apply soils knowledge to a variety of

land use systems throughout the world. For someone not normally

associated with forest soils research, Dr. Kellogg’s keynote was

especially insightful because he laid the foundation for issues that

have been addressed at each subsequent quinquennial conference.

He recognized the challenges of multiple use forestry; the need for

site-specific management; the additive effects of management

inputs on forest site index; the effects of species conversions,

tillage, fertilization, and weed control on nutrient cycling;

trafficking effects on soil physical properties; and the need for

thorough interpretation of each soil mapping unit. The first three

conferences built on the themes outlined by Dr. Kellogg’s use of a

largely agricultural model for applied research, including the need

to transfer the science to practitioners (Fig. 1).The need for both basic andapplied research became apparent as

forest soils’ issues became more complex. In 1973, in his keynote

address on unitary concepts of forest soils and their management at

the 4th NAFSC, Dr. Earl Stone conceptualized basic models of forest

soils as (1) natural bodies, (2) media for plant growth, (3) an

ecosystem or ecosystem component, and (4) as a vegetated water-

transmitting mantle (Stone, 1975). He then superimposed these

basic models on managementsystems requiring increasing levels of

human activity: remote wildlands, protected wild forests, exploited

forests, regulated forests, and domesticated forests. This concep-

tualization of ‘‘what forest soils are’’ and‘‘how we usethemacross a

managementgradient’’ was a milestone thatfocused ourresearch in

directions that exist today. On the foundations laid by Drs. Kellogg

andStone, themesof subsequent conferencesincludedmanagement

effects on nutrient cycling and sustainability, forest soil protection

from on- and off-site effects, forest soil processes, role of organic

matterand carbonin forest productivity,soil quality, fireeffects, and

adaptive management (Fig.1). And gradually with time sincethe 1st

NAFSC, the distribution of applied and basic research went from

nearly all applied to an equal distribution of each.

3. The forest management process

In its simplest sense, the forest management process is the

input of practices to achieve a certain kind, amount, and rate of

product and service outputs. Expected product and service outputs

vary across a forest management gradient as forest management

objectives have evolved (Fig. 2). Historically, North American

forests have been exploited for wood products, but if human and

wildlife habitat and predictable water yield of high quality are

desired, some level of management input is needed (extensive

forestry). An expectation of additional services suchas biodiversity

and carbon sequestration requires additional inputs (intensive

forestry). Maximizing products and services at both the stand and

landscape levels will require precision management not unlike

precision technologies used in intensive agriculture, except that

the public hasthe expectation that forestlandswill be managed for

water use and quality, biodiversity, andwildlife habitat in addition

to food and fiber production.

Intensity of forest management varies by ownership, private or

public. Regardless of ownership, there are four enduring issues

forest managers will grapple with for the foreseeable future: (1)

economically optimizing output of services, (2) increasing/main-

taining productivity, (3) restoration and management of degraded

forest sites and soils, and (4) sustainability and adaptive manage-ment. These are timeless management issues addressed first by Dr.

Kellogg and re-emphasizedsince at nearly everygathering of forest

soils researchers.

4. Optimizing output of services

Greater social and economic demands are being put on both

public and private forests. Wood for fuel, construction, and fiber

Fig. 1. Development of forest soils knowledge since the 1st North American Forest

Soils Conference.

Fig. 2. Forest management intensity and investment as a function of products,

services and overall value generated by increasing complexity.

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 2335–2346 2336


3/12

and non-timber forest products have been traditional forest uses

for millennia. Today, there is a huge emphasis on forest services,

and the public has increasingly higher expectations of our nations’

forests. Forests provide flood control, erosion control, water

quality, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration,

recreation, and the potential increase of wood for energy. In large

part, these services have been ‘‘free’’ to the public, and, as such,

undervalued and underappreciated, but increasingly they are

becoming monetized to reflect their actual value (Pagiola et al.,

2002; United Nations, 2003; Boyd, 2007), which in turn, provides

incentive to landowners to actively manage their forests for

multiple products and services (de Groot et al., 2002; Pearce, 2002).

The intent is a balance of productsand services achieved by several

‘‘carrot and stick’’ policies. Owners of private forests are provided

direct payment or incentives through state and federal programs to

manage their land to produce certain services. On public forests,

managers follow long-term plans that are often scrutinized and

challenged with litigation by groups with different views.

For at least five decades, there has been tension among

landowners andusers of forest services foroptimization of outputs

(Koch and Skovsgaard, 1999). This optimization process has

evolved via several public and private initiatives including

multiple use and sustained yield, ecosystem management, and

triad zoning within private forests (Table 1). Multipleuses of publicforests were codified in the U.S. by the Multiple Use and Sustained

Yield Act of 1960. It is a policy that fits all uses of the forest intothe

public’s National Forest System to include timber, range, water,

wildlife, and recreation. Fedkiw (1997) argues that the concept is

laudable, but there are few clients of multiple use andmultiple use

as a systemis difficult to understand and manage. By 1970, Edward

Cliff, the chief of the Forest Service, declared that ecosystem

management was the best way to provide services to the public

(Fedkiw, 1997). It would be another two decades before the

scientific basis of ecosystem management was established

(Christenson, 1996), and even longer for some agreement on

how to implement ecosystem management through an adaptive,

iterative process.

During the 1990s as the USDA Forest Service was implementingecosystem management on public lands, the forest industry and

other private landowners increasingly received public pressure to

manage their lands in ways that provided public services such as

water quality, biodiversity and aesthetic landscapes. One of the

outcomes of this public pressure was the development of forest

management certification programs managed by the Sustainable

Forestry Initiative (SFI, 2004), the Canadian Standards Association

(CSA, 2003), and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC, 1995, 2004).

Private forest landowners are compelled to have their manage-

ment certified as part of their land stewardship compact with the

public and in order to maintain the license to operate and market

their products. Certification principles include practicing sustain-

able forestry using responsible practices that include reforestation

and maintaining forest health and productivity while protecting

soil and water resources and special sites and biological diversity.

A high proportion of industrial forest lands are now certified by

third parties. Continuing environmental and sustainability issues

are largely associated with non-industrial private land whose

owners do not have the resources or understanding to adopt

sustainable management practices.

Producing multiple products and services from a single private

forest tract is challenging for managers, especially when high

proportions of an ownership are plantations. A triad approach that

manages forests for different purposes in zones within a single

tract is being used by industry and some public agencies, especially

in Canada. Triad zoning is managing at the landscape level for a

different set of values in each zone while producing a complete set

of values at the forest or landscape level ( Montigny and MacLean,

2006). Triad zoning allows more efficient production of products

and services on sub-units of land that are most suited for a specific

use. It increases wood production and preserves ecologically

sensitive areas for other uses (Sedjo and Botkin, 1997). The triad

zones include intensive tree farming with a focus on timber

products, short rotations, and high value species; ecological forest

management with a focus on both timberand non-timber products,

longer rotations, and natural disturbance; and protected areas with

a focus on ecological benchmarking, littleor no timberharvest,andscientific study (Binkley, 1997). Planned distribution of zones

within the forest is critical for optimizing a complete set of values.

Landscape ecologists show that spatial pattern is a key determi-

nant of ecosystemhealth and function (Crow and Gustafson, 1997),

and models of spatial prescription of forest operations in various

zones, including cut-block size, rotation length, stand structure,

and conversionsto plantations, affectthe value of forest services as

well as ecosystem function (Gustafson, 2007). In many ways, triad

zoning is a form of precision forestry at the landscape level that

optimizes the output of products and services (Fig. 2).

In a review of forest zoning, Nitschke and Innes (2005)

summarized two applications of triad zoning on large land bases

in Canada. They reported that J. D. Irving Limited adopted the

approach on 190,000 ha in northwestern New Brunswick, andAlberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. adopted a triad management

approach for 58,000 km2 in north central Alberta. In the South-

eastern U.S. large blocks of industry-owned forest land are

managed in a mosaic of forest types to provide wildlife habitat

and to preserve natural forest stands. Mead-WestvacoCorporation,

which owns approximately 200,000 ha in the Coastal Plain of South

Carolina, uses an ecosystem-based multiple use forest manage-

ment system to provide fiber for its mills while preserving unique

areas, wetlands, and wildlife corridors (Gerhardt, 1997).

Optimization of forest products and services from diverse

ownerships will require higher levels of monetization of non-

timber values, but the trend toward managing for multiple values

is in place. Forest soils research will become less centered on

Table 1

Timeline of forest management approaches to meet public demand for forest services on public and private lands.

Year Approach Defined Outcome Reference

1960 Multiple use (public lands) Provide lumber, range, recreation,

wildlife, minerals from single forest

Lots of single-use interest; no

multiple use clients

Fedkiw (1997)

1980 Ecosystem management

(public/private)

Integrate management of all natural

resource values while maintaining

soil productivity and forest health

Incomplete integration of social,

economic, and biological factors

Swanson and Franklin (1992),

Salwasser (1994), Franklin (1989),

Brunson et al. (1996)

2000 Triad zoning (private/industry) Landscape matrix of reserves and

intensively managed areas

Different set of values managed

for in each zone, with full set

at forest level

Clawson (1974), Seymour and

Hunter (1992), Binkley (1997),

Montigny and MacLean (2006)

2005 Sustainable forest management Maintain the potential for land and

water ecosystems to produce the

same quantity and quality of goods

and services in perpetuity

The goal is management that

is simultaneously economically

viable, environmentally sound,

and socially acceptable

Franklin (1993), Sample et al. (2006),

RSF (2009)



4/12

timber production and will broaden to include issues associated

with forest protection and production of multiple forest services.

5. Increasing/maintaining productivity

Increasing forest productivity while maintaining soil quality

has been a continuing and fundamental management issue for

forest soil researchers during the 50-year history of our

conferences. Forest type conversions, many aspects of plantation

culture, the effects of rotation age and stem versus whole-tree

harvesting, and the cumulative effects of silviculture were highly

researched topicsduring the 1960s and1970sand remainso today.

Forest type conversions have occurred for millennia as humans

found that certain species, native or exotic, better met their needs

due to ease of management, type of wood, fiber length,

straightness of stem, rate of growth, or non-timber products

provided. Recent examples are native oak-pine conversions to

loblolly pine plantations in the southeastern U.S., mixedconifers to

Ponderosa pine in the southwest, spruce and fir conversions to

pines in eastern Canada and Nordic countries, native forest

conversions to radiata pine in Australia and New Zealand, and

European oak and beech to Norway spruce.

Despite fewer forest services provided, forest conversions to

intensively managed plantations can produce great value bymaximizing wood production of a given valuable species. At issue

is whether or not forest conversions compromise ecosystem

stability and soil productivity over theshort or long-term, the level

of fossil fuel inputs needed to maintain productivity, and whether

or not the forest system can return to its original structure and

function, with or without intervention, if intensive management is

abandoned. The persistence and stability of an ecosystem is a

function of the extent to which it can change from an equilibrium

state due to a disturbance and the time required to return to its

original state, if at all (Holling, 1973). Most forest conversions

replace climax or late-successional systems with early succes-

sional systems. After multiple rotations, the forest soil will likely

‘‘convert’’ to an early successional condition commensurate with

the vegetation. Reichle et al. (1975) maintained that forestecosystems, including their soils, tend toward maximum persis-

tent biomass regulated by climate and limiting resources. Crocker

and Major (1955), in their classic paper on forest soil development

following forest succession behind a retreating Alaskan alpine

glacier, demonstrate Reichle’s principle. Do forest conversions

reverse the process, and if so, to what degree of hysteresis? Will

soil quality revert to a new, but acceptable, sustainable equili-

brium? The agroforestry literature shows that forest conversions

invariably decrease soil organic matter content, open nutrient

cycles, and decrease soil tilth (Lundgren and Nair, 1985; Young,

1997; Olson et al., 2000). If soil productivity decreases, what level

of conditioning is required and at what cost in order to return it at

its original level?

These questions have been answered in part by the success of intensive forest management exemplified by pine plantations in

the southeastern U.S. Several decades of research and practice on

soil treatments including watertable control, surface drainage, and

the addition of phosphorus at time of planting have each increased

site productivity by 5–20 m3 ha1 year1 depending on the site.

Nitrogen fertilization at stand closure and weed control increase

plantation productivity by 5–10 m3 ha1 year1 by shortening

the rotation cycle (Fox et al., 2007). This increased productivity has

been achieved by understanding forest response to each forest

practice as well as the cumulative effects of intensive silviculture

(Burger, 1994). The effect of soil treatments combined with tree

improvement and weed control treatments is shown on produc-

tion curves in Fig. 3. The solid curve depicts forest biomass

production with time without intensive management. Improved

genotypes, weed control, and nitrogen fertilization increase the

rate of biomass production (dashed line), shortening the time

required to meet site carrying capacity or rotation age ( Zobel and

Talbert, 1984; Lowery and Gjerstad, 1991; Allen, 1987). Soildrainage and phosphorus fertilization increase site carrying

capacity (Terry and Hughes, 1975; Pritchett et al., 1961), which

means that forest productivity increases both by shortening the

rotation and increasing carrying capacity, the level of maximum

production. Site carrying capacity can be reduced (dotted lines) if

site treatments cause significant erosion, loss of soil organic

matter, nutrient depletion, or an air/water imbalance (Morris and

Miller, 1994; Powers, 1999), and biomass production is reduced by

some measure despite better genotypes, weed control, and

fertilization (Squire et al., 1979; Fox et al., 1989; Burger, 1994;

Hopmans, this issue).

Through research and practice, many of the interactions among

these site treatments are understood, allowing foresters to use

intensive management practices that increase productivity abovenative levels while avoiding activities that degrade site quality

(Carter and Foster, 2006). This is clearly demonstrated by data

compiled by Fox et al. (2004) showing increasing plantation yields

and decreasing rotation ages since the 1940s, when the first

southern pine plantations were harvested, through a projection to

2010(Fig. 4). Since the first North AmericanForest Soils Conference

was held in 1958, total yield has more than doubled, and rotation

age has dropped by half. It is unlikely that the participants in the

1st NAFSC in 1958 would have predicted this magnitude of

productivity increase. This result demonstrates the value of

focused, applied forest soils research.

Research on the cumulative effects of soil treatments and

plantation silviculture is ongoing and will become more important

Fig. 3. Forest management effects on forest biomass production with time (after

Burger, 1994).

Fig. 4. Change in yield and rotation length of southern pine plantations during 70

years of management (Fox et al., 2004).



5/12

as new demands are put on plantation forests for higher yields and

more intensive harvests. Harvesting additional increments of

biomass for energy andbiofuels is inevitable. The authors of a joint

U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture resource assessment

claim a technical feasibility of a 1.3 billion dry-ton sustainable

annual supply of biomass to displace 30% of the country’s present

petroleum consumption (Perlack et al., 2005). This would amount

to a seven-fold increase in production from the amount currently

consumed, with 368 and 998 million dry-tons per year produced

from forest and agricultural resources, respectively. The projected

increase from forest resources doubles biomass use from this

sector, with the remaining increase supported by agriculture.

This demand for additional biomass elevates the challenge of

achieving sustainable plantations. If sustainability is partially

achieved by fertilization inputs, can these inputs be sustained

given the tripled cost of nitrogen-based fertilizers in the past three

years? If sustainability is partially a function of soil organic matter

retention, how will this be achieved if whole-trees are removed for

wood and energy? And if carbon sequestration is a related new

demand of plantation forests, can this be achieved with more

intensive harvests?

Versions of these questions were asked during the 1980s and

1990s related to whole-tree harvesting when in-woods chipping

technology became practical. Meta-analyses of the literature onforest management effects on soil carbon were done by Johnson

(1992) and Johnson and Curtis (2001). In their study reported in

2001, Johnson and Curtis summarized stem versus whole-tree

harvesting effects for 73 observations from temperate forest sites

around the world.Sawlog harvesting caused an 18%increase in soil

carbon, while whole-tree harvests decreasedsoil carbon by 6%.The

net difference was 12% soil carbon between the two harvest types.

If whole-tree harvesting is required for producing energy wood, it

is unlikely that energy wood harvests will be sustainable on many

sites. For managed forests, a direct tradeoff of net carbon sink for

intensive energy wood harvests may be inevitable, but any use of

biomass for energy in lieu of fossil energy reduces our overall

carbon footprint.

Soil tillage is often used for surface drainage (bedding ormounding), weed control, and loosening compacted soils in

plantation forests. Tillage mixes litter and harvest residues with

mineral soil, whichacceleratesdecomposition (Burger andPritchett,

1984). Tillage increases forest productivity in some cases (Morris

andLowery, 1988),but it may decrease soil carbon.In 1982,withthe

cooperation of a forest industry landowner, I established an

operational-level site preparation study across 12 ‘‘old-field’’

naturally regenerated loblolly pine sites in Georgia and South

Carolina. Average carboncontent in thesurface 20 cm of mineral soil

was about 10 Mg ha1 after 100+ years of abusive agriculture, less

than a thirdof which mayhave beenpresent originally(Richteret al.,

1999). Tillage versus no tillage was crossed with residue removal

(non-merchantable trees, slash, L and F litter layers) versus no

removal in a factorial arrangement. After 18 years, Cerchiro (2003)reported that tillage caused a 10% increase in tree volume

attributable to weed control and better stocking, but residue

removaldecreased volumeby 10%.Residueremoval alone decreased

soil carbonin the surface 20 cmby 9%after18 years (Fig.5),which is

about equivalent to the whole-tree harvest effect reported by

Johnson and Curtis (2001). Combined residue removal and tillage,

common practice at the time, decreased soil carbon by 18%. Organic

matter removal, along with related nutrient depletion, may have

been the cause of the lower stand volume.

As Johnson and Curtis (2001) showed in their meta-analysis,

soil carbon change is forest-, soil- and treatment-specific. Powers

et al. (2005) reported findings after 10 years of study of a range of

long-term site productivity study sites in CA, ID, LA, MI, MS, and

NC. Soil organic matter across all sites was generally unaffected by

complete removal of surface organic matter (stem-only versus

whole-tree + litter removal). Based on composite results, it

appeared that carbon inputs to mineral soil horizons were due

primarily to root decomposition, while carbon mineralized in the

surface Oi and Oe layers effluxed as CO2. However, for fourcontrasting CA sites,whole-tree + litter removal caused substantial

declines in soil C and N concentrations and mineralizable N.

For two rotations of radiata pine plantations in Southern

Australia, Hopmans (this issue) reported that inter-rotational

management of the forest floor and harvesting residues aimed at

conserving organic matter and nutrients on Spodosols was critical

for maintaining the productive capacity of these soils. Burning of

harvesting residues after the first rotation caused a decline in

productivity of thesecond rotation while retention of residues was

shown to maintain or enhance early growth of radiata pine. Total C

(9.2 Mg ha1) and N (582 kg ha1) declined with burning of

harvest residues in the first rotation; however, the accumulation

of C and N in the forest floor and residues after clear-felling of the

second rotation, removing only stem wood and bark (conventionalharvesting), more than compensated for this decline indicating a

gain in carbon (+14 Mg ha1) and to a lesser extent N

(+13 kg ha1). This demonstrates the recovery potential of soil

organic matter content and forest productivity with appropriate

site-specific biomass and residue management.

Through a combination of field-level trials and directed studies

on soil processes, we have learned much about the cumulative

effects of silvicultural treatments on forest productivity over the

past 50 years (Carter and Foster, 2006). During this time, there

have been occasional claims of reaching a theoretical maximum,

but as researchers and practitioners continue to combine clonal

biotechnology, ecophysiology, and soil treatments, higher and

higher productivity levels have been achieved (Borders and Bailey,

2001; Allen et al., 2005). On the other hand, greater demands forbiomass extraction and increasing costs of productivity-sustaining

fuel and fertilizer inputs will likelycause a leveling offof plantation

productivity. This contention is supported by Franklin and

Johnson’s (2004) observation that globalization of markets is

dramatically altering the socioeconomic context for growing and

manufacturing wood-based products from timberlands. The North

American forest industry is shifting capital investment to the

southern hemisphere where plantation forests can be grown at

faster rates and lower cost.

6. Site-specific management

One especially important intensive forestry activity is site-

specific management, made possible by forest site evaluation and

Fig. 5. Tillage and residue removal effects on soil carbon in the soil surface (20 cm)

of loblolly pine plantations after 18 years (Cerchiaro, 2003).



6/12

mapping, one of the five theme areas of the conference (see paper

by Paré, this volume). Forest site evaluation and mapping in North

America is done at a spectrum of intensity and scale using climate,

vegetation, landform, soils, or a combination of two or more for

classification criteria. In the U.S., the National Soil Survey ( http://

soils.usda.gov/survey/), begun over 100 years ago and targeted at

farmland, was originally used as a base for forest soil classification

and mapping. It quickly became evident that forest soils needed to

be mapped at a different spatial scale, both horizontally and

vertically, and interpreted specifically for intensive forest manage-

ment (Van Lear, 1991). As a result, most large forest landowners

developed their own site classification systems tailored to their

land conditions (Fox, 1991). Classification and mapping became

increasingly complex and more useful with innovative approaches

for conceptualizing and representing spatial complexity (Hoos-

beek and Bryant, 1992; Hoosbeek and Bouma, 1998), and as new

technologies such as spatial statistics, geographical information

systems, and global positioning systems were applied (Ryan et al.,

2000). Soils were interpreted for multiple intensive forest

management inputs including site preparation, herbicide applica-

tion, fertilization, equipment limitations, seedling performance,

and projected yield.

A new level of management intensity, precision forestry,

requires even greater site-specificity. Precision forestry representsa step increase in management complexity compared to inte-

grated, intensive plantation management practiced for the past

several decades in the U.S. Southeast and Northwest (Fig. 2). It

shares some components of precision agriculture but is different

by virtue of operations and objectives. Taylor et al. (2006) define it

as planning and conducting site-specific forest management

activities and operations to improve wood product quality and

utilization, reduce waste and increase profits, and maintain the

quality of the environment. It uses GIS and GPS to improve

operational efficiency by applying site treatments at sub-stand

levels, and with the use of LiDAR, it can track growth and yield

performance at the tree level (Brodbeck et al., 2007). With these

new capabilities, forest site classification and mapping needs to be

even more specific, to include precise yield projections, estimatesof clonalresponses, andthe ability to provide soils data forGIS/GPS

operations maps. Will our ability to interpret soils for responses to

precise management keep up with the technology? Is basic

research adequate to support this step increase in management

intensity? It is not possible to install field trials across all mapping

units at a precision scale. A greater understanding of management

effects on basic soil properties is needed so a greater amount of

extrapolation of results from existing trials can be made at a finer

scale.

7. Management of degraded forests, sites and soils

Dr. Daniel Hillel, distinguished soil scientist and Bible historian

(Hillel, 2006), commented in his book on human effects on soils,that ‘‘—as soils go, so go civilizations’’ (Hillel, 1992). His comment

referred to soil quality degradation by early civilizations in the

Middle East and more broadly to soil degradation worldwide.

Human history is replete with examples of declining or lost

civilizations due to abuse or total destruction of forest and soil

systems (Diamond, 2005). North American forests and soils have

largely escaped degradation at levels that threaten the ecosystem

integrity or their ability to recover. Nonetheless, there are many

examples of degraded forest ecosystems in North America, and

recent concern about their condition helped spawn the science of

restoration ecology. Forest soil scientists are increasingly involved

in five areas of restoration ecology: (1) recovery of forest types

suchas longleaf pine, ponderosa pine, and bottomland hardwoods;

(2) severe wildfire effects on forest soils; (3) acid deposition effects

on forests and soils; (4) mined land reclamation and reforestation;

and (5) afforestation and recovery of degraded agricultural land.

Over the 50-year history of the NAFSC, research has increased and

numerous reports have been published on these topics, especially

on acid precipitation and fire effects and restoration of degraded

soils (see especially, Proc. 6th and 10th NAFSC, 1984 and 2005,

respectively).

Acid deposition effects on forests, lakes, streams and soils were

researched intensively during the decade of the 1980s, culminating

with the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report.

The report concluded that the biological integrity of eastern North

American lakes and streams had been impacted, but the effects on

forests and soils was inconclusive (NAPAP, 1990). To alleviate acid

deposition impacts in the eastern U.S., the U.S. Congress amended

the Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) in 1990, which reduced

sulfate emissions significantly (EPA, 2000). Despite these reduc-

tions, there is evidence that acid deposition is having a negative

effect on sugar maple and spruce forests in the northeast ( Horsley

et al., 2000; Shortle et al., 1997). There is also some evidence that

acid deposition could be negatively impacting high-elevation

Appalachian oak forests in West Virginia. In a recent report, Elias

et al. (this volume) found evidence of general forest decline in the

Monongahela National Forest (MNF), which they attributed to base

depletion. The MNF is being actively managed for potential adverseeffects of acid deposition, as explicitly stated in its 2005 Forest

Management Plan. Driscoll et al. (2001) modeled the effects of

reduced sulfate emissions on key watershed acidification indica-

tors. According to their estimates, an additional 40% reduction in

sulfate emissions beyond the 1990 CAAA levels will not support

complete biological recovery of Hubbard Brook watersheds.

Moreover, increased harvesting pressure on northeastern hard-

wood forests could exacerbate the effects of acid deposition

(Hornbeck,1992; Thiffault et al., 2007). In their review of the issue,

Adams et al. (2000) recommended strategies needed to ensure

sustainable harvests, several of which, including fertilization and

liming, may not be economically viable. It is likely that in some

parts of Canada and the U.S., water bodies, soils, and forests will

suffer chronic, cumulative degradation due to pollution inputs. Inmany northern hardwood and Appalachian hardwood forests,

removal of base cations will exceed soil exchangeable levels.

Leaching of base cations and removal via harvest could become a

sustainability criterion in forest management plans and certifica-

tion standards.

The effect of wildfire on forest soils is a more recent

management issue because the number and frequency of severe

wildfires has increased in the U.S. and Canada during the past five

years due to natural fire suppression, expansion of the urban/

wildland interface, and more frequent dry periods associated with

climate change. Periodic ground fire is a good and necessary

process in many fire-dependent natural forest systems and

plantation forests. The positive effects of fire are well known

and have been well documented (Wells et al., 1979; Macadam,1989; Neary et al., 1999). However, cycling of the forest floor,

organic matter decomposition, and cycling of nutrients, processes

thatare enhanced by low-intensity fire, can be dramatically altered

by severe wildfire. In their review of fire effects on ecosystems,

DeBano et al. (1998) contrast the effects of fire intensity and burn

severity on ecosystem processes. Severe fire reduces organic

material, which decreases infiltration, increases runoff, dry ravel

sedimentation, and slope failures, and causes a cascade of

watershed changes, including nutrient- and sediment-enriched

streams, higher stream temperatures, and altered stream habitat

(Ice et al., 2004). Wildfire disturbances have reached an extent and

intensity requiring restoration efforts by multidisciplinary

resource teams that include soil scientists. Dale Bosworth, former

Chief of the USDA Forest Service, suggested that ecological


http://soils.usda.gov/survey/http://soils.usda.gov/survey/http://soils.usda.gov/survey/http://soils.usda.gov/survey/


7/12

restoration will become the primary focus of the Forest Service in

this post-timber production era due to a host of new challenges

(Bosworth and Brown, 2007). According to these authors, severe

wildfire is one of the greatest threats facing our nation’s forests.

Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems should be one of our highest

priorities.

Restoration ecology has emerged as an allied practice and

scientific discipline in forest land management (Sarr et al., 2004).

Although restoration ecology as a science is relatively new in

forestry circles, it has been practiced in an organized way for at

least 30 years for wetland mitigation (Kusler and Kentula, 1990),

mined land reclamation (Torbert and Burger, 2000; Burger et al.,

2005) and recovery of degraded soils (Richter and Markewitz,

2001). An emphasis in forestry has been on recovery of fire-

dependent ecosystems such as longleaf pine (Hermann, 1993;

Gilliam and Platt, 2006) and ponderosa pine (Covington et al.,

1997), and more recently on the restoration of bottomland

hardwood ecosystems (Stanturf et al., 2000). In most cases,

research and practice in these areas has been applied and

pragmatic, with a view of improving degraded conditions to

increase soil quality and forest value (Bradshaw, 1987). Wenger

et al. (2000) wonder if this is not simply good forest stewardship.

They warn against a more purist approach of restoration toward

some unattainable reference condition due to inadequate knowl-edge of the science that would lead us there. In any case, neglect

should not be an alternative because of a simple lack of agreement

on what to call the process of ecosystem recovery (Wenger et al.,

2000). In addition to severe forest and soil disturbances already

mentioned, our public and private forests of our nations are

experiencing numerous threats, including soil-degrading wildfires,

acidification, massive bark beetle attack, soil warming, and a net

loss of carbon. In addition to research needed to understand the

processes for soil and forest recovery from these impacts,

economic and institutional constraints must be overcome as we

seek societal direction on restoration, rehabilitation or replace-

ment of damaged forest ecosystems.

8. Sustainability and adaptive management

A final issue that will frame the activities of forest soil

researchers and practitioners well into the future is the process

of managing forests sustainably. Ecosystem sustainability was a

theme of the 9th NAFSC held at Tahoe City, California, in 1998

(Boyle and Powers, 2001). However, forest soils and ecosystem

sustainability have not been explored within the broader context

of sustainable forest management (SFM), a concept that the

forestry community was still struggling to define at the time. A

definition of sustainable forestry proposed by Franklin (1993, p.

127) several years earlier was finally accepted by many in the

forestry community: ‘‘maintain the potential for our land and

water ecosystems to produce the same quantity and quality of

goods and services in perpetuity,’’ but how to manage for it waseven more elusive.

This new forest management paradigm was inspired by the

Bruntland Commission Report (WCED, 1987), which discussed

how to achieve sustainable development. In 1992, in the spirit of

the Bruntland Report, world leaders at the United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development (United Nations,

1992) developed a statement of principles outlining a means for

protecting the world’s forests. Sample et al. (1993) captured these

principles in a simple model showing that sustainable forest

management is achieved when it is simultaneously ecologically

sound, economically viable, and socially responsible (Fig. 6). This

forest management model contains the principles and goals of

multiple use, ecosystem management, and triad zoning (Table 1).

Based on SFM principles, groups of countries sharing similar

forest resources developed criteria and indicators (C&Is) that

measure and monitor sustainability. The C&Is serve as policy and

management tools. They provide a framework for determining the

status of ecological, economic, and social conditions of forests, and

they provide the basis forSFM programs on private and public land

(RSF, 2008). Both Canada and the U.S. are signatories of the

Montreal Process, which encompasses most of the world’s

temperate and boreal forests. Sustainability criteria agreed upon

in 1995 by 10 countries include conservation and maintenance of

forest ecosystem biological diversity, productive capacity, health

and vitality, soil and water resources, global carbon cycles, long-

term multiple socio-economic benefits, and a legal, institutional,

and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable

management.The US National Forest System applies the Montreal Process

C&Is through ecosystem management policies, while certification

of forest management by third-party entities against a set of

standards is used to achieve SFM on some private forests

(Rametsteiner and Simula, 2002). Examples of certification

programs include the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Forest

Stewardship Council, and the Canadian Standards Association.

In 2003, the USDA Forest Service published a report on the state

of forests in the U.S. (USDA Forest Service, 2004) by addressing

each of the Montreal Process criteria and indicators. The report

provided a comprehensive picture of conditions and trends in U.S.

forests, but containedlittle analysis on the next steps for achieving

sustainability. Several years later, the Pinchot Institute for

Conservation published a companion report reflecting the judg-ment of some of the nation’s forestry and conservation leaders

about progress toward SFM (Sample et al., 2006). The report was

based, in part, on a series of workshops held to gather input from

public, private, government, and NGO stakeholders. All were asked

to consider the adequacy of forest management in 11 categories

that bridged environmental, economic, and social aspects of

management. The results, shown in Table 2, are disturbing because

the three categories on which we forest soil scientists spend most

of our time: (1) forest health and productivity, (2) scientific forest-

related knowledge, and (3) monitoring, assessment, and reporting

using criteria and indicators, were all ranked unsatisfactory in

terms of current efforts for achieving sustainability. This unsa-

tisfactory rating for the SFM criteria on which we work suggests

that we have much to do and that we will continue to play animportant role as the forestry community works toward SFM.

The Pinchot Institute Report by Sample et al. (2006) concluded

that the greatest impediment to progress on SFM was coordination

among stakeholders. Others believe that the tripartite model

Table 2

Results of a Pinchot Institute assessment of the USDA Forest Service National Report on Sustainable Forests – 2003 depicting perceived progress toward SFM.

Satisfactory Adequate Unsatisfactory

Forest s in environmentally critical areas Comb at in g deforest at ion and d egradation Forest health and p roductivity

Economic aspects of forests Protected areas and forest conservation Scientific forest-related knowledge

Maintaining forest cover to meet future needs Monitoring, assessment, and reporting using C&I

Traditional forest-related knowledge

Social and cultural aspects of forests

National forestry programs



8/12

(Fig. 6A) underpinning SFM is theoretically sound but functionallyflawed. The theory is that when the three balloons representing

economic, environment and social concerns move inward and are

fully superimposed due to market incentives and common

purpose, sustainable forest management is achieved. The reality

is an outward inertia motivated by special interests. American

agriculture shares this sustainability model. An example of the

model malfunctioning is the conversion of thousands of acres of

highly erodible Conservation Reserve Program land to corn,

prompted by a new U.S. renewable fuels standard that is largely

metwith corn ethanol (U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act,

2007). Similar examples can be found constraining SFM. No

amount of communication among stakeholders will overcome

strong marketincentives that pull the balloons aparttoward a non-

sustainable condition.Recognizing this, Burger (1997) recommended an alternative

biocentric model showing that social structure and function

(human communities) are constrained by economic feasibility

(business of forestry), and economic feasibility is constrained by

(nested within) the ecosystem (forest) on which both the economy

and society depend (Fig. 6B). It is the opposite of a pessimistic,

anthropocentric model that many consider today’s reality: forest-

based human communities enjoying a non-sustainable standard of

living on deficit economics based on dwindling forest resources

(Fig. 6C). SFM via the biocentric model (Fig. 6B) will likely require

rules beyond voluntary certification programs and ecosystem

management. Such a proposal has been made by several private

and public forestry groups through the Roundtable on Sustainable

Forests (RSF, 2008) (http://www.sustainableforests.net/summar-

ies.php). The draft Sustainable Forests Act of 2008 (http://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_-

Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdf ) repre-

sents impatience by some resource groups with non-functional

SFM models. The proposed act would ‘‘establish and implement a

sustainable forests policy for the nation’s forest resources and

forest lands.’’ The act would require that ‘‘economic, environ-

mental, and social values from forests across multiple ownerships

and jurisdictions be supported by a legal, financial and institutional

structure in which these values are mutually supporting.’’ It is

unlikely that the ‘‘mutually supporting’’ clause could be accom-

plished with only voluntary action. Any rules would surely be

resisted by some stakeholders, but initiatives such as this one will

test the forestry communities’ commitment to SFM. In any case,

researchers will be called upon to provide the missing scientificforest-related knowledge identified by the Pinchot Institute Report

for advancing SFM (Sample et al., 2006).

Despite gaps in our knowledge, general approaches for

achieving and monitoring SFM have been devised by forest

scientists and practitioners around the globe (Smith and McMa-

hon, 1997; Raison et al., 2001). These approaches, oftencalled logic

models, reliable processes, or adaptive management, are works in

progress, but nearly all contain the following elements: (1) a

definition of sustainable forest management; (2) an understanding

of the cause and effect relationships between forest harvesting, soil

change, andforest health; (3) defined indicators of soil change that

could lead to forest decline; (4) the ability to map site sensitivity

based on potential change in sustainability indicators; (5) a base of

scientific principles and empirical trials from which forecasts of

Fig. 6. A simultaneous (A); biocentric (B), and anthropogenic (C) model of sustainable forest management ( Sample et al., 1993; after Zonnveld, 1990; Salwasser et al., 1993;

Burger, 1997).


http://www.sustainableforests.net/summaries.phphttp://www.sustainableforests.net/summaries.phphttp://www.sustainableforests.net/summaries.phphttp://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdfhttp://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdfhttp://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdfhttp://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdfhttp://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdfhttp://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdfhttp://www.sustainableforests.net/summaries.phphttp://www.sustainableforests.net/summaries.php


9/12

acceptable harvest levels and forest practices can be prescribed on

a site-sensitivity basis (best management practices, BMPs); (6)

protocols for monitoring indicators to determine if managementpractices are meeting sustainability criteria; and (7) periodic

reviews for revising guidelines to ensure BMP effectiveness

(adaptive management).

Henninger et al. (1998) published their version of an adaptive

management model (Fig. 7) and explained its use within their

forest products company. I believe it provides a good base for

achieving a sustainable forest for all forest ownerships. To their

model I would add an explicit SFM goal as an input and specify the

primary goods and service for which we are managing. Using the

strategic database, which is what we know and the tools at our

disposal, management guidelines are developed for specific sites,

and guidelines are applied to the forest as best management

practices by trained personnel. Compliance monitoring is used to

ensure that the BMPs were applied correctly, effectivenessmonitoring is used to determine if the practices actually worked

in theshort-term, andvalidation monitoring is used to determineif

the overall approach is working in the long-term. Soil quality

indicators and disturbance standards are examples of short-term

effectiveness monitoring that can be used to adjust guidelines, if

needed, and a reference productivity level is an example of an

indicator for long-term validation. Monitoring at all levels will

identify gaps in our knowledge for which short- and long-term

research may be needed to improve the strategic database. An

ongoing adaptive management process, tailored for different

ownerships, is a necessary mechanism for achieving SFM on the

ground.

9. Summary

This paper is a review of forest management effects on growth,

production, and sustainability of forest ecosystems. This has been a

key area of forest soils research during the 50-year history of the

North American Forest Soils Conferences. Fifty years ago, the post-

war manufacturing and housing economy was booming and forest

plantations established in depression-era old fields were being

harvested and replanted. Intensive plantation management that

included land drainage, soil tillage, weed control, prescribed fire,

and fertilization was being adopted by an expanding forest

industry.This wasalso a periodof transition in North America from

forest exploitation toward the application of scientifically based

silviculture used to regenerate and manage both natural and

plantation forests. Basic and applied research showed how

degraded soils could be made productive and how forest

productivity could be greatly increased by integrating intensive

forest management practices. Forest management inputs andinvestments were further enhanced by site-specific prescriptions

made possible by finely honed soil and land classification systems

interpreted specifically for forestry uses.

Research that led to reforestation, rehabilitation of degraded

soils, and increasing soil and forest productivity through manage-

ment inputs are clearly some of the greatest contributions of forest

soil scientists during thepast 50 years. But managers of ourprivate

and public forests are facing new challenges caused, in part, by

public expectations that forests provide a myriad of services along

with products; services that have been taken for granted and are

poorly monetized. Managing forests simultaneously for wood,

biodiversity, carbon sequestration, energy, water quality, flood

control, habitat, and recreation is the 21st-century challenge for

foresters who need science to underpin their prescriptions.Management paradigms for public lands have evolved through

exploitation,sustained yield, multiple use,and ecosystemmanage-

ment, while private forest land owners are broadening their

objectives and producing additional forest services through

incentive and certification programs. The challenge for forest soil

scientists is to show how andto what extentmultipleproducts and

services can be produced from the same forest stand or landscape

in a way that meets agreed-upon criteria for sustainability: the

potential to produce the same quantity and quality of goods and

services in perpetuity.

The 21st-century model for guiding forest research and

management is called Sustainable Forest Management. It supposes

the application of MontrealProcess criteria and indicators thatlead

to simultaneous economic viability, environmental integrity, andsocial acceptability to forest management. The policies and action

needed to make SFM a reality are for policy makers to contemplate

and rule makers to put in place. In the interim, we soil scientists

can do our part by creating new knowledge and applications that

will support the process. For this conference theme area of

‘‘management effects on productivity and sustainability’’ I

recommend we put new or added emphasis on the following

research questions:

1. Optimization of services: demand for non-timber forest

products and services (water supply and quality, biodiversity

and habitat, recreation opportunities, carbon sequestration,

biomass for energy and transportation fuels) will increase on all

forest lands. Added demand for energy biomass and carbon

Fig. 7. A model for achieving sustainable forest management.



10/12

sequestration conflict. What policies will monetize ecosystem

services andbringtheirmarkets to scale? What arethe effects of

cumulative silviculture on energy supply and atmospheric

services? How will the demand for new and multiple services

redirect forest soils research?

2. Maintaining productivity: Intensive management in the past 50

years increased forest productivity dramatically. Advances in

biotechnology, ecophysiology, and soil science promise even

higher levels. What are the limits? What approaches are needed

to sustain this trajectory as fossil energy inputs become less

affordable?

3. Site-specific management: There is great potential for applying

new technology such as GIS, GPS, and remote sensing for site-

specific management. Precision forestry adds another level of

complexity to forest land management. These new technologies

will allow us to make advances that were impossible without

them. Is our soils knowledge adequate for supporting this step

increase in technology and management intensity?

4. Ecosystem restoration: With new emphasis on sustainability,

damaged soils and land are being restored with planted forests,

and damaged forests are being restored to better health with

better management. Do we adequately understand system

resilience and know how andwhen to constructively intervene?

Do we know the difference between replace, rehabilitate, andrestore and which approach to apply to a given system needing

help? Do we know the ecological consequences of our

‘‘restoration’’ practices?

5. Protection: There is evidence that adverse effects of acid

precipitation, severe fire, and harvest impacts are persistent

in some public and private forests. As more forest services are

demanded by the public, will forest protection take on a new or

different meaning? Do we simply need more research, or do we

need new science policies and outreach programs for managing

this issue?6. Sustainable forest management: Sustainable forestry is the

21st-century management paradigm. For a given forest system,

how do we know if itssoils andsystem processesare managed in

a way that confers capability to produce the same quantity andquality of goods and services in perpetuity? What are the

indicators, and how do we monitor across time and space?

7. Adaptive management: We scientists may be satisfied with

creating new knowledge as an end in itself, but we are often in

the best position to apply it to achieve common goals. Do we

understand adaptive management processes and participate

when our science is needed?

Our experience over the past five decades has shown that our

forest soil science has been unique from other land-based and

resource sciences in that we combine applied and basic research

to achieve real outcomes for better land management. Distin-

guished biologist E.O. Wilson commented that ‘‘we are drowning

in information while starving for wisdom’’ (Wilson, 1998, p.269).If we scientists and practitioners work together on new and

ongoingforest management challenges andcollectivelyapply our

knowledge and experience, we should increase our chances of

applying wisdom as well as information to achieve our common

goals.

References

Adams, M.B., Burger, J.A., Jenkins, A.B., Zelazny, L., 2000. Impact of harvesting andatmospheric pollution on nutrient depletion of eastern US hardwood forests.Forest Ecology and Management 38, 301–319.

Allen, H.L., 1987. Forest fertilizers: nutrient amendment, stand productivity, andenvironmental impact. Journal of Forestry 85, 37–46.

Allen, H.L., Fox, T.R., Campbell, R.G., 2005. What’s ahead for intensive pine planta-tion silviculture in the South? Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 29, 62–69.

Binkley, C.S., 1997. Preserving nature through intensive plantation forestry: thecase for forestland allocation with illustrations from British Columbia. ForestChronicle 73, 553–559.

Borders, B.E., Bailey, R.L., 2001. Loblolly pine—pushing the limits of growth. South-ern Journal of Applied Forestry 25, 69–74.

Bosworth,D., Brown, H., 2007.Investingin the future: ecological restorationand theUSDA Forest Service. Journal of Forestry 105, 208–211.

Boyd,J., 2007. Nonmarketbenefitsof nature: what shouldbe counted ingreenGDP?Ecological Economics 61, 716–723.

Boyle, J.R., Powers, R.F., 2001. Forest Soils and Ecosystem Sustainability. Elsevier,Amsterdam.

Bradshaw, A.D., 1987. The reclamation of derelict land and the ecology of ecosys-tems. In: Jordan, III, W.R., Gilpin, M.E., Aber, J.D. (Eds.), Restoration Ecology: ASynthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, UK, pp. 53–74.

Brodbeck, C., Fulton, J., Shaw, J., McDonald, T., Rodekohr, D., 2007. Timber mappingfor site-specific forest management. American Society of Agricultural andBiological Engineers Paper No. 071093.

Brunson, M.W., Yarrow, D.T., Toberts, S.D., Guynn, D.C., Kuhns, M.R., 1996. Non-industrial private forest owners and ecosystem management. Journal of For-estry 94, 14–21.

Burger, J.A., Pritchett, W.L., 1984. Effects of clear felling and site preparation onnitrogen mineralization in a southern pine stand. Soil Science Society of America Journal 48, 1423–1437.

Burger, J.A., 1994. Cumulative effects of silvicultural technology on sustained forestproductivity. In: Proceedings, International Energy Agency, Fredericton, NewBrunswick, Canada, pp. 59–70.

Burger, J.A., 1997. Conceptual framework for monitoring the impacts of intensiveforest management on sustainable forestry. In: Hakkila, P., Heino, M., Puranen,E. (Eds.), Forest Management for Bioenergy. The Finnish Forest Research Insti-

tute, Vantaa Research Centre, pp. 147–156 [Research Paper 640].Burger J., Graves, D., Angel, P., Davis, V., Zipper, C., 2005. The Forestry Reclamation

Approach. U.S. Office of Surface Mining. Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 2.http://arri.osmre.gov/fra.htm.

CSA, 2003. Canadian Standards Association. Sustainable Forest Management:Requirements and Guidelines. CAN/CSA-Z80902.

Carter, M.C., Foster, C.D., 2006. Milestones and millstones: a retrospective on 50years of research to improve productivity in loblolly pine plantations. ForestEcology and Management 227, 137–144.

Cerchiro, M.P., 2003. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantation response to mechan-ical site preparation in the South Carolina and Georgia Piedmont. M.S. Thesis,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. 86 pp.

Christenson, N.L., (chair), 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of Americacommittee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Appli-cations, 6, 655–691.

Clawson,M., 1974.Conflicts,strategies, and possibilities for consensusin forest landuse and management. In: Clawson, M. (Ed.), Forest Policy for the Future: PapersandDiscussionsFrom a Forum on ForestPolicy for theFuture. Resourcesfor theFuture, Inc., Washington, DC, pp. 101–191.

Covington, W.W., Fule, P.Z., Moore, M.M., Hart, S.C., Kolb, T.E., Mast, J.N., Sakett, S.S.,Wagner, M.R., 1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the Southwest. Journal of Forestry 95, 23–29.

Crocker, R.L., Major, J., 1955. Soil development in relation to vegetation and surfaceage at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Journal of Ecology 43, 427–448.

Crow, T.R., Gustafson, E.J., 1997. Concepts and methods of ecosystem management:lessons from landscape ecology. In: Boyce, M.S., Haney, A. (Eds.), EcosystemManagement: Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 54–67.

DeBano, L.F.,Neary, D.G.,Folliott,P.F., 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems.John Wileyand Sons, Inc., New York.

de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification,description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecolo-gical Economics 41, 393–408.

Diamond, J., 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking Press,New York.

Driscoll, C.T., Lawrence, G.B., Bulger, A.J., Butler, T.J., Cronan, C.C., Eager, C., Lambert,K.L., Likens, G.E., Stoddard, J.L., Weathers, K.C., 2001. Acidic deposition in the

northeast US: sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strate-gies. Bioscience 51, 180–198.Elias, P.A., Burger, J.A., Adams, M.B. Acid deposition effects on forest composition

and growth on the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Forest Ecologyand Management, this volume.

Energy Independence and Security Act, 2007. Public Law No. 110–140. 110thCongress, Washington, DC.

EPA, 2000. National air pollution emission trends, 1900–1998. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency Report, Washington, DC, EPA-454-R-00-002.

Fedkiw, J., 1997. The Forest Service’s pathway toward ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry 95, 30–34.

Fox, T.R., Morris, L.A., Maimone, R.A., 1989. The impact of windrowing on theproductivity of a rotation age loblolly pine plantation. In: Proceedings of theFifth Biennial Southern Silviculture Research Conference, New Orleans, LA,USDA Forest Service General Technical Report No. SO-74, pp. 133–140.

Fox, T.R., 1991. The role of ecological land classification systems in the silviculturaldecision process. In: Mengel, D.L., Tew, D.T. (Eds.), Ecological Land Classifica-tion: Applications to Identify the Productive Potential of Southern Forests.USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-68, pp. 96–101.


http://arri.osmre.gov/fra.htmhttp://arri.osmre.gov/fra.htm


11/12

Fox, T.R., Jokela,E.J., Allen,H.L.,2004.The evolution of pine plantation silviculture inthe southern United States. In: USDA Forest Service General Technical ReportSRS-75. Asheville, NC, pp. 63–82.

Fox, T.R., Allen, H.L., Albaugh, T.J., Rubilar, R., Carlson, C.A., 2007. Tree nutrition andforest fertilization of pine plantations in the southern United States. Southern

Journal of Applied Forestry 31, 5–11.Franklin, J.F., 1989. Toward a new forestry. American Forests November/December,

37–44.Franklin, J.F., 1993. The fundamentals of ecosystem management with applications

in the Pacific Northwest. In: Aplet, G.H., Johnson, N., Olson, J.T., Sample, V.A.(Eds.), Defining Sustainable Forestry. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 127–

144.Franklin, J.F., Johnson, K.N., 2004. Forests face new threat: global market changes.Issues in Science and Technology 20, 41–48.

FSC,1995. Forest StewardshipCouncil principlesand criteria for forest stewardship.FSC-STD-01-001 (version 4-0) EN.

FSC, 2004. Forest Stewardship Council Accredited Forest Stewardship Standards.Bonn, Germany.

Gerhardt, D.W., 1997. Westvaco’s ecosystem-based multiple use forest manage-ment system. In: Diverse Forests, Abundant Opportunities, and Evolving Reali-ties. Society of American Foresters, pp. 265–270.

Gilliam, F.S., Platt, W.J., 2006. Conservation and restoration of the Pinus palustrisecosystem. Applied Vegetation Science 9, 7–10.

Gustafson, E.J., 2007. Relative influence of the components of timber harveststrategies on landscape pattern. Forest Science 53, 556–561.

Henninger, R.L.,Terry, T.A.,Dobkowski,A., Scott,W., 1998. Managing for sustainablesite productivity: Weyerhaeuser’s forestry perspective. Biomass and Bioenergy13, 255–267.

Hermann, S.M., 1993. The longleaf pine ecosystem: Ecology, restoration andmanagement. In: Proceedingsof the 18th Tall Timbers Fire EcologyConference.

Tall Timbers Research Inc., Tallahassee, FL.Hillel, D., 1992. Out of the Earth: Civilization and the Life of the Soil. University of

California Press, Berkeley.Hillel, D., 2006. The Natural History of the Bible. Columbia University Press, New

York.Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of

Ecological Systems 4, 1–23.Hoosbeek, M.R., Bryant, R.B., 1992. Towards the quantitative modeling of pedogen-

esis—a review. Geoderma 55, 183–210.Hoosbeek, M.R., Bouma, J., 1998. Obtaining soil and land quality indicators using

research chains andgeostatistical methods. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems50, 35–50.

Hopmans, P. Changes in total carbon and nutrients in soil profiles after a 30-yearrotation of Pinus radiata on podzolized sands: impacts of intensive harvestingon soil resources. Forest Ecology and Management, this issue.

Hornbeck, J.W., 1992. Comparative impacts of forest harvest and acidpreecipation on soil and streamwater acidity. Environmental Pollution 77,151–155.

Horsley, S.B., Long, R.P., Bailey, S.W., Hall, T.J., 2000. Factors associated with thedecline of sugar maple on the Allegheny Plateau. Canadian Journal of ForestResearch 30, 1365–1378.

Ice, G.G., Neary, D.G., Adams, P.W., 2004. Effects of wildfire on soils and watershedprocesses. Journal of Forestry 102, 16–20.

Johnson, D.W., 1992. Effects of forest management on soil carbon storage. Water,Air, Soil Pollution 64, 83–120.

Johnson, D.W., Curtis, P.S., 2001. Effects of forest manageme nt on soil Cand N storage: meta analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 140, 227–238.

Kellogg, C.E., 1958. A look at future forest soil problems. In: Stevens, T.D., Cook,R.L. (Eds.), Proceedings, First North American Forest Soils Conference.Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing,pp. 1–5.

Koch,N.E., Skovsgaard,J.P., 1999. Sustainablemanagement of planted forests: somecomparisons between Central Europe and the United States. New Forests 17,11–22.

Kusler, J.A., Kentula, M.E., 1990. Wetland creation and restoration: the status of thescience. Island Press, New York.

Lowery, R.F., Gjerstad, D.H., 1991. Chemical and mechanical site preparation. In:Duryea, M.L., Dougherty, P.M. (Eds.), Forest Regeneration Manual. KluwerAcademic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 251–261.

Lundgren, B., Nair, P.K.R., 1985. Agroforestry for soil conservation. In: Fel-Swaity,S.A., Moldenhauer, W.C., Lo, A. (Eds.), Soil Erosion and Conservation. SoilConservation Society of North America, Ankeny, IA, pp. 703–717.

Macadam, A., 1989. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Forest Soils. British ColumbiaMinistry of Forestry, Victoria, Research Report 89001-PR.

Montigny, M.L., MacLean, D.A., 2006. Triad forest management: scenario analysis of forest zoning effects on timber and non-timber values in New Brunswick,Canada. The Forestry Chronicle 82, 496–511.

Morell, V., 1995. Siberia: surprising home for early modern humans. Science 268,1279.

Morris, J.B., Morris, R.B. (Eds.), 1996. Encyclopedia of American Historyseventh ed..Morris, L.A., Lowery, R.F., 1988. Influence of site preparation on soil conditions

affecting stand establishment and tree growth. Southern Journal of AppliedForestry 12, 170–178.

Morris, L.A., Miller, R.E., 1994. Evidence for long-term productivity changes asprovided by field trials. In: Dyck, W.J., Cole, D.W., Comerford, N.B. (Eds.), Im-

pacts of Forest Harvesting on Long-term Site Productivity. Chapman & Hall,London, pp. 41–80.

NAPAP, 1990. Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology. National AcidPrecipitation Assessment Program Report 18, US Government Printing Office,Washington, DC.

Neary, D.G., Klopatek, C.C., DeBano, L.F., Ffolliott, P.F., 1999. Fire effects on below-ground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management122, 51–71.

Nitschke, C.R., Innes, J.L., 2005. The application of forest zoning as an alternative tomultiple-use forestry. In: Innes, J.L., Hickey, G.M., Hoen, H.F. (Eds.), Forestryand Environmental Change: Socioeconomic and Political Dimensions. IUFRO

Research Series 11. CABI Publishing, pp. 97–124.Olson, R.K., Schoeneberger, M.M.,Aschmann, S.G., 2000. An ecological foundation fortemperate agroforestry. In: Garrett, H.E., Rietveld, W.J., Fisher, R.F. (Eds.), NorthAmerican Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 31–61.

Pagiola, S., Bishop, J., Landell-Mills, N. (Eds.), 2002. Selling Forest EnvironmentalServices: Market-based Mechanismsfor Conservation and Development. Earth-scan, 299 pp.

Paré, D. Evaluating the resiliency of forest site productivity in the eastern borealforest. Forest Ecology and Management, this volume.

Pearce, D.W., 2002. The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosystem Health 7,284–296.

Perlack, R.D., Wright, L.L., Turhollow, A.F., Graham, R.L., Stokes, B.J., Erbach, D.C.,2005. Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: TheTechnical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory, TN, DOE/GO-102995-2135.

Perlin, J., 1991. A Forest Journey: The Role of Wood in the Development of Civilization. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Powers, R.F., 1999. On the sustainable productivity of planted forests. New Forests

17, 263–306.Powers, R.F., Scott, D.A., Sanchez, F.G., Voldseth, R.A., Page-Dumroese, D., Elioff, J.D.,

Stone, D.M., 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment.Findings from thefirstdecade ofresearch.Forest Ecologyand Management 220,17–30.

Pritchett, W.L., Llewellyn, W.R., Swinford, K.R., 1961. Response of slash pine tocolloidal phosphate fertilization. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings25, 397–400.

Raison, R.J., Brown, A.G., Flinn, D.W. (Eds.), 2001. Criteria and Indicators forSustainable Forest Management. CABI Publishing, New York.

Rametsteiner,E., Simula, M.,2002. Forest certification—an instrument to promotesustainable forest management. Journal of Environmental Management 67,87–98.

Reichle, P.E., O’Neill, R.V., Harris, W.F., 1975. Principles of energy and materialsexchange in ecosystems. In: VanDobben, W.H., Lowe-Connell, R.H. (Eds.), U-nifying Concepts in Ecology. Dr. W. Junk, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 27–43.

Richter, D.D., Markewitz, D., Trumbore, S.E., Wells, C.G., 1999. Rapid accumulationand turnover of soil carbon in a re-establishing forest. Nature 400, 56–58.

Richter, D.D., Markewitz, D., 2001. Understanding Soil Change: Soil Sustainabilityover Millennia, Centuries, and Decades. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, UK, RSF. 2008.

RSF, 2009. Roundtable on Sustainable Forests. http://www.sustainableforests.net/.RSF, 2008. Sustainable Forests Act of 2008 (Draft 12-04-07). Roundtable on Sus-

tainable Forests (http://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdf ).

Ryan, P.J., McKenzie, N.J., Connell, D.O., Loughhead, A.N., Leppert, P.M., Jacquier, D.,Ashton, L., 2000. Integrating forest soils information across scales: spatialprediction of soil properties under Australian forests. Forest Ecology andManagement 138, 139–157.

Salwasser, H., MacCleery, D.W., Snellgrove, T.A., 1993. An ecosystem perspective onsustainable forestry and new directions for the U.S. National Forest System. In:Applet, G.H., Johnson, N., Olson, J.T., Sample, V.A. (Eds.), Defining SustainableForestry. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 44–89.

Salwasser,H., 1994. Sustainableforests and sustainable forestry. Journal of Forestry92, 6–10.

Sample, V.A.,Johnson,N., Aplet,G.H., Olson, J.T.,1993. Defining sustainable forestry.

In: Applet, G.H.,Johnson,N., Olson, J.T.,Sample, V.A. (Eds.), Defining SustainableForestry. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 3–15.Sample, V.A., Kavanough, S.L., Snieckus, M.M. (Eds.), 2006. Advancing Sustainable

Forest Management in the United States. Pinchot Institute for Conservation,Washington, DC.

Sarr, D., Puettmann, K., Pabst, R., Cornett, M., Arguello, L., 2004. Restorationecology: new perspectives and opportunities for forestry. Journal of Forestry102, 20–24.

Sedjo, R.A., Botkin, D., 1997. Using forest plantations to spare natural forests.Environment 10, 15–20 30.

SFI, 2004. Sustainable Forestry Initiative 2005–2009 Standard. Sustainable ForestryInitiative, Inc., Arlington, VA.

Shortle, W.C., Smith, K.T., Minocha, R., Lawrence, G.B., David, M.B., 1997. Aciddeposition, cation mobilization, and stress in healthy red spruce trees. Journalof Environmental Quality 26, 871–876.

Smith, C.T.,McMahon, S.D.,1997. Template for developing guidelines for sustainableforest management for bioenergy production. In: Hakkila, O., et al. (Eds.), ForestManagementfor Bioenergy.Finnish Forest ResearchInstitute, Helsinki,[ResearchPaper 640], pp. 157–165.


http://www.sustainableforests.net/http://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdfhttp://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdfhttp://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdfhttp://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdfhttp://www.sustainableforests.net/


12/12

Stanturf, J.A., Gardiner, E.S., Hamel, P.B., Devall, M.S., Lenininger, T.D., Warren Jr.,M.E.,2000. Restoring bottomland hardwood ecosystems.Journal of Forestry 98,10–16.

Seymour, R.S., Hunter, M.L., Jr., 1992. New forestry in eastern spruce-fir forests:principles andapplications to Maine.MaineAgric. Exp. Sta., Univ. Maine, Orono.Misc. Publ. 716.

Squire, R.O., Flinn, D.W., Farrell, P.W., 1979. Productivityof first andsecond rotationstands of radiata pine on sandy soils. I. Site factors affecting early growth.Australian Forest 42, 226–235.

Stevens, T.D., Cook, R.L., 1958. Foreword. First North American Forest Soils Con-ference. Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lan-

sing.Stone,E.L.,1975.Soil andman’s useof forestland.In: Bernier,B., Winget, C.H. (Eds.),Forest Soils and Forest Land Management. Proceedings, Fourth North AmericanForest Soils Conference, Laval University, Les Presses De L’Universite Laval,Quebec, pp. 1–9.

Sustainable Forestry Initiative, 2004. 2005–2009 Standard. American Forest andPaper Association, Washington, DC.

Swanson, F.J., Franklin, J.F., 1992. New forestry principles from ecosystem analysisof Pacific Northwest forests. Ecological Applications 2, 262–274.

Taylor, S.E., McDonald, T.P., Fulton, J.P., Shaw, J.N., Corley, F.W., Brodbeck, C.J., 2006.Precision forestry in the southeast U.S. In: Proceedings, International PrecisionForestry Symposium. Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Terry, T.A., Hughes, J.H., 1975. Drainage of excess water why and how? In: Balmer,W.E. (Ed.), Proceedings: Soil Moisture Site Productivity Symposium. USDAForest Service, Atlanta, GA, pp. 148–166.

Thiffault, E., Belanger, N., Pare, D., Munson, A.D., 2007. How do forest harvestingmethods compare with wildfire: a case study of soil chemistry and treenutrition in the boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37, 1658–1668.

Torbert, J.L.,Burger, J.A.,2000. Forest land reclamation.In: Barnhisel, R.L., Darmody,R.G., Daniels, W.L. (Eds.), Reclamation of Drastically

Management Effects on Growth, Production and Sustainability of Managed Forest Ecosystems_Past Trends...

Documents

Transcript of Management Effects on Growth, Production and Sustainability of Managed Forest Ecosystems_Past Trends...