Changing forest recovery dynamics in the northeastern United States

Abstract

Historical deforestation and forest recovery in the northeastern United States holds important implications for ecosystem services and social conditions. Bridging natural and social sciences perspectives, and incorporating both quantitative and qualitative analysis, we contribute to a rich, multidisciplinary literature on US forest change by documenting at a fine scale changing land‐cover patterns, identifying their key geophysical and social driving forces, and evaluating the strength and character of the on‐going forest transition. The interpretation of five sets of aerial photographs – spanning the period 1936–2008 for a town in central New York State – shows that 25.8 per cent of the land area reforested. Two approaches explain the trend: (1) spatial analysis of landscape features (e.g. soil type, distance to road) and (2) a land‐use history analysis based on secondary and grey literature as well as interviews with longtime landowners. Findings underscore the importance of cross‐scalar analysis, with key explanatory variables ranging from local topography to national development patterns. Twentieth‐century forest recovery is linked primarily to well‐established inter‐decadal processes: a decline in the farming sector, changing life and livelihood goals within farming families and associated land abandonment on areas marginal for agriculture. In contrast to historical trends, recent forest recovery is occurring on high‐quality soils; in 2008 approximately 15 per cent of all forest occurred on such soils, which may hold implications for biodiversity. In addition, landowners are increasingly engaged in a mix of new land uses, including energy development, and there is a steady rise in the number of amenity‐oriented rural residents. The Eaton study contributes detailed mapping of forest‐cover change in an understudied part of the northeastern USA. It also informs debates about forest transition theory and the prospects for a ‘regressive tertiary stage’ for the study region.

The Paradox of Engagement: Land Stewardship and Invasive Weeds in Amenity Landscapes

“…Apart from any influence exurbanites might have, most significant changes in amenity landscapes have come about through passive land management and the retreat of agriculture -steep slopes are abandoned, woody vegetation recovers, and invasives spread (Klepeis et al, 2013). In contrast, exurbanites bring an active and intentional agency to rural land management through activities such as weeding, native plant restoration, and efforts to promote forest recovery.…”

“…Subsequently, there has been a steady decline, with recent estimates at less than 8,000 dairy cattle (ABS, 1955(ABS, -2005. Explanations for the reduction center on diminishing industry protection, low returns, and dramatically increasing land values as well as the oft-identified mix of factors leading to declines in farming elsewhere, such as shifting livelihood choices within farming families, a growth in alternative employment opportunities, and rising production costs (Edwards, 2003;Gillespie, 2003;Hindle et al, 1987;Houston, 2005;Klepeis, Scull, Lalonde, Svajlenka, & Gill, 2013). Farmers have strong incentives to subdivide and sell their land.…”

Variações na cobertura florestal e o comércio internacional de commodities agrícolas: uma investigação à luz da Teoria de Transição Florestal

“…Já em um segundo trabalho, publicado em 1998, o autor apresenta como fundamento da transição florestal a especialização da agricultura, que passaria por um processo de concentração nas terras com maior produtividade, o que resultaria em abandono das terras marginais e início do processo de recuperação de florestas (MATHER & NEEDLE, 1998;RUDEL et al, 2009;RUDEL, SCHNEIDER & URIARTE, 2010). As mudanças florestais são atribuídas a um conjunto de fatores que se inter-relacionam como desenvolvimento econômico, escassez florestal, políticas públicas, globalização, mudanças técnicas na agricultura, silvicultura e transporte, entre outros (GRAU, GASPARRI & AIDE, 2008;IMAI et al, 2018;KLEPEIS et al, 2013;LAMBIN & MEYFROIDT, 2010;MATHER, 2007;NEWBY, CRAMB & SAKANPHET, 2014). Lambin & Meyfroidt (2010), a partir de proposições iniciais de , estabeleceram o que seriam os cinco principais caminhos que levam a ocorrência da TF, conforme segue:…”

“…Com isso, a produção se concentraria nas áreas mais produtivas e as áreas marginais seriam liberadas para recuperação de vegetação nativa (MATHER, 1992;RUDEL et al, 2009;RUDEL, SCHNEIDER & URIARTE, 2010). A escassez de mão de obra também impulsionaria o processo de mecanização agrícola, que produz melhores resultados nas áreas mais planas e bem drenadas, favorecendo assim o abandono de áreas com menos aptidão agrícola (MATHER, 1992;KLEPEIS et al, 2013;PFAFF & WALKER, 2010;RUDEL et al, 2009;RUDEL, SCHNEIDER & URIARTE, 2010).…”

“…Os autores descrevem, além desse, outros quatro possíveis caminhos para a ocorrência da TF: Caminho da escassez florestal, Caminho das políticas florestais estatais, Caminho da globalização e Caminho da intensificação do uso da terra por pequenos produtores. Lambin & Meyfroidt (2010) reconhecem que esses caminhos podem se sobrepor na prática, e a TF pode assim acontecer devido a contribuição de vários fatores (GRAU, GASPARRI & AIDE, 2008;IMAI et al, 2018;KLEPEIS et al, 2013;NEWBY, CRAMB & SAKANPHET, 2014).…”