National parks in the easternUnitedStates harbor important older forest structure compared with matrix forests

Abstract

States harbor important older forest structure compared with matrix forests. Ecosphere 7(7):e01404. 10.1002/ecs2.1404Abstract. We analyzed land-cover and forest vegetation data from nearly 25,000 permanent plots distributed across 50 national parks in the eastern United States, along with the matrix around each park, to examine structural characteristics of park forests in relation to their surrounding landscape. Over 2000 of these plots are part of the National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring Program (I&M), and the remaining 22,500+ plots are part of the US Forest Service (USFS) Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program. This is the first study to compare forest structure in protected lands with the surrounding forest matrix over such a large area of the United States and is only possible because of the 10+ years of data that are now publicly available from USFS-FIA and NPS I&M. Results of this study indicate that park forests, where logging is largely prohibited, preserve areas of regionally significant older forest habitat. Park forests consistently had greater proportions of late-successional forest, greater live tree basal area, greater densities of live and dead large trees, and considerably larger volume of coarse woody debris. Park forests also had lower tree growth and mortality rates than matrix forests, suggesting different forest dynamics between park and matrix forests. The divergent patterns we observed between matrix and park forests were similar to those reported in studies that compared managed and old-growth forests, although the differences in our study were less pronounced. With the majority of park forests in second growth, eastern parks may be a more realistic baseline to compare with the more intensively managed matrix forests. We recommend that park managers allow natural disturbance and the development of older structure to continue in park forests. In addition, long-term maintenance of regional biodiversity will likely require increases in older forest structure in the matrix. As the NPS moves into its next century of land preservation, we encourage managers to consider parks important components of a larger regional effort to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem processes in eastern US forests. The data collected by NPS I&M programs will continue to provide important information and guidance toward these regional conservation efforts.

Declining old‐forest species as a legacy of large trees lost

“…While areas managed for multiple uses including resource extraction (i.e., national forests) and protected areas serve different societal purposes and, for this reason and others, are unlikely to have convergent forest structure and function, we can still learn important lessons when protected areas contain stable populations of species of conservation concern. For example, protected areas often form refuges for ecosystems containing distinctive biological features such as large old trees (Miller et al, 2016) and, therefore, they can act as blueprints for ecological restoration (Boisramé, Thompson, Collins, & Stephens, 2017). Furthermore, protected areas may contain tree sizes, age structure and intact disturbance regimes (Lydersen & North, 2012) characteristic of ecologically resilient landscapes (i.e., landscapes that have the capacity to recover their ecological functioning following a disturbance) and that more closely reflect species' evolutionary environments (Moore, Covington, & Fulé, 1999).…”

Social and biophysical variation in regional timber harvest regimes

“…are constrained by different policies and normative standards and manage their forests to achieve different goals. For example, federally owned National Parks in the eastern United States prohibit timber harvesting and, as a result, have distinct forest structure and more biomass than surrounding forests (Miller 2016); similarly, public forestland across all federal agencies have higher stocks of aboveground biomass as compared to privately owned land (Zheng et al 2010). Patterns of forest ownership vary at both coarse and fine scales in the United States (Butler et al 2014).…”

Ecological monitoring and evidence‐based decision‐making in America's National Parks: highlights of the Special Feature

“…The NPS is entrusted with stewarding a rather astounding array of natural resources, that, as reflected here, often span very broad geographic (e.g., Miller et al 2016, Rodhouse et al 2016) and temporal scales (e.g., Ketz et al 2016, Paulsen et al 2016, Roland et al 2016, and multiple levels of ecological complexity (e.g., Coletti et al 2016, Fakhraei et al 2016. The NPS is entrusted with stewarding a rather astounding array of natural resources, that, as reflected here, often span very broad geographic (e.g., Miller et al 2016, Rodhouse et al 2016) and temporal scales (e.g., Ketz et al 2016, Paulsen et al 2016, Roland et al 2016, and multiple levels of ecological complexity (e.g., Coletti et al 2016, Fakhraei et al 2016.…”

“…Miller et al (2016) showed that parks in the eastern United States provide significantly older forest structure and different demographic rates than forests outside of parks. Miller et al (2016) showed that parks in the eastern United States provide significantly older forest structure and different demographic rates than forests outside of parks.…”

“…The subsequent collection of papers shows the breadth and depth of the program after 16 years of development. The NPS is entrusted with stewarding a rather astounding array of natural resources, that, as reflected here, often span very broad geographic (e.g., Miller et al 2016, Rodhouse et al 2016) and temporal scales (e.g., Ketz et al 2016, Paulsen et al 2016, Roland et al 2016, and multiple levels of ecological complexity (e.g., Coletti et al 2016, Fakhraei et al 2016. The assembled papers reflect the growing interest in and capacity to generate place-based ecological insights (sensu Billick and Price 2010a), and many have replicated studies across multiple parks.…”