Prioritizing land management efforts at a landscape scale: a case study using prescribed fire in Wisconsin

Abstract

One challenge in the effort to conserve biodiversity is identifying where to prioritize resources for active land management. Cost-benefit analyses have been used successfully as a conservation tool to identify sites that provide the greatest conservation benefit per unit cost. Our goal was to apply cost-benefit analysis to the question of how to prioritize land management efforts, in our case the application of prescribed fire to natural landscapes in Wisconsin, USA. We quantified and mapped frequently burned communities and prioritized management units based on a suite of indices that captured ecological benefits, management effort, and the feasibility of successful long-term management actions. Data for these indices came from LANDFIRE, Wisconsin's Wildlife Action Plan, and a nationwide wildland-urban interface assessment. We found that the majority of frequently burned vegetation types occurred in the southern portion of the state. However, the highest priority areas for applying prescribed fire occurred in the central, northwest, and northeast portion of the state where frequently burned vegetation patches were larger and where identified areas of high biological importance area occurred. Although our focus was on the use of prescribed fire in Wisconsin, our methods can be adapted to prioritize other land management activities. Such prioritization is necessary to achieve the greatest possible benefits from limited funding for land management actions, and our results show that it is feasible at scales that are relevant for land management decisions.

Different Approaches of Forest Type Classifications for Argentina Based on Functional Forests and Canopy-Cover Composition by Tree Species

“…However, these methods can fail to correspond with the current vegetation, since this is defined by the interaction between the potential vegetation and multiple factors, such as human activities, species interactions, and biogeographical history [57]. The second proxy used in FT classifications was the land use or land cover types, mainly based on satellite imagery [7,22,33,63] using the normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) and other related indexes [64,65]. However, the coarse data resolution, and the limited number of vegetation types used, resulted in a forest type distribution with relatively low accuracy [57].…”

“…[30,31]) provide valuable information without considering differences in forest types. However, these maps are useful for different conservation efforts [32][33][34]. Mapping natural ecosystems (e.g.…”

Forest phenoclusters for Argentina based on vegetation phenology and climate

“…Current forest maps of large areas (Hansen et al, 2013; Potapov et al, 2021; Townshend & Justice, 2002) provide valuable information regarding forest types and are useful in conservation efforts (Hmielowski et al, 2015; Wilson et al, 2006). However, tree species–level maps are rare, and forest type maps do not consider vegetation phenology variations (event timing and greenness) within forest types and species or climate variation (hereafter named forest phenoclusters).…”

The Best Way to Spend an Hour: Reviewing LANDFIRE Ecosystem Descriptions and Models

“…), to prioritize fire management activities (Hmielowski et al. ) and to evaluate the potential ecological benefits of fire (Keane and Karau ).…”