Variable retention harvesting in the Douglas-fir region

Franklin, Jerry F.; Donato, Daniel C.

doi:10.1186/s13717-019-0205-5

Cited by 30 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…VRF was first proposed in North America (e.g., for Pseudotsuga menziesii forests in the Pacific Northwest region) in response to increasing dissatisfaction with the ecological consequences of clear-cutting, particularly its failure to provide adequate wildlife habitat and fulfill other important forest functions (Franklin and Donato 2020). The history and current application of VRF on forests in western Washington and Oregon (USA) are described in this article, which is where many basic VRF concepts were first developed and implemented.…”

Section: Vrf In North Americamentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological perspectives on variable retention forestry

Pastur

Franklin

2020

Ecol Process

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest management globally affects the ecosystem services, especially those related to ecosystem functioning and biodiversity conservation, by altering forest structure and composition. The degree of alteration was related to the intensity and type of harvesting; therefore, the major silvicultural challenge is to develop alternatives to mitigate climate change and maintain forest functions and biodiversity while also providing acceptable levels of timber production. Variable retention forestry (VRF) is a highly flexible concept, with continuity of forest cover, structure, function, and species composition, thereby supporting multiple economic, environmental, and cultural goals. This special issue provides an overview of the concepts and applications related to VRF implementation around the world. It shows that VRF has been applied globally for several decades, with varying levels and retention types, depending on local conditions and the economic importance of forestry. The challenges of VRF seem to differ to some extent on different continents, yet the general aims have been accepted in most of the continents. VRF has been successful in mitigating many effects of intensive harvesting, though in some forests of the world, the retention levels are too low to maintain acceptable levels of biodiversity and ecosystem functions. We conclude that an active collaboration between scientists and forest practitioners is needed to realize all of the opportunities provided by VRF in solving global forestry-related issues.

show abstract

Section: Vrf In North Americamentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological perspectives on variable retention forestry

Pastur

Franklin

2020

Ecol Process

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prominent examples can be found in North America (Parker et al. 1979; Fischer & McClelland 1983; Franklin & Donato 2020), Central Europe (Borrass et al. 2017), and Australia, where the term habitat tree was apparently coined (Recher et al.…”

Section: Idea Of Habitat‐tree Protection In the Mainstreammentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat‐tree protection concepts over 200 years

Mölder

Schmidt

Plieninger

et al. 2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The protection and sustainable management of habitat trees is an integral part of modern forest nature conservation concepts such as retention forestry. Bats, cavity-nesting birds, arboreal marsupials, and many different saproxylic species depend on habitat trees and their great variety of microhabitats and old-growth characteristics. With a focus on insights from temperate forests, we traced the development of habitat-tree protection over 200 years. The idea was first conceptualized by foresters and natural scientists in the early 19th century. At that time, utilitarian conservation aimed to protect cavity trees that provided roosts and nesting holes for insectivorous bats and birds. By the second half of the 19th century, habitat-tree protection was well known to foresters and was occasionally implemented. Knowledge of the protection of large old trees, a special kind of habitat tree, for sociocultural and aesthetic reasons developed similarly. But, many foresters of that time and in the following decades fundamentally rejected protection of habitat trees for economic reasons. Beginning in the 1970s, forest conservation and integrative forest management became increasingly important issues worldwide. Since then, the protection of habitat trees has been implemented on a large scale. Long-term views on the development of conservation concepts are important to inform the implementation of conservation today. In particular, historical analyses of conservation concepts allow the testing of long-term conservation outcomes and make it possible to study the resilience of conservation approaches to changing social or ecological conditions. We encourage all conservation ecologists to assess the practical and conceptual impact of the initial ideas that led to modern conservation concepts in terms of long-term biodiversity conservation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Partial cutting, or variable retention harvesting, has become more commonplace in western Canada and the Pacific Northwest of the USA in response to the negative ecological outcomes of extensive clearcutting and forest simplification, as well as the intensely negative effects these have had on public perceptions of forest management practices (Beese et al, 2019;Franklin and Donato, 2020). Variable retention harvesting aims to mimic natural disturbances and processes that provide the structural heterogeneity and ecosystem functions associated with mature and old growth forests (Franklin and Donato, 2020). Legacies, including trees, plants, snags, downed wood, understory plants or forest floor that survive the disturbance, provide continuity in gene pools and sustain complexity while influencing succession and promoting biodiversity, recovery, and resilience (Michel and Winter, 2009;Lindenmayer et al, 2012;Baker et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partial Retention of Legacy Trees Protect Mycorrhizal Inoculum Potential, Biodiversity, and Soil Resources While Promoting Natural Regeneration of Interior Douglas-Fir

Simard

Roach

Beauregard

et al. 2021

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clearcutting reduces proximity to seed sources and mycorrhizal inoculum potential for regenerating seedlings. Partial retention of legacy trees and protection of refuge plants, as well as preservation of the forest floor, can maintain mycorrhizal networks that colonize germinants and improve nutrient supply. However, little is known of overstory retention levels that best protect mycorrhizal inoculum while also providing sufficient light and soil resources for seedling establishment. To quantify the effect of tree retention on seedling regeneration, refuge plants, and resource availability, we compared five harvesting methods with increasing retention of overstory trees (clearcutting (0% retention), seed tree (10% retention), 30% patch retention, 60% patch retention, and 100% retention in uncut controls) in an interior Douglas-fir-dominated forest in British Columbia. Regeneration increased with proximity to legacy trees in partially cut forests, with increasing densities of interior Douglas-fir, western redcedar, grand fir, and western hemlock seedlings with overstory tree retention. Clearcutting reduced cover of ectomycorrhizal refuge plants (from 80 to 5%) while promoting arbuscular mycorrhizal plants the year after harvest. Richness of shrubs, herbs, and mosses declined with increasing harvesting intensity, but tree richness remained at control levels. The presence of legacy trees in all partially cut treatments mitigated these losses. Light availability declined with increasing overstory cover and proximity to leave trees, but it still exceeded 1,000 W m−2 in the clearcut, seed tree and 30% retention treatments. Increasing harvesting intensity reduced aboveground and belowground C stocks, particularly in live trees and the forest floor, although forest floor losses were also substantial where thinning took place in the 60% retention treatment. The loss of forest floor carbon, along with understory plant richness with intense harvesting was likely associated with a loss of ectomycorrhizal inoculum potential. This study suggests that dispersed retention of overstory trees where seed trees are spaced ~10–20 m apart, and aggregated retention where openings are <60 m (2 tree-lengths) in width, will result in an optimal balance of seed source proximity, inoculum potential, and resource availability where seedling regeneration, plant biodiversity, and carbon stocks are protected.

show abstract

Variable retention harvesting in the Douglas-fir region

Cited by 30 publications

References 13 publications

Ecological perspectives on variable retention forestry

Ecological perspectives on variable retention forestry

Habitat‐tree protection concepts over 200 years

Partial Retention of Legacy Trees Protect Mycorrhizal Inoculum Potential, Biodiversity, and Soil Resources While Promoting Natural Regeneration of Interior Douglas-Fir

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About