Forest Management in the 21st Century: Ecological Forestry

Forests provide numerous benefits to society. Some benefits are financial and revolve around the economic goals and objectives of landowners as well as local and state economies. Other benefits fall within the realm of aesthetics. Forests, especially this time of year, offer spectacular scenery that spurs many to visit northern Michigan. But, at their core, forests are essential for many ecosystem functions. Some of these ecosystem functions include regulating hydrology (water movement), stabilizing soils, and storing carbon. Forests are also critical for maintaining biodiversity. Some of the species found in our local forests are well known wildlife game species pursued by landowners and visitors, while the vast majority of the species found in our forests (both flora and fauna) are virtually unknown. Regardless, each and every species has a role within its ecosystem and most forests encapsulate many different habitats for a range of wildlife species. Active forest management is necessary for the conservation of many forest-dependent wildlife species (game and non-game). Many wildlife species benefit from disturbances to the forest that remove only a small proportion of biomass and allow succession to move forward to a more mature and older forest condition. From an ecological perspective, a forest is never “over mature” but simply changing. These older forests provide needs for innumerable wildlife species that benefit from older trees, some of which may be dying or dead already. Conversely, other wildlife species benefit from forest treatments that remove a majority of the living material and initiate a young forest. Regardless, habitat for any single forest wildlife species is nested within a broader forest ecosystem; therefore, habitat management for a given wildlife species or forest product (e.g., sawtimber, pulpwood) can affect other landscape and stand-level biodiversity elements. Forest management can have lasting impacts well beyond the goals and objectives that drive a given treatment. Because forests develop more slowly than other terrestrial ecosystem types and may have conditions arising from forest treatments that can last for decades or longer, those interested in biodiversity are reminded that short-term successes based on optimizing objectives may yield long-term limitations. For instance, forest management that maximizes the short-term financial return may do so to the detriment of long-term economic potentials; cutting all the good timber in one treatment may derail the ability to put into action future treatments. Or forest management that maximizes the production of any single wildlife species may limit the range of habitats available to other species. And since nearly every tree species that comprise our forests has a lifespan greater than any of us (many individuals of most tree species are able to live many centuries), the time frame that forests work within often puzzles us. Too often we force our human expectations on our forests based on our time frames and not those in which the forest operates. Traditional approaches to forest management and wildlife habitat management were developed by Gifford Pinchot, Aldo Leopold and others when the global human population was a third of what it is today and stressors due to invasive species, other land uses, and climate change were not as pervasive. Now, in the 21st century, forest biodiversity challenges require a new working model; that working model is termed ecological forestry. For those managing forests, contemporary biodiversity challenges require us to think more broadly about the past, consider what actions or processes produced the forests we now have, and evaluate post-treatment conditions of forest structure, composition, and function. The need to evaluate the potential biodiversity effects of forest management has led to the development of forest certification programs and related biodiversity metrics. Forest management approaches within a biodiversity context (i.e., ecological forestry) have likewise been developed based on our growing understanding of how landscapes and forests function. Originally developed alongside efforts to maintain forest complexity and conserve the northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, many advances in ecological forestry are associated with the growing appreciation and understanding of natural models of disturbances to which silvicultural practices can be compared. Ecological forestry has developed the following precepts: 1) context—the importance of planning and management at larger (landscape) spatial scales; 2) continuity—the maintenance of forest structure, function, and biota between pre- and postharvest ecosystems; 3) complexity— the need to create and maintain structural and compositional complexity and biological diversity, including spatial heterogeneity at multiple spatial scales; and 4) timing— the importance of applying silvicultural treatments at ecologically appropriate time intervals. Future articles will review these four precepts and provide examples relevant to those working and enjoying forests of northern Michigan. Dr. Greg Corace is the forester for the Alpena-Montmorency Conservation District. Greg has spent the last 25 years publishing forest and wildlife research and conducting forest planning, management, inventory, and monitoring on public and private lands across northern Michigan. For more information, including sources used in this article, Greg can be contacted via email (greg.corace@macd.org) or via phone (989.356.3596 x102).