<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Ecological Considerations Break-out Session, October 18th</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2013 Utah State University All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/rtw/2011/Breakout1</link>
<description>Recent Events in Ecological Considerations Break-out Session, October 18th</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 18:10:51 PDT</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>





<item>
<title>Climate Change, Genetic Variability, and Associated Great Basin Woodland Dynamics: Implications for Long-Term Biomass Production</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/rtw/2011/Breakout1/4</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/rtw/2011/Breakout1/4</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>The last 150 years has seen  major increases in the spatial extent and in the biomass levels of all  Great Basin woodlands. This has generated interest in using these  woodlands for biomass harvest. Important to the success of such  utilization is the long-term stability in the available biomass needed  to make such commercial harvest financially viable. The present and  projected future rate of climate change, in particular, has implications  for such sustainability. Information now available on woodland  responses to climate changes occurring over the past 30,000 years is  used to estimate what the responses to future climate change might be.  Two important sources of information needed for this estimation of  future woodland changes that are focused on here are first, are there  possible relationships between the recent woodland expansion and  associated climate change? Second, how are the differences in the  strategies by which pinyon and juniper have responded to past climate  changes, and how the different strategies are apparently related to  differences in the genetic makeup of the species, likely to affect  future woodland responses.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Robin Tausch</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>Silviculture for Pinyon Juniper Ecosystems</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/rtw/2011/Breakout1/3</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/rtw/2011/Breakout1/3</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>Pinyon-juniper woodlands and  forests cover well over 100 million acres of the western US. The cover  type has generally received little attention from professional  foresters, but is highly important due to its extent, its proximity to  many communities, and its importance in providing wildlife habitat. The  type is highly variable across its range with a variety of pinyon and/or  juniper species, a variety of other tree and shrub species, a wide  range of potential understory species, a diversity of age classes, and a  wide range of geologic/soil substrates. Management objectives can vary  widely and may include fuels modification, wildlife habitat improvement,  improvement for livestock, forest and ecosystem health and  sustainability, and landscape aesthetics. Nonsilvicultural methods have  commonly been applied where management has been for the primary purpose  of eliminating pinyon and juniper in favor of other vegetation types.  Silvicultural methods are increasingly being applied to manage pinyon  and juniper cover types for sustained tree cover as well as for other  multipleuse goals. Both even and uneven-aged silvicultural methods can  be used in pinyon-juniper ecosystems to manipulate stand density,  structure, and composition to meet various resource objectives. No one  prescription will fit all stands; and silvicultural prescriptions must  be based upon current and predicted stand conditions, the silvics of the  species on the site, and the ecological, economic, and social goals of  the land owner/manager. This paper discusses various silvicultural and  non-silvicultural methods that have been applied to the management of  pinyon and juniper cover types. It presents a method of using Reineke’s  Stand Density Index to determine residual stocking levels, which can be  applied to even or uneven-aged stands.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Douglas H. Page</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>Pinyon Juniper Restoration Ecology: Compatibilities and Incompatibilities of Biomass Harvesting in the Southwest</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/rtw/2011/Breakout1/2</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/rtw/2011/Breakout1/2</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>Piñon-juniper ecosystems in  the western U.S. are often targeted for restoration due to concerns  that past land uses have contributed to dense stand structures and  invasion of trees into adjacent community types, resulting in diminished  biotic and abiotic resources and increased vulnerability to severe  disturbance events. Where stands have become more dense in recent  decades, biomass removal may be compatible with restoration objectives,  and biomass use (e.g., harvesting for fuel) may provide economic  incentives for restoration. However, there is tremendous range of  natural variability among piñon-juniper communities, resulting in  substantial differences in stand-age structure, species diversity,  disturbance regimes, and population dynamics across landscapes. While  land use (e.g., livestock grazing) and non-native species have  influenced piñon-juniper conditions and dynamics, effects vary depending  on environmental susceptibility to specific land-use histories. Climate  variability is also a key driver of piñon-juniper dynamics; yet, this  influence has largely been under-appreciated compared to land use.  Recently, drought-induced dieback events have dramatically altered  piñon-juniper ecosystems over large landscapes in the Southwest, and may  provide insights into potential effects of future climate change, as  well as potentially redefining the role of restoration.</p>
<p>Restoration  projects based on meeting ecological objectives should consider natural  variability, different land use histories, and recent mortality events,  and avoid applying a uniform approach. Effective restoration strategies  (both passive and active) are more likely when based on identification  of specific restoration needs (e.g., age structure alteration, invasive  species control) for a given landscape, and when validated by scientific  evidence that: a) elucidates key differences between historical and  contemporary conditions; and b) identifies underlying causes of those  differences. Restoration efficacy may be further enhanced when potential  future interactions among land use, invasive species, and climate are  considered. In this presentation, I discuss these topics in light of  biomass harvest potential in piñon-juniper ecosystems, with a focus on  the Colorado Plateau and the Four-Corners region.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Douglas Shinneman</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>Can Biomass Use in Pinyon Juniper Woodlands be Considered Ecological Restoration?</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/rtw/2011/Breakout1/1</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/rtw/2011/Breakout1/1</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>It is widely generalized  that pinyon and juniper trees in the Great Basin have increased due to  over-grazing and fire exclusion, with resulting negative impacts to the  environment and rural economies. It is logical then to further  generalize that removal of trees constitutes ecological restoration, and  therefore that biomass utilization of tree materials for renewable  energy constitutes a way forward for making labor-intensive restoration  activity self-supporting and economically feasible. However, effective  restoration requires going beyond simple generalizations toward clear  ecological targets and necessitates specific knowledge as to historical  context, causes of ecological change, and likely ecosystem responses  into the future.</p>
<p>The historical  context of pinyon-juniper woodland dynamics in the Great Basin is  reviewed with particular emphasis on implications for biomass  utilization. Separation of “persistent” from “expansion” woodlands  provides an initial landscape classification for informing restoration  planning. Much of the current woodland area can be considered  persistent, in that: (a) mixed-age woodland (including old trees)  currently occupies areas of low fire risk where trees have long been  present; (b) woodland in an early- to mid-successional stage occupies  area that burned within past decades; or (c) woodland in an early- to  mid-successional stage occupies area that was deforested during the late  19th Century. The second and third types are often erroneously  considered expansion woodland. Guidelines are provided for field  identification of the three types of persistent woodland. Biomass use  for ecological restoration of persistent woodlands could include  thinning or fuelbreak construction for reduction of fire spread and risk  of subsequent conversion to non-native species dominance.</p>
<p>Expansion  woodland, defined as locations where trees have recently invaded plant  community types that had been in a nonforested state for multiple  centuries, can be of at least two types: (a) tree invasion into adjacent  plant communities as a result of over-grazing and/or fire exclusion;  and (b) range expansion of pinyon and juniper species in response to  climate change of recent decades. The first case seems a reasonable  target for ecological restoration in the form of conversion from  woodland to other vegetation types, whereas removal of trees in the  second case would counter the direction of managing for adaptation to  future climate change. The state of current research is reviewed for  distinguishing these two cases.</p>
<p>With clear  targets set at appropriate spatial and temporal scales, biomass use of  pinyon-juniper woodlands can possibly help to satisfy multiple landscape  restoration objectives. These might include diverse goals that go  beyond reduction of fire risk and invasive plant dominance, including  the maintenance of a diverse habitat mosaic comprised of various  successional stages, fostering of landscapes resilient to disturbance  and climate change, and supporting local economies. Doing so effectively  requires careful consideration of the ecological context for what has  caused changes in tree population processes and distribution in the  past, and for understanding the likely trend of such changes in the  future. This ecological context varies across the landscape with  land-use history and site environment. Yet without an effort to grapple  with this complexity, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past:  rampant deforestation, environmental degradation leading to weed  infestation, and widespread chainings that met neither the goals of  long-term tree removal nor establishment of resilient plant communities.  To maintain public trust, ecological restoration should incorporate  pinyon-juniper woodlands as a valued landscape component to be managed  sustainably at the level of landscape planning, providing essential  context for site-specific projects aimed at tree removal.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Peter Weisberg</author>


</item>



</channel>
</rss>
