Management Effects On Growth, Production and Sustainability of Managed Forest Ecosystems - Past Trends and Future Directions

Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forest Ecology and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco
Management effects on growth, production and sustainability of

managed forest ecosystems: Past trends and future directions
James A. Burger *
Department of Forestry (0324), 228 Cheatham Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 30 September 2008
Received in revised form 4 March 2009
Accepted 9 March 2009
Only within the past 100 years have we, as recent immigrants to this continent, made a concerted effort
to restore and manage the composition and productivity of North American forests. One of the earliest
manifestations of management effects on growth, production, and sustainability was reforestation and
land stabilization of wind- and water-eroded land wrought by abusive agriculture. In the past 50 years,
basic and applied research has greatly increased forest productivity of desired species on many sites by
integrating intensive forest management practices. Forest management was further enhanced by sitespecic prescriptions made possible by nely honed soil and land classication systems interpreted
specically for forestry uses. Managers of our private and public forests are facing new challenges
caused, in part, by public expectations that forests provide a myriad of services along with products;
services that have been taken for granted and are poorly monetized. Managing forests simultaneously for
wood, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, energy, water quality, ood control, habitat, and recreation is
the 21st century challenge for foresters who need science to underpin their prescriptions. This paper is a
review of forest management effects on growth, production, and sustainability of forest ecosystems.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Sustainable forest management
Soil productivity
Site-specic management
Ecosystem restoration
1. Introduction
Humans have been hunting and gathering wood and other
forest products in North America for heat, shelter, and sustenance
since their migration from Siberia and before the retreat of the
Wisconsin continental glacier 20,000 years ago (Morell, 1995). We
still hunt and gather, but only within the past 100 years have we, as
recent immigrants to this continent, made a concerted effort to
manage the composition and productivity of North American
forests. There is evidence that Native American tribes purposely
manipulated forest composition for habitat enhancement using
re (Perlin, 1991), but it was not until the mid-20th century,
following several natural resource catastrophes including neartotal exploitation of the virgin forests in the East, forest clearing for
agriculture and land abandonment due to severe water erosion in
most of the Atlantic states and provinces, and the dust bowl period
during the 1930s, that forest management replaced forest
exploitation as the predominant cultural mindset for human
interaction with our nations forests.
One of the earliest manifestations of management effects on
growth, production, and sustainability in the United States (U.S.)
was reforestation and land stabilization of wind- and water-eroded
* Tel.: +1 540 231 7680; fax: +1 540 231 3330.

E-mail address: jaburger@vt.edu.
0378-1127/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.015
land wrought by abusive agriculture that began before the U.S.

Civil War in the early 1800s and lasted until after the Great
Depression during the 1930s. National public works projects,
including the Civilian Conservation Corp and the Works Progress
Administration (Morris and Morris, 1996), resulted in millions of
acres of land reforested and protected by windbreaks and other
conservation measures. The 1940s and 1950s marked a surge in the
development of the wood and paper industries which resulted in
the establishment and management of plantation forests on lands
purchased by the forest industry. This was also the 30-year period
in which the National Forest System was greatly expanded by the
U.S. Congress, which led to forest restoration and management of
millions of acres of cut-over and damaged and exploited public
land.
These reforestation and forest management activities required
basic and applied knowledge of soils and forest biology and
prompted early research on soil productivity, tree nursery
production, and plantation management. In 1958, after a decade
or two of forest soils research among scientists at universities and
federal and state agencies, the 1st North American Forest Soils
Conference (NAFSC) was held at Michigan State University to
bring together scientists interested in forest soil relationships,
discuss the results of completed research and encourage future
work in the eld (Stevens and Cook, 1958).
Forest management, the intentional manipulation of the forest
ecosystem to inuence its composition, productivity and nature of
2336
J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346
the products and services that it provides, is one of several major

research areas studied by forest soils scientists over the past 50
years. This 11th NAFSC held in 2008 is a celebration of 50 years of
work in ve major research areas: (1) forest site evaluation and
mapping, (2) fertility and tree nutrition, (3) soil ecology and
biogeochemistry, (4) linkages between forest soils and water
quality and quantity, and (5) management effects on growth,
production, and sustainability of forest ecosystems. The purpose of
this paper is to provide an overview of topic 5 on management
effects, to include the evolution of management research and its
connections to the other four topics, the major milestones of
research progress, the state of the art and science, and issues and
challenges associated with forest management research. I will do it
largely from a U.S. perspective because of my greater familiarity
with U.S. forest soils research and forestry; however, there are
many parallels with the Canadian experience.
2. Evolution of forest soils management research
Dr. Charles E. Kellogg, who at the time was assistant
administrator for the National Soil Survey, gave the keynote
address at the 1st NAFSC, and, in many ways, gave the keynote for
this 50-year period of forest research and practice (Kellogg, 1958).
Dr. Kellogg was expert in many areas of soil science and was
renowned for his ability to apply soils knowledge to a variety of
land use systems throughout the world. For someone not normally
associated with forest soils research, Dr. Kelloggs keynote was
especially insightful because he laid the foundation for issues that
have been addressed at each subsequent quinquennial conference.
He recognized the challenges of multiple use forestry; the need for
site-specic management; the additive effects of management
inputs on forest site index; the effects of species conversions,
tillage, fertilization, and weed control on nutrient cycling;
trafcking effects on soil physical properties; and the need for
thorough interpretation of each soil mapping unit. The rst three
conferences built on the themes outlined by Dr. Kelloggs use of a
largely agricultural model for applied research, including the need
to transfer the science to practitioners (Fig. 1).
The need for both basic and applied research became apparent as
forest soils issues became more complex. In 1973, in his keynote
address on unitary concepts of forest soils and their management at
the 4th NAFSC, Dr. Earl Stone conceptualized basic models of forest
soils as (1) natural bodies, (2) media for plant growth, (3) an
ecosystem or ecosystem component, and (4) as a vegetated watertransmitting mantle (Stone, 1975). He then superimposed these
Fig. 1. Development of forest soils knowledge since the 1st North American Forest
Soils Conference.
basic models on management systems requiring increasing levels of

human activity: remote wildlands, protected wild forests, exploited
forests, regulated forests, and domesticated forests. This conceptualization of what forest soils are and how we use them across a
management gradient was a milestone that focused our research in
directions that exist today. On the foundations laid by Drs. Kellogg
and Stone, themes of subsequent conferences included management
effects on nutrient cycling and sustainability, forest soil protection
from on- and off-site effects, forest soil processes, role of organic
matter and carbon in forest productivity, soil quality, re effects, and
adaptive management (Fig. 1). And gradually with time since the 1st
NAFSC, the distribution of applied and basic research went from
nearly all applied to an equal distribution of each.
3. The forest management process
In its simplest sense, the forest management process is the
input of practices to achieve a certain kind, amount, and rate of
product and service outputs. Expected product and service outputs
vary across a forest management gradient as forest management
objectives have evolved (Fig. 2). Historically, North American
forests have been exploited for wood products, but if human and
wildlife habitat and predictable water yield of high quality are
desired, some level of management input is needed (extensive
forestry). An expectation of additional services such as biodiversity
and carbon sequestration requires additional inputs (intensive
forestry). Maximizing products and services at both the stand and
landscape levels will require precision management not unlike
precision technologies used in intensive agriculture, except that
the public has the expectation that forest lands will be managed for
water use and quality, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat in addition
to food and ber production.
Intensity of forest management varies by ownership, private or
public. Regardless of ownership, there are four enduring issues
forest managers will grapple with for the foreseeable future: (1)
economically optimizing output of services, (2) increasing/maintaining productivity, (3) restoration and management of degraded
forest sites and soils, and (4) sustainability and adaptive management. These are timeless management issues addressed rst by Dr.
Kellogg and re-emphasized since at nearly every gathering of forest
soils researchers.
4. Optimizing output of services
Greater social and economic demands are being put on both
public and private forests. Wood for fuel, construction, and ber
Fig. 2. Forest management intensity and investment as a function of products,

services and overall value generated by increasing complexity.
and non-timber forest products have been traditional forest uses

for millennia. Today, there is a huge emphasis on forest services,
and the public has increasingly higher expectations of our nations
forests. Forests provide ood control, erosion control, water
quality, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration,
recreation, and the potential increase of wood for energy. In large
part, these services have been free to the public, and, as such,
undervalued and underappreciated, but increasingly they are
becoming monetized to reect their actual value (Pagiola et al.,
2002; United Nations, 2003; Boyd, 2007), which in turn, provides
incentive to landowners to actively manage their forests for
multiple products and services (de Groot et al., 2002; Pearce, 2002).
The intent is a balance of products and services achieved by several
carrot and stick policies. Owners of private forests are provided
direct payment or incentives through state and federal programs to
manage their land to produce certain services. On public forests,
managers follow long-term plans that are often scrutinized and
challenged with litigation by groups with different views.
For at least ve decades, there has been tension among
landowners and users of forest services for optimization of outputs
(Koch and Skovsgaard, 1999). This optimization process has
evolved via several public and private initiatives including
multiple use and sustained yield, ecosystem management, and
triad zoning within private forests (Table 1). Multiple uses of public
forests were codied in the U.S. by the Multiple Use and Sustained
Yield Act of 1960. It is a policy that ts all uses of the forest into the
publics National Forest System to include timber, range, water,
wildlife, and recreation. Fedkiw (1997) argues that the concept is
laudable, but there are few clients of multiple use and multiple use
as a system is difcult to understand and manage. By 1970, Edward
Cliff, the chief of the Forest Service, declared that ecosystem
management was the best way to provide services to the public
(Fedkiw, 1997). It would be another two decades before the
scientic basis of ecosystem management was established
(Christenson, 1996), and even longer for some agreement on
how to implement ecosystem management through an adaptive,
iterative process.
During the 1990s as the USDA Forest Service was implementing
ecosystem management on public lands, the forest industry and
other private landowners increasingly received public pressure to
manage their lands in ways that provided public services such as
water quality, biodiversity and aesthetic landscapes. One of the
outcomes of this public pressure was the development of forest
management certication programs managed by the Sustainable
Forestry Initiative (SFI, 2004), the Canadian Standards Association
(CSA, 2003), and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC, 1995, 2004).
Private forest landowners are compelled to have their management certied as part of their land stewardship compact with the
public and in order to maintain the license to operate and market
their products. Certication principles include practicing sustainable forestry using responsible practices that include reforestation
2337
and maintaining forest health and productivity while protecting

soil and water resources and special sites and biological diversity.
A high proportion of industrial forest lands are now certied by
third parties. Continuing environmental and sustainability issues
are largely associated with non-industrial private land whose
owners do not have the resources or understanding to adopt
sustainable management practices.
Producing multiple products and services from a single private
forest tract is challenging for managers, especially when high
proportions of an ownership are plantations. A triad approach that
manages forests for different purposes in zones within a single
tract is being used by industry and some public agencies, especially
in Canada. Triad zoning is managing at the landscape level for a
different set of values in each zone while producing a complete set
of values at the forest or landscape level (Montigny and MacLean,
2006). Triad zoning allows more efcient production of products
and services on sub-units of land that are most suited for a specic
use. It increases wood production and preserves ecologically
sensitive areas for other uses (Sedjo and Botkin, 1997). The triad
zones include intensive tree farming with a focus on timber
products, short rotations, and high value species; ecological forest
management with a focus on both timber and non-timber products,
longer rotations, and natural disturbance; and protected areas with
a focus on ecological benchmarking, little or no timber harvest, and
scientic study (Binkley, 1997). Planned distribution of zones
within the forest is critical for optimizing a complete set of values.
Landscape ecologists show that spatial pattern is a key determinant of ecosystem health and function (Crow and Gustafson, 1997),
and models of spatial prescription of forest operations in various
zones, including cut-block size, rotation length, stand structure,
and conversions to plantations, affect the value of forest services as
well as ecosystem function (Gustafson, 2007). In many ways, triad
zoning is a form of precision forestry at the landscape level that
optimizes the output of products and services (Fig. 2).
In a review of forest zoning, Nitschke and Innes (2005)
summarized two applications of triad zoning on large land bases
in Canada. They reported that J. D. Irving Limited adopted the
approach on 190,000 ha in northwestern New Brunswick, and
Alberta-Pacic Forest Industries Inc. adopted a triad management
approach for 58,000 km2 in north central Alberta. In the Southeastern U.S. large blocks of industry-owned forest land are
managed in a mosaic of forest types to provide wildlife habitat
and to preserve natural forest stands. Mead-Westvaco Corporation,
which owns approximately 200,000 ha in the Coastal Plain of South
Carolina, uses an ecosystem-based multiple use forest management system to provide ber for its mills while preserving unique
areas, wetlands, and wildlife corridors (Gerhardt, 1997).
Optimization of forest products and services from diverse
ownerships will require higher levels of monetization of nontimber values, but the trend toward managing for multiple values
is in place. Forest soils research will become less centered on
Table 1
Timeline of forest management approaches to meet public demand for forest services on public and private lands.
Year
Approach
Dened
Outcome
Reference
1960
Multiple use (public lands)

Ecosystem management
(public/private)
Lots of single-use interest; no

multiple use clients
Incomplete integration of social,
economic, and biological factors
Fedkiw (1997)
1980
2000
Triad zoning (private/industry)
Provide lumber, range, recreation,

wildlife, minerals from single forest
Integrate management of all natural
resource values while maintaining
soil productivity and forest health
Landscape matrix of reserves and
intensively managed areas
2005
Sustainable forest management
Maintain the potential for land and

water ecosystems to produce the
same quantity and quality of goods
and services in perpetuity
Different set of values managed

for in each zone, with full set
at forest level
The goal is management that
is simultaneously economically
viable, environmentally sound,
and socially acceptable
Swanson and Franklin (1992),

Salwasser (1994), Franklin (1989),
Brunson et al. (1996)
Clawson (1974), Seymour and
Hunter (1992), Binkley (1997),
Montigny and MacLean (2006)
Franklin (1993), Sample et al. (2006),
RSF (2009)
2338
timber production and will broaden to include issues associated

with forest protection and production of multiple forest services.
5. Increasing/maintaining productivity
Increasing forest productivity while maintaining soil quality
has been a continuing and fundamental management issue for
forest soil researchers during the 50-year history of our
conferences. Forest type conversions, many aspects of plantation
culture, the effects of rotation age and stem versus whole-tree
harvesting, and the cumulative effects of silviculture were highly
researched topics during the 1960s and 1970s and remain so today.
Forest type conversions have occurred for millennia as humans
found that certain species, native or exotic, better met their needs
due to ease of management, type of wood, ber length,
straightness of stem, rate of growth, or non-timber products
provided. Recent examples are native oak-pine conversions to
loblolly pine plantations in the southeastern U.S., mixed conifers to
Ponderosa pine in the southwest, spruce and r conversions to
pines in eastern Canada and Nordic countries, native forest
conversions to radiata pine in Australia and New Zealand, and
European oak and beech to Norway spruce.
Despite fewer forest services provided, forest conversions to
intensively managed plantations can produce great value by
maximizing wood production of a given valuable species. At issue
is whether or not forest conversions compromise ecosystem
stability and soil productivity over the short or long-term, the level
of fossil fuel inputs needed to maintain productivity, and whether
or not the forest system can return to its original structure and
function, with or without intervention, if intensive management is
abandoned. The persistence and stability of an ecosystem is a
function of the extent to which it can change from an equilibrium
state due to a disturbance and the time required to return to its
original state, if at all (Holling, 1973). Most forest conversions
replace climax or late-successional systems with early successional systems. After multiple rotations, the forest soil will likely
convert to an early successional condition commensurate with
the vegetation. Reichle et al. (1975) maintained that forest
ecosystems, including their soils, tend toward maximum persistent biomass regulated by climate and limiting resources. Crocker
and Major (1955), in their classic paper on forest soil development
following forest succession behind a retreating Alaskan alpine
glacier, demonstrate Reichles principle. Do forest conversions
reverse the process, and if so, to what degree of hysteresis? Will
soil quality revert to a new, but acceptable, sustainable equilibrium? The agroforestry literature shows that forest conversions
invariably decrease soil organic matter content, open nutrient
cycles, and decrease soil tilth (Lundgren and Nair, 1985; Young,
1997; Olson et al., 2000). If soil productivity decreases, what level
of conditioning is required and at what cost in order to return it at
its original level?
These questions have been answered in part by the success of
intensive forest management exemplied by pine plantations in
the southeastern U.S. Several decades of research and practice on
soil treatments including water table control, surface drainage, and
the addition of phosphorus at time of planting have each increased
site productivity by 520 m 3 ha 1 year 1 depending on the site.
Nitrogen fertilization at stand closure and weed control increase
plantation productivity by 510 m 3 ha 1 year 1 by shortening
the rotation cycle (Fox et al., 2007). This increased productivity has
been achieved by understanding forest response to each forest
practice as well as the cumulative effects of intensive silviculture
(Burger, 1994). The effect of soil treatments combined with tree
improvement and weed control treatments is shown on production curves in Fig. 3. The solid curve depicts forest biomass
production with time without intensive management. Improved
Fig. 3. Forest management effects on forest biomass production with time (after
Burger, 1994).
genotypes, weed control, and nitrogen fertilization increase the

rate of biomass production (dashed line), shortening the time
required to meet site carrying capacity or rotation age (Zobel and
Talbert, 1984; Lowery and Gjerstad, 1991; Allen, 1987). Soil
drainage and phosphorus fertilization increase site carrying
capacity (Terry and Hughes, 1975; Pritchett et al., 1961), which
means that forest productivity increases both by shortening the
rotation and increasing carrying capacity, the level of maximum
production. Site carrying capacity can be reduced (dotted lines) if
site treatments cause signicant erosion, loss of soil organic
matter, nutrient depletion, or an air/water imbalance (Morris and
Miller, 1994; Powers, 1999), and biomass production is reduced by
some measure despite better genotypes, weed control, and
fertilization (Squire et al., 1979; Fox et al., 1989; Burger, 1994;
Hopmans, this issue).
Through research and practice, many of the interactions among
these site treatments are understood, allowing foresters to use
intensive management practices that increase productivity above
native levels while avoiding activities that degrade site quality
(Carter and Foster, 2006). This is clearly demonstrated by data
compiled by Fox et al. (2004) showing increasing plantation yields
and decreasing rotation ages since the 1940s, when the rst
southern pine plantations were harvested, through a projection to
2010 (Fig. 4). Since the rst North American Forest Soils Conference
was held in 1958, total yield has more than doubled, and rotation
age has dropped by half. It is unlikely that the participants in the
1st NAFSC in 1958 would have predicted this magnitude of
productivity increase. This result demonstrates the value of
focused, applied forest soils research.
Research on the cumulative effects of soil treatments and
plantation silviculture is ongoing and will become more important
Fig. 4. Change in yield and rotation length of southern pine plantations during 70
years of management (Fox et al., 2004).
as new demands are put on plantation forests for higher yields and
more intensive harvests. Harvesting additional increments of
biomass for energy and biofuels is inevitable. The authors of a joint
U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture resource assessment
claim a technical feasibility of a 1.3 billion dry-ton sustainable
annual supply of biomass to displace 30% of the countrys present
petroleum consumption (Perlack et al., 2005). This would amount
to a seven-fold increase in production from the amount currently
consumed, with 368 and 998 million dry-tons per year produced
from forest and agricultural resources, respectively. The projected
increase from forest resources doubles biomass use from this
sector, with the remaining increase supported by agriculture.
This demand for additional biomass elevates the challenge of
achieving sustainable plantations. If sustainability is partially
achieved by fertilization inputs, can these inputs be sustained
given the tripled cost of nitrogen-based fertilizers in the past three
years? If sustainability is partially a function of soil organic matter
retention, how will this be achieved if whole-trees are removed for
wood and energy? And if carbon sequestration is a related new
demand of plantation forests, can this be achieved with more
intensive harvests?
Versions of these questions were asked during the 1980s and
1990s related to whole-tree harvesting when in-woods chipping
technology became practical. Meta-analyses of the literature on
forest management effects on soil carbon were done by Johnson
(1992) and Johnson and Curtis (2001). In their study reported in
2001, Johnson and Curtis summarized stem versus whole-tree
harvesting effects for 73 observations from temperate forest sites
around the world. Sawlog harvesting caused an 18% increase in soil
carbon, while whole-tree harvests decreased soil carbon by 6%. The
net difference was 12% soil carbon between the two harvest types.
If whole-tree harvesting is required for producing energy wood, it
is unlikely that energy wood harvests will be sustainable on many
sites. For managed forests, a direct tradeoff of net carbon sink for
intensive energy wood harvests may be inevitable, but any use of
biomass for energy in lieu of fossil energy reduces our overall
carbon footprint.
Soil tillage is often used for surface drainage (bedding or
mounding), weed control, and loosening compacted soils in
plantation forests. Tillage mixes litter and harvest residues with
mineral soil, which accelerates decomposition (Burger and Pritchett,
1984). Tillage increases forest productivity in some cases (Morris
and Lowery, 1988), but it may decrease soil carbon. In 1982, with the
cooperation of a forest industry landowner, I established an
operational-level site preparation study across 12 old-eld
naturally regenerated loblolly pine sites in Georgia and South
Carolina. Average carbon content in the surface 20 cm of mineral soil
was about 10 Mg ha 1 after 100+ years of abusive agriculture, less
than a third of which may have been present originally (Richter et al.,
1999). Tillage versus no tillage was crossed with residue removal
(non-merchantable trees, slash, L and F litter layers) versus no
removal in a factorial arrangement. After 18 years, Cerchiro (2003)
reported that tillage caused a 10% increase in tree volume
attributable to weed control and better stocking, but residue
removal decreased volume by 10%. Residue removal alone decreased
soil carbon in the surface 20 cm by 9% after 18 years (Fig. 5), which is
about equivalent to the whole-tree harvest effect reported by
Johnson and Curtis (2001). Combined residue removal and tillage,
common practice at the time, decreased soil carbon by 18%. Organic
matter removal, along with related nutrient depletion, may have
been the cause of the lower stand volume.
As Johnson and Curtis (2001) showed in their meta-analysis,
soil carbon change is forest-, soil- and treatment-specic. Powers
et al. (2005) reported ndings after 10 years of study of a range of
long-term site productivity study sites in CA, ID, LA, MI, MS, and
NC. Soil organic matter across all sites was generally unaffected by
2339
Fig. 5. Tillage and residue removal effects on soil carbon in the soil surface (20 cm)
of loblolly pine plantations after 18 years (Cerchiaro, 2003).
complete removal of surface organic matter (stem-only versus

whole-tree + litter removal). Based on composite results, it
appeared that carbon inputs to mineral soil horizons were due
primarily to root decomposition, while carbon mineralized in the
surface Oi and Oe layers efuxed as CO2. However, for four
contrasting CA sites, whole-tree + litter removal caused substantial
declines in soil C and N concentrations and mineralizable N.
For two rotations of radiata pine plantations in Southern
Australia, Hopmans (this issue) reported that inter-rotational
management of the forest oor and harvesting residues aimed at
conserving organic matter and nutrients on Spodosols was critical
for maintaining the productive capacity of these soils. Burning of
harvesting residues after the rst rotation caused a decline in
productivity of the second rotation while retention of residues was
shown to maintain or enhance early growth of radiata pine. Total C
(9.2 Mg ha 1) and N (582 kg ha 1) declined with burning of
harvest residues in the rst rotation; however, the accumulation
of C and N in the forest oor and residues after clear-felling of the
second rotation, removing only stem wood and bark (conventional
harvesting), more than compensated for this decline indicating a
gain in carbon (+14 Mg ha 1) and to a lesser extent N
(+13 kg ha 1). This demonstrates the recovery potential of soil
organic matter content and forest productivity with appropriate
site-specic biomass and residue management.
Through a combination of eld-level trials and directed studies
on soil processes, we have learned much about the cumulative
effects of silvicultural treatments on forest productivity over the
past 50 years (Carter and Foster, 2006). During this time, there
have been occasional claims of reaching a theoretical maximum,
but as researchers and practitioners continue to combine clonal
biotechnology, ecophysiology, and soil treatments, higher and
higher productivity levels have been achieved (Borders and Bailey,
2001; Allen et al., 2005). On the other hand, greater demands for
biomass extraction and increasing costs of productivity-sustaining
fuel and fertilizer inputs will likely cause a leveling off of plantation
productivity. This contention is supported by Franklin and
Johnsons (2004) observation that globalization of markets is
dramatically altering the socioeconomic context for growing and
manufacturing wood-based products from timberlands. The North
American forest industry is shifting capital investment to the
southern hemisphere where plantation forests can be grown at
faster rates and lower cost.
6. Site-specic management
One especially important intensive forestry activity is sitespecic management, made possible by forest site evaluation and
2340
mapping, one of the ve theme areas of the conference (see paper

by Pare, this volume). Forest site evaluation and mapping in North
America is done at a spectrum of intensity and scale using climate,
vegetation, landform, soils, or a combination of two or more for
classication criteria. In the U.S., the National Soil Survey (http://
soils.usda.gov/survey/), begun over 100 years ago and targeted at
farmland, was originally used as a base for forest soil classication
and mapping. It quickly became evident that forest soils needed to
be mapped at a different spatial scale, both horizontally and
vertically, and interpreted specically for intensive forest management (Van Lear, 1991). As a result, most large forest landowners
developed their own site classication systems tailored to their
land conditions (Fox, 1991). Classication and mapping became
increasingly complex and more useful with innovative approaches
for conceptualizing and representing spatial complexity (Hoosbeek and Bryant, 1992; Hoosbeek and Bouma, 1998), and as new
technologies such as spatial statistics, geographical information
systems, and global positioning systems were applied (Ryan et al.,
2000). Soils were interpreted for multiple intensive forest
management inputs including site preparation, herbicide application, fertilization, equipment limitations, seedling performance,
and projected yield.
A new level of management intensity, precision forestry,
requires even greater site-specicity. Precision forestry represents
a step increase in management complexity compared to integrated, intensive plantation management practiced for the past
several decades in the U.S. Southeast and Northwest (Fig. 2). It
shares some components of precision agriculture but is different
by virtue of operations and objectives. Taylor et al. (2006) dene it
as planning and conducting site-specic forest management
activities and operations to improve wood product quality and
utilization, reduce waste and increase prots, and maintain the
quality of the environment. It uses GIS and GPS to improve
operational efciency by applying site treatments at sub-stand
levels, and with the use of LiDAR, it can track growth and yield
performance at the tree level (Brodbeck et al., 2007). With these
new capabilities, forest site classication and mapping needs to be
even more specic, to include precise yield projections, estimates
of clonal responses, and the ability to provide soils data for GIS/GPS
operations maps. Will our ability to interpret soils for responses to
precise management keep up with the technology? Is basic
research adequate to support this step increase in management
intensity? It is not possible to install eld trials across all mapping
units at a precision scale. A greater understanding of management
effects on basic soil properties is needed so a greater amount of
extrapolation of results from existing trials can be made at a ner
scale.
7. Management of degraded forests, sites and soils
Dr. Daniel Hillel, distinguished soil scientist and Bible historian
(Hillel, 2006), commented in his book on human effects on soils,
that as soils go, so go civilizations (Hillel, 1992). His comment
referred to soil quality degradation by early civilizations in the
Middle East and more broadly to soil degradation worldwide.
Human history is replete with examples of declining or lost
civilizations due to abuse or total destruction of forest and soil
systems (Diamond, 2005). North American forests and soils have
largely escaped degradation at levels that threaten the ecosystem
integrity or their ability to recover. Nonetheless, there are many
examples of degraded forest ecosystems in North America, and
recent concern about their condition helped spawn the science of
restoration ecology. Forest soil scientists are increasingly involved
in ve areas of restoration ecology: (1) recovery of forest types
such as longleaf pine, ponderosa pine, and bottomland hardwoods;
(2) severe wildre effects on forest soils; (3) acid deposition effects
on forests and soils; (4) mined land reclamation and reforestation;

and (5) afforestation and recovery of degraded agricultural land.
Over the 50-year history of the NAFSC, research has increased and
numerous reports have been published on these topics, especially
on acid precipitation and re effects and restoration of degraded
soils (see especially, Proc. 6th and 10th NAFSC, 1984 and 2005,
respectively).
Acid deposition effects on forests, lakes, streams and soils were
researched intensively during the decade of the 1980s, culminating
with the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report.
The report concluded that the biological integrity of eastern North
American lakes and streams had been impacted, but the effects on
forests and soils was inconclusive (NAPAP, 1990). To alleviate acid
deposition impacts in the eastern U.S., the U.S. Congress amended
the Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) in 1990, which reduced
sulfate emissions signicantly (EPA, 2000). Despite these reductions, there is evidence that acid deposition is having a negative
effect on sugar maple and spruce forests in the northeast (Horsley
et al., 2000; Shortle et al., 1997). There is also some evidence that
acid deposition could be negatively impacting high-elevation
Appalachian oak forests in West Virginia. In a recent report, Elias
et al. (this volume) found evidence of general forest decline in the
Monongahela National Forest (MNF), which they attributed to base
depletion. The MNF is being actively managed for potential adverse
effects of acid deposition, as explicitly stated in its 2005 Forest
Management Plan. Driscoll et al. (2001) modeled the effects of
reduced sulfate emissions on key watershed acidication indicators. According to their estimates, an additional 40% reduction in
sulfate emissions beyond the 1990 CAAA levels will not support
complete biological recovery of Hubbard Brook watersheds.
Moreover, increased harvesting pressure on northeastern hardwood forests could exacerbate the effects of acid deposition
(Hornbeck, 1992; Thiffault et al., 2007). In their review of the issue,
Adams et al. (2000) recommended strategies needed to ensure
sustainable harvests, several of which, including fertilization and
liming, may not be economically viable. It is likely that in some
parts of Canada and the U.S., water bodies, soils, and forests will
suffer chronic, cumulative degradation due to pollution inputs. In
many northern hardwood and Appalachian hardwood forests,
removal of base cations will exceed soil exchangeable levels.
Leaching of base cations and removal via harvest could become a
sustainability criterion in forest management plans and certication standards.
The effect of wildre on forest soils is a more recent
management issue because the number and frequency of severe
wildres has increased in the U.S. and Canada during the past ve
years due to natural re suppression, expansion of the urban/
wildland interface, and more frequent dry periods associated with
climate change. Periodic ground re is a good and necessary
process in many re-dependent natural forest systems and
plantation forests. The positive effects of re are well known
and have been well documented (Wells et al., 1979; Macadam,
1989; Neary et al., 1999). However, cycling of the forest oor,
organic matter decomposition, and cycling of nutrients, processes
that are enhanced by low-intensity re, can be dramatically altered
by severe wildre. In their review of re effects on ecosystems,
DeBano et al. (1998) contrast the effects of re intensity and burn
severity on ecosystem processes. Severe re reduces organic
material, which decreases inltration, increases runoff, dry ravel
sedimentation, and slope failures, and causes a cascade of
watershed changes, including nutrient- and sediment-enriched
streams, higher stream temperatures, and altered stream habitat
(Ice et al., 2004). Wildre disturbances have reached an extent and
intensity requiring restoration efforts by multidisciplinary
resource teams that include soil scientists. Dale Bosworth, former
Chief of the USDA Forest Service, suggested that ecological
restoration will become the primary focus of the Forest Service in

this post-timber production era due to a host of new challenges
(Bosworth and Brown, 2007). According to these authors, severe
wildre is one of the greatest threats facing our nations forests.
Restoring re-adapted ecosystems should be one of our highest
priorities.
Restoration ecology has emerged as an allied practice and
scientic discipline in forest land management (Sarr et al., 2004).
Although restoration ecology as a science is relatively new in
forestry circles, it has been practiced in an organized way for at
least 30 years for wetland mitigation (Kusler and Kentula, 1990),
mined land reclamation (Torbert and Burger, 2000; Burger et al.,
2005) and recovery of degraded soils (Richter and Markewitz,
2001). An emphasis in forestry has been on recovery of redependent ecosystems such as longleaf pine (Hermann, 1993;
Gilliam and Platt, 2006) and ponderosa pine (Covington et al.,
1997), and more recently on the restoration of bottomland
hardwood ecosystems (Stanturf et al., 2000). In most cases,
research and practice in these areas has been applied and
pragmatic, with a view of improving degraded conditions to
increase soil quality and forest value (Bradshaw, 1987). Wenger
et al. (2000) wonder if this is not simply good forest stewardship.
They warn against a more purist approach of restoration toward
some unattainable reference condition due to inadequate knowledge of the science that would lead us there. In any case, neglect
should not be an alternative because of a simple lack of agreement
on what to call the process of ecosystem recovery (Wenger et al.,
2000). In addition to severe forest and soil disturbances already
mentioned, our public and private forests of our nations are
experiencing numerous threats, including soil-degrading wildres,
acidication, massive bark beetle attack, soil warming, and a net
loss of carbon. In addition to research needed to understand the
processes for soil and forest recovery from these impacts,
economic and institutional constraints must be overcome as we
seek societal direction on restoration, rehabilitation or replacement of damaged forest ecosystems.
8. Sustainability and adaptive management
A nal issue that will frame the activities of forest soil
researchers and practitioners well into the future is the process
of managing forests sustainably. Ecosystem sustainability was a
theme of the 9th NAFSC held at Tahoe City, California, in 1998
(Boyle and Powers, 2001). However, forest soils and ecosystem
sustainability have not been explored within the broader context
of sustainable forest management (SFM), a concept that the
forestry community was still struggling to dene at the time. A
denition of sustainable forestry proposed by Franklin (1993, p.
127) several years earlier was nally accepted by many in the
forestry community: maintain the potential for our land and
water ecosystems to produce the same quantity and quality of
goods and services in perpetuity, but how to manage for it was
even more elusive.
This new forest management paradigm was inspired by the
Bruntland Commission Report (WCED, 1987), which discussed
how to achieve sustainable development. In 1992, in the spirit of
2341
the Bruntland Report, world leaders at the United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development (United Nations,
1992) developed a statement of principles outlining a means for
protecting the worlds forests. Sample et al. (1993) captured these
principles in a simple model showing that sustainable forest
management is achieved when it is simultaneously ecologically
sound, economically viable, and socially responsible (Fig. 6). This
forest management model contains the principles and goals of
multiple use, ecosystem management, and triad zoning (Table 1).
Based on SFM principles, groups of countries sharing similar
forest resources developed criteria and indicators (C&Is) that
measure and monitor sustainability. The C&Is serve as policy and
management tools. They provide a framework for determining the
status of ecological, economic, and social conditions of forests, and
they provide the basis for SFM programs on private and public land
(RSF, 2008). Both Canada and the U.S. are signatories of the
Montreal Process, which encompasses most of the worlds
temperate and boreal forests. Sustainability criteria agreed upon
in 1995 by 10 countries include conservation and maintenance of
forest ecosystem biological diversity, productive capacity, health
and vitality, soil and water resources, global carbon cycles, longterm multiple socio-economic benets, and a legal, institutional,
and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable
management.
The US National Forest System applies the Montreal Process
C&Is through ecosystem management policies, while certication
of forest management by third-party entities against a set of
standards is used to achieve SFM on some private forests
(Rametsteiner and Simula, 2002). Examples of certication
programs include the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Forest
Stewardship Council, and the Canadian Standards Association.
In 2003, the USDA Forest Service published a report on the state
of forests in the U.S. (USDA Forest Service, 2004) by addressing
each of the Montreal Process criteria and indicators. The report
provided a comprehensive picture of conditions and trends in U.S.
forests, but contained little analysis on the next steps for achieving
sustainability. Several years later, the Pinchot Institute for
Conservation published a companion report reecting the judgment of some of the nations forestry and conservation leaders
about progress toward SFM (Sample et al., 2006). The report was
based, in part, on a series of workshops held to gather input from
public, private, government, and NGO stakeholders. All were asked
to consider the adequacy of forest management in 11 categories
that bridged environmental, economic, and social aspects of
management. The results, shown in Table 2, are disturbing because
the three categories on which we forest soil scientists spend most
of our time: (1) forest health and productivity, (2) scientic forestrelated knowledge, and (3) monitoring, assessment, and reporting
using criteria and indicators, were all ranked unsatisfactory in
terms of current efforts for achieving sustainability. This unsatisfactory rating for the SFM criteria on which we work suggests
that we have much to do and that we will continue to play an
important role as the forestry community works toward SFM.
The Pinchot Institute Report by Sample et al. (2006) concluded
that the greatest impediment to progress on SFM was coordination
among stakeholders. Others believe that the tripartite model
Table 2
Results of a Pinchot Institute assessment of the USDA Forest Service National Report on Sustainable Forests 2003 depicting perceived progress toward SFM.
Satisfactory
Adequate
Unsatisfactory
Forests in environmentally critical areas

Economic aspects of forests
Maintaining forest cover to meet future needs
Combating deforestation and degradation

Protected areas and forest conservation
Forest health and productivity

Scientic forest-related knowledge
Monitoring, assessment, and reporting using C&I
Traditional forest-related knowledge
Social and cultural aspects of forests
National forestry programs
2342
Fig. 6. A simultaneous (A); biocentric (B), and anthropogenic (C) model of sustainable forest management (Sample et al., 1993; after Zonnveld, 1990; Salwasser et al., 1993;
Burger, 1997).
(Fig. 6A) underpinning SFM is theoretically sound but functionally

awed. The theory is that when the three balloons representing
economic, environment and social concerns move inward and are
fully superimposed due to market incentives and common
purpose, sustainable forest management is achieved. The reality
is an outward inertia motivated by special interests. American
agriculture shares this sustainability model. An example of the
model malfunctioning is the conversion of thousands of acres of
highly erodible Conservation Reserve Program land to corn,
prompted by a new U.S. renewable fuels standard that is largely
met with corn ethanol (U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act,
2007). Similar examples can be found constraining SFM. No
amount of communication among stakeholders will overcome
strong market incentives that pull the balloons apart toward a nonsustainable condition.
Recognizing this, Burger (1997) recommended an alternative
biocentric model showing that social structure and function
(human communities) are constrained by economic feasibility
(business of forestry), and economic feasibility is constrained by
(nested within) the ecosystem (forest) on which both the economy
and society depend (Fig. 6B). It is the opposite of a pessimistic,
anthropocentric model that many consider todays reality: forestbased human communities enjoying a non-sustainable standard of
living on decit economics based on dwindling forest resources
(Fig. 6C). SFM via the biocentric model (Fig. 6B) will likely require
rules beyond voluntary certication programs and ecosystem
management. Such a proposal has been made by several private
and public forestry groups through the Roundtable on Sustainable
Forests (RSF, 2008) (http://www.sustainableforests.net/summar-
ies.php). The draft Sustainable Forests Act of 2008 (http://

www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdf) represents impatience by some resource groups with non-functional
SFM models. The proposed act would establish and implement a
sustainable forests policy for the nations forest resources and
forest lands. The act would require that economic, environmental, and social values from forests across multiple ownerships
and jurisdictions be supported by a legal, nancial and institutional
structure in which these values are mutually supporting. It is
unlikely that the mutually supporting clause could be accomplished with only voluntary action. Any rules would surely be
resisted by some stakeholders, but initiatives such as this one will
test the forestry communities commitment to SFM. In any case,
researchers will be called upon to provide the missing scientic
forest-related knowledge identied by the Pinchot Institute Report
for advancing SFM (Sample et al., 2006).
Despite gaps in our knowledge, general approaches for
achieving and monitoring SFM have been devised by forest
scientists and practitioners around the globe (Smith and McMahon, 1997; Raison et al., 2001). These approaches, often called logic
models, reliable processes, or adaptive management, are works in
progress, but nearly all contain the following elements: (1) a
denition of sustainable forest management; (2) an understanding
of the cause and effect relationships between forest harvesting, soil
change, and forest health; (3) dened indicators of soil change that
could lead to forest decline; (4) the ability to map site sensitivity
based on potential change in sustainability indicators; (5) a base of
scientic principles and empirical trials from which forecasts of
2343
Fig. 7. A model for achieving sustainable forest management.
acceptable harvest levels and forest practices can be prescribed on

a site-sensitivity basis (best management practices, BMPs); (6)
protocols for monitoring indicators to determine if management
practices are meeting sustainability criteria; and (7) periodic
reviews for revising guidelines to ensure BMP effectiveness
(adaptive management).
Henninger et al. (1998) published their version of an adaptive
management model (Fig. 7) and explained its use within their
forest products company. I believe it provides a good base for
achieving a sustainable forest for all forest ownerships. To their
model I would add an explicit SFM goal as an input and specify the
primary goods and service for which we are managing. Using the
strategic database, which is what we know and the tools at our
disposal, management guidelines are developed for specic sites,
and guidelines are applied to the forest as best management
practices by trained personnel. Compliance monitoring is used to
ensure that the BMPs were applied correctly, effectiveness
monitoring is used to determine if the practices actually worked
in the short-term, and validation monitoring is used to determine if
the overall approach is working in the long-term. Soil quality
indicators and disturbance standards are examples of short-term
effectiveness monitoring that can be used to adjust guidelines, if
needed, and a reference productivity level is an example of an
indicator for long-term validation. Monitoring at all levels will
identify gaps in our knowledge for which short- and long-term
research may be needed to improve the strategic database. An
ongoing adaptive management process, tailored for different
ownerships, is a necessary mechanism for achieving SFM on the
ground.
9. Summary
This paper is a review of forest management effects on growth,
production, and sustainability of forest ecosystems. This has been a
key area of forest soils research during the 50-year history of the
North American Forest Soils Conferences. Fifty years ago, the postwar manufacturing and housing economy was booming and forest
plantations established in depression-era old elds were being
harvested and replanted. Intensive plantation management that
included land drainage, soil tillage, weed control, prescribed re,
and fertilization was being adopted by an expanding forest
industry. This was also a period of transition in North America from
forest exploitation toward the application of scientically based
silviculture used to regenerate and manage both natural and
plantation forests. Basic and applied research showed how
degraded soils could be made productive and how forest

productivity could be greatly increased by integrating intensive
forest management practices. Forest management inputs and
investments were further enhanced by site-specic prescriptions
made possible by nely honed soil and land classication systems
interpreted specically for forestry uses.
Research that led to reforestation, rehabilitation of degraded
soils, and increasing soil and forest productivity through management inputs are clearly some of the greatest contributions of forest
soil scientists during the past 50 years. But managers of our private
and public forests are facing new challenges caused, in part, by
public expectations that forests provide a myriad of services along
with products; services that have been taken for granted and are
poorly monetized. Managing forests simultaneously for wood,
biodiversity, carbon sequestration, energy, water quality, ood
control, habitat, and recreation is the 21st-century challenge for
foresters who need science to underpin their prescriptions.
Management paradigms for public lands have evolved through
exploitation, sustained yield, multiple use, and ecosystem management, while private forest land owners are broadening their
objectives and producing additional forest services through
incentive and certication programs. The challenge for forest soil
scientists is to show how and to what extent multiple products and
services can be produced from the same forest stand or landscape
in a way that meets agreed-upon criteria for sustainability: the
potential to produce the same quantity and quality of goods and
services in perpetuity.
The 21st-century model for guiding forest research and
management is called Sustainable Forest Management. It supposes
the application of Montreal Process criteria and indicators that lead
to simultaneous economic viability, environmental integrity, and
social acceptability to forest management. The policies and action
needed to make SFM a reality are for policy makers to contemplate
and rule makers to put in place. In the interim, we soil scientists
can do our part by creating new knowledge and applications that
will support the process. For this conference theme area of
management effects on productivity and sustainability I
recommend we put new or added emphasis on the following
research questions:
1. Optimization of services: demand for non-timber forest
products and services (water supply and quality, biodiversity
and habitat, recreation opportunities, carbon sequestration,
biomass for energy and transportation fuels) will increase on all
forest lands. Added demand for energy biomass and carbon
2344
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
sequestration conict. What policies will monetize ecosystem

services and bring their markets to scale? What are the effects of
cumulative silviculture on energy supply and atmospheric
services? How will the demand for new and multiple services
redirect forest soils research?
Maintaining productivity: Intensive management in the past 50
years increased forest productivity dramatically. Advances in
biotechnology, ecophysiology, and soil science promise even
higher levels. What are the limits? What approaches are needed
to sustain this trajectory as fossil energy inputs become less
affordable?
Site-specic management: There is great potential for applying
new technology such as GIS, GPS, and remote sensing for sitespecic management. Precision forestry adds another level of
complexity to forest land management. These new technologies
will allow us to make advances that were impossible without
them. Is our soils knowledge adequate for supporting this step
increase in technology and management intensity?
Ecosystem restoration: With new emphasis on sustainability,
damaged soils and land are being restored with planted forests,
and damaged forests are being restored to better health with
better management. Do we adequately understand system
resilience and know how and when to constructively intervene?
Do we know the difference between replace, rehabilitate, and
restore and which approach to apply to a given system needing
help? Do we know the ecological consequences of our
restoration practices?
Protection: There is evidence that adverse effects of acid
precipitation, severe re, and harvest impacts are persistent
in some public and private forests. As more forest services are
demanded by the public, will forest protection take on a new or
different meaning? Do we simply need more research, or do we
need new science policies and outreach programs for managing
this issue?
Sustainable forest management: Sustainable forestry is the
21st-century management paradigm. For a given forest system,
how do we know if its soils and system processes are managed in
a way that confers capability to produce the same quantity and
quality of goods and services in perpetuity? What are the
indicators, and how do we monitor across time and space?
Adaptive management: We scientists may be satised with
creating new knowledge as an end in itself, but we are often in
the best position to apply it to achieve common goals. Do we
understand adaptive management processes and participate
when our science is needed?
Our experience over the past ve decades has shown that our
forest soil science has been unique from other land-based and
resource sciences in that we combine applied and basic research
to achieve real outcomes for better land management. Distinguished biologist E.O. Wilson commented that we are drowning
in information while starving for wisdom (Wilson, 1998, p. 269).
If we scientists and practitioners work together on new and
ongoing forest management challenges and collectively apply our
knowledge and experience, we should increase our chances of
applying wisdom as well as information to achieve our common
goals.
References
Adams, M.B., Burger, J.A., Jenkins, A.B., Zelazny, L., 2000. Impact of harvesting and
atmospheric pollution on nutrient depletion of eastern US hardwood forests.
Forest Ecology and Management 38, 301319.
Allen, H.L., 1987. Forest fertilizers: nutrient amendment, stand productivity, and
environmental impact. Journal of Forestry 85, 3746.
Allen, H.L., Fox, T.R., Campbell, R.G., 2005. Whats ahead for intensive pine plantation silviculture in the South? Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 29, 6269.
Binkley, C.S., 1997. Preserving nature through intensive plantation forestry: the
case for forestland allocation with illustrations from British Columbia. Forest
Chronicle 73, 553559.
Borders, B.E., Bailey, R.L., 2001. Loblolly pinepushing the limits of growth. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 25, 6974.
Bosworth, D., Brown, H., 2007. Investing in the future: ecological restoration and the
USDA Forest Service. Journal of Forestry 105, 208211.
Boyd, J., 2007. Nonmarket benets of nature: what should be counted in green GDP?
Ecological Economics 61, 716723.
Boyle, J.R., Powers, R.F., 2001. Forest Soils and Ecosystem Sustainability. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Bradshaw, A.D., 1987. The reclamation of derelict land and the ecology of ecosystems. In: Jordan, III, W.R., Gilpin, M.E., Aber, J.D. (Eds.), Restoration Ecology: A
Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 5374.
Brodbeck, C., Fulton, J., Shaw, J., McDonald, T., Rodekohr, D., 2007. Timber mapping
for site-specic forest management. American Society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineers Paper No. 071093.
Brunson, M.W., Yarrow, D.T., Toberts, S.D., Guynn, D.C., Kuhns, M.R., 1996. Nonindustrial private forest owners and ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry 94, 1421.
Burger, J.A., Pritchett, W.L., 1984. Effects of clear felling and site preparation on
nitrogen mineralization in a southern pine stand. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 48, 14231437.
Burger, J.A., 1994. Cumulative effects of silvicultural technology on sustained forest
productivity. In: Proceedings, International Energy Agency, Fredericton, New
Brunswick, Canada, pp. 5970.
Burger, J.A., 1997. Conceptual framework for monitoring the impacts of intensive
forest management on sustainable forestry. In: Hakkila, P., Heino, M., Puranen,
E. (Eds.), Forest Management for Bioenergy. The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa Research Centre, pp. 147156 [Research Paper 640].
Burger J., Graves, D., Angel, P., Davis, V., Zipper, C., 2005. The Forestry Reclamation
Approach. U.S. Ofce of Surface Mining. Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 2.
http://arri.osmre.gov/fra.htm.
CSA, 2003. Canadian Standards Association. Sustainable Forest Management:
Requirements and Guidelines. CAN/CSA-Z80902.
Carter, M.C., Foster, C.D., 2006. Milestones and millstones: a retrospective on 50
years of research to improve productivity in loblolly pine plantations. Forest
Ecology and Management 227, 137144.
Cerchiro, M.P., 2003. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantation response to mechanical site preparation in the South Carolina and Georgia Piedmont. M.S. Thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. 86 pp.
Christenson, N.L., (chair), 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America
committee on the scientic basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 6, 655691.
Clawson, M., 1974. Conicts, strategies, and possibilities for consensus in forest land
use and management. In: Clawson, M. (Ed.), Forest Policy for the Future: Papers
and Discussions From a Forum on Forest Policy for the Future. Resources for the
Future, Inc., Washington, DC, pp. 101191.
Covington, W.W., Fule, P.Z., Moore, M.M., Hart, S.C., Kolb, T.E., Mast, J.N., Sakett, S.S.,
Wagner, M.R., 1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of
the Southwest. Journal of Forestry 95, 2329.
Crocker, R.L., Major, J., 1955. Soil development in relation to vegetation and surface
age at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Journal of Ecology 43, 427448.
Crow, T.R., Gustafson, E.J., 1997. Concepts and methods of ecosystem management:
lessons from landscape ecology. In: Boyce, M.S., Haney, A. (Eds.), Ecosystem
Management: Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 5467.
DeBano, L.F., Neary, D.G., Folliott, P.F., 1998. Fires Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York.
de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classication,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41, 393408.
Diamond, J., 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking Press,
New York.
Driscoll, C.T., Lawrence, G.B., Bulger, A.J., Butler, T.J., Cronan, C.C., Eager, C., Lambert,
K.L., Likens, G.E., Stoddard, J.L., Weathers, K.C., 2001. Acidic deposition in the
northeast US: sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies. Bioscience 51, 180198.
Elias, P.A., Burger, J.A., Adams, M.B. Acid deposition effects on forest composition
and growth on the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Forest Ecology
and Management, this volume.
Energy Independence and Security Act, 2007. Public Law No. 110140. 110th
Congress, Washington, DC.
EPA, 2000. National air pollution emission trends, 19001998. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report, Washington, DC, EPA-454-R-00-002.
Fedkiw, J., 1997. The Forest Services pathway toward ecosystem management.
Journal of Forestry 95, 3034.
Fox, T.R., Morris, L.A., Maimone, R.A., 1989. The impact of windrowing on the
productivity of a rotation age loblolly pine plantation. In: Proceedings of the
Fifth Biennial Southern Silviculture Research Conference, New Orleans, LA,
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report No. SO-74, pp. 133140.
Fox, T.R., 1991. The role of ecological land classication systems in the silvicultural
decision process. In: Mengel, D.L., Tew, D.T. (Eds.), Ecological Land Classication: Applications to Identify the Productive Potential of Southern Forests.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-68, pp. 96101.

Fox, T.R., Jokela, E.J., Allen, H.L., 2004. The evolution of pine plantation silviculture in
the southern United States. In: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report
SRS-75. Asheville, NC, pp. 6382.
Fox, T.R., Allen, H.L., Albaugh, T.J., Rubilar, R., Carlson, C.A., 2007. Tree nutrition and
forest fertilization of pine plantations in the southern United States. Southern
Journal of Applied Forestry 31, 511.
Franklin, J.F., 1989. Toward a new forestry. American Forests November/December,
3744.
Franklin, J.F., 1993. The fundamentals of ecosystem management with applications
in the Pacic Northwest. In: Aplet, G.H., Johnson, N., Olson, J.T., Sample, V.A.
(Eds.), Dening Sustainable Forestry. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 127
144.
Franklin, J.F., Johnson, K.N., 2004. Forests face new threat: global market changes.
Issues in Science and Technology 20, 4148.
FSC, 1995. Forest Stewardship Council principles and criteria for forest stewardship.
FSC-STD-01-001 (version 4-0) EN.
FSC, 2004. Forest Stewardship Council Accredited Forest Stewardship Standards.
Bonn, Germany.
Gerhardt, D.W., 1997. Westvacos ecosystem-based multiple use forest management system. In: Diverse Forests, Abundant Opportunities, and Evolving Realities. Society of American Foresters, pp. 265270.
Gilliam, F.S., Platt, W.J., 2006. Conservation and restoration of the Pinus palustris
ecosystem. Applied Vegetation Science 9, 710.
Gustafson, E.J., 2007. Relative inuence of the components of timber harvest
strategies on landscape pattern. Forest Science 53, 556561.
Henninger, R.L., Terry, T.A., Dobkowski, A., Scott, W., 1998. Managing for sustainable
site productivity: Weyerhaeusers forestry perspective. Biomass and Bioenergy
13, 255267.
Hermann, S.M., 1993. The longleaf pine ecosystem: Ecology, restoration and
management. In: Proceedings of the 18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference.
Tall Timbers Research Inc., Tallahassee, FL.
Hillel, D., 1992. Out of the Earth: Civilization and the Life of the Soil. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Hillel, D., 2006. The Natural History of the Bible. Columbia University Press, New
York.
Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of
Ecological Systems 4, 123.
Hoosbeek, M.R., Bryant, R.B., 1992. Towards the quantitative modeling of pedogenesisa review. Geoderma 55, 183210.
Hoosbeek, M.R., Bouma, J., 1998. Obtaining soil and land quality indicators using
research chains and geostatistical methods. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
50, 3550.
Hopmans, P. Changes in total carbon and nutrients in soil proles after a 30-year
rotation of Pinus radiata on podzolized sands: impacts of intensive harvesting
on soil resources. Forest Ecology and Management, this issue.
Hornbeck, J.W., 1992. Comparative impacts of forest harvest and acid
preecipation on soil and streamwater acidity. Environmental Pollution 77,
151155.
Horsley, S.B., Long, R.P., Bailey, S.W., Hall, T.J., 2000. Factors associated with the
decline of sugar maple on the Allegheny Plateau. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 30, 13651378.
Ice, G.G., Neary, D.G., Adams, P.W., 2004. Effects of wildre on soils and watershed
processes. Journal of Forestry 102, 1620.
Johnson, D.W., 1992. Effects of forest management on soil carbon storage. Water,
Air, Soil Pollution 64, 83120.
Johnson, D.W., Curtis, P.S., 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C
and N storage: meta analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 140, 227
238.
Kellogg, C.E., 1958. A look at future forest soil problems. In: Stevens, T.D., Cook,
R.L. (Eds.), Proceedings, First North American Forest Soils Conference.
Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
pp. 15.
Koch, N.E., Skovsgaard, J.P., 1999. Sustainable management of planted forests: some
comparisons between Central Europe and the United States. New Forests 17,
1122.
Kusler, J.A., Kentula, M.E., 1990. Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the
science. Island Press, New York.
Lowery, R.F., Gjerstad, D.H., 1991. Chemical and mechanical site preparation. In:
Duryea, M.L., Dougherty, P.M. (Eds.), Forest Regeneration Manual. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 251261.
Lundgren, B., Nair, P.K.R., 1985. Agroforestry for soil conservation. In: Fel-Swaity,
S.A., Moldenhauer, W.C., Lo, A. (Eds.), Soil Erosion and Conservation. Soil
Conservation Society of North America, Ankeny, IA, pp. 703717.
Macadam, A., 1989. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Forest Soils. British Columbia
Ministry of Forestry, Victoria, Research Report 89001-PR.
Montigny, M.L., MacLean, D.A., 2006. Triad forest management: scenario analysis of
forest zoning effects on timber and non-timber values in New Brunswick,
Canada. The Forestry Chronicle 82, 496511.
Morell, V., 1995. Siberia: surprising home for early modern humans. Science 268,
1279.
Morris, J.B., Morris, R.B. (Eds.), 1996. Encyclopedia of American Historyseventh ed..
Morris, L.A., Lowery, R.F., 1988. Inuence of site preparation on soil conditions
affecting stand establishment and tree growth. Southern Journal of Applied
Forestry 12, 170178.
Morris, L.A., Miller, R.E., 1994. Evidence for long-term productivity changes as
provided by eld trials. In: Dyck, W.J., Cole, D.W., Comerford, N.B. (Eds.), Im-
2345
pacts of Forest Harvesting on Long-term Site Productivity. Chapman & Hall,

London, pp. 4180.
NAPAP, 1990. Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology. National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program Report 18, US Government Printing Ofce,
Washington, DC.
Neary, D.G., Klopatek, C.C., DeBano, L.F., Ffolliott, P.F., 1999. Fire effects on belowground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management
122, 5171.
Nitschke, C.R., Innes, J.L., 2005. The application of forest zoning as an alternative to
multiple-use forestry. In: Innes, J.L., Hickey, G.M., Hoen, H.F. (Eds.), Forestry
and Environmental Change: Socioeconomic and Political Dimensions. IUFRO
Research Series 11. CABI Publishing, pp. 97124.
Olson, R.K., Schoeneberger, M.M., Aschmann, S.G., 2000. An ecological foundation for
temperate agroforestry. In: Garrett, H.E., Rietveld, W.J., Fisher, R.F. (Eds.), North
American Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice. American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 3161.
Pagiola, S., Bishop, J., Landell-Mills, N. (Eds.), 2002. Selling Forest Environmental
Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development. Earthscan, 299 pp.
Pare, D. Evaluating the resiliency of forest site productivity in the eastern boreal
forest. Forest Ecology and Management, this volume.
Pearce, D.W., 2002. The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosystem Health 7,
284296.
Perlack, R.D., Wright, L.L., Turhollow, A.F., Graham, R.L., Stokes, B.J., Erbach, D.C.,
2005. Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The
Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, TN, DOE/GO-102995-2135.
Perlin, J., 1991. A Forest Journey: The Role of Wood in the Development of
Civilization. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Powers, R.F., 1999. On the sustainable productivity of planted forests. New Forests
17, 263306.
Powers, R.F., Scott, D.A., Sanchez, F.G., Voldseth, R.A., Page-Dumroese, D., Elioff, J.D.,
Stone, D.M., 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment.
Findings from the rst decade of research. Forest Ecology and Management 220,
1730.
Pritchett, W.L., Llewellyn, W.R., Swinford, K.R., 1961. Response of slash pine to
colloidal phosphate fertilization. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings
25, 397400.
Raison, R.J., Brown, A.G., Flinn, D.W. (Eds.), 2001. Criteria and Indicators for
Sustainable Forest Management. CABI Publishing, New York.
Rametsteiner, E., Simula, M., 2002. Forest certicationan instrument to promote
sustainable forest management. Journal of Environmental Management 67,
8798.
Reichle, P.E., ONeill, R.V., Harris, W.F., 1975. Principles of energy and materials
exchange in ecosystems. In: VanDobben, W.H., Lowe-Connell, R.H. (Eds.), Unifying Concepts in Ecology. Dr. W. Junk, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 27
43.
Richter, D.D., Markewitz, D., Trumbore, S.E., Wells, C.G., 1999. Rapid accumulation
and turnover of soil carbon in a re-establishing forest. Nature 400, 5658.
Richter, D.D., Markewitz, D., 2001. Understanding Soil Change: Soil Sustainability
over Millennia, Centuries, and Decades. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, RSF. 2008.
RSF, 2009. Roundtable on Sustainable Forests. http://www.sustainableforests.net/.
RSF, 2008. Sustainable Forests Act of 2008 (Draft 12-04-07). Roundtable on Sustainable Forests (http://www.sustainableforests.net/docs/2008/200802_TN_
National_Workshop/4-Draft_Sustainable_Forests_Act_071204.pdf).
Ryan, P.J., McKenzie, N.J., Connell, D.O., Loughhead, A.N., Leppert, P.M., Jacquier, D.,
Ashton, L., 2000. Integrating forest soils information across scales: spatial
prediction of soil properties under Australian forests. Forest Ecology and
Management 138, 139157.
Salwasser, H., MacCleery, D.W., Snellgrove, T.A., 1993. An ecosystem perspective on
sustainable forestry and new directions for the U.S. National Forest System. In:
Applet, G.H., Johnson, N., Olson, J.T., Sample, V.A. (Eds.), Dening Sustainable
Forestry. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 4489.
Salwasser, H., 1994. Sustainable forests and sustainable forestry. Journal of Forestry
92, 610.
Sample, V.A., Johnson, N., Aplet, G.H., Olson, J.T., 1993. Dening sustainable forestry.
In: Applet, G.H., Johnson, N., Olson, J.T., Sample, V.A. (Eds.), Dening Sustainable
Forestry. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 315.
Sample, V.A., Kavanough, S.L., Snieckus, M.M. (Eds.), 2006. Advancing Sustainable
Forest Management in the United States. Pinchot Institute for Conservation,
Washington, DC.
Sarr, D., Puettmann, K., Pabst, R., Cornett, M., Arguello, L., 2004. Restoration
ecology: new perspectives and opportunities for forestry. Journal of Forestry
102, 2024.
Sedjo, R.A., Botkin, D., 1997. Using forest plantations to spare natural forests.
Environment 10, 1520 30.
SFI, 2004. Sustainable Forestry Initiative 20052009 Standard. Sustainable Forestry
Initiative, Inc., Arlington, VA.
Shortle, W.C., Smith, K.T., Minocha, R., Lawrence, G.B., David, M.B., 1997. Acid
deposition, cation mobilization, and stress in healthy red spruce trees. Journal
of Environmental Quality 26, 871876.
Smith, C.T., McMahon, S.D., 1997. Template for developing guidelines for sustainable
forest management for bioenergy production. In: Hakkila, O., et al. (Eds.), Forest
Management for Bioenergy. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, [Research
Paper 640], pp. 157165.
2346
Stanturf, J.A., Gardiner, E.S., Hamel, P.B., Devall, M.S., Lenininger, T.D., Warren Jr.,
M.E., 2000. Restoring bottomland hardwood ecosystems. Journal of Forestry 98,
1016.
Seymour, R.S., Hunter, M.L., Jr., 1992. New forestry in eastern spruce-r forests:
principles and applications to Maine. Maine Agric. Exp. Sta., Univ. Maine, Orono.
Misc. Publ. 716.
Squire, R.O., Flinn, D.W., Farrell, P.W., 1979. Productivity of rst and second rotation
stands of radiata pine on sandy soils. I. Site factors affecting early growth.
Australian Forest 42, 226235.
Stevens, T.D., Cook, R.L., 1958. Foreword. First North American Forest Soils Conference. Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Stone, E.L., 1975. Soil and mans use of forest land. In: Bernier, B., Winget, C.H. (Eds.),
Forest Soils and Forest Land Management. Proceedings, Fourth North American
Forest Soils Conference, Laval University, Les Presses De LUniversite Laval,
Quebec, pp. 19.
Sustainable Forestry Initiative, 2004. 20052009 Standard. American Forest and
Paper Association, Washington, DC.
Swanson, F.J., Franklin, J.F., 1992. New forestry principles from ecosystem analysis
of Pacic Northwest forests. Ecological Applications 2, 262274.
Taylor, S.E., McDonald, T.P., Fulton, J.P., Shaw, J.N., Corley, F.W., Brodbeck, C.J., 2006.
Precision forestry in the southeast U.S. In: Proceedings, International Precision
Forestry Symposium. Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
Terry, T.A., Hughes, J.H., 1975. Drainage of excess water why and how? In: Balmer,
W.E. (Ed.), Proceedings: Soil Moisture Site Productivity Symposium. USDA
Forest Service, Atlanta, GA, pp. 148166.
Thiffault, E., Belanger, N., Pare, D., Munson, A.D., 2007. How do forest harvesting
methods compare with wildre: a case study of soil chemistry and tree
nutrition in the boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37, 1658
1668.
Torbert, J.L., Burger, J.A., 2000. Forest land reclamation. In: Barnhisel, R.L., Darmody,
R.G., Daniels, W.L. (Eds.), Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed Lands. American
Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 371398.
United Nations, 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development. UNDoc. A/CONF. 151/26, 14 August 1992. United Nations, New
York.
United Nations, 2003. United Nations, Commission of the European Communities,
International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development and World Bank, Handbook for Integrated Environmental and
Economic Accounting, United Nations, New York (2003) Draft available from
the website of the UN Statistical Division, www.un.org.
USDA Forest Service, 1992. Ecosystem Management of the National Forests and
Grasslands. USDA Forest Service Memorandum 1330-1, Washington, DC.
USDA Forest Service, 2004. National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003. USDA
Forest Service, Washington, DC. FS-766.
Van Lear, D.H., 1991. History of forest site classication in the south. In: Mengel,
D.L., Tew, D.T. (Eds.), Ecological Land Classication: Applications to Identify the
Productive Potential of Southern Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report SE-68, pp. 2536.
WCED, 1987. Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and
Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Wells, C.G., Campbell, R.E., DeBano, L.F., Lewis, C.E., Fredriksen, R.L., Franklin, E.C.,
Froelich, R.C., Dunn, P.H., 1979. Effects of Fire on Soil, a State-of-Knowledge
Review. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-7, Washington, DC.
Wenger, M.R., Block, W.M., Geils, B.W., Wenger, K.F., 2000. Restoration ecology: A
new forest management paradigm, or another merit badge for foresters?
Journal of Forestry 98, 2227.
Wilson, E.O., 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New
York.
Young, A., 1997. Agroforestry for Soil Management, second ed. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK.
Zobel, B.J., Talbert, J., 1984. Applied Forest Tree Improvement. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Zonnveld, I.S., 1990. Scope and concepts of landscape ecology as an emerging
science. In: Zonnveld, I.S., Forman, R.T.T. (Eds.), Changing Landscapes: An
Ecological Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 220.

Management Effects On Growth, Production and Sustainability of Managed Forest Ecosystems - Past Trends and Future Directions

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Management Effects On Growth, Production and Sustainability of Managed Forest Ecosystems - Past Trends and Future Directions

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Ecology and Management

Management effects on growth, production and sustainability of

* Tel.: +1 540 231 7680; fax: +1 540 231 3330.

land wrought by abusive agriculture that began before the U.S.

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

the products and services that it provides, is one of several major

basic models on management systems requiring increasing levels of

Fig. 2. Forest management intensity and investment as a function of products,

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

and non-timber forest products have been traditional forest uses

and maintaining forest health and productivity while protecting

Multiple use (public lands)

Lots of single-use interest; no

Triad zoning (private/industry)

Provide lumber, range, recreation,

Sustainable forest management

Maintain the potential for land and

Different set of values managed

Swanson and Franklin (1992),

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

timber production and will broaden to include issues associated

genotypes, weed control, and nitrogen fertilization increase the

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

complete removal of surface organic matter (stem-only versus

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

mapping, one of the ve theme areas of the conference (see paper

on forests and soils; (4) mined land reclamation and reforestation;

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

restoration will become the primary focus of the Forest Service in

the Bruntland Report, world leaders at the United Nations

Forests in environmentally critical areas

Combating deforestation and degradation

Forest health and productivity

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

(Fig. 6A) underpinning SFM is theoretically sound but functionally

ies.php). The draft Sustainable Forests Act of 2008 (http://

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

Fig. 7. A model for achieving sustainable forest management.

acceptable harvest levels and forest practices can be prescribed on

degraded soils could be made productive and how forest

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

sequestration conict. What policies will monetize ecosystem

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

pacts of Forest Harvesting on Long-term Site Productivity. Chapman & Hall,

J.A. Burger / Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 23352346

Você também pode gostar