Spatial Modeling of Harvest Constraints on Wood Supply Versus Wildlife Habitat Objectives

Environmental Management

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 334-347

  Rempel, Robert S ^a   Kaufmann, Cynthia K ^a  

^a LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Forest management; Habitat suitability modeling; Habitat supply; Landscape pattern; Marten; Moose; Ovenbird; Spatial constraint modeling; Tradeoff analysis; Wood supply; Woodland caribou

Indexed keywords

FORESTRY; HARVESTING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TIMBER; WOOD;

MIXEDWOOD FORESTS; WILDLIFE HABITAT SUPPLY;

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING;

FOREST ECOSYSTEM; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HARVESTING; PLANNING METHOD; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

ARTICLE; FOREST; HABITAT QUALITY; HARVEST; LANDSCAPE; MODEL; MOOSE; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; REINDEER; WILDLIFE; WOOD;

ANIMALS; ANIMALS, WILD; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ENVIRONMENT; FORESTRY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; TREES;

ALCES ALCES; MARTES AMERICANA; RANGIFER TARANDUS; RANGIFER TARANDUS CARIBOU; SEIURUS AUROCAPILLUS;

EID: 0344395014     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Arthaud, G. J., and D. W. Rose. 1996. A methodology for estimating production possibility frontiers for wildlife habitat and timber value at the landscape level. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26:2191-2200.
2. Baskent, E. Z. 1997. Assessment of structural dynamics in forest landscape management. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27:1675-1684.
3. Baskent, E. Z., and H. A. Yolasigmaz. 1999. Forest landscape management revisited. Environmental Management 24:437-448.
4. Bergerud, A. T., R. D. Jakimchuk, and D. R. Miller. 1984. The buffalo of the north: caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and human developments. Arctic 37:7-22.
5. Boston, K., and P. Bettinger. 2001. Development of spatially feasible forest plans: a comparison of two modelling approaches. Silva Fennica 35:425-435.
6. Bottan, B., Euler, D. and Rempel R. 2002. Adaptive management of moose in Ontario. Alces 38: (in press).
7. Carlsson, M. 1999. A method for integrated planning of timber production and biodiversity: a case study. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:1183-1191.
8. Cumming, H. G., and D. B. Beange. 1993. Survival of woodland caribou in commercial forests of northern Ontario. Forestry Chronicle 69:579-588.
9. Davis, R. 1997. Sustainable Forest Management Model Version 1.1. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
10. Elkie, P. C., and R. S. Rempel. 2001. Detecting scales of pattern in boreal forest landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 147:253-261.
11. Gluck, M. J., and R. S. Rempel. 1996. Structural characteristics of post-wildfire and clearcut landscapes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 39:435-450.
12. Gustafson, E. J. 1996. Expanding the scale of forest management: Allocating timber harvests in time and space. Forest Ecology and Management 87:27-39.
13. Gustafson, E. J., and T. R. Crow. 1996. Simulating the effects of alternative forest management strategies on landscape structure. Journal of Environmental Management 46:77-94.
14. Gustafson, E. J., S. R. Shifley, D. J. Mladenoff, K. K. Nimerfro, and H. S. He. 2000. Spatial simulation of forest succession and timber harvesting using LANDIS. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:32-43.
15. Hochbaum, D. S., and A. Pathria. 1997. Forest harvesting and minimum cuts: A new approach to handling spatial constraints. Forest Science 43:544-554.
16. Hunter Jr., M. L. 1993. Natural fire regimes as spatial models for managing boreal forests. Biological Conservation 65:115-120.
17. Jenkins, K., and E. Starkey. 1996. Simulating secondary succession of elk forage values in a managed forest landscape, western Washington. Environmental Management 20:715-724.
18. Kauffman, C. K. 2000. Analysis of spatial harvest constraints on ecological (wildlife habitat) versus economic (timber harvest) objectives. MScF thesis. Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario 238.
19. Kliskey, A. D., E. C. Lofroth, W. A. Thompson, S. Brown, and H. Schreier. 1999. Simulating and evaluating alternative resource-use strategies using GIS-based habitat suitability indices. Landscape and Urban Planning 45:163-175.
20. Kurttila, M. 2001. The spatial structure of forests in the optimization calculations of forest planning-a landscape ecological perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 142:129-142.
21. Liu, G. L., J. D. Nelson, and C. W. Wardman. 2000. A target-oriented approach to forest ecosystem design-changing the rules of forest planning. Ecological Modelling 127:269-281.
22. Naesset, E. 1997. A spatial decision support system for long-term forest management planning by means of linear programming and a geographical information system. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 12:77-88.
23. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) 1988. Timber management guidelines for the provision of moose habitat. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario 31.
24. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) 2002. Forest management guide for natural pattern emulation. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario 29.
25. Puttock, G. D., I. Timossi, and L. S. Davis. 1998. BOREAL: A tactical planning system for forest ecosystem management. Forestry Chronicle 74:413-420.
26. Rempel, R. S., P. C. Elkie, A. R. Rodgers, and M. J. Gluck. 1997. Timber-management and natural-disturbance effects on moose habitat: Landscape evaluation. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:517-524.
27. Rempel, R. S., Carr, A. Kauffman, C. Elkie, P. and McNicol J. 1999. Natural disturbance analysis and planning tools: development, integration, and application of models to support forest management planning. Pages 657-661 in Proceedings of the 1999 Sustainable Forest Management Network Conference - Science and Practice: Sustaining the Boreal Forest. Sustainable Forest Management Network, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
28. Remsoft Inc. 1998. Stanley Version 2.0. Canada-British Columbia Partnership Agreement on Forest Resource Development: FRDA II. Fredericton, NB.
29. Rohweder, M. R., C. W. McKetta, and R. A. Riggs. 2000. Economic and biological compatibility of timber and wildlife production: an illustrative use of production possibilities frontier. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:435-447.
30. Slocombe, D. S 1998. Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management. Environmental Management 22:483-493.
31. Taylor, P. D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein, and G. Merriam. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571-573.
32. Thompson, I. D., and P. W. Colgan. 1987. Numerical response of martens to a food shortage in northcentral Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:824-835.
33. Tittler, R., C. Messier, and P. J. Burton. 2001. Hierarchical forest management planning and sustainable forest management in the boreal forest. Forestry Chronicle 77:998-1005.
34. Van Deusen, P. C. 2001. Scheduling spatial arrangement and harvest simultaneously. Silva Fennica 35:85-92.
35. Walters, C. J. 1995. Adaptive Policy Design for Forest Management in British Columbia. Pages 80-85. Page 93 in. Taylor, B. L. Kremsater, and R. Ellis, Eds., Adaptive management of forests in British Columbia. Province of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, 1997.
36. Walters, C. J., and C. S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060-2068.
37. Wightman, R. A., and E. Z. Baskent. 1994. Forest neighbourhoods for timber harvest scheduling. Forestry Chronicle 70:768-772.
38. Young, J. L., and P. N. Duinker. 1998. Canada's national forest strategies: a comparative analysis. Forestry Chronicle 74:683-693.