Scheduling forest core area production using mixed integer programming

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 37, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 1924-1932

  Wei, Yu ^a   Hoganson, Howard M ^b  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; FORESTRY; INTEGER PROGRAMMING;

INFLUENCE ZONE; MATURE FOREST; MIXED INTEGER PROGRAMMING (MIP); SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS;

SCHEDULING;

BUFFER ZONE; DATA PROCESSING; EDGE EFFECT; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY MODELING; FORESTRY PRODUCTION; HARVESTING; SOFTWARE;

ECOLOGY; FORESTRY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SCHEDULING;

EID: 38149118672     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X07-033     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Baskent, E.Z., and Jordan, G.A. 1995. Characterizing spatial structure of forest landscapes. Can. J. For. Res. 25: 1830-1849.
2. Bettinger, P., Sessions, J., and Boston, K. 1997. Using Tabu Search to schedule timber harvests subject to spatial wildlife goals for big game. Ecol. Model. 94: 111-123. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(96)00007-5.
3. Brand, L.A., and George, T.L. 2001. Response of passerine birds to forest edge in coast redwood forest fragments. Auk, 118: 678-686. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2001)118[0678:ROPBTF]2.0.CO;2.
4. Fischer, D.T., and Church, R.L. 2003. Clustering and compactness in reserve site selection: an extension of the biodiversity management area selection model. For. Sci. 49: 555-565.
5. Harris, L.D. 1988. Edge effects and conservation of biotic diversity. Conserv. Biol. 2: 330-332. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00196.x.
6. Hoganson, H.M., and Rose, D.W. 1984. A simulation approach for optimal timber management scheduling. For. Sci. 30: 220-238.
7. Hoganson, H.M., Bixby, J., and Bergmann, S.S. 2003. Management scheduling for older forest interior space: three Minnesota test cases. Report to the Minnesota Forest Resource Council Landscape Committee. Available from www.frc.state.mn.us/Info/MFRCdocs/hoganson.pdf.
8. Hoganson, H.M., Wei, Y., and Hokans, R. 2005. Integrating spatial objectives into forest plans for Minnesota's national forests. In Proceedings of the 2003 Symposium: Systems Analysis in Forest Resources, 7-9 October, Stevenson, Wash. Edited by M. Bevers and T.M. Barrett. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Provo, Utah.
9. Honnay, O., Verheyen, K., and Hermy, M. 2002. Permeability of ancient forest edges for weedy plant species invasion. For. Ecol. Manag. 161: 109-122. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00490-X.
10. McDill, M.E., and Braze, J. 2000. Comparing adjacency constraint formulations for randomly generated forest planning problems with four age-class distributions. For. Sci. 46: 423-436.
11. McDill, M.E., and Braze, J. 2001. Using the branch and bound algorithm to solve forest planning problems with adjacency constraints. For. Sci. 47: 403-418.
12. McGarigal, K., Romme, W.H., Crist, M., and Roworth, E. 2001. Cumulative effects of roads and logging on landscape structure in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado (USA). Landscape Ecol. 16: 327-349. doi:10.1023/A:1011185409347.
13. Murray, A.T. 1999. Spatial restrictions in forest scheduling. For. Sci. 45: 45-52.
14. Murray, A.T., and Church, R.L. 1995. Measuring the efficacy of adjacency constraint structure in forest planning models. Can. J. For. Res. 25: 1416-1424.
15. Öhman, K. 2000. Creating continuous areas of old forest in long-term forest planning. Can. J. For. Res. 30: 1817-1823. doi:10.1139/cjfr-30- 11-1817.
16. Öhman, K., and Eriksson, L.O. 1998. The core area concept in forming contiguous areas for long-term forest planning. Can. J. For. Res. 28: 1032-1039. doi:10.1139/cjfr-28-7-1032.
17. Öhman, K., and Eriksson, L.O. 2002. Allowing for spatial consideration in long-term forest planning by linking linear programming with simulated annealing. For. Ecol. Manag. 161: 221-230. doi:10.1016/S0378- 1127(01)00487-X.
18. Rebain, S., and McDill, M.E. 2003a. A mixed-integer formulation of the minimum patch size problem. For. Sci. 49: 608-618.
19. Rebain, S., and McDill, M.E. 2003b. Can mature patch constraints mitigate the fragmenting effect of harvest opening size restrictions? Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 10: 499-513. doi:10.1111/1475-3995.00424.
20. Snyder, S., and ReVille, C. 1997. Dynamic selection of harvests with adjacency restrictions: the SHARe model. For. Sci. 43: 213-222.
21. Tóth, S.F., McDill, M.E., and Rebain, S. 2006. Finding the efficient frontier of a bi-criteria, spatially-explicit, harvest scheduling problem. For. Sci. 52: 93-107.
22. Wei, Y., and Hoganson, H.M. 2005. Landscape impacts from valuing core area in national forest planning. For. Ecol. Manag. 218: 89-106. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.07.002.
23. Wei, Y., and Hoganson, H.M. 2006. Spatial information for scheduling core area production in forest planning. Can. J. For. Res. 36: 23-33. doi:10.1139/x05-233.
24. Williams, J.C., and ReVelle, C.S. 1998. Reserve assemblage of critical areas: a zero-one programming approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 104: 497-509. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00017-9.
25. Wolsey, L.A., and Nemhauser, G.L. 1999. Integer and combinatorial optimization. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
26. Yoshimoto, A., and Brodie, J.D. 1994. Comparative analysis of algorithms to generate adjacency constraints. Can. J. For. Res. 24: 1277-1288.
27. Zipperer, W.C. 1993. Deforestation patterns and their effects on forest patches. Landscape Ecol. 8: 177-184. doi:10.1007/BF00125349.