Managing for ecosystem services in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests using a novel simulation-to-optimization methodology

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 324, Issue , 2016, Pages 11-27

  Bagdon, Benjamin A ^a   Huang, Ching Hsun ^a   Dewhurst, Stephen ^a  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecosystem services; Forest management and planning; Forest Vegetation Simulator; Goal programming; Optimization modeling

Indexed keywords

BIOHAZARDS; BIOMASS; BIRDS; CARBON; CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEMS; FIRE HAZARDS; FIRE PROTECTION; HAZARDS; LINEAR PROGRAMMING; MANAGERS; MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION; OPTIMIZATION;

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; FOREST GROWTH AND YIELD; FOREST VEGETATION SIMULATOR; GOAL PROGRAMMING; OPTIMIZATION METHODOLOGY; OPTIMIZATION MODELING; PRE-EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT; QUADRATIC MEAN DIAMETER;

FORESTRY;

CONIFEROUS FOREST; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; FOREST FIRE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; HABITAT QUALITY; HAZARD MANAGEMENT; OPTIMIZATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RAPTOR; STAND STRUCTURE; VEGETATION COVER;

ARIZONA; UNITED STATES;

ACCIPITER GENTILIS; STRIGIFORMES; STRIX OCCIDENTALIS LUCIDA;

EID: 84954551560     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.12.012     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Abella S.R., Fulé P.Z., Covington W.W. Diameter caps for thinning southwestern ponderosa pine forests: viewpoints, effects, and tradeoffs. J. For. 2006, 104:407-414.
2. Aldea J., Martínez-Peña F., Romero C., Díaz-Balteiro L. Participatory goal programming in forest management: an application integrating several ecosystem services. Forests 2014, 5:3352-3371.
3. Badri M.A. Combining the analytic hierarchy process and goal programming for global facility location-allocation problem. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 1999, 62:237-248.
4. Bagdon B.A., Huang C.H. Carbon stocks and climate change: management implications in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Forests 2014, 5:620-642.
5. Bailey J.D., Covington W.W. Evaluating ponderosa pine regeneration rates following ecological restoration treatments in northern Arizona, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 2002, 155:271-278.
6. Beier P., Maschinski J. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests 2003, 308-314. Island Press, Washington. P. Friederici (Ed.).
7. Bettinger P., Sessions J., Boston K. Using tabu search to schedule timber harvests subject to spatial wildlife goals for big game. Ecol. Model. 1997, 94:111-123.
8. Bettinger P., Graetz D., Boston K., Sessions J., Chung W. Eight heuristic planning techniques applied to three increasingly difficult wildlife planning problems. Silva Fenn. 2002, 36:561-584.
9. Bettinger P., Johnson D.L., Johnson K.N. Spatial forest plan development with ecological and economic goals. Ecol. Model. 2003, 169:215-236.
10. Boyd J., Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63(2):616-626.
11. Bradford J.B., D'Amato A.W. Recognizing trade-offs in multi-objective land management. Front. Ecol. 2012, 10:210-216. 10.1890/110031.
12. Brown T.C., Daniel T.C. Modeling Forest Scenic Beauty: Concepts and Application to Ponderosa Pine. Research Paper RM-256 1984, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
13. Brown T.C., Daniel T.C. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. For. Sci. 1986, 32:471-487.
14. Calkin D.E., Montgomery C.A., Schumaker N.H., Polasky S., Arthur J.L., Nalle D.J. Developing a production possibility set of wildlife species persistence and timber harvest value. Can. J. For. Res. 2002, 32:1329-1342.
15. Carpenter S.R., De Fries R., Dietz T., Mooney H.A., Polasky S., Reid W.V., Scholes R.J. Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science 2006, 314:257-258.
16. Carpenter S.R., Mooney H.A., Agard J., Capistrano D., DeFries R.S., Díaz S., Dietz T., Duraiappah A.K., Oteng-Yeboah A., Pereira H.M., Perrings C., Reid W.V., Sarukhan J., Scholes R.J., Whyte A. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2009, 106:1305-1312.
17. Chapin F.S., Matson P.A., Vitousek P. Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology 2011, Springer Science & Business Media.
18. Covington W.W., Moore M.M. Post-settlement changes in natural fire regimes and forest structure: ecological restoration of old-growth ponderosa pine forests. J. Sustain. For. 1994, 2:153-181.
19. Covington W.W., Fulé P.Z., Moore M.M., Hart S.C., Kolb T.E., Mast J.N., Sackett S.S., Wagner M.R. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest. J. For. 1997, 95:23-29.
20. Crookston N.L., Dixon G.E. The forest vegetation simulator: a review of its structure, content, and applications. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2005, 49(1):60-80.
21. Curtis R.O., Marshall D.D. Technical note: why quadratic mean diameter?. West. J. Appl. For. 2000, 15:137-139.
22. Daily G.C., Polasky S., Goldstein J., Kareiva P.M., Mooney H.A., Pejchar L., Ricketts T.H., Salzman J., Shallenberger R. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7:21-28.
23. Daly H.E., Farley J. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications 2011, Island press. 2nd ed.
24. Deb K. Nonlinear goal programming using multi-objective genetic algorithms. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2001, 52:291-302.
25. DeGomez T. Guidelines for thinning ponderosa pine for improved forest health and fire prevention. Cooperative Extension: The University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences 2006, Publication AZ 1397, http://cals.arizona.edu/pubs/natresources/az1397.pdf (accessed 21.04.15).
26. De Groot R.S., Alkemade R., Braat L., Hein L., Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7:260-272.
27. Díaz-Balteiro L., Romero C. Modeling timber harvest scheduling problems with multiple criteria: an application in Spain. For. Sci. 1998, 44:47-57.
28. Díaz-Balteiro L., Romero C. Forest management optimisation models when carbon captured is considered: a goal programming approach. For. Ecol. Manage. 2003, 174(1):447-457.
29. Díaz-Balteiro L., Romero C. Sustainability of forest management plans: a discrete goal programming approach. J. Environ. Manage. 2004, 71:351-359.
30. Dixon G.E. Essential FVS: a user's guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Comp. 2002 (Revised: November 19, 2013). Internal Report 2002, 226. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO.
31. Dore S., Kolb T.E., Montes-Helu M., Eckert S.E., Sullivan B.W., Hungate B.A., Kaye J.P., Hart S.C., Koch G.W., Finkral A. Carbon and water fluxes from ponderosa pine forests disturbed by wildfire and thinning. Ecol. Appl. 2010, 20:663-683.
32. Drennan J.E., Beier P. Winter foraging habitat of northern goshawks. J. Wildl. Manage. 2003, 67:177-185.
33. Dykstra D.P. Mathematical Programming for Natural Resource Management 1984, McGraw-Hill, (Chapter 8).
34. Egan D., Stoddard M., Formanack A. Ecological and social implications of employing diameter caps at a collaborative forest restoration project near Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 52:39-45.
35. Field D.B. Goal programming for forest management. For. Sci. 1973, 19:125-135.
36. Field R.C., Dress P.E., Fortson J.C. Complementary linear and goal programming procedures for timber harvest scheduling. For. Sci. 1980, 26(1):121-133.
37. Fisher B., Turner R.K., Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:643-653.
38. Four Forest Restoration Initiative Stakeholders Group Old-Growth Protection and Large Tree Retention Strategy. comp. 2011 (revised August 2012) 2011, http://www.4fri.org/pdfs/documents/collaboration/old_growth_protection-revised080812.pdf (accessed 19.04.15).
39. Fulé P.Z., Covington W.W., Moore M.M. Determining reference conditions for ecosystem management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecol. Appl. 1997, 7:895-908.
40. Ganey J.L., Balda R.P. Distribution and habitat use by Mexican spotted owls in northern Arizona. Condor 1989, 92:485-490.
41. Green H.M. Supplemental wildlife viability report: forest plan revision DEIS 2013, Coconino National Forest. USDA Forest Service, http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/69549_FSPLT3_1463936.pdf (accessed 13.04.15).
42. Grubb T.G., Ganey J.L., Masek S.R. Canopy closure around nest sites of Mexican spotted owls in north-central Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage. 1997, 61:336-342.
43. Hampton H.M., Sesnie S.E., Dickson B.G., Rundall J.M., Sisk T.D., Snider G.B., Bailey J.D. Analysis of Small-diameter Wood Supply in Northern Arizona 2008, Forest Ecosystem Restoration Analysis Project, Center for Environmental Sciences and Education, Northern Arizona University, http://www.4fri.org/pdfs/analysis_small_diameter_wood.pdf (accessed 14.04.15).
44. Hein L., van Koppen K., de Groot R.S., van Ierland E.C. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57:209-228.
45. Hjerpe E.E., Kim Y.S. Economic impacts of southwestern national forest fuels reductions. J. For. 2008, 106:311-316.
46. Huang C., Finkral A.J., Sorensen C., Kolb T.E. Towards full economic valuation of forest fuels-reduction treatments. J. Environ. Manage. 2013, 130:221-231.
47. Huang C., Sorensen C. The economic value of selling carbon credits from restored forests: a case study from the Navajo Nation's Tribal Forests. West. J. Appl. For. 2011, 26:37-45.
48. Hugget R.J., Abt K.L., Shepperd W. Efficacy of mechanical fuel treatments for reducing wildfire hazard. For. Policy Econ. 2008, 10(6):408-414.
49. Hurteau M.D., North M. Carbon recovery rates following different wildfire risk mitigation treatments. For. Ecol. Manage. 2010, 260:930-937.
50. Hurteau M.D., Stoddard M.T., Fulé P.Z. The carbon costs of mitigating high-severity wildfire in southwestern ponderosa pine. Global Change Biol. 2011, 17:1516-1521.
51. Jones D., Tamiz M. Practical Goal Programming 2010, vol. 141. Springer, New York, No. 141.
52. Keith H., Mackey B.G., Lindenmayer D.B. Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world's most carbon-dense forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2009, 106:11635-11640.
53. Keyser C.E., Dixon G.E. comp. 2008 (revised April 7, 2015). Central Rockies (CR) Variant Overview - Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. 2008, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO, 71 pp.
54. May C.A., Gutiérrez R.J. Habitat associations of Mexican spotted owl nest and roost sites in central Arizona. Wilson Bull. 2002, 114:457-466.
55. May C.A., Petersburg M.L., Gutiérrez R.J. Mexican spotted owl nest- and roost-site habitat in northern Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage. 2004, 68:1054-1064.
56. McCusker N. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Coconino and Kaibab National Forests Silviculture Specialist Report 2013, https://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5413017.pdf (accessed 20.04.15).
57. Mendoza G.A., Martins H. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For. Ecol. Manage. 2006, 230:1-22.
58. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: General Synthesis 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
59. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
60. Neary D.G., Zieroth E.J. Forest bioenergy system to reduce the hazard of wildfires: White Mountains, Arizona. Biomass Bioenergy 2007, 31:638-645.
61. Nelson E., Mendoza G., Regetz J., Polasky S., Tallis H., Cameron D.R., Chan K.M.A., Daily G.C., Goldstein J., Kareiva P.M., Lonsdorf E., Naidoo R., Ricketts T.H., Shaw M.R. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7:4-11.
62. Norgaard R.B. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1219-1227.
63. North M.P., Hurteau M.D. High-severity wildfire effects on carbon stocks and emissions in fuels treated and untreated forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 2011, 261:1115-1120.
64. Rebain S.A. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator: updated model documentation. Internal Report 2013, 408. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.
65. Reynolds R.T., Graham R.T., Reiser M.H., Bassett R.L., Kennedy P.L., Boyce D.A., Goodwin G., Smith R., Fisher E.L. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. GTR-RM-217 1992, USDA Forest Service, FortCollins, CO.
66. Sánchez-Meador A.J., Waring K.M., Kalies E.L. Implications of diameter caps on multiple forest resource responses in the context of the Four Forests Restoration Initiative: results from the Forest Vegetation Simulator. J. For. 2015, 113:219-230.
67. Schrage L. Optimization Modeling with LINGO 2006, LINDO Systems Inc., Chicago, IL. 6th ed.
68. Scott J.H., Reinhardt E.D. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. Research Paper RMRS-RP-29 2001, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, 59 pp.
69. Selig M., Vosick D., Seidenberg J. Four Forests Restoration Initiative Landscape Strategy Economics and Utilization Analysis 2010, 28 pp. http://4fri.org/pdfs/documents/CFLRP/econ_and_utilization_final_draft.pdf (accessed 14.04.15).
70. Sorensen C., Finkral A.J., Kolb T.E., Huang C. Short- and long-term effects of thinning and prescribed fire on carbon stocks in ponderosa pine stands in northern Arizona. For. Ecol. Manage. 2011, 261:460-472.
71. Steuer R.E., Schuler A.T. An interactive multiple-objective linear programming approach to a problem in forest management. Oper. Res. 1978, 26(2):254-269.
72. Tóth S.F., Ettl G.J., Könnyu N., Rabotyagov S.S., Rogers L.W., Comnick J.M. ECOSEL: multi-objective optimization to sell forest ecosystem services. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 35:73-82.
73. TSS Consultants Preliminary Feasibility Assessment for a Biomass Power Plant in Northern Arizona 2002, http://flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/11256 (accessed 19.04.15).
74. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Final Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision 2012, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, 413 pp.
75. USDA Forest Service Record of Decision for Amendment of Forest Plans 1996, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM, http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_021447.pdf (accessed 17.04.15).
76. USDA Forest Service A strategic assessment of forest biomass and fuel reduction treatments in Western States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-149 2005, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, 17 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr149.pdf (accessed 14.04.15).
77. USDA Forest Service Analysis of the Management Situation: Coconino National Forest May 2010 2010, http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5335117.pdf (accessed 21.10.15).
78. USDA Forest Service Cut-and-sold report: Quarters1-4 October 2013-September 2014 2014, http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/documents/sold-harvest/reports/2014/2014_Q1-Q4_CandS_R03.pdf.
79. Wainger L.A., King D.M., Mack R.N., Price E.W., Maslin T. Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions?. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:978-987.
80. Zarnetske P.L., Edwards T.C., Moisen G.G. Habitat classification modeling with incomplete data: pushing the habitat envelope. Ecol. Appl. 2007, 17:1714-1726. 10.1890/06-1312.1.
81. Zuuring H.R., Chew J.D., Jones J.G. Sequential use of simulation and optimization in analysis and planning. Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project Symposium: What We Have Learned: Proceedings 1999, 18-20.