Resiliency for Climate Change  

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 2 2008 10:59 am
From: "Lee E. Frelich"


Some of my ideas for increasing resiliency for climate change (remember
these come from a Minnesota perspective where increased drought and wind
are likely to be the biggest effects) include:

1. Reducing multiple stresses--for example we can control deer grazing and
thereby have one less stress on reproduction.
2. When seeding or planting seedlings, mix in some from the seed zone to
your south and let natural selection and competition among the seedlings
determine which survive.
3. Think about moving species one notch upward on a soil texture gradient
from sandy to silty. For example, red oak currently grows on sand and
loamy sand in MN, but in the future it may be better suited for loam or
silt loam.
4. Encourage drought resistant species: in MN these would be bur oak, elm,
hackberry, hickory, basswood.
5. To the extent possible, use species that are more wind resistant. For
example oak and birch are more wind firm than aspen.
6. Accept reality--you may not be able to maintain all species you have now
in a different climate.


TOPIC: Questions to Lee on forestry

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 3 2008 8:41 pm

Thanks for taking the time to return post!
Prior to retiring, I was a vegetation manager for Grand Canyon NP, and when I wasn't tussling with the day-to-day push and shove, I tried to anticipate what might be responses of our restoration efforts to a changing climate.
Regarding #2, I was actively considering bringing higher seed zone (latitudinally/altitudinally) seeds, but I really like your suggestion to mix them with local seed zone seeds, and let the environment work out the answer.
Regarding #3, while our soils are very different of course, other gradients to consider come to mind (latitude, altitude, forest type transitions, bio-geographical ('sky islands'===> points and peninsulas ===>mainland) progressions).Regarding #4, we're currently in the 13th year of a 14 year drought, so 'introducing drought resistant species' is sort of an ongoing process...;>)
Your last is best, know when to quit!

TOPIC: conservation paper

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 1 2008 8:58 am


Below is a link to a recently published paper on ecological changes and
coping with climate change. It is interesting and provides some good links.

Russ Richardson 

At 03:16 PM 7/22/2008, DonRB wrote:

A number of times in the past, I recall comments in the forum bemoaning
he absence of strategies to mitigate causes of global climate
change.  Ignoring the fact that we don't know all we need to know, I think
most of think we know enough to start changing our ways, if nothing else
to get "change" happening.
Towards that end, the Society of American Foresters has put out the
following paper "Forest Management Solutions for

Mitigating Climate Change in the United States" which can be found at

It's 50 some pages long, so many may not get through it, but I'd be
interested in responses from those that did.


This might be too much of a bite for the chat room or your new sister
forum, but certainly could provide grist for a discussion mill...



On Jul 22, 6:51 pm, Lee Frelich  wrote:

 An even better report was recently published by the National Commission on
 Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF), 'Beyond Old Growth, Older Forests
 in a Changing World', available at their website
(scroll down, its the third document listed on their homepage). 
Its 2.5MB, but worth the wait to download. It
has syntheses from 5 regional workshops throughout the U.S. including one I
participated in for the Great Lakes Region.

Check out the following pictures by my Ph.D. advisor Craig Lorimer from the
University of Wisconsin: Old growth white pine in Sylvania Wilderness, MI
on page 9 (where Bob Leverett, Monica and I are going for a hike
tomorrow);  Hemlock in the Porcupine Mountains on page 25; an Old northern
hardwood forest on Nicolet NF on page 34.

There is good discussion of the problems old growth forests face due to
global warming and other factors.


TOPIC: Old growth reports

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 8 2008 12:19 pm
From: the Forestmeister

I have just quickly read both reports- the one first mentioned by Don
then the one mentioned by Lee.

The SAF report makes a pitch that forestry is good for carbon
sequestration- but it fails to mention that much timber harvesting
isn't really forestry at all but just plain old exploitive logging-
and it's the results of just such plain old logging that have so many
landowners not getting involved with real forestry as they presume
all that plain old logging IS forestry and from the horror stories
they've seen and heard of- of owners not getting a fair price for
their timber and the poor quality of the harvesting work- messy and
without the application of silviculture. The SAF report, IMHO, would
have been better if it made the courageous pitch that all harvesting
should be under the direction of a professional forester applying
silviculture and long term economics (with due consideration of
ecosystem values).

The other report sponsored by the National Commission on Science for
Sustainable Forestry focused on the great value of old forests and
suggested getting beyond the term "old growth". The following is from
the article:

"This is why the Commission has chosen to use the neutral term 'older
forests' wherever possible instead of old-growth forests, ancient
forests, virgin forests, or any of a myriad of other widely used
terms. 'Older forests' acknowledges that many of today's forests on
land that was cleared or logged over the past couple of centuries have
key ecological characteristics that traditionally have defined old-
growth forests. With effective management, these forests can acquire
the values that make what we know as old growth such a precious
This report also suggests that "older forests" are better at carbon
sequestration than young forests.

I would have preferred that the SAF recognized the great value of
"older forests" and its efforts to use the carbon sequestration pitch
should include recognition of "older forests"- at the expense of high
grading, clearcutting and other short rotation forms of forest
management or mismanagement. Instead, it seems that the SAF just wants
to see lots more logging- even plain old logging of the mediocre

The SAF article offers 7 reasons why forests are important to all of
society, then says, "Given those facts, society's current reluctance
to embrace forest conservation and management a part of the climate
change solution seems surprising".

I suggest a major reason of this reluctance is due to the poor selling
of forestry by the SAF- due to its too close connection with the wood
industry which tends to be short sighted.