Map data in support of forest management

E. A. Fosnight; D. Greenlee

doi:10.1093/jof/98.6.50

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70022701

Map data in support of forest management

E. A. Fosnight·D. Greenlee

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Now widely available and inexpensive, prepackaged map data are easy to use--and just as easy to use incorrectly. To select the proper scale and appropriate thematic attributes so that the data actually inform the project at hand, managers need to know the basics.

Explore related subjects

Journal of Forestry Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

E. A. Fosnight, D. Greenlee. 2000. Map data in support of forest management. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof%2F98.6.50

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2019

Hydrologic modifications challenge bottomland hardwood forest management

Bottomland hardwoods are floodplain forests along rivers and streams throughout the southeastern United States. The interrelations among hydrology, soils, geomorphic landforms, and tree species composition are the foundation of forest management in bottomland hardwoods, and historically their correspondence has allowed for somewhat predictable forest responses based upon the hydrogeomorphic setting. However, extensive hydrologic and geomorphic modifications in floodplains have disrupted these interrelations and, on many sites, have created novel disturbance regimes resulting in unpredictable forest responses. Reduced or altered timing of surface flooding and groundwater declines are common in the region and have favored increases in stem densities, particularly of species less tolerant of flooding and more tolerant of shade. In these highly modified systems, more process-level understanding of floodplain hydrology, soil moisture dynamics, interspecific tree competition, and regeneration is needed to develop more effective management prescriptions and for forestry to be represented in integrated water-resource management decisions.

Journal of Forestry↗

USGS2016

A review and synthesis of recreation ecology research supporting carrying capacity and visitor use management decisionmaking

Resource and experiential impacts associated with visitation to wilderness and other similar backcountry settings have long been addressed by land managers under the context of “carrying capacity” decisionmaking. Determining a maximum level of allowable use, below which high-quality resource and experiential conditions would be sustained, was an early focus in the 1960s and 1970s. However, decades of recreation ecology research have shown that the severity and areal extent of visitor impact problems are influenced by an interrelated array of use-related, environmental, and managerial factors. This complexity, with similar findings from social science research, prompted scientists and managers to develop more comprehensive carrying capacity frameworks, including a new Visitor Use Management framework. These frameworks rely on a diverse array of management strategies and actions, often termed a “management toolbox,” for resolving visitor impact problems. This article reviews the most recent and relevant recreation ecology studies that have been applied in wildland settings to avoid or minimize resource impacts. The key findings and their management implications are highlighted to support the professional management of common trail, recreation site, and wildlife impact problems. These studies illustrate the need to select from a more diverse array of impact management strategies and actions based on an evaluation of problems to identify the most influential factors that can be manipulated.

Journal of Forestry↗

USGS2016

Where the wild things are: A research agenda for studying wildlife-wilderness relationship

We explore the connection between US designated wilderness areas and wildlife with the goal of establishing a research agenda for better understanding this complex relationship. Our research agenda has two components. The first, “wildlife for wilderness,” considers the impact of wildlife on wilderness character. Whereas studies show that wildlife is important in both the perception and actual enhancement of wilderness character, the context and particulars of this relationship have not been evaluated. For instance, is knowing that a rare, native species is present in a wilderness area enough to increase perceptions of naturalness (an important wilderness quality)? Or does the public need to observe the species or its sign (e.g., tracks) for this benefit? The second part of our research agenda, “wilderness for wildlife,” considers the types of research needed to understand the impact of wilderness areas on wildlife and biodiversity conservation. Several studies show the effect of one area being designated wilderness on one wildlife species. Yet, there has been no research that examines how the networks of wilderness areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) are used by a species or a community of species. Furthermore, we found no studies that focused on how the NWPS affects ecological or trophic interactions among species. We hope that by providing a research agenda, we can spur multiple lines of research on the topic of wildlife and wilderness.

Journal of Forestry↗