Experimental Forests and Ranges - Forest Service

USDA

FOREST

SERVICE

RESEARCH

AND

DEVELOPMENT

Maybeso Experimental Forest, Southeast Alaska

In This Issue

Tom Iraci

A Strategic Vision For Our Experimental Forest and Range Network .............. 1 Goals of a New Research History and Opportunities Synthesis Report for the Luquillo Experimental Forest ......................................... 3 Data Management: Improving Communication Across the EFR Network ..... 5 Two New Flux Monitoring Towers at the Southern Research Station .................... 6 The Role of Experimental Forests in Science and Management ............................ 7 External Review of Rocky Mountain Research Station Experimental Forests and Ranges ............................... 9 New EFR Display Available For Use at Conferences and Other Events .................. 10

Collecting stream chemistry data at Caribou-Poker Creeks Research Watershed, Alaska

Forests and Ranges Volume 2, Issue 2

T

Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network

Summer 2012

A Strategic Vision For Our Experimental Forest and Range Network

he 80 experimental forests and ranges (EFRs) currently managed by the Forest Service throughout the United States are valuable assets with an impressive history of scientific contributions. These sites are uniquely positioned to address current and emerging natural resource challenges throughout the Nation. This assortment of field sites covers over 580,000 acres (235,000 ha), are found in 32 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and encompass almost every forested ecoregion in the country. Our EFRs possess a wide variety of historical data sets as old as 100 years. These have been used by hundreds of past and current Forest Service scientists, academic and other partners, and countless students pursuing under-

graduate and graduate degrees. Basic and applied research activities on EFRs have made significant contributions to our understanding of forested ecosys-

Experimental forests and ranges are uniquely positioned to address current and emerging natural resource challenges. tems and provide answers to pressing questions about how to manage public and private lands. They also have provided approaches to improve the effectiveness of management actions, better understanding of the potential unintended impacts of management activities, and strategies to mitigate or avoid those impacts. EFRs have also served as focal points for education

by Peter Stine

and demonstration and as a venue for the interaction between land managers and scientists. EFRs are among the unique strengths of Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) that set us apart from other natural resources research organizations. They are also some of the few places in the United States where ecological and land management research can be conducted over large areas and for long timeframes.

Findings • Over 100 years of work and data collection; 65 EFRs were established by 1960. • Almost all ecological provinces (Bailey Ecoregions) with forests or rangelands are represented. Continued on next page

A Strategic Vision For Our Experimental Forest and Range Network (continued) • Facilities include (estimated) 51 office buildings, 53 cabins (103 beds), 38 bunkhouses (326 beds), and 106 storage buildings. • There is a large backlog of deferred infrastructure maintenance (both buildings and scientific equipment). • Data assets are considerable, with a large backlog of paper records requiring cataloging and digitizing. • The current annual cost of operating EFRs is very roughly $10 to 12 million. • External funding/support is a vital contribution to the vitality of EFRs and is becoming more important. • Purposes of EFRs have evolved over 100 years; original purpose of commodity-production forestry has changed to a more ecological, multi-objective perspective. • Distinctions and advantages of EFRs include: ▪ Permanent facilities that are dedicated to research activities. ▪ Historical environmental records and research data span up to 100 years and provide a wealth of information from which new studies can draw. ▪ Long-term research is feasible and enabled. ▪ Manipulative field studies, such as testing management practices, are encouraged. ▪ New basic and applied research studies, complementing and conterminous with existing studies, are feasible and enabled. ▪ Land and resource managers typically are involved in articulating research and monitoring questions and enabling work through logistical support activities. Summer 2012

▪ Many sites provide demonstration areas to illustrate the results of research findings for educational purposes. ▪ Logistical support (housing, meeting rooms, laboratories, data, maps, etc.) is available at many EFRs. • The future of the EFRs includes both traditional work conducted on individual EFRs as well as networking across regions, gradients, and other geographic designations to address new environmental challenges. • The strategy moving forward includes: ▪ Identify key emerging scientific issues well suited to the advantages of EFRs. ▪

▪

Implement a tier system to evaluate and rank the current status of EFRs for purposes of prioritizing future activities and investments. Further develop networking and partnerships.

▪

Increase education and outreach. ▪ Address data management and facilities challenges and staffing needs. ▪

Work more closely with partners in the National Forest System (NFS).

▪

Implement the “Smart Forest” initiative (http://nesensornet.sr.unh.edu/about.shtml) to modernize scientific infrastructure.

Options Six options are presented, based on eight fundamental criteria (science, research portfolio, infrastructure, data management, personnel, organization, partnerships, and outreach) which bracket a range of possible trajectories and longterm investments for the future of EFRs: Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network

1. Limited capacity— EFR initiatives will continue based on current support from stations (estimated annual cost of $250,000 above current funding). 2. Status quo plus— Very limited augmented work to address critical infrastructure and maintenance needs (estimated annual cost of $1.6 million above current funding). 3. Experimentation network— Efforts to shift to an experimentation network with modest investments to support ongoing activities and increases in data management and facilities maintenance (estimated annual cost of $4.5 million above current funding). 4. Synthesis network— Meaningful support to upgrade facilities, advances in data management, initiation of new network research and monitoring, adjustments in organization, enhanced partnerships and outreach (estimated annual cost of $10 million above current funding). 5. EFRs as R&D’s core research platform— EFRs become the focal point for R&D work in the future; add scientists, technicians, and site managers at EFRs, add other investments referenced in options above, establish a core EFR network office (estimated annual cost of $19 million above current funding). 6. Experimental ranger districts— Strategic selection of two to three highperforming EFRs within each NFS region and expand the experimental area to the entire ranger district in which it is located; add the features discussed above (estimated annual cost of $18 million above current funding). 3 Page 2

F eatured E x perimental A rea

Goals of a New Research History and Opportunities Synthesis Report for the Luquillo Experimental Forest by Tamara Heartsill Scalley and Ariel E. Lugo

I

n 1979, as the scientific staff of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry was preparing the first Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) proposal for the Luquillo Experimental Forest (LEF) in Puerto Rico, they decided to develop a synthesis publication that would summarize all the research done at Luquillo. Such a synthesis was expected to help with the proposal and attract collaborators once they knew what was available. After it was published, Research History and Opportunities in the Luquillo Experimental Forest (Brown et al. 1983) became LEF’s mostquoted report. In general, the scientific community has a limited opportunity to view what resources are available for most of the Forest Service’s EFR sites. But a new series of synthesis publications by the Washington office wholly dedicated to experimental forests would result in about 80 publications that together place in the hands of scientists and collaborators the bulk of Research and Development research results from the work conducted at EFRs. The goals of the LEF’s new Research History and Opportunities report are to synthesize the research that has emerged from the LEF since the first report and place it into a concise summary of key research findings while also highlighting opportunities for future research that will contribute to a greater understanding of the structure and function of tropical forested ecosystems in a changing world. The LEF has been an LTER site since 1988, but has been a hub for ecological research for more than a century. The following highlights some major research findings that have emerged from the LEF: • Forests are resilient. • Climate change is upon us. • Consumers (e.g., shrimp, coquis, walking sticks) can have major effects on key ecosystem processes. Continued on next page

Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. Summer 2012


Page 3

F E AT U R E D E X P E R I M E N TA L A R E A • The “four-forest-types” paradigm is dead (discrete boundaries between one forest type and another do not exist). • Most nutrients are in the soil (shift away from the notion that most nutrients in tropical forests are held in aboveground biomass). • Energy transfer occurs through food webs, not food chains; recent studies have supported the concept of a much more complex “food web.” • The cloud condensation level is likely a determinant of forest structure and function. The point at which clouds begin to form in the LEF, at approximately 600-meters in elevation, may induce changes in climatic conditions and, therefore, changes in forest structure and function. The richness of information available in publications, the National Science Foundation’s LTER

Web site (http://luq.lternet.edu), research files of the Forest Service, and other agencies (federal and state) and universities with research programs in the Luquillo Mountains makes the LEF an attractive site for research collaboration. Research facilities and the cadre of local scientists and students with active research programs in the LEF bolster its value as a place to conduct research on tropical systems of all kinds (ecological, hydrological, geological, urban, atmospheric, etc.). Research opportunities in the Luquillo Mountains are unlimited, but some areas outlined below are not well represented in current Researcher monitors Luquillo EF weather conditions. research programs, yet are of particular interest to scientists and forest managers. for forest managers responsible for managing visitors, interactions with local communities, and The interaction between visitors to the forest ecological systems of the national forest. and the natural ecosystems of the LEF. The LEF and El Yunque National Forest receive hundreds of thousands of visitors annually. Visitors’ effects on (1) the biota and ecological systems, (2) the propagation of introduced species, (3) the water quality of streams, and (4) the condition of trails, and other demands placed on facilities and on natural ecosystems, presents an opportunity to conduct socioecological research. This research is a priority

Continued on next page

Location of Luquillo Experimental Forest.

Summer 2012

How climate change will affect the elevational gradients of the Luquillo Mountains. This new review has established the many elevation gradients of the LEF, including climate, vegetation, soils, and hydrology. One critical gradient is the adiabatic lapse rate and the cloud condensation level, which are physical indicators of environmental conditions that influence vegetation, extending its influence to many other components of the biota along the elevation gradient. Climate change scenarios for the Caribbean, coupled with the influence of urbanization on climatic gradients on the mountain, anticipate


Page 4

F E A T U R E D E x perimental A rea

Luquillo Experimental Forest (continued) increases in air temperature and thus provide for unique long-term research opportunities in the LEF. The global connectivity of the Luquillo Mountains. The Luquillo Mountains are exposed to global airsheds that originate over the Atlantic Ocean, Africa, the northeastern United States, and Central America. Each airshed is characterized by its own chemical and particulate signature, which presumably affects local ecosystems in different ways. Research opportunities exist to continue the characterization of these airsheds and establish the effects of these global connections on the biota. The interface between urban and natural ecosystems. As the urban population of the world increases everywhere, consequently increasing demand for ecosystem services, there is a research need and an opportunity to further understand how ecosystem services from different parts of the forest gradient are delivered and sustained. The research opportunity is focused on socioecological research, an emerging new integrative science with a focus on people and ecosystems. In addition to the opportunities listed above, there is an opportunity to connect the LEF to local and global networks such as the National Environmental Observatory Network (NEON) of the National Science Foundation. Puerto Rico will have a NEON site at the Guánica dry forest, which will present an opportunity to compare the moist, wet, and rain forests of Luquillo with the dry forests of Guánica. Previous work by Lugo et al. (2002) and other collaborators has compared these forests and identified the similarities and differences that need further comprehensive documentation and analysis. 3

Summer 2012

Data Management Improving Communication Across the EFR Network

S

haring information across 80 research sites in six research organizations is a challenge that encompasses not just managing information from research work but also information about effectively managing administrative processes common across the sites. Addressing this challenge has been recognized as a worthwhile goal by many of the scientists and support staff at EFR sites. The network is currently stepping beyond ad hoc solutions by developing an internal Microsoft SharePoint site for EFRs. This site will provide a consolidated “first stop” for basic information about EFRs: Who is the lead scientist for each EFR? Who is the data manager for each EFR? What research projects are underway across the network? What EFR-related events are on the calendar? The site will also maintain network copies of primary documents such as establishment reports, GIS layers, EFR working group minutes, and the like. Other reference material is expected to include examples and tips for NEPA processes, preparing environmental impact statements, and managing official records. It will also provide a platform for presenting information and hosting discussions related to the current strategic options initiative for the EFR network. This new SharePoint site is envisioned to be both an ongoing resource for members of the EFR community and an orientation resource for new members of the community. Designing and populating the site began in July, with the first “release” expected in August. If the site is successful, we expect that this will be a short-lived release as the EFR community works with the site and offers suggestions for improving and enhancing both the interface and the content it organizes. This site is hosted on the Forest Service’s internal network, and so has limited access. This limited access means that this site unfortunately will not enhance communication with external stakeholders. We hope that a public-facing counterpart will be developed over the next 18 months by either using the USDA publicfacing SharePoint infrastructure or by enhancing the national EFR Web site. Stay tuned for announcements when the site goes live for Forest Service employees. 3


Page 5

F E AT U R E D R E S E A R C H

Two New Flux Monitoring Towers at the Southern Research Station by Kim Novick and Jim Guldin

S

cientists at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory (Otto, North Carolina) and the Ecology and Management of Southern Pines research work unit (Monticello, Arkansas) have recently added two new eddy covariance towers to the Ameriflux network (http://public.ornl.gov/ameriflux/). Both are on Southern Research Station (SRS) experimental forests—one at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in western North Carolina, and the other at the Crossett Experimental Forest in southern Arkansas. Much of the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is cycled through the terrestrial biosphere, and carbon sequestration by vegetation is an important control on rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The net flux of CO2 to or from an ecosystem is closely linked to plant water use, which in turn is a primary control on freshwater recharge and downstream water availability. Characterizing components of the carbon and water cycles, and their interactions, at various space and time scales is an important research focus in climatology and meteorology. One of the most useful tools for studying the dynamics of vegetative carbon and water vapor exchange is the “eddy covariance” or “eddy flux” technique—a micro-meteorological approach that permits the continuous observation of the net exchanges of CO2 and water vapor between the atmosphere and the ecosystem. Since the

Summer 2012

Eddy covariance tower. Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network

development of high-frequency CO2 analyzers in the early 1990s, regional flux monitoring networks have expanded to include more than 500 eddy covariance research sites in a wide range of global biomes. The Coweeta tower is located in a cove hardwood forest, situated in the complex terrain of the southern Appalachian Mountains. It represents one of the most topographically complex sites in the Ameriflux network. The Crossett tower is located in a 75-year-old loblolly and shortleaf pine forest managed for old-growth stand characteristics through a range of silvicultural treatments, including uneven-age selection harvesting and prescribed burning. The Crossett tower is one of the only eddy covariance research sites subjected to prescribed burning. Southern Research Station scientists are eager to assess the impact of the next prescribed burn (scheduled for spring 2013) on ecosystem fluxes. Scientists at the Coweeta Hydrologic Lab are managing and analyzing the data from both towers, with the effort being led by Dr. Kim Novick, a postdoctoral research ecologist. Crossett Experimental Forest project leader Jim Guldin, forest superintendent Rick Stagg, and research forester Don Bragg of the Southern Pine Ecology Unit have been key players in providing local support for the Crossett tower. The project shows the potential in developing functional networks on our experimental forests and ranges, forged through effective cooperative relationships among scientists and professional staff. 3 Page 6

E X P E R I M E N TA L F O R E S T H I S T O R Y

The Role of Experimental Forests in Science and Management by Terrie Jain

H

appy 100-year anniversary to the Priest River Experimental Forest (PREF), which celebrated its centennial in September 2011. Managed by the Research and Development branch of the Forest Service, PREF was established in northern Idaho to provide useful information that would improve forestry management in the western part of District One, from Michigan to eastern Washington, at a time when U.S. forestry was in its infancy. In 1911, there were only a handful of university studies on forest development in the United States and little was known about tree establishment and growth, the impact of fire, or how to sufficiently supply wood products for a growing nation.

Planting trees in 1925. Summer 2012

Priest River Experimental Forest office in 1912.

Forestry pioneers Gifford Pinchot and Raphael Zon recognized the need for better forest management and proposed that dedicated forest locations be created to study the ecology and silvics of various tree species. Since then, USDA Forest Service Research and Development has established 79 experimental forests and ranges (EFRs) throughout the United States. EFRs are long-lived laboratories where Forest Service scientists and collaborators discover, synthesize, and demonstrate new knowledge for managing forests and ranges in the United States and worldwide. Since PREF was established, more than 600 publications from PREF studies have provided information on basic forest ecology, vegetation establishment, fire danger and behavior, silvicultural methods and systems, Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network

forest growth and yield, watershed function, and tree genetics, to name a few. These major contributions to forestry were worthy of a centennial celebration, which was held October 8–10, 2011. With more than 170 people in attendance, we celebrated the place that meant so much to the life and work of the over 200 researchers and families who called PREF home for part of their lives. The celebration began with a reenactment of the inspection party led by Chief Graves 100 years ago. Scientists, the deputy chief, the Panhandle National Forests supervisor, and others entered the compound on horseback and riding in horse-drawn wagons. There were also exhibitions throughout the headquarters area of the forest highlighting PREF’s 100 years of research contributions. During evening dinners and entertainment there was plenty of time for reminiscing and sharing stories about people, their work, and research trials and tribulations.

Weather station.

Continued on next page

Page 7

E X P E R I M E N TA L F O R E S T H I S T O R Y The Role of Experimental Forests (from page 7) We also celebrated the people who worked at PREF, and the surroundings (e.g., trees, dinner table, laboratory) that encouraged so many to be creative and productive. As stated by Kathy Graham in her history of PREF, “it takes a special personality to be a forestry researcher, and those who have made significant impacts on research have that rare combination of curiosity, determination, patience, and knowledge. But they also must be self-confident and in general display a ‘do it my way’ attitude. Often this strongwilled attitude influenced the direction of the research and the methods employed. They had no instruction book then and are still creating it now.” This was certainly true for Harry T. Gisborne, whose concepts of fire danger, fire behavior, and forest fuels are still used today. Charles E. “Mike” Hardy, now 95, shared captivating stories of what it was like to work with Harry

Gisborne memorial. Summer 2012

and his colleagues at PREF from 1921 through 1949. And for one young researcher in the early 1950s, PREF inspired him to think about ways of describing how forests grow. Albert Stage, in his long and distinguished career, went on to develop the Prognosis Model (Forest Vegetation Simulator), which today is used worldwide. Chuck Wellner was a scientist who spent many early mornings observing the growth and development of white pine forests. Harry T. Gisborne was his mentor, and Chuck passed on his passion and knowledge to other young scientists such as Russ Graham, Albert Stage, and Dennis Ferguson. PREF and other experimental forests (EFs) provide an ideal setting to create and maintain this legacy of scientific mentoring. Finally, we celebrated the invaluable contributions of PREF and all Forest Service EFRs in producing relevant and timely information on the ecology and management of forests. Jim Guldin, from the Southern Research Station, highlighted this when he showed how Forest Service experimental forests have contributed ecological (basic and applied) and silvicultural knowledge for more than 100 years in forests such as the longleaf pine on the Palustris EF in Louisiana, eastern white pine on the Penoscot EF in Maine, oak and yellow poplar on the Bent Creek EF in North Carolina, ponderosa pine on the Fort Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network

Priest River Experimental Forest construction crew.

Valley EF in Arizona, Douglas-fir on the Wind River EF in Washington, lodgepole pine and aspen on the Fraser EF in Colorado, and western white pine on PREF and Deception Creek EF in Idaho. As Raphael Zon had intended, EFRs are dedicated locations and outdoor laboratories essential for observing and studying ecosystems over decades. In this day and age of instant gratification and immediate results, these outdoor laboratories are vital locations for observing and studying how ecosystems develop and change over time. To paraphrase Bob Marshall, who worked at PREF from 1925 to 1928, a 100-year-old western white pine is a young tree that has centuries to live, this can also be true for 100-year-old experimental forests; they too have many centuries to contribute to the science and management of forests. 3 Page 8

NEWs

External Review of Rocky Mountain Research Station Experimental Forests and Ranges by Todd Mowrer

I

n 2006, the Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) reorganized from 32 research work units to eight science programs. Prior to this, all costs associated with the 14 RMRS experimental forests and ranges (EFRs) were borne individually by research work units. During the consolidation process, the day-to-day EFR operating costs and collection of established long-term data were deemed to be stationwide (corporate) expenses. This unprecedented realignment has worked well in many regards. However, some initial funding criteria had been adopted based on past history and now was to be reevaluated in light of current opportunities and directions. In October 2011, the Station Leadership Team (SLT) requested the assistance of outside EFR experts to perform an external review of RMRS EFRs. In January 2012, Station Assistant Director for Science Application and Integration Jan Engert and EFR Coordinator Todd Mowrer assembled and facilitated a team of four scientists: Mary Beth Adams (Northern Research Station), Jim Guldin (Southern Research Station), Sherri Johnson (Pacific Northwest Research Station), and Peter Stine (National EFR Coordinator). All had extensive knowledge and experience with EFRs in their home stations. Mary Beth and Jim are former chairs of the National Chartered EFR Working Group. The team was charged with (1) developing a decisionmaking framework that

Summer 2012

includes criteria for allocating future support for RMRS EFRs and cost-saving opportunities, and (2) providing advice and guidance on corporately funded long-term data collection and on collaborating with others to offset these costs. Over a series of five video teleconferences, each lasting up to 6 hours, and round-robin editing of drafts, the team developed a 14-page report with considerations for better identifying corporately funded data and EFR evaluation and funding criteria. Team member Jim Guldin presented the team’s findings to the SLT at their April meeting in Boise, Idaho. The team made four recommendations for leadership team consideration. • Establish an RMRS EFR Council consisting of EFR scientists-in-charge and selected program managers with responsibility for corporate oversight of the RMRS EFRs.

Researchers at Fraser Experimental Forest. Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network

• Reexamine the list of corporate research studies currently supported using the decision criteria prepared by the review team. • Prioritize RMRS EFRs for current and future investment using the decision criteria developed for the National EFR Strategic Vision Statement and refined for RMRS by the review team. • Clarify the governance, line authority, and budgeting for RMRS EFRs. The ad hoc EFR subteam of the SLT is convening the EFR Council, which will address the last three recommendations. In complementing the review team process to the SLT, Jim Guldin said, “considering that we were unable to travel, the video teleconference format worked exceedingly well with four people interacting and being able to view the draft document as it developed.” The team members expressed their appreciation for the staff support provided by Todd Mowrer in providing necessary documentation and analyses, and to Jan Engert for her support and for the opportunity to participate. Members felt that they all had benefitted from the indepth exposure to the RMRS corporate approach to EFRs. They also complimented the station on taking this step by setting an example in its comprehensive assessment and support of EFRs. 3 Page 9

NEWs

New EFR Display Available For Use at Conferences and Other Events

T

o aid in our intention to increase awareness of what we do with our experimental forests and ranges (EFRs), we have developed a traveling display. The display includes a large map that shows the location of every EFR in the United States as well as brief text that highlights the story and accomplishments of EFRs over the 100-plus year history. This 8- by 10-foot display is intended to be used at a wide variety of events such as conferences, celebratory events, meetings, etc., anywhere people gather to talk and think

about land and resource management. The display is composed of four 2-½-foot-wide panels that easily link together seamlessly and attach to a light frame. The entire setup, including the panels, transport in two large cases via our Forest Service Fed Ex accounts. If you have an upcoming event where this display would help, you can reserve its use. Check the calendar for the EFR Traveling Display for availability, and contact Peter Stine ([email protected]) to make reservations. 3

National EFR Coordinator Peter Stine shows off the new display.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Experimental Forests and Ranges is published quarterly by USDA Forest Service Research and Development Peter A. Stine, managing editor, 530-752-9991 [email protected] Keith D. Routman, editing and design, 503-808-2129 [email protected]

Summer 2012


Page 10