adaptive silviculture for climate change: a national ... · understanding within the forest...

silviculture

Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change ANational Experiment in Manager-ScientistPartnerships to Apply anAdaptation FrameworkLinda M Nagel Brian J Palik Michael A BattagliaAnthony W DrsquoAmato James M GuldinChristopher W Swanston Maria K JanowiakMatthew P Powers Linda A Joyce Constance I MillarDavid L Peterson Lisa M Ganio Chad Kirschbaum andMolly R Roske

Forest managers in the United States must respond to the need for climate-adaptive strategies in the face ofobserved and projected climatic changes However there is a lack of on-the-ground forest adaptation researchto indicate what adaptation measures or tactics might be effective in preparing forest ecosystems to deal withclimate change Natural resource managers in many areas are also challenged by scant locally or regionallyrelevant information on climate projections and potential impacts The Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change(ASCC) project was designed to respond to these barriers to operationalizing climate adaptation strategies byproviding a multiregion network of replicated operational-scale research sites testing ecosystem-specific climatechange adaptation treatments across a gradient of adaptive approaches and introducing conceptual tools andprocesses to integrate climate change considerations into management and silvicultural decisionmaking Here wepresent the framework of the ASCC project highlight the implementation process at two of the study sites anddiscuss the contributions of this collaborative science-management partnership

Keywords adaptation adaptive management climate change partnerships silviculture

T odayrsquos natural resource managersface a mounting set of challenges re-quiring more knowledge skill and

creativity than ever before Complex socio-ecological challenges stemming from cli-mate change and associated stressors (iedrought insects disease and wildfire)changing policy direction within agenciesand a paucity of resources and funding re-sult in a suite of challenges to designing andimplementing adaptation strategies in theface of climate change The US Departmentof Agriculture (USDA) and Department of

Received August 9 2016 accepted November 23 2016 published online January 19 2017

Affiliations Linda M Nagel (lindanagelcolostateedu) Colorado State University Fort Collins CO Brian J Palik (bpalikfsfedus) USDA Forest ServiceMichael A Battaglia (mbattagliafsfedus) USDA Forest Service Anthony W DrsquoAmato (awdamatouvmedu) University of Vermont James M Guldin(jguldinfsfedus) USDA Forest Service Christopher W Swanston (cswanstonfsfedus) Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science USDA Forest ServiceMaria K Janowiak (mjanowiak02fsfedus) Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science USDA Forest Service Matthew D Powers(matthewpowersoregonstateedu) Oregon State University Linda A Joyce (ljoycefsfedus) USDA Forest Service Constance I Millar (cmillarfsfedus)USDA Forest Service David L Peterson (petersonfsfedus) Pacific Northwest Research Station Lisa M Ganio (lisaganiooregonstateedu) USDA ForestService Chad Kirschbaum (ckirschbaumfsfedus) USDA Forest Service Molly R Roske (mollyroskecolostateedu) Colorado State University

Acknowledgments The Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change project has been supported in large part by a grant from the USDA Forest Service Southern ResearchStation to develop and implement the framework We give special thanks for the generous support from the Northern Research Station as well as key support from theNorthern Institute of Applied Climate Science the Rocky Mountain Research Station Michigan Technological University the University of Minnesota ColoradoState University and the Department of Interior Northeast Climate Science Center We express heartfelt gratitude to our numerous partners especially managers andstaff who have committed their time experience expertise and enthusiasm in support of this project including staff on the Chippewa San Juan and FlatheadNational Forests the Joseph W Jones Ecological Research Center and the Second College Grant of Dartmouth College We also extend special thanks to twoanonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on this article

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Journal of Forestry bull May 2017 167

J For 115(3)167-178httpsdoiorg105849jof16-039

Copyright copy 2017 Society of American Foresters

the Interior have mandated public agenciesto plan for and manage the anticipated im-pacts of climate change Natural resourceprofessionals may have a desire to addressclimate change with their managementhowever numerous barriers to doing so havebeen identified including inadequate infor-mation at spatial and temporal scales rele-vant and accessible to managers shiftingmanagement priorities and a lack of timefunding and training for managers to learnhow to integrate climate change consider-ations into operational management (Kempet al 2015)

We have responded to these varied andcomplex needs by designing the AdaptiveSilviculture for Climate Change (ASCC)project a long-term research network thataddresses barriers to implementing climate-informed management strategies The coreof ASCC is the manager-scientist partner-ship that generates robust operational ex-amples of a range of options for integratingclimate change adaptation into silviculturalplanning and on-the-ground actions de-signed to facilitate adaptive responses to un-certain future climate conditions and associ-ated stressors The ASCC project drawsheavily on tools created through a manage-ment-focused effort called the ClimateChange Response Framework1 (Janowiak etal 2014) but couples the management toolswith a rigorous scientific design SpecificallyASCC does the following it provides train-ing opportunities for natural resource man-agers to learn about climate change impactsand vulnerabilities relevant to local manage-ment goals while acquiring tools for devel-oping appropriate adaptation approachesand tactics and it develops a multiregionstatistically rigorous study with ecosystem-specific climate change adaptation treat-ments using manager-scientist partnershipsat the local and national levels Although thisstudy is driven by climate change concernsand uncertainty the framework we describeherein is broadly applicable to diverseemerging natural resource issues associatedwith uncertainty in future forest conditionsand dynamics The primary goals of this ar-ticle are to describe the climate changeframework that was used driven by a man-ager-scientist partnership to apply forestadaptation concepts to a variety of forestecosystem types in a multiregion studyMoreover we articulate a set of testable re-search questions around our current under-standing of adaptation options to test whatapproaches and associated silvicultural sys-

Management and Policy Implications

The shortage of scientifically robust replicated operational-scale research on forest adaptation to climatechange has left forest and natural resource managers with little information on and few examples ofon-the-ground adaptation approaches that could work for their forest ecosystems The Adaptive Silviculturefor Climate Change (ASCC) project is establishing a national network of long-term silvicultural researchsites across multiple regions and a diversity of forest types to test a range of adaptation approaches andto provide managers with the tangible demonstrations needed to inform climate-adaptive decisionmakingin their forest management Furthermore the ASCC project provides managers and scientists with trainingon integrating climate change considerations into planning processes and identifying locally appropriateadaptation approaches and tactics The main goals of the ASCC project ultimately serve to advanceunderstanding within the forest management community of how management can foster adaptiveresponses to the impacts of uncertain climate futures The science-management partnerships built throughthis project help inform the relevance of the research as well as advance communication on climatechange adaptation at a national scale

Sidebar 1 Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change A Manager PerspectiveWith an uncertain climate future land managers are facing uncharted forest dynam-

ics and the science to support decisionmaking is evolving We need to be nimble tomanage our forests alongside the science as it develops and be courageous in tryinginnovative and collaborative practices The ASCC project has taken that approach to helpus use the best available science while also contributing to research that will further informour future decisionmaking The Minnesota ASCC site on the Chippewa National Forestis located in our red pine ecosystem which is important both ecologically and economi-cally in this state For more than a decade we have been working to restore long-livedconifers to the northern Minnesota landscape yet have many young stands of red andwhite pine that will grow into an uncertain climate future Through this study managerswill gain insight into strategies to manage future stands as well as those that we currentlyhave on the landscape

Learning has been a key thread throughout the development and implementation ofthis project This project began by establishing a common understanding of the potentialclimate change effects and broad strategies for dealing with these effects (resistance resil-ience and transition) Some of these concepts fit our current management regime whileothers caused us to stretch our imagination to new ways of doing business As we beganplanning and implementing the treatments our scientist partners were open to many ofthe treatment ideas and management constraints our managers brought forth For exam-ple writing clear prescriptions to meet the ASCC scientific objectives with terms that arealso reportable in our databases was a challenge at first but we worked together to makethe prescription terminology compatible across research specifications and Forest Servicedatabases Timber sale administration seedling orders and timber sale receipts while proce-dures in which our managers have expertise all introduced complexities that requiredcollaboration and communication with the scientists to meet management objectives andmaintain the integrity of the study Approaching this project with an attitude of learningand open communication has led to early successes and built the foundation for futurework as we learn how best to prepare our forests for climate change

When we delve into the details of potential climate change effects it is easy to becomeoverwhelmed by the uncertainty and the high potential for loss and change I preferinstead to look for the opportunities to continue managing forests to be diverse resilientand valuable to all of us I believe the work we are conducting in this manager-scientistpartnership is critical to our understanding of how wersquoll manage forests in the face ofclimate change The ASCC project demonstrates how land managers can be innovativeand adaptive driving new alternatives for natural resource management

168 Journal of Forestry bull May 2017

tems best meet management goals Finallywe illustrate how we applied these conceptsas part of a new era of long-term silviculturalstudies with two examples where this processhas been implemented We conclude with adiscussion of lessons learned as well as direc-tions forward

ProcessFrameworkRegional ecosystem vulnerability as-

sessments and related climate change plan-ning workshops (eg Swanston et al 2011Swanston and Janowiak 2012) in additionto climate change training delivered as partof the National Advanced Silviculture Pro-gram (Nagel et al 2010) have fostered agrowing recognition that the forest researchand management communities lack an abil-ity to assess the efficacy of adaptation strate-gies and that field examples demonstratingdifferent adaptation approaches are neededTo this end we organized a ldquoscience teamrdquoof experts in climate change forest manage-ment research and statistics to refine a

framework for application to a long-termexperimental silviculture study that could beimplemented at multiple ecologically dis-tinct locations

The study is designed to develop andtest silvicultural systems along an adaptationgradient including no action resistance re-silience and transition (Figure 1 Table 1)using definitions modified from Millar et al(2007) By designing implementing andmonitoring a spectrum of treatments acrossthis adaptation gradient managers and sci-entists will be able to learn how well variousadaptation options accommodate a range ofpotential future climate change conditionsat an operational spatial scale and across avariety of ecosystem types and geographicregions The design of site-specific treat-ments and study implementation elementsis determined in an initial ASCC workshopat each study site which serves as the kick-off to the sitersquos involvement in the nationalproject

The ldquoadaptiverdquo nature of the ASCCproject includes not only the design of adap-tation actions and associated metrics but alsoadaptation of management over time tomaintain the treatment stands within the sil-vicultural system designed for each treat-ment Additional effort and investmentwould probably be required to maintain thespecies composition and structure of standsunder the silvicultural system designed foreach resistance treatment The more flexiblecomposition and structural goals of the sil-vicultural systems designed for the resiliencetreatments are hypothesized to enable standsto rebound from disturbances and tolerate awider range of climate shifts Fundamentaland in some cases novel alterations to speciescomposition and structure exemplify the sil-vicultural systems designed for each transi-tion treatment with related planning for al-

ternate and adaptive actions over time Bothstand response and ongoing managementneeds will be factors in how we assess theefficacy of each treatment

Basic Parameters and Questions ofthe ASCC Study

The intention of the study is to create anetwork of installations across the UnitedStates using a common experimental designthat is fully replicated within each site al-lowing for both intra- and intersite compar-isons of various adaptive management ap-proaches We developed a set of site-levelminimum standards that need to be met fora site to be considered part of the nationalnetwork (Figure 2) These include replica-tion a minimum treatment size of 25 acand adherence to a core measurement pro-tocol within a determined evaluation win-dow (short- and long-term) Because we aredesigning a long-term study the most inter-esting measurable results will come decadesinto the future therefore some of the coreminimum data collected immediately pre-and posttreatment (Table 2) will be used toparameterize vegetation models (eg theForest Vegetation Simulator) (Crookstonand Dixon 2005) to facilitate testing treat-ment responses in the near term

Conceptually we are testing these man-agement-related ideas (1) Will adaptationapproaches and treatments work in a real-world context to meet local managementgoals and objectives (2) Are the treatmentssilviculturally feasible (and also fiscally andsocially) and will they work within the re-quirements of a given forest plan (3) Howdoes our idea of desired future conditions(DFCs) change with each treatment typeand is this important silviculturally (4)What does it mean to deliberately create afuture-adapted ecosystem and why would amanager choose to do this And (5) What

Figure 1 Adaptation options used in theASCC study representing a continuum ofmanagement goals related to levels of de-sired (or tolerated) change in ecosystem at-tributes (represented here on the verticalgradient) and mechanisms for coping withclimate change (here the horizontalgradient)

Table 1 Broad treatment definitions and goals of the ASCC project

Treatment Experimental treatment definition Experimental treatment goal

Resistance Actions that improve the defenses of the forest against anticipated change ordirectly defend the forest against disturbance to maintain relativelyunchanged conditions

Maintain relatively unchanged conditions over time

Resilience Actions that accommodate some degree of change but encourage a return to aprior condition or desired reference conditions after disturbance

Allow some change in current conditions but encourage aneventual return to reference conditions

Transition Actions that intentionally accommodate change and enable ecosystems toadaptively respond to changing and new conditions

Actively facilitate change to encourage adaptive responses

No action Since climate change impacts all forest globally we cannot maintain a trueldquocontrolrdquo With this in mind we consider an approach in which forests areallowed to respond to climate change in the absence of direct silviculturalintervention as an appropriate baseline for many questions

Allow forests to respond to climate change without directmanagement intervention

Modified from Millar et al 2007


tradeoffs exist between achievement of adap-tation objectives and other common objec-tives for a given region and ecosystem type

The scientific questions to be addressedthrough hypothesis-driven research includethe following (1) Is there a significant effectof the treatments on forest conditions andprocesses over time and do they differ sig-nificantly from each other at each site (2)How do hypothesized treatment responses(DFCs) compare with actual responses ob-served in the future (3) Do these treatmentsachieve what they were designed for ie dothey meet the stated management goals at 5

or 10 years and will criteria emerge to en-able managers to identify which treatmentsperform best And (4) Are there trends inwhich treatment (resistance resilience tran-sition or no action) performs better thanother treatments at meeting DFCs and ad-aptation goals across all ASCC sites

The ASCC project is designed to workwith resource management realities and na-tional forest decision frameworks while gen-erating critically needed research The studyprocess allows deliberate on-the-ground andstatistical testing of broad high-level con-ceptual adaptation options appropriate to

the management of public lands (Millar etal 2007 Joyce et al 2009) The design ofthe study (size and replication of treatments)also lends itself to the overlaying of addi-tional multidisciplinary research questionsand hypotheses specific to each ecosystemtype Emergent criteria for evaluating theperformance of each of the treatments (andthe site-specific silvicultural systems de-signed to achieve them) will be developedfor the study across sites to address the over-arching research questions More detailedcriteria specific to each site will further bedefined to identify thresholds for future ac-tions that are part of each silvicultural sys-tem and to address the specific researchquestions and hypotheses pertinent to eachsite As the ASCC is a network of researchsites with a consistent study design imple-mented across distinct ecosystem types sci-entists and managers will be able to leveragea shared framework to further reveal trendsand measure the efficacy of adaptive man-agement approaches across the networkadding to the level of inference and knowl-edge gained from the study

Site SelectionEstablishing partnerships is key to the

success of this project First a ldquosite leadrdquo sci-entist with a silvicultural background is cru-cial to working effectively with the nationalproject investigators and bridging with localmanagement staff to coordinate all researchand implementation efforts and to ensurethat the site follows the national frameworkand protocol Additional key scientists in re-lated disciplinary areas may also be identi-fied as part of a core science team at each siteManagement staff that enable the successfuldesign and implementation of the study in-clude forest managers timber sale adminis-trators climate change coordinators (if ap-plicable) policy and planning staff fireofficers and wildlife water and cultural re-sources staff In addition leadership engage-ment (for USDA Forest Service sites thisincludes District Rangers and Forest Super-visors) provides direction and ensures fol-low-through Commitment to long-termlarge-scale silviculture research and a desireto develop and test adaptation approachesare also essential attributes that must beshared among the managers and scientistsinvolved with the study

In the ASCC project development thesite lead scientists and study sites have gen-erally been selected in tandem The studyforest should be contained on a site (eg

Figure 2 Whereas some elements of the ASCC research design are common to all partic-ipating forests (left and middle) aspects that are unique to each forest (right) are designedwith input from local managers and experts

Table 2 Key response variables to be collected at each ASCC site

Sample Species composition Forest health Productivity

Overstory Species richnessSpecies diversityRelative densityRelative dominance

MortalityCrown densityCrown diebackLive crown ratioTree damage (Damage

Severity Index)

Biomass incrementBasal area increment

Midstory Species richnessSpecies diversityRelative densityRelative biomass

Relative density or biomass ofinvasive species

Biomass increment

Ground layer Species richnessSpecies diversityPercent cover by species

Percent cover of invasivespecies

Biomass increment


national forest experimental forest or uni-versity forest) deemed to be potentially vul-nerable to climate change have high societalvalue (timber recreation water biodiversityconservation or other) and have a high in-stitutional commitment to successful imple-mentation of the treatments We also lookedfor climate change-related information thatalready exists such as ecosystem vulnerabil-ity assessments to help guide site selectioninform the overall process used and identifypotential experts who might contribute tothe workshop and research implementationBuilding on and furthering existing infor-mation is a core strength of this approach

Workshop and Experimental DesignProcess

Before development of each workshopthe project principal investigators (PIs) sitelead scientists one to two key managementstaff and one to two other core scientistsmet (in person or remotely) to begin sum-marizing existing information to identifystakeholders and constituencies for variouselements of the workshop and to identifyspeakers and members of an ldquoexpert panelrdquowho participate in designing the experi-ment Site-level information including in-ventory data relevant forest plan parame-ters and fine- and broad-scale contextualinformation for the study was compiled andany information and resource needs wereidentified Invitations were sent to the vari-ous audiences with the workshop brokendown into two parts

The first day of each workshop served asa stand-alone training for natural resourceprofessionals following the approach out-lined by Janowiak et al (2014) These train-ing sessions began with presentations cover-ing climate science basics climate trendsand a synthesis of impacts and vulnerabili-ties specific to the region Participants werethen led through several exercises first theyidentified climate change considerations forsilvicultural planning and decision-makingin the context of the silvics and disturbanceecology of the local forest ecosystems In theafternoon participants were divided intogroups and completed a small-group activityin which they used elements of the ForestAdaptation Resources Workbook (Swan-ston and Janowiak 2012) to develop climatechange adaptation tactics for a forest type oftheir choice Breakout groups gave a sum-mary report to the larger group toward theend of the day with a synthetic wrap-up andevaluation concluding the 1-day training

The overarching goals of this training wereto give participants usable tools for incorporat-ing climate change considerations into man-agement planning and to give them a chanceto practice doing so in a learning environmentfostering discussion and reflection

The second and third days of the work-shop consisted of just the expert panel of10ndash20 managers and scientists This por-tion of each workshop began with a visit tothe prospective field site with accompany-ing maps inventory data and site-level in-formation in hand Specific ecosystem vul-nerabilities and climate change impacts wereevaluated within the context of stand his-tory current conditions and parameters ofthe local forest plan Potential pitfalls androadblocks of study implementation on theselected site were discussed as were possiblesolutions Participants were then dividedinto smaller groups to brainstorm ideas forthe experimental treatments Each groupidentified an appropriate set of DFCs andmanagement objectives both selecting fromamong existing objectives likely to remainimportant under climate change (such astimber production and wildlife habitat) andestablishing new adaptation-related objec-tives in response to projected impacts andvulnerabilities (eg mitigate moisture stressand increase heat-tolerant species) An arrayof silvicultural tactics that correspond toeach of the experimental treatments of resis-tance resilience and transition were thendeveloped Teaming managers with scien-tists in each group created an environmentwherein participants were learning fromeach other while producing scientificallysound locally relevant and operationallyfeasible potential approaches The groupswere encouraged to think broadly and cre-atively to allow the full range of possibilitiesto emerge and be considered

The prescription development processused here may deviate from the process prac-titioners typically use in which manage-ment objectives are primary to the articula-tion of a DFC The experimental treatmentoptions were defined a priori by the originalscience team as part of the common experi-mental design (Table 1) but the particulardetails of what each treatment consists of fora given forest type and how the individualtreatment goals translate to site-specificmanagement objectives are determined bythe site expert panel

Worksheets that walk through theseprescription development steps within theframework of the national ASCC experi-

mental goals and treatments designed by thescience team were provided at each work-shop The final brainstorming of silvicul-tural tactics including time frames benefitsdrawbacks and recommendations was alsoreported by small groups Proactive facilita-tion by leaders of the national project guidedconsensus-building throughout the day to-ward a common set of DFCs managementobjectives and silvicultural tactics that like-wise met experimental objectives in a com-pelling research framework

The third and final day of each work-shop began with a review and refinement ofthe DFCs a comprehensive list of correspond-ing management objectives and silviculturaltactics specific to resistance resilience andtransition treatments Complementary re-search questions of interest to a given sitethat could overlay on top of the ASCCframework were discussed at this junctureEach workshop concluded with identifica-tion of any National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969 (ie NEPA) or other planningneeds description of the common measure-ment plan for both pre- and posttreatmentdata collection including plot layout andmeasurements implementation consider-ations and timeline a data collection time-line a clear description of next steps rolesand responsibilities and scheduling of fol-low-up meetings

Additional ConsiderationsThe long-term collaborative and for-

ward-thinking nature of the ASCC projectpromises interesting and useful outcomesno matter how individual treatments per-form at each site Long-term silviculturaltrials have recently been used in new capac-ities to glean insights into how systems re-spond to change even as the original studywas designed to answer different questions(DrsquoAmato et al 2011 Camp et al 2013)Although existing well-designed long-termsilvicultural trials can be remeasured to yieldadditional data and insights and can provideopportunities to evaluate models and vege-tation response over time there are oftenlimitations to inferences that can be drawngiven the original study design and intent(ie treatment block or plot size lack of rep-lication response variables historically mea-sured and others) We drew on both theexperiences and findings of other long-termstudies to conceive the overall ASCC projectand more specifically to inform the silvicul-tural systems that were designed at each siteto meet the treatment objectives (ie resis-


tance resilience and transition) Long-termexperiments such as ASCC are examples of anew generation of silviculture studies thatare being deliberately designed and imple-mented at larger scales and with a higherdegree of statistical rigor (ie replication)with treatments specifically designed to takeinto account current understanding aboutforest response to disturbance in the contextof an uncertain future climate These newstudies will contribute significantly to the ar-ray of information available to managersinto the future Although there is greatpower in these multisite studies even greaterlevels of commitment and resources fromboth the management and scientific com-munities are required to ensure that opera-tionally relevant results are generated andtranslated into meaningful management op-tions into the future

Monitoring is a major component ofthe ASCC project to be led by each site leadscientist Responsibility for establishment ofa permanent plot network pre- and post-treatment data collection and data ar-chiving resides with the site lead scientist butmust be conducted in a compatible way withthe national ASCC minimum remeasure-ment standards to ensure intersite compara-bility in the future (Figure 2) A statisticianfamiliar with the experimental design andproject goals should be associated with eachsite to help maintain statistical rigor overtime both within and among field sites(Ganio and Puettmann 2008) Becausemanagers cannot wait for researchers to de-velop and test hypotheses around optimal

solutions that may take years to identifysimulation modeling (eg using the ForestVegetation Simulator) will be a major com-ponent of the project to test hypotheses inthe short-term

A recurring point of discussion in thedevelopment of the overall study design andduring individual treatment development ateach site was our evolving notion of DFCswith respect to the treatments A paradigmfor some decades on many national forestshas centered on restoring ecosystems back toan ecological condition encompassed by theenvelope of historical range of variability(HRV) with the rationale that these condi-tions will most likely yield healthy resilientecosystems (Keane et al 2009) Howeverthe notion of developing a DFC based onhistorical conditions has received scrutiny inthe context of a changing climate as histori-cal reference conditions may not representappropriate future target stand structures(Millar et al 2007 Millar 2014 Dumroeseet al 2015) Given the inherent uncertaintyin climate change impacts across temporaland spatial scales HRV may still hold somemerit in informing (but not directing) silvi-cultural prescriptions (Keane et al 2009)only if managers also incorporate insightsfrom the best information available regard-ing probable future conditions and their dis-tribution on the landscape Looking forwardas well as to the past could be especially use-ful when considering a variety of possibleadaptation options akin to the ASCC ap-proach In any case an emergent themeamong the scientific community and practitio-

ners alike is the notion that managing for arange of conditions both spatially and tempo-rally while maintaining complexity in compo-sition structure and function may be an effec-tive way to enhance an ecosystemrsquos ability torespond or adapt to future conditions (Frank-lin et al 2007 Malmsheimer et al 2008 Pu-ettmann et al 2009 OrsquoHara and Ramage2013) The ASCC project provides an op-portunity to test these notions across abroad spectrum of DFCs and manage-ment approaches for different forest types

The five core ASCC project sites are invarious stages of development (Figure 3)We will describe two sites that are currentlyat the most advanced stages of implementa-tion the Cutfoot Experimental Forest(CEF) site on the Chippewa National Forestin Minnesota and the San Juan NationalForest (SJNF) site in Colorado

Site 1 Example CutfootExperimental Forest ChippewaNational Forest

The first ASCC installation was in-stalled on the USDA Forest Servicersquos3000-ac CEF (latitude 47deg40N longitude94deg5W) located on the Chippewa Na-tional Forest in northcentral MinnesotaUSA (Figure 3) The majority of the CEFsupports forests dominated by red pine (Pi-nus resinosa Ait) that is of natural fire origincirca 1918 The overstory contains lesseramounts of eastern white pine (Pinus strobusL) red maple (Acer rubrum L) tremblingaspen (Populus tremuloides Michx) paperbirch (Betula papyrifera Marshall) balsam fir(Abies balsamea L) northern red oak (Quer-cus rubra L) and bur oak (Quercus macro-carpa Michx) Historically this ecosystemhad a woodland structure due to fire withpatchy open (50ndash75) canopy cover (Min-nesota Department of Natural Resources2003) At the time of study installationstands were characterized by mostly closedcanopies and basal areas of about 139 ft2ac(Palik et al 2014)

Major Climate Change ProjectionsOver the last century the regionrsquos cli-

mate has become modestly warmer and wet-ter (Handler et al 2014) However likemany other regions projections for futureclimate change are more extreme (based onGeophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory[GFDL] A1F1 model scenario) Average an-nual temperature by the end of the 21st cen-tury is expected to increase 88deg F (com-

Figure 3 The Cutfoot Experimental Forest (EF) ASCC installation is located in red pine-dominated stands of the Chippewa National Forest (NF) in northern Minnesota The SanJuan NF in mountainous southwest Colorado hosts the ASCC site in mixed conifer forestswhose dominant species change with elevation The Jones Center installation at Ichauwaysouthern Georgia focuses on mixed pine systems of the southeastern coastal plain ASCCsites are being planned for western larch-dominated forests on the Flathead National Forestand the Coram Experimental Forest in northern Montana and for a northern hardwoodsforest at Dartmouthrsquos Second College Grant with a companion installation planned forHubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire


pared with the 1971ndash2000 period) but withseasonally disproportionate temperature in-creases (98deg F increase in winter 54deg F in-crease in spring 114deg F increase in summerand 91deg F increase in autumn) This modelprojects a slight decrease in average annualprecipitation of 04 in but a substantialdecrease in summer annual precipitation of48 in Combining temperature and pre-cipitation into potential evapotranspirationto precipitation ratios suggests slightlymoister annual conditions by the end of the21st century but substantially drier summerconditions with the potential for greaterdrought stress during the growing season

Potential Impacts and ExpectationsWhen considering impacts during proj-

ect scoping we focused on projections intree habitat suitability based on Tree Atlas(Prasad et al 2007) and LANDIS II(Scheller et al 2007) modeling results forMinnesota (Handler et al 2014) The over-all projection is that tree habitats in Minne-sota will have shifted measurably to the

northeast by the end of the 21st centuryThis will involve a decline in habitat for mostof the boreal tree species typical of the studyecosystem an increase in habitat for several ofthe associated north temperate tree species andincreased habitat for several tree species new tothe region The interactive effects of climate onimportant disturbance agents including Ar-millaria root disease and bark beetles were alsoconsidered in evaluating future climate im-pacts on tree habitats

Workshop participants examined thesetree habitat projections and also assessed thecurrent condition of the selected forest type(overly dense fire excluded) to justify theirdecision on study location The overarchingsentiment was that the forest is vulnerable toclimate change on the cusp of major changein tree species composition and may face ahost of related forest health issues as a resultof these changes

ASCC TreatmentsWorkshop participants spent a day and

a half discussing and developing treatments

for the project as described in the Work-shop and Experimental Design Process Inaddition to Tree Atlas and LANDIS II mod-eling the treatments were also informed byresults from several long-term silviculturalstudies in the CEF as well as key attributesof DFCs (Table 3)

The resistance treatment (Table 3 Fig-ure 4) is designed to preserve mature redpine into a future of warmer drier growingseasons The intent is to maintain red pine asthe dominant species but thin stands periodi-cally to reduce the negative impacts of droughton productivity and health by maintainingdensity near the lower level of acceptable stock-ing (B-line) (Gilmore and Palik 2005) Thereis mounting empirical evidence that maintain-ing red pine stands near the lower level ofstocking is effective for reducing drought im-pacts on growth (DrsquoAmato et al 2013 Botteroet al 2017) However we recognize that thistreatment is unlikely to maintain red pine in-definitely should conditions become unfavor-able for establishment

Table 3 DFCs and tactics for achieving them for the ASCC treatments on the CEF Minnesota and the SJNF Colorado

Treatment CEF SJNF

Resistance treatment maintain relativelyunchanged conditions

DFC DFCMaintain red pine dominance (90 BA) Maintain current proportions of PP DF WF aspenSingle cohort TacticsReduced stocking closer to woodland structure Reduce BA by 40ndash60 by thinning within 5 yr

Tactics Retain priority PP DF WFFree thin to 100 ft2ac at first thinning Keep large PPDF old PPDFWFFuture thinning to 60 ft2ac Even spacing

Resilience treatment allow some changeeventual return to reference

DFC DFCRed pine dominated (50ndash75 BA) Increase drought-tolerant speciesIncrease heterogeneity and structural complexityIncrease native future-adapted species

Relative densities ( BA) 45ndash75 PP 5ndash35 DF0ndash15 aspen 0ndash10 WF

Clumpy multicohort structureTactics Tactics

Variable density thinning (skips and gaps) Reduce BA by 40ndash60 by thinning20 in 05-ac skips 20 in 05-ac gaps Favor priority PP DF WFFree thin matrix to 110 ft2ac Create openings up to 1ndash3 ac (not for regeneration)Plant native future-adapted species in gaps

including eastern white pine northern redoak bur oak red maple

Leave legacy groups clumpsPlant PP if compositional target is not met

Transition treatment facilitate changeencourage adaptive response

DFC DFCReduce red pine dominance to 20ndash50

multicohort structureIncrease drought-tolerant speciesIncrease PP allow RMJ to increase open conditions

Increase future-adapted speciesTactics Tactics

Expanding-gap irregular shelterwood Retain PP aspen (on north slopes swales)20 in 05-ac gaps Remove all WFThin matrix to 70 ft2ac Canopy openness target of 30ndash40Plant future-adapted species in gaps and matrix

resilience treatment species as well as novelspecies including white oak bitternuthickory black cherry and ponderosa pine

Enhance current openingsIncrease shrubs for big game winter rangePlant PP if compositional target is not met

Additional silvicultural tactics Resilience and transition treatments All treatmentsSite preparation in gaps with harrow disk Prescribe burn to raise canopy height and reduce

ladder fuelsBurn every 5ndash10 yr

BA basal area PP ponderosa pine DF Douglas-fir WF white fir RMJ Rocky Mountain juniper


The resilience treatment (Table 3 Figure4) is a strategy to move beyond red pine asthe dominant species but still maintain aspecies composition within the HRV Thefocus is on species that are native to the eco-system and are predicted to have increasedhabitat suitability under a future climateEastern white pine is a key species for thisstrategy It can be locally abundant and istolerant of a wide range of competitive envi-ronments (Montgomery et al 2013) Thetactic for this treatment involves a hybridvariable density thinningretention harvest-ing approach with future actions to facili-tate regeneration of a suite of desired speciesSuch an approach provides localized openenvironments for recruiting future-adaptedspecies yet maintains considerable maturecanopy structure across the stand to amelio-rate understory microclimate conditionsand sustain a diversity of habitats

The transition treatment (Table 3 Fig-ure 4) is based on the premise that habitatsuitability will be maintained for some spe-cies (ie those included in the resiliencetreatment) but that there will be increasingopportunities for new species to become es-tablished The inclusion of some of theseadditional species including white oak(Quercus alba L) bitternut hickory (Carya

cordiformis Wangenh K Koch) and blackcherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh) is based onTree Atlas modeling which projects modestincreases in their habitat suitability (Han-dler et al 2014)

The transition treatment is also basedon the belief that there will be a desireamong stakeholders to maintain a forest thatbears some resemblance to the current con-dition To this end the treatment includesplanting ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosaDougl) a species with stature morphologyand ecological characteristics similar tothose of red pine but with greater droughttolerance Ponderosa pine while novel andnonnative to the region is widely planted incentral and northern Minnesota as a land-scape tree Moreover long-term results froma provenance study of ponderosa pine (Rad-sliff et al 1981) suggest that seed sourcesfrom the eastern part of the range (Nebraskawestern South Dakota and eastern Mon-tana) that best match the elevation of theCEF study site may have reasonable levels ofsurvival and growth The expanding gap ir-regular shelterwood system used for thetransition treatment (Table 3) also reflectsthe desire to progressively shift compositionon these sites to greater representation ofponderosa pine and other future-adapted

species with initial entries focused on estab-lishing a broad suite of species across gap andmatrix environments

Progress and ActivitiesTreatments were implemented on the

CEF ASCC installation in winter 2014ndash2015 with ongoing research and manage-ment activities planned for at least the next10 years Although in its infancy the projecthas already served as a focal point for severaltours and training sessions including theNational Advanced Silviculture Program aUniversity of Minnesota climate changesummit the Minnesota Society of AmericanForesters 2015 and 2016 summer meetingsand the Forest Stewards Guild 2016 na-tional meeting The experiment was fea-tured as part of a Minnesota Public Radiopiece on climate change Plans for the futureinclude hosting a tour for the 2016 Silvicul-ture Instructors Tour and several futuremeetings

Site 2 Example San JuanNational Forest Colorado

Study SiteThe San Juan ASCC study was estab-

lished on Jackson Mountain in the SJNF

Figure 4 Photos showing four treatments on CEF in Minnesota no action control (A) resistance (B) resilience (C) (with gap on left-hand sideof photo thinned matrix on right-hand side) and transition (D) treatments (Photos courtesy of Eli Sagor 2015)


in southwestern Colorado USA (latitude37deg21N longitude 106deg56W) (Figure 3)The area has a mean annual precipitation ofabout 24 in dominated by snow from No-vember to March and monsoonal moisturein the summer months Mean annual tem-perature is approximately 42deg F with 30-year maximum (July) temperatures of 81deg Fand minimum (January) temperatures of55deg F respectively (PRISM Climate Group2014) Soils are very deep well drained andloamy The study area ranges in elevationfrom 7400 to 8600 ft with dissected deepdrainages multiple aspects and slopes from0 to 35

The site is a warmdry mixed coniferforest consisting of ponderosa pine (Pinusponderosa var scopulorum Engelmann)Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirbel]Franco) white fir (Abies concolor [Gordonand Glendinning] Lindley ex Hildebrand)aspen (Populus tremuloides Michaux) and ashrubby component of Gambel oak (Quer-cus gambelii Nuttall) Before 1873 mean fireinterval was about 30 years (Korb et al2013) The area was lightly logged 50ndash60years ago as indicated by large ponderosapine stumps In the mid-1970s a prep cut ofa two-stage shelterwood was implementedOver the past several decades the area hasbeen subjected to a range of insects such aswestern pine beetle (Dendroctonus brevico-mis LeConte) fir engraver (Scolytus ventralisLeConte) and Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroc-tonus pseudotsugae Hopkins) as well as rootdisease fir broom rust (Melampsorella caryo-phyllacearum) and dwarf mistletoe (Ar-ceuthobium spp) Pretreatment basal areawas approximately 139 ft2ac dominated bya mixture of ponderosa pine Douglas-firand white fir in the overstory with white firand Gambel oak in the understory (Fig-ure 5)

Major Climate Change ProjectionsOver the past several decades Colorado

has seen an increase in annual average tem-perature of 20deg F with daily minimumtemperature increasing more than dailymaximum temperatures (Lukas et al 2014)Snowpack has decreased and the timing ofsnowmelt and peak runoff has shifted earlierin the spring In addition the frequency ofmore severe droughts as measured by thePalmer Drought Severity Index has in-creased (Lukas et al 2014) By the mid-21stcentury the average annual temperature inthe San Juan mountain region is expected toincrease by 40deg F (compared with the

1971ndash2000 period) with a 3ndash4deg F increasein the winter and a 4ndash5deg F increase in thesummer Projected changes in precipitationare more difficult to determine because ofthe complex topography and wide HRV be-tween 1971 and 2000 Besides May most ofthe median changes in precipitation are notmore than a 10 change from the 1971 to2000 measurement period However basedon the projected increase in temperatureduring the winter months less of the annualprecipitation will fall as snow and more ofthe snowpack will melt earlier (Lukas et al2014)

Potential Impacts and ExpectationsTo identify climate impacts during the

SJNF workshop we considered informationpresented in a vulnerability assessment forthe San Juan mountain region (Decker andRondeau 2014) The vulnerability assess-ment incorporated factors such as elevationbioclimatic envelopes biological stressorsdispersal rates and vulnerability to increasedfrequency and intensity of extreme eventsBecause warmdry mixed conifer forestshave tree species that have overlapping bio-climatic envelopes and are often within thetransitional ecotone area between ponderosapine forests at the lower elevations andsprucefir forests at the higher elevations thevulnerability to climate change is difficult toascertain The diversity of coexisting treespecies that can establish and grow togethergives this ecosystem a variety of advantagesin the face of climate change Because earliersnowmelt lengthens the wildfire season it isexpected that wildfire frequency will in-crease in the future (Westerling et al 2006)Changes in climate are also expected to in-crease bark beetle outbreaks (Bentz et al2010) Therefore future stand compositionwill be a result of the interactions of chang-ing climate and fire drought insect out-breaks and pathogens Each species has adifferent susceptibility to these disturbances(Table 4) and therefore novel species com-positions or changes in species dominanceare possibilities

ASCC TreatmentsWorkshop participants considered the

current condition of the forest to be unsus-tainable because of the shift in species com-position and increase in density comparedwith the historical conditions that were reg-ulated by a frequent fire regime (Fule et al2009 Korb et al 2012 2013) This initialforest condition was an issue that required

additional discussion about the ASCC treat-ments particularly the resistance and resil-ience treatments For both of these treat-ment types participants acknowledged thata reduction in density was necessary as astarting point for any discussion of desiredfuture conditions Once agreement on theamount of density reduction and which spe-cies to favor was reached then ASCC treat-ment tactics and maintenance were dis-cussed

The resistance treatment (Table 3) wasdesigned to preserve similar species compo-sition but reduce overall density The resil-ience treatment attempts to maximize grow-ing space by creating uniformly spacedcanopy cover and basal area throughout thestand and reducing ladder fuels These ac-tions intend to mitigate the impacts ofdrought on productivity and to reduce firehazard in the stands Future managementactivities in this treatment will attempt tomaintain the proportions of each tree spe-cies but at the reduced densities establishedin the first entry

The resilience treatment (Table 3) wasdesigned to create an open forest structureresistant to fire and drought composed ofthick-barked long-lived and shade-intoler-ant tree species with a range of tree ages andsizes and variable tree spatial patterns Theparticipants used research from local HRVstudies (Fule et al 2009 Korb et al 2013) toinform the desired outcome of the first entryactivities As a starting point density will bereduced substantially but residual speciescomposition will favor ponderosa pine andDouglas-fir over white fir Furthermore toincrease resilience to fire smaller-diameterDouglas-fir and white fir will be preferen-tially removed whereas ponderosa pine willbe retained Residual trees to be retained willpromote spatial complexity in groups oftrees and individual trees within a matrixof openings of various sizes up to 2 ac(sensu Larson and Churchill 2012) Aver-age basal area targets were 56 ndash78 ft2acbut allowed for a range between 0 and 122ft2ac Future management activities willattempt to promote ponderosa pine andsome Douglas-fir regeneration maintainspatial complexity and discourage whitefir regeneration

The transition treatment (Table 3) con-siders that the current forest structure andspecies composition will have limited futuresuitability at the study sitersquos elevation Thistreatment focused on facilitating upward-moving dominance of the species present at


lower elevations on the SJNF such as pon-derosa pine juniper and other shrubs Re-sidual basal area was on average 40 ft2acwith a range of 0 to 78 ft2ac In this treat-ment all white fir were removed target can-opy openness was around 30ndash40 andlarge openings were prevalent

For all three treatments prescribed firewill be implemented every 5ndash10 years to re-introduce frequent fire disturbance main-tain sustainable densities of tree regenera-tion and return other ecological processesimportant to this ecosystem

Progress and ActivitiesPretreatment forest inventory surveys

to inform marking guidelines have beencompleted on the San Juan ASCC study siteThe research stands have been marked forharvest and are scheduled to be cut in thenext few years Future inventories will focuson installation of additional permanentplots establishment of a forest health surveysoil sampling and inventory of fuels and un-derstory plants

Lessons LearnedAs for all endeavors of this magnitude

communication that comes early and oftenis the key to success All partners were en-gaged early in the study development pro-cess and continue to be engaged on at least amonthly basis Another important aspect ofthis collaboration is the layered communica-tion and engagement of researchers withmanagers to ensure that site layout treecruising and marking harvesting and post-harvest inspections meet the goals of the ex-perimental treatments The ASCC treat-ments may in some cases push the envelopeof experience for the managers involvedmaking this kind of collaboration critical forsuccessful implementation

Another challenge facing implementa-tion of large-scale multisite silvicultural re-search is that not all regions of the UnitedStates have equally viable timber industriesConsequently it may be a challenge in someregions to implement timber harvestingtreatments on the scale of the CEF harvest orto fund regeneration activities if timber re-

ceipts from the project itself are not availableto fund the activities (as is the case for theSJNF)

Given the limited experience of manyparties in operationalizing adaptive silvicul-ture techniques the selection of ASCC siteswas informed at least in part by their acces-sibility for field trips public outreach andtraining The locations were selected to in-clude an excellent example site that facili-tates broad and rich discussion shows con-crete examples and will be an invaluabletool for years to come as data are collectedand we learn from the study

Future DirectionsSeveral additional ASCC installations

are underway in Georgia Montana andNew Hampshire (Figure 3) including bothpublic and private lands Measurements areongoing on the CEF and SJNF sites withpretreatment data collection beginning atother sites Additional phases of the studywill involve immediate posttreatment datacollection on regeneration and ground layervegetation response and simulation model-ing based on the treatments designed at eachsite Plans for intersite analysis of bothsimulation results and field data are in de-velopment Presentations and field toursfor local regional and national audiencesof managers and scientists will continueand future phases of the project may in-clude development of additional sites de-pending on funding

ConclusionsThrough this article we described the

climate change framework we used with amanager-scientist partnership to apply forestadaptation concepts to different forest eco-systems at a variety of locations as part of theASCC study we presented a set of questionsand working hypotheses that will help iden-

Figure 5 Representative photo of current conditions at the SJNF site in Colorado (Photocourtesy of Steven Hartvigsen 2014)

Table 4 Tree species within the warmdry mixed conifer forests of the SJNF and the tolerance to drought heat and fire

Species Drought1 Heat2 Surface fire23 Insects4

Ponderosa pine Tolerant Tolerant Seedlings susceptible Mountain pine beetle IpsDouglas-fir Intermediate Intermediate Seedlings and saplings susceptible Western spruce budworm Douglas-fir tussock moth

Douglas-fir beetleWhite fir Intolerant Intermediate Seedlings saplings and poles susceptible Western spruce budworm Douglas-fir tussock moth

fir engraverAspen Intolerant Intermediate Sprouter Tent caterpillar aspen bark beetleGambel oak Tolerant Tolerant Sprouter Tent caterpillar wood borers

Listed insects are those that have potential to negatively impact the specific tree species1 Niinemets and Vallardes (2006)2 Minore (1979)3 Jain et al (2012)4 Rocky Mountain Region Forest Health Protection (2010)


tify which adaptation options and associatedsilvicultural systems best meet current andfuture management goals and we gave abroad overview of how we implemented thisapproach at two different sites to illustratethe types of considerations one might needto think about in designing a study of thisnature

As conceived the ASCC project willprovide examples of adaptation strategiesthat span not only a range of options but alsoa range of comfort levels and acceptability bymanagers Some approaches are alreadyfound in the toolbox (eg resistance treat-ment at the CEF) but other approaches maypush the envelope of traditional manage-ment approaches and experience given cur-rent climate and social contexts (eg transi-tion treatment on the CEF) However byusing the process and framework describedabove we feel that all of the ASCC treat-ments have broader buy-in than would oc-cur if researchers developed them in isola-tion of managers Moreover they provide anarray of working hypotheses regarding strat-egies for sustaining our nationrsquos ecosystemssimilar to those put forth by the scientistsdeveloping early silvicultural trials in US for-ests at the turn of the last century In addi-tion the interactive process allows us to di-rectly address the numerous barriers naturalresource managers face when it comes to de-veloping adaptive forest management strat-egies for climate change thereby giving thestrategies broader and more realistic applica-bility

Endnote1 For more information see wwwforestadaptation

org

Literature CitedBENTZ BJ J REGNIERE CJ FETTIG EM

HANSEN JL HAYES JA HICKE RG KELSEYET AL 2010 Climate change and bark beetlesof the Western United States and Canada Di-rect and indirect effects BioScience 60(8)602ndash613

BOTTERO A AW DrsquoAMATO BJ PALIK JBBRADFORD S FRAVER MA BATTAGLIA AND LASHERIN 2017 Density-dependent vulnerabilityof forest ecosystems to drought J Appl Ecol Inpress doi1011111365ndash266412847

CAMP AE LC IRLAND AND CJW CARROLL

(EDS) 2013 Long-term silvicultural and ecolog-ical studies Results for science and managementVol 2 GISF Res Pap 013 Yale Univ GlobalInstitute of Sustainable Forestry New HavenCT 187 p

CROOKSTON NL AND GE DIXON 2005 Theforest vegetation simulator A review of its

structure content and applications ComputElectron Agric 49(1)60ndash80

DECKER K AND R RONDEAU 2014 San JuanTres Rios climate change ecosystem vulnerabilityassessment Colorado Natural Heritage Pro-gram Colorado State Univ Fort Collins CO92 p

DUMROESE RK BJ PALIK AND JA STANTURF2015 Forest restoration is forward thinking JFor 113(4)430ndash432

DrsquoAMATO AW JB BRADFORD S FRAVER AND

BJ PALIK 2011 Forest management for mit-igation and adaptation to climate change In-sights from long-term silviculture experi-ments For Ecol Manage 262(5)803ndash816


BJ PALIK 2013 Effects of thinning ondrought vulnerability and climate response innorth temperate forest ecosystems Ecol Ap-plic 23(8)1735ndash1742

FRANKLIN JF RJ MITCHELL AND BJ PALIK2007 Natural disturbance and stand develop-ment principles for ecological forestry USDAForest Service Gen Tech Rep NRS-19Northern Research Station Newtown SquarePA 44 p

FULE PZ JE KORB AND R WU 2009Changes in forest structure of a mixed coniferforest southwestern Colorado USA For EcolManage 258(7)1200ndash1210

GANIO LM AND KJ PUETTMANN 2008 De-signing long-term large-scale forestry experi-ments with research objectives at multiplescales J Sustain For 26(1)1ndash18

GILMORE DW AND BJ PALIK 2005 A revisedmanagers handbook for red pine in the NorthCentral region USDA Forest Service GenTech Rep NC-264 North Central ResearchStation St Paul MN 55 p

HANDLER S MJ DUVENECK L IVERSON EPETERS RM SCHELLER KR WYTHERS LBRANDT ET AL 2014 Minnesota forest ecosys-tem vulnerability assessment and synthesis A re-port from the Northwoods Climate Change Re-sponse Framework project USDA ForestService Gen Tech Rep NRS-133 NorthernResearch Station Newtown Square PA228 p

JAIN TB MA BATTAGLIA HS HAN RTGRAHAM CR KEYES JS FRIED AND JESANDQUIST 2012 A comprehensive guide to fuelmanagement practices for dry mixed conifer for-ests in the Northwestern United States USDAForest Service Gen Tech Rep RMRS-GTR-292 Rocky Mountain Research Station FortCollins CO 331 p

JANOWIAK MK CW SWANSTON LM NAGELLA BRANDT P BUTLER S HANDLER DSHANNON ET AL 2014 A practical approachfor translating climate change adaptation prin-ciples into forest management actions J For112(5)424ndash433

JOYCE LA GM BLATE SG MCNULTY CIMILLAR S MOSER RP NEILSON AND DLPETERSON 2009 Managing for multiple re-sources under climate change National for-ests Environ Manage 44(6)1022ndash1032

KEANE RE PF HESSBURG PB LANDRES AND

FJ SWANSON 2009 The use of historical

range and variability (HRV) in landscape man-agement For Ecol Manage 258(7)1025ndash1037

KEMP KB JJ BLADES PZ KLOS TE HALLJE FORCE P MORGAN AND WT TINKHAM2015 Managing for climate change on federallands of the western United States Perceivedusefulness of climate science effectiveness ofadaptation strategies and barriers to imple-mentation Ecol Soc 20(2)17

KORB JE PZ FULE AND MT STODDARD2012 Forest restoration in a surface fire-dependent ecosystem An example from amixed conifer forest southwestern ColoradoUSA For Ecol Manage 26910ndash18

KORB JE PZ FULE AND R WU 2013 Vari-ability of warmdry mixed conifer forests insouthwestern Colorado USA Implicationsfor ecological restoration For Ecol Manage304182ndash191

LARSON AJ AND D CHURCHILL 2012 Treespatial patterns in fire frequent forests of west-ern North America including mechanisms ofpattern formation and implications for design-ing fuel reduction and restoration treatmentsFor Ecol Manage 26774ndash92

LUKAS J J BARSUGLI N DOESKEN I RANG-WALA AND K WOLTER 2014 Climate changein Colorado A synthesis to support water re-sources management and adaptation A report forthe Colorado Water Conservation Board 2nded Western Water Assessment CooperativeInstitute for Research in Environmental Sci-ences Univ of Colorado Boulder BoulderCO 108 p

MALMSHEIMER RW P HEFFERNAN S BRINKD CRANDALL F DENEKE CS GALIK E GEEET AL 2008 Forest management solutions formitigating climate change in the UnitedStates J For 106115ndash171

MILLAR CI 2014 Historic variability Informa-tion restoration strategies not prescribing tar-gets J Sustain For 33S28ndashS42

MILLAR CI NL STEPHENSON AND SL STE-PHENS 2007 Climate change and forests of thefuture Managing in the face of uncertaintyEcol Applic 17(8)2145ndash2151

MINORE D 1979 Comparative autecologicalcharacteristics of northwestern tree species A lit-erature review USDA Forest Service GenTech Rep PNW-GTR-87 Pacific NorthwestResearch Station Portland OR 72 p

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RE-SOURCES 2003 Field guide to the native plantcommunities of Minnesota The Laurentian MixedForest Province Ecological Land ClassificationProgram Minnesota County Biological Surveyand Natural Heritage and Nongame ResearchProgram Minnesota Department of Natural Re-sources St Paul MN 30 p

MONTGOMERY RA BJ PALIK SB BOYDENAND PB REICH 2013 New cohort growthand survival in variable retention harvests of apine ecosystem in Minnesota USA For EcolManage 310327ndash335

NAGEL LM CW SWANSTON AND MKJANOWIAK 2010 Integrating climate changeconsiderations into forest management toolsand training P 27ndash35 in Integrated manage-


ment of carbon sequestration and biomass utili-zation opportunities in a changing climate Procof the 2009 National Silviculture Workshop2009 June 15ndash18 Boise ID Jain TB RTGraham and J Sandquist (eds) USDA ForestService RMRS-P-61 Rocky Mountain Re-search Station Fort Collins CO 351 p

NIINEMETS U AND F VALLARDES 2006 Toler-ance to shade drought and waterlogging oftemperate Northern Hemisphere trees andshrubs Ecol Monogr 76(4)521ndash547

OrsquoHARA KL AND BS RAMAGE 2013 Silvicul-ture in an uncertain world Utilizing multi-aged management systems to integrate distur-bance Forestry 86(4)401ndash410

PALIK BJ RA MONTGOMERY PB REICH AND

SB BOYDEN 2014 Biomass growth responseto spatial pattern of variable-retention harvest-ing in a northern Minnesota pine ecosystemEcol Applic 24(8)2078ndash2088

PRASAD AM LR IVERSON SN MATTHEWSAND M PETERS 2007ndashongoing A climate changeatlas for 134 forest tree species of the eastern United

States [database] USDA Forest Service Dela-ware OH Available online at wwwnrsfsfedusatlastreetree_atlashtml last accessed July 272016

PRISM CLIMATE GROUP 2014 PRISM climatedata Oregon State Univ Available online at pris-moregonstateedu last accessed Dec 7 2015

PUETTMANN KJ KD COATES AND CCMESSIER 2009 A critique of silviculture Man-aging for complexity Island Press WashingtonDC 206 p

RADSLIFF WA CA MOHN WH CROMELLAND WH GRAY 1981 Ponderosa pine prove-nance tests in Minnesota Minn For Res NoteNo 277 Univ of Minnesota St Paul MN 4 p

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION FOREST HEALTH

PROTECTION 2010 Field guide to diseases andinsects of the Rocky Mountain Region USDAForest Service Gen Tech Rep RMRS-GTR-241 Rocky Mountain Research Station FortCollins CO 336 p

SCHELLER RM JB DOMINGO BR STURTE-VANT JS WILLIAMS A RUDY EJ GUSTAFSON

AND DJ MLADENOFF 2007 Design develop-ment and application of LANDIS-II a spatiallandscape simulation model with flexible tempo-ral and spatial resolution Ecol Model 201(3ndash4)409ndash419

SWANSTON CW AND MK JANOWIAK 2012Forest adaptation resources Climate change toolsand approaches for land managers USDA For-est Service Gen Tech Rep NRS-87 North-ern Research Station Newtown Square PA121 p

SWANSTON C MK JANOWIAK L IVERSON LPARKER D MLANDOFF L BRANDT P BUT-LER ET AL 2011 Ecosystem vulnerability assess-ment and synthesis A report from the climatechange response framework project in NorthernWisconsin USDA Forest Service Gen TechRep NRS-82 Northern Research StationNewtown Square PA 142 p

WESTERLING AL HG HIDALGO DR CAYANAND TW SWETNAM 2006 Warming and ear-lier spring increase western US forest wildfireactivity Science 313(5789)940ndash943


the Interior have mandated public agenciesto plan for and manage the anticipated im-pacts of climate change Natural resourceprofessionals may have a desire to addressclimate change with their managementhowever numerous barriers to doing so havebeen identified including inadequate infor-mation at spatial and temporal scales rele-vant and accessible to managers shiftingmanagement priorities and a lack of timefunding and training for managers to learnhow to integrate climate change consider-ations into operational management (Kempet al 2015)

We have responded to these varied andcomplex needs by designing the AdaptiveSilviculture for Climate Change (ASCC)project a long-term research network thataddresses barriers to implementing climate-informed management strategies The coreof ASCC is the manager-scientist partner-ship that generates robust operational ex-amples of a range of options for integratingclimate change adaptation into silviculturalplanning and on-the-ground actions de-signed to facilitate adaptive responses to un-certain future climate conditions and associ-ated stressors The ASCC project drawsheavily on tools created through a manage-ment-focused effort called the ClimateChange Response Framework1 (Janowiak etal 2014) but couples the management toolswith a rigorous scientific design SpecificallyASCC does the following it provides train-ing opportunities for natural resource man-agers to learn about climate change impactsand vulnerabilities relevant to local manage-ment goals while acquiring tools for devel-oping appropriate adaptation approachesand tactics and it develops a multiregionstatistically rigorous study with ecosystem-specific climate change adaptation treat-ments using manager-scientist partnershipsat the local and national levels Although thisstudy is driven by climate change concernsand uncertainty the framework we describeherein is broadly applicable to diverseemerging natural resource issues associatedwith uncertainty in future forest conditionsand dynamics The primary goals of this ar-ticle are to describe the climate changeframework that was used driven by a man-ager-scientist partnership to apply forestadaptation concepts to a variety of forestecosystem types in a multiregion studyMoreover we articulate a set of testable re-search questions around our current under-standing of adaptation options to test whatapproaches and associated silvicultural sys-

Management and Policy Implications

The shortage of scientifically robust replicated operational-scale research on forest adaptation to climatechange has left forest and natural resource managers with little information on and few examples ofon-the-ground adaptation approaches that could work for their forest ecosystems The Adaptive Silviculturefor Climate Change (ASCC) project is establishing a national network of long-term silvicultural researchsites across multiple regions and a diversity of forest types to test a range of adaptation approaches andto provide managers with the tangible demonstrations needed to inform climate-adaptive decisionmakingin their forest management Furthermore the ASCC project provides managers and scientists with trainingon integrating climate change considerations into planning processes and identifying locally appropriateadaptation approaches and tactics The main goals of the ASCC project ultimately serve to advanceunderstanding within the forest management community of how management can foster adaptiveresponses to the impacts of uncertain climate futures The science-management partnerships built throughthis project help inform the relevance of the research as well as advance communication on climatechange adaptation at a national scale

Sidebar 1 Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change A Manager PerspectiveWith an uncertain climate future land managers are facing uncharted forest dynam-

ics and the science to support decisionmaking is evolving We need to be nimble tomanage our forests alongside the science as it develops and be courageous in tryinginnovative and collaborative practices The ASCC project has taken that approach to helpus use the best available science while also contributing to research that will further informour future decisionmaking The Minnesota ASCC site on the Chippewa National Forestis located in our red pine ecosystem which is important both ecologically and economi-cally in this state For more than a decade we have been working to restore long-livedconifers to the northern Minnesota landscape yet have many young stands of red andwhite pine that will grow into an uncertain climate future Through this study managerswill gain insight into strategies to manage future stands as well as those that we currentlyhave on the landscape

Learning has been a key thread throughout the development and implementation ofthis project This project began by establishing a common understanding of the potentialclimate change effects and broad strategies for dealing with these effects (resistance resil-ience and transition) Some of these concepts fit our current management regime whileothers caused us to stretch our imagination to new ways of doing business As we beganplanning and implementing the treatments our scientist partners were open to many ofthe treatment ideas and management constraints our managers brought forth For exam-ple writing clear prescriptions to meet the ASCC scientific objectives with terms that arealso reportable in our databases was a challenge at first but we worked together to makethe prescription terminology compatible across research specifications and Forest Servicedatabases Timber sale administration seedling orders and timber sale receipts while proce-dures in which our managers have expertise all introduced complexities that requiredcollaboration and communication with the scientists to meet management objectives andmaintain the integrity of the study Approaching this project with an attitude of learningand open communication has led to early successes and built the foundation for futurework as we learn how best to prepare our forests for climate change

When we delve into the details of potential climate change effects it is easy to becomeoverwhelmed by the uncertainty and the high potential for loss and change I preferinstead to look for the opportunities to continue managing forests to be diverse resilientand valuable to all of us I believe the work we are conducting in this manager-scientistpartnership is critical to our understanding of how wersquoll manage forests in the face ofclimate change The ASCC project demonstrates how land managers can be innovativeand adaptive driving new alternatives for natural resource management






































Severity Index)




Biomass increment



Biomass increment





































Treatment CEF SJNF








































































org




























































































Severity Index)




Biomass increment



Biomass increment





































Treatment CEF SJNF








































































org



























































































Treatment CEF SJNF








































































org










































































































org
























































adaptive silviculture for climate change: a national ... · understanding within the forest...

Documents