| A unit of Lasting Forests
evolving since March 30, 1999 |
|
A Total Forest Management Plan
|
|
|
Within The Trevey we access the state wildlife information system for your land unit. We use the current information on species and taxonomic groups to estimate the species in your ownership.
The lists are estimates. They are animals reported observed within the vicinity and thus potentially to be seen on your land. New animals may be seen. Conditions may have changed so that the envoronment today will support species not formerly present. With land use change species may disappear locally. In a few cases, species may have been exterminated (but we believe this is unlikely but it needs to be monitored). There are serious flaws in the record and more observation in the wilds is needed. It is highly likely that species found in counties surrounding your land are also found on your land but they are not listed because they have not been reported as being there. These species are listed in a separate table. You may assume they are present or not; monitoring and watchfulness are needed. Trevey staff will be making observations and reporting findings to the state data base.
Trevey staff have developed equations based on the size of your area, its elevation extremes, habitat types, latitude and longitude to estimate the probable richness of your land. The following results were obtained from using the computer models:
 |
| Sample:Major faunal categories present in the area for comparison with numbers for the state. Only 6 categories are included; percentages are those of all animals in the area. The area is not expected to have the same proportions as the state but the relationships are likely to become evident, for example, in comparing coastal with mountainous areas. A type of "relative faunal diversity" is expressed in the graph. The area contains 12.7% of the species of the state. |
| SampleFaunal Categories | Total in the state |
Total in the area |
Proportion in the area |
| Fish | 410 | 40 | 0.098 |
| Birds | 409 | 80 | 0.196 |
| Aquatic mollusks |
151 | 2 | 0.013 |
| Mammals | 117 | 22 | 0.188 |
| Amphibians | 77 | 10 | 0.130 |
| Reptiles | 74 | 4 | 0.054 |
| Total | 1238 | 158 | 0.128 |
The count from the state data base was:
 |
| State richness for major faunal categories. |
The total number of species within the state (for gross comparison) is:
There are about 1.5 to 1.8 million species of plants and animals. The number of described species in the world (2000 data) are:
Species richness is often called "biodiversity." "Bio-" includes plants and animals. People in favor of biodiversity generally emphasize animal richness but want to prevent the loss of species, thus retain present-day richness. In some cases they desire to increase biodiversity and participate in restoration and species recovery efforts. Richness is said by many writers to have intrinsic value, value which is irrespective of utilitarian value. Species have value in themselves, a value neither conferred nor revocable, springing from a species' long evolutionary heritage and potential or even from the mere fact of its existence (Michael Soule 1985).
Biodiversity is said by E.O. Wilson to have evolved over 3 billion years and "is being eroded at an accelerating rate by human activity." He claimed that the loss... "will inflict a heavy price in wealth and security and spirit."
Richness can be seen from the mountian peaks to 36,000 feet below the ocean surface.
In the following tables are the lists of the animals known to occur or have occurred recently in or near the area. The percentage of all such species known for the state are also shown. Richness is the number of taxonomic groups or categories minus 1.0 (since if there is only one species, an area is not rich; with no species there is nothing to analyze.) The list of categories:
Category Relative Richness
A comparison is usually made for the richness in each category. Where A is the number of species in a state list and b is the number of species in the area (or some part of a large area) then the relative category richness is
R1 = (b1 - 1) / (A1 - 1)
It could be that some area may have within it 0.10 to 0.20 of the mammals of the state.
An overall richness index is only slightly more complicated to compute for an area. It is
R2 = 
(b1 - 1) / (A1 - 1)
Management advice on about 80 individual species is available. Staff will contract with experts to create reports similar to those contained herein. A contribution to the effort can gain tax advantages and provide an honorarium or memorial to a favorite person as well as aid in resource management.
The lists and richness speaks directly to more than 20 federal and state laws and regulations stating the need for maintaining biological diversity or "biodiversity." Other people require that the number of animals in each taxonomic category be included. Except as a special project, species abundance1 (numbers or density) estimates are not made.
| 1Estimating abundance for any one species is difficult, costly, time consuming, and there is low confidence in estimates. Total counts are usually impossible. A "perfect" estimate in one year will be wrong next year because of many factors and other populations changing every population. Rough estimates, based on previous studies can be provided under contract in special situations. |
The counts of species can be deceiving. If one species "goes extinct" on the area, but another one invades the territory once occupied, the number of species (the net effect) will remain the same. Protecting rare species, retaining richness, preventing exotics or invaders, and in some cases restoring lost species or creating conditions for them ... these are all actions needed to be taken simultaneously.
People have interest in richness for many reasons. The list is changing as some reasons are added, others removed because they are found to be untrue (simply faulty observations). The more general reasons are:
The Trevey's Biodiversity Test
There is no widely accepted definition of biodiversity. In over a thousand technical and scientific papers it includes topics of:
In the field, resolving these differences is difficult. The important questions (and we welcome naming other ones) are:
Answer: On every area we compute 10 strong measures of diversity, those reported in peer-reviewed journals. We prefer to use the measures of:
Answer: Favoring commercial tree species causes 5 indices of diversity to increase, 5 to decrease. Favoring commercial species increases the evenness of distribution. Sizes of such tracts are small, highly selected to reduce apparent fragmentation, increase juxtaposition indices, and reduce the effects of fire, pests, and disease. They diversity the genetic resources of the area.
Answer: We preserve units, which we call Ancient Forests. This influences the age diversity, all associated plants and animals, edge, juxtaposition, and the pattern of the landscape. In addition, snags are preserved. When there are no snags, some are created. Thinning and select cuts leave rotting logs. Special care is taken to place logs on the contour and large pieces are placed in headwaters to restore the "stair-step" appearance of the natural stream. A "down log survey" report is available.
Answer: Species and species complexes are especially well suited for a small set of ecological factors. We fit trees to sites using computer-maps and knowledge and our Wildland Knowledge Base. We reduce costs by putting the right tree in the right place because that reduces plant stress, which is always followed by disease and insect attacks. By careful, intensive management, we can produce high monetary returns from wood from a few areas. Some people find these areas attractive, but they are intended primarily for financial gain. That they are profitable does not prevent them being beautiful. They are highly select areas, large patches in a mosaic. They diversify the landscape (by at least half of the measures usually used). We do not do "type conversion." We change small select areas that have been logged, burned, and usually poorly (or not) managed for over 2 centuries into areas that are productive of wood, profits, tax returns, and employment opportunities.
Answer: We have never accepted the premise that equal numbers of all species is desirable (Mice and moose? Condors and coots? Copperheads and canvasbacks? Blackgum and black Oak?). We seek forest stands that are rich in species. We suppress no particular species. We work to reduce invasive species. We work to achieve large numbers of trees (in harvest areas) that have high monetary value. In select areas, we desire highly-valued tree species. Because these grow with and are inter-dependent with other species, snags, down logs, etc., we believe our managed forests provide at least the range, amount, and quality of ecosystem services of the average un-managed forest of the region and, we assert , probably more.
Answer: There are many objectives of owners of Rural System Forests. Each objective is judged to be of different importance by their owners. Diversity, admittedly difficult to define, is only one land management objective. It is likely that if our only objective was diversity (e.g., as expressed in a high modified-Simpson Index), then the forests would appear different than they now do (or will within the 5-year planning period).
We have used computer optimization to evaluate hundreds of thousands of alternatives and the one selected is the best we can find, given the current economic and political situation, the owners' objectives, markets, size, location, past land use, employees, and ecological factors. Diversity is one important part of the study of alternatives - but only one.
Answer: Natural areas, wild places, roadless areas, or set-asides, are important components of Rural System Forests (see Ancient Forests. They contain plants and animals not found elsewhere, so they increase one measure of biodiversity. Usually a small "patch," they can reduce one measure of spatial diversity (thus the problem of interpretation and meaningful, legal action). They are a store-house of genetic material, a refuge and reservoir from which organisms may emerge to populate areas affected by intensive management. Besides their beauty, they are valued for all life there, yet-unseen opportunities, and at a very practical level - the source of fungi and mocro-organisms essential in the root systems of the surrounding forests.
Answer: Small forest patches (woodlots) are said to result from "fragmentation." Large agricultural and fallow fields also result from the same action on the land. The fragmentation problem is a "half-empty/half-full" problem. Small forest patches favor some species of plants and animals, but are unsuitable for others. The smaller the areas, the less the edge (said to favor some species, to be harmful to others). The edge-to-area ratio increases as the patch size shrinks and, at least for those species for which "edge" (e.g., conifer cover adjacent to blackgum food) is beneficial, the smaller the better. We practice alpha units, life-group, and species-specific management. Trying to achieve a generalized objective for patch size, amount of edge, or amount of interior forest (the hold in the doughnut) is impossible without knowing: (1) owner's objectives, (2) the local conditions and constraints, and (3) the dynamics of each stand. "Fragmented" may not be "fragmented tomorrow," by design.
Answer: All age classes are represented within reason and within the region. Some Rural System Forests are too small to allow a full range of biodiversity over both time and space. The lands are managed on an ecological rotation, computer-aided, to achieve desired age classes within areas that meet the needs of desired species. Biodiversity is continually monitored and reports of potential diversity with observation supplements are prepared annually for land owners.
The GAO has made recommendations about broadscale assessments of ecological conditions as they may be useful in Forest Service planning. The failures are highlighted. The staff is familiar with the document, the problems, and believe that local and regional assessments are now included actively within The Trevey. Work continues on improving use and integration of the assessments such as of species richness.
The staff is aware of the concept that the greater the area, the more the richness. We are cautiously studying the relationship known as the "species-area curve." We believe species are related to the total area size, its shape, and the range in elevation (the volume) within which the animals live.
The key variables:
(As more data become available and as analyses progress, this section will expand.)
See Variety
References
Hesler, L.R. Mushrooms of the Great Smokies
| Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com |
|---|
This Web site is maintained by R. H.
Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000, September 27, 2008