Operational Green Tree Retention and Land Cover Patterns in Intensively Managed Pine Forest Landscapes of the Southeastern United States

Southern US landowners participating in forest certification programs sometimes use green tree retention in intensively managed pine (Pinus spp.) forests (IMPF) to promote structural diversity and to benefit wildlife species. However, the operational extent of green tree retention practices is poorl...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inForest science Vol. 64; no. 5; pp. 564 - 576
Main Authors Parrish, Michael C, Demarais, Steve, Wigley, T Bently, Riffell, Sam K, Ezell, Andrew W, Jones, Phillip D
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Bethesda Oxford University Press 01.10.2018
Subjects
Biodiversity
Buffers
Certification
Clearcutting
Coniferous forests
Costs
Environmental protection
Ephemeral streams
Forest management
Forestry
Forests
Intermittent streams
Land cover
Land use
Landowners
Landscape
Opportunity costs
Pine trees
Pinus
R&D
Research & development
Retention
Species diversity
Streams
Stringers
Timberlands
Trees
Wildlife
Wildlife habitats
Wildlife management
Louisiana
Georgia
United States > US
Arkansas
Texas
Wisconsin
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Southern US landowners participating in forest certification programs sometimes use green tree retention in intensively managed pine (Pinus spp.) forests (IMPF) to promote structural diversity and to benefit wildlife species. However, the operational extent of green tree retention practices is poorly understood. Therefore, we classified land cover on 1187 South Central Plains IMPF management units ("MUs"; totaling 51245.7 ha), defined as contiguous, forested areas containing one or more IMPF patches, harvested and established as a cohort, plus associated green tree retention areas. For each MU, we calculated green tree retention levels and generated land cover pattern metrics describing MU composition and configuration. As expected given our sampling frame, MU land cover was dominated by regenerating clearcut (mean ± sd: 80.5% ± 14.3% of land cover) and green tree retention cover (mean 18.6% ± 14.2% of land cover). Retention cover consisted mostly of streamside management zones (mean 14.0 % ± 13.1% of land cover) buffering perennial and intermittent streams and stringers (mean 3.4% ± 4.3% of land cover) buffering ephemeral streams. Green tree retention land cover represented a substantial proportion of the IMPF landscape in the region and potentially enhances habitat conditions for many wildlife species.
ISSN:0015-749X
1938-3738
DOI:10.1093/forsci/fxy009