量化俄勒冈州和华盛顿州西部采伐地 "固定宽度 "缓冲区的可变性

IF 1.8 3区 农林科学 Q2 FORESTRY
Allison G Swartz, Ashley A Coble, Evan A Thaler, Dana R Warren
{"title":"量化俄勒冈州和华盛顿州西部采伐地 \"固定宽度 \"缓冲区的可变性","authors":"Allison G Swartz, Ashley A Coble, Evan A Thaler, Dana R Warren","doi":"10.1093/jofore/fvae018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In contemporary forest management, buffers of unharvested trees are left along streams to protect riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Buffer regulations often focus on specific minimum width requirements, which aid in straightforward regulation and application, but minimum widths also suggest buffered edges are uniform and contain little variability. Conceptual papers suggest that alternative buffer configurations may offer greater flexibility in landscape-level protection, increase forest complexity, and enhance aquatic and riparian biodiversity. However, before considering alternatives to fixed-width buffers, it is necessary to quantify the inherent variability in current buffer practices present on the landscape. In this study, we used aerial imagery to quantify variability of buffer widths in two hundred randomly selected recently harvested units on managed land in Oregon and Washington with both fish-bearing and non-fish-bearing sections of stream. Wider buffers on larger streams had a greater magnitude of variability, but when normalized by stream size, variation was greater in smaller streams, and overall, variation ranged from 25% to 50% of the mean width. Despite local variability, buffer widths rarely fell below 9.14 m (30 ft). The variation quantified here provides an initial measure of variability to inform future management, given emerging interest in variable retention buffers. Study Implications: In contemporary forest management, riparian and aquatic habitat protection usually relies on minimum buffer width regulations. Minimum requirements create the perception that buffered edges are uniform distances from streams containing little variability, so conceptual papers have suggested alternative buffer configurations with variable retention edges to enhance ecological benefits. However, there are several reasons why, in practice, buffer widths may vary substantially from minimum sizes within and across harvest units under current forest management, but this potential variation has not been quantified. Before considering alternative riparian management options, it is necessary to quantify and understand the inherent variability in current practices. By utilizing high-resolution aerial imagery and digital elevation models, we quantified buffer width variation. Using a set of two hundred recently harvested units, we demonstrate notable buffer width variation across managed Pacific Northwest forests. We attribute the variation in buffer widths to the presence of road crossings, tributary junctions, underlying valley slope and slope variation, and flexibility in regulations that may be overlooked in broad evaluations of strict minimum widths. Understanding fundamental information about buffer width variability provides information about current practices and provides a standard against which proposed increases in variability may be compared.","PeriodicalId":15821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forestry","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying the Variability of “Fixed-Width” Buffers on Harvested Lands in Western Oregon and Washington\",\"authors\":\"Allison G Swartz, Ashley A Coble, Evan A Thaler, Dana R Warren\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jofore/fvae018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In contemporary forest management, buffers of unharvested trees are left along streams to protect riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Buffer regulations often focus on specific minimum width requirements, which aid in straightforward regulation and application, but minimum widths also suggest buffered edges are uniform and contain little variability. Conceptual papers suggest that alternative buffer configurations may offer greater flexibility in landscape-level protection, increase forest complexity, and enhance aquatic and riparian biodiversity. However, before considering alternatives to fixed-width buffers, it is necessary to quantify the inherent variability in current buffer practices present on the landscape. In this study, we used aerial imagery to quantify variability of buffer widths in two hundred randomly selected recently harvested units on managed land in Oregon and Washington with both fish-bearing and non-fish-bearing sections of stream. Wider buffers on larger streams had a greater magnitude of variability, but when normalized by stream size, variation was greater in smaller streams, and overall, variation ranged from 25% to 50% of the mean width. Despite local variability, buffer widths rarely fell below 9.14 m (30 ft). The variation quantified here provides an initial measure of variability to inform future management, given emerging interest in variable retention buffers. Study Implications: In contemporary forest management, riparian and aquatic habitat protection usually relies on minimum buffer width regulations. Minimum requirements create the perception that buffered edges are uniform distances from streams containing little variability, so conceptual papers have suggested alternative buffer configurations with variable retention edges to enhance ecological benefits. However, there are several reasons why, in practice, buffer widths may vary substantially from minimum sizes within and across harvest units under current forest management, but this potential variation has not been quantified. Before considering alternative riparian management options, it is necessary to quantify and understand the inherent variability in current practices. By utilizing high-resolution aerial imagery and digital elevation models, we quantified buffer width variation. Using a set of two hundred recently harvested units, we demonstrate notable buffer width variation across managed Pacific Northwest forests. We attribute the variation in buffer widths to the presence of road crossings, tributary junctions, underlying valley slope and slope variation, and flexibility in regulations that may be overlooked in broad evaluations of strict minimum widths. Understanding fundamental information about buffer width variability provides information about current practices and provides a standard against which proposed increases in variability may be compared.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15821,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Forestry\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Forestry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvae018\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"FORESTRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forestry","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvae018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在现代森林管理中,溪流沿岸会留有未采伐树木的缓冲区,以保护河岸和水生生态系统。缓冲区规定通常侧重于具体的最小宽度要求,这有助于直接监管和应用,但最小宽度也表明缓冲区边缘是统一的,几乎不包含变化。概念性文件表明,替代性缓冲区配置可为景观级保护提供更大的灵活性,增加森林的复杂性,并提高水生生物和河岸生物的多样性。然而,在考虑固定宽度缓冲区的替代方案之前,有必要量化当前景观中缓冲区做法的内在可变性。在这项研究中,我们使用航拍图像对俄勒冈州和华盛顿州管理区内两百个随机选取的近期采伐单位的缓冲区宽度变化进行了量化,这些单位既有含鱼河段,也有不含鱼河段。较大溪流上较宽的缓冲区的变异幅度较大,但当按溪流大小归一化时,较小溪流的变异更大,总体而言,变异范围为平均宽度的 25% 到 50% 之间。尽管存在局部变化,但缓冲区宽度很少低于 9.14 米(30 英尺)。鉴于人们对可变保留缓冲区的兴趣日渐浓厚,这里量化的变化为未来管理提供了一个初步的可变性衡量标准。研究意义:在当代森林管理中,河岸和水生栖息地保护通常依赖于最小缓冲区宽度规定。最低要求给人的感觉是缓冲区边缘与溪流的距离是一致的,几乎没有变化,因此概念性论文建议采用可变保留边缘的替代缓冲区配置来提高生态效益。但实际上,在当前的森林管理下,缓冲区宽度可能与采伐单元内和采伐单元间的最小尺寸相差很大,这其中有几个原因,但这种潜在的变化尚未被量化。在考虑其他河岸管理方案之前,有必要量化并了解当前实践中固有的变化。通过利用高分辨率航空图像和数字高程模型,我们对缓冲区宽度的变化进行了量化。利用一组两百个最近采伐的单元,我们展示了太平洋西北部森林管理中缓冲区宽度的显著变化。我们将缓冲区宽度的变化归因于道路交叉口的存在、支流交汇处、潜在的山谷坡度和坡度变化,以及在严格的最小宽度的广泛评估中可能被忽视的法规灵活性。了解缓冲区宽度变化的基本信息可提供有关当前做法的信息,并提供一个标准,可用于比较建议增加的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantifying the Variability of “Fixed-Width” Buffers on Harvested Lands in Western Oregon and Washington
In contemporary forest management, buffers of unharvested trees are left along streams to protect riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Buffer regulations often focus on specific minimum width requirements, which aid in straightforward regulation and application, but minimum widths also suggest buffered edges are uniform and contain little variability. Conceptual papers suggest that alternative buffer configurations may offer greater flexibility in landscape-level protection, increase forest complexity, and enhance aquatic and riparian biodiversity. However, before considering alternatives to fixed-width buffers, it is necessary to quantify the inherent variability in current buffer practices present on the landscape. In this study, we used aerial imagery to quantify variability of buffer widths in two hundred randomly selected recently harvested units on managed land in Oregon and Washington with both fish-bearing and non-fish-bearing sections of stream. Wider buffers on larger streams had a greater magnitude of variability, but when normalized by stream size, variation was greater in smaller streams, and overall, variation ranged from 25% to 50% of the mean width. Despite local variability, buffer widths rarely fell below 9.14 m (30 ft). The variation quantified here provides an initial measure of variability to inform future management, given emerging interest in variable retention buffers. Study Implications: In contemporary forest management, riparian and aquatic habitat protection usually relies on minimum buffer width regulations. Minimum requirements create the perception that buffered edges are uniform distances from streams containing little variability, so conceptual papers have suggested alternative buffer configurations with variable retention edges to enhance ecological benefits. However, there are several reasons why, in practice, buffer widths may vary substantially from minimum sizes within and across harvest units under current forest management, but this potential variation has not been quantified. Before considering alternative riparian management options, it is necessary to quantify and understand the inherent variability in current practices. By utilizing high-resolution aerial imagery and digital elevation models, we quantified buffer width variation. Using a set of two hundred recently harvested units, we demonstrate notable buffer width variation across managed Pacific Northwest forests. We attribute the variation in buffer widths to the presence of road crossings, tributary junctions, underlying valley slope and slope variation, and flexibility in regulations that may be overlooked in broad evaluations of strict minimum widths. Understanding fundamental information about buffer width variability provides information about current practices and provides a standard against which proposed increases in variability may be compared.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Forestry
Journal of Forestry 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forestry is the most widely circulated scholarly forestry journal in the world. In print since 1902, the mission of the Journal of Forestry is to advance the profession of forestry by keeping forest management professionals informed about significant developments and ideas in the many facets of forestry. The Journal is published bimonthly: January, March, May, July, September, and November.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信