Simulated treatment effects on bird communities inform landscape-scale dry conifer forest management

Estimating the influence of field inventory sampling intensity on forest landscape model performance for determining high-severity wildfire risk

Historically, fire has been essential in Southwestern US forests. However, a century of fire-exclusion and changing climate created forests which are more susceptible to uncharacteristically severe wildfires. Forest managers use a combination of thinning and prescribed burning to reduce forest density to help mitigate the risk of high-severity fires. These treatments are laborious and expensive, therefore optimizing their impact is crucial. Landscape simulation models can be useful in identifying high risk areas and assessing treatment effects, but uncertainties in these models can limit their utility in decision making. In this study we examined underlying uncertainties in the initial vegetation layer by leveraging a previous study from the Santa Fe fireshed and using new inventory plots from 111 stands to interpolate the initial forest conditions. We found that more inventory plots resulted in a different geographic distribution and wider range of the modelled biomass. This changed the location of areas with high probability of high-severity fires, shifting the optimal location for management. The increased range of biomass variability from using a larger number of plots to interpolate the initial vegetation layer also influenced ecosystem carbon dynamics, resulting in simulated forest conditions that had higher rates of carbon uptake. We conclude that the initial forest layer significantly affects fire and carbon dynamics and is dependent on both number of plots, and sufficient representation of the range of forest types and biomass density.

Simulated treatment effects on bird communities inform landscape-scale dry conifer forest management

Human land use and climate change have increased forest density and wildfire risk in dry conifer forests of western North America, threatening various ecosystem services, including habitat for wildlife. Government policy supports active management to restore historical structure and ecological function. Information on potential contributions of restoration to wildlife habitat can allow assessment of tradeoffs with other ecological benefits when prioritizing treatments. We predicted avian responses to simulated treatments representing alternative scenarios to inform landscape-scale forest management planning along the Colorado Front Range. We used data from the Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions program to inform a hierarchical multispecies occupancy model relating species occupancy and richness with canopy cover at two spatial scales. We then simulated changes in canopy cover (remotely sensed in 2018) under three alternative scenarios, (1) a "fuels reduction" scenario representing landscape-wide 30% reduction in canopy cover, (2) a "restoration" scenario representing more nuanced, spatially variable treatments targeting historical conditions, and (3) a reference, no-change scenario. Model predictions showed areas of potential gains and losses for species richness, richness of ponderosa pine forest habitat specialists, and the ratio of specialists to generalists at two (1 km² and 250 m² ) spatial scales. Under both fuels reduction and restoration scenarios, we projected greater gains than losses for species richness. Surprisingly, despite restoration more explicitly targeting ecologically relevant historical conditions, fuels reduction benefited bird species richness over a greater spatial extent than restoration, particularly in the lower montane life zone. These benefits reflected generally positive species associations with moderate canopy cover promoted more consistently under the fuels reduction scenario. In practice, contemporary forest management is likely to lie somewhere between the fuels reduction and restoration scenarios represented here. Therefore, our results inform where and how active forest management can best support avian diversity. Although our study raises questions regarding the value of including landscape-scale heterogeneity as a management objective, we do not question the value of targeting finer scale heterogeneity (i.e., stand and treatment level). Rather, our results combined with those from previous work clarify the scale at which targeting structural heterogeneity and historical reference conditions can promote particular ecosystem services.