References and Resources
1. Standiford, R.B., Giusti, G. A., Valachovic, Y., Zielinski, W.J., Furniss, M.J. (2007). Proceedings of the Redwood Region forest Science Symposium: What Does the Future Hold? PSW-GTR-194. Albany CA. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr194/.
A comprehensive report describing the proceedings of the Redwood Region Forest Science Symposium. Topics discussed include: wildfire, erosion, forest policy and management, issues pertaining to watershed health, genetic regeneration of redwoods, and silvicultural practices.
2. Stoddard, J. L., Larsen, D. P., Hawkins, C. P., Johnson, R. K., & Norris, R. H. (2006). Setting Expectations for the Ecological Condition of Streams: the Concept of Reference Condition. Ecological Applications, 16(4), 1267–1276. http://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1267:SEFTEC]2.0.CO;2.
This article addresses the concept of “reference condition” a concept often used in biological assessments. The authors describe the importance of this concept, however recognize that this concept is relatively broad and difficult to quantify since it refers to a state in which there is no human disturbance or alterations. The authors further propose other specific terms that can be used for assessing an ecological state. These conditions are referred to as: “minimally disturbed condition” (MDC); “historical condition” (HC); “least disturbed condition” (LDC); and “best attainable condition” (BAC).
3. Technical Notes on Implementation of the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators (2009) Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests. Third Edition. http://www.conaf.cl/Proceso-Montreal/Technical%20notes.pdf
4. Thorne, J.H., R.M. Boynton, A.J. Holguin, J.A.E. Stewart, & J. Bjorkman. (2016). A climate change vulnerability assessment of California’s terrestrial vegetation. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Sacramento, CA.https://lccnetwork.org/resource/climate-change-vulnerability-assessment-californias-terrestrial-vegetation
This document provides a comprehensive assessment of vegetation vulnerability to climate change across California. It describes and compares four distinct general circulation models (GCM), and associate climate projections, and highlights the level of exposure of different vegetation types across the state. From the 29 vegetation communities found in the state, 16 are predicted to be highly vulnerable to future changes in climate. This document is useful when preparing long term management strategies, and can reveal key information in the process of identifying vulnerable vegetation types.
5. The Nature Conservancy (2006). Historical Range of Variation and State and Transition Modeling of Historic and Current Landscape Conditions for Potential Natural Vegetation Types of the Southwest. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fswdev7_018534.pdf.
This document discusses the historical range of variation (HRV) of different vegetation types. This concept is often used when looking at methods to assess the current state of ecosystems and evaluate the outcomes of management actions. Issues pertaining to: fire management, anthropogenic disturbances, and ecological processes for Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland are discussed.
6. Technical Notes on Implementation of the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators (2009) Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests. Third Edition. http://www.conaf.cl/Proceso-Montreal/Technical%20notes.pdf
This document identifies the forest ecological indicators defined in the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators. This document is helpful when creating an assessment of forest health and identifying explicit indicators to evaluate the ecological condition of a forested ecosystem. Specific consideration to biological diversity is given. A number of indicators are defined, along with a description of potential approaches for measurement of the proposed indicators.
7. USDA Forest Service (2005). Forest Health Indicators. Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/program-features/indicators/.
This webpage is a good resource with illustrations and examples of forest health indicators as defined by the Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program.
8. Stolte, K., Conkling, B., Campbell, S., & Gillespie, A. (2002). Forest health indicators. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1–13. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/Forest_Health_Indicators.pdf
This document provides a comprehensive overview of forest health indicators. It describes what is an indicator, why it is important and defines different methods of measuring forest health indicators.
9. Yearsley, H.K., Parminter, J. (1998). Seral Stages across Forested Landscapes: Relationships to Biodiversity. Management. Extension Note 18. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/En/En18.pdf
This document describes different seral stages and ecological succession in forested ecosystems, along with changes in ecosystem attributes following the transition from one stage to another. Elements tied to biodiversity, disturbance, succession, and changes in ecosystems dynamics are discusses.