Landscape Management

Landscapes administered for timber production by the U.S. Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest in the 1950s-1980s were managed with dispersed patch clear- cutting, and then briefly in the late 1980s with aggregated patch clear-cutting. In the late 1990s, use of historical landscape patterns and disturbance regimes as a guide for landscape management has emerged as an alternative to the static reserves and standard matrix pre- scriptions in the Northwest Forest Plan. Use of historical information to guide management recognizes the dynamic and variable character of the landscape and may offer an improved ability to meet ecosystem management objectives. We describe a landscape management plan based in part on interpretations of historical disturbance regimes. The plan contains a reserve system and other landscape areas where three distinct types of timber harvest are prescribed. Timber harvest prescriptions approx- imate the frequency, severity, and spatial extent of past fires. Future harvest blocks are mapped and used to project forest patterns 200 yr forward and to map resulting landscape structure. This plan is compared with an alternative plan for the same area based on the extensive reserves and prescriptions for matrix lands in the Northwest Forest Plan. The management approach based on historical patterns produced more late-successional habitat (71% vs. 59%), more overstory structure in young stands (overstory canopy cover of 15-50% vs. 15%), larger patches (mean patch size of 48 vs. 26 ha), and less edge between young and old forest (edge density of 19 vs. 37 m/ha). While landscape structures resulting from both plans are historically unprecedented, we feel that landscape management plans incorporating key aspects of ecosystem history and variability may pose less risk to native species and ecological processes.

Landscape management practices that alter the degree of habitat fragmentation can significantly affect the genetic structure of animal populations. British red squirrels use “stepping stone” patches of habitat to move considerable distances through a fragmented habitat. Over the past few decades, the planting of a large conifer forest has connected groups of forest fragments in the north of England with those in southern Scotland. This “defragmentation” of the landscape has resulted in substantial genetic mixing of Scottish and Cumbrian genes in squirrel populations up to 100 kilometers from the site of the new forest. These results have implications for the conservation management of animal and plant species in fragmented landscapes such as those found in Britain.

Global change (climate change together with other worldwide anthropogenic processes such as increasing trade, air pollution and urbanization) will affect plant health at the genetic, individual, population and landscape level. Direct effects include ecosystem stress due to natural resources shortage or imbalance. Indirect effects include (i) an increased frequency of natural detrimental phenomena, (ii) an increased pressure due to already present pests and diseases, (iii) the introduction of new invasive species either as a result of an improved suitability of the climatic conditions or as a result of increased trade, and (iv) the human response to global change. In this review, we provide an overview of recent studies on terrestrial plant health in the presence of global change factors. We summarize the links between climate change and some key issues in plant health, including tree mortality, changes in wildfire regimes, biological invasions and the role of genetic diversity for ecosystem resilience. Prediction and management of global change effects are complicated by interactions between globalization, climate and invasive plants and/or pathogens. We summarize practical guidelines for landscape management and draw general conclusions from an expanding body of literature.

Pre-Bronze Age human impacts on the East Mediterranean environment have been hard to detect in pollen diagrams and other off-site contexts. New evidence shows that despite a relatively rapid post-glacial wetting-up of the climate, the re-advance of oak woodland across Southwest Asia was slow. Among the factors likely to have contributed to the apparent disjunction between climate and vegetation is Neolithic landscape management, particularly through regular use of late-season ground fires to encourage grasses at the expense of trees and shrubs.

Abstract There has been little movement to systematically incorporate the study of indigenous landscape management practices into the method and theory of hunter-gatherer research in North American archaeology, despite a growing interest in this topic. The purposes of this article are twofold. One is to address why, until quite recently, archaeologists have been reluctant to engage in the current debate about the scale and ecological impact of these practices, particularly anthropogenic burning. We argue that this stems from a long tradition of viewing hunter-gatherers as passive, immediate-return foragers, as well as from the daunting methodological challenges of identifying landscape management activities using archaeological data. Our second purpose is to explore how archaeologists can make significant contributions to our understanding of past resource management practices through the creation of new kinds of collaborative, interdisciplinary eco-archaeological programs. Based on the current work of scholars in archaeological and environmental disciplines, as well as on our own implementation of such an approach in central California, we discuss the importance of maintaining mutual relationships with local tribes, the challenges of coordinating multiple data sets, and the process of rethinking our analytical methods and temporal scales for undertaking hunter-gatherer studies.

Biogas production from grassland biomass harvested during landscape management may help to maintain species-rich grassland biotopes, but extensive management and late harvests often result in low-quality biomass. Biogas production from the vegetation of Alopecuretum pratensis, Molinietum caeruleae and Caricetum gracilis, three typical grassland biotopes in north German nature reserves, was investigated in relation to harvest date. In addition, the A. pratensis vegetation was investigated for ensiling and the application of bacterial silage additives. Results indicate that biogas production might be a reasonable utilization pathway for grassland biomass from landscape management if the first cut occurs up to late summer. Methane yields of grassland biomass decreased substantially with later harvest, from up to 309 lN kg−1 organic dry matter (ODM) in May to below 60 lN kg−1 ODM in February, in correlation with increasing crude fibre contents. Caricetum gracilis vegetation was the least suitable feedstock for biogas production. It showed a rapid decline in methane yields with later harvest and 25% lower methane yields compared with other types of grassland vegetation. Application of silage additives is recommended for adequate preservation of grassland biomass from landscape management by ensiling. Addition of homofermentative lactic acid bacteria improved acidification during ensiling if sufficient fermentable sugar was available. The use of inoculant and molasses enhanced methane yields by 3–55%. Additional carbohydrate source is necessary to ensure proper ensilage when grasses are harvested after late autumn.

This article identifies three interrelated challenges concerning the ecosystem services (ES) framework and the nature of landscape dynamics within the context of landscape management. These challenges are set within a problematic externalization of nature inherent in the ES framework. The first challenge concerns the lack of compatibility between the ES framework and the logics of landscapes. The second challenge addresses the complexity of ecosystems, unsubstitutable values, and intangible dimensions in economic valuation when applied to landscapes. The third challenge points at how the ES framework has problems in accounting for how and why sociocultural processes are crucial to environmental attitudes and behavior. We argue that the idea of landscape and its inherent landscape dynamics, a crosscutting dimension of these challenges, is a missed opportunity for the ES framework in order to take immeasurable and context-specific social and cultural processes more seriously and consequently deliver sounder advice on landscape management. We thus make a plea for the importance of creating platforms for dialogue across research communities working to improve the understanding of human–nature dynamics.

The relationship between farming and landscape is a topical and disputed issue – in academia, among policy analysts and between policy makers and involved citizens. At a general level, agriculture affects most rural landscapes, and when agriculture changes, landscapes change, often with great implications for biodiversity, cultural heritage, recreation and other functions. The farmer is the key agent concerning landscape management decisions and practices, and the landscape is managed through three roles. As producers of food, fibre and energy, farmers affect landscape processes and structures through the production practices applied. In this respect, farmers usually consider themselves and their colleagues as skilful and professional producers. As owners of farm properties, farmers take more long-term decisions concerning overall land uses and buildings, and owners are legally responsible for landscape changes more often than producers. When land is leased, producers and owners are two different agents, and when large cooperations are running the farm, the ‘owner’ dimension may be of limited significance. Finally, farmers are also members of local communities in which they may participate in collective landscape projects. In addition, farmers may also in their individual choices and practices include concerns for neighbours. Farmers may therefore also manage the local landscape in the role as citizens. A growing number of public policy measures are affecting farmers' landscape management with all three roles being of relevance. In these policies, however, farmers are often seen solely in their role as producers implying that they may be targeted inappropriately, because their management practices and the motives behind are interpreted too narrowly, and opportunities for more effective policies may therefore be missed.

Maintaining and enhancing the richness of public landscape is both a challenge and an opportunity for contemporary landscape professionals, especially at a time of declining resources. This book has been written for use by students and practitioners of the wide range of disciplines involved in some way in the landscape. Accordingly, some of the content is descriptive and addresses the means by which various aspects of landscape management can be carried out most effectively. This is supplemented by a more philosophical discussion on why certain courses of action are or are not undertaken. Whilst the book is concerned primarily with landscape management, rather than design, wherever possible management is set in a context of consideration for the aesthetic values of the urban landscape. Throughout the book the author reinforces his view that the management of the urban landscape can only be carried out satisfactorily through an integrated approach amongst the key disciplines involved. It is necessary that these disciplines see one another not as threats but as equal partners with complementary skills and knowledge. The book is divided into four main areas dealing with: the underlying principles of landscape management; the establishment and management of urban vegetation, including equipment; the management of trees, woody plants and turf, as well as colour in the landscape and roof gardens; and the management of landscape systems, including natural, semi-natural, cultural heritage, coastal, road corridor and children's play landscapes.

Forest Landscape Management Plan (FLMP) is intended to have an intermediate role between forest management plans on a regional level and forest management on a unit level. FLMP addresses long-term management issues, with special attention to social and environmental functions, normally not meticulously considered when working on a single forest property level. This paper presents a method to evaluate forest multifunctionality, in order to define man agement guidelines and support forest planning. A FLMP was conducted in a district of the Basilicata region (Italy). A total of 92 inventory plots comprising the main forest types: i) turkey oak, Hungarian oak, and sessile oak forests (Quercus cerris L. dominant), ii) downy oak forests (Quercus pubescens Willd. dominant), iii) Mediterranean evergreen oak forests (Quercus ilex L. dominant), were considered. Technicians evaluated the multifunctionality of each area by estimating — in the context of an Index of Importance of Function (I) — the capacity of each forest to fulfil different functions. The index was successively aggregated according to forest type and forest system (high forest and coppice). The results showed that the higher level of multifunctionality was found in the high forests. According to the synthetic indicators of multifunctionality, the turkey oak forests obtained the highest values among all forest types. The last part of the paper illustrates an approach to multi-functional forest management, analysing how different silvicultural systems are able to fulfil the main forest functions. This method, as shown in the results, seems to provide a useful support for technicians to evaluate multifunctionality related to forest types and different silvicultural treatments.