 |
| Traditional forest management is often limited to maintenance or
perpetuation of existing forest cover types. This approach does not always meet
landowners' or society's best interests. Landowners and society are better
served if forest resource professionals understand ecological characteristics
of individual species and forest dynamics in the context of site quality. This
understanding enables resource managers to identify a wider range of
alternatives for meeting landowners' goals. Management based on ecological
principles is also more likely to assure forest sustainability. |
 |
| Ecological (or silvicultural) opportunity
unit |
|
| A combination of specific site type and specific forest stand (or some other definable vegetation unit). Two different kinds of stands on the same site type represent two different ecological/silvicultural opportunity units. Conversely, a single stand straddling two site types can be split into two ecological/silvicultural units. Each ecological opportunity unit offers certain management possibilities and is subject to certain limitations, due to combined factors of site quality and stand characteristics. | |
| Forest cover type | |
| A broad classification of a forest based entirely on current dominant tree species (e.g. aspen, aspen-birch, maplebasswood, oak-hickory). Cover types are consequences of disturbance history ("natural" or human-caused) and site quality. They change with time and should not be presumed to be "natural" or stable vegetation communities. | |
| Forest cover type | |
| A broad classification of a forest based entirely on current dominant tree species (e.g. aspen, aspen-birch, maplebasswood, oak-hickory). Cover types are consequences of disturbance history ("natural" or human-caused) and site quality. They change with time and should not be presumed to be "natural" or stable vegetation communities. | |
| Forest stand | |
| A stand may loosely be defined as a contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in species composition, arrangement of age classes and general condition so as to be considered a homogeneous and distinguishable unit. A stand is usually treated as a basic silvicultural unit, but it seldom represents a natural ecological unit. Its composition and structure are most strongly affected by management, other disturbances and chance factors affecting seed distribution, germination and seedling survival. | |
| Management goal | |
| Overall purpose for controlling (managing) the composition and structure of forest land. For example, to protect land from erosion; to maintain wildlife habitat; to grow wood for profit. | |
| Management objectives | |
| Defined conditions for the property or segments of property (e.g., stands or management units) that will achieve management goals. For example, maintenance of continuous forest cover may be the only objective if watershed protection is the primary goal. A mixture of deciduous and coniferous cover may be the objective for enhancing the variety of wildlife. Another objective may be to grow tree species with highest yields in order to maximize financial returns from wood production. | |
| Management plan | |
| A plan outlining the objectives for individual management units and describing steps for achieving them. Silvicultural procedures are identified in broad terms, but detailed prescriptions are developed in the field. | |
| Management unit | |
| Management objectives define management units. Stands can be managed to achieve different goals. If one or several compatible management objectives are to be pursued on a stand, then the entire stand can be considered as one management unit. If, on the other hand, two or more incompatible management objectives are selected for the same stand, the stand should be divided into separate management units based on compatible objectives. | |
| Mesic | |
| A relative term applying to moisture conditions on a site. A midpoint on a gradient from dry to wet. Considered to be favorable to the largest number of species in a particular region. | |
| Silvicultural prescriptions | |
| Specific steps prescribed to achieve specific management objectives. Examples: If the management objective is to maintain an oak component in a mixed stand, the silvicultural prescription may include opening up the forest canopy to initiate the establishment of seedlings of shade-intolerant oaks. If undesirable species are dominating the canopy and a desirable species is becoming established in the understory, the silvicultural prescription may be to remove overstory trees to release the suppressed desirable species. Thinning and planting are other examples. | |
| Site potential | |
| Collective physical resources (e.g., soil moisture, nutrients, light, heat) available for plant growth. Different potentials facilitate growth of some species and limit growth of others. Consequently, site potential has a strong effect on plant community development. | |
| Site type | |
| A portion of land characterized by specific physical properties that affect ecosystem functions and differ from other portions of land. Examples are differences in soil depth, texture or other important properties; slope aspect (e.g., north vs. south); position on the slope (e.g., upper vs. lower); or steepness. In some regions, formal site classifications have been developed, but in most instances site type differentiation and interpretation will have to be developed by individual resource professionals from available literature, maps and direct observation. | |
| Stand composition | |
| The mixture of tree species. | |
| Stand structure | |
| The complexity or arrangement of tree age/size classes. | |
| Tolerance (shade tolerance) | |
| A plant's ability to tolerate conditions under a
forest canopy. Normally thought of as tolerance to low light conditions, but
other understory conditions, such as root competition for water and nutrients,
are also factors. |
|
 |
| The author wishes to acknowledge and thank the following individuals who
contributed toward this publication: Lee F. Frelich, University of Minnesota,
contributed material for the section on forest dynamics; Craig T. Locey, USFS
State and Private Forestry, St. Paul, collaborated in the development of the
process of identifying management objectives; John Campbell, graduate student,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, produced the figures; and Melvin J. Baughman,
University of Minnesota Extension Service, handled the manuscript preparation
for printing and managed the budget. Greatly appreciated also are comments and
suggestions contributed by the following manuscript reviewers: Charles Barden,
Pennsylvania State University; Melvin Baughman; Dan Ernst, Indiana DNR; Lee
Frelich; Jerry Kemperman, Iowa DNR; Craig Locey; and Richard Peterson,
Minnesota DNR. Produced by Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension Service. Product Manager: Roxanne Madison Copy Editor: John Winzenburg Design/Layout: John Molstad |
 |
||
 |
This publication was produced in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, by the University of Minnesota Extension Service. |  |
| Find more University of Minnesota Extension Service Educational information
at www.extension.umn.edu on the
World Wide Web. This information given in this publication is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by the University of Minnesota Extension Service is implied. The University of Minnesota Extension Service is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. |
