Posttreatment Tree Mortality After Forest Ecological Restoration,Arizona, United States

Pine–oak forests are of high ecological importance worldwide, but many are threatened by uncharacteristically severe wildfire. Forest restoration treatments, including the reintroduction of a surface fire regime, are intended to decrease fire hazard and emulate historic ecosystem structure and function. Restoration has recently received much management attention and short-term study, but little is known about longer-term ecosystem responses. We remeasured a replicated experimental restoration site in the southwestern United States 5 years after treatments. Basal area, tree density, and canopy cover decreased in the treated units at a faster rate than in controls. Delayed mortality, not evident right after treatment, decreased density modestly (13% in treated units and 10% in controls) but disproportionately affected large trees (“large” ponderosa pines were those with diameter at breast height [dbh] ≥37.5 cm; other species dbh ≥20 cm). In treated units, 10.9 large trees ha^–1 died, whereas 6.2 trees ha^–1 died in control units. Compared with reference conditions, the experimental blocks remained higher in pine density and, in three of the four blocks, in basal area. Pine trees grew significantly faster in treated units than in controls, enough to reach the reference level of basal area in 6 years. Although mortality of large trees is a concern, the treated units have vigorous growth and low density, indicating that they will be relatively resistant to future drought and fire events. Similar treatments may be beneficial in many areas of the United States and in related pine-oak ecosystems elsewhere.     

Wilderness forms and their implications for global environmental policy and conservation

With the intention of securing industry-free land and seascapes, protecting wilderness entered international policy as a formal target for the first time in the zero draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Given this increased prominence in international policy, it is timely to consider the extent to which the construct of wilderness supports global conservation objectives. We evaluated the construct by overlaying recently updated cumulative human pressure maps that offer a global-scale delineation of industry-free land as wilderness with maps of carbon stock, species richness, and ground travel time from urban centers. Wilderness areas took variable forms in relation to carbon stock, species richness, and proximity to urban centers, where 10% of wilderness areas represented high carbon and species richness, 20% low carbon and species richness, and 3% high levels of remoteness (>48 h), carbon, and species richness. Approximately 35% of all remaining wilderness in 2013 was accessible in <24 h of travel time from urban centers. Although the construct of wilderness can be used to secure benefits in specific contexts, its application in conservation must account for contextual and social implications. The diverse characterization of wilderness under a global environmental conservation lens shows that a nuanced framing and application of the construct is needed to improve understanding, communication, and retention of its variable forms as industry-free places.     

Mitigation translocation as a management tool

Mitigation translocation is a subgroup of conservation translocation, categorized by a crisis-responsive time frame and the immediate goal of relocating individuals threatened with death. However, the relative successes of conservation translocations with longer time frames and broader metapopulation- and ecosystem-level considerations have been used to justify the continued implementation of mitigation translocations without adequate post hoc monitoring to confirm their effectiveness as a conservation tool. Mitigation translocations now outnumber other conservation translocations, and understanding the effectiveness of mitigation translocations is critical given limited global conservation funding especially if the mitigation translocations undermine biodiversity conservation by failing to save individuals. We assessed the effectiveness of mitigation translocations by conducting a quantitative review of the global literature. A total of 59 mitigation translocations were reviewed for their adherence to the adaptive scientific approach expected of other conservation translocations and for the testing of management options to continue improving techniques for the future. We found that mitigation translocations have not achieved their potential as an effective applied science. Most translocations focused predominantly on population establishment- and persistence-level questions, as is often seen in translocations more broadly, and less on metapopulation and ecosystem outcomes. Questions regarding the long-term impacts to the recipient ecosystem (12% of articles) and the carrying capacity of translocation sites (24% of articles) were addressed least often, despite these factors being more likely to influence ultimate success. Less than half (47%) of studies included comparison of different management techniques to facilitate practitioners selecting the most effective management actions for the future. To align mitigation translocations with the relative success of other conservation translocations, it is critical that future mitigation translocations conform to an established experimental approach to improve their effectiveness. Effective mitigation translocations will require significantly greater investment of time, expertise, and resources in the future.