Recommendations for Integrating Restoration Ecology and Conservation Biology in Ponderosa Pine Forests of the Southwestern United States
Open accessAbstract
Over the past century, ponderosa pine–dominated landscapes of the southwestern United States have been altered by human activities such as grazing, timber harvest, road building, and fire exclusion. Most forested areas within these landscapes now show increased susceptibility to stand‐replacing fires, insect outbreaks, and drought‐related mortality. Recent large wildfires in the region have spurred public interest in large‐scale fuel reduction and restoration programs, which create perceived and real conflicts with the conservation of biodiversity. Conservation concerns include the potential for larger road networks, soil and understory disturbance, exotic plant invasion, and the removal of large trees in treated areas. Pursuing prescribed burning, thinning, or other treatments on the broad scale that many scientists and managers envision requires the reconciliation of ecological restoration with biodiversity conservation. This study presents recommendations from a workshop for integrating the principles and practices of restoration ecology and conservation biology, toward the objective of restoring the composition, structure, and function of dry ponderosa pine forests. Planning on the scale of hundreds of thousands of hectares offers opportunities to achieve multiple objectives (e.g., rare species protection and restoration of ecological structures and processes) that cannot easily be addressed on a site‐by‐site basis. However, restoration must be coordinated with conservation planning to achieve mutual objectives and should include strict guidelines for protection of rare, declining, and sensitive habitats and species.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Under certain conditions wildland fire can promote significant ecological benefits and reduce the risk that high intensity fires will spread to areas of high value into the future.
“Under certain conditions wildland fire can promote significant ecological benefits and reduce the risk that high intensity fires will spread to areas of high value into the future (Noss et al. 2006).”
From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as Noss et al. 2006
There is general scientific agreement that fuel loading and stand density have reduced the resilience of dry frequent fire pine forests by making them more susceptible to wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks.
“There is general scientific agreement that fuel loading and stand density have reduced the resilience of these forests by making them more susceptible to wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks (Allen et al. 2002;Hessburg et al. 2005;Noss et al. 2006).”
From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as Noss et al. 2006
Cites
Effects of Invasive Alien Plants on Fire Regimes
BROOKS, M. L., D'ANTONIO, C. M., RICHARDSON, D. M., GRACE, J. B., KEELEY, J. E., DiTOMASO, J. M., HOBBS, R. J., PELLANT, M., & PYKE, D. (2004) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0677:eoiapo]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,634 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Intervention Ecology: Applying Ecological Science in the Twenty-first Century
Hobbs, R. J., Hallett, L. M., Ehrlich, P. R., & Mooney, H. A. (2011) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.6 · Cited by 417 · see citing works
Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management
Calkin, D. E., Thompson, M. P., & Finney, M. A. (2015) · Forest Ecosystems · doi:10.1186/s40663-015-0033-8 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
Driscoll, D. A., Lindenmayer, D. B., Bennett, A. F., Bode, M., Bradstock, R. A., Cary, G. J., Clarke, M. F., Dexter, N., Fensham, R., Friend, G., et al. (2010) · Conservation Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1755-263x.2010.00115.x · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Noss, R. F., Beier, P., Wallace Covington, W., Edward Grumbine, R., Lindenmayer, D. B., Prather, J. W., Schmiegelow, F., Sisk, T. D., & Vosick, D. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Central Florida (US)
- Northern Arizona University (US)
- Australian National University (AU)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Noss, Reed F.
- Venue
- Restoration Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-02-03
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-10
- ISSN
- 1061-2971 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-100X
- OpenAlex
- W2111312941
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 9.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Restoration Ecology (publishedVersion)
- Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Keywords
- ponderosa pine forests, conservation biology, prescribed burning, forest thinning, fire suppression, stand-replacing fire, biodiversity conservation, conservation planning, exotic plant invasion, southwestern United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review