Abstract

Forest vegetation management has evolved as a recognized component of intensive forest management practice. It involves the management of competing vegetation necessary to obtain the high yields expected in modern forest plantations via control of interfering plants that influence regeneration outcome, impact timber stand development, and limit native plant and wildlife diversity. It includes cultural control, fire control, mechanical control, biological control, and chemical control. The public perception of forest vegetation management, especially chemical control, is sometimes negative due to health and environmental concerns. It is an important tool in the forest management alternatives available to consulting foresters managing family forest lands (the vast majority of private forest land in the United States). We report on a study that addresses the motivations of family forest owners that implement forest vegetation management practices and the motivation of those who chose not to implement after forester recommendations to do so. For those who do implement forest vegetation management, improvement of wildlife habitat and increased timber growth was the main motivation. For those who did not, cost was the main concern. Size of forest holding plays a major role in determining who will practice intensive forestry.

Highlights

  • The evolution of forest vegetation management (FVM) as a recognized component of intensive forest management practice was described by Wagner et al (2006)

  • FVM involves the management of competing vegetation necessary to obtain the high yields expected in modern forest plantations

  • FVM is not just one practice, but an integrated series of practices (Jackson & Finley, 2011; Wiensczyk et al, 2011). It can include cultural control, fire control, mechanical control, biological control, and chemical control

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The evolution of forest vegetation management (FVM) as a recognized component of intensive forest management practice was described by Wagner et al (2006). Within North America, the southern US has attempted to develop competitive advantages in the international timber market with a focus on intensive high-yield forestry and strong support for the use of herbicides as necessary for effective FVM (McCormack, 1994). The relationship of consulting forestry being a very strong secondary source of forest management advice held across both biophysical and sociopolitical issues consistently in terms of area and nearly always in terms of owners. If state agencies are separated out, forestry consultants are the number one forest management advice source in dealing with endangered species, lawsuits, regulations for timber harvesting, and timber theft issues. Six motivations for not implementing FVM were developed: 1) not cost effective, 2) pollution, 3) too early in rotation, 4) never implemented control before, 5) short holding, and 6) not intensely managed

Results and Discussion
Motivation Wildlife habitat Timber growth
Motivation Cost
Implications and Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call