The 2000
Forest Research Laboratory
Biennial Report
N
O
I
T
HAL SALWASSER DIRECTOR
ROGER ADMIRAL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
THOMAS MCLAIN DEPARTMENT HEAD, FOREST PRODUCTS
W. THOMAS ADAMS DEPARTMENT HEAD, FOREST SCIENCE
S
T
R
A
BART THIELGES ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
I
STEVEN D. TESCH DEPARTMENT HEAD, FOREST ENGINEERING
A
D
M
I
N
JOHN WALSTAD DEPARTMENT HEAD, FOREST RESOURCES
S
T
E
N
RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH ............................................. 56
T
THE FRL—ENHANCING STEWARDSHIP ................................ 5
N
FROM THE DIRECTOR ...................................................... 4
O
RESEARCH EXPENDITURES BY FUNDING SOURCE ................... 57
FORESTRY-RELATED PUBLICATIONS ................................... 108
C
FORESTRY PUBLICATIONS ................................................ 58
O
E
L
B
A
FRL ADVISORY COMMITTEE .......................................... 120
T
SHORT COURSES AND WORKSHOPS ............................... 117
F
AUDIOVISUAL PROGRAMS ............................................. 114
R
FROM
THE
DIRECTOR
O
WORKING
TOWARD STEWARDSHIP:
T
THE FOREST RESEARCH LABORATORY
WORKS FOR OREGON
The Forest Research Laboratory at Oregon State
C
University has a long-standing tradition of research to support good forest stewardship. For 60 years, since it was
E
established by the Oregon State Legislature in 1941, the
FRL has pursued a wide-ranging research program directed at overcoming the challenges
that stand in the way of taking good care of Oregon’s forests.
R
In the 1940s and 1950s, as Oregon moved out of the dry Depression years, a big
challenge was the presence of vast acres of burned-over forest land. One of the FRL’s earli-
I
est projects was to provide research and technological support for the reforestation of the
Tillamook Burn. The success of that reforestation is evident in the vigorous young forest
now growing across the rugged Coast Range landscape.
D
The target of our research has broadened over the years. Forestry problems have grown
in complexity. The focus has shifted from the productivity of a single, big resource—the
timber—to an enhanced understanding of the relationships among the many resources of
Oregon’s forests.
The challenges are many. How shall we thin insect-damaged trees to reduce fuels in
E
dry east-side forests? How shall we grow forests in a way that helps them soak up excess
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? How do we know how our management activities
will affect the forest decades into the future? How can we use our wood resource in the
H
most efficient, least wasteful way? How can we reach out to sometimes-warring constituents and help them reach agreement on tough forest-management questions?
As you will see from the profiles in this book, our researchers are pursuing answers to
T
these questions and more. Their work helps Oregon’s forest landowners, policymakers,
and citizens work toward sustainable stewardship of our forests now and in the future.
The research summaries in this report tell of some of the exciting things our scientists
are doing. I hope you’ll enjoy reading them, and I hope you’ll also take a look at the long
list of research publications. The depth and breadth of this published research is a testi-
M
mony to the rigor and relevance of FRL science.
If you’d like your own copy of this report, I’d be delighted to send you one. Please get
in touch with the Forestry Communications Group, (541) 737-4271, or visit our Web site
O
at www://cof.orst.edu/cof/pubs/home/structur/indorpub.htm. Many of the research papers themselves also are available through our searchable database.
The challenges to good forest stewardship are many. But the FRL’s commitment to
F
R
solving problems and serving Oregon through sound forestry research remains the same.
Hal Salwasser
Director, Forest Research Laboratory
THE FRL—
ENHANCING STEWARDSHIP
The word “stewardship” is commonly proposed as a model of the
human relationship with nature. The word is often invoked to mark out a
middle ground between the extremes of unchecked exploitation and unheeding preservation. It is a large middle ground, and people sometimes
have different ideas about where its boundaries lie. Still, researchers at
the OSU College of Forestry and the Forest Research Laboratory (FRL)
think stewardship is a principle worth upholding.
This report showcases the ongoing contributions to stewardship of
more than a dozen scientists at the College of Forestry and the FRL, the
College’s state-mandated research arm. Before we tell their stories, it
might be helpful to look back at what “stewardship” originally meant.
The dictionary traces the word to medieval times in England. “Steward” derives from the Old English words “stig,” meaning enclosure or
hall (our word “sty,” as in “pigsty,” comes from the same root), and
“weard,” meaning someone who guards or looks after.
The word originated during a time when most people in Europe lived
and toiled on large estates, under the protection and care (not always of
the highest quality) of the feudal lords who owned and managed these
estates. The chief steward of such an estate would be a trusted servant of
the lord, one who had the responsibility for the smooth running of the
entire estate.
Good stewardship required knowledge, first of all. The steward had
to know how to grow rye, how to breed sheep, how to store turnips, how
to keep the books. It also required a sense of responsibility. A steward was
responsible not only for the continued care of the land, not only for the
productivity of crops and livestock, but also for the well being of the
people whose livelihood depended on the estate’s continued prosperity.
Thus the principle of stewardship implies both knowledge and responsibility. It’s a principle that is even more important today. We no
longer live in medieval times. Our estate is the whole Earth, and that
makes our stewardship responsibility a heavy one indeed.
5
Scientists of the FRL contribute in many ways to the knowledge that
good stewardship demands. They also, in their work and in their lives,
exemplify a keenly felt responsibility for taking care of the Earth’s resources.
In this report you will read of the work of K. Norman Johnson, Pete
Bettinger, John Sessions, and Michael Wing, whose detailed and layered
mapping and modeling of Oregon’s forest lands makes it possible to take
care of the forest resource today and long into the future, for the well
being of our children and grandchildren.
You will learn how John Garland’s experiments with synthetic-fiber
rope and other harvesting innovations are taking care of workers by making the woods safer for those who harvest trees. You will read about the
efforts of Charles Brunner and Jim Funck to improve the utilization of
small logs, and Loren Kellogg’s work on efficient and environmentally
benign harvesting of these logs. You’ll learn about Darrell Ross’s work on
managing bark beetles with pheromones. All these researchers are helping owners take care of insect-damaged forests.
You’ll read about John Simonsen’s and Phil Humphrey’s work in engineering wood into brand-new materials— helping safeguard the forest
resource by enhancing the performance of wood and thereby stretching
the wood supply. You’ll read about Barbara Gartner’s investigations into
the cell-level processes of trees, which may lead to ways to cultivate wood
with better structural properties and thus help improve performance and
reduce waste.
You’ll see how Bruce Shindler and John Bliss are, through their socialscience research, helping policymakers take care of those who own and
work on the land, as well as those who are affected by how it is managed.
You will learn now Mark Harmon and Jim Wilson are, in a diversity of
research projects, helping citizens take care of the whole Earth by contributing to solutions for the problem of global warming. And you’ll meet
Jim Boyle, whose work on planted forests makes a strong case that these
forests are essential for global forest sustainability.
6
These scientists are all working toward the good stewardship of
Oregon’s forest resource today, but that is only the beginning. We believe
their ongoing work is crucial to the continued well being of our natural
resources and our human resources, here and around the world, now
and in the years to come.
PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER
“The strength of the CLAMS approach
is that it enables people to see that
the future they will experience will be
the consequence of choices they
make today.”
F
orests represent a complicated web
of links among biophysical processes
and human actions. Managers are increasingly trying to understand how their decisions will ripple across the landscape, and how
they will influence the forest over time.
Such understanding requires a detailed and
deep set of data about a particular landscape—a
richness of information that, before the advent K. Norman Johnson explains a
CLAMS map.
of satellite imaging and high-powered computers, was simply not available.
Five years ago, a partnership between Oregon State University, the USDA
Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, and the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) was formed to launch CLAMS (Coastal Landscape
Analysis and Modeling Study), an ambitious project to compile information about Coast Range forests into a deep, layered, and finely resolved
database.
The CLAMS database is nearing completion. Researchers are running the
data through computer simulations to determine how various management strategies might play out in Coast Range watersheds over the next 100 years.
The computer-simulated outcomes are shown in detailed (and beautiful) maps of how the landscape will appear at various points in the future—
how much forest of differing ages there will be, and how its condition and
distribution will affect wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and the
economic well being of Coast Range communities.
The CLAMS database, says K. Norman Johnson, is a powerful tool for
showing policymakers and the public what the forests of the Coast Range
might look like at various points in the future if certain management choices
are set into motion today.
7
8
“These maps seem to draw people into the analysis,” says Johnson, professor in the Department of Forest Resources and a lead researcher with
CLAMS. “People can picture themselves in the landscape and envision what
the outcomes of various policies might be. That makes the maps a great tool
for joint learning.”
With its rugged topography, dynamic history of natural disturbance,
diverse ownership patterns, and disparate effects of past land management,
the Coast Range is about as varied as a landscape can be. “We’ve had some
practice at projecting the outcomes of various management strategies for
the whole landscape, but only in the aggregate,” says Johnson. “Now we
have the capability of simulating the spatial distribution of these activities
across the forested landscape, and we can project what our forests might
look like in the future in the different watersheds, mountains, and valleys
that make up the Coast Range.”
CLAMS’s co-leaders are Johnson and Tom Spies, a research ecologist
with the Pacific Northwest Research Station. Johnson and his Forest Resources colleagues Pete Bettinger, Becky Johnson, Jonathan Brooks, and Alissa
Moses, and Forest Science colleagues Rob Pabst and Steve Garman, are the
CLAMS team members from the College of Forestry. Forest Service partners include Gordon Reeves, Gordon Grant, Janet Ohmann, Kelly Burnett,
Mike McGrath, David Boughton, and Mike Wimberly. Gary Lettman, an
economist, and Andrew Herstrom, a GIS analyst, are team members from
the Oregon Department of Forestry.
Creating the database was a painstaking process. The Coast Range modeling area covers 7.7 million acres of ridges, slopes, hillsides, and valleys
stretching from Astoria to Port Orford and from the ocean to the Willamette
Valley margin.
The researchers began by dividing the landscape into parcels averaging
25 acres in size. The parcels are not identical squares in a grid, however.
They are delineated within each watershed according to the land’s contours,
and their irregularity of size and shape captures more closely the similarities
and differences of the land’s features.
Using GIS and satellite imagery, Janet Ohmann and Matt Gregory
(OSU) developed a vegetation map that Jonathan Brooks and Andrew
Herstrom used to develop the parcel layer. They overlaid the parcel map
and vegetation layer with boundaries representing ownership of Federal,
State, forest industry, and nonindustrial private forest lands.
Then the researchers made the resolution even finer. Pixels of 25 square
meters—the smallest unit of resolution possible with satellite images—were
grouped together according to shared characteristics, such as slope of the
ground, distance from a stream, and cover of vegetation.
These grouped patches range from a single pixel to several acres in size, but
their average size is about two-thirds of an acre. The patches are the “basic simulation units,” or BSUs, of the CLAMS computer-simulation process. It is the
changes in these BSUs that are tracked through the computer simulation.
The researchers also entered information about how Coast Range forest
lands had been managed in the past, and how owners and managers intend
to manage it now and in the future. This information was developed from
landowner surveys conducted by the Oregon Department of Forestry.
To simulate various potential futures, Johnson, Bettinger, and their colleagues feed into the computer information associated with a variety of
management scenarios. What are the management objectives of each owner
class? What does it cost to do a precommercial thinning? A commercial
thinning? A clearcut harvest? What price will the owner likely get for the
logs? Which lands have been harvested recently, and so are not expected to
be harvested again for a while? Which lands are withdrawn from harvest, or
restricted in some way?
Projecting changes in these attributes over time, the model produces a
detailed report and a set of maps of how the landscape will change decade
by decade. These maps show where the forests will lie on the ground, how
old the trees will be, and how much timber the land will yield. The maps
also facilitate an understanding of how wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities will be affected in different locations. The wildlife portion of
the model includes information on the western bluebird, pileated woodpecker, marbled murrelet, spotted owl, and elk.
One set of simulations shows what Coast Range forest cover looks like
today and should look like in 50 and 100 years, if forest owners continue to
manage their forests as they are managing today, or as they have indicated
they intend to manage in the future. This simulation assumes that federal
matrix lands (those available for harvest under the Northwest Forest Plan)
will continue to be harvested at a rate of no more than 1 percent per year in
each large watershed (5,000 to 50,000 acres) and that late-successional reserves will receive some selective thinning.
The simulation assumes that State lands will be managed with thinning
and clearcut harvests with the goal of achieving a full distribution of forest
structures within each large watershed. It also assumes that industrial landowners will continue to harvest by clearcut and thinning methods to achieve
an even flow of timber over time, with rotations averaging 50 years.
9
The maps show an increasing divergence between the forest condition
on public and private land, with the recent policies on public land focusing
on growing older, multi-structured forest, and those on private land focusing on growing and harvesting younger forest.
“The strength of the CLAMS approach,” says
Johnson “is that it enables people to see that the future
Total Vegetation Cover <70%
they will experience will be the consequence of choices
Shadow
they make today. It helps people see and think in wholeCloud
Water
landscape terms, and it gives them a common reference
Non-forested
point for talking through sometimes-conflicting viewOpen (0-40% vegetation cover)
Semi-closed (41-70% vegetation cover)
points. Most importantly, it engages the communities
Regeneration harvest
of Oregon—all of us—in envisioning our future.”
Open (0-40% vegetation cover)
Semi-closed (41-70% vegetation cover)
Total Vegetation Cover >70%
Broadleaf (>70% broadleaf)
Mixed (>70% broadleaf)
0-25 cm conifer DBH
26-50 cm conifer DBH
51-75 cm conifer DBH
>75 cm conifer DBH
Conifer (>70% conifer)
0-25 cm conifer DBH
26-50 cm conifer DBH
51-75 cm conifer DBH
>75 cm conifer DBH
10
2000
2050
2100
BUILDING A FOREST: LOOKING
TWO HUNDRED YEARS AHEAD
“Nobody assumes you’re seeing the
future perfectly, but you can use the
analysis to make a relative comparison among alternatives.”
A
tree planted today may take 100
years to grow to maturity. John
Sessions, a professor in the Department of Forest Engineering, says, “Foresters
routinely look 100 to 200 years into the future. Other businesses look 20 to 50 years ahead
at most.”
When the Oregon Department of Forestry
wanted to analyze the long-term effects of their John Seessions looks into the future.
draft management plan for the northwest Oregon State Forests—over 600,000 acres that includes the Tillamook and
Clatsop State Forests—the agency asked Sessions to help.
In the early to mid-twentieth century, much of northwest Oregon’s State
forest lands, then privately owned, had been burned by huge wildfires or
logged without replanting. Many acres of these lands had defaulted to Oregon counties for nonpayment of taxes. The counties agreed to let the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) reforest and manage the lands, and in
return, the counties would receive most of the revenues when the trees were
large enough to harvest.
Starting in the 1950s, ODF, replanted and reseeded these forests and
turned the burned or logged-over landscape into a growing forest. Today,
40- to 60-year-old, densely stocked stands of mostly Douglas-fir cover about
70 percent of northwestern Oregon State Forests. The remaining land is
covered by forest stands of other ages.
The Board of Forestry gave ODF the challenging task of developing a
new management plan for these State Forests. To meet policy direction,
ODF must manage the State Forests to provide habitat for threatened species such as the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and several salmon
species, as well as more than 100 other wildlife species.To provide a full
11
12
range of social and economic benefits, the agency also must produce timber
from the forests and manage for recreation. Finally, the agency must manage the forests sustainably, so that the northwest Oregon State Forests will
provide wildlife habitat, clean water, recreation, and timber over the decades and centuries to come.
In partnership with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, ODF
developed an integrated management approach to meet all these goals. Their
approach is called structure-based management (SBM).
The old timber management approach looked at trees mainly as a future supply of lumber. This planning team looked at the way trees build a
forest. Trees give structure to a forest. The structure varies depending on the
sizes, ages, and species of trees, the number of snags and fallen trees, and the
types of shrubs and plants present. A healthy forest is a dynamic mosaic of
structures. These structures and their changing patterns make a forest what
it is.
The planning team’s goal was to grow half of the northwestern State
Forests into the two more-complex types of forest structures, known as “layered” and “older forest structure” types, as quickly as possible, in just a few
decades.
Would SBM work? The team turned to Sessions, who has developed
several computer models that analyze the short- and long-term consequences
of forest management actions.
Sessions developed a unique computer model designed specifically for
the northwest State Forests. For the analysis, planning team members divided these forests into 23,000 stands. The stands were further subdivided
into 131,000 smaller parcels, with separate parcels for riparian zones and
variations within the stands.
The next step was to use the computer model to simulate the management activities. For example, foresters could thin a 50-year-old stand of
trees, removing some trees and allowing the remaining ones to grow bigger.
Years later, the stands could be harvested for timber. After final harvest, the
area would be planted with new trees, and as these trees grew, thinning
decisions could be made again.
Working with College of Forestry graduate student Jeff Hamann and
ODF staff, Sessions entered 55 different thinning regimes, or pathways,
into the computer model, and 15 to 20 final harvest possibilities, varying by
the structure and age of the stand, the land allocation, and the type of harvest. The computer model then analyzed the possible decisions that could
be made to reach the SBM goals. For each of the 131,000 parcels, one of the
55 possible pathways was picked for the existing stand, along with the final
harvest age. After the final harvest, the stand could go down any one of the
55 pathways again. The model looked at the effects by decade for 200 years.
“On some stands you have potentially more than a million choices over
the next 200 years,” Sessions explains. Multiply the million choices by the
total number of stands, and the number of possibilities became almost astronomical just for one alternative. The team wanted to analyze seven alternatives.
Sessions began his work with the Oregon Department of Forestry in
November 1999. His computer model was able to analyze the seven alternatives and show the differences among them. “Nobody assumes you’re seeing
the future perfectly,” Sessions explains, “but you can use the analysis to
make a relative comparison among alternatives.” The team made their initial presentations to the Board of Forestry in March 2000, and the final
presentations in May 2000.
Sessions points out that the computer model does not replace on-theground fieldwork. Forest managers will still go out in the forest, collect data,
and make decisions. They will regularly monitor what actually happens on
the forest. The computer model gives some idea of the long-term consequences of a course of action. But even with all its data, the model is not
comprehensive. It is only a simulation. Unpredictable changes occur, such as
fires, windstorms, and most unpredictable of all, changing human values.
The Board of Forestry began the process to adopt the Northwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan as an administrative rule on September 6, 2000. After public review, the plan was approved in January 2001,
and SBM became the new management direction for Oregon’s northwest
State Forests.
Sessions’s computer analysis helped the planning team understand the
cumulative effects of their plan. The team looked 200 years ahead and was
able to say with more confidence that structure-based management would
produce a healthy, sustainable forest.
“Stewardship is strongly associated with sustainability,” Sessions says.
“It means sustainability of forest structures and forest conditions, and also
the types of ouputs that society values—sustainability of local communities
and employment. Then we’ve added sustainability of forest structure for
wildlife and water also.”
Although he refers to his computer model as a “harvest scheduling
model,” Sessions points out that the model is more than that. “The model
addresses not only what goes, but what stays.”
13
LINKING FOREST STEWARDSHIP AND ECONOMIC
VIABILITY
These computer log forms
can be “sawn”—virtually
speaking—over and over
again in different ways.
T
14
he wildfires of the summer
of 2000 called national attention to the problem of
densely stocked forests in the West.
Trees are crowded shoulder-to-shoulder over millions of acres, are vulnerable to insect and disease problems,
and represent a significant fire hazard.
Jim Funck reconstructs a log from sawn
From an ecological standpoint,
flitches.
forest managers see a need to thin
these stands. But the pole-sized trees are usually less than 10 inches in diameter. Traditionally such trees have had little value to mills.
“The people who own the forest want to do stand management economically, but they can’t right now because the mills won’t bid on smalldiameter timber, or they bid very low,” says Jim Funck. He and Charles
Brunner, associate professors in the Department of Forest Products, are working on a project to find the most value in the harvest and use of smalldiameter timber.
Brunner’s and Funck’s study is one part of the Fund for Rural America
Small-Diameter Timber Project, funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The overall project has three key objectives: to promote good forest
stewardship, to provide jobs to rural communities, and to make small-diameter timber more economically viable.
Brunner and Funck are working with their Forest Products colleague
John Punches, the Forestry Extension agent in Douglas County. Other participants are researchers in various divisions of the USDA Forest Service;
specifically, the Pacific Northwest Research Station, the Rogue River National Forest, the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, and
the State and Private Forestry program.
Typically, when a mill bids on a timber sale, says Funck, it assigns values
to logs based on their potential value as boards. Smaller logs can be more
valuable as cut stock (that is, window frames, doors, moldings, and other
manufactured products), and indeed the mill might eventually capture higher
profits by selling some boards to a cut-stock manufacturer. However, there
is no guarantee that such a market will be available, and thus no reason for
the mill to pay a higher price for small logs at the outset.
Brunner and Funck are working on a method to determine the best
utilization, and hence the highest value, of small-diameter logs. Ultimately
their work could help sawmills maximize the value of timber sales in smalldiameter stands. If small logs are more valuable, it may become more profitable to thin fire-prone forests to reduce fuels.
The researchers’ first need was to gather information about the quality
of lumber that comes from small-diameter logs. Brunner and Funck developed a method for tracking a small log through the felling, bucking, and
sawing processes and measuring the defects and other characteristics of the
resulting boards. Then, using a computer model, they devised a process for
virtually reassembling the boards back into the configurations of the original logs.
The trees being studied are Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine logs between 5 and 10 inches in diameter, thinned from stands on the Rogue River
National Forest. The researchers took detailed measurements of each felled
tree, including knot and branch patterns, stem size, and stem taper. The
trees were then bucked into 16-foot logs and sawn into flitches—unedged
boards. The flitches were “mapped” according to where they had come from
within each log.
The flitches were hauled to the
laboratory at the College of Forestry. Brunner and Funck used a
track-mounted camera to take pictures of each flitch. The photographic images recorded the shape
of the flitch and size and placement Scan of a log, virtually reassembled by the computer,
of each knot, defect, or other sig- with defects mapped.
nificant feature.
The images were scanned into a computer database, and then reassembled
by the computer into an image of the original log. These computer log
forms can be “sawn”—virtually speaking—over and over again in different
ways. The computer model enables Brunner and Funck to explore all the
15
possibilities for the best utilization of a particular log in light of the current
value of different types of products.
For larger trees, the optimal yield is usually from plain lumber. But for
these small-diameter logs, says Funck, the knots and other defects and the
variations in the taper of the log results in lumber of widely varying grades.
“We needed to look at the next step beyond lumber, at making cut-stock
parts, to see if the tree could be worth more than its value as lumber,” Funck
says.
Subsequent economic analyses found that, for most configurations tested
through the computer model, the wood was worth more as moldings, trims,
and other specialty wood products than it was as plain lumber.
If these higher values could be routinely captured, small-diameter trees
could be worth much more to bidders on timber sales. However, say Brunner
and Funck, few mills are now set up to take advantage of these higher values. Sawmills and cut-stock mills will need to cooperate, perhaps forming
partnerships, in order to realize the maximum value from these small logs.
He and Funck will be bringing their research to the attention of mill
managers and buyers through an outreach effort, soon to be undertaken in
cooperation with OSU Forestry Extension and the Forest Service’s State
and Private Forestry Program.
The good news, say Brunner and Funck, is that good forest stewardship
has at least the potential for being economically viable. It’s hard for forest
managers to get needed thinning done when there’s no money in it, says
Funck. “But more-profitable thinning may at least reduce the subsidy that
has to be paid to get someone to do stand management for stewardship
purposes.”
16
ACTIVELY RESTORING EAST-SIDE FORESTS
The expertise and technology
exists to harvest trees from
these distressed forests in an
environmentally sensitive way.
L
ast summer’s devastating fires
throughout the western United
States served as a reminder that
the dry conifer forests of eastern Oregon
and much of the inland West are still vulnerable to catastrophic fire.
Managers now have choices beyond
simply letting nature take its course.
Loren Kellogg’s work shows ways to reduce
Loren Kellogg’s studies in small-log harfuels profitably in stressed east-side forests.
vesting on Forest Service lands in Oregon’s
Blue Mountains are showing that it is possible to reduce the risk of fire in
these forests—and generate a profit at the same time—while benefiting the
environment.
The problems in east-side forests have been nearly a century in the making. Historical logging of the dominant ponderosa pine, coupled with a
policy of suppressing the frequent, small wildfires that periodically swept
through pine stands, has changed the composition of these forests markedly
from what it was before European-American settlement.
Once-open understories are now crowded with Douglas-fir, grand fir,
western larch, and lodgepole pine, species vulnerable to attack by the mountain pine beetle and the western spruce budworm. The dry spell of the mid1980s through the mid-’90s stressed the trees and exacerbated the insect
attacks, resulting in high concentrations of dry fuels on the ground, as well
as standing dead trees.
Kellogg and several OSU scientists coauthored a 1995 report to Governor John Kitzhaber on the state of forests in eastern Oregon’s Blue Mountains. Most of the forest is alive, wrote the authors, but much of it is severely
stressed. Kellogg and the other scientists suggested that active management
could move these stands closer to the historical mosaic of forest conditions
that existed immediately before white settlement.
17
18
Kellogg has been working for several years on ways to actively manage
stands and reduce fuels in these forests. He and his doctoral student, Peter
Matzka, recently completed an experiment in thinning and prescribed burning on several fire-prone stands in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
near Enterprise, Oregon. The study, called Hungry Bob, was located in the
Wapiti Ecosystem Management Project Area. It compared three different
management scenarios for east-side forests: thinning alone, prescribed fire
alone, and thinning combined with prescribed fire.
Kellogg and Matzka wanted to know not only the yield and profitability of the harvested timber, but also the costs of prescribed fire and how
different stand conditions affect the economics of forest operations. Other
scientists in this multidisciplinary study are investigating how each treatment will affect the production of morels, an edible fungus that can be a
valuable secondary forest product. Also being studied is the degree of damage to the residual stand from thinning and prescribed burning.
An important objective of Kellogg’s and Matzka’s research is to develop
a decision matrix that will help forest managers evaluate different stand conditions and other variables and decide what to do in particular situations.
“There are so many variables,” Kellogg says. “Stand structure and composition are different in each stand. The amount of fuel loading varies, and the
type of fuel varies. The economic feasibility varies depending on log prices,
transportation costs, and the expense of the equipment. Potential environmental effects vary depending on the terrain and proximity of streams, as
well as the impacts of the different harvesting equipment on the site. The
risk of introducing prescribed fire certainly varies from site to site.”
The decision matrix, a major component of Matzka’s dissertation, will
be something like a flow chart that lets managers step through these variables one at a time, identifying economic and environmental tradeoffs that
occur among different stand management treatments and forest operations
techniques.
The thinning at Hungry Bob was carried out in 1998 with a cut-to-length
system that employed a harvester and a forwarder. A harvester is a sophisticated
machine that fells the tree, shears off the branches, and bucks the bole into
desired log lengths. The forwarder loads the logs and transports them to the
roadside. The severed branches and their twigs and needles are left on the ground
to provide cushioning to the soil against the weight of the machine. The sites
receiving prescribed burning were burned the following fall.
Economics of the operation were carefully projected, says Kellogg. Because
the machines are expensive to purchase and operate, and the timber value pro-
vided by these distressed stands is usually low, the harvesting must be planned
carefully. “We were working in stands where you have maybe 10 to 30 percent
high-value sawlogs, and the rest is low-value pulpwood,” he says.
The Hungry Bob study is a fully replicated scientific experiment building on information gleaned from two earlier studies Kellogg conducted in
the Blue Mountains. The Hungry Bob results are not yet complete, but
these earlier studies provide reason for optimism. Kellogg and his students
investigated various combinations of small-log harvesting equipment to
determine the economic and environmental effectiveness of each alternative, and found that harvesting could achieve both stewardship and profit.
The first study, called Deerhorn, took place in 1994 on a site about 50
miles southwest of Pendleton. Trees were felled, limbed, and bucked by a
harvester and yarded by a small skyline yarding system. Objectives of the
harvest were to reduce fuels, improve conditions for the remaining trees,
and minimize damage to the soil and the trees. Kellogg and his master’s
student, Cameron Brown, found that the harvester-yarder combination succeeded in all these objectives, and made a profit besides. Although only 29
percent of the yield was in sawlogs, a good log price at that time ($515 per
thousand board feet) allowed that segment of the operation to more than
cover losses from harvesting and utilizing the pulpwood.
In the second study, called Limber Jim, Kellogg and his master’s student, James Doyal, worked with researchers from the University of California at Davis to compare a harvester-skyline yarder combination, the system
used at Deerhorn, with a cut-to-length system.
Conditions in that forest were different from those at Deerhorn. Only
12 percent of the yield was sawlogs for the skyline system, only 6 percent for
the forwarder. In addition, log prices were lower, $425 per thousand board
feet. Both harvesting systems produced similar and acceptable results in
terms of fuels reduction and low soil disturbance, but at different stump-tomill costs: $42 per green ton for the harvester-forwarder system, versus $72
per green ton for the harvester-skyline system.
The good news from these studies, says Kellogg, is that the expertise and
technology exists to harvest trees from these distressed forests in an environmentally sensitive way, reducing fuels and lessening the risk of catastrophic fire.
And if such management can also turn a profit, there’ll be less need for
government subsidies. “For people to buy timber sales and invest in these
half-million-dollar machines,” says Kellogg, “these operations have to be
profitable. And they can be. With the right system and careful planning, it
can be done.”
19
SPEAKING THE DOUGLAS-FIR
BEETLE’S LANGUAGE
Pheromones are not pesticides—they
do not actually kill any insects, and
they do not have any of the health or
environmental concerns associated
with many pesticides.
D
20
ouglas-fir beetles “speak” to each
other in the language of pheromones—chemical signals that send
messages to other Douglas-fir beetles. Research
done at Oregon State University in the 1970s
contributed to the identification of these chemicals and the messages they transmit.
Darrell Ross, associate professor in the DeDarrell Ross with a bag full of
Douglas-fir beetles.
partment of Forest Science, is taking this research to the next stage. He is investigating how
to use these signals to manage the beetles and their impacts on forests. “I’m
learning to speak the Douglas-fir beetle’s language,” says Ross.
Ross is devising techniques for, among other things, using pheromonebaited traps to attract and kill Douglas-fir beetles. Pheromones are not pesticides—they do not actually kill any insects, and they do not have any of
the health or environmental concerns associated with many pesticides. The
traps catch the beetles and kill them with a small amount of pesticide used
in the trap’s collection cup. No spraying is involved.
Pheromone techniques are beginning to be used operationally as part of
an integrated program of forest stewardship—as an additional tool in the
manager’s toolbox, along with silvicultural tools such as thinning and salvage logging.
Douglas-fir beetles feed on and breed in the phloem of recently dead
Douglas-fir. The phloem is the tissue between the bark and wood. Since
dead and dying trees are normally scarce in the forest, the Douglas-fir beetle
has evolved an aggregation pheromone—a chemical signal that tells other
Douglas-fir beetles in the area, “here’s a dead tree.” The signal attracts large
numbers of beetles to the tree.
When the tree cannot support any more Douglas-fir beetles, the beetles
send out another chemical signal, an antiaggregation pheromone called 3methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one (MCH). “The antiaggregation pheromone serves
as a ‘No Vacancy’ sign,” Ross says. “It tells the other beetles the tree is full,
and keeps them from overpopulating the resource.”
The beetles are normally present in low numbers in the forest. But when
a windstorm or forest fire kills a large number of Douglas-fir trees, a beetle
outbreak can occur. The beetles move into the dead trees and lay eggs, then
their broods overwinter. When a new generation of beetles emerges the next
spring, the beetles seek out live trees, if there are not enough dead ones.
Because the Douglas-fir beetles can survive only in dead trees or dead parts
of trees, they need to kill the live trees. It takes many beetles to kill a large
Douglas-fir, their preferred target. The first beetles to colonize a live Douglas-fir send out the aggregation pheromone, a signal that calls other beetles
to the tree. The beetles make a mass attack on the live tree and overwhelm
the tree’s self-defense.
In the past, foresters responded to Douglas-fir beetle outbreaks by salvage-logging the dead trees and the live trees attacked by the beetles. But
two things changed, Ross explains. First, particularly on national forest lands,
foresters now manage with goals of forest stewardship and ecosystem management, rather than primarily for timber.
Second, not many large, old Douglas-firs remain in the mixed-species
forests of eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Forest managers in eastern Oregon usually want to retain all the large, old Douglas-fir
they have. Using techniques developed by Ross and his cooperators, these
managers can use pheromones to protect some trees from beetles, to trap
and kill beetles, and to attract remaining beetles to areas where some tree
mortality is acceptable. In these areas, beetle-killed trees can either be harvested or left for snags.
In their studies on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and other
locations, Ross and Gary Daterman, of the USDA Forest Service Pacific
Northwest Research Station, are conducting many trials to refine their techniques—to speak the beetles’ language more effectively. They are learning
the best ways to apply the pheromones, what doses are most effective, and
which trap designs and locations work best.
In one strategy, the antiaggregation pheromone, MCH, packaged in
plastic capsules, is placed in trees and then removed at the end of the season.
Ross has found that MCH keeps Douglas-fir beetles away from trees that
would otherwise be attacked.
21
The antiaggregation pheromone was registered by the Environmental
Protection Agency in 1999 and is now available to foresters for operational
use. Just in the past year, forest managers have used MCH and Ross’s techniques in eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Applied once
in the spring, MCH is effective all year. A Douglas-fir beetle outbreak typically lasts two to three years, so MCH will have to be applied for several
years in a row.
The research has reached the point where pheromones such as MCH
can now be used on a landscape level. “It won’t be used on thousands of
acres,” Ross says, “but rather in specific areas over a large landscape. Managers might treat old-growth Douglas-fir in recreational areas or other highvalue areas. Other areas could tolerate some tree mortality or might benefit
from additional snags, or salvage logging could be done. Then managers
could draw the beetles to those areas.”
The large forest fires of the summer of 2000 left thousands of acres of
dead and fire-damaged trees. The scorched trees and live trees near burned
areas will be highly susceptible to Douglas-fir beetle outbreaks over the next
few years. Ross expects a lot of interest from forest managers in using pheromone techniques to protect mature trees.
“We can use MCH to change the beetles’ behavior,” Ross says. “We can
protect the large, mature trees, of which we have a shortage, until other trees
grow to those ages and sizes.” By speaking the Douglas-fir beetle’s language,
Darrell Ross is helping forest managers achieve their objectives in a way that
works with natural processes.
22
TAKING CARE OF THE PEOPLE WHO TAKE CARE OF
THE FOREST
Sometimes the discussions
about better forestry do not
mention the people who actually do the work—as if stewardship could somehow be accomplished without them.
M
odern forestry emphasizes
stewardship of forest resources. Harvesting operations are designed to protect wildlife,
water quality, and fish. But sometimes the John Garland (right) acquaints a
colleague with synthetic rope.
discussions about better forestry do not
mention the people who actually do the work—as if stewardship could somehow be accomplished without them.
“Who takes care of the forest?” John Garland (Forest Engineering) asks.
“We have an idea that it’s foresters, because they’re the ones who make decisions and make plans on computers. But the people out in the woods doing
the work are essential to the success of the project. The loggers are the applied ecologists.”
Throughout his career, Garland has focused on stewardship of the human resource in the forest. He has worked to improve safety and working
conditions in the forest. He has also designed and taught training programs
that teach loggers about forest ecology and silviculture, safety, changing forest regulations, Best Management Practices, and sustainable forestry.
“If we want to practice sustainable forestry,” says Garland, “we need to
train the people who actually do the work on the ground.” His training
programs respect and incorporate the extensive knowledge that loggers already have about the forest.
Currently Garland is working with the Oregon Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OR-OSHA) to make ergonomic improvements in the
logger’s workplace. Ergonomics is the applied science of designing a workplace
that maximizes productivity by minimizing worker fatigue and discomfort.
23
24
Although working in the forest has many inherent risks that cannot be
eliminated, much can be done with the equipment and practices that loggers use, in order to reduce fatigue, improve safety, and improve productivity. “If we can lighten the workload,” Garland says, “then we have good
prospects for reducing fatigue and injuries.”
Garland is researching a synthetic rope, a new product that helps loggers do their job better. The synthetic rope is much lighter than traditional
steel rope but equally strong. That in itself is an improvement, but the synthetic rope has other benefits as well. It offers greater flexibility in where
lines are placed in logging operations, and thus presents new options for
tree harvesting and logging systems.
Garland first learned about synthetic rope from a logger, and was intrigued by its possibilities and how it might change the logging workplace.
Garland received a grant from OR-OSHA to study synthetic rope and its
potential applications in logging operations. Under this grant, Garland is
working with a twelve-strand braided rope made of ultrahigh molecular
weight polyethylene. It resists ultraviolet light and abrasion, and it floats.
Wire rope has a tendency to develop, needle-like splinters, and workers
have to take precautions to avoid injuries from these “jaggers.” Synthetic
rope does not have this problem. However, being more flexible than traditional wire rope, synthetic rope is more likely to get accidental knots. Moreover, there are still questions about synthetic rope’s stretch and durability,
and synthetic rope may not replace steel rope in all situations.
Although it is not against the safety codes to use the synthetic rope right
now, Garland cautions that a degree of restraint should be used. Much is
still unknown about the synthetic rope’s capabilities, and it could be dangerous if used inappropriately. The synthetic rope is being used for static
guylines, straps, and intermediate support lines. Garland is investigating its
use for chokers, winch lines, running lines, and skylines.
Garland is also working on several improvements and refinements. For
example, it is difficult to connect synthetic rope to traditional wire rope.
Garland is seeking another grant to develop end connectors that make it
possible to connect the two types of rope. A satisfactory design will open
opportunities for companies to manufacture the connectors.
Another possible development is the placement of a fiber optic strand
down the center of the synthetic rope when it is manufactured. It is currently impossible to detect damage in the center of ropes, yet this unseen
damage can lead to rope failure. A fiber optic strand transmits light no matter how many bends or coils a rope has. Thus, a person could shine an
ordinary flashlight into the fiber optic strand at one end of the rope, and if
the strand were intact, light would come out of the rope’s other end. The
fiber optic strand would be an additional safety feature, allowing a simple
test for unseen damage.
Although the synthetic rope costs about four times as much as wire
rope, it weighs only about one-sixth as much. In Garland’s test operation, a
steel rope guyline weighed 111 pounds. A guyline of synthetic rope weighed
18 pounds and was able to carry the same payloads. If the synthetic rope
leads to a gain in productivity,
Garland says, it could easily pay
for itself.
The synthetic rope has been
tested by Oregon State University’s
student logging crew. It reduced
the physical demand of logging,
as measured by the heart rates of
student workers. Women crew
members carried the synthetic
rope up a 40 percent slope, and
found it much easier than carry- These instruments are used to monitor heart rates
of crew members.
ing wire rope.
“The forest industry in Oregon is alive and well, and it’s changing rapidly,” Garland says. “Timber is
being harvested with a high-tech approach. Harvests now are likely to selectively remove trees and logs. Synthetic rope is helpful with these more selective operations.”
Oregon State University has long been known as a leader in the development of logging technology and innovative forest products. Garland’s
research continues this work. In addition to his studies of new products,
Garland is working on improving workplace safety. He is the university
representative on a committee working with OR-OSHA, helping the agency
to revise Oregon’s Forest Activities Safety Code.
25
MAPPING THE MANY LAYERS OF SALMON HABITAT
“If we can find a way to make
these workshops portable and
present them to the watershed
councils in their own districts,
we can help empower the
councils to conduct watershed
assessments.”
I
26
n the 1990s, the decline of salmon
emerged as a major environmental
problem in Oregon. But little was
known about the current condition of
Michael Wing, knee-deep in the South
freshwater salmon habitat in the streams
Santiam.
where salmon spawned.
Work done by Michael Wing, of the Department of Forest Engineering,
will help people better measure stream conditions, and thus better target restoration work. Government agencies, watershed councils, and volunteer groups
will all be able to use Wing’s analysis and his techniques to get a better understanding of habitat quality and restoration needs for individual streams.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) developed the
Aquatic Inventory Project in 1990 to collect better information on freshwater habitat in Oregon streams. The agency also developed a detailed protocol and training sessions to create a standard survey approach for measuring
aquatic habitat conditions. Through the project, stream survey data were
collected consistently by crews from several agencies and organizations,
making it possible for ODFW to gather data from many more streams than
their own crews could cover alone.
Since 1990 this protocol has been used to collect information on thousands of streams across Federal, State, private, and tribal land ownerships,
creating a huge database. The great volume of data has made analysis very
challenging, however. Given current concerns about salmon habitat, the
FRL Advisory Committee has made the analysis of the database a research
priority.
Michael Wing was hired by OSU’s Department of Forest Engineering
to tackle the challenge of analyzing the database. In collaboration with For-
est Engineering professor Arne Skaugset and an advisory group composed
of College of Forestry and agency representatives, the decision was made to
transform the stream survey database into a geographic information system
(GIS) environment. GIS is a computer system that stores and analyzes spatial data.
Spatial data are better known as information that can be displayed on a
map. Once spatial data are digitized, or entered into the computer, GIS can
be used to organize the data in layers, or themes. The system can add new
layers of data, merge data layers, and analyze the data in ways not possible
with conventional maps.
“GIS is a great tool,” says Wing. “We would have been very hard-pressed
to move ahead with analyzing this database without GIS. It opens up the
database and allows us to make it stronger.”
Most GIS projects cover only one watershed or a district. It took Wing
and his assistants nine months to create a GIS database with the survey data
from hard-copy maps of 1,370 streams in western Oregon, an area from
Astoria to Ashland and from the Coast to the Cascades.
In their fieldwork, the survey crews divided the streams into 3,793
reaches, using criteria such as stream junctions and changes in forest cover.
The crews collected data on roughly 80 variables important to salmon habitat, including the amount of large wood in and near a stream, the number
of pools and their depth, and the type of stream substrate, and the material
that forms the streambed.
At that point, Wing had stream habitat maps for much of western Oregon. Those maps were valuable, but GIS could do even more. “The real
advantage was that GIS allowed us to add information that was not included in the survey data,” Wing explains.
GIS allows a researcher to overlay data sources, a computerized and
more-sophisticated version of transparency overlays for maps. Wing obtained
GIS maps that showed geology and land ownership from the Oregon State
Service Center for GIS (SSCGIS) in Salem. On the computer, he draped
those layers on top of his stream habitat map. Maps could then be printed
with one, some, or all of the layers for any surveyed stream or watershed.
Wing also used a program that added stream-order information into
the GIS database. The uppermost streams in a watershed can be classified as
first-order streams; at the first junction with another stream, a second-order
stream is formed, and so on down the watershed. It would have been extremely time-consuming to classify stream order from topographical maps,
but the new program classified the streams in a matter of hours.
27
With the new data, Wing was able to find relationships not revealed by
the original database. He found that, for streams on forest land, stream
order was the most important variable related to the amount of large wood
in the streams. First- and second-order streams in the upper watersheds had
much more large wood than did higher-order streams farther down in the
watershed. Land ownership was not a significant factor influencing the
amount of large wood in the streams.
Wing found that when comparisons were made among different types of
ownerships—for example, between Federal and private forest lands—there
were only small differences in the amount of large wood or the number of
pools in the streams. The significant differences emerged between streams
on forest land and streams in different land uses, such as agricultural or
urban areas.
“Our forested streams are in relatively good condition, including streams
on forest industry lands,” Wing says. He suggests that restoration work might
be focused on streams lower in the watersheds, which generally have less
large wood and fewer pools, and yet are often the streams most accessible to
salmon.
Currently Wing is working on a finer scale of analysis. Within the stream
reaches, survey crews identified habitat units, which are identified by the
pools, riffles, or rapids that define the streams, and are usually no longer
than the stream is wide. The database contains 350,000 habitat units. A
single analysis at this level of resolution may take days for the computer to
complete.
Forest managers and watershed councils can use the results of these analyses to guide their actions and improve their stewardship of streams. Wing is
teaching people how to use GIS through continuing education workshops
at OSU. Once a person has completed one of Wing’s workshops, he or she
has the skills to access the ODFW database on the Internet and query on
specific information for a stream or watershed.
Wing is working on a proposal that will make the GIS workshops more
accessible to Oregon’s watershed councils. Many of these groups have limited resources for training members, who are mostly volunteers. “If we can
find a way to make these workshops portable and present them to the watershed councils in their own districts,” Wing says, “we can help empower
the councils to conduct watershed assessments. GIS has emerged as one of
the most significant and widely used tools available for forestry and natural
resources research.”
28
PUTTING NUMBERS ON WOOD’S ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE
“Consumers, through their
architects and builders, will be
able to choose the best ways to
reduce energy use or CO2
emissions.”
W
ood’s reputation as an environmentally friendly
building material is diminishing, says Jim Wilson—even
though it is sustainable, renewable, recyclable, and manufactured with relatively little in the way of toxic ingredi- Jim Wilson is documenting the
environmental friendliness of wood.
ents or emissions.
Now Wilson is taking part in a comprehensive, nationwide study that
will provide valuable information to consumers and policymakers on the
environmental performance of wood. It will help them consider all the factors that affect whether a given building technology—wood, concrete, steel,
or plastic—is environmentally friendly or not.
“We believe strongly in the environmental friendliness of wood,” says
Wilson, professor in the Department of Forest Products. “What we’re doing
now is documenting it.”
Wood, he says, has another advantage over concrete and steel, its two
main competitors as structural building materials. A growing forest is a carbon sink that scrubs the air of excess carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Planted
forests have been proposed by some policymakers as a means for removing
excessive amounts of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere.
What’s more, structural wood products tie up carbon as long as they remain
intact. Wood releases carbon, in the form of CO2, back to the atmosphere
only when it decomposes or is burned.
Wilson is working with a team of scientists from 15 universities and the
Forest Service to assess the environmental performance of wood building
materials, “from cradle to grave.” In a process known as life-cycle analysis,
the team is looking at all the material and energy inputs and outputs, from
29
30
the planting of the seedling, to the growing of the tree, through harvesting,
transportation, manufacturing, home construction, home use and maintenance, and eventual disposal or recycling of the wood.
Consider all the inputs—material and energy—required to build and
occupy a 2,000-square-foot new home throughout its service life. How much
electricity, gas, other fuels, and water are consumed in the course of growing
and harvesting the trees for the wood products used to build the house?
How much energy is used to manufacture the lumber, plywood, beams, and
trusses? How much adhesive is used to hold the plywood and laminated
beams together? How much material and energy is needed for heating and
maintenance?
Then consider the outputs. How much carbon monoxide is emitted by the
truck that carried the logs to the mill? How much formaldehyde and volatile
organic compounds go into the air and water in the manufacturing process?
How much carbon is sequestered in the lumber? How much carbon is absorbed
by the trees planted to replace those logged? How much CO2 and methane gas
will be released into the atmosphere if the lumber is allowed to decay, or is
burned, after the house is torn down? How much less CO2 will be released if the
lumber is recycled rather than dumped in a landfill?
Finally, what is the combined effect on the environment of all these
inputs and outputs multiplied by the 1.4 million new houses built in the
United States each year?
These are some of the questions that the six-year, $5-million study will
address. The answers, says Wilson, will help counter the false perception
that harvesting trees to make wood products harms the environment. The
study will also help the wood-products industry address real environmental
concerns through cost-effective management practices and process improvements.
“What would the environmental impact and cost be of, say, changing
from wood-fired boilers to gas-fired,” says Wilson, “or adding more pollution control devices to the wood dryer or hot presses? Pollution control
devices typically use a lot of energy—electricity and natural gas, both of
which are rapidly increasing in price and are becoming limited in availability. What are the best alternatives and tradeoffs? When the study is completed, manufacturers will be able to answer those questions more accurately.” This capability will help the industry maintain its competitive edge
over steel, concrete, and plastic for building materials.
Wilson’s study is funded by the Forest Service and the participating
universities, with additional funding from wood-products manufacturers
and manufacturing associations. It expands on a 1976 project undertaken
by the Committee on Renewable Resources for Industrial Materials
(CORRIM), sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences at the request
of President Jimmy Carter during the last U.S. energy crisis.
That study considered only the energy and material inputs of wood
products used in homes, and only from manufacturing through construction. By adding emissions and carbon balance to the scope of research, and
by looking at the entire life cycle of wood products from planting trees to
eventual disposal or recycling, “our study has greatly expanded those boundaries,” says Wilson.
Wilson is on the steering committee for the whole project. He oversees
the technical subcommittees dealing with the forest resource, manufacturing, wood structures, and the use and disposal or recycling of wood products.
The current study, CORRIM II, is now in its first phase, a two-year,
$1.2-million effort to gather the quantities of data that will be required and
to refine the analysis and modeling procedures. The team is working on
interfacing the analysis methods with those used in similar studies in Canada
and Europe, to provide a basis for comparing wood’s environmental performance internationally.
The scientists will calculate all the energy and emissions per unit of
material, then multiply those numbers by the amount of material used.
They will figure inputs and outputs for each step in the manufacturing
process. How much of every kind of energy and emissions is associated with
peeling a log for veneer? For generating the steam to soften the wood? For
drying the veneer? For hot-pressing it together into a piece of plywood?
How much for various fuel sources? How much for emission control devices?
When it is finished, says Wilson, the CORRIM II study will provide a
powerful tool for answering all kinds of questions about the environmental
performance of wood. Application of the study’s results will help manufacturers efficiently improve their environmental performance and provide
comparative numbers to consumers about the environmental benefits and
costs of building with wood, steel, concrete, or plastic.
“Consumers, through their architects and builders, will be able to choose
the best ways to reduce energy use or CO2 emissions, if these are priorities,”
says Wilson. “And our elected leaders will have access to good data as they
make decisions about natural resources that affect all our lives.”
31
FORESTS AS CO2 SPONGES
“If we allowed forests to
grow longer between harvests, and if we left more
live and dead trees out
there to drive up the average storage on a site, I think
it might be possible to
double the store of carbon
in a forested landscape.”
H
32
ow much carbon is there
in the world, and where
Mark Harmon amid some carbon storage
devices on the McDonald-Dunn Forest.
is it? Early in his scientific career, Mark Harmon was answering that question on a very small
scale, measuring carbon in bags of leaves and pieces of wood. His master’s
program advisor, ecologist Jerry Olson at the University of Tennessee, was
looking for carbon on a broader scale—across watersheds and landscapes
around the globe—with the help of increasing quantities of gathered data
and early mathematical and computer models Harmon and others were
developing.
Tracking down carbon may seem an esoteric pursuit, but it can help
policymakers address an urgent, worldwide issue. Carbon, in the form of
carbon dioxide, or CO2, released into the atmosphere by the burning of
fossil fuels, is a chief factor in the gradual warming of the Earth’s atmosphere that many scientists think is triggering a global climate change.
Both living plants and decomposing dead ones play a crucial role in the
balance of the world’s atmospheric carbon dioxide. All living plants absorb
CO2 from the air—it is a building block of all organic matter. Young, fastgrowing plants, rapidly adding biomass, absorb it faster than older plants.
Policymakers concerned with global warming are looking to forests to help
absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
Harmon, who holds the Richardson Chair in the Department of
Forest Science, began his career at OSU studying rotting logs on the
H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, on the west slope of the Oregon
Cascades. When he joined the faculty in 1984, Harmon initiated a 200-
year study of carbon release and many other processes associated with
decomposition of wood.
These days, following in his advisor’s footsteps, Harmon has broadened
his search for carbon to a worldwide scale, looking for CO2 uptake and
release patterns in the temperate forests of North America and the boreal
forests of northern Russia. Thanks to powerful computer models, remote
sensing, and other high-tech investigative tools, he says, it is becoming possible to know at least approximately how much carbon there is in a forest, a
watershed, a region, a continent, even the whole world. He is in the midst
of several carbon-related studies, collaborating with Forest Science colleague
Warren Cohen, a remote-sensing expert; OSU economist Joe Kerkvliet; and
others.
In one study, Harmon and Forest Science colleague Olga Krankina are
working with seven Russian forestry scientists to refine measurements of
dead wood in Russia’s vast taiga, the conifer-forested region that occupies
nearly half Russia’s land area and stretches from the Baltic to the Pacific.
Almost one-fifth of the world’s forests lie in that boreal belt.
In the past decade, scientists have become aware that, around the world,
carbon is being taken up faster than it’s being given off—good news for
global warming. But nobody knows why there’s a “carbon sink,” or exactly
where it might be.
“We haven’t been able to balance the books globally,” says Harmon.
“Because the Russian forests are so extensive, we felt it was important to
know what they’re actually doing in the carbon budget.”
From taking surveys of salvageable dead trees, the Russian forest service
already had rough estimates of the amount of dead wood in its forests. But
these surveys weren’t accurate on certain measures critical to the carbon
equation, such as the volume of trees too rotten to salvage. Harmon and
Krankina are helping the Russian scientists devise more-precise ways of
measuring the dead wood.
Some scientists, Harmon says, think the missing carbon sink is in North
America, where formerly deforested lands, especially in the East and Midwest, are growing trees again. “There’s a political dimension to this question,” he says. “We in North America are the biggest users of fossil fuels—
which put carbon into the air—while we have only 5 percent of the world’s
forests.” Knowing the role of Russian forests will give policymakers more
information as they tackle the question of how to assign responsibility for
abating global warming.
33
34
The idea of using forests to help scrub the air of CO2 has added more
controversy to an already controversial issue. “How a forest is managed,”
says Harmon, “can make a big difference in how much carbon it stores, or
releases.”
One suggestion, plausible on the surface, is to harvest older forests, which
aren’t doing very much in the way of CO2 uptake, and replace them with
young plantations. That proposal, unsurprisingly, was not popular with conservation groups. In a controversial 1990 paper published in the journal
Science, Harmon and colleagues Jerry Franklin (University of Washington)
and Bill Ferrell (OSU Forest Science) noted things weren’t quite that simple.
“The complicating factor is scale,” says Harmon. “The argument was
that old forests have dead trees in them that give off carbon. That’s true, but
it proved to be irrelevant at the landscape scale. There’s a difference between
one rotting log on one site and a whole forest that contains many rotting
logs and a lot of living biomass.”
Harmon’s top graph on the opposite page (A) compares projected carbon storage in a modeled forest blown down and then left alone for 300
years with carbon storage under a scheme of clearcut harvests every 50 years.
The unmanaged forest would store on the average almost twice the carbon
over its 300-year life, about 95 megagrams per hectare (a megagram equals
a million grams), compared with about 50 in the managed forest. “Carbon
storage in a forest is not constant, but fluctuates as forests develop,” says
Harmon. “After disturbance, carbon storage goes down for a period, and
then it goes up. In an unmanaged forest, there’s a bigger change, but the
total carbon storage is also higher.”
The lower graph (B) shows carbon flux, or changes in the total store of
carbon. The managed forest would oscillate between taking up carbon as the
trees grew and giving it off with each clearcut harvest. The forest would lose as
much carbon as it gains on each 50-year rotation. Bringing it under management would result in a net loss of carbon of about 45 megagrams per hectare
over a period of 50 to 100 years. Left unmanaged, the forest would take up
carbon at an increasing rate until about age 70. Carbon uptake would gradually
level off, but there would be a net gain of carbon until age 300.
On a practical level, Harmon’s research points out that plantations of
certain ages are indeed carbon sponges, but they don’t stay that way forever.
And as they mature, other, older stands elsewhere on the landscape are being cut. “Older forests do not take up a lot of carbon, it’s true, but they do
store carbon, and when those forests are cut, much of it is released to the
atmosphere,” Harmon says.
Net Change in Total Stores of
Carbon (Mg C/ha/yr)
Total Carbon Stores (Mg C/ha)
140
It is true that wood
A
120
products manufactured from
100
the cut logs will tie up carbon, keeping it from being
80
released into the atmosphere
60
until the wood decays or is
40
Windthrow
50 yr timber harvest
burned. The numbers in
Windthrow landscape mean
20
Harvest landscape mean
Harmon’s graphs account for
0
all the carbon that would re2
B
1
main tied up in the wood
0
products manufactured from
-1
the harvested timber. Car-2
bon losses from actual man-3
-4
aged forests might be greater
Windthrow
50 yr timber harvest
-5
than the numbers shown
-6
here, depending on how
-7
50
100
150
200
250
much of the harvested wood
Time (yrs)
is made into rapidly decomposing products such as paper.
In sum, says Harmon, any strategy to use forests to absorb atmospheric
CO2 must stay mindful of all the growing and dying going on across the
landscape, including the decomposition of wood products.
Harmon’s findings also indicate that longer rotations could make forests much more efficient at taking up carbon. “If we allowed forests to grow
longer between harvests, and if we left more live and dead trees out there to
drive up the average storage on a site, I think it might be possible to double
the store of carbon in a forested landscape.” Wood volume harvested from
these older forests will also be larger and, in some cases, more valuable.
Longer rotations could cost landowners in delayed income from their
forests. However, incentives to abate atmospheric CO2 are emerging in some
developed countries, including a market in carbon credits that can be bought
and sold. “These monetary incentives might not completely offset the revenue from cutting the timber,” says Harmon, “but they might ease landowners’ transition into a less-profitable style of forestry.”
300
35
PLANTED FORESTS—A NECESSARY DIMENSION OF
SUSTAINABILITY
“We don’t ask ourselves the
question, ‘Should we have
farming?’ but ‘What kind of
farming should we have,
and where?’ We should be
asking ourselves the same
questions about forestry.”
S
36
ome people argue that
“planted forest” is an oxymoron—that only native forests
count as real.
Jim Boyle begs to differ. Planted
Jim Boyle: “We’re all dependent on wood, and
forests are not only real forests—
it’s got to come from some place.”
they are necessary if the world is ever
to achieve sustainability of forests, trees, and wood fiber. “Sustainability
argues for inclusive thinking,” Boyle says. “Planted forests are essential—we
can’t get along without them”—especially in a country that consumes wood,
and everything else, as lavishly as ours does.
Planted forests, says Boyle, deserve a respected place alongside native
forests in a comprehensive quest for sustainability. A forester and soil scientist, Boyle, a professor in the Department of Forest Resources, is coauthor
and coeditor of the book Planted Forests: Contributions to the Quest for Sustainable Societies. The book arose from a 1995 conference Boyle helped organize and to which he contributed the opening paper, wherein he set forth
the need for planted forests and the many benefits they provide around the
world.
Fellow scientists and foresters from 13 countries contributed chapters
on the philosophies underlying planted forests, the technologies used to
create and manage them, and practical experience with planted forests in a
wide range of ecological, social, and economic settings.
Boyle, son and grandson of Iowa farmers, was raised in an environment
of practical land stewardship. “I grew up learning that there is a very close
relationship between human welfare and good stewardship of the land,” he
says. Educated in forestry at Iowa State and Yale, he served on the faculty of
the University of Wisconsin from 1968 to 1973 and then the University of
Michigan from 1973 to 1980. He’s been at OSU since 1981.
It was at Michigan that he became well acquainted with the writings of
another Iowan, Yale student, and Wisconsin professor—Aldo Leopold. As a
Forest Service game biologist and, later, as the patient restorer of a worn-out
“sand farm” in Wisconsin, Leopold, through his writings, became a prophetic voice for the conservation and environmental movements taking shape
after World War II.
It was Leopold’s breadth of vision, taking in both the ecological and the
economic aspects of the human-land relationship, that resonated with Boyle’s
own thinking about people and forests. “Within his vision of sustainability
of the land,” says Boyle, “Leopold includes the need to account for human
use and human economics. My forestry education was not at all biased toward timber production; it was a well-rounded scientific education with a
broad ecological vision. But I also realized that we’re all dependent on wood,
and it’s got to come from some place.”
At Michigan, Boyle was looking at the sustainability of the soil resource—
specifically, what happens to the soils of second-growth hardwood and aspen forests when whole trees are logged and removed to make chips, compared to what happens when trees are logged and processed on the site and
the slash left to return to the soil.
Whole-tree harvesting doubles the loss of biomass, but that impact has
less-severe consequences on some sites than on others. “My work on soils
and harvesting impacts led me to understand that there’s a tremendous range
of resiliency in the capacity of soils to sustain ecological processes under
intensive management.”
In other words, intensive forestry may not be a good idea everywhere,
but it works well in some places—perhaps many places. Boyle draws an
analogy to farming: “We have tried intensive farming for a long time, and
in many places it works well,” he says. “We don’t ask ourselves the question, ‘Should we have farming?’ but ‘What kind of farming should we
have, and where?’ We should be asking ourselves the same questions about
forestry.”
Boyle arrived in the Northwest in the early 1980s and joined the OSU
faculty in 1981 as head of the Department of Forest Management (as it
then was called). By the late 1980s, he says, the idea that planted forests
have an important place in forestry did not seem to be getting much attention from policymakers.
37
When the subject of ecosystem management began to preoccupy the
Forest Service and other land-management agencies, “planted forests were
hardly mentioned in any discussion.” Most scientists and policymakers were
focusing on uneven-aged silviculture and other alternative management strategies in native old-growth forests.
Boyle felt it was time to broaden the conversation. In the early 1990s,
prompted by OSU colleagues Bill Atkinson and Bob Buckman, he began to
organize the 1995 symposium. “We had significant discussion among ourselves about what to call this conference,” he says. “We knew there’d be
people who would argue that a forest can’t be planted.”
Yet the nearest alternative, “plantation,” hardly seemed to fit. A plantation, says Boyle, connotes trees lined up in rows and columns, neat as a
cornfield. But in the Douglas-fir region of the Pacific Northwest and many
other parts of the world, planted forests are quickly colonized by other species, eventually developing a complexity of species and structures that makes
them belie their label. So, Boyle says, “‘planted forests’ it was.”
The conference, held in Portland, drew more than 200 people from
around the world to explore the utility and diversity of planted forests. The
subsequent book, published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, may be ordered from the OSU Bookstore.
Along with his undergraduate class in forest ecology, Boyle teaches a
university-wide class in conservation issues in natural resource management.
He introduces the students to Aldo Leopold’s ideas and their sometimesuncomfortable implications about human impacts. He also continues his
research on the effects of harvesting on soils and potential sustainability,
and he has recently assumed leadership of the forest-site working group of
the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO).
“We can’t sustain large-scale consumption around the world at the rate
we’re consuming in the United States,” Boyle says. “And because we all consume, we all participate in the dilemma. I tell my students, ‘I hope you will
begin to think about your role in these issues in a different way.’”
Planted forests, he says, “are an essential part of any thorough strategy
to achieve global sustainability.”
38
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF PRIVATE
FORESTS?
“What unique social, economic, and
ecological roles do private forests play in
our fast-changing landscapes?”
W
hen most people think of Oregon’s forests, they may picture either national
forest lands, with generally big, old trees,
or expanses of private industrial forestland, with evenaged, younger stands.
What may be less obvious is the mosaic of forestland owned by nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners. These smaller parcels tucked in amid public and
industry lands make up 17 percent of Oregon’s total John Bliss explores the
forest land. Because many are the legacy of nineteenth- complicated dynamics of
private forest land ownership.
century homesteads, they are more likely than other forest ownerships to be located along waterways—politically volatile territory in
light of current concerns about watershed health and fish habitat.
The owners are a diverse group of people—farmers, ranchers, investors,
descendants of homesteaders, urban escapees, and many others—with a diverse set of motivations for owning forest land and diverse approaches to
forest stewardship.
It’s important to understand what is happening on nonindustrial private forests, says John Bliss, because owner decisions make a big difference
in whether these forests are healthy or stressed, whether they stay in a forested condition or are converted to some other use.
Bliss is a Forest Resources professor and holder of the Starker Chair in
Private and Family Forestry at OSU. “These forests don’t exist in a vacuum,”
he says. “They fit within a landscape, and that landscape includes the social
and psychological dimensions of human behavior.”
The number of acres owned by nonindustrial forest landowners in Oregon has decreased in recent decades, while the number of owners has increased. To some researchers this suggests a trend of smaller parcels receiving less-efficient management, but another statistic complicates the situation: Between 1961 and 1994, about 763,000 acres of nonindustrial private
land in Oregon were acquired by private industry.
39
40
“The dimensions of the nonindustrial private forest resource are constantly changing,” says Bliss. “Across the nation, NIPF lands at the urban
fringe are being broken into smaller and smaller parcels and converted to
residential and commercial uses. Central to my interest is the question, ‘What
unique social, economic, and ecological roles do private forests play in our
fast-changing landscapes?’”
In trying to understand the dynamics of nonindustrial forest ownership, Bliss and his graduate-student colleagues are exploring questions that
link the natural and social sciences. Why do nonindustrial owners make the
management decisions they do? How do these decisions play out on the
landscape? How do past management decisions affect what the forest landscape looks like today? How do nonindustrial owners get along with their
federal, state, tribal, county, and industrial neighbors?
Studying the interplay between humans and their landscape requires an
approach from several angles—a concept known as “triangulation” in the
world of social science, from which many of Bliss’s research methods are
drawn.
Bliss’s student, Brooks Stanfield, used triangulation in a recent case study
exploring ownership and forest cover patterns in the Coast Range. Using a
method from the social-science side, Stanfield interviewed landowners on
watershed history and local knowledge and values. He and Bliss used information from these interviews, analyzed and sorted according to theme, to
trace patterns on today’s landscape back to historical changes in forest ownership and management.
Stanfield and Bliss also chose a quantitative approach that used GIS
and a computer model known as FRAGSTATS to analyze forest cover in 66
Coast Range watersheds. Stanfield identified and mapped forest cover by
age and dominant vegetation species, delineating the sizes and contours of
patches and the locations and sizes of forest edge and interior. He and Bliss
used these data to explore the relationship between forest ownership and
forest habitat diversity.
“Brooks and I found that, yes, there is a significant link between ownership patterns and forest habitat diversity patterns,” says Bliss. They found
that ownership explains some 38 percent of the variation in forest habitat
diversity in the Coast Range. Nonindustrial private forests, for example,
tend to be widely diverse in age and forest cover, and more fragmented in
terms of habitat than either public or industrial lands. They also contain a
higher proportion of hardwoods (which is partly explained by their morefrequent situation along streams).
“The message,” says Bliss, “is that ownership matters. Different ownership classes—nonindustrial, industry, and public—make different contributions to habitat diversity.” The contribution of each to a particular watershed is related to how much forest land each class owns and where that land
lies on the ground within the watershed.
Another of Bliss’s students, Stefan Bergmann, is using social-science
methods to find out what factors lead to cooperation—or conflict—among
neighboring public and private landowners in the John Day Valley. In the
study area, private ranchers and forest landowners live and work next to the
Malheur National Forest. Bergmann is interested in how these neighbors
cooperate, or don’t, on prescribed-fire efforts.
Bergmann is using a controversial social-science method known as Participant Action Research, or PAR. In PAR the researcher tries to become part of the
community he or she is studying—to the point of allowing the community’s
opinions and information to shape and refine the research questions.
“PAR has its detractors,” says Bliss, “because if you’re not careful you
can compromise your objectivity and fairness.” But properly used, PAR can
lead to the most useful and interesting information. “Typically we researchers think we are the best qualified to determine the research questions. But
by getting involved with the people you’re studying, you allow yourself to
be led to the questions that are really relevant—questions that you might
not think of at the outset.”
With the help of a research fellowship from the Ford Foundation’s Community Forestry program, Bergmann plunged into his work last summer,
interviewing land managers and local officials, observing meetings, listening to oral histories, digging through archives, and taking part in community gatherings.
On a day when Bliss was visiting, he and Bergmann started the day with
a ride in a local citizen’s private airplane—an informal (and informed) aerial
survey of where all the ownership parcels lay, whom they belonged to, and
where and when range fires and forest fires had occurred. “We spent the rest
of the day in interviews,” says Bliss, “and then we ended with a community
potluck supper.”
While Bergmann’s results are still preliminary, he did find “a very high
level of frustration” with the Forest Service among neighbors, Bliss reports.
“There were many beefs—too much Federal management, not enough Federal management, a revolving door with managers coming in and out, policy
confusion.” Bergmann’s analysis should help explain some of that frustration, and perhaps even help the John Day neighbors work out a more harmonious relationship.
41
THE SERVICES OF WOOD
“Why do trees have the amount of
sapwood they do? How much sapwood is needed to transport the
water? Is there some other service
sapwood is providing to the tree?”
E
42
verybody knows that trees are made of
wood, but what does the wood do for the
tree? Barbara Gartner, biologist and Forest Products associate professor, has some answers. “It may seem odd to say that wood provides services to the tree, but that’s exactly what
it does,” she says. Transporting and storing waBarbara Gartner explores the
ter is one critical function; mechanical support
varying properties of wood at the
is another. Wood also helps the tree transport
cellular level.
and store nutrients and helps it defend itself
against injury and insect attack.
Among conifer species, these various functions are performed by different types of wood in the same tree. “In softwoods, 93 percent of the cells are
responsible for mechanical and hydraulic support,” says Gartner. That is,
they both help the tree transport water and help it stand upright. These cells
are called tracheids. The remaining 7 percent of cells, called parenchyma
cells, store nutrients and sugars and provide the tree’s defenses against disease and injury.
Structural support provided by the tracheid cells is not uniform—it
gets better as the wood grows out from the slender pith at the very center.
Tracheid cells in the newer wood, added in yearly growth rings just under
the bark, are thicker-walled than are those closer in, and so they provide
better mechanical support. They also transport water better under ordinary
conditions (although less well in drought conditions).
For these and other reasons, a tree’s wood varies quite a lot in mechanical and structural properties. These differences are of great interest to manufacturers of wood products, because for almost every application, the more
uniform the structural characteristics of the raw material, the better the
quality of the product.
Gartner is trying a variety of experiments to find out why a tree produces the types of wood it does, and why these types appear when they do in
the life of the tree. Her work could ultimately lead to silvicultural strategies
to fine-tune tree growth to produce more wood with a particular set of
qualities—making it possible to cultivate raw material targeted toward a
particular product.
She is investigating, among other
things, the formation of sapwood—the
outer shell of wood under the bark—
to which a growth ring is added each
year. A mature Douglas-fir tree carries
about 40 years’ worth of sapwood, or
about 40 years’ worth of growth rings,
Sapwood
measured in from the outside. Deeper
within the tree are older rings, which
Heartwood
have lost their physiological functionJuvenile wood
ing and have been transformed into
heartwood. Ponderosa pines maintain
Mature wood
their sapwood much longer than
Douglas-firs, about 200 years.
How does sapwood function in
the life of a tree? “Different tree species have enormous variability in the
amount of sapwood they have,” says Gartner. “But why do trees have the
amount of sapwood they do? How much sapwood is needed to transport
the water? Is there some other service sapwood is providing to the tree?”
Because most of the water in a tree is transported by its sapwood, “the
amount of sapwood in a tree is directly tied to how much water the tree can
transport,” says Gartner. However, as we have seen, sapwood of different
ages varies in its water-transport capability. Sapwood is also important in
holding the tree up, and that represents a tradeoff in water transport: “The
strongest cells for mechanical support are the ones least capable of transporting water in drought conditions.”
All a tree’s growth functions are extremely dependent on the environment
in which the tree is grown, says Gartner. “Soil, rainfall, insect populations, wind,
sunshine, slope, aspect—all these are related to the tree’s structure and function.” Gartner’s work is aimed at clarifying and quantifying these relationships.
43
44
Leaf area, for instance, is a major indicator of many growth functions. A
tree’s capacity to transport water is directly related to leaf area, because it is
from the leaves (needles), that water evaporates. “How much leaf area is
there in proportion to sapwood volume? If there are more leaves, is there
more sapwood? What is the relationship between sapwood volume and root
area?” To help answer these questions, she is drawing not only on her own
measurements but on a large body of research by College of Forestry colleagues Barbara Bond, Dick Waring, and Doug Maguire, among others.
In another line of inquiry, Gartner is studying juvenile wood, a littleunderstood component of softwood species. As the name implies, juvenile
wood is the first wood a tree grows, and so there is more of it in younger
trees. The trunk of a typical 15-year-old Douglas-fir tree is entirely composed of juvenile wood. At age 65, that same tree will contain perhaps 40
percent juvenile wood. The proportion will become smaller over the years
as the tree keeps adding mature wood at the outside, although juvenile wood
continues to grow at the tip.
Thus, there is juvenile wood at the heart of every softwood tree, and
this wood is structurally very different from the mature wood added later.
Juvenile wood is less dense, and its cellular structure is weaker. The tiny
fibers in its cell walls, called microfibrils, are arranged at a 45-degree angle,
diagonal to the cell. In mature wood, the microfibrils are lined up along the
length of the cell. “Imagine taking hold of both ends of a Slinky and pulling
the whole thing apart,” says Gartner, “and then just pulling on a short stretch
of the coil. The short stretch of metal doesn’t give nearly as much. That’s like
the difference in strength between mature and juvenile wood.”
Juvenile retains its weaker properties even as the tree grows old. When
most harvested trees were taken from older forests, the presence of juvenile
wood was of little concern. But these days, trees for structural wood products tend to come from younger, planted forests. They are harvested at a
younger age than in years past: 60, 50, or even 40 years.
“As rotation ages get shorter,” says Gartner, “trees are harvested when
they’re smaller, and they contain a larger proportion of juvenile wood.” That
can present a problem for wood quality. “It’s a common complaint that
studs aren’t what they used to be,” says Gartner. “They aren’t as strong, they
warp—the reader will know all about that.”
Gartner is trying to determine how juvenile wood is formed, when it
stops being produced, and what function it performs for the tree. Her early
findings suggest that juvenile wood may be especially good at protecting the
young tree and the tree tip from drought. “Seedlings don’t have much water
storage capacity, so they are, in effect, in a drier environment than a mature
tree growing nearby.”
Gartner conducted measurements and found that, under dry conditions, juvenile wood conducts water to the top of a tree better than mature
wood does. “So we may find that the tree needs a certain proportion of
juvenile wood” to help it survive and grow in a variety of environmental
conditions.
“If we can find out why the plant is making juvenile wood,” Gartner
says, “then we may find silvicultural ways to hasten the maturing process,”—
or, alternatively, find good reasons to let the tree pursue its own maturing
strategies.
Ultimately, Gartner’s research will help silviculturists better understand
how certain manipulations of a site will affect the quality of the wood in the
trees growing there. Her findings will help managers encourage trees to produce more of the type of wood desired for the final product, or produce it
sooner.
45
MAKING NEWER, STRONGER
MATERIALS BY MIMICKING
NATURE
“Making composites is a way of taking a
natural material—wood—and finding out
how to make the best use of its attributes. It’s not just using it, but making
something new from it.”
C
46
onsider a bone. On the outside, its shape
perfectly matches its function. Inside, it has
cells of different kinds, oriented in different directions. A femur isn’t cut from a uniform sheet
Phil Humphrey uses an
of material called “bone.”
instrument specially
developed to test adhesives.
“The internal structures of bones or trees or insect shells are elaborate—they involve complex mixes of cells of different
types and different orientations,” says Philip Humphrey, associate professor
of Forest Products at Oregon State University. Humphrey believes the concept of bone structure will someday lead to a revolution in the materials
used in buildings, cars, and even aircraft.
Trees, like bones, are sophisticated pieces of natural engineering. Each
cell is shaped and oriented to perform a specific function. Cutting a 2 by 4
is thus a rather inefficient way of using a tree’s cells. “When we cut a board,
we violate the tree’s structure and end up with a product which is highly
variable. As a result, we have to be conservative in estimating how much
load it can bear.”
Humphrey’s research could eventually lead not only to savings in manufacturing costs, but to the development of more-effective materials that are
also kinder to the environment. These improvements could come about
through a shift from using metals to using wood composites for a wide
range of applications.
Currently, Humphrey is looking for ways to take advantage of wood’s
natural strength by efficiently arranging the fibers in composites—matching form to function as elegantly as bones do. But Humphrey didn’t grow
up expecting to be a scientist. He spent his teen years in England building
clavichords, lutes, and harps. Learning about wood at university, he thought,
would help him make better musical instruments. Although he soon found
the research itself exciting, his early interests haven’t been wasted: “Designing and making things is a good foundation for being creative in research.”
Humphrey’s plans for the future have emerged from his experience with
traditional wood composites. Composites are made from fibers, flakes, wafers, or strands of wood bonded with small amounts of glue in processes
involving both heat and pressure. “Making composites,” Humphrey points
out, “is a way of taking a natural material—wood—and finding out how to
make the best use of its attributes. It’s not just using it, but making something new from it.”
When Humphrey began his career, little was known about the physics
of making composites. His doctoral work led to the development of mathematical models that described changes in heat and gas movement during
the wood–adhesive bonding process. This work puts the manufacture of
wood composites on a scientific footing. “The physics is very complicated,”
Humphrey explains. “It’s important to know the speed at which the bonds
develop strength and how the fibers squeeze together.” If these processes are
not understood, the changes that occur with heat and pressure can cause so
much internal stress that the panels are damaged or blown apart. To examine these changes, Humphrey has developed an automated bonding evaluation system (ABES) that measures the effects of time, temperature, and pressure on the development of bonding strength.
In Humphrey’s laboratory, elegantly constructed machines line the
benches. Each of these miniature, automated gadgets tests some aspect of
wood or glue strength. To test a bond, Humphrey glues together the ends of
two wafers, each about half the size of a Popsicle stick, and punches some
numbers into a laptop: “Let’s try 40 seconds at 110 degrees C.” Inserting
the dry end of each stick into a small clamp, he flips a switch on the ABES,
and the miniature pressing plates move to squeeze and heat the glued connection. In 40 seconds, the heating stops and the pressure is released. Gently, the clamps tug the sticks apart. Almost immediately, the bond fails and
the sticks separate with a little hiss. A graph on the computer records the
action.
Each of these tests produces new data on heat or gas movement within
a tiny subdivision of the bond, as well as measuring its strength. Because
each property is affected by every other factor, the data points multiply fast.
“We’re looking at the bond’s hygro-thermo-visco-elastic properties,”
Humphrey explains. “That is, how heat, moisture, and pressure affect the
speed of strength development.”
47
48
The interest is not just academic. In the wood-products industry, panels
are produced in continuous presses costing $150 million that turn out the
equivalent of about twenty 4- by 8-foot panels a minute. Consequently,
production speed is critical. Humphrey’s mathematical models of the intricacies of bonding behavior and composite pressing aim to improve the efficiency of these machines.
It is the prospect of developing revolutionary new products, however,
that excites Humphrey the most—products inspired by bones, trees, and
insect shells. Like natural structures, the new products would have both a
specific external shape and a complex internal structure. Envisioning such
products is a form of biomimetics—borrowing ideas from nature. “We’re
not copying the bones, but we’re using the philosophy of bones to control
shape and to micromanage internal structure. We use mathematical models
both to identify what we should make and to find ways of making it.”
The new products would overcome the problem of passive fibers in
existing wood-based composites; the fibers fill space, but their particular
strengths aren’t used efficiently. No matter what fibers are used, their arrangement is crucial. “The challenge is to assemble the fibers so they work
for us. They need to bond in such a way that each contributes to the strength
and stiffness of the product.”
It’s an awareness of these shortcomings that inspires Humphrey’s goals
for the future; what’s been learned from conventional composites will help
with the formulation of new ones. Eventually, new products from natural
fibers could replace some of the load-bearing parts used in aircraft and other
products. Each piece would be individually designed, with computers
reconfiguring the same machines to produce different parts. “With this new
approach, we’re aiming for products highly tailored to particular uses—
products that are environmentally better and more efficient than other materials such as aluminum alloys,” says Humphrey. “What we’ll be forming
are objects designed to perform very specific functions very efficiently, rather
than commodity products which can be used in a lot of situations with only
moderate efficiency.”
Humphrey is particularly attracted by the idea of creating substitutes
for the metal alloys used in planes and cars. “The environmental impact of
using alloys is great. Smelting ore uses large amounts of energy and produces toxic wastes. Composites from natural fibers are much more environmentally friendly and can be assembled to perform as well or better structurally.”
Developing these new products is more than just a dream. Humphrey’s
group has already created prototypes in the lab, and initial demo products
might include a load-bearing part of a car suspension or steering system.
Ultimately, the goal is to make the most efficient use possible of natural
resources. “If we’re going to use wood from forests, we’re morally bound to
use it efficiently.”
49
WOOD AND PLASTIC: EACH GIVES SOMETHING TO
THE OTHER
“If we’re going to provide the
standard of living people want
with the resource base available,
we’re going to have to do more
with less. Using recycled plastic
and recycled wood to make new
materials and new products is a
way to achieve that.”
W
50
ood is not usually thought of
in connection with car manufacturing, but the next time
John Simonsen: improving the
performance of wood-plastic composites. you’re in a Ford Thunderbird, notice the
little shelf on which you rest your elbow. It’s made of wood. More precisely,
it is made of a material called a wood-plastic composite.
More and more, nonstructural products like car door panels and trim,
home window frames, and porch railings are being made from plastic mixed
with ground-up bits of wood. Both the plastic and the wood often come
from recycled materials—discarded wooden pallets and plastic milk jugs.
Combining these materials offers a way to reduce waste of natural resources, make more use of recycled materials, and fill certain market niches
better than either pure wood or pure plastic materials.
Wood-plastic composites, says John Simonsen, have lately become a
hot marketplace item as new products and new applications have been developed in the last several years. An industry trade journal estimates that the
total production of wood-plastic composites tripled from 1997 to 1999.
“It’s still a small part of the market,” says Simonsen, “but it’s growing at
about 40 percent a year.” Simonsen, a professor in the Department of Forest Products, is a chemist whose research is helping to make wood-plastic
composites stronger, stiffer, and easier and cheaper to manufacture.
The idea of adding wood to plastic to enhance its structural properties
is not new. Bakelite, the very first commercially developed plastic, had wood
fiber as part of its mix back in 1907. Over the years, many materials have
been added to plastic as “filler,” but wood is a particularly good one, says
Simonsen. Wood fiber adds strength and stiffness to plastic. It makes the
final product lighter in weight and, in some cases, faster to manufacture.
For its part, plastic adds something to wood: resistance to rot and insect
damage, and ease of manufacturing.
Wood-plastic composites are best suited for nonstructural products like
panels, molding, window frames, picnic tables, and highway signposts. They
turn up in some less-likely products, too, like drumsticks—the musical variety. “I’ve heard that the all-plastic ones are too floppy and all-wood ones
are too dull-sounding,” says Simonsen, “but that these are just right.”
Composites do not work well for structural uses, and for that reason
they’ll probably never replace dimension lumber, Simonsen says. The closest thing to a structural product commercially available now is wood-plastic
composite decking. It resists mold, rot, and staining (although it is not impervious), but it can’t compete with real lumber for strength and stiffness.
Try to use it like conventional lumber, and you’ll get “creep”—the propensity of plastic to be malleable; to sag, twist, and otherwise lose its structural
integrity.
As a chemist, Simonsen is interested in the interface between plastic
and wood, two very different materials: “Scientifically, that’s where the action is.” In general, wood attracts water (it’s hydrophilic), while plastics
repel water (they’re hydrophobic). So making composites is “like mixing oil
and water,” Simonsen says. “You have to get them to stick together, and
they don’t easily do that.”
Simonsen and his colleague, Kaichang Li (Forest Products), are working on ways to create hybrid molecules, half wood and half plastic, in the
lab. Adding small amounts of these molecules, called “compatibilizers,” to
the composite mixture helps the ingredients blend better. It also greatly
improves the strength and stiffness of the product.
Molecules of this sort have been developed in other laboratories to help
blend different types of plastics, says Simonsen. “We’re taking molecules of
polypropylene and ‘grafting’ another chemical to it. For reasons not well
understood, these hybrid molecules make wood and polypropylene mix more
easily.”
Another interesting problem is how to make a pure plastic surface material stick to a wood-polymer base. Molded countertops and similar products are now made with pure wood bases. Simonsen and his Forest Products
colleagues are working on better ways to bond the tops to the bottoms.
“The adhesion is done in a hot press, and now the press tends to melt the
51
plastic.” The work involves both adhesive chemistry and trials of different
application processes.
Wood-plastic composites, says Simonsen, are a very practical way to
improve the stewardship of natural resources. “If we’re going to provide the
standard of living people want with the resource base available, we’re going
to have to do more with less. Using recycled plastic and recycled wood to
make new materials and new products is a way to achieve that.”
52
THE HUMAN FACTOR
Deciphering people’s feelings about
and attitudes toward the land may be
the most difficult as well as the most
important task facing forest managers
in this new century.
F
orest managers know a lot about how forests function, and their knowledge is growing. They can even make reasonable projections about what a forest will look like in the
future if certain management practices are followed today.
What they cannot predict with much success
is how people will respond to those management
decisions. The human factor can make all the dif- Bruce Shindler: What do people
ference in whether a resource manager can carry find acceptable and appropriate
on forest lands?
out forest practices successfully.
What makes a particular forestry practice acceptable or not? Bruce
Shindler, associate professor in the Department of Forest Resources, is using social-science research methods to get at this most elusive of questions:
What do people find acceptable and appropriate on forest lands, and what
factors influence their judgment? “There is a gap in understanding of the
full range of social factors and how they fit into natural-resource management,” Shindler says.
This gap has caused no end of trouble between forest managers—both
public and private—and the people to whom their decisions matter. Natural-resource debates have been called “wicked” problems because they are
too big and complex to be solved by top-down technical analysis. “Wicked
problems are interrelated ones of organized complexity that cannot be solved
in isolation from one another, but also hinge on differing sociopolitical values that clash in the political arena,” wrote Shindler and coauthor Lori Cramer
(OSU Department of Sociology) in a recent article in the Western Journal of
Applied Forestry.
But it is not enough to throw up the hands, as frustrated forest managers
have been tempted to do, and declare such problems unsolvable. Social-science
53
54
techniques are proving useful in understanding the patterns that exist in public
attitudes and citizen behaviors about natural-resource management.
Although not as reliable as measurements of ecological processes, says
Shindler, social assessments can provide valuable information about the various
“publics” managers encounter. A better understanding of how and why people
accept—or reject—natural-resource management strategies will help resource
professionals make more effective, and ultimately more durable, decisions.
In his newest study, Shindler and colleague Mark Brunson of Utah State
University are evaluating public responses to certain ways of treating fuels
in fire-prone forest and range settings, particularly lands at the urban fringe.
They are using surveys, focus groups, interviews, and other social-science
research methods to illuminate how, and under what circumstances, people
decide whether prescribed fire, thinning, mechanical mowing, and other
treatments are acceptable or not.
Because the human dynamic is complicated, decision pathways are not
easily elucidated, Shindler says. “Nor can we count on social processes being
replicated. You can’t just make up a checklist and feed it into a computer
model.” In fact, this common assumption of scientific methodology may be
part of the problem when it comes to the human factor. Researchers and
managers sometimes assume that good science alone will guarantee a good
forest plan. But many wicked natural resource problems hinge on managers’
and citizens’ different ways of seeing the world.
“For example, ‘landscape,’ to a forester or an ecologist, usually means a
place where the traditional boundary of the forest stand or watershed has been
expanded to take in a range of biophysical and geological processes,” Shindler
says. “But to lay people, a landscape is often a particular place with well-defined
boundaries, one that has meaning for them apart from its physical processes.
For example, forest places often have an identity among local communities, and
people are concerned about maintaining access to the site for the activities they
currently enjoy.”
In other words, people hold powerful feelings about a place that a mere
biophysical definition of “landscape” does not begin to capture. These personal forms of knowledge about place are hard to incorporate into management plans based on scientific and rational knowledge. Traditional landmanagement agencies often have difficulty knowing what to do with such
“squishy” information, says Shindler. A one-size-fits-all management plan
that does not take people’s personal meanings into account runs a high risk
of being judged unacceptable by those people most affected by it, and thus
becoming the target of extended debate.
For that reason, an awareness of context is crucial, says Shindler. “Not
only the spatial context—how big an area are we managing?—or the temporal—what will this landscape produce over time?—but just as importantly, the social and political context.” Contextual questions involve the
unique characteristics of the place, how the land has been managed over
time, and the expectations of the community for allocation of the resources.
For example, a management plan is more likely to be acceptable to the
public if its framers consider questions like these: Who lives nearby, and
who lives farther away, and how do their interests merge or diverge? How
will decisions about the forest’s future be made, and by whom? What are the
risks and costs of treatment alternatives? Who wins and who loses in different management scenarios?
The quality of the decision-making process is also important in whether
decisions are acceptable to the public, says Shindler. If citizens perceive that
the process is open and fair, that they have enough information to make real
choices, that their concerns are taken seriously, and that decisionmakers are
genuine and trustworthy, then they are more likely to accept the decisions
that emerge.
It may seem that the natural resource management arena is nothing but
a battleground. “As scientists studying the social side of resource management, I sometimes feel we cast ourselves in a doomsday role, pointing out
all the problems,” says Shindler with a smile. “But we’re also finding many
examples of positive interactions between citizens and resource managers.
We’ve found common elements across settings that are helping us establish
a core set of criteria for public acceptance of management practices.”
Some of those successful elements were identified by Shindler and colleague Julie Neburka in a recent Journal of Forestry article on public participation in forest planning. Among them are selecting committed participants, encouraging full group interaction, clearly defining the group’s mission, making the decisionmaker a regular and full participant, disseminating current and reliable information, defining key terms, answering questions promptly and directly, and tending to such “care and feeding” touches
as providing drinks and snacks at long meetings to show participants that
their efforts are valued.
Deciphering people’s feelings about and attitudes toward the land may
be the most difficult as well as the most important task facing forest managers in this new century. From a research perspective, social scientists like
Bruce Shindler are playing a significant role in helping land managers arrive
at lasting, acceptable decisions.
55
E S E A R C H
R
F O R
E S O U R C E S
R
56
A glance at the graph of research expenditures on the following page
shows that the bulk of the Forest Research Lab expenditure comes from
grants and contracts from funding agencies and organizations outside the
University. Many of these grants are awarded to faculty members through
competitive selection, and for most of them the competition is stiff. FRL
researchers have been consistently rated first among those at all U.S. universities in obtaining outside funding for forestry and forest products research.
Success in this arena makes the FRL a vital center for all kinds of research in
many forestry-related disciplines. All this research ultimately contributes to
better stewardship and sustainability of our nation’s forests.
Of FRL research expenditures from these outside grants and contracts,
about 65 percent derives from Federal sources, and about half of that amount
comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The U.S. Department of the
Interior and the National Science Foundation are the other principal Federal
contributors to FRL grant-and-contract research. Other funds are provided by
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FRL research is directly supported by Federal appropriations under the
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Act, which provides research
funds to states on the basis of a formula that considers forest land area, annual
timber harvest, and nonfederal funds provided for research. FRL research also is
supported by a direct appropriation in the State’s biennial budget.
The forest-products industry supports FRL research through the Oregon
Forest Products Harvest Tax, levied on all timber harvested in Oregon and dedicated in part to FRL research. Individual companies participate in FRL research
also through industry memberships in the FRL’s several research cooperatives
and through direct research contracts. The State of Oregon and the Federal
government also participate beyond their direct appropriations through membership of some natural-resource agencies in research cooperatives.
These various sources of funds reflect the diverse research concerns of
the FRL’s broad constituency. But our stakeholders share a common concern about good stewardship of forests. The starting point for good stewardship is good science. It is that essential fact that gives our research programs shape and purpose.
FUNDING SOURCE
155
1998-99
122
9
BY
6
3
0
State
Harvest
Tax
Federal
Grants,
Gra
ts,
Research
Contracts,
Forest
Endowment Operations
EXPENDITURES
INCOME SOURCE
1998–99
1999–00
State Appropriation
1,949,715
(10%)
2,515,000
(12%)
Oregon Forest Products Harvest Tax
2,306,500
(11%)
2,384,000
(12%)
681,000
(3%)
731,000
(4%)
12,779,525
(62%)
11,467,809
(57%)
2,813,306
(14%)
2,964,000
(15%)
Federal Appropriation (McIntire-Stennis)
Grants, Contracts, Endowment
Research Forest Operations
TOTAL
20,530,046 20,061,809
RESEARCH EXPENDITURES
Expenditures (millions of dollars)
1999-00
57
U B L I C A T I O N S
P
O R E S T R Y
F
FOREST REGENERATION
Aagaard, JE, KV Krutovskii, and SH
Strauss. 1998. RAPDs and
allozymes exhibit similar levels of
diversity and differentiation
among populations and races of
Douglas-fir. Heredity 81: 69–78.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Aagaard, JE, KV Krutovskii, and SH
Strauss. 1998. RAPD markers of
mitochondrial origin exhibit
lower population diversity and
higher differentiation than
RAPDs of nuclear origin in
Douglas fir. Molecular Ecology 7:
801–812. (For. Res. Lab.)
Adams, WT, and T Anekonda. 2000.
Genetics of dark respiration and
its relationship with drought
hardiness in coastal Douglas-fir.
Termochimica Acta 349: 69–77.
Adams, WT, J Zuo, JY Shimizu, and
JC Tappeiner. 1998. Impact of
alternative regeneration methods
on genetic diversity in coastal
Douglas-fir. Forest Science 44:
390–396. (For. Res. Lab.)
Ahmed, AA, AH Mohamed, AM
Abou-Douh, ME Hassan, F
Darwish, and JJ Karchesy. 1999.
A new chromene glucoside from
Ageratum conyzoides. Planta
Medica 65: 171–172.
Anekonda, TS, and WT Adams. 2000.
Genetics of dark respiration and
its relationship with drought
hardiness in coastal Douglas-fir.
Thermochimica Acta 349: 69–77.
Anekonda, TS, WT Adams, and SN
Aitken. 2000. Cold hardiness
testing for Douglas-fir tree
improvement programs: Guidelines for a simple, robust, and
inexpensive screening method.
Western Journal of Applied Forestry
15(3): 129–136.
Anekonda, TS, WT Adams, SN
Aitken, DB Neale, KD Jermstad,
and NC Wheeler. 2000. Genetics
of cold hardiness in a cloned fullsib family of coastal Douglas-fir.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 837–840.
Anekonda, TS, RS Criddle, M Bacca,
and LD Hansen. 1999. Contrasting adaptation of two Eucalyptus
subgenera is related to differences
in respiratory metabolism. Functional Ecology 13: 75–682.
Anekonda, TS, RS Criddle, MJ Bacca,
and LD Hansen. 2000. Influence
of age on dark respiration in
eucalypts. Thermochimica Acta
343: 11–17.
Aubry, CA, WT Adams, and TD Fahey.
1998. Determination of relative
economic weights for multitrait
selection in coastal Douglas-fir.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 28: 1164–1170.
Bailey, JD, C Mayrsohn, PS Doescher,
E St Pierre, and JC Tappeiner.
Forest Regeneration
1998. Understory vegetation in
old and young Douglas-fir forests
of western Oregon. Forest Ecology
and Management 112: 289–302.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Baldocchi, DD, BE Law, and PM
Anthoni. 2000. On measuring and
modeling energy fluxes above the
floor of a homogeneous and
heterogeneous conifer forest.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
102: 187–206.
Balduman, LM, SN Aitken, M
Harmon, and WT Adams. 1999.
Genetic variation in cold hardiness of Douglas-fir in relation to
parent tree environment. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:
62–72.
Becker, P, FC Meinzer, and SD
Wullschleger. 2000. Hydraulic
limitation of tree height: A
critique. Functional Ecology
14: 4–11.
Belokon, YS, DV Politov, MM
Belokon, KV Krutovskii, OM
Maluchenko, and YP Altukhov.
1998. Genetic differentiation in
white pines of the section strobus:
isozyme analysis data. Doklady
Biological Sciences 358: 81–84.
(Translated into English from the
Proceedings of Russian Academy of
Sciences: Doklady Akademii Nauk
(Russian) 358: 699–702.)
Birchler, T., RW Rose, A Royo, and M
Pardos. 1998. La planta ideal:
Revision del concepto, parametros
definitorios e implementacion
practica. Investigacion Agraria.
Sistemas y Recursos Forestales
7(1&2): 109–121. (In Spanish.)
Bond, BJ, and KL Kavanagh. 1999.
Stomatal behavior of four woody
species in relation to leaf-specific
hydraulic conductance and
threshold water potential. Tree
Physiology 19: 503–510. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Bond, BJ, and MG Ryan. 2000.
Comment on “Hydraulic limitation of tree height: A critique,” by
Becker, Meinzer and Wullschleger.
Functional Ecology 14: 135–140.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Brandeis, TJ, EC Cole, and M Newton.
1999. Underplanting and competition in thinned coastal Douglasfir, pp. 15–28 in Healthy Forests
for the 21st Century: New Technologies in Integrated Vegetation
Management. Proceedings of the
20th Annual Forest Vegetation
Management Conference, January
1999, Redding CA. Forest Vegetation Management Conference,
Redding CA.
Brunner, AM, R Mohamed, R Meilan,
LA Sheppard, WH Rottman, and
SH Strauss. 1998. Genetic
engineering of sexual sterility in
shade trees. Journal of
Arboriculture 24: 263–273 (For.
Res. Lab.)
Caldwell, BA, RP Griffiths, and P
Sollins. 1999. Soil enzyme
59
Forest Regeneration
response to vegetation disturbance
in two lowland Costa Rican soils.
Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31:
1603–1608.
Caldwell, BA, A Jumpponen, and JM
Trappe. 2000. Utilization of
major detrital substrates by darkseptate, root endophytes.
Mycologia 92(2): 230–232.
Chaide-Gonzales, J, RF GonzalezLaredo, and JJ Karchesy. 1998.
Stilbene xyloside and decaffeoyl
ester of glucose from ocean spray
bark. Ubamari 44: 9–13.
Chen, J, RF Gonzalez-Laredo, and JJ
Karchesy. 2000. Some minor
diarylheptanoid glycosides of
Alnus rubra bark. Phytochemistry
53: 971–973.
Clearwater, MJ, FC Meinzer, JL
Andrade, G Goldstein, and NM
Holbrook. 1999. Potential errors in
measurement of nonuniform sap
flow using heat dissipation probes.
Tree Physiology 19: 681–687.
Cole, EC, M Newton, and A
Youngblood. 1999. Regenerating
white spruce, paper birch, and
willow in south-central Alaska.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
29: 993–1001. (For. Res. Lab.)
60
Cromack, J, Jr, RE Miller, OT
Helgerson, RB Smith, and HW
Anderson. 1999. Soil carbon and
nutrients in a coastal Oregon
Douglas-fir plantation with red
alder. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 63: 232–239.
DiFazio, SP, MV Wilson, and NC
Vance. 1998. Factors limiting seed
production of Taxus brevifolia
(Taxaceae) in western Oregon.
American Journal of Botany 85:
910–918. (For. Res. Lab.)
DiFazio, SP, S Leonardi, S Cheng, and
SH Strauss. 1999. Assessing
potential risks of transgene escape
from fiber plantations, pp. 171–
176 in Gene Flow and Agriculture:
Relevance for Transgenic Crops, PW
Putnam, ed. Symposium Proceedings No. 72, British Crop Protection Council, Farnham, UK. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Doede, DL, and WT Adams. 1998.
The genetics of stem volume,
stem form, and branch characteristics in sapling noble fir. Silvae
Genetica 47: 177–183.
~
Dogvan, B, AG Ozer, AG Gülbaba, E
Veliogv lu, AH Doerksen, and WT
Adams. 1998. Inheritance and
linkage of allozymes in black pine
(Pinus nigra Arnold), pp. 249–256
in The Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Diversity, 4–
8 November, Belek, Antalya, Turkey,
N Zencirci, A Kaya, Y Anikster, and
WT Adams, eds. Central Research
Institute for Field Crops, Ankara,
Turkey.
Fitzgerald, SA. 1999. Prepare the site
with prescribed fire. Tree Farmer
5/6.
Franklin, JF, LA Norris, DR Berg, and
GR Smith. 1999. The history of
Forest Regeneration
DEMO: An experiment in
regeneration harvest of Northwestern forest ecosystems. Northwest Science 73: 3–11. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Fredrickson, E, and M Newton. 1998.
Maximizing Efficiency of Forest
Herbicides in the Sierra Nevada
and Oregon: Research Background
and User Guide. Research Contribution 19, Forest Research
Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
~
Gülbaba,, AG, E Veliogv lu, AG Ozer, B
Dogvan, AH Doerksen, and WT
Adams. 1998. Population genetic
structue of Kazdagvi fir (Abies
equitrojani Aschers. et sint), a
narrow endemic to Turkey:
Implications for in-situ conservation, pp. 271–280 in The Proceedings of the International Symposium
on In Situ Conservation of Plant
Genetic Diversity, 4–8 November,
Belek, Antalya, Turkey, N Zencirci,
A Kaya, Y Anikster, and WT
Adams, eds. Central Research
Institute for Field Crops, Ankara,
Turkey.
Haase, DL, J Trobaugh, and R Rose.
1999. Preliminary results of field
trials to assess performance of
Douglas-fir container stock grown
with fertilizer-amended media,
pp. 82–86 in Healthy Forests for
the 21st Century: New Technologies
in Integrated Vegetation Management. Proceedings of the 20th
Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference, January 1999,
Redding California. Fores Vegetation Management Conference,
Redding CA.
Han, K-H, R Meilan, C Ma, and SH
Strauss. 2000. An Agrobacterium
tumefaciens transformation
protocol effective on a variety of
cottonwood hybrids (genus
Populus). Plant Cell Reports 19:
315–320. (For. Res. Lab.)
James, RR, SP DiFazio, AM Brunner,
and SH Strauss. 1998. Environmental effects of genetically engineered woody biomass crops.
Biomass and Bioenergy 14: 403–
414. (For. Res. Lab.)
Jeong, S-C, and DD Myrold. 1999.
Genomic fingerprinting of
Frankia microsymbionts from
Ceanothus copopulations using
repetitive sequences and polymerase chain reactions. Canadian
Journal of Botany 77: 1220–1230.
Johannisson, C, DD Myrold, and P
Högberg. 1999. Retention of
nitrogen by a nitrogen-loaded
Scotch pine forest. Soil Science
Society of America Journal 63:
383–389.
Joseph, G, and RG Kelsey. 1999.
Growth of Douglas-fir and
ponderosa pine seedlings with
foliar applications of methanol
and ethanol. Western Journal of
Applied Forestry 14: 183–185.
Joseph, G, and RG Kelsey 2000. Physiology and growth of Douglas-fir
seedlings treated with ethanol
61
Forest Regeneration
solutions. Plant Science 150: 191–
199.
Kelsey, RG, G Joseph, and EA Gerson.
1998. Ethanol synthesis, nitrogen,
carbohydrates, and growth in
tissues from nitrogen fertilized
Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.)
Franco and Pinus ponderosa
Dougl. ex Laws. seedlings. Trees
13: 103–111. (For. Res. Lab.)
Ketchum, JS, and R Rose. 2000.
Interaction of initial seedling size,
fertilization, and vegetation
control, pp. 63–68 in Proceedings
of the California Forest Vegetation
Management Conference, 18–20
January 2000, Redding, California.
Forest Vegetation Management
Conference, Redding CA.
Ketchum, JS, R Rose, and B Kelpas.
1999. Weed control in spring and
summer after fall application of
sulfometuron. Western Journal of
Applied Forestry 14: 80–85. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Ketchum, JS, R Rose, and B Kelpas.
2000. Comparison of adjuvants
used in fall-release herbicide
mixtures and forest site preparation. Tree Planters’ Notes 49(3):
66–71.
62
Krutovskii, KV, SY Erofeeva, JE
Aagaard, and SH Strauss. 1999.
Simulation of effects of dominance on estimates of population
genetic diversity and differentiation. Journal of Heredity 90: 499–
502. (For. Res. Lab.)
Lawrence, RL, and WJ Ripple. 1999.
Calculating change curves for
multitemporal satellite imagery:
Mount St. Helens 1980–1995.
Remote Sensing of Environment 67:
309–319. (For. Res. Lab.)
Meilan, R, K-H Han, C Ma, RR
James, JA Eaton, BJ Stanton, E
Hoien, RP Crockett, and SH
Strauss. 2000. Development of
glyphosate-tolerant hybrid
cottonwoods. Tappi Journal 83
(1): 164–166.
Meinzer, FC, G Goldstein, AC Franco,
M Bustamante, E Igler, P Jackson,
L Caldas, and PW Rundel. 1999.
Atmospheric and hydraulic
limitations on transpiration in
Brazilian cerrado woody species.
Functional Ecology 13: 273–282.
Monleon, VJ, M Newton, C Hooper,
and JC Tappeiner II. 1999. Tenyear growth response of young
Douglas-fir to variable density
varnishleaf ceanothus and herb
competition. Western Journal of
Applied Forestry 14: 208–213.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Morrell, PD, and JJ Morrell. 1999.
Strongmen of the underground.
The American Biology Teacher
6(1): 54–55.
Myrold, DD. 1999. Nitrogen transformations and management interactions in forests, pp. 106–113 in
Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest
Forest and Rangeland Soil Organism Symposium, March 17–19,
Forest Regeneration
1998, Corvallis, Oregon, RT
Meurisse, WG Ypsilantis, and C
Seybold, eds. General Technical
Report PNW-GTR-461,USDA
Forest Service, Portland OR.
Newton, M. 1999. Low-volume waving
wand applications in forestry, pp.
93–95 in Healthy Forests for the
21st Century: New Technologies in
Integrated Vegetation Management.
Proceedings of the 20th Annual
Forest Vegetation Management
Conference, January 1999,
Redding, California. Forest
Vegetation Management Conference, Redding CA.
Newton, M. 2000. Management
strategies and objectives for
successful reforestation planning,
pp. 18–21 in Healthy Forests for
the 21st Century: New Technologies
in Integrated Vegetation Management. Proceedings of the 20th
Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference, January 1999,
Redding, California. Forest
Vegetation Management Conference, Redding CA.
Newton, M, EC Cole, and J Robbins.
2000. Managing yield and wood
quality in second-growth forests,
pp. 53–59 in Healthy Forests for
the 21st Century: New Technologies
in Integrated Vegetation Management. Proceedings of the 20th
Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference, January 1999,
Redding, California. Forest
Vegetation Management Conference, Redding CA.
Pyke, DA. 1999. Monitoring weed
populations in biocontrol
projects, pp. 39–42 in Weed
Biocontrol: Extended Abstracts from
the 1997 Interagency Noxious-Weed
Symposium, 2–4 December 1997,
Corvallis, Oregon, D Isaacson and
M Brookes, eds. USDA Forest
Service Report FHTET-98-12,
Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV.
Pyke, DA, PH Smith, JM Patterson,
KA Ticknor, JF Henson, and SD
Warren. 1999. Selecting native
plants using VegSpec. A Webbased expert system, pp. 159–160
in Proceedings of Symposium on
Native Plants: Propagation and
Planting, 9–10 December 1998,
Corvallis, Oregon, R Rose and D
Haase, eds. Nursery Technology
Cooperative, Department of
Forest Science, Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Radosevich, S. 1998. Weed ecology and
ethics. Weed Science 46: 642–646.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Ritchie, NJ, and DD Myrold. 1999.
Geographic distribution and
genetic diversity of Ceanothusinfective Frankia. Applications of
Environmental Microbiology 65:
1378–1383.
Ritchie, NJ, and DD Myrold. 1999.
Phylogenetic placement of
uncultured Ceanothus
microsymbionts using 16S rRNA
gene sequences. Canadian Journal
of Botany 77: 1208–1213.
63
Forest Regeneration
Robertson, GP, CD Coleman, CS
Bledsoe, and P Sollins, editors.
1999. Standard Soil Methods for
Long-Term Ecological Research.
Oxford University Press, New
York.
Robertson, GP, P Sollins, BG Ellis, and
K Lajtha. 1999. Exchangeable
ions, pH, and cation exchange
capacity, pp. 106–114 in Standard
Soil Methods for Long-Term
Ecological Research, GP Robertson,
DC Coleman, CS Bledsoe, and P
Sollins, eds. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Rose, R. 1999. Implementation of the
target seedling concept. Vietnam
Forestry Review 3/4: 17–22. (In
Vietnamese.)
Rose, R, JS Ketchum, and DE Hanson.
1999. Three-year survival and
growth of Douglas-fir seedlings
under various vegetation-free
regimes. Forest Science 45: 117–
126. (For. Res. Lab.)
Rose, R, A Royo, and DL Haase. 1999.
Peltophorum dasyrachis seedling
growth response to different levels
of boron. Journal of Tropical Fruit
Science 11(4): 832–845.
64
Rottmann, WH, R Meilan, LA
Sheppard, AM Brunner, JS
Skinner, C Ma, S Cheng, L
Jouanin, G Pillate, and SH
Strauss. 2000. Diverse effects of
overexpression of LEAFY and
PTLF, the poplar homolog of
LEAFY/FLORICAULA, in
transgenic poplar (Populus
trichocarpa) and Arabidopsis. The
Plant Journal 22: 235–245. (For
Res. Lab.)
Ryan, MG, BJ Bond, BE Law, RM
Hubbard, D Woodruff, E
Cienciala, and J Kucera. 2000.
Transpiration and whole-tree
conductance in ponderosa pine
trees of different heights.
Oecologia 124: 553–560.
Scowcroft, PG, FC Meinzer, G
Goldstein, PJ Melcher, and J
Jeffrey. 2000. Moderating night
radiative cooling reduces frost
damage to Metrosideros
polymorpha seedlings used for
forest restoration in Hawaii.
Restoration Ecology 8: 161–169.
Sillett, SC, B McCune, JE Peck, TR
Rambo and AL Ruchty. 2000.
Dispersal limitations of epiphytic
lichens result in species dependent
on old-growth forests. Ecological
Applications 10(3): 789-799.
Skinner, JS, R Meilan, AM Brunner,
and SH Strauss. 2000. Options
for genetic engineering of floral
sterility in forest trees, pp. 135–
153 in Molecular Biology of Woody
Plants, SM Jain and SC Minocha,
eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Smith, JE, KA Johnson, E Cázares.
1998. Mycorrhizal colonization of
seedlings of Pinaceae and
Betulaceae after spore inoculation
with Glomus intraradices. Mycorrhiza 7: 279-285.
Forest Regeneration
Spicer, R, and BL Gartner. 1998. How
does a gymnosperm branch
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) assume the
hydraulic status of a main stem
when it takes over as leader? Plant,
Cell and Environment 21: 1063–
1070.
Spicer, R, and BL Gartner. 1998.
Hydraulic properties of Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
branches and branch halves with
reference to compression wood.
Tree Physiology 18: 777–784.
Stratton, L, G Goldstein, and FC
Meinzer. 2000. Stem water storage
capacity and efficiency of water
transport: Their functional significance in a Hawaiian dry forest.
Plant, Cell and Environment 23:
99–106.
Strauss, S, and R Meilan. 1998.
TGERC: Tree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperative.
AgBiotech News and Information
10(9): 305N–308N. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Strauss, SH, W Boerjan, J Cairney, M
Campbell, J Dean, D Ellis, L
Jouanin and B Sandberg. 1999.
Forest biotechnology makes its
position known. Nature Biotechnology 17: 1145.
Strauss, SH, K Raffa, and P List. 2000.
Ethics and genetically engineered
plantations. Journal of Forestry
98(7): 48 (continued on 47).
Tausend, PC, G Goldstein, and FC
Meinzer. 2000. Water utilization,
plant hydraulic properties and
xylem vulnerability in three
contrasting coffee (Coffea arabica)
cultivars. Tree Physiology 20: 159–
168.
Tausend, PC, FC Meinzer, and G
Goldstein. 2000. Control of
transpiration in three coffee
cultivars: The role of hydraulic
and crown architecture. Trees 14:
181–190.
Traut, BH, and PS Muir. 2000. Relationships of remnant trees to
vascular undergrowth communities in the western Cascades: A
retrospective approach. Northwest
Science 74(3): 212–223.
Whalen, JK, PJ Bottomley, and DD
Myrold. 2000. Carbon and
nitrogen mineralization from soil
organic matter fractions of
agricultural and forest soils. Soil
Biology Biochemistry 32: 1345–
1352.
Wu, J, KV Krutovskii, and SH Strauss.
1998. Abundant mitochondrial
genome diversity, population
differentiation and convergent
evolution in pines. Genetics 150:
1605–1614. (For. Res. Lab.)
Wu, J, KV Krutovskii, and SH Strauss.
1999. Nuclear DNA diversity,
population differentiation, and
phylogenetic relationships in the
California closed-cone pines based
on RAPD and allozyme markers.
Genome 42: 893–908. (For. Res.
Lab.)
65
FOREST ECOLOGY, CULTURE, AND PRODUCTIVITY
Acker, SA, WA McKee, ME Harmon,
and JF Franklin. 1998. Long-term
research on forest dynamics in the
Pacific Northwest: A network of
permanent forest plots, pp. 93–106
in Proceedings of Forest Biodiversity
in North, Central, and South
America and the Caribbean: Research
and Monitoring, May 23–25, 1995,
Washington DC, F Dallmeier and
JA Comiskey, eds. Man and the
Biosphere Series, The Parthenon
Publishing Group, Inc., New York.
Acker, SA, EK Zenner, and WH
Emmingham. 1998. Structure
and yield of two-aged stands on
the Willamette National Forest,
Oregon: Implications for green
tree retention. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research 28: 749–758.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Adam, MD, and JR des Lauriers. 1998.
Observations of hummingbirds
ingesting mineral-rich compounds. Journal of Field Ornithology 69: 257–261.
Adam, MD, and JP Hayes. 1998.
Arborimus pomo. Mammalian
Species 593: 1–5.
Adam, MD, and JP Hayes. 2000. Use
of bridges as night roosts by bats
in the Oregon Coast Range.
Journal of Mammalogy 81: 402–
407.
66
Anthoni, PM, BE Law, and MH
Unsworth. 1999. Carbon and
water vapor exchange of an opencanopied ponderosa pine ecosystem. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 95: 151–168. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Anthoni, PM, BE Law, MH Unsworth,
RJ Vong. 1999. Variation of net
radiation over heterogeneous
surfaces: measurements and
simulation in a juniper-sagebrush
ecosystem. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 102: 275–286.
Bailey, JD, and JC Tappeiner. 1998.
Effects of thinning on structural
development in 40- to 100-yearold Douglas-fir stands in western
Oregon. Forest Ecology and
Management 108: 99–113. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Barroetavena, C, SD Gisler, DL
Luoma, and RJ Meinke. 1998.
Mycorrhizal status of the endangered species Astragalus applegatei
Peck as determined from a soil
bioassay. Mycorrhiza 8: 117–119.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Bettinger, P, K Boston, and J Sessions.
1999. Combinatorial optimization of elk habitat effectiveness
and timber harvest volume.
Environmental Modeling and
Assessment 4: 143–153. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Bond, BJ, BT Farnsworth, RA
Coulombe, and WE Winner.
1999. Foliage physiology and
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
biochemistry in response to light
gradients in conifers with varying
shade tolerance. Oecologia 120:
183–192. (For. Res. Lab.)
Boone, RD, DF Grigal, P Sollins, RJ
Ahrens, and DE Armstrong.
1999. Soil sampling, preparation,
archiving, and quality control, pp.
3–28 in Standard Soil Methods for
Long-Term Ecological Research, GP
Robertson, DC Coleman, CS
Bledsoe, and P Sollins, ed. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Butts, SR, and WC McComb. 2000.
Associations of forest-floor
vertebrates with coarse woody
debris in managed forests of
western Oregon. Journal of
Wildlife Management 64: 95–104.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Carey, AB, CC Maguire, BL Biswell,
and TM Wilson. 1999. Distribution and abundance of Neotoma
in western Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science 73: 65–80.
Carroll, C, RF Noss, and PC Paquet.
1999. Carnivores as focal species for
conservation planning in the Rocky
Mountain region. World Wildlife
Fund Canada, Toronto.
data to build and test spatial
habitat models for the fisher in
the Klamath region, USA. Conservation Biology 13: 1344–1359.
Cazares, E, DL Luoma, MP
Amaranthus, CL Chambers, and
JF Lehmkuhl. 1998. Interaction
of fungal sporocarp production
with small mammal abundance
and diet in Douglas-fir stands of
the southern Cascade range.
Northwest Science 73: 64–76.
Chambers, CL, WC McComb, and JC
Tappeiner II. 1999. Breeding bird
responses to three silvicultural
treatments in the Oregon Coast
Range. Ecological Applications 9:
171–185.
Christensen, Jr, NL, SV Gregory, PR
Hagenstein, TA Heberlein, JC
Hendee, JT Olson, JM Peek, DA
Perry, TD Schowalter, K Sullivan,
GD Tilman, and KA Vogt. 2000.
Environmental Issues in Pacific
Northwest Forest Management.
National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Carroll, C, PC Paquet, and RF Noss.
1999. Modeling carnivore habitat
in the Rocky Mountain Region: A
literature review and suggested
strategy. World Wildlife Fund
Canada, Toronto.
Claridge, AW, JM Trappe, SJ Cork, and
DL Claridge. 1999. Mycophagy
by small mammals in the coniferous forests of North America:
Nutritional value of sporocarps of
Rhizopogon vinicolor, a common
hypogeous fungus. Journal of
Comparative Physiology B 169:
172–178.
Carroll, C, WJ Zielinski, and RF Noss.
1999. Using presence-absence
Cole, EC, WC McComb, M Newton,
JP Leeming, and CL Chambers.
67
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
1998. Response of small mammals to clearcutting, burning, and
glyphosate application in the
Oregon Coast Range. Journal of
Wildlife Management 62: 1207–
1216. (For. Res. Lab.)
Cole, EC, WC McComb, M Newton,
CL Chambers, and JP Leeming.
1999. Response of small mammal
and amphibian capture rates to
clearcutting, burning, and
glyphosate application in the
Oregon Coast Range, pp. 103–
105 in Healthy Forests for the 21st
Century: New Technologies in
Integrated Vegetation Management.
Proceedings of the 20th Annual
Forest Vegetation Management
Conference, January 1999, Redding
CA. Forest Vegetation Management Conference, Redding CA.
Colgan, III, W, AB Carey, JM Trappe,
R Molina, and D Thysell. 1999.
Diversity and productivity of
hypogeous fungal sporocarps in a
variably thinned Douglas-fir
forest. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 29: 1259–1268.
Cooperrider, A, RF Noss, H Welsh, C
Carroll, W Zielinski, D Olson, K
Nelson, and B Marcot. 2000.
Terrestrial fauna of redwood
forests, pp 119–163 in The
Redwood Forest: History, Ecology,
and Conservation of the Coast
Redwoods. RF Noss, ed. Island
Press, Washington DC.
68
Cordell, S, G Goldstein, FC Meinzer,
and LL Handley. 1999. Allocation
of nitrogen and carbon in leaves
of Metrosideros polymorpha regulates carboxylation capacity and
d13C along an altitudinal gradient.
Functional Ecology 13: 811–818.
Criddle, RS, TS Anekonda, H Tong,
JC Church, FT Ledig, and LD
Hansen. 2000. Respiration
parameters determine growth
traits in Eucalyptus: Effects of
growth climate. Australian Journal
of Plant Physiology 27: 435–443.
DellaSala, DA, RF Noss, and D Perry.
2000. Applying conservation
biology and ecosystem management
to federal lands and forest certification. Ecoforestry 15(2): 28–39.
Dobson, A, K Ralls, M Foster, ME
Soulé, D Simberloff, D Doak, JA
Estes, LS Mills, D Mattson, R
Dirzo, H Arita, S Ryan, EA
Norse, RF Noss, and D Johns.
1999. Corridors: Reconnecting
fragmented landscapes, pp. 129–
170 in Continental Conservation:
Scientific Foundations of Regional
Reserve Networks. ME Soulé and J
Terborgh, eds. Island Press,
Washington DC.
Eberhart, JL, and DL Luoma. 2000.
Russula densifolia + Pseudotsuga
menziesii, pp. CDE27.1–4 in A
manual of concise descriptions of
North American ectomycorrhizae,
DM Goodman, DM Durall, JA
Trofymow, and SM Berch, eds.
Mycologue Publications, and B.C.
Ministry of Forests, Canadian
Forest Service, Victoria BC.
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
Emmingham, WH. 1998. Uneven-aged
management in the Pacific
Northwest. Journal of Forestry
96(7): 37–39. (For. Res. Lab.)
Emmingham, WH, compiler. 1999.
Proceedings of the IUFRO Interdisciplinary Uneven-aged Management Symposium, September 1997.
Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon
State University, Corvallis. (Available for $49.00 from the Forestry
Communications Group, Oregon
State University, 256 Peavy Hall,
Corvallis, OR 97331-5704.)
Emmingham, BH, S Chan, D
Mikowski, P Owston, and B
Bishaw. 2000. Silviculture Practices
for Riparian Forests in the Oregon
Coast Range. Research Contribution 24, Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University,
Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
Garman, SL, FJ Swanson, and TA
Spies. 1999. Past, present, future
landscape patterns in the Douglas-fir region of the Pacific Northwest, pp. 61–86 in Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife and Management Implications, JA Rochelle,
LA Lehmann, and J Wisniewski,
eds. Brill Academic Publishing,
Leiden, The Netherlands.
Graff, JE, Jr., RK Hermann, and JB
Zaerr. 1999. Dry matter and
nitrogen allocation in western
redcedar, western hemlock, and
Douglas-fir seedlings grown in
low- and high-N soils. Annals of
Forest Science 56: 529–538. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Graff, JE, Jr., RK Hermann, and JB
Zaerr. 1999. Ionic balance and
organic acids in western redcedar,
western hemlock, and Douglas-fir
seedlings grown in low- and highN soils. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 29: 669–678. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Griffiths, RP, PS Homann, and R Riley.
1998. Denitrification enzyme
activity of Douglas-fir and red
alder forest soils of the Pacific
Northwest. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 30: 1147–1157.
Grigal, DF, JC Bell, RJ Ahrens, RD
Boone, EF Kelly, HC Monger,
and P Sollins. 1999. Site and
landscape characterization for
ecological studies, pp. 29–52 in
Standard Soil Methods for LongTerm Ecological Research, GP
Robertson, DC Coleman, CS
Bledsoe, and P Sollins, eds.
Oxford University Press, New
York.
Groffman, PM, EA Holland, DD
Myrold, GP Robertson, and X
Zou. 1999. Denitrification, pp.
272–288 in Standard Soil Methods
for Long-Term Ecological Research,
GP Robertson, DC Coleman, CS
Bledsoe, and P Sollins, eds.
Oxford University Press, New
York.
Hagar, JC. 1999. Influence of riparian
buffer width on bird assemblages
69
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
in western Oregon. Journal of
Wildlife Management 63: 484–
496. (For. Res. Lab.)
Han, H-S, and LD Kellogg. 2000. A
comparison of sampling methods
for measuring residual stand
damage from commercial thinning. Journal of Forest Engineering
11(1): 63–71. (For. Res. Lab.)
Han, H-S, and LD Kellogg. 2000.
Damage characteristics in young
Douglas-fir stands from commercial thinning with four timber
harvesting systems. Western
Journal of Applied Forestry 15(1):
27–33. (For Res. Lab.)
Han, H-S, LD Kellogg, GM Filip, and
TD Brown. 2000. Scar closure
and future timber value losses
from thinning damage in western
Oregon. Forest Products Journal 50
(1): 36–42. (For Res. Lab.)
Hanus, ML, DW Hann, and DD
Marshall. 2000. Predicting Height
to Crown Base for Undamaged and
Damaged Trees in Southwest
Oregon. Research Contribution
29, Forest Research Laboratory,
Oregon State University,
Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
70
Harmon, ME, and K Lajtha. 1999.
Analysis of detritus and organic
horizons for mineral and organic
constituents, pp. 143–165 in
Standard Soil Methods for LongTerm Ecological Research, GP
Robertson, DC Coleman, CS
Bledsoe, and P Sollins, eds.
Oxford University Press, New
York.
Harmon, ME, KJ Nadelhoffer, and JM
Blair. 1999. Measuring decomposition, nutrient turnover, and
stores in plant litter, pp. 202–240
in Standard Soil Methods for LongTerm Ecological Research, GP
Robertson, DC Coleman, CS
Bledsoe, and P Sollins, eds.
Oxford University Press, New
York.
Hart, SC, and P Sollins. 1998. Soil
carbon and nitrogen pools and
processes in old-growth conifer
forest 13 years after trenching.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 28: 1261–1265.
Hayes, JP, and J Gruver. 2000. Vertical
stratification in bat activity in an
old-growth forest in western
Washington, Northwest Science 74:
102–108.
Hermann, RK. 1998.
Waldbaukonzepte der Zukunft
aus nordamerikan-ischer Sicht
(Silvicultural concepts for the
future from a North American
viewpoint), pp. 77–85 in Proceedings, 58th Congress of the German
Society of Foresters, Munich,
Germany. (In German.)
Hermann, RK. 1999. Pseudotsuga
menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, 1950,
pp. 1–18 in Enzyklopädie der
Holzgewächse: Handbuch und Atlas
der Dendrologie, 15.Erg.Lfg.3/99,
P Schütt, HJ Schuck, UM Lang,
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
and A Roloff, ed. Ecomed,
Landsberg, Germany. (In German.)
Horton, TR, E Cázares, and TD Bruns.
1998. Ectomycorrhizal,
vesicular-arbuscular and dark
septate fungal colonization of
bishop pine (Pinus muricata)
seedlings in the first 5 months of
growth after wildfire. Mycorrhiza
8: 11–18.
Hubbard, RM, BJ Bond, and MG
Ryan. 1999. Evidence that
hydraulic conductance limits
photosynthesis in old Pinus
ponderosa trees. Tree Physiology 19:
165–172. (For. Res. Lab.)
Humes, ML, JP Hayes, and MW
Collopy. 1999. Bat activity in
thinned, unthinned, and oldgrowth forests in western Oregon.
Journal of Wildlife Management
63: 553–561.
Jackson, PC, FC Meinzer, M
Bustamante, G Goldstein, A
Franco, PW Rundel, L Caldas, E
Igler, and F Causin. 1999. Partitioning of soil water among tree
species in a Brazilian cerrado
ecosystem. Tree Physiology 19:
717–724.
Jodice, PGR, and MW Collopy. 1999.
Diving and foraging patterns of
marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus
marmoratus): testing predictions
from optimal-breathing models.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:
1409–1418.
Jodice, PGR, and MW Collopy. 2000.
Activity patterns of marbled
murrelets in old-growth Douglasfir forests of the Oregon Coast
Range. Condor 102: 275–285.
Jumpponen, A. 1999. Spatial distribution of discrete RAPD phenotypes
of a root endophytic fungus,
Phialocephala fortinii, at a primary
successional site on a glacier
forefront. New Phytologist 141:
333–344.
Jumpponen, A, and JM Trappe. 1998.
Dark septate endophytes: A
review of facultative biotrophic
root-colonizing fungi. New
Phytologist 140: 295–310.
Jumpponen, A, and JM Trappe. 1998.
Performance of Pinus contorta
inoculated with two strains of
root endophytic fungus,
Phialocephala fortinii: Effects of
synthesis system and glucose
concentration. Canadian Journal
of Botany 76: 1205–1213.
Jumpponen, A, NS Weber, JM Trappe,
and E Cázares. 1997. Distribution
and ecology of the ascomycete
Sarcoleotia globosa in the United
States. Canadian Journal of Botany
75: 2228–2231.
Jumpponen, A, KG Mattson, and JM
Trappe. 1998. Mycorrhizal
functioning of Phialocephala
fortinii with Pinus contorta on
glacier forefront soil: Interactions
with soil nitrogen and organic
matter. Mycorrhiza 7: 261–265.
71
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
Jumpponen, A, JM Trappe, and E
Cázares. 1999. Ectomycorrhizal
fungi in Lyman Lake Basin: A
comparison between primary and
secondary successional sites.
Mycologia 91: 575–582.
Jumpponen, A, H Väre, KG Mattson,
R Ohtonen, and JM Trappe.
1999. Characterization of ‘safe
sites’ for pioneers in primary
succession on recently deglaciated
terrain. Journal of Ecology 87: 98–
105.
Kavanagh, KL, BJ Bond, SN Aitken,
BL Gartner, and S Knowe. 1999.
Shoot and root vulnerability to
xylem cavitation in four populations of Douglas-fir seedlings. Tree
Physiology 19: 31–37.
Kellogg, LD, GV Milota, and B
Stringham. 1998. Logging Planning and Layout Costs for Thinning: Experience from the
Willamette Young Stand Project.
Research Contribution 20, Forest
Research Laboratory, Oregon
State University, Corvallis. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Kellogg, LD, M Miller, Jr., and ED
Olsen. 1999. Skyline Thinning
Production and Costs: Experience
from the Willamette Young Stand
Project. Research Contribution
21, Forest Research Laboratory,
Oregon State University,
Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
72
Kershaw, JA, and DA Maguire. 2000.
Influence of vertical foliage
structure on the distribution of
stem cross-sectional area increment in western hemlock and
balsam fir. Forest Science 46: 86–
94.
Khan, SR, R Rose, DL Haase, and TE
Sabin. 2000. Effects of shade on
morphology, chlorophyll concentration and chlorophyll fluorescence of four Pacific Northwest
conifer species. New Forests 19:
171–186. (For. Res. Lab.)
Krankina, ON, ME Harmon, and AV
Griazkin. 1999. Nutrient stores
and dynamics of woody detritus
in a boreal forest: Modeling
potential implications at the stand
level. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 29: 20–32. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Kushla, JD, and WJ Ripple. 1998.
Assessing wildfire effects with
Landsat thematic mapper data.
International Journal of Remote
Sensing 19: 2493–2507. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Latham, PA, HR Zuuring, and DW
Coble. 1998. A method for
quantifying vertical forest structure. Forest Ecology and Management 104: 157–170.
Law, BE, DD Baldocchi, and PM
Anthoni. 1999. Below-canopy
and soil CO2 fluxes in a ponderosa pine forest. Agricultural and
Forest Meteorology 94: 171–188.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
Law, BE, MG Ryan, and PM Anthoni.
1999. Seasonal and annual
respiration of a ponderosa pine
ecosystem. Global Change Biology
5: 169–182. (For. Res. Lab.)
Law, BE, RH Waring, PM Anthoni,
and JD Aber. 2000. Measurements of gross and net ecosystem
productivity and water vapour
exchange of a Pinus ponderosa
ecosystem, and an evaluation of
two generalized models. Global
Change Biology 6: 155–168. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Law, BE, M Williams, PM Anthoni,
DD Baldocchi, and MH
Unsworth. 2000. Measuring and
modelling seasonal variation of
carbon dioxide and water vapour
exchange of a Pinus ponderosa
forest subject to soil water deficit.
Global Change Biology 6: 613–
630. (For. Res. Lab.)
Lint, J, B Noon, R Anthony, E
Forsman, M Raphael, MW
Collopy, and E Starkey. 1999.
Northern spotted owl effectiveness
monitoring plan for the Northwest
Forest Plan. General Technical
Report PNW-440. USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland OR.
Maguire, CC. 1999. Rainfall, ambient
temperature, and Clethrionomys
californicus capture frequency.
Mammal Review 29: 135–142.
Maguire, DA, J Brissette, and L Gu.
1998. Crown structure and
growth efficiency of red spruce in
uneven-aged, mixed-species stands
in Maine. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research 28: 1233–1240.
Maguire, DA, SR Johnston, and J
Cahill. 1999. Predicting branch
diameters on second-growth
Douglas-fir from tree-level
descriptors. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research 29: 1829–1840.
Main, MB, FM Roka, and RF Noss.
1999. Incentive-based conservation on private lands in southwest
Florida. Conservation Biology 13:
1262–1272.
Manning, T, and CC Maguire. 1999. A
new elevation record for the red
tree vole in Oregon: Implications
for National Forest management.
American Midland Naturalist 142:
421–423.
Martin, TA, TM Hinckley, FC
Meinzer, and DG Sprugel. 1999.
Boundary layer conductance, leaf
temperature and transpiration of
Abies amabilis branches. Tree
Physiology 19: 435–443.
Massicotte, HB, LH Melville, RL
Peterson, and DL Luoma. 1998.
Anatomical aspects of field
ectomycorrhizas on Polygonum
viviparum (Polygonaceae) and
Kobresia bellardii (Cyperaceae).
Mycorrhiza 7: 287–292.
McKee, A. 1998. H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest. Bulletin of the
Ecological Society of America 79(4):
241–246.
73
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
Means, JE, SA Acker, DJ Harding, JB
Blair, MA Lefsky, WB Cohen,
ME Harmon, and WA McKee.
1999. Use of large-footprint
scanning airborne lidar to estimate forest stand characteristics in
the western Cascades of Oregon.
Remote Sensing of Environment 67:
298–308. (For. Res. Lab.)
Meinzer, FC, JL Andrade, G Goldstein,
NM Holbrook, J Cavelier, and SJ
Wright. 1999. Partitioning of soil
water among canopy trees in a
seasonally dry tropical forest.
Oecologia 121: 293–301.
Myrold, DD, RW Ruess, and MJ Klug.
1999. Dinitrogen fixation, 241–
257 in Standard Soil Methods for
Long-Term Ecological Research, GP
Robertson, DC Coleman, CS
Bledsoe, and P Sollins, eds.
Oxford University Press, New
York.
Nadelhoffer, K, R Bowden, R Boone,
and K Lajtha. 2000. Controls on
forest soil organic matter development and dynamics: Chronic
litter manipulation as a potential
international LTER activity, pp.
3–9 in Cooperation in Long-Term
Ecological Research in Central and
Eastern Europe: Proceedings of the
ILTER Regional Workshops, 22–25
June 1999, Budapest, Hungary.
Oregon State University,
Corvallis.
74
Noss, RF. 1998. Does conservation
biology need natural history? Wild
Earth 8(3): 10–14.
Noss, RF. 1999. A citizen’s guide to
ecosystem management. Wild Earth
Special Paper #3, Biodiversity
Legal Foundation, Boulder CO.
Noss, RF. 1999. Aldo Leopold was a
conservation biologist. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 26: 713–718.
Noss, RF. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A
suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115: 135–146.
Noss, RF. 1999. At what scale should
we manage biodiversity? pp. 96–
116 in The Living Dance: Policy
and Practices for Biodiversity in
Forest Landscapes, F Bunnell and J
Jackson, eds. University of British
Columbia Press, Vancouver BC.
Noss, RF. 1999. Conservation assessments: A synthesis, pp. 89–92 in
Terrestrial Ecoregions of North
America: A Conservation Assessment, TH Ricketts, E Dinerstein,
DM Olson, CJ Loucks, W
Eichbaum, D DellaSala, K
Kavanagh, P Hedao, PT Hurley,
KM Carney, R Abell, and S
Walters, eds. Island Press, Washington DC.
Noss, RF. 1999. High-risk ecosystems as
foci for considering biodiversity and
ecological integrity in ecological risk
assessments. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington DC.
Noss, RF. 1999. Is there a special
conservation biology? Ecography
22: 113–122.
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
Noss, RF. 1999. Restoring grassland
ecosystems: an opportunity to
save the pieces, pp. 36–37 in
Roadside Use of Native Plants, BL
Harper-Lore, ed. US Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington
DC.
Noss, RF. 1999. The president’s column: Dreams of a millennial
president. Society for Conservation
Biology Newsletter 6(3): 1, 7.
Noss, RF. 2000. A reserve design for
the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion.
Wild Earth 9(4): 71–76.
Noss, RF. 2000. The warrior naturalists. Defenders 75(1): 21.
Noss, RF. 2000. Lessons from the
redwoods, pp. 263–268 in The
Redwood Forest: History, Ecology,
and Conservation of the Coast
Redwoods, RF Noss, ed. Island
Press, Washington DC.
Noss, RF. 2000. More than big trees,
pp. 1–6 in The Redwood Forest:
History, Ecology, and Conservation
of the Coast Redwoods, RF Noss,
ed. Island Press, Washington DC.
Noss, RF. 2000. Science on the bridge.
Conservation Biology 14: 333–335.
Noss, RF, editor. 2000. The Redwood
Forest: History, Ecology, and
Conservation of the Coast Redwoods. Island Press, Washington
DC.
Noss, RF. 2000. Three ways to heal the
West. Sierra 3/4: 59.
Noss, RF, E Dinerstein, B Gilbert, M
Gilpin, B Miller, J Terborgh, and
S Trombulak. 1999. Core areas:
Where nature reigns, pp. 99–128
in Continental Conservation:
Scientific Foundations of Regional
Reserve Networks, ME Soulé and J
Terborgh, eds. Island Press,
Washington DC.
Noss, RF, M Gordon, E Hoagland, C
Lydeard, P Mehlhop, and B Roth.
1999. Report of Kanab Ambersnail
Review Panel on Taxonomic,
Ecological, and Translocation Issues
Concerning the Conservation of
Oxyloma Snails in Arizona and
Utah. Report to Arizona Game
and Fish Department, Phoenix
AZ.
Noss, RF, R Graham, DR.
McCullough, FL Ramsey, J
Seavey, C Whitlock, and MP
Williams. 2000. Review of Scientific Material Relevant to the
Occurrence, Ecosystem Role, and
Tested Management Options for
Mountain Goats in Olympic
National Park. Report to U.S.
Department of Interior, Washington DC.
Noss, RF, NC Slosser, JR Strittholt, and
C Carroll. 1999. Metrics of
ecological integrity for terrestrial
ecosystems and entire landscapes.
US Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington DC.
Noss, RF, JR Strittholt, K VanceBorland, C Carroll, and P Frost.
1999. A conservation plan for the
75
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion.
Natural Areas Journal 19: 392–
411.
Noss, RF, J Strittholt, G Heilman, P
Frost, and M Sorensen. 2000.
Conservation planning in the
redwoods region, pp. 201–228 in
The Redwood Forest: History,
Ecology, and Conservation of the
Coast Redwoods, R. Noss, ed.
Island Press, Washington DC.
Olsen, ED, MM Hossain, and ME
Miller. 1998. Statistical Comparison of Methods Used in Harvesting
Work Studies. Research Contribution 23, Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University,
Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
Pabst, RJ, and TA Spies. 1999. Structure and composition of
unmanaged riparian forests in the
coastal mountains of Oregon,
U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 29: 1557–1573. (For.
Res. Lab.)
76
Prueitt, SC, and DW Ross. 1998.
Effects of environment and host
genetics on Eucosma sonomana
(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) infestation levels. Environmental Entomology 27: 1469–1472. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Ripple, WJ, and EJ Larsen. 2000.
Historic aspen recruitment, elk, and
wolves in northern Yellowstone
National Park, USA. Biological
Conservation 95: 361–370. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Ripple, WJ, KT Hershey, and RG
Anthony. 2000. Historical forest
patterns of Oregon’s central Coast
Range. Biological Conservation 93:
127–133. (For. Res. Lab.)
Santiago, LS, G Goldstein, FC
Meinzer, JH Fownes, and D
Mueller-Dombois. 2000. Transpiration and forest structure in
relation to soil waterlogging in a
Hawaiian montane cloud forest.
Tree Physiology 20: 673–681.
Phillips, N, and BJ Bond. 1999. A
micro-power precision amplifier
for converting the output of light
sensors to a voltage readable by
miniature data loggers. Tree
Physiology 19: 547–549.
Schowalter, TD. 1999. Throughfall
volume and chemistry as affected
by precipitation volume, sapling
size, and canopy herbivory in a
regenerating Douglas-fir ecosystem in western Oregon. Great
Basin Naturalist 59: 79-84.
Progar, RA, TD Schowalter, and T
Work. 1999. Arboreal invertebrate responses to varying levels
and patterns of green-tree retention in northwestern forests.
Northwest Science 73: 77-86.
Schowalter, TD. 2000. Insects as regulators of ecosystem development, pp.
99–114 in Invertebrates as
Webmasters in Ecosystems, DC
Coleman and PF Hendrix, eds.
CABI Publishing, Wallingford UK.
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
Schowalter, TD, and LM Ganio. 1998.
Vertical and seasonal variation in
canopy arthropod abundances in
an old-growth conifer forest in
southwestern Washington.
Bulletin of Entomological Research
88: 633–640.
Schowalter, TD, and LM Ganio. 1999.
Invertebrate communities in a
tropical rain forest canopy in
Puerto Rico following Hurricane
Hugo. Ecological Entomology 24:
191–201.
Schowalter, TD, and MD Lowman.
1999. Forest herbivory, pp. 269–
285, in Ecosystems of the World:
Ecosystems of Disturbed Ground, LR
Walker, ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Schowalter, TD, YL Zhang, and TE
Sabin. 1998. Decomposition and
nutrient dynamics of oak Quercus
spp. logs after five years of decomposition. Ecography 21: 3–10.
Schowalter, TD, DC Lightfoot, and
WG Whitford. 1999. Diversity of
arthropod responses to host plant
water stress in southern New
Mexico. American Midland
Naturalist 142: 281–290.
Schowalter, TD, RA Progar, CM
Freitag, and JJ Morrell. 2000.
Respiration from coarse woody
debris as affected by moisture and
saprotroph functional diversity in
western Oregon. Oecologia 124:
426–431.
Sist, P, D Dykstra, and R Fimbel. 1998.
Reduced-Impact Logging Guidelines
for Lowland and Hill Dipterocarp
Forests in Indonesia. Bulungan
Research Report Series No. 1,
September 1998, Center for
International Forestry Research
(CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
Sist, P, T Nolan, J-G Bertault, and D
Dykstra. 1998. Harvesting
intensity versus sustainability in
Indonesia. Forest Ecology and
Management 108: 251–260.
Sollins, P, C Glassman, EA Paul, C
Swanston, K Lajtha, JW Heil, and
ET Elliott. 1999. Soil carbon and
nitrogen: Pools and fractions, pp.
89–105 in Standard Soil Methods
for Long-Term Ecological Research,
GP Robertson, DC Coleman, CS
Bledsoe, and P Sollins, eds.
Oxford University Press, New
York.
Soulé, M, and R Noss. 1998.
Rewilding and biodiversity:
complementary goals for continental conservation. Wild Earth
8(3): 18–28.
Spicer, R, BL Gartner, and RL
Darbyshire. 2000. Sinuous stem
growth in a Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) plantation:
Growth patterns and wood
quality effects. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research 30: 761–768.
Strittholt, JR, GE Heilman, and RF
Noss. 1999. A GIS-based model for
assessing conservation focal areas for
the redwood ecosystem. Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis
OR.
77
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
Swindle, KA, WJ Ripple, EC Meslow,
and D Schafer. 1999. Old-forest
distribution around spotted owl
nests in the central Cascade
Mountains, Oregon. Journal of
Wildlife Management 63: 1212–
1221. (For. Res. Lab.)
Thornburgh, D, R Noss, F Euphrat, D
Angelides, C Olson, A
Cooperrider, H Welsh, and T
Roelofs. 2000. Managing redwoods, pp. 229–261 in The
Redwood Forest: History, Ecology,
and Conservation of the Coast
Redwoods, R. Noss, ed. Island
Press, Washington DC.
Trummer, LM, P Hennon, and EM
Hansen. 1998. Modeling the
incidence of hemlock dwarf
mistletoe in 110-year-old winddisturbed forests in southeast
Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 28: 1501–1508.
Turner, DP, SA Acker, JE Means, and
SL Garman. 2000. Estimating leaf
area index from sapwood area in
young, mature, and old-growth
Douglas-fir stands. Forest Ecology
and Management 126: 61–76.
Turner, DP, WB Cohen, RE Kennedy,
KS Fassnacht, and JM Briggs.
1999. Relationships between leaf
area index and Landsat TM
spectral vegetation indices across
three temperate zone sites. Remote
Sensing of Environment 70: 52–68.
(For. Res. Lab.)
78
Turner, DP, SA Acker, JE Means, and
SL Garman. 2000. Assessing
alternative algorithms for estimating leaf area index in Douglas-fir
trees and stands. Forest Ecology
and Management 126: 61–76.
Tyler, T, WJ Liss, LM Ganio, GL
Larson, R Hoffman, E Deimling,
and G Lomnicky. 1998. Interaction between introduced trout
and larval salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum) in highelevation lakes. Conservation
Biology 12: 94–105.
Von Triebe, C, DP Lavender, TP
Sullivan. 1998. Relations of small
populations to even-aged
shelterwood systems in sub-boreal
spruce forest. Journal of Wildlife
Management 61(2): 630–642.
Wagner, RG, and SR Radosevich.
1998. Neighborhood approach
for quantifying interspecific
competition in coastal Oregon
forests. Ecological Applications 8:
779–794. (For. Res. Lab.)
Waldien, DL, and JP Hayes. 1999. A
technique for capturing bats using
hand-held mist nets. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 27: 197–200.
Waldien, DL, JF Hayes, and EB Arnet.
2000. Day-roosts of female longeared myotis in western Oregon.
Journal of Wildlife Management
64: 785–796.
Waring, RH. 1998. Lessons learned
while extending physiological
principles from growth chambers
to satellite studies. Tree Physiology
18: 491–497.
Forest Ecology, Culture, and Productivity
Waring, RH, and SW Running. 1999.
Remote sensing requirements to
drive ecosystem models at the
landscape and regional scale, pp.
23–38 in Integrating Hydrology,
Ecosystem Dynamics, and Biogeochemistry in Complex Landscapes, JD Tenhunen and P Kabat,
eds. John Wiley & Sons, New
York. (For. Res. Lab.)
in Florida. Journal of Wildlife
Management 62: 333–339.
Weikel, JM, and JP Hayes. 1998. The
foraging ecology of cavity-nesting
birds in young forests of the
northern Coast Range of Oregon.
The Condor 101: 58–66.
Wilson, BL, R Brainerd, M Huso, K
Kuykendall, D Lytjen, B
Newhouse, N Otting, S
Sundberg, and P Zika. 1999. Atlas
of Oregon Carex. Native Plant
Society of Oregon Occasional
Paper No. 1, Eugene OR.
Wilson, DS, RS Seymour, and DA
Maguire. 1999. Density management diagram for northeastern
red spruce and balsam fir forests.
Northern Journal of Applied
Forestry 16: 48–55.
Withrow-Robinson, B, DE Hibbs, P
Gypmantasiri, and D Thomas.
1999. A preliminary classification
of fruit-based agroforestry in a
highland area of northern Thailand. Agroforestry Systems 42: 195–
205. (For. Res. Lab.)
Wood, PB, MW Collopy, and CM
Sekerak. 1998. Post-fledging nest
dependence period for bald eagles
79
INTEGRATED PROTECTION OF FORESTS AND
WATERSHEDS
Beier, P, and RF Noss. 1998. Do
habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology 12:
1241–1252.
Beschta, RL. 1998. Forest hydrology in
the Pacific Northwest: Additional
research needs. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association 34: 729–741. (For. Res. Lab.)
Beschta, RL. 1999. Long-term changes
in channel morphology of gravelbed rivers: Three case studies,
Chapter 11, pp. 229–256 in
Gravel-Bed Rivers in the Environment, PC Klingeman, RL
Beschta, PD Komar, and JB
Bradley, eds. Water Resources
Publications, Highlands Ranch
CO.
Bettinger, P, KN Johnson, and J
Sessions. 1998. Improving aquatic
habitat conditions over time while
producing wood products: An
examination of options. Journal of
the American Water Resources
Association 34: 891–907. (For.
Res. Lab.)
80
Bishaw, B, W Emmingham, and S
Chan. 1998. The potential of
hybrid poplar as a riparian buffer
to provide shade to streams and
other benefits to riparian areas,
pp. 74–77 in Proceedings of the
Ecosystem Restoration: Turning the
Tide, Final Program and Abstracts,
28–30 October 1998, Tacoma,
Washington, M. Willams and S
Hashisaki, eds. The Society for
Ecological Restoration Northwest
Chapter, University of Washington, Seattle.
Bonin, HL, RP Griffiths, and BA
Caldwell. 1999. Effects of storage
on measurements of potential
microbial activities in stream fine
benthic organic matter. Journal of
Microbiological Methods 38: 91–
99.
Bonin, HL, RP Griffiths, and BA
Caldwell. 2000. Nutrient and
microbiological characteristics of
fine benthic organic matter in
mountain streams. Journal of
North American Benthological
Society 19: 235–249.
Castellano, MA, JE Smith, T O’Dell, E
Cázares, and S Nugent. 1999.
Handbook to Strategy 1 Fungal
Species in the Northwest Forest
Plan. USDA Forest Service,
General Technical Report
PNW-GTR-476, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland
OR.
Chavez, DJ, JF Tynon, and JA
Harding. 1999. America’s best
kept secret: The National Recreation Trails. Parks and Recreation
3: 36–46.
Integrated Protection of Forests and Watersheds
Chavez, DJ, and JF Tynon. 1999.
Domestic terrorism: City problems in western national forests.
Recreation Research Update 29,
USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Research Station,
Riverside CA.
Filip, GM, and PH Rosso. 1999.
Cypress mortality (mal de cipres)
in the Patagonian Andes: Comparisons with similar forest
diseases and declines in North
America. European Journal of
Forest Pathology 29: 89–96.
Chen, H, and R Beschta. 1999. Dynamic hydrologic simulation of
the Bear Brook Watershed in
Maine (BBWM). Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 55: 53–
96. (For. Res. Lab.)
Filip, G, JS Beatty, and RL Mathiasen.
2000. Fir Dwarf Mistletoe. Forest
Insect and Disease Leaflet 89,
USDA Forest Service, Washington DC.
Cissel, JH, FJ Swanson, and PJ
Weisberg. 1999. Landscape
management using historical fire
regimes: Blue River, Oregon.
Ecological Applications 9(4): 1217–
1231.
Filip, GM, SA Fitzgerald, and LM
Ganio. 1999. Precommercial
thinning in a ponderosa pine
stand affected by Armillaria root
disease in central Oregon: 30
years of growth and mortality.
Western Journal of Applied Forestry
14: 144–148.
Dahlstrom, JL, JE Smith, and NS
Weber. 2000. Mycorrhiza-like
interaction by Morchella with
species of the Pinaceae in pure
culture. Mycorrhiza 9: 272–279.
Filip, G. 1998. Effects of Insects and
Diseases on Short-Term and LongTerm Tree Yields. Technical Note
BMNRI-TN-11, Blue Mountains
Natural Resources Institute,
LaGrande OR.
Filip, GM, and DJ Morrison. 1998.
North America, pp. 405–427 in
Heterobasidion annosum: Biology,
Ecology, Impact, and Control, S
Woodward, J Stenlid, R
Karjalainen, and A Huttermann,
tech. eds. CAB International,
Wallingford UK.
Filip, G, A Kanaskie, K Kavanagh, G
Johnson, R Johnson, and D
Maguire. 2000. Silviculture and
Swiss Needle Cast: Research and
Recommendations. Research
Contribution 30, Forest Research
Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
Fitzgerald, SA, WH Emmingham, GM
Filip, and PT Oester. 2000.
Exploring methods for maintaining old-growth structure in forests
with a frequent-fire history: a case
study, pp. 199–206 in Fire and
Forest Ecology: Innovative Silviculture and Vegetation Management.
Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 21, Tallahas-
81
Integrated Protection of Forests and Watersheds
see, Florida, WK Moser and CF
Moser, eds. Tall Timbers Research
Station, Tallahassee FL.
Fried, JS, and JK Gilless. 1999. CFES2:
The California Fire Economics
Simulator Version 2 User’s Guide.
Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources Publication
21580. University of California,
Berkeley.
Fried, JS, DG Brown, MO Zweifler,
and MA Gold. 2000. Mapping
contributing areas for stormwater
discharge to streams using terrain
analysis, pp. 183–203 in Terrain
Analysis: Principles and Applications, JP Wilson and JC Gallant,
eds. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Garcia, CM, and JJ Morrell. 1999.
Fungal associates of Buprestis
aurulenta in western Oregon.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
29: 517–520. (For. Res. Lab.)
Gartner, BL, JJ Morrell, CM Freitag,
and R Spicer. 1999. Heartwood
decay resistance by vertical and
radial position in Douglas-fir trees
from a young stand. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 29:
1993–1996. (For Res. Lab.)
Gerson, EA, and RG Kelsey. 1999.
Piperidine alkaloids in nitrogen
fertilized Pinus ponderosa. Journal
of Chemical Ecology 25: 2027–
2039. (For. Res. Lab.)
82
Gerson, EA, RG Kelsey, WC McComb,
and DW Ross. 1998. Palatability
of Coloradia pandora (Lepidoptera:
Saturniidae) eggs to a rodent
predater: Contributions of
physical and chemical characteristics. Environmental Entomology
27(3): 709–716.
Gerson, EA, RG Kelsey, and DW Ross.
1999. Pupal diapause of Coloradia
pandora Blake (Lepidoptera:
Saturniidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 75(3): 170–177. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Ghersa, CM. 1999. Plant phenology
and the management of cropweed interactions. Field Crops
Research 67: 91–93.
Ghersa, CM, and MA MartinezGhersa. 2000. Ecological correlates of weed seed size and persistence in the soil under different
tilling systems: Implications for
weed management. Field Crops
Research 67: 141–148.
Ghersa, CM, RL Benech-Arnold, EH
Satorre, and MA MartinezGhersa. 2000. Advances in weed
management strategies. Field
Crops Research 67: 95–104.
Gilless, JK, and JS Fried. 2000. Stochastic
representation of fire behavior in a
wildland fire protection planning
model for California. Forest Science
45(4): 492–499.
Goyer, RA, MR Wagner, and TD
Schowalter. 1998. Current and
proposed technologies for bark
beetle management. Journal of
Forestry 96(12): 29–33.
Integrated Protection of Forests and Watersheds
Halaj, J, DW Ross, and AR Moldenke.
1998. Habitat structure and prey
availability as predictors of the
abundance and community
organization of spiders in western
Oregon forest canopies. Journal of
Arachnology 26: 203–220. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Halaj, J, DW Ross, and AR Moldenke.
2000. Importance of habitat
structure to the arthropod foodweb in Douglas-fir canopies.
Oikos 90: 139-152.
Hammersley, CH, and JF Tynon. 1998.
Job competency analyses of entrylevel resort and commercial
recreation professionals. Journal of
Applied Recreation Research 23(3):
225–241.
Hammond, PC, and JC Miller. 1998.
Comparison of the biodiversity of
Lepidoptera within three forested
ecosystems. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 91: 323–
328.
Hansen, EM. 1999. Disease and
diversity in forest ecosystems.
Australasian Plant Pathology 28:
313–319.
Hansen, EM, and C Delatour. 1999.
Phytophthora species in oak
forests of north-east France.
Annals of Forest Science 56: 539–
547.
Hansen, EM, DJ Goheen, E Jules, and
B Ullian. 2000. Managing PortOrford-cedar and the introduced
pathogen Phytophthora lateralis.
Plant Disease 84: 4–14.
Hansen, EM, JK Stone, BR Capitano,
P Rosso, W Sutton, and L
Winton. 2000. Incidence and
impact of Swiss needle cast in
forest plantations of Douglas-fir
in coastal Oregon. Plant Disease
84: 773–778.
Hansen, EM, J-C Streito, C Delatour.
1999. First confirmation of
Phytophthora lateralis in Europe.
Plant Disease 83: 587.
Hart, SC, and DA Perry. 1999. Transferring soils from high- to lowelevation forests increases nitrogen
cycling rates: climate change
implications. Global Change
Biology 5: 23–32.
Henshaw, DL, and G Spycher. 1999.
Evolution of econological
metadata structures at the H.J.
Andrews Experimental Forest
long-term ecological research
(LTER) site, pp. 445–449 in
Proceedings of the North American
Science Symposium: Toward a
Unified Framewood for Inventorying and Monitoring Forest Ecosystem Resources, November 2–6,
1998, Guadalajara, Mexico, C
Aguirre-Bravo, and CR Franco,
eds. Proceedings RMRS-P-12.
USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, Fort
Collins CO.
Henshaw, DL, FA Bierlmaier, HE
Hammond. 1998. The H.J.
83
Integrated Protection of Forests and Watersheds
Andrews climatological field
measurement program, pp. 117–
122 in Data and Information
Management in the Ecological
Sciences: A Resource Guide, August
8–9, 1997, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, WK Michener, JH Porter,
and SG Stafford, eds. LTER
Network Office, University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Henshaw, DL, SE Greene, and T
Lowry. 1998. Research Publication
of the H.J Andrews Experimental
Forest, Cascade Range, Oregon:
1998 Supplement. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-427.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station,
Portland OR.
Henshaw, DL, M Stubbs, BJ Bensen, K
Baker, D Blodgett, and JH Porter.
1998. Climate database project: A
strategy for improving information access across research sites,
pp. 123–127 in Data and Information Management in the Ecological Sciences: A Resource Guide,
August 8–9, 1997, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, WK Michener, JH
Stafford, and SG Stafford, eds.
LTER Network Office, University
of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
84
Huber-Sannwald, E, DA Pyke, MM
Caldwell, and S Durham. 1998.
Effects of nutrient patches and
root systems on the clonal plasticity of a rhizomatous grass. Ecology
79: 2267–2280.
Humphrey, LD, and DA Pyke. 1998.
Demographic and growth responses of a guerilla and a phalanx
perennial grass in competitive
mixtures. Journal of Ecology 86:
854–865.
James, RR, BA Croft, and SH Strauss.
1999. Susceptibility of the cottonwood leaf beetle (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae) to different
strains and transgenic toxins of
Bacillus thuringiensis. Environmental Entomology 28: 108–115.
Kang, S-M, and JJ Morrell. 2000.
Fungal colonization of Douglasfir sapwood lumber. Mycologia
92(4): 609–615. (For. Res. Lab.)
Keim, RF, AE Skaugset, and DS
Bateman. 1999. Digital terrain
modeling of small stream channels with a total station theodolite. Advances in Water Resources
23(1): 41–48.
Kelsey, RG, and G Joseph. 1998.
Ethanol in Douglas-fir with blackstain root disease (Leptographium
wageneri). Canadian Journal of
Forest Research 28: 1207–1212.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Kelsey, RG, and G Joseph. 1999.
Ethanol and ambrosia beetles in
Douglas-fir logs exposed or
protected from rain. Journal of
Chemical Ecology 25(12): 2793–
2809.
Kelsey, RG, and G Joseph. 1999.
Ethanol and water in Pseudotsuga
menziesii and Pinus ponderosa
Integrated Protection of Forests and Watersheds
stumps. Journal of Chemical
Ecology 25(12): 2779–2792.
American Native Orchid Journal
5(2): 184–195.
Kelsey, RG, G Joseph, and WG Thies.
1998. Sapwood and crown
symptoms in ponderosa pine
infected with black-stain and
annosum root disease. Forest
Ecology and Management 111:
181–191. (For. Res. Lab.)
Marshall, K. and GM Filip. 1999. The
relationship of Douglas-fir dwarf
mistletoe (Arceuthobium douglasii)
to stand conditions and plant
associations in the southern Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Northwest
Science 73(4): 301–311.
Lajtha, K, and K Vanderbilt, editors.
2000. Cooperation in Long-Term
Ecological Research in Central and
Eastern Europe: Proceedings of the
ILTER Regional Workshop, June
22-25, 1999, Budapest, Hungary.
Oregon State University,
Corvallis.
Martinez-Ghersa, MA, CM Ghersa,
EH Satorre. 2000. Coevolution of
agricultural systems and their
weed companions: Implications
for research. Field Crops Research
67: 181–189.
Lajtha, K, CT Driscoll, WM Jarrell,
DW Johnson, and ET Elliott.
1999. Soil phosphorus: Characterization and total element
analysis, pp. 115-142 in Standard
Soil Methods for Long-Term
Ecological Research, GP Robertson,
CD Coleman, CS Bledsoe, and P
Sollins, eds. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Lajtha, K, WM Jarrell, DW Johnson,
and P Sollins. 1999. Collection of
soil solution, pp. 166–182 in
Standard Soil Methods for LongTerm Ecological Research, GP
Robertson, DC Coleman, CS
Bledsoe, and P Sollins, eds.
Oxford University Press, New
York.
Latham, PA. 1999. A strategy for
coping with rarity in the orchid
Cypripedium fasciculatum. North
Massicotte, HB, R Molina, LE
Tackaberry, JE Smith, and MP
Amaranthus. 1999. Diversity and
host specificity of ectomycorrhizal
fungi retrieved from three adjacent forest sites by five host
species. Canadian Journal of
Botany 77: 1053–1076.
Means, JE. 1999. Design, capabilities
and uses of large-footprint and
small-footprint lidar systems.
International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
32(2-W14): 201–207.
Means, JE. 2000. Comparison of largefootprint and small-footprint lidar
systems: design, capabilities and
uses, pp. I-185–I-192 in Proceedings of the Second International
Conference: Geospatial Information
in Agriculture and Forestry, January
10–12, 2000, Lake Buena Vista,
Florida. ERIM International, Inc.,
Ann Arbor MI.
85
Integrated Protection of Forests and Watersheds
Miller, B, R Reading, J Strittholt, C
Carroll, R Noss, M Soulé, O
Sanchez, J Terborgh, D
Brightsmith, T Cheeseman, and
D Foreman. 1998/99. Using focal
species in the design of nature
reserve networks. Wild Earth 8(4):
81–92.
Neal, TA, and DW Ross. 1999. Pathogenicity to western larch (Larix
occidentalis) of two fungi,
Ophiostoma pseudotsugae and
Leptographium abietinum, associated with the Douglas fir beetle
(Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Agricultural and Forest Entomology 1:
203–207. (For. Res. Lab.)
Nierenberg, TR, and DE Hibbs. 2000.
A characterization of unmanaged
riparian areas in the central Coast
Range of western Oregon. Forest
Ecology and Management 129:
195–206. (For. Res. Lab.)
Norris, LA. 1999. Integrated pest
management, history and future
for vegetation management in
U.S. forestry, pp. 1–6 in Healthy
Forests for the 21st Century: New
Technologies in Integrated Vegetation Management. Proceedings of
the 20th Annual Forest Vegetation
Management Conference, January
1999, Redding, California. Forest
Vegetation Management Conference, Redding CA.
86
O’Dea, ME, M Newton, EC Cole, and
M Gourley. 2000. The influence
of weeding on growth of browsed
seedlings in Douglas-fir planta-
tions. Western Journal of Applied
Forestry 15(3): 163–168. (For.
Res. Lab.)
O’Laughlin, J, B Maynard, S
Fitzgerald, A Arneson, and D
Pittman. 1998. Seven suggestions
for revising ICBEMP. Journal of
Forestry 96: 10.
Porter, JD, DL Henshaw, and SG
Stafford. 1999. Research metadata
in long-term ecological research
(LTER), in Second IEEE Metadata
Conference, 16–17 September
1997, Silver Spring, Maryland.
(Online) Available: http://
computer.org/conferen/proceed/
meta97/list_papers.html (February 2, 1999).
Powers, JS, P Sollins, ME Harmon, and
JA Jones. 1999. Plant-pest interactions in time and space: A
Douglas-fir bark beetle outbreak
as a case study. Landscape Ecology
14: 105–120.
Running, SR, DD Baldocchi, DP
Turner, ST Gower, PS Bakwin,
and KA Hibbard. 1999. A global
terrestrial monitoring network
integrating tower fluxes, flask
sampling, ecosystem modeling
and EOS satellite data. Remote
Sensing of Environment 70: 108–
128.
Sawyer, JO, J Gray, GJ West, D
Thornburgh, RF Noss, JJ
Engbeck, B Marcot, and R
Raymond. 2000. History of
redwood and redwood forests, pp.
Integrated Protection of Forests and Watersheds
7–38 in The Redwood Forest:
History, Ecology, and Conservation
of the Coast Redwoods, RF Noss,
ed. Island Press, Washington DC.
Sawyer, JO, SC Sillett, WJ Libby, TE
Dawson, JH Popenoe, DL
Largent, R Van Pelt, SD Viers, Jr,
RF Noss, DA Thornburgh, and P
del Tredici. 2000. Redwood trees,
communities, and ecosystems: a
closer look, pp. 81–118 in The
Redwood Forest: History, Ecology,
and Conservation of the Coast
Redwoods, RF Noss, ed. Island
Press, Washington DC.
Sawyer, JO, SC Sillett, JH Popenoe, A
LaBanca, T Sholars, D Largent, F
Euphrat, R Noss, and R Van Pelt.
2000. Characteristics of redwood
forests, pp. 39–79 in The Redwood
Forest: History, Ecology, and
Conservation of the Coast Redwoods, RF Noss, ed. Island Press,
Washington DC.
Schowalter, TD. 2000. Insect Ecology:
An Ecosystem Approach. Academic
Press, San Diego.
Selker, JS, J Duan, and Y-J Parlange.
1999. Green and Ampt infiltration into soils of variable pore size
with depth. Water Resources
Research 35: 1685–1688.
Smith, JP, and MW Collopy. 1998.
Pacific Northwest, pp. 645–706
in Status and Trends of the Nation’s
Biological Resources, Volume 2, MJ
Mac, PA Opler, CE Puckett
Haecker, and PD Doran, eds.
USDI Geological Survey, Reston
VA.
Strittholt, JR, RF Noss, PA Frost, K
Vance-Borland, C Carroll, and G
Heilman. 1999. A Conservation
Assessment and Science-based Plan
for the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion.
Earth Designs Consultants, Inc.
and Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis OR.
Swanson, FJ, SL Johnson, SV Gregory,
and SA Acker. 1998. Flood
disturbance in a forested mountain landscape. BioScience 48:
681–689.
Terborgh, J, JA Estes, P Paquet, K
Ralls, D Boyd-Heger, BJ Miller,
and RF Noss. 1999. The role of
top carnivores in regulating
terrestrial ecosystems, pp. 39–64
in Continental Conservation:
Scientific Foundations of Regional
Reserve Networks, ME Soulé and J
Terborgh, eds. Island Press,
Washington DC.
Torn, MS, E Mills, and JS Fried. 1999.
Will climate change spark more
wildfire damage? Contingencies
July/August: 34–43.
Trask, MM, and DA Pyke. 1998.
Variability in seed dormancy of
three Pacific Northwestern
grasses. Seed Science and Technology 26: 179–191.
Turner, DP, WB Cohen, and RE
Kennedy. 2000. Alternative spatial
resolutions and estimation of
carbon flux over a managed forest
87
Integrated Protection of Forests and Watersheds
landscape in western Oregon.
Landscape Ecology 15: 441–452.
Wing, MG, RF Keim, and AE
Skaugset. 1999. Applying
geostatistics to quantify distributions of large woody debris in
streams. Computers and Geosciences 25: 801–807. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Wondzell, SM, and FJ Swanson. 1999.
Floods, channel change, and the
hyporheic zone. Water Resources
Research 35: 555–567.
Zwieniecki, MA, and M Newton.
1999. Influence of streamside
cover and stream features on
temperature trends in forested
streams of western Oregon.
Western Journal of Applied Forestry
14: 106–113. (For. Res. Lab.)
88
EVALUATION OF FOREST USES, PRACTICES, AND POLICIES
Adams, DM, CA Montgomery, and T
Naito. 1998. Input substitution in
the U.S. new construction sector:
Evidence from a profit function
analysis, pp. 131–140 in Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Global Concerns for Forest
Resource Utilization–Sustainable
Use and Management, October 5–
8, 1998, Miyzaki, Japan, A
Yoshimoto and K Yukutake, eds.
FORESEA MIYAZAKI, Volume
1, Japan Society of Forest Planning Press, University of Tokyo,
Japan.
Adams, DM, RJ Alig, BA McCarl, JM
Callaway, and SM Winnett. 1999.
Minimum cost strategies for
sequestering carbon in Forests.
Land Economics 75(3): 360–374.
Alexander, SJ, RJ McLain, Y-S Kim,
and R Johnson. 2000. Recreational harvest of wild foods on
the Gifford Pinchot National
Forest: Resources and issues, pp.
180–185 in Proceedings of the
Society of American Foresters 1999
National Convention, September
1999, Portland, Oregon. SAF
Publication 00-1, Society of
American Foresters, Bethesda
MD.
Alig, RJ, DM Adams, and BA McCarl.
1998. Ecological and economic
impacts of forest policies: Interactions across forestry and agricul-
ture. Ecological Economics 27(1):
63–78.
Alig, RJ, DM Adams, and BA McCarl.
1998. Impacts of incorporating
land exchanges between forestry
and agriculture in sector models.
Journal of Agricultural and Applied
Economics 30(2): 389–401.
Alig, RJ, DM Adams, JT Chmelik, and
P Bettinger. 1999. Private forest
investment and long-run sustainable harvest volume. New Forests
17: 307–327.
Alig, RJ, DM Adams, BA McCarl, and
PJ Ince. 2000. Economic potential of short-rotation woody crops
on agricultural land for pulp fiber
production in the United States.
Forest Products Journal 50(5): 67–
74.
Alig, RJ, D Zheng, TA Spies, and BJ
Butler. 1997. Forest cover dynamics
in the Pacific Northwest west side:
Regional trends and projections.
Research Paper PNW-RP-522,
USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station,
Portland OR.
Arthur, JL, D Calkin, C Montgomery,
DJ Nalle, S Polasky, and NH
Schumaker. 1999. Balancing
economics and conservation in
forest land management, pp.
1415–1417 in Proceedings of the
5th International Conference of the
89
Evaluation of Forest Uses, Practices, and Policies
Decision Sciences Institute, 4 July,
1999, Athens, Greece, SH Zanakis
and GI Doukidis, eds. Decision
Sciences Institute and Athens
University of Economics and
Business, Greece.
Batista, JLF, and DA Maguire. 1998.
Modeling the spatial structure of
tropical forests. Forest Ecology
Management 110: 293–314.
Beschta, RL, MR Pyles, AE Skaugset,
and CG Surfleet. 2000. Peakflow
responses to forest practices in the
western cascades of Oregon, USA.
Journal of Hydrology 233: 102–
120. (For. Res. Lab.)
Bettinger, P. 1999. Distributing GIS
capabilities to forestry field
offices. Journal of Forestry 97(6):
22–26.
Bettinger, P, K Boston, and J Sessions.
1999. Intensifying a heuristic
forest harvest scheduling search
procedures with 2-opt decision
choices. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 29: 1784–1792. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Blatner, KA, and S Alexander. 1998.
Recent price trends for nontimber forest products in the
Pacific Northwest. Forest Products
Journal 48(1): 28–34.
90
Boston, K, and P Bettinger. 1999. An
analysis of Monte Carlo integer
programming, simulated annealing, and tabu search heuristics for
solving spatial harvest scheduling
problems. Forest Science 45: 292–
301.
Bowe, S, R Smith, J Massey, and E
Hansen. 1999. A methodology for
determining extension constituent
needs: A case analysis in the forest
products industry. Journal of
Extension 37(4).
Bowers, S. 1998. Increased volume
through optimal bucking. Western
Journal of Applied Forestry 13: 85–
89.
Bowers, S, and J Garland. 1997.
Manual for Logger Budget96
Software. Forest Engineering
Department, Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Calkin, D, CA Montgomery, NH
Schumaker, S Polasky, JL Arthur,
and DJ Nalle. Modeling the
compatibility of biological and
economic objectives on a forested
landscape, in Proceedings of the
2000 International Institute of
Fisheries Economics and Trade
Conference, 12–15 July 2000,
Corvallis, Oregon, D Mandigo, ed.
IIFET, Oregon State University,
Corvallis.
Carey, AB, JM Calhoun, B Dick, K
O’Halloran, LS Young, RE Bigley,
S Chan, CA Harrington, JP
Hayes, and J Marzluff. 1999.
Reverse technology transfer:
Obtaining feedback from managers. Western Journal of Applied
Forestry 14: 153–163.
Evaluation of Forest Uses, Practices, and Policies
Cartwright, S, and TJ Gallagher. 2000.
Promoting diversity within the
National Rural Development
Partnership and State Councils, in
Annual Conference of the National
Rural Development Partnership,
August 12–14, 1999, Springfield,
Massachusetts. National Rural
Development Partnership, Washington DC.
Cartwright, S, and TJ Gallagher. 2000.
Sharing information to overcome
our differences. Kellogg Conference: Managing Information with
Rural America, 6–8 May 1999,
Volcano National Park, Big Island,
HI. [n.p.]
Chambers, CL, WC McComb, JC
Tappeiner II, LD Kellogg, RL
Johnson, and G Spycher. 1999.
CFIRP: What we learned in the
first ten years. Forestry Chronicle
75: 431–434.
Chavez, DJ, JA Harding, and JF
Tynon. 1999. National Recreation
Trails: A forgotten designation.
Journal of Forestry 97(10): 40–43.
Chavez, DJ, and JF Tynon. 2000.
Triage law enforcement: Societal
impacts on national forests in the
west. Environmental Management
26(4): 403–407.
Constantine, GH, and JJ Karchesy.
1998. Variations in hypericin
concentrations in Hypericum
perforatum L. and commercial
products. Journal of Pharmaceutical Biology 36: 365–367.
Crone, LK, and RW Haynes. 1999.
Revised estimates for direct-effect
recreational jobs in the Interior
Columbia Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-483,
USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station,
Portland OR.
Curtis, RO, DS DeBell, CA
Harrington, DP Lavender, JB St.
Clair, JC Tappeiner, and JD
Walstad. 1998. Silviculture for
Multiple Objectives in the Douglasfir Region. General Technical
Report PNW-GTR-435, USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Portland OR.
Dilley, M, and TJ Gallagher. 1999.
Building a bridge to the public:
The Alaska experience. Public
Roads 62(2): 10–18.
Dilley, M, and TJ Gallagher. 1999.
Designing an effective approach
to the public: Alaska’s experience.
National Academy of Sciences
Transportation Research Record
1685: 113–119.
Dix, ME, B Bishaw, SW Workman,
MR Barnhart, NB Klopfenstein,
and AM Dix. 1999. Pest management in energy- and laborintensive agroforestry systems, pp.
131–155 in Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems, LE
Buck, JP Lassoie, and ECM
Fernandes, ed. CRC Press, Boca
Raton FL.
Duan, J, J Selker, and GE Gordon.
1998. Evaluation of probability
91
Evaluation of Forest Uses, Practices, and Policies
density functions in precipitation
models for the Pacific Northwest.
Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 34: 617–727.
Union of Forestry Organizations,
and Forest Engineering Department, Oregon State University,
Corvallis.
Dykstra, DP. 1998. Tropical forests,
carbon, and people: A revisionist
philosophy for the new millennium. 1998 Starker Lecture
Series, in Different Philosophies
and the Impacts of These Philosophies on the World’s Natural
Resources, 5 November 1998,
Corvallis, Oregon. 1998 Starker
Lecture Series, Forest Research
Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR.
Dykstra, DP, and P. Poschen. 1998.
Wood harvesting, pp. 68.6–68.11,
in Encyclopaedia of Occupational
Health and Safety, J Stellman, ed.
International Labor Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Dykstra, DP. 1998. Reduced-impact
logging: Putting research results
into practice, pp. 63–72, in
Proceedings of the Seminar on
Harvesting Technologies and
Standards for Sustainable Forest
Management in Sabah, 18–22
March 1996, Sandakan, Sabah,
Malaysia, F Kugan, JS Sinajin, K
Uebelhör, and R Ong, eds. The
Swedish Agency for Research
Cooperation with Developing
Countries and Sabah Forestry
Department, Sabah, Malaysia.
92
Dykstra, DP. 1999. Forest operations
and multiple resource management, pp. 30–42 in Proceedings of
the International Mountain
Logging and 10th Pacific Northwest
Skyline Symposium, 28 March–1
April 1999, Corvallis, Oregon, J
Sessions and W Chung, eds.
Division 3 of the International
Dykstra, DP, and R Zenn 2000.
Tropical deforestation: Uncovering the story. Review of a video
and instructional package. Forest
Products Journal 50(2):7.
Fried, JS. 1999. Requirements and
realization of GIS education, pp.
21–26, Proceedings of the First
Annual Research Seminar of the
Forests in GIS Graduate School, 21
May 1999, University of Helsinki,
M Holopainen, ed. Department
of Forest Resource Management
Publications 21, University of
Helsinki, Finland.
Fried, JS. 1999. Why are Forestry GIS
problems so hard? Finnish National Land Survey Positio 3:12–14.
Fried, JS. 2000. Geospatially enabled
information systems supporting
forest decisions at the millennium: a U.S. perspective, in
Proceedings of the FAO/ILO/ECE
Forestry Information Systems 2000
Workshop, 16–20 May 2000,
Hyytiälä, Finland, T Kotimäki, ed.
Finnish Forest and Park Service,
Vaanta.
Evaluation of Forest Uses, Practices, and Policies
Fried, JS, and L Huntsinger. 1998.
Managing for naturalness at Mt.
Diablo State Park. Society and
Natural Resources 11: 505–516.
Fried, JS, GJ Winter, and JK Gilless.
1999. Assessing the benefits of
reducing fire risk in the wildland
urban interface: A contingent
valuation approach. International
Journal of Wildland Fire 9(1): 9–
20.
Gallagher, TJ. 2000. Building institutional capacity to address cultural
diferences, pp. 229–240 in
Addressing Cultural Issues in
Organizations: Beyond the Cultural
Context, RT Carter, ed. Columbia
University Press, New York.
Gallagher, TJ. 2000. Value orientations
and conflict resolution: Using the
Kluckhohn Value Orientations
Model, pp. 185–195 in Finding
the Middle Ground: Insights and
Applications of the Value Orientations Method, K Russo, ed.
Intercultural Press, Yarmouth ME.
Garland, J. 1999. Trajectories of
development for individuals,
firms, and the sector in a country,
pp. 329–335 in Seminar Proceedings of Forest Operations of Tomorrow, 20–24 September, 1999,
Pessac, France. AFOCEL SudOuest, Les Lamberts in Moulisen-Medoc, France.
Gartner, BL, H Lei, and MR Milota.
1997. Variation in the anatomy
and specific gravity of wood
within and between trees of red
alder (Alnus rubra Bong.). Wood
and Fiber Science 29: 10–20.
Gatziolis, D, JS Fried, and CW Ramm.
2000. Monitoring the impacts of
tracked vehicle training area use at
Ft. Hood, TX: A GIS Approach,
pp. 542–549 in Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on
Geospatial Applications in Agriculture and Forestry, Lake Buena
Vista, Florida, January 10–12,
2000, Vol. 1. ERIM International, Ann Arbor MI.
Gray, AN, and TA Spies. 1998. Ecosystem management, pp. 222–224 in
Encyclopedia of Ecology and
Environmental Management, P
Calow, ed. Blackwell Science,
Oxford, UK.
Hann, DW. 1999. An adjustable
predictor of crown profile for
stand-grown Douglas-fir trees.
Forest Science 45: 217–225. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Hanus, ML, DD Marshall, and DW
Hann. 1999. Height-Diameter
Equations for Six Species in the
Coastal Regions of the Pacific
Northwest. Research Contribution
25, Forest Research Laboratory,
Oregon State University,
Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
Hanus, ML, DW Hann, and DD
Marshall. 1999. Predicting Height
for Undamaged and Damaged Trees
in Southwest Oregon. Research
Contribution 27, Forest Research
93
Evaluation of Forest Uses, Practices, and Policies
Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
Haynes, RW. 1999. Chip prices as a
proxy for non-sawtimber prices in
the Pacific Northwest. Res. Note.
PNW-RN-537. USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland OR.
Haynes, RW, RT Graham, and TM
Quigley. 1998. A framework for
ecosystem management in the
Interior Columbia basin. Journal
of Forestry 96(10): 4–9.
Haynes, RW, NE Reyna, and SD Allen.
1998. ICBEMP: social and
economic systems. Journal of
Forestry 96(10): 28–32.
Haynes, RW, JH Stevens, and JR
Barbour. 2000. Criteria and
indicators for sustainable forest
management at the USA national
and regional level, in Forests and
Society: The Role of Research: XXI
IUFRO World Congress, 7–12
August 2000, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, B Krishnapillay, E
Soepadmo, NL Arshad, eds.
International Union of Forestry
Research Organizations, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
94
Hino, JH, EC Jensen, MD Reed, and
DA Zahler. 2000. Creating
Learning Opportunities for Forestry
Workers: Third Biennial Conference
on University Education in Natural
Resources. Electronic publication:
http://www.snr.missouri.edu/
meetings/uenr/Hino.pdf (20
November 2000).
Hermann, RK, and DP Lavender.
1999. Douglas-fir planted forests.
New Forests 17: 53–70. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Horne, AL, and RW Haynes. 1999.
Developing measures of socioeconomic resiliency in the Interior
Columbia Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-453, TM
Quigley, ed. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. Portland OR.
Johnson, KN, FJ Swanson, M Herring,
and S Greene, eds. 1999.
Bioregional Assessments: Science at
the Crossroads of Management and
Policy. Island Press, Washington
DC.
Johnson, KN, and M Herring. 1999.
Understanding bioregional
assessments, pp. 341–376 in
Bioregional Assessments: Science at
the Crossroads of Management and
Policy, KN Johnson, FJ Swanson,
M Herring, and S Greene, eds.
Island Press, Washington DC.
Johnson, KN, R Holthausen, MA
Shannon, and J Sedell. 1999.
Case study, pp. 87–116 in
Bioregional Assessments: Science at
the Crossroads of Management and
Policy, KN Johnson, FJ Swanson,
M Herring, and S Greene, eds.
Island Press, Washington DC.
Johnson, RL, R Alig, J Kline, R
Moulton, and M Rickenbach.
1999. Management of NonIndustrial Private Forest Lands:
Survey Results from Western Oregon
Evaluation of Forest Uses, Practices, and Policies
and Washington Owners. Research
Contribution 28, Forest Research
Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
Keim, RF, AE Skaugset, and DS
Batemen. 1999. Dynamics of
coarse woody debris placed in
three Oregon streams. Forest
Science 46(1): 13–22. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Kline, JD, and RJ Alig. 1999. Does
land use planning slow the
conversion of forest and farm
lands? Growth and Change 30:
3–22.
Kline, JD, RJ Alig, and RL Johnson.
2000. Forest owner incentives to
protect riparian habitat. Ecological
Economics 33: 20–43.
Kline, JD, RJ Alig, and RL Johnson.
2000. Fostering the production of
non-timber services among forest
owners with heterogeneous
objectives. Forest Science 46(2):
302–311.
Kochert, MN, and MW Collopy. 1998.
Relevance of research to resource
managers and policy makers, pp.
423–430 in Avian Conservation:
Research and Management, JM
Marzluff and R Sallabanks, eds.
Island Press, Washington DC.
Latta, GS, and DM Adams. 2000. An
econometric analysis of output
supply and input demand in the
Canadian softwood lumber
industry. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research 30(9): 1419–1428.
Mauldin, TE, AJ Plantinga, and RJ
Alig. 1999. Determinants of land
use of Maine with projections to
2050. Northern Journal of Applied
Forestry 16(2): 82–88.
Mauldin, TE, AJ Plantinga, and RJ
Alig. 1999. Land use in the Lake
States region: An analysis of past
trends and projections of future
change. Research Paper PNE-RP519. USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station,
Portland, OR.
McCarl, BA, DM Adams, RJ Alig, D
Burton, and C Chen. 2000.
Effects of global climate change
on the US forest sector: Response
function from a dynamic resource
and market simulator. Climate
Research 15(3): 195–205.
McCarl, BA, DM Adams, RJ Alig, and
JT Chmelik. 2000. Competitiveness of biomass-fueled electrical
power plants. Annals of Operations
Research 94: 37–55.
Montgomery, CA, GM Brown, and
DM Adams. The marginal cost of
species preservation: The northern
spotted owl, pp. 5-22 in Environmental Valuation, Vol. I., KG
Willis, KJ Button, P Nijkamp,
eds. Edward Elgar Publishing
Ltd., Cheltenham, Gloucester
UK.
Montgomery, CA, RA Pollak, K
Freemark, and D White. 1999.
Pricing biodiversity. Journal of
Environmental Economics and
95
Evaluation of Forest Uses, Practices, and Policies
Management 38: 1–19. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Nadeau, S, BA Shindler, and CA
Kakoyannis. 1999. Forest communities: New frameworks for
assessing sustainability. Forestry
Chronicle 75(5): 747–754.
Nair, CTS, and DP Dykstra. 1998.
Roles of global and regional
networks and consortia in
strengthening forestry research.
pp. 63–82 in Proceedings of the
International Consultation on
Research and Information Systems
in Forestry, an Austria/Indonesia
initiative in support of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests,
Gmunden, Austria, 7–10 September 1998, International Union of
Forestry Research, ed. Federal
Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry, Vienna, Austria.
Norris, LA. 1999. ROW on Federal
Lands and NEPA. UAA Quarterly
8(2): 1–2, 4–5.
Norris, LA. 1999. Science review, pp.
117–120 in Bioregional Assessments: Science at the Crossroads of
Management and Policy, KN
Johnson, FJ Swanson, M Herring,
and S Greene, eds. Island Press,
Washington DC.
Norris, LA. 1999. Herbicide treatments
on the Allegheny National Forest.
UAA Quarterly 8(4): 1, 3, 5.
96
Norris, LA. 2000. Returning to herbicide use on the Allegheny Na-
tional Forest. UAA Quarterly 8(3):
1–2, 4–5.
Oblander, P, and SE Daniels. 1997.
Intercultural communication and
the U.S.-Japan lumber trade: An
exploratory study. Forest Products
Journal 47(3): 38–44. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Osman, M, WH Emmingham, and SH
Sharrow. 1998. Growth and yield
of sorghum or cowpea in an
agrisilviculture system in semiarid
India. Agroforestry Systems 42: 91–
105.
Pearson, E, S Leavengood, and JE
Reeb. 2000. Comparison of
absorptive capacity of the animal
bedding materials: Western
juniper, western red cedar, and
Douglas-fir. Forest Products
Journal 50(7): 57–60.
Perry, DA. 1998. A moveable feast: The
evolution of resource sharing in
plant-fungus communities. TREE
13: 432–434.
Perry, DA. 1998. The scientific basis of
forestry. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 29: 435–466. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Pilz, D, FD Brodie, S Alexander, and R
Molina. 1998. Relative value of
chanterelles and timber as commercial forest products. Ambio 9:
14–16.
Pilz, D, J Smith, MP Amaranthus, S
Alexander, R Molina, and D
Luoma. 1999. Mushrooms and
Evaluation of Forest Uses, Practices, and Policies
timber: Managing commercial
harvesting in the Oregon Cascades. Journal of Forestry 97(3): 4–
11.
Reeb, JE. 1999. Some thoughts about
value added forest products
manufacturing, pp. 5–6 in The
Proceedings of the The Winds of
Change: The Forest Products
Industry and the University of
Alaska, 5–6 March 1999,
Ketchikan, Alaska. Alaska Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska, Ketchikan.
Reeb, JE. 1999. Using aesthetic joints
to manufacture high-value veneer
from lower quality lumber.
Forestry Update 25(2): 3, 7.
Reed, MD, T Buford, and J Boyle.
1999. Transitioning from resident
to distance education: What do
students say?, in Proceedings of
ED-MEDIA 99 World Conference
on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia, and Telecommunications, 19–24 June 1999, Seattle,
Washington, B Collis and R
Oliver, eds. Association for the
Advancement of Computing in
Education, Charlottesville NC.
Reed, MD, JC Hino, EA Littlefield,
and EC Jensen. 1998. Natural
resource education: Getting forest
products workers into the flow,
pp. 167–173 in Proceedings of the
University Education in Natural
Resources 2nd Biennier Conference,
7–10 March 1998, Logan, Utah,
CG Heister, ed. Utah State
University, Logan UT.
Reich, PB, DP Turner, and P Bolstad.
1999. An approach to spatially
distributed modeling of net
primary production (NPP) at the
landscape scale and its application
in validation of EOS NPP products. Remote Sensing of Environment 70: 69–81.
Rose, R, and J Coate. 2000. Reforestation rules in Oregon. Lessons
learned for strict enforcement.
Journal of Forestry 98(5): 24–28.
Shelby, B, and S Arbogast, compilers.
(1999.) Natural Resources & the
21st Century: Where Are We
Headed? The 1997 Starker Lectures, College of Forestry, Oregon
State University, Corvallis. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Shindler, B, and LA Cramer. 1999.
Shifting public values for forest
management: Making sense of
wicked problems. Western Journal
of Applied Forestry 14: 28–34.
Shindler, B, KA Cheek, and GH
Stankey. 1999. Monitoring and
Evaluating Citizen-Agency Interactions: A Framework Developed for
Adaptive Management. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR452, USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station,
Portland OR.
Skinner, CE, and AC Bennett-Rogers.
1998. The geologic source of an
97
Evaluation of Forest Uses, Practices, and Policies
obsidian wealth blade from the
Whale Cove Site (35LNC60),
Central Oregon Coast: Result of
x-ray fluorescence trace element
analysis. International Association
for Obsidian Studies Bulletin,
Number 2.
Skinner, CE, AC Bennett-Rogers, and
JJ Thatcher. 1999. Obsidian
studies of two possible wealth
blade fragments from the
Umpqua Eden Site (35 - DO 83), central Oregon Coast:
Results of x-ray fluorescence and
obsidian hydration analysis.
Current Archaeological Happenings
in Oregon 24(2): 17–23.
Steel, BS, B Shindler, and M Brunson.
1998. Social acceptability of
ecosystem management in the
Pacific Northwest, pp. 147–160
in Ecosystems Management: A
Social Science Perspective, DL
Soden, BL Lamb, and JR Tennert,
eds. Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company, Dubuque IA.
Thompson, PB, and SH Strauss. 2000.
Research ethics for molecular
silviculture, pp. 585–611 in
Molecular Biology of Woody Plants,
SM Jain and SC Minocha, eds.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands.
98
Trappe, M, JL Eberhart, and DL
Luoma. 2000. Craterellus
tubaeformis + Tsuga heterophylla,
pp. CDE28.1–4 in A Manual of
Concise Descriptions of North
American Ectomycorrhizae, DM
Goodman, DM Durall, JA
Trofymow, and SM Berch, eds.
Mycologue Publications, and
British Columbia Ministry of
Forests, Canadian Forest Service,
Victoria BC.
Tucker, AO, MJ Maciarello, and JJ
Karchesy. 2000. Commercial
“Rose of Cedar” oil, the wood oil
of Port Orford cedar,
Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A.
Murray) Parl. (Cupressaceae).
Journal of Essential Oil Research
12: 24–26.
Tynon, JF, and DJ Chavez. 2000.
Urban crimes in natural environments: Are we prepared?, pp. 47–
52 in Proceedings of the Third
Symposium on Social Aspects and
Recreation Research, 16–19
February 2000, Tempe, Arizona, IE
Schneider, D Chavez, B Borrie,
and K James, eds. Arizona State
University, Tempe.
Urban, DL, MF Acevedo, and SL
Garman. 1999. Scaling fine-scale
processes to large-scale patterns
using models derived from
models: meta-models, pp. 70–98
in Spatial Modeling of Forest
Landscape Change: Approaches and
Applications, D. Mlandenoff and
W Baker, eds. Cambridge University Press.
Vasievich, JM, JS Fried, and LA
Leefers, eds. 2000. Seventh
Symposium on Systems Analysis in
Forest Resources, 28–31 May 1997,
Traverse City, Michigan. General
Evaluation of Forest Uses, Practices, and Policies
Technical Report GTR-NC-205,
USDA Forest Service, North
Central Station, St. Paul MN.
Waring, RH. 2000. A process model
analysis of environmental limitations on the growth of Sitka
spruce plantations in Great
Britain. Forestry 73(1): 65–69.
Weinfurter, S, and EN Hansen. 1999.
Softwood lumber quality requirements: Examining the supplier/
buyer perception gap. Wood and
Fiber Science 31: 83–94. (For. Res.
Lab.)
involving forestry in western
Oregon. Research Paper PNWRP-518, USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research
Station, Portland OR.
Zhou, L, AA Ahmed, RF Helm, NA
Panella, GO Maupin, and JJ
Karchesy. 1999. (+)Dihydromay-urone from
Juniperus occidentalis. Planta
Medica 65: 680–681.
Wimberly, MC, TA Spies, CJ Long,
and C Whitlock. 2000. Simulating historical variability in the
amount of old forests in the
Oregon Coast Range. Conservation Biology 14: 167–180.
Wing, MG, and A Skaugset. 1998. GIS
casts a line: Examining salmon
habitat in Oregon streams.
Geographical Information Systems
8(7): 36–41.
Wing, M, and B Shelby. 1999. Using
GIS to integrate information on
forest recreation. Journal of
Forestry 97(1): 12–16.
Winter, GJ, and JS Fried. 2000.
Homeowner perspectives on
strategies for reducing fire damage
at the wildland urban interface.
Society and Natural Resources 13:
33–49.
Zheng, D, and RJ Alig. 1999. Changes
in the non Federal land base
99
WOOD PROCESSING AND PRODUCT PERFORMANCE
Acda, M, JJ Morrell, A Silva, KL
Levien, and J Karchesy. 1998.
Using supercritical carbon dioxide
for extraction of western juniper
and Alaska-cedar. Holzforschung
52: 472–474. (For. Res. Lab.)
Bermek, H, K Li, and K-EL Eriksson.
1998. Laccase-less mutants of the
white-rot fungus (Pycnoporus
cinnabarinus) cannot deligninify
kraft pulp. Journal of Biotechnology
66: 117–124.
Chandler, WS, and JJ Morrell. 1999.
Effect of incising on the strength
of green Douglas-fir lumber.
Forest Products Journal 49(9): 55–
58. (For. Res. Lab.)
DeBell, JD, JJ Morrell, and BL
Gartner. 1999. Within-stem
variation in tropolone content
and decay resistance of secondgrowth western redcedar. Forest
Science 45: 101–107. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Dung, D-R, R Gupta, and TH Miller.
2000. A Practical Method to Model
the System Effects of a Metal Plate
Connected Wood Truss Assembly.
ASAE Paper No. 004039. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph MO.
100
Fell, D, and E Hansen. 1999. Target
engineered products to builders
most likely to innovate. Wood
Technology 126(4): 22–25.
Fletcher, R, and E Hansen. 1999.
Forest certification trends in
North America and Europe. New
Zealand Journal of Forestry 44(2):
4–6.
Gezer, ED, JH Michael, and JJ Morrell.
1999. Effects of glycol on leachability and efficacy of boron wood
preservatives. Wood and Fiber
Science 31: 136–142. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Giron, MY, CM Garcia, and JJ
Morrell. 1998. Influence of
nutrients and chemosterilants on
the ability of Pseudomonas
fluorescens to protect against stain
in bamboo. Journal of Tropical
Forest Products 4: 207–211. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Gonzalez-Hernandez, MP, EE Starkey,
and JJ Karchesy. 2000. Presencia
de taninos en plantas del monte
Gallego (N.W. España) y su
ecosystemas pascicolas. III.
Reunión Ibérica de pastos y forraxes,
683–688.
Gonzalez-Hernandez, MP, EE Starkey,
and JJ Karchesy. 2000. Seasonal
variation in concentrations of
fiber, crude protein, and phenolic
compounds in leaves of red alder
(Alnus rubra): Nutritional implications for cervids. Journal of
Chemical Ecology 26: 293–302.
González-Laredo, RF, RF Helm, J
Chen, and JJ Karchesy. 1998. Two
Wood Processing and Product Performance
acylated diarylheptanoid glycosides from red alder bark. Journal
of Natural Products 61: 1292–
1294. (For. Res. Lab.)
Gonzalez-Laredo, RF, J Chen, YM
Karchesy, and JJ Karchesy. 1999.
Seasonal variations in the chemical make-up of red alder leaves
may affect nutritional value for
deer and elk. Natural Products
Letters 13: 75–80.
Hansen, EN, and R Bush. 1999.
Understanding customer quality
requirements: Model and application. Industrial Marketing Management 28(2): 119–130.
Hansen, EN, and H Juslin. 1999. The
Status of Forest Certification in the
ECE Region. Geneva Timber and
Forest Discussion Papers ECE/
TIM/DP/14, United Nations
Economic Commission for
Europe and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Geneva, and United
Nations, New York. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Hansen, EN, and J Punches. 1998.
Developing Markets for Certified
Forest Products: A Teaching Case
Study of Collins Pine Company
with Background Notes. Case
Study Series 1, Forest Research
Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
Hansen, EN, and J Punches. 1999.
Developing markets for certified
forest products: A case study of
Collins Pine Company. Forest
Products Journal 49(1): 30–35.
Hansen, EN, K Forsyth, and H Juslin.
1999. A Forest Certification
Update for the ECE Region,
Summer 1999. Geneva Timber and
Forest Discussion Papers ECE/TIM/
DP/15, United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe and the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Geneva, and the United Nations,
New York. (For. Res. Lab.)
Hansen, EN, S Lawton, and S
Weinfurter. 1999. The German
Publishing Industry: Managing
Environmental Issues. Case Study
Series 2, Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University,
Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
Heck, L, R Gupta, and TH Miller.
1998. The shear strength of fullscale lumber using torsion tests,
pp. 215–222 in Proceedings of the
Fifth World Conference on Timber
Engineering, 17–20 August 1998,
Montreaux, Switzerland, JK
Natterer and JLJ Sandoz, eds.
Presses Polytechniques et
Universitaires Romandes,
Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jones, JA, FJ Swanson, BC Wemple,
and K Snyder. 2000. A perspective on road effects on hydrology,
geomorphology, and disturbance
patches in stream networks.
Conservation Biology 14(1): 76–
85.
101
Wood Processing and Product Performance
Kang, S-M, JJ Morrell, and D Smith.
1999. Effect of incising and
preservative treatment on nailholding capacity of Douglas-fir
and hem-fir lumber. Forest Products Journal 49(3): 43–45. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Kim, GH, and JJ Morrell. 1998.
Biological protection against
fungal discoloration: Spatial
distribution of the bacterial
bioprotectant and target fungi on
ponderosa pine sapwood. Material
und Organismen 32: 17–27. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Kim, GH, and JJ Morrell. 2000. In-situ
measurement of dimensional
changes during supercritical fluid
impregnation of white spruce
lumber. Wood and Fiber Science
32: 29–36. (For. Res. Lab.)
Kittel, MR, R Gupta, and TH Miller.
1998. Small-scale modeling of
metal-plate-connected wood truss
joints, pp. 1-742–1-743 in
Proceedings of the Fifth World
Conference on Timber Engineering,
17-20 August 1998, Montreaux,
Switzerland, JK Natterer and JLJ
Sandoz, eds. Presses
Polytechniques et Universitaires
Romandes, Lausanne, Switzerland.
102
Lavery M, and R Michael. 2000. VOC
emissions from Douglas-fir:
Comparing a commercial and a
lab kiln. Forest Products Journal
50(7/8): 39–47.
Leichti, RJ, and P Cheng. 1999. An
initial assessment of plywood
subjected to biaxial loads, pp.
229–235 in Proceedings of Pacific
Timber Engineering Conference,
March 1999, Rotorua, New
Zealand, GB Walford and DJ
Gaunt, eds. New Zealand Forest
Research Institute, Limited,
Rotorua, New Zealand.
Leichti, RJ, and T Nakhata. 1999. The
role of bearing plates in the fivepoint bending tests of structuralsize lumber. Journal of Testing and
Evaluation 27: 183–190. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Leichti, RJ, WK Savage III, and JJ
Morrell. 1998. Evaluating the
load capacity of glulam davit arms
after 20 years of exposure. Forest
Products Journal 48(7/8): 57–62.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Leichti, RJ, RA Hyde, ML French, and
SG Camillos. 2000. The continuum of connection rigidity in
timber structures. Wood and Fiber
Science 32: 11–19. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Li, C, and JJ Morrell. 1999. Extraction
conditions affect protein recovery
and enzyme activity in wood
wafers exposed to stain fungi and
bioprotectants. Holzforschung 53:
118–122. (For. Res. Lab.)
Li, K, RF Helm, and K-EL Eriksson.
1998. Mechanistic studies of the
oxidation of a non-phenolic lignin
model compound by the Laccase/
Wood Processing and Product Performance
1-HBT Redox-System. Biochemistry and Applied Biotechnology 27:
239–243.
Li, K, F Xu, and K-EL Eriksson. 1999.
Comparison of fungal laccases
and redox mediators in oxidation
of a non-phenolic lignin model
compound. Applied Environmental Microbiology 65: 2654–2660.
Li, K, P Azadi, R Collins, J Tolan, JS
Kim, and K-EL Eriksson. 2000.
Relationship between activities of
xylanases and xylan structures.
Enzyme Microbial Technology 27:
89–94.
Li, Z, R Gupta, and TH Miller. 1998.
A practical approach to modeling
of wood truss roof assemblies.
Practical Periodical on Structural
Design and Construction 3(3):
119–124.
Liu, J, and JJ Morrell. 1997. Effect of
biocontrol inoculum growth
conditions on subsequent
chitinase and protease levels in
wood exposed to biocontrols and
stain fungi. Material und
Organismen 31: 265–279. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Mankowski, ME, and JJ Morrell. 1999.
Effect of substrate type and moisture
requirements in relation to colony
initiation in the carpenter ant
species. International Research
Group on Wood Preservation
Document IRG/WP/99-10320,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Mankowski, M, and JJ Morrell. 2000.
Incidence of wood-destroying
organisms in Oregon residential
structures. Forest Products Journal
50(1): 49–52. (For. Res. Lab.)
Mankowski, M, and JJ Morrell. 2000.
Patterns of fungal attack in woodplastic composites following
exposure in a soil block test. Wood
and Fiber Science 32(3): 340–345.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Mankowski, ME, TD Schowalter, JJ
Morrell, and B Lyons. 1998.
Feeding habits and gut fauna of
Zootermopsis angusticollis
(Isoptera: Termopsidae) in response to wood species and fungal
associates. Environmental Entomology 27: 1315–1322. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Milota, MR. 1999. Wood drying: The
past, present, and future, pp. 1–
10 in Proceedings of the 6th
International IUFRO Conference
on Wood Drying, January 25–29,
1999, Stellenbosch, South Africa,
HF Vermaas and T Kudra, eds.
Marcel Dekker Publishing Co.,
New York.
Milota, MR. 2000. Emissions from
wood drying: The science and the
issues. Forest Products Journal
50(6): 10–20.
Milota, MR, and MR Lavery. 1999.
Effect of moisture on the reading
of a total hydrocarbon analyzer.
Forest Products Journal 49(5): 47–
48.
103
Wood Processing and Product Performance
Milota, MR, and M Thiam. 1999.
Effect of high temperature drying
on the bending and shear
strengths of western hemlock
lumber, pp. 80–89 in Proceedings
of the 50th Annual Meeting of the
Western Dry Kiln Association, 2–4
May 1999, Portland, Oregon,
Western Dry Kiln Association,
Oregon State University, Corvallis
OR.
Morrell, JJ. 1999. Global perspectives
on future opportunities for
alternatives to conventional
antisapstain treatments, pp. 7–12
in The Second New Zealand
Sapstain Symposium, November
18–19, 1999, Rotorua, New
Zealand, CB Kreber, ed. Forest
Research Bulletin 215, Forest
Research, Rotorua, New Zealand.
104
wood species. International Research Group on Wood Preservatives, Document No. IRG/WP/
99-30201, Stockholm, Sweden.
Morrell JJ, and Y Xiao. 1999. Stain
research: Where are we going and
how can we use where we’ve been
to better purpose?, pp. 71–79 in
The Second New Zealand Sapstain
Symposium, November 18–19,
1999, Rotorua, New Zealand, CB
Kreber, ed. Forest Research
Bulletin 215, Forest Research,
Rotorua, New Zealand.
Morrell JJ, and KL Levien. 2000.
Extraction of biologically active
substances from wood, pp. 221–
226 in Supercritical Fluid Methods
and Protocols, Chapter 29, JR
Williams and AA Clifford, eds.,
Humana Press Inc., Totowa NJ.
Morrell, JJ. 1999. Pole disposal in the
Pacific Northwest, pp. 53–59 in
Utility Pole Structures Conference
and Trade Show, October 21–22,
1999, Reno, Nevada. Northwest
Public Power Association,
Vancouver WA.
Morrell JJ, and KL Levien. 2000. The
deposition of a biocide in woodbased material, pp. 227–234 in
Supercritical Fluid Methods and
Protocols, Chapter 30, JR Williams and AA Clifford, eds.
Humana Press Inc., Totowa NJ.
Morrell, JJ. 2000. Processes: How will
they change in the new
millenium?, pp. 157–162 in
Proceedings of the Wood Preservation Association on Processes, 7–10
May 2000, San Francisco, California. AWPA, Granbury TX.
Morrell JJ, and RG Rhatigan. 2000.
Pole inspection: What do the
devices tell you?, pp. 31–44 in
Proceedings of the Canadian Wood
Preservation Association, November,
2000, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canadian Wood Preservation
Association, Vancouver BC.
Morrell JJ, and CM Freitag. 1999.
Accelerated laboratory testing of
preservatives on 13 North American
Morrell, JJ, and RG Rhatigan. 2000.
Preservative movement from
Wood Processing and Product Performance
Douglas-fir and timbers treated
with ammoniacal copper zinc
arsenate using best management
practices. Forest Products Journal
50(2): 54–48. (For Res. Lab.)
Morrell, JJ, R Gupta, JE Winandy, and
DS Riyanto. 1998. Effect of
incising and preservative treatment on shear strength of nominal 2-inch lumber. Wood and Fiber
Science 30: 374–381. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Morrell, JJ, DJ Miller, and ST Lebow.
1998. Above-ground performance
of preservative-treated western
wood species. Proceedings, American Wood-Preservers’ Association
94: 249–256.
Morrell, JJ, PF Schneider, and PG
Forsyth. 1998. Performance of
gelled, pelletized, and liquid
metham sodium as internal
remedial treatments for Douglasfir poles. Forest Products Journal
48(10): 75–79. (For. Res. Lab.)
Morrell, JJ, DJ Miller, and PF
Schneider. 1999. Service Life of
Treated and Untreated Fence Posts:
1996 Post Farm Report. Research
Contribution 26, Forest Research
Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis. (For. Res. Lab.)
Narayanappa, P, AB Chang, and JJ
Morrell. 1999. Treatment of two
Indian wood species with waterborne inorganic arsenicals. Journal
of Tropical Forest Products 5(2):
257–261.
Newbill, MA, R James, D Asgharian,
and JJ Morrell. 1999. Full-length
through-boring: Effect on pentachlorophenol penetration and
retention and residual strength of
Douglas-fir poles. Forest Products
Journal 49(1): 73–76. (For. Res.
Lab.)
Oberdorfer, G, PE Humphrey, RJ
Leichti, JJ Morrell. 2000. Internal
pressure development within
oriented strandboard during
supercritical fluid impregnation.
International Research Group on
Wood Preservation, Document
No. IRG/WP/40175. Stockholm,
Sweden.
Parendes, LA, and JA Jones. 2000. Role
of light availability and dispersal
in exotic plant invasion along
roads and streams in the H.J.
Andrews Experimental Forest,
Oregon. Conservation Biology
14(1): 64–75.
Redlinger, MJ, R Gupta, and TH
Miller. 1999. Performance of
metal-plate-connected wood truss
heel joints under wind and impact
loads, pp. 501–512 in RILEM
Symposium on Timber Engineering,
13–15 September 1999, Stockholm,
Sweden, L Bostrom, ed. International Union of Testing and
Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures (RILEM),
Stockholm, Sweden.
Reeb, JE. 1998. Why does my wood
shrink like this: Effect of the
105
Wood Processing and Product Performance
secondary cell wall layer on
shrink/swell behavior of wood,
pp. 8–11 in Proceedings of the 49th
Annual Meeting of the Western Dry
Kiln Association, 3–5 May 1998,
Reno, Nevada. Western Dry Kiln
Association, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR.
Reeb, JE, CC Brunner, JW Funck, and
Y Liu. 1998. Using aesthetically
matched joints to add value to
lower quality wood, pp. E17.1–
E17.4 in Proceedings of the Small
Wood ’98 Conference and Exposition, 14–16, La Grande, Oregon.
Irregular Publication. USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Portland OR.
Reeb, J, and MR Milota. 1999. Moisture content by the oven-dry
method for industrial testing, pp.
66–74 in Proceedings of the 50th
Annual Meeting of the Western Dry
Kiln Association, 2–4 May 1999,
Portland, Oregon. Western Dry
Kiln Association, Portland OR.
Reeb, JE. 2000. A Northwest perspective on secondary processing, pp.
89–95 in Proceedings of Linking
Healthy Forests and Communities
through Alaska Value-Added Forest
Products, 27–28 September 2000,
Sitka, Alaska. General Technical
Report PNW-GTR-500, USDA
Forest Service, Portland OR.
106
Reeb, JE. 2000. Linn Lumber BSK 190
–IS&WM’s portable sawmill
review. Independent Sawmill and
Woodlot Management 3(5): 4–6,
49–50.
Reeb, JE. 2000. Review of the different
types of portable sawmills.
Northwest Woodlands 16(4): 20–
21.
Reeb, JE, JJ Karchesy, JR Foster, and
RL Krahmer. 1998. Finger-joint
quality after 4, 6, and 32 hours of
knife wear: Preliminary results.
Forest Products Journal 48(7/8):
33–36. (For. Res. Lab.)
Scheffer, TC, and JJ Morrell. 1998.
Natural Durability of Wood: A
Worldwide Checklist of Species.
Research Contribution 22, Forest
Research Laboratory, Oregon
State University, Corvallis. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Silva, AA, and JJ Morrell. 2000.
Inhibition of wood-staining
Ophiostoma picea by Bacillus
subtilis on Pinus ponderosa sapwood. Material und Organismen
32: 241–252. (For. Res. Lab.)
Silva, AA, CS Love, JJ Morrell, and RC
DeGroot. 1999. Biocide protection of field-drilled bolt holes in
red oak, yellow-poplar, loblolly
pine, and Douglas-fir. Forest
Products Journal 49(6): 61–66.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Simonsen, J, B Xu, and WE Rochefort.
1999. Creep reduction using
blended matrices in wood-filled
polymer composites, pp. 275–288
in Proceedings of the Fifth Interna-
Wood Processing and Product Performance
tional Conference on WoodfiberPlastic Composites, 26–27 May
1999, Madison, Wisconsin. Forest
Products Society, Madison WI.
Skaugset, A, and B Wemple. 1999. The
response of forest roads on steep,
landslide-prone terrain in western
Oregon to the February 1996
storm, pp. 193–203 in Proceedings
of the International Mountain
Logging and 10th Pacific Northwest
Skyline Symposium, 28 March–1
April 1999, Corvallis, Oregon, J
Sessions and W Chung, eds.
Division 3 of the International
Union of Forestry Research
Organizations and Department of
Forest Engineering, Oregon State
University, Corvallis OR.
Starkey, EE, PJ Happe, MP GonzalezHernandez, K Lange, and JJ
Karchesy. 1999. Tannins as
nutritional constraints for elk and
deer of the coastal Pacific Northwest, pp. 807–908 in Plant
Polyphenols 2. Chemistry, Biology,
Pharmacology, Ecology, GG Gross,
RW Hemingway, and T Yoshida,
eds. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, New York.
Sharp, DJ, SK Suddarth, and C
Beaulieu. 2000. Length effect in
prefabricated wood I-joists. Forest
Products Journal 50(5): 29–42.
Swett, TM, and MR Milota. 1999.
Drying lumber of
submerchantable length. Forest
Products Journal 49(4): 71–76.
(For. Res. Lab.)
Waltz, ME, Jr, TE McLain, TH Miller,
and RJ Leichti. 1999. Brace
analysis methods for discrete
compression webs, pp. 56–64 in
Proceedings of the Pacific Timber
Engineering Conference, March,
1999, Rotorua, New Zealand, GB
Walford and DJ Gaunt, eds. Vol.
2, New Zealand Forestry Research
Institute, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Wandell, T, JJ Morrell, and RG
Rhatigan. 1999. Incidence of
above-ground decay in distribution poles in the PGE system, pp.
127–134 in Utility Pole Structures
Conference and Trade Show,
October 21–22, 1999, Reno,
Nevada. Northwest Public Power
Association, Vancouver WA.
Wu, J, and MR Milota. 1999. Effect of
temperature and humidity on
total hydrocarbon emissions from
Douglas-fir lumber. Forest Products Journal 49(6): 52–60. (For.
Res. Lab.)
Xu, B, J Simonsen, WE Rochefort.
2000. Mechanical properties and
creep resistance in polystyrene/
polythylene blends. Journal of
Applied Polymer Science 76: 1100–
1108. (For. Res. Lab.)
Xu, F, J Kulys, K Duke, K Li, K
Krikstopaitis, HJ Deussen, E
Abbate, V Galinyte, and P
Schneider. 2000. Redox chemistry
in laccase-catalyzed oxidation of
N-hydroxy compounds. Applied
Environmental Microbiology 66:
2052–2056.
107
U B L I C A T I O N S
P
R E L A T E D
O R E S T R Y
F
Anderson, TM, and NH Anderson.
1998. The life history of
Arrenurus hamrumi—a water mite
from rangeland springs in central
Oregon, U.S.A, pp. 63–74 in
Studies in Crenobiology: The
Biology in Springs and
Springbrooks, L Botosaneanu, ed.
Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.
(Dep. Entomol.)
Clason, TR, and SH Sharrow. 2000.
Silvopastoral practice, pp. 119–
148 in North American
Agroforestry—An Integrated Science
and Practice, GE Garrett, WJ
Rietveld, and RF Fisher eds.
American Society of Agronomy,
Madison, WI. (Dep. Rangel.
Resour.)
Connolly, PJ, and JD Hall. 1999.
Biomass of coastal cutthroat trout
in unlogged and previously clearcut basins in the central Coast
Range of Oregon. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 128:
890–899. (Dep. Fish. Wildl.)
Crabo, L, and PC Hammond. 1998. A
revision of Mesogona Boisduval
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) for
North America with descriptions
of two new species. Journal of
Research on the Lepidoptera 34:
83–98. (Dep. Entomol.)
Dietrich, M. and NH Anderson. 1998.
Dynamics of abiotic parameters,
solute removal, and sediment
retention in summer-dry headwater streams of western Oregon.
Hydrobiologia 379: 1–15. (Dep.
Entomol.)
Dieterich, M, and NH Anderson.
2000. The invertebrate fauna of
summer-dry streams in western
Oregon. Archiv fr Hydrobiologie
147: 273–295. (Dep. Entomol.)
diFazio, SP, MV Wilson, and NC
Vance. 1998. Factors limiting seed
production of Taxus brevifolia
(Taxaceae) in western Oregon.
American Journal of Botany 85:
910–918. (Dep. Bot. Plant Path.)
Edge, WD, RE Gresswell, JP Hayes,
DE Hibbs, EE Starkey, and JC
Tappeiner. 1999. The Cooperative
Forest Ecosystem Research Program:
Annual Report 1999. Cooperative
Forest Ecosystem Research, Oregon
State University, Corvallis. (Dep.
Fish. Wildl.)
Estrada-Venegas, E, RA Norton, and
AR Moldenke. 1999. Unusual
sperm transfer in Pilogalumna sp.
(Galumnidae). pp. 565-567 in
Proceedings of Acarology IX Congress, 17-21 July 1994 Columbus,
Ohio, GR Needham, R Mitchell,
DJ Horn, and WC Welbourn,
eds. Ohio Biological Survey, Ohio
State University, Columbus, OH.
(Dep. Entomol.)
Ewel, JJ, DJ O’Dowd, J Bergelson, CC
Daehler, CM D’Antonio, LD
Gómez, DR Gordon, RJ Hobbs,
A Holt, KR Hopper, CE Hughes,
M LaHart, RRB Leakey, WG Lee,
LL Loope, DH Lorence, SM
Forestry-related Publications
Louda, AE Lugo, PB McEvoy,
DM Richardson, and PM
Vitousek. 1999. Deliberate
introductions of species: Research
needs. BioScience 49: 619–630.
(Dep. Entomol.)
Headwater Stream Barriers in
Western Oregon. http://
zippy.fsl.orst.edu/metadata/
barrier_meta.htm#Entity_and_Attribute_
Information (5 Dec. 2000) (Dep.
Fish. Wildl.)
Gernandt, DS, and A Liston. 1999.
Internal transcribed spacer region
evolution in Larix and Pseudotsuga
(Pinaceae). American Journal of
Botany 86: 711–723. (Dep. Bot.
Plant Path.)
Hammond, PC. 1999. Review of:
Butterflies of the World, V.
Sbordoni and S. Forestiero, eds.
Firefly Books, Willowdale, ON,
Canada. American Entomologist
45: 187–188. (Dep. Entomol.)
Gresswell, RE, JP Hayes, and JP Smith.
1998. A long-range strategic plan
for the Cooperative Forest Ecosystem
Research (CFER) program. Oregon
State University Contract Agreement No. H952A1-0101-25
Report to USGS, Forest and
Rangeland Ecosystem Science
Center, Biological Resources
Division. Oregon State University,
Corvallis. (Dep. Fish. Wildl.)
Hammond, PC and DV McCorkle.
1999. A new species of Philotiella
from the Oregon Cascade Range
(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae).
Holarctic Lepidoptera 6: 41–46.
(Dep. Entomol.)
Gresswell, RE, JP Hayes, D Edge, D
Hibbs, and J Tappeiner. 1998.
Cooperative Forest Ecosystem
Research: Long-range Strategic
Plan. USGS, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center,
Biological Resources Division,
Corvallis, OR. (Dep. Fish. Wildl.)
Gresswell, RE. 1999. Fire and aquatic
ecosystems in forested biomes of
North America. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 128:
193–221. (Dep. Fish. Wildl.)
Gresswell, RE, DS Bateman, G
Lienkaemper, and T Guy. 2000.
Johnson, SL, and JA Jones. 2000.
Stream temperature response to
forest harvest and debris flows in
western Cascades, Oregon.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 57(2): 30–39.
(Dep. Fish. Wildl.)
Johnson, SL, and AP Covich. 2000.
The importance of night-time
observations for determining
habitat preferences of stream
biota. Regulated Rivers Research
and Management 16: 91–99.
(Dep. Fish. Wildl.)
Kaye, TN, and M. Kirkland. 1999.
Effect of timber harvest on
Cimicifuga elata, a rare plant of
western forests. Northwest Science
73: 159–167. (Dep. Bot. Plant
Path.)
109
Forestry-related Publications
LaBonte, JR, and RE Nelson. 1998.
North American distribution and
habitat of Elaphropus parvulus
(Dejean), an introduced nonsynanthropic carbid beetle
(Colioptera: Carabidae). The
Coleopterist’s Bulletin 52: 35–42.
(Dep. Entomol.)
LaBonte, JR. 1998. Terrestrial riparian
arthropod investigations in the Big
Beaver Creek Research Natural
Area, North Cascades National
Park Service Complex, 1995–1996:
Part II, Coleoptera. Complex
Technical Report NPS/
NRNOCA/NRTR/98-02, USDI,
North Cascades National Park
Service, Washington DC. (Dep.
Entomol.)
Larsen, RE, WC Krueger, MR George,
MR Barrington, JC Buckhouse,
and DE Johnson. 1998. Livestock influences on riparian zones
and fish habitat: An analysis of
the literature. Journal of Rangeland
Management 51: 661–664. (Dep.
Rangel. Resour.)
Lattin, JD. 1998. A Review of the Insects
and Mites Found on Taxus spp.
with Emphasis on Western North
America. PNW-GTR-433, USDA
Forest Service Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Portland, OR.
(Dep. Entomol.)
110
Lattin, JD. 1999. Arthropod investigations of The North Cascades
National Park Service Complex.
Hemiptera: Heteroptera, I, 1997–
1998. USDI National Park
Service Pacific West Region,
North Cascades National Park
Service Complex, Sedro-Wooley,
WA. (Dep. Entomol.)
Lattin, JD. 1999. Bionomics of the
Anthocoridae. Annual Review of
Entomology 44: 207–231. (Dep.
Entomol.)
Lattin, JD. 1999. Dead leaf clusters as
habitats for adult Calliodis
temnostethoides and Cardiastethus
luridellus and other anthocorids
(Hemiptera: Heteroptera:
Anthocoridae). Great Lakes Entomologist 32: 33–38. (Dep.
Entomol.)
Lattin, JD, and JC Miller, 1999. pp.
655–657, and 690–692 in Status
and Trends of the Nation’s Biological Resources, MD Mac, DA
Opler, CE Puckett Haecker, and
DD Doran, eds. USDI, US
Geological Survey, Washington
DC. (Dep. Entomol.)
Lattin, JD and NL Stanton. 1999.
Host records of Braconidae
(Hymenoptera) occurring in
Miridae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera)
found on lodgepole pine (Pinus
contorta) and associated conifers.
Pan-Pacific Entomologist 75: 23–
31. (Dep. Entomol.)
Liston, A, WA Robinson, D Piñero,
and ER Alvarez-Buylla. 1999.
Phylogenetics of Pinus (Pinaceae)
based on nuclear ribosomal DNA
internal transcribed spacer region
sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics
Forestry-related Publications
and Evolution 11: 95–109. (Dep.
Bot. Plant Path.)
McEvoy, PB and EM Coombs. 1999.
Biological control of plant invaders: Regional patterns, field
experiments, and structured
population models. Ecological
Applications 9: 387–401.
Miller, JC. 1999. Monitoring the
effects of Bacillus thuringiensis
kurstaki on nontarget Lepidopera
in woodlands and forests of
Western Oregon, pp. 277–286 in
Nontarget Effects of Biological
Control, PA Follett and JJ Duan,
eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston, MA. (Dep. Entomol.)
Minear, P. 1999. Historical riparian
conditions and large in-channel
wood, Deschutes River, Oregon.
Report prepared for Portland
General Electric. Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon
State University, Corvallis. (Dep.
Fish. Wildl.)
Moldenke, AR 1999. Soil-dwelling
arthropods: Their diversity and
functional roles. pp. 33–44 in
Proceedings Pacific Northwest Forest
and Rangeland Soil Organism
Symposium, 17–19 March 1998.
General Technical Report PNWGTR-461. USDA Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Research
Station, Portland, OR. (Dep.
Entomol.)
Moldenke, AR, ER Ingham, and C
Edwards. 1999. Soil Biology
Primer. NRCS-PA1637. USDA
Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Washington DC. (Dep.
Entomol.)
Moldenke, AR, M Pajutee, and E
Ingham. 1999. The functional
role of forest soil arthropods: the
soil is a living place, pp 7-22 in
Proceedings of the California Forest
Soils Council Conference on Forest
Soils Biology and Forest Management, 23–24 February 1996,Berkeley, California, RF Powers, DL
Hauxwell, GM Nakamura, eds.
General Technical Report PSWGTR-178. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research
Station, Berkeley, CA. (Dep.
Entomol.)
Rambo, TR, and PS Muir. 1998.
Bryophyte species associations
with coarse woody debris and
stand ages in Oregon. The
Bryologist 101: 366–376. (Dep.
Bot. Plant Path.)
Roush, ML, DE Hibbs, R William, S
Cordray, S Sharrow, and S Seiter.
1999. Agroforestry: A successful
model for co-learning. NACTA
Journal 43(4): 26–31. (Dep.
Rangel. Resour.)
Sharrow, S.H. 1999. Long-term effects
of livestock grazing in western
conifer forests, pp. 7–11 in Healthy
Forests for the 21st Century—New
Technologies in Integrated Vegetation Management. Proceedings of
the Twentieth Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference,
111
Forestry-related Publications
19–21 January 1999, Redding CA.
Forest Vegetation Management
Conference, Redding CA. (Dep.
Rangel. Resour.)
Sharrow, SH. 1999. Prescription
grazing for vegetation management, pp. 52–60 in Vegetation
Management in the Era of Threatened and Endangered Species, C
Ramsay, ed. PNW Integrated
Vegetation Management Association, Pullman WA. (Dep. Rangel.
Resour.)
Sharrow, SH. 1999. Shade trees to
benefit livestock. Oregon Beef
Producer 12(10): 14–15, 22.
(Dep. Rangel. Resour.)
Sharrow, SH 1999. Silvopastoralism:
Competition and facilitation
between trees, livestock, and
improved grass-clover pastures on
temperate rainfed lands, pp.111–
130 in Agroforestry in Sustainable
Agricultural Systems, L Buck, JP
Lassoie, and ECM Fernandes,
eds. CRC Press/Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, FL. (Dep. Rangel.
Resour.)
Sharrow, SH. 2000. Does shade from
trees increase summer weight
gains of cattle?, The Grazier 305
(October): 3–5. (Dep. Rangel.
Resour.)
Sharrow, SH. 2000. Trees in pastures:
Do cattle benefit from shade?, The
Temperate Agroforester 8(3): 3, 9.
(Dep. Rangel. Resour.)
112
Shock, CC, EBG Feibert, and LD
Saunders. 2000. Poplar growth in
response to irrigation management, pp 77–81 in Hybrid Poplars
in the Pacific Northwest: Culture,
Commerce, and Capacity, Symposium Proceedings, April, 1999,
Pasco WA, KA Blatner, JD
Johnson, and DM Baumgartner,
eds. MISC0272, Washington
State University, Seattle, WA.
(Dep. Crop Soil Sci.)
Stringham, TK, JC Buckhouse, and
WC Krueger. 1998. Stream
temperatures as related to subsurface waterflows originating from
irrigation. Journal of Rangeland
Management 51: 88–91. (Dep.
Rangel. Resour.)
Stringham, TK, WC Krueger, and DR
Thomas. 1998. Understanding
the relationship between water
table depth and plant comunities:
Implication for riparian management and restoration, p. 346 in
Proceedings of the AWRA Specialty
Conference on Rangeland Management and Water Resources, Reno,
Nevada, 27–29 May 1998, DF
Potts, ed. American Water Resources Association, Middleburg,
VA. (Dep. Rangel. Resour.)
Wilson, MV, CA Ingersoll, and WG
Thies. 1999. Testing for effects of
stump fumigation with chloropicrin on non-target vegetation in
an early seral Douglas-fir stand.
Canadian Journal of Forest Re-
Forestry-related Publications
search 29: 1254–1258. (Dep. Bot.
Plant Path.)
Wright, K, and J Li. 1998. Effects of
recreational activities on the
distribution of Dicosmoecus
gilvipes in a mountain stream.
Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 17: 535–543.
(Dep. Fish. Wildl.)
113
R O G R A M S
P
U D I O V I S U A L
A
114
The Forestry Media Center has been producing and distributing videotapes (VT), films, and slide-tapes (S-T) since 1972. More than a million students in educational institutions, government agencies, and private industry throughout the world
have used these audiovisual programs for training and education. Although most of
the programs have been prepared for professional foresters and forestry students,
many are of interest to small-woodland owners, high school classes, other special
groups, and the general public. In the past two years, specialists from the College of
Forestry have completed two new programs. The Center now has over 123 presentations available for purchase or rent. For a complete listing, please contact:
Edward C. Jensen, Director
Forestry Media Center
Oregon State University
250 Peavy Hall
Corvallis, Oregon 97331-5702
Phone (541) 737-4702
Fax (541) 737-3759
fmc@cof.orst.edu
http://osu.orst.edu/dept/fmc
PROJECT FLOW (FORESTRY LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR WORKERS)
13 minutes each
Video Tape 1170.1 +1170.2
Website: www.forestlearn.org
Audience:
Forestry workers in Oregon’s primary and secondary manufacturing industries. Also secondary schools and the general public.
Prices:
Free. Obtainable from:
Oregon Forest Resources Institute,
808 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 480
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-6718
Info@ofri.com
Producers:
Forestry Media Center and Oregon Forest Resources
Institute
Developers:
Jeff Hino, David Zahler, and Mark Reed, Forestry Media
Center
Contributing scientists: Mike Newton and John Hayes, OSU Department of Forest
Science
Production date:
1999 (Vol. 1), 2000 (Vol. 2)
Audiovisual Programs
The forest products industry employs over 1.4 million people in the United
States; it ranks among the top 10 manufacturing employers in 46 states. However,
few educational programs about forestry and forest management are targeted at this
audience. As a result, employees are often no better acquainted with forestry issues
than the general public.
Project FLOW (Forestry Learning Opportunities for Workers) is the product of
a cooperative effort between Oregon State University’s Forestry Media Center and
the Oregon Forest Resources Institute. Its purpose is to increase the basic forestry
knowledge of Oregon’s forestry workforce.
Project FLOW is a set of teaching packages with the following components:
•
www.forest learn.org — A website that presents objective information on forestry issues in a lively and timely manner.
•
”Oregon Forest Journal” — a video magazine whose Issues in the Forest segments
address forestry issues in brief, compelling short episodes. The Faces of Forestry
provide an additional human interest story highlighting forest products workers
and activities in natural resources.
•
Vol.1, “Looking for a Clearcut Answer,” focuses on clearcutting, exploring why
and when foresters use this often-controversial silvicultural tool. (1170 V-T)
•
Vol 2., “Habitat, Sweet Habitat,” looks into some of the science of wildlife habitat and explores what foresters are doing to protect the abundance and diversity
of wildlife in our managed forests. (1171 V-T)
Each video is accompanied by a viewer summary, presenter’s guide, and other
support materials.
MANAGING FOR BIODIVERSITY IN YOUNG FORESTS
28 minutes
Video Tape 1155
Audience:
Forest managers and others interested in the ecology of
managed forests.
Price:
Purchase $95, rental $25
Producers:
Betsy Littlefield, Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research
(CFER), OSU; Ruth Jacobs, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (FRESC), USGS.
Director:
Mark Reed, Forestry Media Center, OSU
Contributing scientists: John Tappeiner, FRESC; Joseph Lint, BLM; Joan Hagar,
Patricia Muir, Jeff Miller, Eric Peterson, and Abbey Rosso, OSU.
Publication date:
2000.
115
West-side forests in Oregon and Washington are increasingly dominated by dense
young stands as a result of decades of timber harvesting. The Endangered Species
Act and the Northwest Forest Plan have focused attention on biodiversity within
these stands. The Young Stand Biodiversity Project compared vegetation and fauna
in young thinned, young unthinned, and old-growth stands on BLM lands. In this
program, researchers who studied birds, moths, lichens, bryophytes, and understory
vegetation discuss their findings and possible implications for future management
of young forests.
VISIT OUR WEB PAGES
A complete and constantly updated web-page version of the Forestry Learning
Materials Catalog is available at www.orst.edu/dept/fmc. This site includes updated
information about new releases, additional material about the Forestry Media Center, and links to other forestry sites of interest.
116
Mike Cloughesy, Director
Outreach Education
202 Peavy Hall
Corvallis, OR 97331-5707
Phone: (541)737-2329
Fax: (541)737-4966
Outreach@for.orst.edu
Event Title
Attendance
1998–1999
Swiss Needle Cast Cooperative Meeting
ORGANON Workshop
Advanced Silviculture
Lumber Quality and Process Control
60
18
29
24
O R K S H O P S
W
A N D
S
1998-2000 FORESTRY OUTREACH EDUCATION EVENTS
H O R T
C
The following list shows the number and diversity of courses offered over the
last two years:
O U R S E S
The Forest Research Laboratory, in cooperation with other departments and units
in Oregon State University’s College of Forestry, offers an extensive array of continuing higher education and technology-transfer events, training workshops, short courses,
and conferences each year through its Outreach Education Office. Participants come
from a broad spectrum of the forest community, including mid-career silviculturists
and forest professionals, forest technicians and practitioners, mill managers and supervisors, logging specialists, contractors, other natural resource specialists, industry foresters, and private landowners. The mission of the Outreach Education Office is to
provide high-quality programs to meet the educational needs of natural resource scientists and professionals and to enhance public understanding of natural resources.
During the 1998–1999 and 1999–2000 academic years, 66 courses were offered and attended by a total of 4,537 people. All courses were carefully budgeted to
be fully supported by participant fees or outside grants and contracts.
Courses offer participants up-to-date forest research information and training
and a forum for discussing and evaluating current forestry issues. They also keep
open a vital channel of communication about application of the Laboratory’s research findings and future research needs. Many programs are cosponsored by other
forestry and natural resource agencies and organizations, providing further links
among users of research information.
Lumber Quality Leadership
Northeast Utility Pole Conference
Swiss Needle Cast Cooperative Meeting
Forest Business and Tax Series
Advanced Variable Probability Sampling
Forest Fragmentation
Mushrooms & Managers
Selling Forest Products
How to Dry Lumber For Quality and Profit
Native Plants
Sawing Technology
ORGANON Workshop
Integrated Forest & Stream Management Symposium
GIS/GPS Fundamentals for Natural Resources Planning
Natural Resources Module 2: Decision Making and Systems Thinking
for Natural Resource Professionals
Skyline Symposium
Variable Probability Sampling
Forest Assessor Training
Plywood Manufacturing
Total attendance for 23 events
11
130
60
19
24
190
25
11
40
375
50
18
452
21
21
238
26
20
51
1,913
1999–2000
118
Ecology & Management of Port-Orford-Cedar
Introduction to ArcView Applications in Natural Resources
Swiss Needle Cast Cooperative Meeting
CREP-Pendleton
CREP-Springfield
Water Issues
Oregon Forestry Institute for Teachers
SCOPE: Transition Zones Workshop
Phytophthoras in Forest and Wildland Ecosystems
Oregon’s Forests at the Millenium
Silviculture Institute Tour
Effective Forest Road Management
Lumber Quality & Process Control
OFRI Media Tour
OFRI Values Video Conference
Lumber Quality Leadership
Environmental Marketing
69
20
60
59
82
70
24
28
42
324
58
34
32
10
30
13
47
Swiss Needle Cast Cooperative Meeting
Advanced Variable Probability Sampling
Clearcutting in Western Oregon
Selling Forest Products
How to Dry Lumber for Quality and Profit
Introduction to ArcView GIS Applications in Natural Resources
Certified Forest Management
Presentation Skills Workshop
Introduction to ArcView GIS Applications in Natural Resources
Natural Resources Module 2: Decision Making and Systems Thinking
for Natural Resource Professionals
Forest Road Stewardship Workshop
Commercial Thinning & Harvest Planning For Skyline Operations
Advanced ArcView GIS Application in Natural Resources
Mapping & Orthophotos from Aerial Photography
Variable Probability Sampling
Newtonian Silviculture
OFRI Presentations & Skills for Foresters
Plywood Manufacturing
Introduction to ArcView GIS Applications in Natural Resources
Sustainable Management of Family Forests
Fish Passage Workshops (5)
OFRI Forest Aesthetics Training
60
22
358
17
48
20
15
15
10
21
125
32
10
23
20
200
15
75
11
100
375
50
Total attendance for 43 events
2,624
Total attendance for
66 events in 1998–2000
4,537
119
FRL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Richard Baldwin
President
Oak Creek Investments
97 Constantine Place
Eugene, OR 97405-9551
Office: (541) 344-8519
FAX: (541) 343-3488
Dave Bowden
Senior Vice President
Timber Department
Longview Fibre Company
P.O. Box 667
Longview, WA 98632-7428
Office: (360) 575-5107
FAX: (360) 575-5932
Deborah M. Brosnan
President
Sustainable Ecosystems Institute
0605 S.W. Taylors Ferry Road
Portland, OR 97219-3053
Office: (503) 246-5008
FAX: (503) 246-6905
James E. Brown
State Forester
Oregon Department of Forestry
2600 State Street
Salem, OR 97310-0340
Office: (503) 945-7211
FAX: (503) 945-7212
Barbara Craig
Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones & Grey
900 S.W. 5th Ave., Suite 2300
Portland, OR 97204-1268
Office: (503) 294-9166
FAX: (503) 220-2480
Dan M. Dutton
President and CEO
Stimson Lumber Company
520 S.W. Yamhill Street, Suite 308
Portland, OR 97204-1326
Office: (503) 222-1676
FAX: (503) 222-2682
Harv Forsgren
Regional Forester
USDA Forest Service, Region 6
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, OR 97208-3623
Office: (503) 808-2201
FAX: (503) 808-2210
John Foster
Managing Partner
Oregon Tree Farms, Ltd.
P.O. Box 537
Estacada, OR 97023-0537
Office: (503) 630-7333
FAX: (503) 630-7334
Richard E. Hanson
Senior Vice President, Timberlands
Weyerhaeuser Company
CH5F
P.O. Box 2999
Tacoma, WA 98477-2999
Office: (253) 924-6012
FAX: (253) 924-2685
Sara Vickerman
Director
West Coast Office
Defenders of Wildlife
1637 Laurel Street
Lake Oswego, OR 97034-4755
Office: (503) 697-3222
FAX: (503) 697-3268
Duane C. McDougall
President and CEO
Willamette Industries, Inc.
3800 First Interstate Tower
1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97201-5667
Office: (503) 721-2767
FAX: (503) 273-5604
Elaine Y. Zielinski
State Director
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 2965
Portland, OR 97208-2965
Office: (503) 952-6026
FAX: (503) 952-6390
Robert F. Turner
Senior Vice President
Jeld-Wen
P.O. Box 1329
Klamath Falls, OR 97601-0268
Office: (541) 882-3451
FAX: (541) 885-7454