Special Forest Products: Integrating Social, Economic, and ...

Special Forest Products:Integrating Social, Economic,and Biological Considerationsinto Ecosystem ManagementRandy Molina, Nan Vance, James F. Weigand, David Pilz,and Michael P. Amaranth us

'olicies

olumes)logy of'ill rival(. In re-iired byhave toy flight:h econ-

Global Perspectives and History 317Regional Perspectives from the Pacific Northwest 318Socioeconomic Considerations 321

Unknown Supplies 321Changing Demands 322Labor and Employment 323Balancing Management Costs and Benefits 323

Adaptive Ecosystem Management Considerations for Special Forest Products 324Understanding the Unique Biology and Ecology of Special Forest Product Species 325Forest Community Dynamics and Landscape Considerations 327Silviculture and Vegetation Management Approaches 328Integrating Human Behavior 328Conducting Necessary Inventory, Evaluation, and Research Monitoring 329

Adaptive Ecosystem Management of Commercial Mushroom Harvests 330Acknowledgments 332Literature Cited 332

Throughout history, forests have provided a wealth ofbeneficial and essential products ranging from foodsand medicines to building materials. Ancient phar-macopoeias list myriad forest plants and fungi fortreating various ailments. Many of these ancientremedies have evolved and continue to evolve intothe important drugs of modem medicine. Use of di-verse forest species remains commonplace aroundthe world, particularly in cultures with strong ruraltraditions. Even in the most technologically advanced•ocieties, traditional uses of forest products continue,

often as recreational pursuits. For example, the tradi-tion of collecting and consuming wild edible forestmushrooms by Europeans and Asians continues bytheir descendants in North America.

As societies modernized and depended less on thediversity of wild products from forests, many of thesetraditional uses diminished, some were forgotten,and others remained useful to onl y subsistence forestdwellers or native inhabitants. Forest management inthe 20th century increasingly emphasized growingand harvesting trees for timber and fiber products as

315

316 Section IV. Forest Economics: Products and Policies

its primary objective. Despite that emphasis, a smallentrepreneurial segment in forest-based communi-ties continues to commercialize nontimber productsfrom the forest, including foods, medicinal plants,and floral greens. Forest managers designated theseas "minor" forest products, thereby reflecting an at-titude that they were less important than timber inthe overall scheme of forest management. But theeconomic impact of this industry and the quantitiesof products harvested can no longer be viewed asminor. In the Pacific Northwest, special forest prod-ucts account for over $200 million in revenue(Schlosser et al. 1991). This amount is substantialwhen compared to the $2.63 billion generated fromstumpage receipts to all landowners in Oregon andWashington in 1989 (data derived from Warren 1995).Thousands of tons of biological materials fromdozens of species are removed annually from forestecosystems.

The paradigm shift in forestry from timber man-agement to ecosystem management has heightenedpublic awareness of the importance of the specialforest products industry. In addition, managers andthe public have increasingly recognized that specialforest product species are important components offorest ecosystems. Dramatic declines in revenue torural forest communities from harvest of federal tim-ber are increasing the importance of special forestproducts industries in rural economic recovery anddevelopment. The two largest public land agencies inthe United States, the Bureau of Land Managementof the U. S. Department of the Interior and the ForestService of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, recog-nize this importance and are developing regional andnational strategies for managing special forest prod-ucts. These strategies emphasize four themes: (1) toincorporate harvesting of special forest products intoan ecosystem management framework with guide-lines for sustainable harvest, species conservation,and protection of ecosystem functions; (2) to involvethe public, including industrial, Native American, andrecreational users of these resources, in making deci-sions about the future of special forest products onpublic lands; ( 3) to view the management of and ac-cessibility to special forest products as major factorsin assisting rural economic diversification in formerlytimber-dependent communities; and (4) to develop

and implement inventory monitoring, and researchprograms to ensure species protection and ecosystemhealth.

Blending the management of special forest prod-ucts into the holistic objectives of ecosystem man-agement will not be easy. The social structure andcomposition of the industry' differ from the typicaltimber-based community. In the Pacific Northwest,large numbers of migrant harvesters from variousethnic backgrounds are major participants in the in-dustry (Schlosser and Blatner 1995). A thorough un-derstanding of all the groups involved in the specialforest products industry is essential to developingeffective communication and building common un-derstanding about management directions. The eco-nomic structure of the industry is also poorly under-stood; market dynamics are difficult to track, so thattrends in the industry remain clouded. If special for-est products are to play a role in rural community de-velopment, these economies must be better under-stood so that investors can assess the risks involvedin these enterprises.

The complex biology and lack of information onharvesting of special forest product species also pre-sent a significant challenge for integrative ecosystemmanagement. Numerous federal and state laws existto protect forest resources, including the NationalForest Management Act, National EnvironmentalPolicy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Unclerstrong environmental regulations and in a litig,iou,climate, resource managers require substantial (rat.)to support management decisions. Unfortunatelybaseline data on the effects of harvest, on markets,and on the biology, ecology, and productivity formany special forest product species are either shortterm, incomplete, or nonexistent. Also lacking is information on responses by harvesters to economicincentives and conservation measures set in place II\

land managers. Many of these species also play M I

portant ecosystem roles, such as providing food tolwildlife and capturing and cycling nutrients. Yet, ■%L:

poorly understand these complex dependencies, an,'the consequences of harvesting special forest products on ecosystem function and integrity are largcl'unknown. To incorporate sustainable harvests of spy'cial forest product species within an ecosystem may'agement context, resource managers and research''

21. Special Forest Products 317

must develop and implement research, inventory,and monitoring protocols for these species and pro-mote transfer of key information to affected and in-terested publics.

Adaptive strategies for ecosystem managementprovide for diverse forest stands and landscapes andfor a wide range of values and products. Practices aremodified as more ecosystem and societal informationbecomes available. Traditional forest management af-fects the distribution and abundance of many specialforest products by shortening rotations of tree cropsand growing only species and genotypes that pro-duce the highest timber yields. Although some spe-cial forest product species can thrive in homogenizedor intensively managed forests, others cannot. Eco-system management recognizes that the dozens ofgenera of plants and mushrooms and assorted othermaterials collected in the United States as special for-est products are products of natural diversity; ittherefore adapts practices to help assure their sus-tainability. We are in the beginning of the adaptivephase of managing for special forest products. Somedecisions must be made without sufficient informa-tion and adapted or modified as results from inven-tories, monitoring, and research become available.This chapter develops a conceptual framework forecosystem management of special forest productsand provides a model for future decision support. Wedraw from familiar examples in the Pacific North-west, where the special forest products industry is ex-panding, but the issues, problems, and solutionslikely will apply to many other forested regions.

Global Perspectives and History

s

-n

dal-tt,

.al

atr-e-•r-ed

-tmist-.alal

tertu!,ata

.

totrt

Over the ages, indigenous peoples acquired an un-derstanding of the basic ecology and usefulness offlora and fauna and explored the various foods andmedicinal properties of plants and fungi. Stored inthe memories of elders, healers, midwives, farmers,and fishers in the estimated 15,000 remaining indige-nous cultures on Earth is broad knowledge about

tck useful products from naturally diverse ecosystems.1,c This knowledge has been passed on through ancient

but fragile chains of oral tradition that will be brokenWhen younger members of a society leave the tradi-

tional lifestyles.Today, much of the expertise and wis-dom of these cultures has already disappeared; ourunderstanding of special forest products gleanedfrom thousands of years of trial, error, and observa-tion is consequently diminished.

In the course of cultural evolution, other socioeco-nomic lifestyles have emerged, especially those basedon agricultural or industrial production. These agri-cultural and industrial societies coexist with hunter-gatherer lifestyles, but at the same time change them(Keene 1991). Today, large, single-product timber in-dustries operate side-by-side with smaller-scale cot-tage industries processing diverse forest productsand with individuals who gather special forest prod-ucts for subsistence, cash income, or recreation. Inmany rural societies around the world, forestedecosystems continue to be the primary source ofproducts used for food, fodder, fibers, housing, andmedicines.

In industrial societies, advances in technologyand changes in patterns of economic exchange havealtered the scale and type of forest-products con-sumption and the relative social standing of hunter-gatherers. Over the last two centuries, industrialeconomies have grown by using capital gained fromrapid and effective exploitation of natural resources.Industrial societies will tend to use the few productsmost efficiently produced from a forest ecosystem.This trend contrasts with that of subsistence societiesthat tend to have little capital for development and amore geographically restricted access to resources.They may find more products from a single forest, butthe products are often less profitable. Almost allcountries, including the United States, have substan-tial populations of harvesters and gatherers that leadsubsistence lifestyles.

Industrialized nations such as Russia have neverlost their preindustrial cultural ties to diverse forestproducts. Customs regarding collecting berries andmushrooms remained vital even as industrializationand urbanization proceeded rapidly in the 20th cen-tury. Research in Finland, France, India, Italy, Japan,Poland, and Russia and, more recently, in many trop-ical countries recognizes the importance of specialforest products to those national economies. Interna-tional conferences in Europe and Asia (Akerle et al.1991, Marocke and Conesa 1981, Vanninen and


Raatikainen 1988) have called attention to the re-newed economic role of special forest products in theeconomy of forested ecosystems.

Industrial and nonindustrial countries alike are be-ginning to formally recognize the disparity in wealthand material well-being among their peoples, as wellas the moral obligation to practice good land stew-ardship. Out of this recognition, the concept of sus-tainable development was agreed upon by nationsparticipating in the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development in 1992. Organiza-tions and governments are defining and initiatingoperational strategies for sustainable development;this process could become a global trend in the 21stcentury. Special forest products will play an impor-tant role in sustainable development and are per-ceived as essential links to sustaining rural commu-nities and contributing to economic diversification.At the same time, wild species that are special forestproducts contribute to the diversity and function offorested ecosystems. Thus, strategies must be devel-oped that both supply and conserve these valuablespecies.

The focus of the biomedicinal or phytopharmaceu-tical industry on natural products illustrates theglobal scale of challenges to stewardship and sus-tainable development issues. Exploring biological di-versity as a potential source of new, valuable phy-topharmaceuticals is gaining interest and investmentfrom some of the largest pharmaceutical companiesin the world (Joyce 1994). In the synthetic drug mar-ket, about 25 percent of all prescription drugs stillcontain natural plant materials as active ingredients(Der Marderosian 1992). Of some 121 prescriptiondrugs currently in use that are derived from higherplants (not including antibiotics from microorgan-isms), 74 percent were known in folklore (Joyce1994); about 175 drugs used by native Americans arelisted in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia (Robinson 1977).Thus, many plants selected for bioactive screeningare sampled because ethnobotanical research indi-cated that the plant had a known medicinal activityor was used by an indigenous group for healingwounds or other disorders (Forlines et al. 1992,Gunther 1973). Today, large investments in drug de-velopment, technologically advanced screening ca-pabilities, sophisticated joint ventures, cooperativeagreements, and govemment-supported funding of

research raise new issues of resource sovereignt y andintellectual property rights (Joyce 1994).

211113121291=NIE

Regional Perspectivesfrom the Pacific NorthwestPacific Northwest forests were essential to the lives ofaboriginal people that migrated to North Americawith the receding glaciers as early as 10,000 yearsago. Various forest species were important for food,tools, structures, transportation, and medicine. Largeconifers were used for housing, and understoryspecies such as Pacific yew, willows, and red alderwere used for many purposes, including huntingtools, bowls, masks, and medicines (Pojar and MacK-innon 1994). Many plants and fungi were part of na-tive traditions and mythology. Medicinal use andspiritual value were linked in medicines derived fromtrees, forbs, and fungi (Molina et al. 1993, Pojar andMacKinnon 1994, Smith 1983); for example, devil'sclub was used by Northwest tribes to cure a variety ofillnesses and to ward off evil spirits.

Use of plants by indigenous people in the PacificNorthwest for food and aboriginal technology is welldocumented (see, e.g., Colville 1897, Gunther 1973,Reagan 1935, Turner et al. 1990). Aboriginal peoplenot only gathered species, they also burned and se-lectively harvested to maintain productivit y of impor-tant food plants. Use of fire promoted bracken andcamas, staples of aboriginal diets, before fire wassuppressed by settlers and the land agencies that fol-lowed (White 1980). The use of fire to promote berryspecies and forage is also well documented (Boyd1986, Gottesfeld 1994, Norton 1979, Robbins andWolf 1994, Turner 1991). Thus, indigenous people in-troduced management techniques long before thearrival of other people to the region and may haveused over 100 different species (Turner et al. 1983).Indigenous people do not now rely on wildlandplants as a primary food source as in the past. Ho \^ -ever, certain plant products such as berries are har-vested extensively, and many traditional uses C)1plants as herbals, tonics, and medicines are main -tained in tribal culture (Turner et al. 1983, 1990).

When settlers came to the Pacific Northwest, theytoo relied on wild, native species as important SLIPplements to food, medicines, and clothing. Superior


posed on wild harvesting were their own traditionsand knowledge of plant species harvested or culti-vated for herbs, food, and medicine. They appliedknowledge from their homelands to related speciesin the Pacific Northwest. In addition to wild berries,they found forbs such as nettles, thistles, yarrow,and bedstraw that could be used in the same waysas their European equivalents. (Robinson 1977).Whether settlers learned from indigenous people oralready knew of certain plant properties, Europeansand Native Americans often had identical uses forplants. Cascara from Rhonnus spp. served as a laxa-tive for both cultures and is still commercially har-vested for that purpose. Nettles provided fiber forNorthwest Indians, and they were an important fibersource in Europe and Asia (Moore 1993, Robinson1977). With development of commerce, agriculture,and urban trade centers, dependency on the localforest for its products declined; public lands began tobe viewed primarily as an economic cornerstone ofindustrial development.

Timber, livestock, water, and minerals were theeconomically important products from public landsin the rapidly ascendant Euro-American economy ofthe Pacific Northwest. The value, if any, of otherplants and fungi continued for subsistence use,largely lacking in any tradable or marketable value.The result was that such goods from public landswere essentially free nonmarket goods. Folk tradi-tions all but disappeared as the commercial develop-ment of agriculture and timber harvesting dominatedand altered the Pacific Northwest landscape. Tradi-tional folk use of wild plants was relegated primarilyto those rural people who, for economic or philo-sophical reasons, continued to harvest, use, and tradein native plants.

A resurgence of interest in the traditional use ofnative plants corresponds with increased recognitionof the value of traditional healing methods (Kroch-mal and Krochmal 1984, Moore 1993). This interest isapparent in the growing number of publications onwildcrafting—i.e. foraging for native herbal medici-nal edible and otherwise, useful wild plants. As aconsequence of the public's demand for natural, un-processed goods, products that originated in the wildare occupying an increasingly important niche in themarketplace. For example, the leaves of the swordfern, once used for medicine, insulation linings, and

sleeping mats (Gunther 1973), are important intoday's floral greens industry. The bark of Oregongrape provided a bright yellow dye used by nativepeople in making baskets; its bark and berries werethe source of medicinals. The plants continue to be asource of commercial pharmaceutical alkaloids, ofwhich berberine is a primary medicinal constituent.Harvested for the floral greens industry, the plant'sfoliage also contributes to its current economic im-portance (Tilford 1993). The rush to capitalize onthese markets is altering the traditional relationshipbetween the resources and rural-dwelling harvesters,who have depended on open access to public lands.They are not only finding new markets for their prod-ucts, but also experiencing increased competition forrestricted resources.

Several hundred native plants, including trees,shrubs, forbs, and vascular and non-vascular plants(but excluding those used in the timber industry), arecurrently harvested for personal and commercial usein the Pacific Northwest (see Table 21.1). The use ofthese plants is diverse, falling into five general areas:(1) foods, (2) decoratives, including floral greeneryand dyes, (3) herbals, (4) medicinals, and (5) specialtyproducts such as aromatic oils and wood products.The Pacific Northwest probably leads all other re-gions in North America in active use of public landsas a source for diverse floral greens and botanicals(Thomas and Schumann 1993). Commercial harvest-ing is expanding concurrently with recreational wild-crafting. Gathering plants and plant parts for per-sonal use as ornamentals, foods, or herbals isimportant to traditional rural wildcrafters, but theseactivities have widened to include more diversegroups of people. Renewed interest in wildcraftingappears to accompany an emerging ecological ethic.Books such as Tilford (1993) and Moore (1993) in-clude information designed to raise environmentalawareness and encourage low-impact harvest of wildplants.

Conifer boughs constitute a constant but highlyseasonal market (October to December) in the PacificNorthwest. Schlosser et al. (1991) estimates that5,000 persons were employed harvesting boughs inthe region in 1989 and another 4,000 manufacturedwreaths and swags during the short season. Boughsfrom noble fir provide the greatest volume in theregion: in 1989, 9,310 tons were harvested, yielding


Table 21.1 Representative native plants and fungi from the Pacific Northwest currently important as specialforest products

Use Common Name Scientific Name

Floral greens

Christmas greens and boughs

Edibles

Medicinals and herbs

Dyes

Poles and decoratives

SalalSword-fernEvergreen huckleberryBear grassDwarf Oregon grapeOregon boxwoodMosses

Douglas firNoble firWestern red cedar

HuckleberriesBerriesFiddlehead

Mushrooms:ChanterelleMorelMatsutakeKing bolete

Pacific yewCascaraDevil's clubPrince's pineStinging nettle

Oregon grapeRed alderWestern red cedar

Gaultheria shallonPolystich11171Vaccinium ovatumXerophyllum tenaxBerberis nervosaPachistima nryrsinitesIsotheciu111 spp.Hypnl1171 spp.Neckera spp.

Pseudotsuga MenziesiiAbies proceraThrya plicata

Vaccinium spp.Rubus spp.Pteridium aquilinium

Cantharellus cibariusMorchella spp.Tricholorna 7nagqiivelareBoletus edulis

Taxus brevifoliaRhamnus purshianaOplopanax IzorridumChimaphila 141nbellataUrtica dioica

Mahonia nervosaAlms rubraThuja plicata

Lodgepole pine Pinus contortaNoble fir Abies proceraVine maple Acer circinaturn

Note: See USDA Forest Service (1993b) for a broad listing of special forest product species and their use inthe United States.

$6.7 million, or roughly half the regional marketvalue (Schlosser and Blatner 1993). Other importantspecies commanding high prices are subalpine firand incense cedar. The fine commercial quality of Pa-cific Northwest conifer boughs has not gone unno-ticed elsewhere in the world. Little information has

been published in North America about methods ofcommercial bough production in the Pacific North-west (Murray and Crawford 1982) or elsewhere inNorth America (Hinesley and Snelling 1992), but Eu-ropeans have published numerous studies (e.g.,Hvass 1964, Weege 1977) on determining optimal


spacing, fertilization, and pruning regimes for boughproduction, with noble fir as an integral part ofmixed-product silviculture.

The medicinal plant market in the Pacific North-west has typically been associated with native herbsused for alternative therapies. A growing body ofmanufacturers in herbal and over-the-counter medi-cines rely on local wildcrafters, but the Pacific North-west, with its rich biological diversity, has not beenignored by mainstream pharmaceutical industrieslooking for new, effective compounds. A noteworthydiscovery came from the Pacific Northwest in the1960s and 1970s when the compound taxol, extractedfrom Pacific yew bark, proved to be an effective agentagainst ovarian and breast cancer. Taxol was devel-oped by the pharmaceutical company Bristol-MyersSquibb (BlvIS) under a collaborative research and de-velopment agreement with the National Cancer In-stitute. In 1991 and 1992, about 1.7 million pounds ofyew bark were harvested from public lands in the Pa-cific Northwest under interim guidelines developedby the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Man-agement. An environmental impact statement (EIS)was issued (USDA Forest Service 1993a) that re-stricted yew harvest to timber-sale areas and usedpreviously developed harvest guidelines to limit theproportion and size of yew trees taken from any har-vest unit. The EIS also required replanting of har-vested areas with seedlings or rooted cuttings. In1993, BMS withdrew from federal lands in the PacificNorthwest because other yew species, harvested pri-marily in India, provided more cost-effective sourcesof taxol.

In the United States, federal laws, including thePacific Yew Act of 1992, and environmental impactstatements, such as the federal EIS on managementfor the northern spotted owl in the national forests,provide a legal framework for limiting harvest of Pa-cific yew, even though scientific knowledge of thespecies is lacking. Nevertheless, phvtopharmaceuti-cal industries, with their rapid and large-scale devel-opment capabilities, could quickl y impact a resourcewhen a commercially valuable product is discovered.Such discoveries are relatively rare, but they havewidespread environmental and socioeconomic ef-fects whenever they do occur. Future discoveries ofphytopharmaceuticals may come from species less

common than the Pacific yew. If alternative sourcesare neither available nor cost effective, conflicts be-tween using native species for treating human dis-eases and conserving them to protect the species maybe difficult to resolve.

As we approach the 21st century, the forests of thePacific Northwest will become increasingly knownfor the value of their natural products. Biological di-versity one of the region's greatest ecological assets,could provide abundant opportunities for the devel-opment of new commercial products, but this couldplace more species at risk and increase disturbance ofcomplex ecological relationships. Managing for bio-diversity and ecosystem sustainability should providethe special forest product industry with stability andaccommodate the tradition of individual collection,use, and enjoyment of native species. To do this weneed to have better knowledge not only of theecosystem but also of the special forest products in-dustry.

,xcasztixatzu-rmi

Socioeconomic Considerations

Unknown Supplies

A basic gap in knowledge results from the lack of aninventory of the type and amount of existing and po-tential special forest products in the Pacific North-west. Such ignorance can have negative economic ef-fects. Without an awareness of changes in stocklevels, managers cannot implement adaptive mea-sures to adjust stocks so that a desired and sustain-able level of product is available to developing mar-kets. A reliable supply is also essential to wholesalersof special forest products (Handke 1990) and forbuilding enduring commercial relationships that pro-vide steady income to suppliers. For instance, loss ofthe German market for Washington State chan-terelles was the result of a sudden and unpredictedcollapse of the supply (Russell 1990). With thegrowth in worldwide markets for special forest prod-ucts from the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, con-cerns about resource depletion arise even beforemanagement of special forest products begins (Foster1991).

Field inventories are crucial tools for (1) calculating


existing stocks of special forest products, (2) identify-ing existing areas of overharvest, (3) analyzing thepossibility of intensified management for expandedcommercial production, and (4) providing the scien-tific database for research on ecological and eco-nomic constraints to production (Grochowski andOstalski 1981). For example, evidence from Europe,where mushroom picking has been intense for muchlonger than in North America, suggests that environ-mental changes and increased mushroom collectionare leading to declines in mushroom populations(Arnolds 1991, Cherfas 1991, Jansen and de Vries1988). However, few published articles document theeffects of economic harvesting on special forest prod-ucts (e.g., Benjamin and Anderson 1985, Geldenhuysand van der Merwe 1988, Smimov et al. 1967). Aglobal information system is needed to registerchanges in natural populations of special forest prod-uct species (Cunningham 1991). Countries such asBulgaria, Lithuania, and Poland already incorporatenational inventories of such species (Budriuniene1988, Economic Commission for Europe 1993).

Monitoring is especially helpful for short-termprediction of harvest yields. Forecasting crop yieldson the basis of weather data and phenological infor-mation can help resource managers decide on the in-tensity of harvest, the number of permits to issue, theprices to charge, and the allocation of harvesters andhandlers in the seasonal workforce. Kujala (1988) hascarried out exemplary work in phenological studiesof berry and mushroom crops in Finland, but suchstudies are rare. Information and understanding arelacking for forecasting the productivity of NorthAmerican species of economic importance, althoughstudies address productivity of prominent commer-cial species such as Pacific yew (Vance et al. 1994) andchanterelles (Norvel et al. 1994). An inventoryingsystem can provide support to managers so that bet-ter decisions can be made about allowable harvest,number of people permitted to harvest, duration ofthe collection period, and the cost, if any, of licensesto support ecosystem management for resource con-servation.

Developing inventory and monitoring programsfor special forest products will present new chal-lenges for resource managers. Many special forestproduct species are irregular in occurrence on thelandscape or are present for short duration (e.g.,

mushrooms). Other considerations include economicand uneconomic concentrations, quality characteris-tics of commercially valuable stock, importance ofaccess on commercial feasibility, and how to extrap-olate inventory results to information about commer-cial occurrence (R. Fight, Research Forester, PacificNorthwest Research Station, personal communica-tion, 1995). Initial costs to establish new inventoryand monitoring programs may be high.

Changing Demands

Tastes and preferences of people constantly changeand provide impetus for innovation in special forestproducts industries. In the early 1960s, for example,bear grass was unknown as a floral green, and ediblewild mushrooms were largely unrecognized as acommercial product (USDA Forest Service 1963).Both the evolving definition of special forest productsand the reception of products by distributors and endconsumers are highly subjective and difficult to knowin advance. In central Europe, a market for cut flow-ers and floral greens endures, but markets for specificplants are subject to rapid changes in fashion(Handke 1990). The accelerating pace of informationaccess often speeds up consumer awareness and de-mand for innovation. Demand for many special for-est products may represent fleeting or erratic marketsbased on changing tastes and technology.

Cross-cultural comparisons of special forest prod-uct species provide sources of information that canlead to innovation in market development. While Eu-ropean countries in the north temperate zone cur-rently use many species of native plants and fungi,closely related species in the Pacific Northwest areoften underutilized or unknown for their use as spe-cial forest products. Given the receptivity of theAmerican public to innovations in consumption andmarketing, the exotic traditions of other countriesmight provide marketing angles for culinary, medici-nal, and horticultural commodities in North Americ,ior offer new markets for products abroad. Specie!,such as serviceberry, madrone, dogwood, hawthorn,wild rose, elderberry, mountain ash, and viburnun]have relatives native to Europe and temperate Asi'.(Bounous and Peano 1990, Cherkasov 1988) that al-ready are widely used. Raspberry, native to the Paciti,Northwest, is commercially cultivated in forests cr


Russia and Lithuania (Budriuniene 1988, Cherkasov1988). Market niches for these species, whether forsubsistence, commercial, or recreational uses, remainto be developed.

New special forest products in the Pacific North-west might also serve as a substitute for productscurrently imported to the Pacific Northwest. Ruth etal. (1972) initiated studies concerning developmentof maple syrup production from bigleaf maple in thePacific Northwest. Although the study was encourag-ing, there was no follow-up research and develop-ment. Likewise, Oregon white truffles could holdpromise as a future market substitute for Europeansources. On the other hand, substitution for PacificNorthwest special forest products by comparableproducts from other regions is equally possible.

Labor and Employment

Understanding the special forest products industryand planning for its future requires that planners andmanagers consider the people employed in the in-dustry. In the Pacific Northwest, the workforce inspecial forest products has changed rapidly. Schlosseret al. (1991) and Schlosser and Blatner (1995) sur-veyed processors of floral and Christmas greens andedible wild mushrooms, and Handke (1990) de-scribes the wholesale market for Pacific Northwestfloral greens in Germany. But a comprehensive pic-ture of the participants in all sectors of the industry isnot yet completed.

A particular gap in information is a thorough pro-file of harvesters. In the Pacific Northwest, many peo-ple consider collecting special forest products as alast resort for employment after other options havefailed (McLain et al. 1994). Obtaining informationabout professional collectors is difficult, becausemany have nomadic or reclusive lifestyles and workonly seasonally. The appearance of unexpected ethnicgroups among commercial harvesters has requiredrapid cultural sensitization and response in the formof new instructional materials and outreach efforts bythe Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Manage-ment. To date, however, sociologists and anthropolo-gists have not undertaken studies for the PacificNorthwest similar in scope and intent to those inItaly (Farolfi 1990), Finland (Saastimoinen and Lo-hiniva 1989, Salo 1984, 1985), and Thailand (Moreno-

Black and Price 1993) to characterize populationswho harvest special forest products. A basic questionin the context of Pacific Northwest society is whetherpublic policy should emphasize development of spe-cial forest products within a community or promoteefficiency of migratory labor.

Educational programs for harvesters can help bothfederal land managers and harvesters accomplishmutually beneficial goals. It is often difficult forecosystem managers to leam about the harvesterworkforce in their areas. Through cooperatives, ex-tension workshops, or community college courses,exchange of information could help to develop asense of community and cooperation and provide aforum to address common problems and interests.Education also imparts the values and ethics ofecosystem management and can provide backgroundtraining in small-business management and finance.

Balancing Management Costs and Benefits

The American public has concems about both sus-tainability of special forest product resources and theequitable distribution of benefits derived from specialforest products. Rapidly growing public awareness ofspecial forest products as a source of income hasbeen swelling the ranks of product suppliers at alllevels of the market supply structure. The growth ofOregon and Washington's population to 7.7 millionby 1990 and projections for its continued rapid in-crease preclude the practicality of open and unre-strained harvesting on public lands. The PacificNorthwest also lacks a locally evolved tradition forregulating harvests.

Private gain from collectively owned resources,such as federal forest land, should require compensa-tion for any deterioration and for subsequent man-agement costs for site restoration or monitoring.Likewise, on private lands, landowners deserve com-pensation for granting collection rights to other peo-ple. Popular perception holds that special forestproducts industries derived from public lands arelargely unregulated, unreported, and untaxed (Mo-lina et al. 1993). Illicit collection and loss of revenueto landowners have not been estimated; however,the rapid development of mushroom markets in the1980s would indicate that the cost to individuals andto society is considerable. From a policy standpoint,


the costs and benefits to society of an unregulated in-dustry must be weighed againk the economic costsand benefits of regulation to support sustainabilityand equity to landowners.

Studies of the economic costs and benefits on re-turns from investment in special forest products areavailable from only a few sources in the PacificNorthwest. Managing for a sustainable industry musttake into account not just the costs of managing for-est vegetation, but also the management of the laborand operations in the harvesting, transportation,grading and sorting, packaging, and distribution net-works. Costs for sale of permits or contracts for long-term leases will be incurred as planning staffsprepare and supervise sale operations. Setting fair-market prices for sales is often difficult when empir-ical information about the value of permits or leasesis unknown or highly variable. Costs also arise fromthe need for law enforcement, maintenance of camp-grounds, and resource monitoring.

Benefits from sustainable management of specialforest products should be considered at several scalessimultaneously. Revenues to federal land manage-ment agencies should cover costs of planning, moni-toring, and on-the-ground management. Permitholders and lessees should also benefit from the per-mit and leasing systems by being assured of a reliablesupply. Market dynamics of supply and demand willdetermine the practicability of harvests by individualsas means to cover federal land management costs.

The Bureau of Land Management and the ForestService are now exploring a uniform appraisal systemfor special forest products. Uniformity of legislation,regulations, and enforcement is important to developcoherent market responses from collectors and to in-crease returns to the land management agencies.There is the chance that regulations will not be effec-tive if their basis and intent are not apparent. Agen-cies can use regulations to encourage harvestpractices consistent with the goals of ecosystemmanagement. One option might be to assign custo-dial harvest rights in a designated extractive' reservefor a single resource for a specified term on the basisof competitive bidding (Feamside 1989). Ecosystemmanagement would rely on the self-interest of thepermitted harvester to ensure the broader societalobjectives of sustainable resource use.

There are potentially negative consequences of in-

stituting an obligatory permit or lease system for har-vest rights. Possibly the people who might most be inneed of income from harvesting special forest prod-ucts would lose their income source if they had to payprohibitively high permit fees (Brown 1994). In caseswhere societal goals include aiding low-income peo-ple or diversifying a local rural economy, below-costsales or sales reserved for small businesses can be ef-fective for developing local capital and creating year-round employment. The relative social and environ-mental benefits and costs can be assessed as a gaugeof the effectiveness of these programs to promoteeconomic opportunities while at the same time pro-tecting the ecosystems being managed.

International policies may provide some guidancefor domestic rural development. Chambers (1983)suggests that improving the quality of life of the mosteconomically disadvantaged is a desirable goal ofrural development. If federal land managementagencies adopted this goal, the economic resiliencyof harvesters would be an important consideration.In addition to favorable permit systems, federal orstate sources could support the establishment of spe-cial forest product cooperatives and processing busi-nesses. Forestry has a long history of cooperatives.Generally, they stimulate entrepreneurship amongpeople previously excluded from product develop-ment and marketing (Mater 1993).

The growing awareness of the actual and potentialimportance of special forest products should lead tochanges in land management. Managers strive tomeet dual social and ecological objectives—meetingthe needs of society for special forest products andconserving the ecosystem function of special forestproduct species for sustainable interdependent pro-duction of all ecosystem goods, services, and condi-tions desired by society. We propose that adaptiveecosystem management provides the most likelycontext to assist land managers in meeting the dualgoals.

MONZIMMitalleN2Y■

Adaptive Ecosystem ManagementConsiderations for SpecialForest ProductsEcosystem management of special forest products 00public lands requires integration of knowledge about


st

nt

n.)1.

ialtoto

1,1,st

human and ecosystem behavior. Managers and thepublic need to understand how factors of biologicalproduction and economic activity interact in timeand space. Comprehensive knowledge of the roles ofpeople and special forest product species in forestecosystems will facilitate decisions that conserve,sustain, and enhance each special forest product re-source and that meet human needs.

Primary considerations for management of spe-cial forest products include: (1) understanding theunique biology and ecology of special forest productspecies; (2) anticipating the dynamics of forest com-munities on a landscape level, delineating presentand future areas of high production potential, andidentifying areas requiring protection; (3) developingsilvicultural and vegetation management approachesto sustain and enhance production; (4) integratinghuman behavior by monitoring and modeling peo-ple's responses to management decisions about spe-cial forest products; and (5) conducting necessary in-ventory, evaluation, and research monitoring.

Integrating these considerations into managementdecisions can appear overwhelming at first glance.Adopting the premise of a continually adapting man-agement system clarifies the process for managersand the public. Activities in special forest productsmanagement do not proceed in linear order. Instead,information generated from one activity improvesknowledge and refines direction in the other man-agement activities. In this section, we discuss man-agement activities derived from these considerationsand how they interact. We conclude by illustrating anexample of adaptive strategies for ecosystem man-agement of commercially harvested forest fungi.

Understanding the Unique Biology andEcology of Special Forest Product Species

The numerous native plant and fungal species ofcommercial value in the Pacific Northwest performmyriad critical functions in forest ecosystems. Yet, toharvesters, each species has the property of a "prod-uct unit." To resource managers each species has theproperty of a "resource unit." Each individual alsofunctions as a population member, a communitymember, and an ecosystem member (Allen andHoekstra 1992). All these properties and values mustbe considered as we develop models for managing

special forest product species. Biological and ecolog-ical factors important for modeling the productivityof these species include population dynamics, regen-erative ability, life cycle, genetic structure, effects ofherbivory and disease, and response to site variablessuch as overstory canopy conditions.

Plant and fungal species of current economic im-portance in the Pacific Northwest are described inMolina et al. (1993), Pojar and McKinnon (1994),Schlosser et al. (1992, 1993), and Thomas and Schu-mann (1993). It is beyond the scope of this chapter todescribe each special forest product species, its com-mercial value, and the biological implications of har-vest. Instead we discuss three important groups ofspecial forest product organisms—mosses, under-story plants, and fungi—as examples of how the bi-ology and ecology of these species affect their roles asecosystem components and economic products.

Moss harvest involves the removal of entire com-munities of bryophytes (moss and liverworts) grow-ing in a harvest area. The most commercially desir-able moss grows on trees. A single vine maple stemmay carry as many as a dozen moss and several liv-erwort species (N. Vance unpublished data). Tradi-tional rrkarkets for mosses in the Pacific Northwesthave increased steadily since the 1980s as demandfor commercial-quality moss growing in the CoastRange has risen dramatically. The Siuslaw NationalForest, for example, has issued permits for the har-vest of 25,000 bushels of moss annually since 1989.Illegal harvest is believed to be at least that much.Harvesters removed an unknown quantity of bio-mass from public lands before harvest restrictionswere imposed and before any program for researchand monitoring could provide data for determiningsustainable harvest levels. With the imposition of re-strictions on moss harvest through permits, quanti-ties requested are exceeding the amount harvestedon Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, andState of Oregon lands (N. Vance unpublished data).

Although research on the ecology of bryophytes inthe Pacific Northwest has examined distribution andbiomass (Coleman et al. 1956, McCune 1993), it hasnot addressed human disturbance or population de-pletion. Species have been well identified taxonomi-cally and have been morphologically characterized(Pojar and MacKinnon 1994, Vitt et al. 1988). At least30 to 40 bryophytic species are commercially har-

326 Section IV. Forest Economics: Products and Policies Tvested for packing material in the horticultural tradeand for decoratives in the floral greens industr y. ThePacific Northwest coastal region, with moderate tem-peratures and high precipitation, favors moss growthand diversity. The fog zones of the Coast Ranges sup-port luxuriant moss growth and therefore undergoconcentrated harvest. Bryophytes may take 10 ormore years to reach preharvest biomass and diversitylevels, depending on species, intensity of harvest, andenvironmental conditions.

The impact of commercial harvest on the func-tional role of mosses in coastal ecosystems is not wellknown. Moss species such as Hylocomium splendenscan be monitored as one measure of change in forestconditions (Wiersma et al. 1987). They serve as im-portant bioindicators of air quality because of theirability to incorporate airborne pollutants such as sul-fur dioxide and nitrous oxide (Ferry et al. 1973). Alarge portion of commercially harvestable moss is inlate-successional habitat within the range of thenorthern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet. Onecoastal forest species, Antitrichia curtipendula, associ-ated with nesting sites for the marbled murrelet andred tree vole, is particularly susceptible to air pollu-tion (USDA Forest Service 1994).

A second group of special forest product species isunderstory plants whose occurrence and productivityare strongly affected by forest development. For ex-ample, three important species—salal, Oregon grape,and sword fern—are common in plant associationswithin the western hemlock zone where Douglas-firhas been intensively managed for timber production.Foliage from these understory species has been har-vested over the past 50 years for use in the floralgreens industry (Schlosser et al. 1992).

Silvicultural treatments that alter densities of treecanopies may enhance growth and composition ofsome understory species and diminish that of others.When the overstory canopy is dense, understories arepoorly developed. In that case, opening the canopyshould increase understory cover and species , rich-ness. However, if understory species are establishedin young stands that have partial canopies, increasingopenings in the canopy favors species that respondbest to increased sunlight. Salal, bear grass, and Ore-gon grape require more light than sword fern andshould benefit from moderate thinning of the over-

story to prevent a dense canopy (Huffman et al. 1994,Schlosser et al. 1992).

Overstory conditions affect the product quality(growth form and appearance) of desired understoryspecies as well as their biomass. Floral markets re-quire that commercially desirable foliage of thesespecies have deep green color and no blemishes. Un-derstory plants with the highest value grow predom-inantly under a partial canopy (Schlosser et al. 1992).Producing plants with these desired qualities is diffi-cult because conditions in young stands change con-siderably over comparatively short periods. Expe-rienced foragers rely on dependable sources ofhigh-quality product and often prefer to harvest inlate-successional forests with more stable canopystructure.

Forest fungi form a third group of special forestproduct species with unique biological features andecosystem attributes. The body of most fungi consistsof one-cell-wide threads, or hvphae, (collectivelyknow as mycelium) that grow in soil, organic matter,or host organisms, where they are hard to observewithout destructive sampling. The mushrooms ortruffles (collectively called fruiting bodies or sporo-carps) are the reproductive portion of the funggs.Many of the commercially valuable edible fungi de-pend on and are important to the health of host treesbecause they are mycorrhizal—that is, they form dis-tinctive fungus-root structures. The fungus transferswater and mineral nutrients to the tree, and the treeprovides the fungus with carbohydrates as an enerpsource produced through photosynthesis. When alltrees are harvested, the associated fungi die in thesoil and sporocarp production ceases (Amaranthus ct

al. 1994). Complete removal of all host trees thereforwill have immediate impact on commercial harvestsof mycorrhizal fungi such as chanterelles and American matsutake.

Fungi usually fruit during a particular and a limitedseason, and sporocarp production varies greatl y fromyear to year, much like cone crops on forest trees 01fruit crops in domestic orchards. Within the seasonfruiting often depends on local weather patterns.given sporocarp may persist for only one to 51\weeks, changing in size, maturity, and commercialvalue, and may be eaten by wildlife or collectedhumans. Frequent sampling is required to rehab ! \


characterize fruiting patterns and commercial valueof a mushroom crop. Mushrooms are often clusteredand unevenly distributed on all spatial scales, fromlocal sites to drainages, landscapes, and regions. Un-even distributions require large sampling areas to de-rive statistically sound estimates of abundance. Rela-tive abundance of a species's sporocarps does notnecessarily reflect the importance of that fungus tohost trees or the ecosystem, but fruiting-body pro-duction is the measure of human interest for manag-ing edible fungi as special forest products.

Forest Community Dynamicsand Landscape Considerations

Bormann and Likens (1979) describe the eastern U.S.hardwood forests as a shifting mosaic of irregularpatches differing in composition and age and di-rected by processes of disturbance, growth, anddecay. This way to envision natural forested land-scapes is also relevant to the Pacific Northwest. Mostspecial forest product species are adapted to distur-bances that have been a normal part of their evolu-tionary history. Far from being a negative factor, thesenatural events tend to renew and diversify popula-tions. As examples, morel mushrooms flourish afterfire, and other special forest product understoryspecies, such as salal and Oregon grape, benefit fromcanopy openings created by tree-root pathogens orwindthrow. However, we poorl y understand distur-bance effects on most special forest product species.Disturbances that differ in type, frequency, or sever-ity from historical patterns may significantly alter theabundance and quality of special forest productspecies. Adaptive ecosystem management of specialforest products identifies the disturbance and recov-ery processes that sustain these species, examinesimpacts from timber harvest and other forest man-agement activities, and adjusts activities in responseto monitoring information and social goals.

The habitats occupied by special forest productspecies are characterized at the landscape scale b y (1)different major forest types, (2) different successionalstages within a given forest type, and (3) distinctivesubcommunities such as riparian zones. Species typ-ical of particular habitats often differ from one an-other in life history characteristics in ways significant

to management strategies. Many early successionalspecies are opportunistic generalists that grow ra-pidly and disperse widely. Compared to early succes-sional communities, a higher proportion of late-suc-cessional species have life-cycle characteristics ofmore stable environments. Landscapes dominated byolder forests are generally heterogeneous, or mo-saics, with regard to the age classes and species thatthey contain. This mosaic quality provides habitat fora wide range of special forest product species. Theprimary objective of a landscape approach for specialforest products is to create or maintain a socially de-sirable and ecologically sustainable mix of habitatsand special forest products within an area.

In coniferous forests, most species occur in theearly successional, shrub-forb-sapling stage and inthe late successional, old-growth stage; the fewestspecies find suitable habitat in the middle, the closedcanopy stages (James and Warner 1982, Meslow 1978,Thomas et al. 1979). Intensive forest management forwood production focuses on the middle, least-di-verse stage. Achieving full site occupation by com-mercial timber species shortens the time in early suc-cession, although with short rotations the totalamount of early successional habitat may actually in-crease at the landscape scale. Young stands furnishthe stocks for the Christmas greens market. Densecanopies of short-rotation forests, however, can hin-der development of many understory species har-vested as special forest products. Harvesting treeswhen the mean annual increment culminates elimi-nates the unique ecological conditions of the old-growth stage. Species such as Pacific yew and mossesoccur in greatest numbers and reach full develop-ment under the multiple canopy lavers and big treesof old-growth forests.

Riparian zones are especially critical for man y spe-cial forest product species. Substrate composition,soil moisture, nutrients, depth to water table, tem-perature, radiation, and disturbance frequency differfrom upslope positions. Gravel bars, islands, andflood plains provide a habitat mosaic for a wide arrayof plant species and often contain distinctive associ-ations—for example, hardwood tree species thatcontain mosses. Fallen trees in riparian areas con-tribute to structural complexity, and patches of herbs,shrubs, and deciduous and young coniferous trees


produce a multilayered canopy. Openings overstreams. lakes, and wetlands provide gaps and breaksin the forest canopy that promote favorable condi-tions for berry shrubs and ferns. Riparian plant com-munities also have a higher survival rate than thoseof nearby hillslope areas during catastrophic wildfire(Michael Amaranthus unpublished data) becausehigher humidities, cooler temperatures, and dampersoils adjacent to streams and lakes help protect thevegetation. Special forest product species in theseareas become sources of propagule dispersal for re-colonization of upslope areas after fire.

An important first step in considering special for-est products at the landscape scale is identifyingareas with high commercial production potential orthat require protection from harvesting. For example,areas with high production potential and convenientharvester access might be managed for intensive spe-cial forest product production to relieve harvestingpressure on sensitive areas. Wetlands or habitats ofrare plants or animals may need harvest restrictions.Areas prone to surface erosion or mass failure mightneed protection. No-harvest areas may be needed tomonitor effects of harvesting, and rotated harvestareas could be used to avoid unsustainable harvestsand resource depletion. The inventory monitoring,and research activities discussed below will be essen-tial to identify specific areas for enhanced productionor protection.

species, on the ecological adaptations of the particu-lar forest type, and on other management objectives.

Density control is an important tool for providingspecial forest products and diversifying forest stands(Newton and Cole 1987). Thinning of dense standscan produce posts, poles, rails, and firewood as prod-ucts. Growing stands at wide spacing allows somespecial forest product plant species to coexist withspecific timber species. Thinnings, coupled with rota-tion length, can be used to manage the proportion ofdifferent seral stage habitats within a landscape. Forexample, forests can be moved from an early succes-sional structure to an old-growth one without everpassing through a closed-canopy stage. Carefulfelling and yarding practices and repeated entries arenecessary, however, to minimize damage to specialforest products.

Other options are available to improve productionof special forest products at the stand and landscapeslevels. The options might include prescribed fire forhabitat rejuvenation for some species; seedbedpreparation, direct seeding, and planting of specialforest product species; fertilization; and avoiding in-troduction of exotic or unwanted species.

Silviculture and VegetationManagement Approaches

Stand-level silvicultural objectives can emphasizeconditions favoring certain special forest productspecies. Various approaches may be used to managefor a broad range of products: posts, poles, rails, land-scape transplants, shakes, cones, yew bark, boughs,mushrooms, berries, forest greens, and other specialforest products. For example, leaving a cover of largetrees after timber harvests (green-tree retention) al-lows two or more canopy layers to develop and pro-vides shade needed by some special forest productspecies. The numbers of retained trees may differ de-pending on the needs of the special forest product

Integrating Human Behavior

Managers base decisions for adaptive managementof special forest products on monitoring present con-ditions and modeling future alternatives based onbest available information. Most discussions of mon-itoring and modeling ecosystems refer to the behav-ior of species and processes other than of humansand their actions. Yet, human behavior, perhaps themost complex and difficult to project and predict,plays a key role in the development of most ecosys-tems. Adaptive management of special forest prod-ucts must expand to include detailed monitoring ofthe outcomes of current local human activity on theproductivity and structure of ecosystems. Results ofdifferent, often innovative, management regimes in-volving harvesting and culturing of special forest .products serve as a record for the knowledge base ofthe adaptive management system. Monitoring data-bases (continually supplemented with new data) anddata analyses (continually transformed as new infor-


mation is available) enables managers to better de-cide how to set sustainable harvest amounts and ro-tation lengths for special forest products.

Conversely, differing harvest levels of special forestproducts affect individual and community well-being. Here, explicit definition of the interest groupsand communities in managerial decision making be-comes vital. Management decisions at differentscales (local, regional, etc.) also differently affect thewell-being of specific segments of the human com-munity. The distribution of effects on people from de-cisions initiated at a local geographic or ecosystemscale is usually not only local, for example. Manypeople employed in special forest industries, such asmatsutake picking, are not residents in or near theecosystems where the mushrooms are picked (Rich-ards and Creasy in press). Surprisingly disjunctgroups can be simultaneously affected. Managersmust anticipate the effect of regulation on harvesterbehavior and implement regulations that result inbehavior most consistent with well-thought-out ob-jectives (R. Fight, personal communication, 1995).Monitoring total effects of management decisions onhuman responses in harvesting levels and benefits,both individual and collective, can easily become for-midable.

Uncertainty about the soundness of managementdecisions regarding special forest products is greatbecause objective measures of fairness, sustainability,and social or economic health are difficult, if not im-possible, to determine. Definitions of human con-straints change as society's values change over time.Given the many possibilities for harvesting acrossdifferent spatial scales and the increasing number ofpeople who participate in or are affected by harvestsof special forest products, monitoring actual manage-ment practices in the existing landscape cannot coverthe entire range of plausible alternatives. In many in-stances, particularly under conditions where adaptivemanagement encompasses innovative managementas an experiment, there may be no precedent with anattendant monitoring database to substantiate de-sired outcomes. The demand for innovation and newoptions suggests that managers should invest con-siderable effort in building forecasting models.

Organization of the best existing information is

necessary for creating forecasting models to predictoutcomes. Goals of specific scenarios for future man-agement of special forest products should be clear.Traditional as well as new institutional arrangementsfor resource access and management, harvest levels,product prices, wages, and targeted interest groupsare key variables for predicting future outcomes ofthe soundness of the management decisions. Scenar-ios offer insights into the distribution of benefits andcosts of outcomes, but final decision making remainsa singularly human choice, based on professionaljudgment. The continuous flow of information aboutcurrent attitudes and values, and likely trends forboth, can aid in making the best decision. Investingin information and information organization iscostly, and benefits may not be easily linked b y cause.The tradeoff is to acquire the least costly amount ofinformation that will satisfy society and reduce dis-sension among interest groups involved in specialforest product industries.

Conducting Necessary Inventory,Evaluation, and Research MonitoringWe are still learning how ecosystems work, and wewill be for the indefinite future. Thomas Berry (1988)summed it up succinctly: "What is needed on ourpart is the capacity for listening to what nature istelling us." It would be a much shorter list to mentionaspects of managing special forest products in a sus-tainable way that do not need monitoring and re-search rather than those that do. We do not attempteither. Most forestry research during the past decadeshas focused on forests managed intensively forwood, while most ecological research has focused onpristine forests. Our ability to sustain harvests andpopulations of special forest product species will re-quire increased research on the ecology of managedforests. Similarly, because socioeconomic research inforestry has focused on timber market forces andtimber-dependent communities, new socioeconomicresearch efforts are needed on specific special forestproduct markets and publics. Thus, ecological re-search will determine the role of special forest prod-uct species in an ecosystem context, and productmarket research will define the role of special forest


products in society. The final section of this chapterprovides a detailed example of integrating researchand monitoring approaches for these disciplines.

sitemerstragraAdaptive Ecosystem Management ofCommercial Mushroom HarvestsGood information and the logical organization of itare the bases for human decisions on complex phe-nomena. Commercial mushroom harvesting exem-plifies how information required for ecosystem man-agement of a special forest product can be obtainedin a stepwise, logical manner. This example presentsa conceptual framework for (1) identifying concernsof managers and the public about commercial mush-room harvesting, (2) choosing appropriate studies toaddress those concerns, (3) designing those studies,and (4) adapting information thus obtained to theneeds of management. This approach generally ap-plies to any special forest product. The effort ex-pended should be commensurate with the antici-pated harvesting impacts.

The first step in adaptive management of a specificspecial forest product is estimating whether harvest-ing activities are sufficiently extensive (widespread)or intensive (concentrated) to be economically orecologically significant. For example, the demand forwild mushrooms is large and the impact of harveston ecosystems significant (Molina et al. 1993, Schlos-ser et al. 1991, Schlosser and Blatner 1993, Schlosserand Blatner in preparation). Many edible species aremycorrhizal, and their symbiotic association with treeroots plays a key role in forest productivity and nutri-ent cycling. Commercial collection of mushrooms isalso socially significant because substantial competi-tion exists among harvesting groups, such as localresidents, transient harvesters, Native Americantribal members, and recreational pickers (Lipske1994). Managers must sort out the interests of thesecompeting groups to anticipate problems, reduceconflict, and provide equitable use of the resource.

Educating managers and their constituent interestgroups is equally essential. Literature searches (vonHagen et al. in preparation), published summaries ofcurrent knowledge, and counsel and opinions fromexperts are among the avenues for improving and

supporting interim decisions when time or fiscal re-sources do not permit acquisition of high-qualit y sci-entific knowledge. Regrettably, political or socialpressure often necessitates managerial action in theabsence of adequate data. Communication of relativeexpectations is an important component of publiceducation. Respect for the diversity of opinions aboutharvesting fungi means that no one interest group islikely to have all their expectations fulfilled.

Only a portion of knowledge about forest fungiapplies to managing commercial harvests. Few m y

-cological studies in North America have focused onmarketable species. Incorporating monitoring activi-ties into ecosystem management offers one wa y toensure that good science feeds rapidly into the deci-sion-making process. Studying harvests of commer-cial mushroom species informs both users and man-agers about the impacts of harvests on ecosystemsand on economies. Several considerations appl y tocommercially collected fungi, especially to the pre-dominant commercial species in the Pacific North-west: American matsutake, morels, chanterelles, Bo-letus mushrooms, and certain truffles. The followingquestions confront ecosystem managers as the y reg-ulate commercial mushroom harvests.

Production and distribution of mushrooms as specialforest products. How many fruiting bodies are being pro-duced? How are they distributed across the landscapeor within certain habitats? How does production differduring a season and from year to year? What is the ac-tual or potential commercial productivity of a givenarea? What proportion of forest habitat is available andaccessible for economically efficient harvesting? Whatfactors determine productivity, and how might they bemanaged? What managerial actions can alter accessibil-ity of the resource to meet management objectives?How does landscape design promote or impede ecolog-ical sustainability of biological production and economicharvest?

Mushroom harvesting by people. How can the sus-tainability of mushroom harvesting be assured? Whatproportion of the crop can be harvested without unac-ceptable impacts on the fungus itself or other resources'What techniques will mitigate those impacts? Doesmushroom harvesting increase or decrease subsequentproduction? Is spore dispersal reduced by removalimmature mushrooms, and does it impair reproductive

tl;

Iii


success? Are fungal mycelia and subsequent mushroomproduction affected by search and harvest techniquessuch as raking, moving woody debris, or digging? Aremushrooms harmed by numerous harvesters tramplingthe forest floor? How important as food for wildlife arecommercially valuable species, and is human competi-tion for the resource significant? What is the demandfrom various markets for wild mushrooms? How willvarious management scenarios affect jobs, income, andrevenue? How does commercial harvesting affect therelationships (for example, competition and potentialconflict) between recreational and commercial har-vesters?

Land management decisions. How do various timberharvesting methods (clearcutting, thinning to variousdensities, selection of host species) affect subsequentmushroom production over time? How does soil com-paction or disturbance from logging activities affect fun-gal populations? How does the intensity and timing re-late to subsequent mushroom production, especially formorels? How do grazing, fertilization, or pesticide ap-plication affect production? Can mushroom productionbe improved through habitat manipulation—for exam-ple, planting tree seedlings inoculated with specificfungi, thinning understory brush for sunlight and rain-fall penetration, prescribing bums, and irrigating? Canproduction be increased across the landscape by man-aging forests to attain tree age class, structure, and com-position optimal for fruiting? What types of cost-bene-fit analyses are needed to help managers decide aboutmanaging for special forest products within broad mul-tiple-use objectives? Can ecologic-economic models bedeveloped to support socially acceptable land manage-ment decisions?

Biology and ecology of mushrooms as ecosystem com-ponents. What are the important reproductive events inthe life cycle of a particular species? How are newcolonies or populations established and maintained?What causes them to diminish or perish? How impor-tant is spore dispersal to reproductive success, popula-tion maintenance, genetic diversity, and adaptability tounique microhabitats? How much genetic diversity ex-ists within and among populations? Are there endemic,narrowly adapted, or unusual populations of otherwisecommon species? What are the growth rates of fungalcolonies in soil and the degree of mvcorrhizal develop-ment by specific fungi on root systems? To what degreedo other mycorrhizal or saprophytic fungi compete with

desired fungi for colonization sites on host roots or forspace in the forest soil?

Gathering information, analyzing data, and de-veloping adaptive ecosystem models require variousinvestigative methods. Federal land managementagencies group these methods into categories of de-tection, evaluation, and research monitoring.

Detection monitoring addresses the concerns in categoryone: production and distribution. It encompasses inven-tories or estimates of production that are repeated peri-odically to detect trends. Sampling methods may in-clude (1) informal walk-through surveys designed todetect widely scattered populations, (2) weighing com-mercial collections from defined areas, or (3) systematicsampling regimes using transects or plots. Methods de-signed for inventories of plants or animals must bemodified to meet the constraints of ephemeral, spo-radic, and unevenly distributed fungal sporocarps. Someof these considerations are quite pragmatic. For in-stance, how do personnel frequently sample the samesite without causing soil compaction or erosion? Atwhat stage in its development should a mushroom besampled? Should it be picked to measure weight, and ifso, will that influence subsequent fruiting? If size ismeasured, how should the mushroom be marked forlater identification? Forest mycologists are currently de-veloping practical field procedures.

Managers also need to collect baseline social andeconomic data during this initial monitoring phase toassess the extent of the harvest issues within definedland bases. Variables include the community affiliationsof the harvesters and the relative importance of revenuederived from special forest product harvest; the impor-tance of commercial harvestin g to local (e.g., rural) andregional economies; price signals and long-term fore-casts for market demand; the importance of specificland bases for sustaining the special forest product mar-ket; the numbers of harvesters frequenting specific sitesand the managerial effort needed to facilitate commer-cial harvests; and demands from other user groups suchas recreational harvesters. Such information can be col-lected by managers as part of the regulation and permitsystem, by interviewing and surveying distributors, andby holding meetings of involved publics.

Evaluation monitoring assesses the impact of manage-ment practices and scrutinizes trends in detection mon-itoring; it applies to the second and third categories ofconcern: mushroom harvesting and land management.Examining the ecological impact of mushroom harvest-


ing involves comparing experimental treatments. Re-searchers delineate recurring patches or constellationsof mushrooms and then randomly assign replicatedtreatments, such as picking, not picking, raking duff,digging, trampling, or irrigation. The increase or de-crease in sporocarp production from the treatments iscompared. Similar experimental designs can be used fordetermining the influence of land management activi-ties on mushroom or truffle production, but adequatereplication requires expensive, stand- or landscape-levelresearch projects. These are most cost-effective if theyintegrate numerous related studies.

Examining the sociological and economic impacts ofmanagement decisions requires analysis of changes inhuman economic behaviors, particularly how quantitiesharvested and accessibility to the resource affect per-sonal, community, and market economies. Whethermanagement objectives were achieved and consideredfair by the involved publics must be considered alongwith the management efforts (e.g., costs) deemed com-mensurate with benefits to the public. Managers candevelop large-scale commercial harvest experiments toevaluate effects of trial harvest contracts and techniqueson ecosystem and market sustainability.

Research monitoring examines the basic biological andecological concerns listed in the fourth category. Studiesof this nature usually involve establishing secure, long-term field study sites. These sites undergo intensivescrutiny and serve as a representative sample of condi-tions believed to occur within the region. Investigativemethods may use a wide variety of specialized equip-ment and techniques. Examples include trenches toobserve underground mycelium; weather stations tocorrelate fruiting with local precipitation patterns, tem-perature, or humidity; vacuums or slides for spore col-lection; laboratory culture of fungi and mycorrhizalcompatibility trials with selected host seedlings; micro-scopic examination and descriptions of mycorrhizaform, structure, and development; and various recentlydeveloped molecular techniques for genetic analysis.

Access to inventory and monitoring data is essential

.mm.1Literature CitedAkerle, 0., V. Heywood, and H. Synge, eds. 1991. The con-

servation of medicinal plants. Proceedings of an interna-tional consultation, 21-27 March 1988, Chiang Mai,Thailand. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Allen, T. F. H., and T. W. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a unifiedecology. New York: Columbia University Press.

for timely and cost-effective decision support. Managersnow have access to new technologies that facilitate theuse of large amounts of information for analyzingecosystem interactions and processes. Published infor-mation is available from library databases through In-ternet access. Mushroom distributions and abundancecan be added as data layers to already sophisticated ge-ographic information system databases. Precise field lo-cations can be determined with global-positioning-sys-tem satellite receivers. Systems-modeling softwareallows managers to create contingency scenarios frommatrices of alternative management options (Bormannet al. 1994). On-line expert systems can lead users to ap-propriate information or suggest pertinent considera-tions. These technologies are in various stages of devel-opment, but all are likely to become increasinglyimportant to managers who need to consider theecosystem ramifications of harvesting special forestproducts like mushrooms. The information these toolsprovide will help managers justify their decisions andimplement adaptive modifications when new informa-tion becomes available. This thoroughness and flexibil-ity is especially useful when managers need to balancethe interests of competing or conflicting user groups.Although the task of managing special forest productsin an ecosystem context is daunting, the means are be-coming increasingly available. Successful integration ofspecial forest products into ecosystem management willsucceed only if managers, policy makers, and the publicare committed to that goal.

SiattraMVESEZ-331214

AcknowledgmentsWe appreciate the sharing of ideas and critique of the man-uscript from Keith Blatner, David Brooks, Beverly Brown,Roger Fight, Jeff Gordon, Karen Esterholdt, RichardHaynes, Leon Leigel, Les McConnell, Mike Rassbach, MarkSavage, James Trappe, Nancy Turner, and Nancy Wogen.Support from the Cascade Center for Ecosystem Manage-ment is likewise appreciated.

Amaranthus, M. R, J. M. Trappe, L. Bednar, and D. Arthul.1994. Hypogeous fungal production in mature Douglas-fir forest fragments and surrounding plantations and itsrelation to coarse woody debris and animal mycophag •Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24:2157-2165.

Arnolds, E. 1991. Decline of ectomycorrhizal fungi in Eu


rope. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 35:209-244.

Benjamin, P. K., and R. C. Anderson. 1985. Influence of col-lecting on the reproductive capacity of wild ginseng(Paw,: quinquefolius) in Illinois. Bulletin of the EcologicalSociety of America 66:140-141.

Berry, T. 1988. The dream of the Earth. San Francisco: SierraClub Books.

Bormann, B. T., P. G. Cunningham, M. H. Brookes, V. W.Manning, and M. W. Callopy. 1994. Adaptive ecosystemmanagement in the Pacific Northwest. General technicalreport PNW-GTR-341. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Ser-vice, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Bormann, F. H., and G. E. Likens. 1979. Pattern and processin a forested ecosystem. NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Bounous, G., and C. Peano. 1990. Frutti dimenticati. Montie Boschi 41:23-32.

Boyd, R. 1986. Strategies of Indian burning in the Willa-mette Valley. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 5:65-86.

Brown, B. 1994. Environmental conflict, urban flight, andland tenure in the forested regions of southwest Ore-gon. Paper delivered at the Rural Sociological SocietyAnnual Meeting, 12-14 August, Portland, OR.

Budriuniene, D. 1988. A model of rational non-ligneousforest resource consumption in intensive forestry inLithuanian SSR. Acta Botanica Fennica 136:7-8.

Chambers. 1983. Rural development: Putting the last first.New York: Longman.

Cherfas, J. 1991. Disappearing mushrooms: Another massextinction. Science 254:1458.

Cherkasov, A. 1988. Classification of non-timber resourcesin the USSR. Acta Botanica Fennica 136:3-5.

Coleman, B. B., W. C. Muenscher, and D. K. Charles. 1956.A distributional study of the epiphytic plants of theOlympic Peninsula, Washington. American Midland Nat-uralist 56:54-87.

Colville, F. V. 1897. Notes on the plants used by the Kla-math Indians of Oregon: Contributions from the U.S.National Herbarium 5:87-108. Also reprinted in Ford, R.I., ed. 1986. An ethnobiology source book: The uses of plantsand animals by American Indians. New York: GarlandPublishing, Inc.

Cunningham, A. B. 1991. Development of a conservationpolicy on commercially exploited medicinal plants: Acase study from southern Africa. In The conservation of

medicinal plants, ed. 0. Akerle, V. Heywood, and H.Synge. Proceedings of an international consultation,21-27 March 1988, Chiang Mai, Thailand. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Der Marderosian, A. 1992. The status of pharmacognosy in

the United States. In Natural resources and human health:Plants of medicinal and nutritive value, ed. S. Baba, 0. Ak-erle, and Y. Leawaguchi. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Elsevier.

Economic Commission for Europe. 1993. The forest resourcesof the temperate zones: The UN-ECE/FAO 1990 forest re-source assessment. Vol. II, Benefits and functions of the for-est. ECE/TIM/62 (Vol. II). NewYork: United Nations.

Farolfi, S. 1990. Ruolo economico dei prodotti secondarispontanei del bosco: un'indagine nel Casentino. Monti eBoschi 41:49-52.

Fearnside, P. 1989. Extractive reserves in Brazilian Amazo-nia. BioScience 39:387-393.

Ferry, B. W., M. S. Baddelev, and D. L. Hawksworth. 1973.Air pollution and lichens. London, England: The AthlonePress, University of London.

Forlines, D. R., T. Tavener, J. C. S. Malan, and J. J. Karchesy.1992. Plants of the Olympic coastal forests: Ancientknowledge of materials and medicines and future her-itages. In Plant Polyphenols, ed. R. W. Hemingway and P.E. Laks. NewYork: Plenum Press.

Foster, S. 1991. Harvesting medicinals in the wild: The needfor scientific data on sustainable yields. HerbalGram24:10-16.

Geldenhuys, C. J., and C. J. van der Merwe. 1988. Popula-tion structure and growth of the fern Rumohra adi-antiformis in relation to frond harvesting in the southernCape forests. South African Journal of Botany 54:351-362.

Gottesfeld, L. M. J. 1994. Aboriginal burning for vegetationmanagement in northwest British Columbia. HumanEcology 22:171-188.

Grochowski, W., and R. Ostalski. 1981. Recherches sur lesproductions spontanees des etages inferieurs de la foretde Pologne. In Productions spontanees, ed. R. Marockaand A. Conesa. Proceedings of a seminar, 17-20 June1980, Colmar, France. Les colloques de l'INRA 4. Paris,France: Institut Nationale des Recherches Agricoles.

Gunther, E. 1973 Ethnobotany of western Washington: Theknowledge of indigenous plants by Native Americans. Seat-tle: University of Washington Press.

Handke, M. M. 1990. Market research study on the salesprospects of cut greenery foliage in Germany. Reportprepared for the U.S. Agricultural Trade Office, Ham-burg, Germany.

Hinesley, L. E., and L. K. Snelling. 1992.Yield of decorationgreenery from Fraser fir Christmas trees. HortScience27:107-108.

Huffman, D. W., J. C. Tappeiner II, and J. C. Zasada. 1994.Regeneration of salal (Gaultheria shallon) in the central

334 Section IV. Forest Economics: Products and Policit:,

Coast Range forests of Oregon. Canadian Journal ofBotany 72:39-51.

Hvass, J. 1964. Pvntegro ntproduktion: Danske ra d og er-faringer (Production of evergreen branches for decora-tion). Norsk Skogbruk 10:10-13.

James, F. C., and N. 0. Warner. 1982. Relationships betweentemperate forest bird communities and vegetationstructure. Ecology 63:159-171.

Jansen, A. E., and F. de Vries. 1988. Mushrooms in declinein 10 of 18 countries. Mushroom, the Journal (Sum-mer):7-10.

Joyce, C. 1994. Earthly goods, medicine-hunting in the rainfor-est. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Keene, A. S. 1991. Archeology and the heritage of man thehunter. Review of Anthropology 16:133-147.

Krochmal, A., and C. Krochmal. 1984. A field guide to medi-cinal plants. NewYork: Times Press.

Kujala, M. 1988. Ten years of inquiries on the berry andmushroom yields in Finland, 1977-1986. Acta BotanicaFennica 136:11-13.

Lipske, M. 1994. A new gold rush packs the woods in cen-tral Oregon. Scientific American (January):35-45.

Marocke, R., and A. Conesa, eds. 1981. Productions spon-tanees. Proceedings of a seminar, 17-20 June 1980, Col-mar, France. Les colloques de l'INRA 4. Paris, France:Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.

Mater, C. 1993. Minnesota special forest products: A marketstudy. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, Division of Forestry.

McCune, B. 1993. Gradients in epiphytic biomass in threePseudotsuga-Tsuga forests of different ages in westernOregon and Washington. The Bnjologist 96:405-411.

McLain, R., S. Kantor, C. Robinson, and M. Shannon. 1994.Knowledge, rules, and policy development: Non-timberforest products in the Pacific Northwest. Interim draftreport for U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Re-search Station.

Meslow, E. C. 1978. The relationship of birds to habitatstructure: Plant communities and successional stages. InProceedings: Workshop on nongame bird management inconiferous forests of the western United States, ed. R. M.deGraff. General technical report PM/V-64. Portland,OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation.

Molina, R., T. O'Dell, D. Luoma, M. Amaranthus, M. Castel-lano, and K. Russell. 1993. Biology, ecology, and social as-pects of wild edible mushrooms in the forests of the PacificNorthwest: A preface to managing commercial harvest.General technical report PNW-GTR-309. Portland, OR:

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research St,,lion.

Moore, M. 1993. Medicinal plants of the Pacific North-ter,Santa Fe: Red Crane Books.

Moreno-Black, G., and L. L. Price. 1993. The marketinggathered food as an economic strategy of women ::northeastern Thailand. Human Organization 52:398-4o.;

Murray, M. D., and P. D. Crawford. 1982. Timber an,:boughs: Compatible crops from a noble fir plantationIn Proceedings of the Biology and Management of True Iin the Pacific Northwest Symposium, 24-26 Februan t 19S ied. C. D. Oliver and R. M. Kenady. Seattle: UniversityWashington, College of Forest Resources.

Newton, M., and E. C. Cole. 1987. A sustained yield schemi•for old-growth Douglas-fir. Western Journal ofForestry 2:22-25.

Norton, H. H. 1979. The association between anthropogenic prairies and important food plants in tvesterpWashington. Northwest Anthropological Notes 13:175200.

Norvel, L., F. Kopecky, J. Lindgren, and J. Roger. 1994. Th,chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius): A peek at producti■ity. In Dancing with an elephant: Proceedings of the bun:ness and science of special forest products, ed. C. SchnertBoise: University of Idaho Cooperative Extension Setvice.

Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Redmond, WA: Lone Pine Publishing.

Reagan, A. B. 1935. Plants used by the Hoh and Quileut,.Indians. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Scion,

37:55-70.

Richards, R. T., and M. Creasy. In press. Cultural cliverit\and ecological sustainabilitv: Wild mushroom halve,'ing in the Klamath Bioregion. Society and Naturalsources.

Robbins, W. G., and D. W. Wolf. 1994. Landscape and theirtennontane Northwest: An environmental history. Generaltechnical report PNW-GTR-319. Portland, OR: USE)."Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Robinson, P. 1977. Profiles of Northwest plants. Portland, (Green World Press.

Russell, K. W. 1990. Manufacturing, marketing, and regui•itory considerations: Forest fungi. Talk presented at th,Special Forest Products Workshop, 8-10 February 1`r"''Portland, OR.

Ruth, R. H., J. C. Underwood, C. E. Smith, and H. Y. Yaw,:1972. Maple syrup production from big-leaf maple . 1`1'search note PNW-181. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Sci

'

14.

■Ci


vice, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range ExperimentStation.

Saastimoinen, 0., and S. Lohiniva. 1989. Picking of wildberries and edible mushrooms in the Rovaniemi regionof Finnish Lapland. Silva Fennica 23:253-258.

Salo, K. 1984. The picking of wild berries and mushroomsby the inhabitants of Joensuu and Seinajoki in 1982 (inFinnish with English summary). Folia Forestalia 598:1-71.

. 1985. Wild berry and edible mushroom picking inSuomussalmi and in some North Karelian Communes,Eastern Finland. Folia Forestalia 620:1-50.

Schlosser, W. E., and K. A. Blatner. 1993. Critical aspects ofthe production and marketing of special forest products.Unpublished manuscript prepared for the President'sForest Conference Committee, 3 May 1993, Portland,OR. . 1995. The wild edible mushroom industry of Wash-

ington, Oregon, and Idaho: A 1992 survey. Journal ofForestry 93:31-36. . In preparation. Special forest products: An east-

side assessment.Schlosser, W. E., K. A. Blatner, and R. C. Chapman. 1991.

Economic and marketing implications of special forestproducts harvest in the coastal Pacific Northwest. West-ern Journal of Applied Forestry 6:67-72.

Schlosser, W. E., K. A. Blatner, and B. Zamora. 1992. PacificNorthwest forest lands' potential for floral greenery pro-duction. Northwest Science 66:44-54.

Schlosser, W. E., C. T. Roche, K. A. Blatner, and D. M. Baum-gartner. 1993. A guide to floral greens: Special forest prod-ucts. Pullman WA: Washington State University, Coop-erative Extension Bulletin.

S mimov, A.V., E. E. Grigoruca, and G. I. Saltymakova. 1967.Change in the abundance and Yield of Vaccinium vitis-idaea in the forests of Siberia under the influence of an-thropogenic factors (in Russian). Rasitel'ny Resursy.

Smith, G. W. 1983. Arctic pharmacognosia II: Devil's club,Oplopanax horridus. Journal of Enthopharmacology 7:313-320.

Thomas, J. W., R. G. Anderson, C. Maser, and E. L. Bull.1979. Snags. In Wildlife habitats in managed forests: TheBlue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agriculturalhandbook 553. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.

Thomas, M. G., and D. R. Schumann. 1993. Income opportu-nities in special forest products. Agricultural informationbulletin 666. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.

Telford, G. L. 1993. The ecoherbalist's field book. Conner, MT:Mountain Weed Publishing.

Turner, N. J. 1991. Burning mountainsides for better crops:Aboriginal landscape burning in British Columbia. Ar-chaeology in Montana 32:57-73.

Turner, N. J., J. Thomas, B. F. Carlson, and R. T. Ogilvie.1983. Ethnobotany of the Nitinaht Indians of Vancouver Is-land. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Provincial Museum.

Turner, N. J., L. C. Thompson, M. T. Thompson, and A. Z.York. 1990. Thompson ethnobotany: Knowledge and usageof plants by the Thompson Indians of British Columbia.Memoir 3. Victoria, BC: Royal British Columbia Mu-seum.

USDA Forest Service. 1963. Special forest products for profit:Self-help suggestions for rural areas development. Agricul-tural information bulletin 278. Washington, DC.

. 1992. An interim guide to the conservation and man-agement of pacific yew. Pacific Northwest Region: USDAForest Service.

. 1993a. Pacific yew final environmental impact state-ment. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, USDI Bu-reau of Land Management, USDHHS Food and DrugAdministration.

. 1993b. Income opportunities in special forest products:Self-help suggestions for rural entrepreneurs. Agriculturalinformation bulletin 666. Washington, DC.

. 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact state-ment on management of habitat for late successional andold-growth forest-related species within the range of thespotted owl. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Ser-vice, USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Vance, N. C., R. G. Kelsey, and T. T. Sabin. 1994. Seasonaland tissue variation in taxone concentrations of Taxusbrevifolia. Phytochemistry 36:1241-1244.

Vanninen, I., and M. Raatikainen, eds. 1988. Proceedings ofthe Finnish-Soviet symposium on non-timber forest re-sources, 25-29 August 1986, Jyvdskyld, Finland. ActaBotanica Fennica 136. Helsinki, Finland: The FinnishBotanical Publishing Board.

Vitt, D. H., J. E. Marsh, and R. B. Bovey. 1988. Mosses, lichens,and ferns of Northwest America. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

von Hagen, B., J. Weigand, R. McLain, R. Fight, and C.Christensen. In preparation. Annotated bibliography ofliterature useful for management of non-timber forestproducts in the Pacific Northwest.

Warren, D. D. 1995 Production, prices, employment, and tradein Northwest forest industries: Second quarter 1994. Re-source bulletin PNW-RB-205. Portland, OR: USDA For-est Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Weege, K. 1977. Bisherige Erfahrungen mit dem Anbau von

336

Abies procera in Nordrhein-Westfalen (Experiences to

date with noble fir [Abies procera] silviculture in NorthRhein-Westphalis) . Allgemeine Forstzeitung 32:1155-

1158.White, Richard. 1980. Land use, environment, and social

Section IV. Forest Economics: Products and Policit..

change: The shaping of Island County, Washington. Seattl,

University of Washington Press.Wiersma, G. B., M. E. Harmon, G. A. Baker, and S . i

Greene. 1987. Elemental composition of Hyloconino,splendens. Chemosphere 16:2631-2645.

In the last deconflict over tpublic lands.about why in(differences inuals about heaged and promanagementthe problemsregulation thiPrivate forest

Lreaung a 1-4orestryfor the 21st Century

Edited by Kathryn A. Kohm and Jerry F. FranklinForeword by Jack Ward Thomas

ISLAND PRESS Li 76- FWashington, D.C. • Covelo, California

; , Iteviltaft

acs 4 tot

Copyright © 1997 by Island Press

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this bookmay be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher:Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20009.

ISLAND PRESS is a trademark of The Center for Resource Economics.

No copyright claim is made in chapters 2, 3, 6-11, 13-19, 21, and 29, work produced in whole or in partby employees of the U.S. government.

Grateful acknowledgment is expressed for permission to publish the following copyrighted material:Figure 3.1, on page 112, from Peet, R.K. 1992. "Community Structure and Ecosystem Function." In PlantSuccession: Theory and Prediction, edited by D.C. Glenn-Lewin, R.K. Peet, and T.T. Veblen. New York:Chapman and Hall.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the science of ecosystemmanagement / edited by Kathr yn A. Kohm & Jerry F. Franklin.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-55963-398-0 (cloth). — ISBN 1-55963-399-9 (pbk.)1. Forest management—Northwest, Pacific. 2. Forest ecology—

Northwest, Pacific. 3. Forests and forestry—Northwest, Pacific.4. Ecosystem management—Northwest, Pacific. 5. Forest management.6• Forest ecology. 7. Forests and forestry. 8. Ecosystemmanagement. I. Kohm, Kathryn A. II. Franklin, Jerry F.SD144.A13C74 1997634.9—dc20

96-32771CIP

Printed on recycled, acid-free paper ®

Manufactured in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1Perslissod by USDA ForestSwift for official use

Special Forest Products: Integrating Social, Economic, and ...

Documents

Transcript of Special Forest Products: Integrating Social, Economic, and ...