Evidence Platform
Can forest management be used to sustain water-based ecosystem services in the face of climate change?
Ford, C. R., et al., 2011. Ecological Applications
Original research (primary data)View External Publication Link
Abstract
Forested watersheds, an important provider of ecosystems services related to water supply, can have their structure, function, and resulting streamflow substantially altered by land use and land cover. Using a retrospective analysis and synthesis of long-term climate and streamflow data (75 years) from six watersheds differing in management histories we explored whether streamflow responded differently to variation in annual temperature and extreme precipitation than unmanaged watersheds. We show significant increases in temperature and the frequency of extreme wet and dry years since the 1980s. Response models explained almost all streamflow variability (adjusted R-2 > 0.99). In all cases, changing land use altered streamflow. Observed watershed responses differed significantly in wet and dry extreme years in all but a stand managed as a coppice forest. Converting deciduous stands to pine altered the streamflow response to extreme annual precipitation the most; the apparent frequency of observed extreme wet years decreased on average by sevenfold. This increased soil water storage may reduce flood risk in wet years, but create conditions that could exacerbate drought. Forest management can potentially mitigate extreme annual precipitation associated with climate change; however, offsetting effects suggest the need for spatially explicit analyses of risk and vulnerability.
Case studies
Basic information
- Case ID: INT-150-5
- Intervention type: Management
- Intervention description:
Clearcut: Lower portion of WS grazed by ;6 cattle for 5 month/yr, 1941 1952. Commercially clear-cut and cable-logged in 1977: in Apr–Jun 1976, three roads occupying 2.5% of total WS area constructed for logging access. Timber cutting and yarding with mobile-cable system Jan 1977–Jun 1978.
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Freshwater flooding Negative D (cm/yr) is the observed management response and is calculated as the streamflow deviation from that predicted by the control without management. D during extreme wet years (If D is less than 0 during extremely high precipitation would mean decreasing flood risk, if greater than 0 then exacerbating flood risk) Reduced water availability Positive D (cm/yr) is the observed management response and is calculated as the streamflow deviation from that predicted by the control without management. D during extreme dry years (if D is greater than 0 during extremely low precipitation would mean decreasing drought risk, if less than 0, exacerbating drought risk) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
The Coweeta basin is located in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA --> Watershed 7
- Country: United States of America
- Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
- Issue specific term: Not applicable
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by comparing to paired-control unmanaged watersheds key figure for effectiveness is Fig. 9
- Is the assessment original?: Yes
- Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
- Compare effectivness?: No
- Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
- Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
- Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
- Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
- Ecosystem measures:
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
- Impacts for people: Not reported
- People measures:
- Considers economic costs: No
- Economic appraisal conducted: No
- Economic appraisal described:
- Economic costs of alternative considered: No
- Compared to an alternative: Not reported
Evaluation methodology
- Type of data: Quantitative
- Is it experimental: Yes
- Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
- Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
- Study is systematic:
Basic information
- Case ID: INT-150-4
- Intervention type: Created habitats
- Intervention description:
Species conversion: Entire watershed prescribed burned in Apr 1942. All riparian trees and shrubs (25% of WS area) deadened with chemicals in 1954, retreated in 1955–1957 growing seasons. All trees cut and burned in 1956–1957; no products removed. Watershed converted to eastern white pine plantation (Pinus strobus) in 1957. In subsequent years, P. strobus released from hardwood competition by cutting and chemicals as necessary.
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Reduced water availability Negative D (cm/yr) is the observed management response and is calculated as the streamflow deviation from that predicted by the control without management. D during extreme dry years (if D is greater than 0 during extremely low precipitation would mean decreasing drought risk, if less than 0, exacerbating drought risk) Freshwater flooding Positive D (cm/yr) is the observed management response and is calculated as the streamflow deviation from that predicted by the control without management. D during extreme wet years (If D is less than 0 during extremely high precipitation would mean decreasing flood risk, if greater than 0 then exacerbating flood risk) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
The Coweeta basin is located in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA --> Watershed S1 and WS17
- Country: United States of America
- Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
- Issue specific term: Not applicable
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by comparing to paired-control unmanaged watersheds key figure for effectiveness is Fig. 9
- Is the assessment original?: Yes
- Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
- Compare effectivness?: No
- Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
- Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
- Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
- Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
- Ecosystem measures:
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
- Impacts for people: Not reported
- People measures:
- Considers economic costs: No
- Economic appraisal conducted: No
- Economic appraisal described:
- Economic costs of alternative considered: No
- Compared to an alternative: Not reported
Evaluation methodology
- Type of data: Quantitative
- Is it experimental: Yes
- Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
- Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
- Study is systematic:
Basic information
- Case ID: INT-150-2
- Intervention type: Management
- Intervention description:
Forest coppice: All trees and shrubs on the entire drainage cut in 1939–1940 and again in late 1962. No trees or shrubs removed after either clear-cut; soil disturbance was minimal.
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Reduced water availability Positive D (cm/yr) is the observed management response and is calculated as the streamflow deviation from that predicted by the control without management. D during extreme dry years (if D is greater than 0 during extremely low precipitation would mean decreasing drought risk, if less than 0, exacerbating drought risk) Freshwater flooding Negative D (cm/yr) is the observed management response and is calculated as the streamflow deviation from that predicted by the control without management. D during extreme wet years (If D is less than 0 during extremely high precipitation would mean decreasing flood risk, if greater than 0 then exacerbating flood risk) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
The Coweeta basin is located in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA Watershed 13
- Country: United States of America
- Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
- Issue specific term: Not applicable
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by comparing to paired-control unmanaged watersheds key figure for effectiveness is Fig. 9
- Is the assessment original?: Yes
- Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
- Compare effectivness?: No
- Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
- Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
- Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
- Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
- Ecosystem measures:
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
- Impacts for people: Not reported
- People measures:
- Considers economic costs: No
- Economic appraisal conducted: No
- Economic appraisal described:
- Economic costs of alternative considered: No
- Compared to an alternative: Not reported
Evaluation methodology
- Type of data: Quantitative
- Is it experimental: Yes
- Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
- Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
- Study is systematic:
Basic information
- Case ID: INT-150-3
- Intervention type: Restoration
- Intervention description:
Old field succession - land previously converted from forest to pasture left to be reverted to successional vegetation
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Reduced water availability Positive D (cm/yr) is the observed management response and is calculated as the streamflow deviation from that predicted by the control without management. D during extreme dry years (if D is greater than 0 during extremely low precipitation would mean decreasing drought risk, if less than 0, exacerbating drought risk) Freshwater flooding Positive D (cm/yr) is the observed management response and is calculated as the streamflow deviation from that predicted by the control without management. D during extreme wet years (If D is less than 0 during extremely high precipitation would mean decreasing flood risk, if greater than 0 then exacerbating flood risk) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
The Coweeta basin is located in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA Watershed 6
- Country: United States of America
- Habitat/Biome type: Temperate grasslands |
- Issue specific term: Not applicable
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by comparing to paired-control unmanaged watersheds key figure for effectiveness is Fig. 9 Mixed results for effectiveness compared to alternatives - compared to species conversions, better for drought risk, less effective at flood risk. compared to timber clearcut intervention, better at flood risk, less effective for drought risk
- Is the assessment original?: Yes
- Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
- Compare effectivness?: No
- Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
- Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
- Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
- Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
- Ecosystem measures:
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
- Impacts for people: Not reported
- People measures:
- Considers economic costs: No
- Economic appraisal conducted: No
- Economic appraisal described:
- Economic costs of alternative considered: No
- Compared to an alternative: Not reported
Evaluation methodology
- Type of data: Quantitative
- Is it experimental: Yes
- Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
- Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
- Study is systematic:
Basic information
- Case ID: INT-150-1
- Intervention type: Management
- Intervention description:
Watershed 37: All woody vegetation cut in 1963; no products removed.
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Reduced water availability Negative D (cm/yr) is the observed management response and is calculated as the streamflow deviation from that predicted by the control without management. D during extreme dry years (if D is greater than 0 during extremely low precipitation would mean decreasing drought risk, if less than 0, exacerbating drought risk) Freshwater flooding Positive D (cm/yr) is the observed management response and is calculated as the streamflow deviation from that predicted by the control without management. D during extreme wet years (If D is less than 0 during extremely high precipitation would mean decreasing flood risk, if greater than 0 then exacerbating flood risk) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
The Coweeta basin is located in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA --> Watershed 37
- Country: United States of America
- Habitat/Biome type: Montane/Alpine |
- Issue specific term: Not applicable
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by comparing to paired-control unmanaged watersheds key figure for effectiveness is Fig. 9
- Is the assessment original?: Yes
- Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
- Compare effectivness?: No
- Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
- Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
- Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
- Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
- Ecosystem measures:
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
- Impacts for people: Not reported
- People measures:
- Considers economic costs: No
- Economic appraisal conducted: No
- Economic appraisal described:
- Economic costs of alternative considered: No
- Compared to an alternative: Not reported
Evaluation methodology
- Type of data: Quantitative
- Is it experimental: Yes
- Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
- Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
- Study is systematic: