Ecological Forestry
Origins and Principles
Editor’s Note: As soon as Tony D’Amato arrived at the University of Vermont in 2015, I knew he would quickly become a valuable partner in the state’s, and the region’s, forest conservation community. Since then I’ve had the distinct pleasure of collaborating with him on several projects, including the publication of Restoring Old-Growth Characteristics. We’ve served together on graduate studies committees, where he is always the kindest and most encouraging mentor. He carries with him a deep conviction that there is something for everyone in the practice of silviculture–that we can have wildlands, ecologically managed forests, and some places that are more intensively managed for particular purposes. And he literally (with others) wrote the book on ecological forestry, or Ecological Silviculture. This essay gives us a good solid look at that topic–its origins, its nuances, and its practices. - Liz Thompson
I always start my silviculture course by sharing with my students that we are all a time capsule of when we went to forestry school. Although foresters are lifelong learners, the contexts for which topics are discussed and applied in the classroom reflect the social, economic, and ecological dynamics of the period—whether that be today’s emphasis on adaptation to changing climate and disturbance regimes, or a historic focus on sustaining wood production for a growing nation.
My time capsule was packed and sealed in the late 1990s, a period when ecological forestry was being popularized across North America. I was a forestry student at the University of Maine and was fortunate to have a visionary on this topic as my silviculture professor—Dr. Bob Seymour. At the time, there was a tension around ecological forestry in the classroom and across the profession. Some viewed it as a threat to the profession and our ability to effectively produce wood; others, like me, viewed it as a revelation that greatly broadened the palette from which the “art” of silviculture could draw. As evidenced by this issue of From the Ground Up, interest in and applications of ecological forestry have only continued to grow since that time, but it’s worth exploring exactly where these newer colors on a forester’s palette came from and how they’re applied today.
Origins of Ecological Forestry
When I was introduced to ecological forestry, it was often referred to as “New Forestry” because it presented models of stewardship that stood in stark contrast to the older wood production systems emphasized by multiple-use sustained yield principles. This New Forestry was an outgrowth of the “Timber Wars” of the late 1980s in the Pacific Northwest, which pitted old-growth conservation against timber production. Presented as a middle ground, New Forestry was advanced by Dr. Jerry Franklin and his colleagues at the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest in Oregon. It was a management approach that integrated stand-level and landscape-level measures—retention of biological legacies, extended harvest rotations, and forest zoning, for example—to support diverse species and values from forests, not just to maximize wood production. Although anything but radical today, this emphasis on the ecosystem over production was a completely new way of thinking about our relationship with the forest…or was it?
To test how novel this new forestry was, we might first look to the European forestry literature. It’s a long-held tradition in American forestry to celebrate its European roots. It’s hard to find an American forester (or forestry instructor) who doesn’t get jazzed up talking about early Euro-influences, including concepts like “Femelschlag,” as discussed in this issue. Nevertheless, the idea of putting ecosystem over extractive use is largely absent from these European roots, mainly because it sprouted from a socioeconomic context of preventing wood shortage. Consequently, the roots of European forestry are firmly planted in top-down and command-and-control approaches to sustaining a wood crop, with economic expediency a guiding tenet. Such a mindset was carried forward into the fledgling U.S. forestry profession in the early twentieth century, which recognized the need to adapt European ideas to American conditions, but also kept the production of wood crops and highest returns from the land as the primary goals of forestry.
“How can we proclaim to care for the wonders and complexity of forests, yet continue to get most of our wood from places where forests are treated like agricultural crops or resources to be mined?”
Our long-standing emphasis on these European roots has resulted in little acknowledgement of the models of ecological forestry that did exist in North America long before the founding of our first forestry schools. In particular, the idea of supporting the full ecosystem with one’s stewardship, and honoring the material and immaterial gifts provided by forests through multi-generational care, is central to Indigenous culture. In contrast to the European models adopted by early U.S. foresters to maximize yield and economic return, forest stewardship approaches developed by Tribal Nations—such as those advanced by the Menominee Tribe during the 1850s in present-day Wisconsin—tied the harvest of wood and the health of the forest to the health and sovereignty of their community. This acknowledgement of one’s connection to all living beings provides a far different construct for practicing forestry: a commitment to reciprocity and constant reflection on what we are leaving for the forest, and what we are leaving to support future generations. It took over a century for U.S. forestry training to catch on and center this worldview.
There was an early outlier in Petersham, Massachusetts that got the part about listening to the forest. The Harvard Forest, like other early forestry schools, started by importing European forestry ideas into the forests of north-central Massachusetts at its founding in 1907. After a few decades of futility, fighting the natural tendencies of the forests by indiscriminately promoting conifer plantations, Dr. Richard Fisher and his students Al Cline and Stephen Spurr began to recognize that the best course for silviculture was to “follow nature as far as possible.” This management philosophy was solidified by frequent visits to remnant old-growth forests in southwestern New Hampshire. These forests served as living classrooms, instilling many lessons on how site conditions and disturbances shaped natural forest dynamics over space and time. Spurr and Cline translated these lessons into recommendations that used natural succession and disturbance regimes to guide silvicultural decisions in a 1942 publication that represents the first usage of the term “ecological forestry” in the North American forestry literature. Like the teachings of Indigenous stewards, these ideas didn’t catch on at the time. It wasn’t until New Forestry emerged four decades later that ecological models of stewardship finally got traction in the broader forestry community.
Principles of Ecological Forestry
Over the past few decades, ecological forestry has shifted from the fringes of the profession to the mainstream. This shift highlights the consistency of ecological forestry with broader calls to sustain the full range of ecosystem services and species from managed forests, with associated policies, landowner incentives, and forest product certification programs motivating movement toward more ecological practices. It also reflects the mainstreaming of these ideas in forestry education and professional training, which has been facilitated by greater clarity over what ecological forestry is; its differences from other models of forestry; and its translation to a broad range of ecosystems and contexts, not just the Douglas-fir forests that served as the archetypes of New Forestry in the early 1990s.
The broader translation and formalization of ecological forestry has largely been guided by Dr. Brian Palik of the USDA Forest Service, whose definition I am admittedly biased toward:
“a management approach that applies an understanding of the structure, function, and dynamics of natural forest ecosystems to achieve integrated environmental, economic, and social outcomes.”
– Ecological SilvicultureThis approach builds on the foundations of traditional forestry and ecology, and is guided by four core principles that have allowed for widespread application in diverse ecosystem types and regions around the globe: 1) continuity; 2) complexity/diversity; 3) timing; and 4) context.
Continuity acknowledges the importance of biological legacies in supporting species and processes following disturbance and stipulates that management actions maintain continuity in forest structure, function, and biota between pre- and post-harvest ecosystems (Figure 1).
Complexity/diversity reflects the need to create and maintain structural complexity and species diversity through all silvicultural interventions, recognizing the importance of niche-rich stand-level and landscape-level conditions in supporting diverse biota and pathways for ecosystem resilience (Figure 2).
Timing uses ecological rather than human timeframes to inform management decisions, favoring timescales required to develop large-tree habitats or support dispersal of slow-moving or sensitive species instead of maximizing net present value.
Finally, context underscores the importance of considering the structure and function of landscapes, from both an ecological and a socioeconomic perspective, when applying forest management decisions. This includes designating wildland reserves and expanding applications of ecological forestry across a range of ownership types.
Harvested area on Dartmouth College’s Second College Grant in Coos County, New Hampshire, demonstrating the principle of continuity through retention of large tree legacies and protection of advance regeneration of red spruce and understory communities. Photo © Tony D’Amato
Managed forest on Green Mountain National Forest near Peru, Vermont, demonstrating the principle of complexity/diversity through range of species, live and dead tree structures, and resource environments supported. Photo © Tony D’Amato
Ecological forestry is not a monolith. Its application, like any other approach, needs to be tied to an understanding of local ecosystems and the communities that depend upon them. One guiding framework is to emulate elements of the prevailing disturbance regime for a region, ranging from frequent small-gap disturbances common in many of our northern hardwood forests to the infrequent, severe fires characteristic of the Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest. This in turn affects how the core principles are applied to the structures retained, the tree ages and species diversity supported, the timeframes for harvest intervals, and the distribution of management across the landscape.
In short, ecological forestry is guided by what is appropriate for the forest, as opposed to what is most efficient for growing trees to commercial size. It is also applied within the context of landowner goals, leading to a spectrum of opportunities and outcomes that reflect the marriage of its principles with the ecological and human values of diverse forest ownerships.
Moving Forward with Ecological Forestry
Despite the compatibility of ecological forestry with many contemporary ecological, cultural, and social values and objectives, it currently contributes the least to meeting society’s wood consumption. Instead, almost 50 percent of global wood consumption is met by plantation monocultures, nearly all of which exist outside of New England. Although plantations certainly serve as an important tool for conservation by lessening the demands placed on other forests and allowing for more wildlands, they leave little for the forest beyond the ability to grow another wood crop. At the same time, much of the wood production in our region deviates from ecological forestry principles, with recent assessments classifying approximately 50 percent of harvests occurring in New England and New York as not actually applying sustainable silvicultural practices (or any silviculture at all). Ironically, many of the landscapes and ownerships where sound silviculture and, in some cases, ecological forestry is practiced (e.g., public lands) are those where the greatest levels of public opposition exist to any form of forest management. How can we proclaim to care for the wonders and complexity of forests, yet continue to get most of our wood from places where forests are treated like agricultural crops or resources to be mined?
“This acknowledgement of one’s connection to all living beings provides a far different construct for practicing forestry”
This conundrum sadly reflects a key disconnect in the acceptance of ecological forestry today. While the forestry profession has embraced many of ecological forestry’s ideas and principles, broader society has not, particularly in relation to its consumerism. Leaving something for the forest, the tax to the land, often means we need to be willing to pay more for wood. Let’s call it an “ecological premium.” Today, we can get wood cheaply from far-off places, which separates us from the impacts of our consumption and serves as a blind endorsement of any form of forestry, as long as it’s affordable and not in one’s backyard (or the backyard of one’s second or third home). If we truly want to honor the many gifts forests provide us, there needs to be a recalibration of how we supply our wood, with local ecological forestry practices being a primary mode. That recalibration is anything but simple, but my hope is that the examples of ecological forestry being practiced across our region will help to inspire more individuals and communities to get involved with their forest in respectful and reciprocal ways. In other words, my hope is that more will adopt ecological forestry and the powerful model it provides to connect with the forest. There are plenty of time capsules waiting to be unpacked.
Tony D’Amato is a Professor of Silviculture and Applied Forest Ecology and Director of the Forestry Program and Research Forests at the University of Vermont. He was a tenured faculty member for seven years at the University of Minnesota and Bullard Fellow at Harvard University’s Harvard Forest prior to joining the University of Vermont in January 2015. His research focuses on long-term forest dynamics, disturbance effects on ecosystem structure and function, and ecological and adaptive silvicultural strategies for conferring adaptation potential within the context of global change and diverse values and objectives. He co-wrote the textbook on Ecological Silviculture (2021) and co-edited a follow-up text demonstrating the application of Ecological Silvicultural Systems (2023) to diverse ecosystems around the globe. Here’s the link to that second book.