Log in

Editor's Picks

maxresdefault.jpg
A documentary inspired by a painting of an oak in Israel.
Ezra Barnea | Oct 10, 2020
p816466406-5.jpg
Oaks have been featured in several operas. Here is a list...
Roderick Cameron | Oct 09, 2020
iturraran.jpg
One of the world's leading oak collections is located in...
Francisco Garin Garcia | Oct 01, 2020

Plant Focus

i-wmz3wkv-xl.jpg
A guest post by Matt Candeias, host of the In Defense of Plants podcast and blog

Linking Science and Practice for Oak Ecosystem Recovery in the Chicago Wilderness Region

PDF icon Full text available for IOS members only. If you are a member, you need to log in.
To create an account click here; if you have already registered, click here to become a member.

Melissa Custic, Charles H. Cannon, Emily Okallau, and Lydia Scott1

Published May 2018 in International Oaks No. 29: 99–112

Abstract

The Oak Ecosystem Recovery Plan (OERP) aims to preserve, protect, and enhance the resiliency and integrity of oak ecosystems in the Chicago Wilderness Region through collaborative management practices and policies. Identifying best practices requires translating the current state of scientific knowledge into feasible actions that can be performed by a range of land managers, public or private. The impact of these actions should then direct future research. In reality, direct communication between scientists and land managers is rare. To facilitate a dialogue between these two communities, The Morton Arboretum hosted the Midwest Oak Ecosystem Managers and Scientists Meeting. First, we surveyed land managers to determine the major topics of concern from their perspective. Their responses were forwarded to the scientists to find commonalities and overlap with their research efforts. During the meeting, the two groups discussed the OERP generally and split into focus groups on high-priority topics. Several key outcomes are: 1) ground-truthing of the quality and condition of mapped “core” oak ecosystems and their environs is needed; 2) private landowners must be part of the dialogue; 3) potential impacts of climate change should be incorporated into management plans; and 4) management objectives should work positively across geographic scales, from landscape to oak remnant.

Keywords

Oak Ecosystem Recovery Plan, land management, oaks, Quercus

References

Arthur, M.A., H.D. Alexander, D.C. Dey, C.J. Schweitzer, and D.L. Loftis. 2012. Refining the oak-fire hypothesis for management of oak-dominated forests of the eastern United States. Journal of Forestry 110(5): 257-266.

Bischoff, L.T., and R.H.G. Jongman.1993. Development of rural areas in Europe:   the claim for nature. Preliminary and background studies no. V79. Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy. SDU Publishers. The Hague.

Chicago Wilderness. 2004. Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision: Final Report.

Christensen, N.L., A.M. Bartuska, J.H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D’Antonio, R. Francis, J.F. Franklin, J.A. MacMahon, R.F. Noss, D.J. Parsons, C.H. Peterson, M.G. Turner, and R.G. Woodmansee. 1996. The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications 6(3): 665-91. doi:10.2307/2269460.

Dettman, C.L., and C.M. Mabry. 2008. Lessons Learned about Research and Management: A Case Study from a Midwest Lowland Savanna, U.S.A. Restoration Ecology 16: 532–541. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00478.x

Dey, D.C. 2014. Sustaining oak forests in eastern North America: Regeneration and recruitment, the pillars of sustainability. Forest Science 60(5): 926-942.

Fahey, R.T., L. Darling, and J. Anderson. 2015. Oak Ecosystems Recovery Plan: Sustaining Oaks in the Chicago Wilderness Region. Chicago Wilderness.

Knoot, T.G., L.A. Schulte, and M. Rickenbach. 2010. Oak Conservation and Restoration on Private Forestlands: Negotiating a Social-Ecological Landscape. Environmental Management 45: 155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9404-7

Michael, J., and W. Tietje. 2008. Bird Use of Lone Oak Trees in Vineyard vs. Savanna in Central-Coastal California Woodland – A Pilot Study. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 44: 37-42.

Noss R.F., and C.D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, Networks, and MUMs: Preserving Diversity at All Scales. Environmental Management 10: 299-309.

Smith, W.B., P.D. Miles, C.H. Perry, and S.A. Pugh. 2009. Forest Resources of the United States 2007. General Technical Report WO-78. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.