Data from: Evaluating carbon storage, timber harvest, and habitat possibilities for a western Cascades (US) forest landscape

Forest policymakers and managers have long sought ways to evaluate the
capability of forest landscapes to jointly produce timber, habitat, and
other ecosystem services in response to forest management. Currently,
carbon is of particular interest as policies for increasing carbon storage
on federal lands are being proposed. However, a challenge in joint
production analysis of forest management is adequately representing
ecological conditions and processes that influence joint production
relationships. We used simulation models of vegetation structure, forest
sector carbon, and potential wildlife habitat to characterize
landscape-level joint production possibilities for carbon storage, timber
harvest, and habitat for seven wildlife species across a range of forest
management regimes. We sought to: (1) characterize the general
relationships of production possibilities for combinations of carbon
storage, timber, and habitat; and (2) identify management variables that
most influence joint production relationships. Our 160,000-ha study
landscape featured environmental conditions typical of forests in the
western Cascade Mountains of Oregon (US). Our results indicate that
managing forests for carbon storage involves tradeoffs among timber
harvest and habitat for focal wildlife species, depending on the
disturbance interval and utilization intensity followed. Joint production
possibilities for wildlife species varied in shape, ranging from
competitive to complementary to compound, reflecting niche breadth and
habitat component needs of species examined. Managing Pacific Northwest
forests to store forest sector carbon can be roughly complementary with
habitat for Northern Spotted Owl, Olive-sided Flycatcher, and Red Tree
Vole. However, managing forests to increase carbon storage potentially can
be competitive with timber production and habitat for Pacific Marten,
Pileated Woodpecker, and Western Bluebird, depending on the disturbance
interval and harvest intensity chosen. Our analysis suggest that joint
production possibilities under forest management regimes currently typical
on industrial forest lands (e.g., 40- to 80-year rotations with some tree
retention for wildlife) represent but a small fraction of joint production
outcomes possible in the region. Although the theoretical boundaries of
the production possibilities sets we developed are probably unachievable
in the current management environment, they arguably define the long-term
potential of managing forests to produce multiple ecosystem services
within and across multiple forest ownerships.