Criterion – Z: Physical Environmental Factors

Consultant's Initials:

CKW

Source:

CCFM

Identification No. in source:

3.1

 

Final Identification No. (as reported in final list):

Z

Class:

Ecological/

biophysical

Recommendation (after field testing)

Yes

Box A:

Enter the selected criterion as stated in the source document in this space:

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Box B: Attributes

Rated on a scale of 1-5, where 1=no/bad/unimportant and 5=yes/good/important

original revised original

revised

(a)

(j)

(a)

(j)

Precisely defined? (clear)

3

Will it produce replicable results? (reliable)

3

Diagnostically specific ? (valid)

3

Is it applicable for all landowners?

4

Sensitive?

3

Is it applicable to other areas/ecosystems? (robust)

5

Easy to detect, record and interpret?

2

How relevant is this criterion?

5

Useable?

3

Box C:

Justify your selection of the Criterion in Box A. Please ensure you discuss its relationship to theory:

This criterion includes physical environmental indicators and policy indicators that are related to soil and water characteristics. Physical environmental indicators are essential in tracking sustainable forest management because the maintenance of appropriate levels of soil oxygen, nutrients, moisture and organic matter is key to the long-term productivity and resilience of forest ecosystems. (CSA P.48)

Ecosystems by their very nature include what are referred to by CCFM as "Physical Environmental Factors". Tansley (1935) coined the term "ecosystem" to include "living and non-living parts". Standard definitions such as the one from Lincoln, Boxshall and Clark (1982) define an ecosystem as: "A community of organisms and their physical environment interacting as an ecological unit …"

Box D:

Provide bibliographic references (if any) which support your selection of this Criterion for evaluation:

Harvey, A. E. and others. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside ecosystems: the effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-323. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 71 p.

Kaufmann and others. 1994. An Ecological Basis for Ecosystem Management. General Technical Report RM-246. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 22 p.

Keystone Center. 1996. Ecosystem Management. Report of a Keystone policy dialogue. The Keystone Center, Keystone, CO. various paging.

Kimmins, J.P. 1996. Importance of Soil and Role of Ecosystem Disturbance for Sustained Productivity of Cool Temperate and Boreal Forests. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:1643-1654.

Kohm, K.A. and J.F. Franklin, (eds.). 1997. Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: the science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington D.C. 475 p.

Lincoln, R.J., G.A. Boxshall, and P.F. Clark. 1982. A dictionary of ecology, evolution and systematics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England. 298 p.

National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland Health: New methods to Classify, Inventory, and monitor Rangelands. National Academy Press. Washington D. C. 180 p.

Perry, D. A. and M.P. Amaranthus. 1997. Disturbance, Recovery, and Stability. In: Kohm, K.A. and J.F. Franklin, (eds.). 1997. Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: the science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington D.C. 475 p.

Powers, R.F. (ed.) 1990. Sustaining Site Productivity on Forestlands: a user’s guide to good soil management. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication No. 21481. 30 p.

Tansley, A. G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology. 16: 284-307.

Rowe, J.S. 1992. The ecosystem Approach to Forestland Management. The Forestry Chronicle. Vol. 68, No. 2.

Box E:

Please name (give the reference of) the Criterion that overlap (come closest) to the Criterion that has been selected for evaluation:

CIFOR 2.1.1, 2.4.7, 2.1.4,

CIFOR-BAG -

CCFM 2.2, 3.0, 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4

Idaho -

GFE -

Box F:

Please record your notes on evaluating the Criterion (Box A) here:

Physical environmental factors are essential to the concept of ecosystems. The CCFM indicators have value but seem unclear and need further work. The term itself "Physical Environmental Factors" is very generalized and must therefor be defined for a specific area by the indicators. Climate and climate related factors are largely absent from the CCFM criteria and indicators but climate (including synoptic, local and micro-climate) are fundamentally important components of ecosystems.

Box G: Geo-Political

Evaluate the geo-political scale on which the Criterion operates. Multiple-entries are

possible but care should be taken to determine the primary thrust of the criterion.

Justify:

 original revised

(a)

(j)

Global

North America

Intermountain

West

Study area

X

Tenure

Site

X

Box H: Function
Classify Criterion according to whether it refers to the structure of the system biophysical, social or management), function of the system, describes its composition or describes perturbations to the system.

Justify:

 original revised

(a)

(j)

Structure

X

Function

X

Composition

Perturbation

Physical environmental factors are essential to the both the structure and function of ecosystems. They are also linked to the composition of ecosystems, most especially in soils.

Box I: Linkages

Identify linkages between Criterion, to ensure that the same or similar information is not collected twice and to ascertain whether the necessary feedback loops exist between Criterion.

Ecological /
Biophysical: X
Social: -
Economic: -
Forest Mngt: -
Yield & harvest: -
Does not fit: -

Box J:

Final version of Criterion, state only if different to definition in Box A:

N/A