Criterion - CIFOR 2.1 Ecosystem Function is Maintained

Indicator - CIFOR 2.2.3 Canopy opening is minimized.

Box B: Definition:

Canopy opening is minimized. There is nothing further given in the Criteria and Indicators book.

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences.

It is not applicable as defined by CIFOR for a wide variety of forest types in North America.

Box E: Overlap:

None

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

It seems a concept that applies only to forests with fully closed canopies such as are common in tropical forests or some types of temperate hardwood and a few conifer forests. It does not appear relevant to dry forest types where canopy closure is rarely if ever attained. Application would require establishing an minimum canopy opening for each forest type. Such a standard also favors shade-tolerant late successional species which in much of western North America are more prone to disease and intense wildfires. Covington and others, 1994.; Auclair and Bedford, 1994.

In the United States a minimum opening size was set by Law in the National Forest Management Act. However these opening sizes have little to do with ecology or historical disturbance patterns by forest types.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management :

Not relevant in a North American context except for some specific forest types.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Cover and density values in published forest plant community guides. (e.g. Steele and others, 1981; Pfister and others, 1977; Daubenmire and Daubenmire, 1968; Bell, 1965; Williams and others, 1995.)

Box L: Data Required:

Canopy closure for each forest type and successional stage would have to be developed.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Published reports of plant community characteristics for forests in western North America.

Box N: Example Results:

Put in graph from Boise NF package of Sloan’s study in the Boise Basin

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

Not a good indicator for many North American Forests.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

Information value is judged to be low.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Rejected as it is not relevant to many North American forest types.

Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?

No

Box S: References:

• Auclair, A.N.D., and J.A. Bedford. 1994. Conceptual Origin of Catastrophic Forest Mortality in the Western United States. In: Sampson, R.N.; Adams, D. (eds.) 1994. Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. Haworth Press: Binghamton, NY. 461 p.
• Bell, M. 1965. The dry subzone of the interior western hemlock zone. In: Ecology of western North America. V. Krajina (ed.). Vol. 1, University of British Columbia, Department of Botany. Vancouver, British Columbia. pp. 42-64.
• Clark, L.R., and R. N. Sampson. 1995 Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland Northwest: a science and policy reader. Forest Policy Center, American Forests. Washington D. C. 37 p.
• Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore, 1994. Postsettlement Changes in Natural Fire Regimes and Forest Structure: Ecological Restoration of Old-Growth Ponderosa Pine Forests. In:Sampson, R.N.; Adams, D. (eds.) 1994. Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. Haworth Press: Binghamton, NY. 461 p.
• Covington, W.W. and others, 1994. Historical and Anticipated Changes in Forest Ecosystems of the Inland West of the United States. In:Sampson, R.N.; Adams, D. (eds.) 1994. Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. Haworth Press: Binghamton, NY. 461 p.
• Daubenmire, R. and J. Daubenmire. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 60, 104 p.
• Pfister, R., B. Kovalchik, S. Arno, and R. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. General Technical Report INT-34. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, 174 p.
• Steele, R., R. Pfister, R. Ryker, and J. Kittams. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. General Technical Report INT-114. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, Utah. 138 p.
• Williams, C.K., B.F. Kelley, B.G. Smith and T.R. Lillybridge. 1995. Forested Plant Associations of the Colville National Forest. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-360, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 375 p.

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here.