Peter H. Singleton
United States Forest Service
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Peter H. Singleton.
Landscape Ecology | 2015
Paul F. Hessburg; Derek J. Churchill; Andrew J. Larson; Ryan D. Haugo; Carol Miller; Thomas A. Spies; Malcolm P. North; Nicholas A. Povak; R. Travis Belote; Peter H. Singleton; William L. Gaines; Robert E. Keane; Gregory H. Aplet; Scott L. Stephens; Penelope Morgan; Peter A. Bisson; Bruce E. Rieman; R. Brion Salter; Gordon H. Reeves
ContextMore than a century of forest and fire management of Inland Pacific landscapes has transformed their successional and disturbance dynamics. Regional connectivity of many terrestrial and aquatic habitats is fragmented, flows of some ecological and physical processes have been altered in space and time, and the frequency, size and intensity of many disturbances that configure these habitats have been altered. Current efforts to address these impacts yield a small footprint in comparison to wildfires and insect outbreaks. Moreover, many current projects emphasize thinning and fuels reduction within individual forest stands, while overlooking large-scale habitat connectivity and disturbance flow issues.MethodsWe provide a framework for landscape restoration, offering seven principles. We discuss their implication for management, and illustrate their application with examples.ResultsHistorical forests were spatially heterogeneous at multiple scales. Heterogeneity was the result of variability and interactions among native ecological patterns and processes, including successional and disturbance processes regulated by climatic and topographic drivers. Native flora and fauna were adapted to these conditions, which conferred a measure of resilience to variability in climate and recurrent contagious disturbances.ConclusionsTo restore key characteristics of this resilience to current landscapes, planning and management are needed at ecoregion, local landscape, successional patch, and tree neighborhood scales. Restoration that works effectively across ownerships and allocations will require active thinking about landscapes as socio-ecological systems that provide services to people within the finite capacities of ecosystems. We focus attention on landscape-level prescriptions as foundational to restoration planning and execution.
Ursus | 2004
Peter H. Singleton; William L. Gaines; John F. Lehmkuhl
Abstract Providing opportunities for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) to move between blocks of habitat is important for the long-term conservation of grizzly bear populations. While the particulars of grizzly bear habitat selection during long-distance movements are poorly understood, some landscape characteristics such as road density and land cover type are correlated with grizzly bear habitat use at various scales. We compiled digital maps of roads, human population density, land cover class, and topography to evaluate the resistance of the year 2001 landscape to grizzly bear movement in Washington State and adjacent portions of Idaho and British Columbia (BC). We developed habitat association and dispersal habitat suitability models based on published literature and used geographic information system (GIS) weighted-distance and least-cost analysis techniques to evaluate landscape permeability for grizzly bear movement. Our analysis identified 5 blocks of potential grizzly bear habitat in Washington and adjacent areas, including the Columbia–Selkirk Mountains, the North Cascades, the Central Cascades, the South Cascades, and the Coast Range. We evaluated landscape permeability between these habitat blocks and highlighted potential linkage areas. Our models indicated the Stevens Pass fracture zone between the North and Central Cascades blocks was the most permeable, followed (in order of relative permeability) by the Fraser–Coquihalla fracture zone between the North Cascades and the Coast Range, the Okanogan–Kettle fracture zone between the North Cascades and the Columbia Mountains, and the Snoqualmie Pass fracture zone between the Central and South Cascades. This evaluation provides a consistent measure of the expected potential for grizzly movement across a broad landscape that can be used to target areas for finer-scale evaluation and help identify landscape management priorities at a regional scale.
Archive | 2014
Peter Stine; Paul F. Hessburg; Thomas A. Spies; Marc G. Kramer; Christopher J. Fettig; Andrew J. Hansen; John F. Lehmkuhl; Kevin L. O'Hara; Karl Polivka; Peter H. Singleton; Susan Charnley; Andrew G. Merschel; Rachel. White
Land managers in the Pacific Northwest have reported a need for updated scientific information on the ecology and management of mixed-conifer forests east of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington. Of particular concern are the moist mixed-conifer forests, which have become drought-stressed and vulnerable to high-severity fire after decades of human disturbances and climate warming. This synthesis responds to this need. We present a compilation of existing research across multiple natural resource issues, including disturbance regimes, the legacy effects of past management actions, wildlife habitat, watershed health, restoration concepts from a landscape perspective, and social and policy concerns. We provide considerations for management, while also emphasizing the importance of local knowledge when applying this information at the local and regional level.
Landscape Ecology | 2015
Meade Krosby; Ian Breckheimer; D. John Pierce; Peter H. Singleton; Sonia A. Hall; Karl Halupka; William L. Gaines; Robert A. Long; Brad H. McRae; Brian L. Cosentino; Joanne P. Schuett-Hames
ContextThe dual threats of habitat fragmentation and climate change have led to a proliferation of approaches for connectivity conservation planning. Corridor analyses have traditionally taken a focal species approach, but the landscape “naturalness” approach of modeling connectivity among areas of low human modification has gained popularity as a less analytically intensive alternative.ObjectivesWe compared focal species and naturalness-based corridor networks to ask whether they identify similar areas, whether a naturalness-based approach is in fact more analytically efficient, and whether agreement between the two approaches varies with focal species vagility.MethodsWe compared focal-species and naturalness-based connectivity models at two nested spatial extents: greater Washington State, USA, and, within it, the Columbia Plateau ecoregion. We assessed complementarity between the two approaches by examining the spatial overlap of predicted corridors, and regressing organism traits against the amount of modeled corridor overlap.ResultsA single naturalness-based corridor network represented connectivity for a large (>10) number of focal species as effectively as a group of between 3 and 4 randomly selected focal species. The naturalness-based approach showed only moderate spatial agreement with composite corridor networks for large numbers of focal species, and better agreed with corridor networks of large-bodied, far-dispersing species in the larger scale analysis.ConclusionsNaturalness-based corridor models may offer an efficient proxy for focal species models, but a multi-focal species approach may better represent the movement needs of diverse taxa. Consideration of trade-offs between the two approaches may enhance the effectiveness of their application to connectivity conservation planning.
Ecology and Society | 2017
Thomas A. Spies; Eric M. White; Alan A. Ager; Jeffrey D. Kline; John P. Bolte; Emily Platt; Keith A. Olsen; Robert J. Pabst; Ana M. G. Barros; John D. Bailey; Susan Charnley; Anita T. Morzillo; Jennifer Koch; Michelle M. Steen-Adams; Peter H. Singleton; James Sulzman; Cynthia Schwartz; Blair Csuti
Fire-prone landscapes present many challenges for both managers and policy makers in developing adaptive behaviors and institutions. We used a coupled human and natural systems framework and an agent-based landscape model to examine how alternative management scenarios affect fire and ecosystem services metrics in a fire-prone multiownership landscape in the eastern Cascades of Oregon. Our model incorporated existing models of vegetation succession and fire spread and information from original empirical studies of landowner decision making. Our findings indicate that alternative management strategies can have variable effects on landscape outcomes over 50 years for fire, socioeconomic, and ecosystem services metrics. For example, scenarios with federal restoration treatments had slightly less high-severity fire than a scenario without treatment; exposure of homes in the wildland-urban interface to fire was also slightly less with restoration treatments compared to no management. Treatments appeared to be more effective at reducing high-severity fire in years with more fire than in years with less fire. Under the current management scenario, timber production could be maintained for at least 50 years on federal lands. Under an accelerated restoration scenario, timber production fell because of a shortage of areas meeting current stand structure treatment targets. Trade-offs between restoration outcomes (e.g., open forests with large fire-resistant trees) and habitat for species that require dense older forests were evident. For example, the proportional area of nesting habitat for northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) was somewhat less after 50 years under the restoration scenarios than under no management. However, the amount of resilient older forest structure and habitat for white-headed woodpecker (Leuconotopicus albolarvatus) was higher after 50 years under active management. More carbon was stored on this landscape without management than with management, despite the occurrence of high-severity wildfire. Our results and further applications of the model could be used in collaborative settings to facilitate discussion and development of policies and practices for fire-prone landscapes.
Northwest Science | 2013
John F. Lehmkuhl; Andrea L. Lyons; Edd Bracken; Jodi Leingang; William L. Gaines; Erich Kyle Dodson; Peter H. Singleton
Abstract Provision of forage for wild and domestic ungulates, and the associated impacts of their herbivory, are contentious issues for wildland management in western North America. We quantified the composition, above-ground net production (ANP), and utilization of herbaceous and shrub vegetation in five non-forest and seven forest cover types across the core spring-summer-fall range of the Yakima elk herd in the eastern Washington Cascade Range. We randomly sampled each cover type along three elevational transects during a two-year period. Riparian/meadow was the most productive cover type (2,752 kg ha-1 ANP). High-productivity forest at low to high elevations produced 900-1200 kg ha-1 ANP. High-elevation forest and grassland, shrubland, and shrub-steppe produced 600–700 kg ha-1 ANP. The low-productivity forest cover types and parkland produced 100–400 kg ha-1 ANP. Utilization of forbs, grasses, and shrubs combined averaged 47% of ANP across all cover types, ranging from 26% in high-elevation forest to 63% in shrub-steppe. Grasses and forbs were equally utilized at about 57% of ANP, whereas shrubs were utilized at only 4% of ANP. Twenty-two of 55 shrub species accounted for the majority of shrub productivity and showed little to no long-term browsing; but, several shrub species were moderately to severely hedged. Moderate to high levels of ungulate utilization indicate potentially strong impacts of ungulate herbivory on pattern and process in eastern Cascades forests. Dry forest restoration management to reduce fuel loads and restore resiliency to disturbance likely will increase forage for ungulates, especially in closed-canopy true fir and Douglas-fir stands.
Forest Ecology and Management | 2007
John F. Lehmkuhl; Maureen C. Kennedy; E. David Ford; Peter H. Singleton; William L. Gaines; Rick L. Lind
Journal of Applied Ecology | 2007
Maureen C. Kennedy; E. David Ford; Peter H. Singleton; Mark A. Finney; James K. Agee
Forest Ecology and Management | 2016
Paul F. Hessburg; Thomas A. Spies; David A. Perry; Carl N. Skinner; Alan H. Taylor; Peter M. Brown; Scott L. Stephens; Andrew J. Larson; Derek J. Churchill; Nicholas A. Povak; Peter H. Singleton; Brenda C. McComb; William J. Zielinski; Brandon M. Collins; R. Brion Salter; John J. Keane; Jerry F. Franklin; Greg Riegel
Archive | 2008
Peter H. Singleton; N. Western Ave; John F. Lehmkuhl; William L. Gaines; Scott A. Graham