| Title |
Managing Carbon on Federal Public Lands: Opportunities and Challenges in Southwestern Colorado
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Management, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00267-016-0714-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa Dilling, Katharine C. Kelsey, Daniel P. Fernandez, Yin D. Huang, Jana B. Milford, Jason C. Neff |
| Abstract |
Federal lands in the United States have been identified as important areas where forests could be managed to enhance carbon storage and help mitigate climate change. However, there has been little work examining the context for decision making for carbon in a multiple-use public land environment, and how science can support decision making. This case study of the San Juan National Forest and the Bureau of Land Management Tres Rios Field Office in southwestern Colorado examines whether land managers in these offices have adequate tools, information, and management flexibility to practice effective carbon stewardship. To understand how carbon was distributed on the management landscape we added a newly developed carbon map for the SJNF-TRFO area based on Landsat TM texture information (Kelsey and Neff in Remote Sens 6:6407-6422. doi: 10.3390/rs6076407 , 2014). We estimate that only about 22 % of the aboveground carbon in the SJNF-TRFO is in areas designated for active management, whereas about 38 % is in areas with limited management opportunities, and 29 % is in areas where natural processes should dominate. To project the effects of forest management actions on carbon storage, staff of the SJNF are expected to use the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) and extensions. While identifying FVS as the best tool generally available for this purpose, the users and developers we interviewed highlighted the limitations of applying an empirically based model over long time horizons. Future research to improve information on carbon storage should focus on locations and types of vegetation where carbon management is feasible and aligns with other management priorities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 24% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 7 | 24% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 5 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,653
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,983
of 355,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#17
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.