Silvicultural Decisionmaking in 

an Uncertain Climate Future: 

A Workshop-based Exploration 

of Considerations, Strategies, 

and Approaches

United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northern 

Research Station

General Technical

Report NRS-81

Maria K. Janowiak

Christopher W. Swanston

Linda M. Nagel

Christopher R. Webster

Brian J. Palik

Mark J. Twery

John B. Bradford

Linda R. Parker

Andrea T. Hille

Sheela M. Johnson
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073 359 Main Road

 Delaware, OH 43015-8640

 Fax: (740)368-0152

April 2011 Email: nrspubs@fs.fed.us

MARIA K. JANOWIAK is a scientist for climate change adaptation and carbon 

management at the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science and U.S. Forest 

Service, Houghton, MI. CHRISTOPHER W. SWANSTON is a research ecologist at 

the Northern Research Station and director of the Northern Institute of Applied Climate 

Science, Houghton, MI. LINDA M. NAGEL and CHRISTOPHER R. WEBSTER are 

associate professors at Michigan Technological University, School of Forest Resources 

and Environmental Science, Houghton, MI. BRIAN J. PALIK is a research ecologist and 

team leader at the Northern Research Station, Grand Rapids, MN. MARK J. TWERY is a 

supervisory research forester at the Northern Research Station, Burlington, VT. JOHN B. 

BRADFORD is a research ecologist at the Northern Research Station, Grand Rapids, MN. 

LINDA R. PARKER is the forest ecologist at the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, 

Park Falls, WI. ANDREA T. HILLE is the forest silviculturist at the Allegheny National 

Forest, Warren, PA. SHEELA M. JOHNSON is the forest hydrologist at the White Mountain 

National Forest, Campton, NH.

Abstract

Land managers across the country face the immense challenge of developing and 

applying appropriate management strategies as forests respond to climate change. We 

hosted a workshop to explore silvicultural strategies for addressing the uncertainties 

surrounding climate change and forest response in the northeastern and north-central 

United States. Outcomes of this workshop included identifi cation of broad management 

strategies and approaches for creating forests that can adapt to rapidly changing 

conditions. Four themes were prevalent in the discussion of coping with climatic change: 

recognize relationships between site conditions and species vulnerability, maintain and 

increase diversity, increase discussion about assisted migration, and place a greater 

emphasis on monitoring. In this paper, we draw on the workshop to outline a process for 

presenting information and engaging land managers in discussion of forest management 

challenges in an era of climate uncertainty.

Manuscript received for publication 16 November 2010
1

Increasing information about the magnitude, rate, 

and causes of global climate change has increased the 

urgency for managing natural resources in the face of 

tremendous change. Societal discussion of climate change 

has undergone a substantial shift from debating whether 

the scientifi c evidence for climate change is “real” toward 

more constructive dialogue about how to cope with shifts 

in climate and the ensuing eff ects. A similar transition of 

thought is occurring among forest managers, including 

those on national forests, who are seeking guidance on 

how to incorporate new objectives related to climate 

change into their management activities (Innes et al. 

2009; Joyce et al. 2008, 2009). Although the ability 

of forest management to create forests that can both 

adapt to changing conditions and mitigate increases 

in atmospheric carbon dioxide is well recognized (e.g., 

Malmsheimer et al. 2008, Millar et al. 2007), the specifi c 

approaches to implement these activities at stand or 

landscape levels remain unclear.

Th e overarching challenge for coping with climate 

change, from a forest management perspective, is the 

great uncertainty regarding the specifi cs of future climatic 

conditions and how these conditions will infl uence 

management decisions at spatial and temporal scales 

relevant to managers. At the global scale, we have high 

confi dence in certain eff ects of climate change. For 

example, global temperatures, sea levels, and rates of 

ice cap melting have all increased and will continue to 

rise (Solomon et al. 2007). Although the mean global 

temperature is projected to increase 1.8 to 4.0°C by 

the end of the century (Solomon et al. 2007), the 

magnitude of change that diff erent regions of the globe 

will experience is less certain and depends on a number 

of factors. Th e most important driver of climate change 

is future anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions 

(Solomon et al. 2007), but feedbacks from the global 

carbon cycle are also of great concern and may exacerbate 

warming (Cox et al. 2000, Torn and Harte 2006). 

Importantly, spatial scale and the uncertainty of future 

climatic conditions are inversely related, and the ability 

of climate models to make accurate predictions is reduced 

at smaller scales, such as continents or subcontinental 

regions (Schiermeier 2010). Although models continue 

to improve and methods exist to obtain data at fi ner 

spatial resolutions, it currently remains impractical, 

if not irresponsible, to predict future temperature, 

precipitation, and other climatic changes at scales most 

relevant to management, e.g., stand, watershed, and 

forest, without substantial caveats.

Despite the uncertainty of future conditions at fi ner 

spatial scales, there is a growing recognition that 

management decisions at those scales need to consider 

climate change (Lawler 2010). Climate model projections 

can at least provide insight into “trajectories” of 

change. Considering these trajectories along with their 

uncertainty encourages a deeper and more realistic 

discussion of the most appropriate management 

responses across a range of potential changes and 

interactions. For example, when considering climate 

trajectories and forest responses, will a given management 

objective be more likely to place an ecosystem at risk 

somewhere within the range of possible outcomes? 

Or, will the objective maintain or enhance ecosystem 

resilience under many possible outcomes?

Recognizing the need to address the new set of challenges 

introduced by climate change, we developed a process 

to (1) help silviculturists and other forest managers 

incorporate climate change as an additional consideration 

in silvicultural planning, and (2) explore strategies and 

approaches for creating forests that can adapt to rapidly 

changing climatic conditions. A hallmark of this process 

is acknowledging and embracing uncertainty in future 

conditions associated with climate change. Here, we 

present the results of a workshop where this process was 

deployed and refi ned and show how this process could be 

applied to forest management decisionmaking.
2

A WORKSHOP TO INCORPORATE 

CLIMATE CHANGE UNCERTAINTY 

INTO SILVICULTURAL PLANNING

We hosted a workshop to explore silvicultural strategies 

for addressing the uncertainties surrounding climate 

change and forest response. Silviculture was chosen as 

the focus discipline because it integrates forest ecology 

and management at the spatial scales where forest 

management decisions are implemented. Additionally, 

silviculturists are required to apply specifi c actions within 

the spatial and temporal scales where climate predictions 

are most uncertain. Th e 2-day workshop brought 

together more than 30 individuals from across the U.S. 

Most participants were U.S. Forest Service research 

ecologists and foresters, generally members of the 

Northern Research Station’s Silviculture Working Group 

with expertise in silviculture. Other participants included 

silviculturists and ecologists from a number of national 

forests in the eastern U.S., regional Forest Service 

silviculturists and specialists, and university partners. Th e 

workshop was structured to include presentations on 

climate change science and potential responses of forests 

to climate change (Figure 1). Th ese presentations, given 

by experts in their respective fi elds, set the stage for the 

workshop by establishing a common level of knowledge 

on climate change science for all participants regardless of 

their prior level of understanding.

Th e workshop also used a series of exploratory questions 

and scenarios to address forest management issues in the 

context of climate change (Figure 1). Th e process was 

iterative: a question was posed; participants addressed 

the question either individually or within small groups; 

answers were shared with the larger group; and varying 

levels of discussion and synthesis occurred during 

diff erent stages of the workshop. Building upon ideas 

generated at each step, a more complex scenario and 

set of questions were posed to the groups, furthering 

the need to integrate both critical thinking and 

professional skills to solve complex problems at a variety 

of spatial scales. A fi nal discussion and synthesis session 

ensured common understanding among the workshop 

participants about the outcomes of the workshop and 

helped identify strengths and weaknesses of the process 

employed.

WORKSHOP METHODS: 

QUESTIONS TO EXPLORE 

CONSIDERATIONS, STRATEGIES, 

AND APPROACHES

Workshop participants were asked three questions to 

encourage critical examination of potential climate 

change eff ects on silvicultural planning and to help 

focus discussion during each exploratory activity. Th e 

questions refl ect the thought process a forest manager 

or planning team might use when embarking on a new 

project involving silvicultural activities. Th ey begin with 

broad concepts and narrow to a focus applicable to stand 

and landscape scales and incorporate a continuum of 

management responses ranging from broad adaptation 

options to specifi c management tactics (Figure 2).

Question 1: What new or altered considerations 

does climate change bring to the process of making 

silvicultural decisions and devising strategies?

Th is question was posed during a short activity in 

which participants were fi rst asked to create their own 

list of considerations that have changed as a result of 

incorporating climate change as a variable in forest 

management. Th e participants then presented these 

considerations to the full group, and all participants 

helped arrange the list of considerations into broad 

categories (e.g., disturbance, stress). Th e resulting list was 

not meant to be exhaustive, but rather initiated the more 

complex discussion of applying these considerations.

Question 2: What silvicultural strategies may be 

helpful or necessary in sustaining our regional forests 

in the face of climate change?

Th is activity was used to convey the importance of 

acknowledging the uncertainty of the future climate and 

incorporating this uncertainty into silvicultural planning. 

We asked participants to consider a variety of future 

climate scenarios selected to highlight the uncertainty 

in future climatic conditions. Th e climate scenarios 

projected diff erent magnitudes of climate change by the 

end of the century (2070-2099) by using combinations 

of two diff erent emissions scenarios developed by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and 

three diff erent general circulation models (Table 1). 

Participants were broken into small groups and each 
3

Climate 

Change 

Science

Forest 

Response Considerations Regional Strategies

LandscapeLevel 

Approaches

Scientific Presentations Exploratory Activities

Figure 1.—Components of the silviculture workshop on climate change. The agenda included both scientifi c 

presentations about forests in the context of climate change and exploratory activities to determine climate 

change-related considerations and develop forest management strategies and approaches.

Options



Broadest level of 

adaptation:

resistance, 

resilience, & 

response (after 

Millar et al. 2007)

Strategies



Responses that take 

into account 

regionally-specific 

ecological & 

managerial 

conditions

Approaches



Actions relevant to 

an individual 

ecosystem or forest 

type

Tactics

 Prescriptions 

designed for 

individual site 

conditions and 

management 

objectives

General Specific

Figure 2.—Adaptation responses are relevant along a continuum of spatial scale and specifi city. Adaptation 

options are the most broadly applicable, whereas tactics are the most specifi c to individual locations and 

conditions. Strategies and approaches (center) were the focus of workshop activities.

Table 1.—Materials provided for the exploratory activities of the workshop to develop regional strategies and landscapelevel approaches for forest management in the face of climate change.

Exploratory 

Activity Materials Provided

General Circulation Models 

(Emissions Scenarios) Sources

Regional 

Strategies

Maps showing projected changes to 

summer and winter temperature and 

precipitation at the end of the century 

(2070-2099) for two climate scenarios 

(See Figure 3 for an example)

CSIRO (B1) R.P. Neilson, unpublished data

HADCM (A2, B1)

MIROC (A2)

Landscape-level 

Approaches

Description of ecological subregion -- McNab and Avers 1994

Map showing ecological subregion -- Created for workshop using data from 

USFS and USGS 2002 and USFS 

2007

Maps showing current annual 

temperature and precipitation

-- Prasad et al. 2007-ongoing

Maps showing projected changes to 

annual temperature and precipitation at 

the end of the century (2070-2099)

PCM (B1) Prasad et al. 2007-ongoing

Ensemble of PCM, HADCM3, & GFDL 

(B1, A1fi )

HADCM3 (A1fi )

Potential changes in habitat suitability for 

each ecological subregion

PCM (B1) L.R. Iverson, unpublished data

Ensemble of PCM, HADCM3, & GFDL 

(B1, A1fi )

HADCM3 (A1fi )
4

group was given a set of maps showing projected changes 

in summer and winter temperature and precipitation 

for two of the models (Figure 3). Groups were then 

instructed to identify silvicultural strategies that would 

be applicable across the northeastern and north-central 

U.S. for the range of uncertainty represented by the 

diff erences between the two scenarios. Each group 

developed four or fi ve strategies and presented these to 

Figure 3.—Example showing two climate scenarios used in the silviculture workshop 

to develop regional silvicultural strategies for forest management in the context 

of climate change and uncertainty. These map sets present projected change in 

temperature and precipitation for the northeastern and north-central U.S. using two 

climate models and emissions scenarios, and they illustrate a range of uncertainty 

present among current climate predictions. Top: Projections using the CSIRO general 

circulation model and low (B1) emissions scenario represent a lesser degree of 

change in temperature and precipitation at the end of the century. Bottom: Projections 

using the MIROC general circulation model and high (A2) emissions scenario 

represent a greater degree of change in temperature and precipitation at the end of 

the century. Source: R.P. Neilson, unpublished data.

Change in Mean Seasonal Temperature

2070-2099 vs. 1961-1990

Summer (JJA)

CSIRO Climate Model Low (B1) Emissions Scenario

Percent Change in Precipitation

2070-2099 vs. 1961-1990

Winter (DJF) Winter (DJF)

Summer (JJA)

Temperature Change (°C [°F])

0-1 [0.0-1.8]

1-2 [1.8-3.6]

2-3 [3.6-5.4]

3-4 [5.4-7.2]

4-5 [7.2-9.0]

5-6 [9.0-10.8]

6-7 [10.8-12.6]

>7 [>12.6]

Precipitation Change (%)

> -50

-40 - -50

-30 - 40

-20 - -30

-10 - -20

0 - -10

0 - 10

10-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

>100

Change in Mean Seasonal Temperature

2070-2099 vs. 1961-1990

Summer (JJA)

MIROC Climate Model High (A2) Emissions Scenario

Percent Change in Precipitation

2070-2099 vs. 1961-1990

Winter (DJF) Winter (DJF)

Summer (JJA)

Temperature Change (°C [°F])

0-1 [0.0-1.8]

1-2 [1.8-3.6]

2-3 [3.6-5.4]

3-4 [5.4-7.2]

4-5 [7.2-9.0]

5-6 [9.0-10.8]

6-7 [10.8-12.6]

>7 [>12.6]

Precipitation Change (%)

> -50

-40 - -50

-30 - -40

-20 - -30

-10 - -20

0 - -10

0 - 10

10-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

>100
5

the full group, allowing ample opportunity for questions 

and discussion.

Question 3: Given the uncertainty of the future 

climate, what silvicultural approaches would you 

use to manage the forests within a specifi c ecological 

region?

Th is more complex activity sought to develop stand- and 

landscape-level management approaches by looking at 

specifi c forest types and conditions. Participants were 

divided into four groups and assigned an ecological 

subregion (McNab and Avers 1994; Figure 4). Each 

group contained a number of individuals with specialized 

expertise in silviculture and forest management for 

that ecological subregion, as well as a few generalists 

that were adept in forest management but did not 

have expertise in that specifi c location. Participants 

were given information on the ecological subregion 

and projected changes in temperature, precipitation, 

and potential changes in suitable tree species habitat at 

the end of the century for a number of climate models 

and emissions scenarios (Table 1). Information for tree 

species’ habitat was summarized and tabulated for each 

ecological subregion using a subset of information from 

the Climate Change Tree Atlas, an online database that 

characterizes key features for the current distribution 

of 134 eastern tree species and models future potential 

habitat of each species under several climate models and 

emissions scenarios (Iverson et al. 2008, Prasad et al. 

2007-ongoing, L.R. Iverson, unpublished data). With 

this information, participants were asked to select a few 

forest types common to their area of interest. For each 

forest type, they then described current conditions and 

management objectives that would be typical of the forest 

type in that location, discussed potential changes that 

could occur as a result of climate change, and developed 

silvicultural approaches for creating forests that would be 

able to adapt to the potential changes (Figure 5). Each 

group selected one example to discuss with the entire 

group.

WORKSHOP RESULTS: 

RECURRING THEMES ON FOREST 

MANAGEMENT IN THE CONTEXT 

OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Several concepts were repeatedly expressed during 

each of the workshop activities (i.e., considerations, 

regional strategies, landscape-level approaches) by both 

individuals and groups despite the spatial and conceptual 

diff erences inherent in the activities. During the fi rst step 

of the workshop process described above, participants 

Figure 4.—Four ecological subregions in the northeast and north-central U.S. that were used during the silviculture 

workshop to develop landscape-level management approaches for forest management in the context of climate change. 

These ecological subregions are also used in Figure 5. (Data sources: USFS and USGS 2002, USFS 2007)

Selected Ecological Subregions

Ozark Highlands

Southern Superior Uplands

Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau

White Mountains

Forest Cover

White-red-jack pine

Spruce-fir

Longleaf-slash pine

Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Oak-pine

Oak-hickory

Oak-gum-cypress

Elm-ash-cottonwood

Maple-beech-birch

Aspen-birch

Nonforest
6

&XUUHQW)RUHVW

&XUUHQWFRQGLWLRQVDVDUHVXOWRI

VLWHVSHFLHVFRPSRVLWLRQDQG

PDQDJHPHQWKLVWRU\DQG

REMHFWLYHV

$SSURDFKHV

6LOYLFXOWXUDODSSURDFKHVWR

PDQDJHPHQWWKDWFDQEHXVHG

WRGHYHORSPRUHVLWHVSHFLILF

VLOYLFXOWXUDOSUHVFULSWLRQV

,QIRUPDWLRQ

6FLHQWLILFSUHGLFWLRQVRI

SRWHQWLDOIXWXUHFRQGLWLRQVWKDW

LQFRUSRUDWHHOHPHQWVRI

XQFHUWDLQW\

———————————

$GGLWLRQDOIHDWXUHVWKDWPD\EH

SDUWLFXODUO\LPSRUWDQWLQWKH

FRQWH[WRIFOLPDWHFKDQJH

(FRORJLFDO

6XEUHJLRQ

'HWHUPLQHVFXUUHQWVLWH

FRQGLWLRQVDQGORFDWLRQUHODWLYH

WRHFRWRQH

Oak-Hickory

 0RGHUDWHO\[HULFVLWHV

  WR\HDUROGHYHQDJHGVWDQGV

 &KDOOHQJHVWRRDNUHJHQHUDWLRQ

 8QGHUVWRU\GRPLQDWHGE\UHGPDSOH

 /LWWOHHVWDEOLVKHGDQGORZHUVXUYLYDORI

DGYDQFHGRDNUHJHQHUDWLRQ

 )LUHDQGWKLQQLQJVKRZQWRKHOSLQ

UHJHQHUDWLRQ

 5HLQWURGXFHILUHRUXVHKHUEDFHRXV

FRQWUROPHWKRGVZKHQDSSURSULDWH

 8QGHUSODQWIXWXUHDGDSWHGVSHFLHV

 7U\XQHYHQDJHGPDQDJHPHQWWRDGG

ODQGVFDSHKHWHURJHQHLW\DQGOLIHERDW

UHVLGXDOVSHFLHV

 &RQWLQXHPDQDJLQJLQYDVLYHV

 &RQVLGHUXQGHUVWRU\WUHDWPHQWVWR

FUHDWHQLFKHVIRUUHVLOLHQWVSHFLHV

UHJHQHUDWLRQHYHQZKHUHRYHUVWRU\

LVQ¶WPDQDJHGHJSUHVFULEHGILUH

 ,GHQWLI\DQGPDQDJHUHIXJLDIRU

VSHFLHVWKDWPD\RWKHUZLVHEHORVW

3UHGLFWHGFKDQJHVLQSRWHQWLDOIXWXUH

VXLWDEOHKDELWDWIRUVSHFLHVXQGHU

PXOWLSOHFOLPDWHPRGHOVDQGHPLVVLRQV

VFHQDULRV


 'HFOLQHVEODFNFKHUU\UHGPDSOH

VWULSHGPDSOHVXJDUPDSOHZKLWHDVK

 ,QFUHDVHVEODFNRDNVKRUWOHDISLQH

 /LWWOHFKDQJHUHGRDNZKLWH

RDN

———————————

6RPHRIWKHVHVLWHVDWWKHVRXWKHUQ

H[WHQWRIWKHHFRORJLFDOVXEUHJLRQZLOO

WUDQVLWLRQPRUHUHDGLO\WRRDNSLQH

6RXWKHUQ8QJODFLDWHG

$OOHJKHQ\3ODWHDX

Aspen

 0LG WRORZSURGXFWLYLW\VLWHV

 )RUPHUO\SLQHDQGKHPORFN

 3ULPDULO\YHJHWDWLYHUHSURGXFWLRQ

 (YHQDJHG

 0DQDJHGIRUSXUHVWDQGV

 *UHDWHUGLVWULEXWLRQQRZWKDQ

KLVWRULFDOO\

 'LYHUVLI\VSHFLHVPL[RQORZHUTXDOLW\

VLWHV

 )DYRUFXUUHQWFRPSRQHQWVWKDWGRQRW

GHFUHDVHXQGHUSURMHFWLRQVEXWGRQ¶W

GLVFULPLQDWHDJDLQVWVSHFLHVSURMHFWHG

WRGHFUHDVH

 0DLQWDLQFRPSRQHQWVDFURVVDOOVLWHV

HVSHFLDOO\PHVLFVLWHV

 7U\QHZWHFKQLTXHVVXFKDVROGHU

VWHPUHWHQWLRQDQGJURXSVHOHFWLRQ

RSHQLQJV

 0DLQWDLQKHDOWKDQGGLYHUVLW\GXULQJ

WUDQVLWLRQ

3UHGLFWHGFKDQJHVLQSRWHQWLDOIXWXUH

VXLWDEOHKDELWDWIRUVSHFLHVXQGHU

PXOWLSOHFOLPDWHPRGHOVDQGHPLVVLRQV

VFHQDULRV


 'HFOLQHVDVSHQEDOVDPILUSDSHU

ELUFKVXJDUPDSOH

 ,QFUHDVHVUHGRDNZKLWHRDNEODFN

FKHUU\

 /LWWOHFKDQJHUHGPDSOH

———————————

)RUHVW SHVWVVXFKDVWHQWFDWHUSLOODU

6RXWKHUQ6XSHULRU

8SODQGV

Figure 5.—Illustration of the general process that the silviculture workshop participants used to answer the question 

“Given the uncertainty of the future climate, what silvicultural approaches would you use to manage the forest that you 

have selected?” (left column), and two examples of the process using participant responses from the workshop (center 

and right columns). This process can be applied to developing management responses to climate change for a variety of 

sites and situations. (*Data used during this step at the workshop were from L.R. Iverson, unpublished data.)
7

brainstormed on how forest management may change in 

the face of climate change and grouped their responses 

into broad categories (Table 2). Th e resulting list of 

considerations included both ecological subjects (e.g., 

stand dynamics, phenology) and management-related 

issues (e.g., economics, desired future condition). 

Although the list did not include all possible answers, 

it did allow the participants to begin envisioning the 

potential changes that might occur in the future and to 

relate these changes to realistic management concerns. 

In the later steps, participants designed appropriate 

silvicultural strategies for the regional scale, followed by 

approaches for stand and landscape scales.

Th e varied backgrounds and levels of expertise of 

workshop participants elicited a range of responses 

during the development of silvicultural strategies and 

approaches. Th e silviculturists used their expertise of 

particular forest systems to make direct connections 

between current site conditions and projections of 

climate change. Th is was most evident where the 

workshop participants developed approaches for 

management at the stand- and landscape-levels (Figure 

5). As a result, many of the responses (e.g., preferential 

treatment of species, use of thinning or prescribed fi re 

treatments, plantings, invasive species control) were 

deliberately specifi c to a given ecological region, forest 

type, or set of management objectives.

At the same time, there were also many similarities 

among the proposed strategies and approaches. Four 

recurring themes emerged during the workshop, 

based on comments and ideas that were repeatedly 

expressed during all workshop activities. Th ese themes 

spanned spatial scales (i.e., region to stand) and levels of 

management (i.e., strategic to prescriptive). We list these 

themes below and use them to organize key outcomes 

from the workshop on forests and climate change.

Recognize relationships between site conditions and 

species vulnerability. During the workshop, participants 

discussed the impact of climate change on specifi c 

tree species and potential habitats. Th e climatic, 

physiographic, biogeochemical, disturbance, and biotic 

factors that determine suitable habitat for a species are 

not static. Consideration of the relationships between 

these factors can help provide forest managers with 

information about the vulnerability of species to climate 

change. Extant tree and plant species have persisted 

through periods of substantial environmental change. 

Pollen records and other data for the past 20,000 to 

50,000 years demonstrate that forest communities 

have not responded to climatic change as intact 

groups, but rather individual tree species have migrated 

independently to form new assemblages (Davis 1983, 

Webb and Bartlein 1992). However, it is important to 

note that community-level changes, such as decreases in 

overall resilience, may also occur (Hansen et al. 2001) 

and create feedbacks to species vulnerability.

Changes in tree species distribution may be most evident 

at the edge of a species range or biome where species 

would generally be expected to move to higher latitudes 

or elevations as temperatures increase (Hughes 2000, 

Parmesan and Yohe 2003, Walther et al. 2002). In the 

eastern U.S., there is already evidence of northward tree 

migration (Woodall et al. 2009) with projections that 

this trend will continue (Iverson et al. 2008). However, 

trees may also be aff ected well within their geographic 

range, albeit in specifi c landscape positions, as site 

conditions become less suitable due to heat, drought, or 

other stressors. When widespread, this may result in the 

decline of a species across a portion of its range, rather 

than the overall extirpation of the species.

Information on current and projected habitat suitability 

from the Climate Change Tree Atlas (Prasad et al. 

2007-ongoing) and other modeling eff orts can be 

used to examine trends over broad landscapes and 

determine where particular species may be most at risk. 

Silviculturists and forest managers in the northeast and 

north-central U.S. frequently work in forests composed 

of many tree species that have unique characteristics, 

including site and management requirements. Identifying 

potential changes in habitat suitability for tree species in 

general and even individual trees at specifi c sites in the 

future is an approach that could improve management 

at these locations. Tools such as the Tree Atlas are not 

designed to tell the manager what will happen, but they 

can indicate the relative potential for increased stress. 

By coupling these tools with ground-level assessments of 

site and stand conditions, managers can better judge the 
8

Table 2.—Grouped responses of workshop participants to the question “What new or altered considerations does 

climate change bring to the process of making silvicultural decisions and devising strategies?” The short-phrase 

responses of the participants have been reworded into questions to provide more clarity and detail.

Disturbance

Will natural disturbance regimes be altered?

Will susceptibility to some disturbances increase? 

How will fi re and/or fi re exclusion history affect disturbance susceptibility and frequency?

Migrating climates

Will forests be more vulnerable to increased weather variability? 

What are the effects of predicted changes in temperature range and extremes? Water availability and timing?

Is the future trajectory of forest conditions the same or different under climate change?

How long is the lag between the present climate and the future climate?

Diversity

Is more variation needed to increase resiliency to change or disturbance?

Will community composition change in the future, either naturally or through human action?

How can you protect rare components of the ecosystem? 

Hoes does the stand contribute to landscape diversity and resilience?

Habitat manipulation

Is the habitat suitability of preferred species changing/likely to change?

Is it possible to create a heterogeneity of habitats for species?

Stress

What stress factors are likely to become more prevalent (e.g., pests, diseases, drought, etc.)?

Competition

How will competitive relationships among species change?

Will there be increased competition from new species (e.g. invasives, off-site species, etc.)?

Can silvicultural practices be used to manage competition throughout the rotation?

Economics 

Are there increased costs for needed silvicultural practices?

Are there new product markets that can be used for management? 

Distribution 

What is the forest’s or stand’s location relative to an ecotone?

What is the species’ location relative to its current range boundaries? 

Are there currently or could there be refugia at a specifi c location? 

Management objectives and desired future condition (DFC)

Do the management goals, objectives, or desired future condition need to change?

Is the site prescription compatible with climate change predictions?

How much fl exibility is there to change objectives?

Regeneration

Are there or could there be limits on germination and seedling survival?

Should artifi cial regeneration be considered?

Assisted migration

Is there a new or different species that is currently absent that could better meet DFC goals?

How do we bridge the gap between near-term and long-term adaptation given inherent species resiliencies and lag times?

Age structure

What is the relationship between tree species longevity and the rate of climate change?

Should a different rotation length be considered? 

Is there a benefi t to even-aged or uneven-aged management?
9

likelihood of future vulnerability. Management actions 

can then be implemented to reduce the risk of potential 

stressors and disturbance eff ects on the stand. Knowledge 

of species traits and future climate can also be combined 

to facilitate the transition of forest communities into new 

assemblages that are better suited to future climate. For 

example, foresters could make an eff ort to favor droughtresistant or heat-tolerant species that are currently 

present as minor components in stands to increase their 

occurrence in areas likely to see decreased precipitation 

and increased temperature with time.

Maintain and increase diversity. Maintaining and 

increasing diversity emerged as a central theme in 

the workshop as participants discussed management 

strategies and approaches for coping with climate change. 

Th e cascading pressures and disturbances driven by 

climate change may result in a loss of biodiversity in 

many forest ecosystems (Parry et al. 2007). Given these 

challenges, the participants of the silviculture workshop 

emphasized the importance of maintaining diversity 

throughout nearly all workshop questions and activities. 

Th is concept became a touchstone that was not limited 

to the number of species in a stand, but also included 

species associations, genotypes, stand structures, and ages.

Scale was also identifi ed as a critical element of diversity, 

looking beyond the value of diversity in a single stand 

to examine diversity across a greater landscape (Franklin 

1993). Increased diversity at all scales may increase the 

resistance of a forest against change (Noss 2001), and 

forests can be diversifi ed to buff er systems and develop 

redundancy to spread the risks of environmental change, 

rather than concentrate them (Millar et al. 2007). 

Diversity at multiple scales may also enhance ecological 

resilience, strengthening the ability of forests to continue 

providing ecosystem services, such as water fi ltration 

and carbon sequestration, while systems are undergoing 

environmental change (Hooper et al 2005). Fostering 

this diversity would maintain components of forests for 

as long as possible, buying valuable time until more is 

known about how forests respond to climate change and 

until the adaptive management strategies that prove to be 

most eff ective can be implemented.

Increase discussion about assisted migration. Workshop 

participants elicited a range of thoughts on the use 

of assisted migration as a strategy for adaptation, 

emphasizing the need for more discussion on this topic. 

Overall, assisted migration remains a poorly refi ned and 

sometimes contentious issue (Mueller and Hellmann 

2007). However, it must be considered as a management 

option given the potential for increased extinctions as a 

result of climate change (McLachlan et al. 2007). Natural 

migration of tree species to new habitats may not be 

able to keep pace with climate change because the rate 

of change will likely occur faster than it has in the past 

and landscapes are more fragmented now than when 

migrations occurred during previous climate shifts (Davis 

and Shaw 2001, Iverson et al. 2004).

Th e planned, active movement of plant species may be 

a logical solution to this problem, but would require 

major logistical eff ort, fi nancial commitment, and 

social concurrence based upon incomplete information. 

Current uncertainty in climate and tree species range 

projections makes it diffi cult to predict the future habitat 

of species and decide where new assemblages should be 

located (McLachlan et al. 2007). Additionally, there are 

many challenges in trying to determine what eff ects these 

new species will have on their new host ecosystems; the 

great eff orts put into detecting and eradicating invasive 

species in many forests make the idea of intentional 

introductions unappealing to many (McLachlan et al. 

2007).

Even as this discussion continues within the management 

community, it needs to be broadened to include 

forestry stakeholders and the general public. People are 

accustomed to the current species mix present in any 

given location, whether from a management perspective 

(species-site relationships) or in a broader aesthetic sense. 

If undertaken, plans to incorporate assisted migration 

into management activities will need to be coupled with 

extensive eff orts to educate the public on the role of these 

new species. Th e challenge will be to communicate the 

need to actively introduce new species into some forests, 

even as we exclude certain invasive species from the same 

ecosystems.
10

Lastly, in addition to the ecological, management, and 

aesthetic components of the discussion, a crucial and 

potentially insurmountable component will involve the 

logistics of assisted migration. An enormous investment 

in infrastructure would be required for this endeavor. 

In collaboration with climate scientists and ecologists, 

seed orchards, nurseries and other facilities will need 

to establish provenance tests, planting trials, and other 

research to determine which tree species and genotypes 

can be successfully moved into new locations. Th is 

infrastructure will also be required to provide the 

planting stock for species that are fi nally chosen for 

active migration and incorporated into new management 

plans.

Place a greater emphasis on monitoring. Th e need for 

additional forest monitoring to detect the eff ects of 

climate change on forests was stressed by many of 

the workshop participants. Although there are many 

forest monitoring programs, few have been designed 

specifi cally for monitoring climate change response. 

Existing programs typically occur at spatial or temporal 

scales that do not provide the resolution for detecting 

subtle changes in ecosystem function. Further, they may 

not be measuring the specifi c variables that are likely 

to be most responsive to climate change and extreme 

events. Finally, these established programs are generally 

designed to detect responses to specifi c management 

actions implemented to meet project objectives related to 

timber, habitat, recreation, water yield and quality, and 

ecosystem restoration.

Long-term silvicultural studies on experimental forests 

around the country may provide a particularly valuable 

and critical resource for understanding the impacts of 

forest management on natural resources in the context 

of climate change. Many of these studies include control 

treatments that allow comparison to responses in 

managed stands and measurements of at least some key 

response variables. A potential drawback of these studies 

is that the frequency of measurement (often at 5- to 10-

year intervals) is typically too coarse to relate to annual 

variation in climate fl uctuation or to provide insight into 

the impact of extreme events on ecosystems.

Focused climate change monitoring is essential for 

understanding the actual eff ects of climate change 

on forests and associated disturbances and impacts 

(Dale et al. 2001, Spittlehouse 2005). Key climate 

change response indicators should include measures 

of demographics (population establishment, growth, 

mortality), fecundity (cone, fruit, seed production), 

and phenology (fl owering, vegetative development) that 

integrate information about environmental conditions 

driven by climate. Understanding and anticipating forest 

stress also requires information on the eff ects of extreme 

weather events, increased pest incidence, and other 

factors related to forest health and productivity (Dale 

et al. 2001). Long-term datasets tracking these types of 

variables are rare, yielding relatively little information on 

human-induced climate change impacts.

Th e appropriate monitoring system for detecting climate 

change response will need to target potentially vulnerable 

ecosystems, such as those near climatic and edaphic 

ecotones. Existing multifactor ecological classifi cation 

systems, in use on most national forests, may provide a 

framework for selecting at-risk ecosystems and deploying 

a monitoring network. It will be especially helpful 

to integrate a combination of approaches into this 

monitoring system, including long-term silvicultural 

experiments, phenological data, and ecosystem carbon 

dioxide fl uxes.

DISCUSSION

Th e climate change and silviculture workshop 

provided several insights on how to structure a process 

for developing forest management strategies while 

embracing the uncertainty of climate change (Figure 

5). Th e uncertainty of climate change and future 

forest conditions at fi ne spatial scales can impede 

forest management planning and decisionmaking. We 

addressed this by describing the sources of uncertainty, 

distinguishing between uncertainty and inaction, and 

then exploring the concept of managing with climate 

uncertainty. Th e participants brainstormed using the 

breadth of their experience and expertise as silviculturists 

and managers; because there is no single answer or 

solution, they were able to suggest ideas that might 
11

be considered outside the box and too diffi cult or 

controversial to implement. Th roughout the workshop, 

we made the point that “training” in the workshop was 

in both directions: we provided information and expertise 

on climate change, while we relied on the participants to 

provide viable management responses.

An additional strength of our approach outlined 

above is that it allowed us to take a large-scale global 

issue (climate change) and focus it down to spatial 

scales (forest and stand levels) most relevant to forest 

managers (Figure 1). Essentially, we were able to work 

with an issue that is often perceived as too large to be 

eff ectively managed, and break it down into manageable 

components by building on the participants’ inherent 

localized knowledge and experience. Th e activity to 

develop silvicultural approaches for specifi c ecological 

subregions characterizes this method. It emphasized the 

fi ner spatial scales most frequently used for management, 

and it structured a process that could be applied to 

developing management responses to climate change in a 

variety of sites and situations (Figure 5). Th e progression 

of increasing complexity presented in this workshop 

could be used in additional workshops or meetings to 

elicit ideas and responses from a larger group of both 

managers and experts. Th ese would be tailored to help 

land managers think about the management responses 

that are most applicable for their location and specifi c 

resource issues. For example, an abbreviated version 

of this process has been used in national silvicultural 

training for the U.S. Forest Service (Nagel et al. 2010).

SUMMARY

Climate change presents unprecedented challenges to 

forest managers. Silviculture and forest management 

are inherently long-view disciplines; managers need to 

consider the eff ects of their current actions on forest 

ecosystems many decades into the future. Including 

climate change in this decisionmaking process adds 

tremendously to an already complex task. Now forest 

managers must make their decisions in a “climate of 

uncertainty” regarding which species may be competitive 

and healthy in future decades and under unknown future 

climatic conditions, long after management actions are 

implemented. While many current forest management 

strategies are designed to increase ecosystem resilience 

and ensure long-term sustainability, climate change 

will require managers to develop new tactics and 

to implement techniques in diff erent and possibly 

unexpected ways.

We have outlined a workshop-based process to explore 

considerations, strategies, and approaches meant to 

specifi cally help managers address the uncertainty of 

future climates and ecosystem responses. Th is process 

acknowledges that climate and ecosystems will change, 

but that the degree and magnitude of changes are 

poorly predicted at present. Despite this uncertainty, 

managers can devise broad strategies that anticipate a 

changing climate. Indeed, it is more important than 

ever for managers to consider the interdependence of 

ecosystem composition, function, and diversity at stand 

and landscape scales. Th is will lead to better prediction 

of ecosystem resistance to change and resiliency in 

recovering important ecosystem processes and functions 

in the face of these changes.

Existing frameworks for sustainable forest management 

in use by many agencies and organizations already 

acknowledge ecosystem interdependencies, and 

these also need to be used to provide information 

for emerging climate change strategies. Sustainable 

forest management concepts (e.g., promote diversity, 

encourage landscape connectivity, mitigate the eff ects 

of extreme disturbances) still fundamentally apply 

to managing forests in the context of climate change 

but will need to be approached somewhat diff erently. 

Forest managers do not have the luxury of waiting for 

explicit, science-based direction for managing forests in 

every landscape, on every site, and for all management 

objectives. Existing management techniques are 

applicable, and existing climate projections provide 

insight into future trajectories. It is the role of managers 

to combine these resources with their skills and 

experience to prepare forests for an uncertain climate 

future.
12

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We greatly appreciate the engagement and eff orts of all 

of the workshop participants, as well as the comments 

provided by three excellent reviewers. We also thank Dr. 

Ron Neilson and Dr. Louis Iverson of the U.S. Forest 

Service for providing valuable insights and information 

during the development of this workshop. Funding 

was provided by the U.S. Forest Service Global Change 

Program.

LITERATURE CITED

Cox, P.M.; Betts, R.A.; Jones, C.D.; Spall, S.A.; 

Totterdell, I.J. 2000. Acceleration of global warming 

due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate 

model. Nature. 408(6809): 184-187.

Dale, V.H.; Joyce, L.A.; McNulty, S.; Neilson, R.P.; 

Ayres, M.P.; Flannigan, M.D.; Hanson, P.J.; Irland, 

L.C.; Lugo, A.E.; Peterson, C.J.; Simberloff , D.; 

Swanson, F.J.; Stocks, B.J.; Wotton, B.M. 2001. 

Climate change and forest disturbances. Bioscience. 

51(9): 723-734.

Davis, M.B. 1983. Quaternary history of deciduous 

forests of eastern North America and Europe.

Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 70(3): 550-

563.

Davis, M.B.; Shaw, R.G. 2001. Range shifts and 

adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change.

Science. 292(5517): 673-679.

Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, 

ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological Applications. 

3(2): 202-205.

Hansen, A.J.; Neilson, R.R.; Dale, V.H.; Flather, 

C.H.; Iverson, L.R.; Currie, D.J.; Shafer, S.; Cook, 

R.; Bartlein, P.J. 2001. Global change in forests: 

responses of species, communities, and biomes.

Bioscience. 51(9): 765-779.

Hooper, D.U.; Chapin, F.S.; Ewel, J.J.; Hector, A.; 

Inchausti, P.; Lavorel, S.; Lawton, J.H.; Lodge, D.M.; 

Loreau, M.; Naeem, S.; Schmid, B.; Setala, H.; 

Symstad, A.J.; Vandermeer, J.; Wardle, D.A. 2005. 

Eff ects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: 

a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological 

Monographs. 75(1): 3-35.

Hughes, L. 2000. Biological consequences of global 

warming: Is the signal already apparent? Trends in 

Ecology & Evolution. 15(2): 56-61.

Innes, J.L.; Joyce, L.A.; Kellomaki, S.; Louman, 

B.; Ogden, A.; Parrotta, J.; Th ompson, I. 2009. 

Management for adaptation. In: Seppala, R.; Buck, 

A.; Katila, P., eds. Adaptation of forests and people to 

climate change. Vienna, Austria: International Union 

of Forest Research Organizations: 135-169.

Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M.; Matthews, S.N.; Peters, M. 

2008. Estimating potential habitat for 134 eastern 

US tree species under six climate scenarios. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 254(3): 390-406.

Iverson, L.R.; Schwartz, M.W.; Prasad, A.M. 2004. How 

fast and far might tree species migrate in the eastern 

United States due to climate change? Global Ecology 

and Biogeography. 13(3): 209-219.

Joyce, L.; Blate, G.; McNulty, S.; Millar, C.; Moser, 

S.; Neilson, R.; Peterson, D. 2009. Managing for 

multiple resources under climate change: national 

forests. Environmental Management. 44(6): 1022-

1032.

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S.; McNulty, S.G.; 

Millar, C.I.; Moser, S.C.; Neilson, R.P.; O’Halloran, 

K.A.; Peterson, D.L. 2008. National Forests. In: 

Julius, S.H.; West, J.M., eds. Preliminary review of 

adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems 

and resources. A report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on 

Global Change Research. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency: 19-84.

Lawler, J.J.; Tear, T.H.; Pyke, C.; Shaw, M.R.; Gonzalez, 

P.; Kareiva, P.; Hansen, L.; Hannah, L.; Klausmeyer, 

K.; Aldous, A.; Bienz, C.; Pearsall, S. 2010. Resource 
13

management in a changing and uncertain climate.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 8(1): 35-

43.

Malmsheimer, R.W.; Heff ernan, P.; Brink, S.; Crandall, 

D.; Deneke, F.; Galik, C.; Gee, E.; Helms, J.A.; 

McClure, N.; Mortimer, M.; Ruddell, S.; Smith, M.; 

Stewart, J. 2008. Forest management solutions for 

mitigating climate change in the United States.

Journal of Forestry. 106(3): 115-117.

McLachlan, J.S.; Hellmann, J.J.; Schwartz, M.W. 2007. 

A framework for debate of assisted migration in an 

era of climate change. Conservation Biology. 21(2): 

297-302.

McNab, W.H.; Avers, P.E. 2011. Ecological subregions 

of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/index.

html (Accessed February 11, 2011).

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. 

Climate change and forests of the future: managing 

in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 

17(8): 2145-2151.

Mueller, J.M.; Hellmann, J.J. 2008. An assessment of 

invasion risk from assisted migration. Conservation 

Biology. 22(3): 562-567.

Nagel, L.M.; Swanston, C.W.; Janowiak, M.K. 2010. 

Integrating climate change considerations into 

forest management tools and training. Integrated 

management of carbon sequestration and biomass 

utilization opportunities in a changing climate: 

Proceedings of the 2009 National Silviculture 

Workshop; 2009 June 15-18; Boise, ID. Proc. 

RMRS-P-61. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 27-35.

Noss, R.F. 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest management 

in a time of rapid climate change. Conservation 

Biology. 15(3): 578-590.

Parmesan, C.; Yohe, G. 2003. A globally coherent 

fi ngerprint of climate change impacts across natural 

systems. Nature. 421: 37-42.

Parry, M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, J.P.; et al. 2007. 

Technical summary. In: Parry, M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; 

Palutikof, J.P.; van der Linden, P.J.; Hanson, C.E., 

eds. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and 

vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to 

the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press: 23-78.

Prasad, A.M.; Iverson, L.R.; Matthews, S.N.; 

Peters, M. 2010. A climate change atlas for 134 

forest tree species of the Eastern United States 

[database]. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. Available at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/

tree (Accessed February 11, 2011).

Schiermeier, Q. 2010. Th e real holes in climate science.

Nature. 463(7279): 284-287.

Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; et al. 2007. 

Technical summary. In: Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; 

Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, 

K.B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H.L., eds. Climate change 

2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge 

University Press: 19-91.

Spittlehouse, D.L. 2005. Integrating climate change 

adaptation into forest management. Forestry 

Chronicle. 81(5): 691-695.

Torn, M.S.; Harte, J. 2006. Missing feedbacks, 

asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation 

of future warming. Geophysical Research Letters. 

33(10): 5.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2011. Ecological 

subregions: provinces, sections, and subsections 
14

of the conterminous United States. Geospatial data 

available at: http://svinetfc4.fs.fed.us/research/section/

index.html (Accessed February 11, 2011).

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS). 2011. Forest cover types. National 

Atlas of the United States, Reston, VA. Geospatial 

data available at: http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.

html?openChapters=chpbio#chpbio (Accessed 

February 11, 2011).

Walther, G.R.; Post, E.; Convey, P.; Menzel, A.; 

Parmesan, C.; Beebee, T.J.C.; Fromentin, J.M.; 

Hoegh-Guldberg, O.; Bairlein, F. 2002. Ecological 

responses to recent climate change. Nature. 

416(6879): 389-395.

Webb, T.; Bartlein, P.J. 1992. Global changes during 

the last 3 million years: climatic controls and biotic 

responses. Annual Review of Ecology snd Systematics. 

23: 141-173.

Woodall, C.W.; Oswalt, C.M.; Westfall, J.A.; Perry, 

C.H.; Nelson, M.D.; Finley, A.O. 2009. An indicator 

of tree migration in forests of the eastern United 

States. Forest Ecology and Management. 257(5): 

1434-1444.
Printed on Recycled Paper

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Offi ce 

of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 

(voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Janowiak, Maria K.; Swanston, Christopher W.; Nagel, Linda M.; Webster, Christopher 

R.; Palik, Brian J.; Twery, Mark J.; Bradford, John B.; Parker, Linda R.; Hille, Andrea 

T.; Johnson, Sheela M. 2011. Silvicultural decisionmaking in an uncertain climate 

future: a workshop-based exploration of considerations, strategies, and 

approaches. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-81. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 14 p.

Land managers across the country face the immense challenge of developing and 

applying appropriate management strategies as forests respond to climate change. We 

hosted a workshop to explore silvicultural strategies for addressing the uncertainties 

surrounding climate change and forest response in the northeastern and north-central 

United States. Outcomes of this workshop included identifi cation of broad management 

strategies and approaches for creating forests that can adapt to rapidly changing 

conditions. Four themes were prevalent in the discussion of coping with climatic change: 

recognize relationships between site conditions and species vulnerability, maintain and 

increase diversity, increase discussion about assisted migration, and place a greater 

emphasis on monitoring. In this paper, we draw on the workshop to outline a process for 

presenting information and engaging land managers in discussion of forest management 

challenges in an era of climate uncertainty.

KEY WORDS: climate change, forest management, adaptation, silviculture
www.nrs.fs.fed.us