uid=AND,o=lter,dc=ecoinformatics,dc=org all public read SS004 Chelsea Batavia Chelsea.Batavia@oregonstate.edu ckb523@gmail.com Michael P. Nelson

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201K Richarson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331

541-737-9221 mpnelson@oregonstate.edu http://www.michaelpnelson.com http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-4752 Michael P. Nelson

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201K Richarson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331

541-737-9221 mpnelson@oregonstate.edu http://www.michaelpnelson.com http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-4752 Principal Investigator Chelsea Batavia Chelsea.Batavia@oregonstate.edu ckb523@gmail.com Creator Michael P. Nelson

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201K Richarson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331

541-737-9221 mpnelson@oregonstate.edu http://www.michaelpnelson.com http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-4752 Creator 2020-02-19 This work highlights the normative dimensions of “ecological forestry,” a strategy of forest management that uses silviculture to mimic the effects of non-anthropogenic processes of disturbance and succession in order to meet multiple objectives on a single piece of land. An analysis of the arguments made about ecological forestry, both broadly theoretical and pertaining specifically to western Oregon, shows that empirical uncertainties and normative gaps need to be addressed before we can make a clear, well-reasoned decision about whether ecological forestry is a viable and appropriate strategy for forest management and conservation. surveys resource management ecosystems LTER controlled vocabulary attitudes and perceptions environmental ethics public assessments public values forest management Andrews Experimental Forest site thesaurus See related files for surveys. Related PublicationsBatavia, Chelsea. 2015. Ecological Forestry: A Critical Analysis. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 337 p. M.S. thesis. Data Use Agreement: The re-use of scientific data has the potential to greatly increase communication, collaboration and synthesis within and among disciplines, and thus is fostered, supported and encouraged. This Data Set is released under the Creative Commons license CC BY "Attribution" (see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Creative Commons license CC BY - Attribution is a license that allows others to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work (even commercially), as long as you are credited for the original creation. This license accommodates maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials. It is considered professional conduct and an ethical obligation to acknowledge the work of other scientists. The Data User is asked to provide attribution of the original work if this data package is shared in whole or by individual parts or used in the derivation of other products. A recommended citation is provided for each Data Set in the Andrews LTER data catalog (see: http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/catalog/datacatalog.aspx). A generic citation is also provided for this Data Set on the website https://portal.edirepository.org in the summary metadata page. Data Users are thus strongly encouraged to consider consultation, collaboration and/or co-authorship with the Data Set Creator. While substantial efforts are made to ensure the accuracy of data and associated documentation, complete accuracy of data sets cannot be guaranteed and all data are made available "as is." The Data User should be aware, however, that data are updated periodically and it is the responsibility of the Data User to check for new versions of the data. The data authors and the repository where these data were obtained shall not be liable for damages resulting from any use or misinterpretation of the data. General acknowledgement: Data were provided by the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest research program, funded by the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research Program (DEB 2025755), US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, and Oregon State University. http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=SS004 2014-05-01 2015-06-04

An update history is logged and maintained with each new version of every dataset.

notPlanned Study code and preliminary metadata established Version1 2015-06-16 This is a social science study that has no tabular data. This is an attempt to create an eml file to upload to PASTA. Version2 2020-02-14 Information Manager

Andrews Forest LTER Program US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station 3200 SW Jefferson Way Corvallis OR 97331

hjaweb@fsl.orst.edu http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/ Andrews Forest LTER Site

Forest Ecosystems and Society Department in Forestry Oregon State University 201K Richardson Hall Corvallis OR 97331-5752

(541) 737-8480 lterweb@fsl.orst.edu http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/ Field Methods - SS004 Argument analysis. Arguments about ecological forestry were selected, formulated, and analyzed in a four step process. 1) Argument selection. Researchers reviewed literature related to ecological forestry and developed a list of reasons why proponents and opponents are saying it should or should not be used. Two broad classes of reasons were identified: theoretical and applied. Theoretical reasons are context-independent, and only pro-ecological forestry theoretical reasons were considered in this project. Applied reasons pertain specifically to ecological forestry as proposed for the O & C lands in western Oregon, and both pro- and anti-ecological forestry applied reasons were considered in this project. Reasons were sent in a mixed-methods survey to a group of nine experts in forestry, forest ecology, and forest management. Experts rated each reason for centrality in the current discourse surrounding ecological forestry, and suggested revised wording or alternative reasons. Survey and quantitative results are linked on this website. Qualitative results available upon request. 2) Argument formulation. Researchers used expert feedback from the survey described in 1) to select a small set of arguments for analysis. Arguments selected for analysis were formulated formally as a series of premises leading to conclusions. 3) Argument review. Formulated arguments were returned to the same expert panel for review. Each expert received an individualized survey with three particular arguments, selected according to his/her area of expertise. Experts were asked first whether argument as formulated was accurate overall. If he/she answered "no," he/she was prompted to offer general commentary and suggestions. If he/she answered "yes," he/she was asked to suggest any changes in wording for premises and conclusions. He/she then commented on whether and the extent to which each premise, both as originally written and as the expert may have revised it, was true and controversial. Survey and results (all qualitative) are linked on this website. 4) Argument analysis. Researchers revised arguments based on results of second survey described in 3) above. Arguments were then systematically assessed for soundness according to the formal rules of logic. Arguments about ecological forestry were selected, formulated, and analyzed in a four step process. 1) Argument selection, 2) Argument formulation, 3) Argument review, and 4) Argument analysis. Sherri L. Johnson

US Forest Service ;Pacific NW Research Station ;3200 SW Jefferson Way Corvallis OR 97331 USA

541-758-7771 sherri.johnson2@usda.gov sherri.johnson@oregonstate.edu https://www.fs.fed.us/research/people/profile.php?alias=sherrijohnson Principal Investigator Julia A. Jones

Oregon State University;Department of Geosciences; Wilkinson Hall 104 Corvallis OR 97331-5506 USA

(541) 737-1224 Julia.Jones@oregonstate.edu geojulia@comcast.net http://ceoas.oregonstate.edu/profile/jones/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9429-8925 Principal Investigator Matthew G Betts

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201E Richardson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331

(541) 737-3841 matt.betts@oregonstate.edu http://www.fsl.orst.edu/flel/index.htm Principal Investigator Michael P. Nelson

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201K Richarson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331

541-737-9221 mpnelson@oregonstate.edu http://www.michaelpnelson.com http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-4752 Principal Investigator David Bell david.bell@usda.gov david.bell@oregonstate.edu https://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/about/david-bell Principal Investigator The H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest is a living laboratory that provides unparalleled opportunities for the study of forest and stream ecosystems in the central Cascade Range of Oregon. Since 1980, as a part of the National Science Foundation Long Term Ecological Research (NSF-LTER) program, the Andrews Experimental Forest has become a leader in the analysis of forest and stream ecosystem dynamics. Long-term field experiments and measurement programs have focused on climate dynamics, streamflow, water quality, and vegetation succession. Currently researchers are working to develop concepts and tools needed to predict effects of natural disturbance, land use, and climate change on ecosystem structure, function, and species composition. The Andrews Experimental Forest is administered cooperatively by the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon State University and the Willamette National Forest. Funding for the research program comes from the National Science Foundation (NSF), US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon State University, and other sources. Data were provided by the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest research program, funded by the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research Program (DEB 2025755), US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, and Oregon State University. National Science Foundation: DEB1440409 The Andrews Forest is situated in the western Cascade Range of Oregon, and covers the entire 15,800-acre (6400-ha) drainage basin of Lookout Creek. Elevation ranges from 1350 to 5340 feet (410 to 1630 m). Broadly representative of the rugged mountainous landscape of the Pacific Northwest, the Andrews Forest contains excellent examples of the region's conifer forests and associated wildlife and stream ecosystems. These forests are among the tallest and most productive in the world, with tree heights of often greater than 250 ft (75 m). Streams are steep, cold and clean, providing habitat for numerous aquatic organisms. 1 SS00401 Selection and argument surveys: SS00401.csv 392 089104ec9ed159040a30891b206698b6 1 \r\n column , " http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/ltermeta/ltersearch/dataaccess.aspx?docid=SS00401_v1.csv 2014-05-01 2015-06-04 DBCODE FSDB Database Code char(5) SS004 FSDB Database Code SS004 ENTITY Entity Number numeric(1,0) number 1 natural 1.0000 1.0000 RESOURCE_TITLE Title of resource char(20) Title of resource RESOURCE_DESC Description of resource char(75) Description of resource RESOURCE_URL URL to access resource char(85) URL to access resource PRIMARY SS00401.RESOURCE_TITLE NOTNULL SS00401.DBCODE SS00401.ENTITY SS00401.RESOURCE_URL SS00401.RESOURCE_TITLE SS00401.RESOURCE_DESC 2 dimensionless number, i.e., ratio, count