Skip to main content
ediopen

PLSS Forests Lost Compared to Modern Forests and Novel Modern Forsets Gained Compared to PLSS Forests, Upper Midwest: Level 1

EuroAmerican land use and its legacies have transformed forest structure and composition across the United States (US). More accurate reconstructions of historical states are critical to understanding the processes governing past, current, and future forest dynamics. Gridded (8x8km) estimates of pre-settlement (1800s) forests from the upper Midwestern US (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and most of Michigan) using 19th Century Public Land Survey System (PLSS) records provide relative composition, biomass, stem density, and basal area for 26 tree genera. This mapping is more robust than past efforts, using spatially varying correction factors to accommodate sampling design, azimuthal censoring, and biases in tree selection. We compare pre-settlement to modern forests using US Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data to show the prevalence of lost forests, pre-settlement forests with no current analogue, and novel forests, modern forests with no past analogs. Differences between PLSS and FIA forests are spatially structured as a result of differences in the underlying ecology and land use impacts in the Upper Midwestern United States. Modern biomass is higher than pre-settlement biomass in northern Minnesota, northwestern and south central Wisconsin along the former prairie-forest border through Minnesota that was largely open savanna and the Big Woods of Minnesota. PLSS biomass was higher than today in northern Wisconsin and upper and lower Michigan due to shifts in species composition and, presumably, average stand age. Modern forests are more homogeneous, and ecotonal gradients are more diffuse today than in the past. Novel forest assemblages represent 29% of all FIA cells, while 25% of pre-settlement forests no longer exist in a modern context. Lost forests are centered around the forests of the Tension Zone, particularly in hemlock dominated forests of north-central Wisconsin, and in oak-elm-basswood forests along the forest-prairie boundary in south central

ShareScore

36/100

Overall dataset sharing score

Score breakdown

These five areas show where the dataset supports — or may limit — practical reuse.

Stewardship
12
Harmonization
8
Access
4
Reuse readiness
8
Engagement
4

Topics