Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) is among the most ecologically and economically important tree species in North America, and its growth and regeneration is often the focus of silvicultural practices in northern hardwood forests. A key stressor for sugar maple (SM) is acid rain, which depletes base cations from poorly-buffered forest soils and has been associated with much lower SM vigor, growth, and recruitment. However, the potential interactions between forest management and soil acidification - and their implications for the sustainability of SM and its economic and cultural benefits - have not been investigated. In this study, we simulated the development of 50 extant SM stands in the western Adirondack region of NY (USA) for 100years under different soil chemical conditions and silvicultural prescriptions. We found that interactions between management prescription and soil base saturation will strongly shape the ability to maintain SM in managed forests. Below 12% base saturation, SM did not regenerate sufficiently after harvest and was replaced mainly by red maple (Acer rubrum) and American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Loss of SM on acid-impaired sites was predicted regardless of whether the shelterwood or diameter-limit prescriptions were used. On soils with sufficient base saturation, models predicted that SM will regenerate after harvest and be sustained for future rotations. We then estimated how these different post-harvest outcomes, mediated by acid impairment of forest soils, would affect the potential monetary value of ecosystem services provided by SM forests. Model simulations indicated that a management strategy focused on syrup production - although not feasible across the vast areas where acid impairment has occurred - may generate the greatest economic return. Although pollution from acid rain is declining, its long-term legacy in forest soils will shape future options for sustainable forestry and ecosystem stewardship in the northern hardwood forests of North America.

Sustaining recent progress in mitigating acid pollution could require lower emissions caps that will give rise to real or perceived tradeoffs between healthy ecosystems and inexpensive energy. Because most impacts of acid rain affect ecosystem functions that are poorly understood by policy-makers and the public, an ecosystem services (ES) framework can help to measure how pollution affects human well-being. Focused on the Adirondack region (USA), a global 'hot-spot' of acid pollution, we measured how the chronic acidification of the region's forests, lakes, and streams has affected the potential economic and cultural benefits they provide to society. We estimated that acid-impaired hardwood forests provide roughly half of the potential benefits of forests on moderate to well-buffered soils - an estimated loss of ∼ $10,000 ha-1 in net present value of wood products, maple syrup, carbon sequestration, and visual quality. Acidic deposition has had only nominal impact - relative to the effects of surficial geology and till depth - on the capacity of Adirondack lakes and streams to provide water suitable for drinking. However, as pH declines in lakes, the estimated value of recreational fishing decreases significantly due to loss of desirable fish such as trout. Hatchery stocking programs have partially offset the pollution-mediated losses of fishery value, most effectively in the pH range 4.8-5.5, but are costly and limited in scope. Although any estimates of the monetary 'damages' of acid rain have significant uncertainties, our findings highlight some of the more tangible economic and cultural benefits of pollution mitigation efforts, which continue to face litigation and political opposition.

Ownership of forestland in the United States has changed in recent decades, including the proliferation of timber investment management organizations (TIMOs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs), with the potential to alter forest management and timber supply. This article quantifies forest ownership transitions among ownership categories between 2007 and 2017 and investigates how and why large corporate ownerships own and manage their forestlands. Ownership transitions were determined from refined USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis data; we also conducted a survey of large corporate forestland ownerships. Corporate forestland acreage increased between 2007 and 2017, while family and public forestland decreased. Large corporate landowners report multidimensional, financially focused land management, although industry, timber investment management organizations, real estate investment trusts, and other owners report some different motivations and income streams. This work provides a baseline to track future ownership transitions and the behaviors of large corporate forestland owners.

Individuals and families collectively own more than 118 million ha of forestland in the USA. Using data from the USDA Forest Service’s National Woodland Owners Survey (NWOS), we characterize ecosystem services being produced on family forests as well as the beneficiaries who enjoy them. Approximately half of family forest owners provide one or more provisioning services. With the exception of logs, the provisioning services provided by the majority of owners are enjoyed directly by owners or their close associates (i.e., family, friends, and neighbors). Similarly, while more than half of family forest owners have provided recreational opportunities, a cultural service, to their close associates, fewer than 6% of owners have sold or provided recreational services to the general public. Regulating and supporting services are linked to the maintenance of long-term forest cover. Greater than 80% of family forest owners desire to maintain the forested condition of their land, whereas a much smaller percentage of these owners have entered into conservation easements or have collected money for conservation purposes. In addition, many owners have engaged in activities expected to increase the future capacity of their land to provide multiple ecosystem services, both excludable and non-excludable.