古い土地に新しい樹木：コロラド州の火災跡地における森林支援移動の考察
New trees on old lands: a consideration of forest-assisted migration on Colorado burn scars (原題)
Gregory Russell, Eliisa Carter, Courtney Schultz
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
コロラド州の大規模火災跡地における森林支援移動（FAM）の認識と障壁を、科学者・管理者・コミュニティ組織へのインタビューで調査。FAMを長期的森林健康の唯一の手段と見る意見と、科学的検証なしでは再生能力を損なうと懸念する意見に分かれた。制度的要因（リーダーシップ不足、政策欠如、種子ゾーン制限）が採用を阻害している。
English
Interviews with scientists, managers, and community organizers after Colorado's 2020 megafires reveal divergent views on forest assisted migration (FAM): some see it as essential for forest health, others fear it may harm regeneration without verification. Institutional barriers include lack of leadership guidance, absent policies, and restrictive seed zone guidelines.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本の森林管理や気候適応政策に示唆を与えるが、直接的なGX開示や脱炭素には関連が薄い。日本の再造林や気候変動適応策の議論に参考になる可能性がある。
In the global GX context
Contributes to global climate adaptation literature, particularly on governance of innovative reforestation strategies. Relevant for regions facing post-fire recovery and climate-driven vegetation shifts, though not directly tied to corporate disclosure frameworks.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Insights into institutional barriers to adopting climate adaptation strategies in forest management.
🏢実務担当者:Limited direct application for corporate sustainability teams, but relevant for land management organizations.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights need for policy frameworks to support adaptive reforestation under climate change.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Throughout the Southern Rockies, widespread high-severity fires and climate change have precipitated shifts in local vegetation, affecting reforestation, species migration, ecosystem adaptation, and carbon fluxes. When managing burn scar recovery, some ecologists and silviculturists advocate for the use of forest assisted migration (FAM) (i.e., the intentional relocation of individuals or genetic material from native seed sources to areas either within or beyond their existing ranges). To understand perceptions and barriers to FAM, we interviewed scientists, land managers, and community organizers working on post-fire landscapes after two of Colorado’s largest fires in history, both occurring in 2020. We found divergent perceptions: some highlighted FAM as the only feasible way to maintain the long-term health of forests, while others contended that, without scientific verification, FAM may further compromise the regenerative capacity of these areas. Using a framework that explores institutional innovation in environmental governance, we analyzed our findings to identify the variables that affect the adoption or rejection of innovative management strategies. Variables include the lack of leadership guidance on implementing FAM, the absence of institutionalized policies that address its use as a reforestation strategy, and seed zone guidelines that restrict planting to localized species and elevation gradients. We emphasize the need for more research on the political and institutional considerations of positioning FAM as both a reforestation tool and an adaptation option, and within our discussion, we connect it to broader climate change adaptation literature.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-026-02655-2first seen 2026-09-01 05:09:50
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。