Forest plan and drought conditions

[OneWithWood]

All the peer reviewed science is pointing to increasing periods of drought and flooding with a temperature increase of as much as 7°F in the coming decades for the central hardwood forests. 
I have been actively managing for increased oak regeneration in my forest.  Is that still a viable plan given the forecasted climate for this area?
My land is essentially 103 acres of ridges and ravines.  The ridge tops run basically NE/SW.  The oaks dominate the dryer ridge tops and more southern facing slopes with beech/maple and some red oak populating the wetter more northern facing slopes.  Tulip poplar is spread throughout but is currently dying out on the drier aspects due to the latest droughts and an infestation of tulip scale.  I have noticed increased stress in some of the sugar maples and red oaks also.
Are oaks, specifically white oak, more drought tolerant than beech or maple?
Which species can tolerate periodic flooding better?

[Ron Wenrich]

You're making lots of assumptions.  Climate will change.  But, you're making a prediction that it will change in a certain direction.  When I graduated college, they were predicting an opposite direction.  Should I have advised clients to start managing for sugar maple, as that was more adapted to northern climates vs our oak and tulip poplar stands?  It would have been a bad move.  I also worked in some relic communities of shortleaf pine.  That forest was displaced by 100 miles north.  Ground conditions indicate that at one time it was native to the area.  Things change.

The other assumption you're making is that oak will be in a favored marketplace.  This hasn't always been the case.  Red oak is just recently in the marketplace because it was cheap.  I remember when I wasn't allowed to buy red oak, because it was considered a junk species.  Can it regain that title?  It depends what the next hot market is going to be.  Cherry and walnut have always maintained good value in the marketplace from a historic perspective.  Predicting markets is just as precarious as predicting climate.  You can only manage for the now and the short term.  Keep diversity and you should be able to weather both markets and climate.

Here's a paper from the University of Georgia that gives a list of trees to favor for drought resistance. 
http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/service/library/for99-008/for99-008.pdf
The downside to the paper is that its from the south, and doesn't include some of the northern species.  But, it does give a good overview of what to follow.  It seems that oaks are fairly drought resistant. 

[OneWithWood]

Yes, Ron, I understand things change and yes I do think the climate is going in a particular direction.  I make no assumptions as to market value in the future.  Market value is not a major motivator for me.  Preserving a forested plot of ground that provides a maximum ecological benefit is.

I do not want to get into a discussion on climate change.  I do want to receive some feedback on what trees I should manage for given my expectations.

Thanks for the link to the paper.  I hope I can find something more targeted to the central hardwoods region.  Managing for species diversity is good advice, but isn't species diversity somewhat site and aspect specific?  In other words I currently manage the cooler slopes for beech/maple and the warmer slopes for oak.  Cherry and walnut are minor species and not well suited to my soils or aspects.  I probably have less than a dozen decent cherries and fewer decent walnuts on the property. 

The thing that triggered my question was an article in the local paper that reported on efforts The Nature Conservancy and the US Forest Service were engaged in to keep the forests viable into the future, citing climate change as the prime motivator.  In the article one of the members of TNC was quoted as saying a beech/maple forest would withstand cyclical drought/flooding conditions whereas an oak/hickory forest would fare less well.  To that extent they are planting beech/maple in the understory.
That seems exactly opposite to what I thought I knew.  Perhaps the reporter got it backwards?

[terry f]

   The big industrial timberland owners that are around me replanted Ponderosa Pine after they clear cut a mixed forest, they know whats coming in the future. Here its elevation, I'm at 4000 feet, Ponderosa starts on the open hills around 2000 feet and can grow in open rock with no water (maybe a overstatement).

[Ron Wenrich]

I didn't think we were heading for a climate debate.  Just suffice it that climate will be different in 50 years, just as it has been for the past 50 years.  Its all an unknown. 

Diversity is another matter.  You can have diversity by having different age classes of forests.  It doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be in different species, but that would be more ideal, in my opinion.  That gives a hedge against disease, markets, and a bunch of other things. 

You could go through different successions of forests.  I remember seeing a forester in Canada that was writing plans on a 400 year cycle.  That didn't mean there was no cutting.  But, it started from a clearcut, and worked through the successions giving diversity all the way through the cycle, since it was applied to different areas at different times.  It doesn't mean the model will work, but that was the baseline of the management plan.

In your thinking, you could manage for more drought resistance on the south and west facing slopes.  These tend to be drier.  It could be that a mix of pine would do well.  You could start with faster growing pioneer species, then go on to the intermediate forests.  You could do it in blocks.

On the moister sites, you would have more protection from both heat and drought, depending on your aspect.  I don't know if beech/maple is a better forest type.  From the timber that I have marked, the best quality was always on the north side of the slopes due to moisture.  I also noticed that better forests occurred where there was a full canopy, which helped maintain soil temperature and moisture, even during dry conditions.  If your management style is similar to Timbergreen in WI, you might be able to offset any drought conditions by utilizing  the full vigor concept.  The beech/maple forest may have the advantage of having a heavier canopy.

[mesquite buckeye]

Maintaining a lower stand density will mean more water for each tree during a drought without talking about shifting species. If you are really worried about hotter and drier conditions look at the forests to the south and west of you. They already have those conditions.

Hackberry, post oak, bur oak, red cedar would be at the top of my drought tough trees.

[SwampDonkey]

Sugar maple does not fair too well in long drought periods. When you travel from Ottawa to Saulte Saint Marie, Ontario there is a lot of dying sugar maple due to drought. Withered and dried up. Dryer and hotter just isn't favourable. The fact that the south is pretty much dominated by oak says it all. We have what we call sugar maple ridges around here, but that's because all the good maple stands are now potato fields. So when you see maple ridges up here don't make the assumption they favor ridge tops. When you go to those sites the trees are stunted, wind swept, ice damaged many leaning and hollow when they reach any size. Not very hospitable for good maple growth. Maple dominate them because they are long lived and historically used for firewood and mostly pulp where accessible.  Only in the last 30 years have they begun to be cut off with machinery. Much nicer maple on the parcels and groves not made into fields down on lower elevations where there is more soil moisture. A lot nicer. You see this when traveling through Quebec and Ottawa along route 2.