Maine Integrated Forest System Model (MIFSM)
Maine Integrated Forest System Model
(MIFSM)
A Decision-Support Tool for Balancing Carbon, Timber, and Ecosystem Services
What Is MIFSM?
The Maine Integrated Forest System Model (MIFSM) is a decision-support tool developed by researchers at the University of Maine to evaluate how different forest management strategies affect timber supply, forest carbon sequestration, and other ecosystem services across large forested landscapes.
MIFSM links a forest landscape growth model with economic data and management constraints to show how combinations of silvicultural practices applied across millions of acres will shape Maine’s forests over time.
MIFSM Helps Answer Questions Such As:
- • Can Maine’s forests store more carbon while still supplying wood products?
- • How do different silvicultural prescriptions affect long-term carbon, habitat, and revenue?
- • What mix of management approaches yields the best balance of ecological and economic outcomes?
Why Was MIFSM Developed?
Maine’s forests offset 70–90% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions annually. As Maine aims for carbon neutrality by 2045, forest-based natural climate solutions are increasingly important. However, achieving more carbon sequestration without reducing timber supply is challenging.
MIFSM was built to answer landscape-scale questions by combining ecological realism with economic feasibility—moving beyond stand-level analysis to regional decision-making relevant to commercial forest landowners and state-level climate planning.
How MIFSM Works: Optimization-Based Decision Support
Inputs
Forest conditions
Economics
Biodiversity
Economics
Biodiversity
→
MIFSM
Optimization
→
Outputs
Carbon
Harvest
Revenue
Habitat
Harvest
Revenue
Habitat
1. Forest Landscape Dynamics (LANDIS-II)
Simulates forest growth, regeneration, and response to management across millions of 30×30-meter cells. Tracks tree species, age cohorts, aboveground biomass, harvest volumes, and habitat indicators over time.
2. Economic & Policy Optimization
Adds timber prices for sawlogs, pulp, and biomass; costs for planting, thinning, and harvest operations; management constraints; and harvest targets to find optimal solutions.
Linear Optimization Framework
MIFSM uses linear programming to determine the optimal allocation of management practices across all forest types to meet a chosen objective. The model evaluates 108 unique forest-type combinations and selects the best mix of 9 silvicultural treatments to implement across the landscape over time.
Objectives: Maximize carbon sequestration, timber supply, or net revenue
Constraints: Harvest targets, clearcut limits, set-aside requirements, land area
Outputs: Optimal area by practice, decadal projections through 2100
Silvicultural Practices Evaluated
Partial Harvest
Regular Shelterwood
Continuous Cover Forestry
Irregular Gap Systems
Clearcut + Natural Regen
Clearcut + Plant
Extended Rotations
Commercial Thinning
No-Harvest Set-Asides
Key Findings from MIFSM Research
15–25%
increase in carbon sequestration possible while maintaining historical harvest levels
20%
harvest increase achievable while still positively affecting forest carbon
1
Strategic combinations outperform single approaches. Carbon gains were greatest when landscapes applied a mix of both intensive and extensive silviculture.
2
Forest sparing approach works. Maximum carbon and timber achieved with intensive clearcut-and-plant areas combined with permanent set-asides.
3
Costs are competitive. Break-even costs of $10–16 per metric ton CO₂e compare favorably with other climate solutions.
4
Mixed biodiversity impacts. Late-successional habitat increases when harvest intensity decreases; early-successional habitat may decline without targeted regeneration harvests.
Carbon Sequestration vs. Harvest Rate by Practice and Forest Type
Each point represents a forest type managed under a specific practice. Point size indicates forest area.
Strong negative correlation: clearcuts cluster at high harvest; no-harvest shows highest sequestration.
Harvest Rate (tC/ha/yr)
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Carbon Sequestration Rate (tC/ha/yr)
Practice
Partial Harv
Extend Rot
Cont Cover
Irreg Gap
Reg Shelt
CC + Nat Reg
CC + Nat w/CT
CC + Plant
No Harvest
How MIFSM Informs Decisions
Policy & Incentives
- • Practice-based incentive programs
- • Carbon market protocols
- • State climate action strategies
Landowner Planning
- • Long-term revenue impacts
- • Future fiber supply scenarios
- • Carbon-timber tradeoffs
Conservation
- • Set-aside allocation strategies
- • Habitat management effects
- • Climate resilience planning