climate-informed forest inventory

Climate-Informed Forest Inventory

Jon Fosgitt, Compass Land Consultants, jon@compasslandconsultants.comMaria Janowiak, Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science & US Forest Service mjanowiak02@fs.fed.usLouis Iverson, USDA Forest Service; Matt Dallman, Christine Hall, Kimberly Hall, The Nature Conservancy; Chris Swanston, Stephen Handler, Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science & USDA Forest Service

Climate Change Information

?

Climate Change Information

Caroline Lake: Adaptation Demonstration•1,044 acres of working forest ▫ Owned by TNC since 1997▫ Managed by Compass Land Consultants▫ ONE MORE BULLET?

Caroline Lake: Adaptation Demonstration•1,044 acres of working forest ▫ Owned by TNC since 1997▫ Managed by Compass Land Consultants▫ ONE MORE BULLET?

•One of first ever on-the ground climate change adaptation demonstrations▫ Climate-informed management plan▫ Implement adaptation practices

www.forestadaptation.org/CarolineLake

Leveraging Forest Inventory DataHow can we better use forest inventory data to tell us:

1) Are forests are at risk from climate change?

2) Are management actions reducing risk?

Bigger, Better Forest Data

Information we could use Reasonable

cost to collect

Rethinking Existing Inventory MetricsTNC’s Two-Hearted property in Upper Michigan: TNC & Compass identified metrics to evaluate old-forest characteristics of northern hardwood forests

• Robust inventory provides starting point

Rethinking Existing Inventory MetricsTwo-Hearted Inventory:• Total Stocking• Acceptable Growing Stock• Tree Species Diversity• Tree Species Evenness• Large Live Trees• Large Snags• Large Coarse Woody Debris• Established Seedlings• Desirable Established Seedlings

What do these metrics tell us about climate change? What’s missing?

Climate-Informed MetricsTraditional Metrics: Repurposed New Risk Metrics

• Total Stocking (1)

• Tree Species Diversity▫ Richness (2)

▫ Evenness (3)

• Large Coarse Woody Debris (4)

• Regeneration▫ Saplings (5)

▫ Seedlings (6)

• Risk of Decline▫ Trees (7)

▫ Saplings (8)

▫ Seedlings (9)

Examples of Repurposed Metrics

Inventory Metric

Typical* forest inventory?

Normally would be used to…

In the context of climate change…

Tree Species RichnessTree SpeciesEvenness

No:Data collected, but often notevaluated

Give an indication of stand- or forest-level diversity

Higher species evenness and richness may have greater adaptive capacity/ lower risk

Regeneration Sometimes, but often not

Show effectiveness of regen treatments; inform future actions

Regeneration may be most influenced by climate change; potential early indication of change or future issues

*Don’t take offense– you might not be “typical”

New Risk Metrics

Are the trees in this stand/forest/area at risk from climate change?• Integrates Climate Change Tree Atlas projections, which

are part of published vulnerability assessments •“At risk” species identified for an ecoregion▫ Suitable habitat reduced >20% by 2100

• IMPORTANT: Metric signals that species is at risk of decline across a general region, but it is up to manager to evaluate that information given local knowledge

New Risk Metrics•For northern Wisconsin/western Upper Michigan

Importance Value

Low

High

2070-2100 Low (PCM B1)

2070-2100 High (GFDL A1FI)

Current Suitable Habitat

Sugar Maple:

15% reduction 65% reduction (at risk)

Janowiak et al. 2014. Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment & Synthesis

SpeciesBasal Area

Stems Per Acre

Freq. (%)

Proportion of Stand

(IV %)

Future: Current Habitat Change Class

At-risk Proportion

of Stand (%)

Future: Current Habitat Change Class

At-risk Proportion

of Stand (%)Sugar maple 79.0 117.1 100.0 40.8 0.8 No Change 0.0 0.3 Large Decrease 40.8White ash 33.1 30.7 96.2 17.9 1.6 Increase 0.0 1.9 Increase 0.0American basswood 18.5 23.7 73.1 12.3 1.1 No Change 0.0 1.4 Increase 0.0Yellow birch 7.7 12.4 53.8 7.0 0.8 Decrease 7.0 0.2 Large Decrease 7.0Bigtooth aspen 10.0 16.1 15.4 5.5 1.0 No Change 0.0 0.4 Large Decrease 5.5Red maple 4.2 8.6 42.3 5.0 1.0 No Change 0.0 0.6 Decrease 5.0Northern red oak 1.5 0.7 42.3 3.2 1.3 Increase 0.0 1.1 No Change 0.0American elm 0.4 0.4 34.6 2.4 2.3 Increase 0.0 3.2 Large Increase 0.0Paper birch 1.9 5.3 11.5 2.0 0.7 Decrease 2.0 0.2 Large Decrease 2.0Black ash 1.5 2.6 7.7 1.2 0.7 Decrease 1.2 0.6 Decrease 1.2Black cherry 0.4 0.2 15.4 1.1 2.4 Large Increase 0.0 1.4 Increase 0.0Eastern hemlock 1.2 1.9 3.8 0.8 1.2 Increase 0.0 0.4 Large Decrease 0.8Quaking aspen 0.8 0.6 7.7 0.8 0.6 Decrease 0.8 0.2 Large Decrease 0.8Total 160.2 220.3 100.0 Proportion at-risk: 11.0 Proportion at-risk: 63.0

New Risk MetricsNorthern Hardwood Stand: Low (PCM B1) High (GFDL A1F1)

SpeciesBasal Area

Stems Per Acre

Freq. (%)

Proportion of Stand

(IV %)

Future: Current Habitat Change Class

At-risk Proportion

of Stand (%)

Future: Current Habitat Change Class

At-risk Proportion

of Stand (%)Sugar maple 79.0 117.1 100.0 40.8 0.8 No Change 0.0 0.3 Large Decrease 40.8White ash 33.1 30.7 96.2 17.9 1.6 Increase 0.0 1.9 Increase 0.0American basswood 18.5 23.7 73.1 12.3 1.1 No Change 0.0 1.4 Increase 0.0Yellow birch 7.7 12.4 53.8 7.0 0.8 Decrease 7.0 0.2 Large Decrease 7.0Bigtooth aspen 10.0 16.1 15.4 5.5 1.0 No Change 0.0 0.4 Large Decrease 5.5Red maple 4.2 8.6 42.3 5.0 1.0 No Change 0.0 0.6 Decrease 5.0Northern red oak 1.5 0.7 42.3 3.2 1.3 Increase 0.0 1.1 No Change 0.0American elm 0.4 0.4 34.6 2.4 2.3 Increase 0.0 3.2 Large Increase 0.0Paper birch 1.9 5.3 11.5 2.0 0.7 Decrease 2.0 0.2 Large Decrease 2.0Black ash 1.5 2.6 7.7 1.2 0.7 Decrease 1.2 0.6 Decrease 1.2Black cherry 0.4 0.2 15.4 1.1 2.4 Large Increase 0.0 1.4 Increase 0.0Eastern hemlock 1.2 1.9 3.8 0.8 1.2 Increase 0.0 0.4 Large Decrease 0.8Quaking aspen 0.8 0.6 7.7 0.8 0.6 Decrease 0.8 0.2 Large Decrease 0.8Total 160.2 220.3 100.0 Proportion at-risk: 11.0 Proportion at-risk: 63.0

New Risk MetricsNorthern Hardwood Stand: Low (PCM B1) High (GFDL A1F1)

SpeciesBasal Area

Stems Per Acre

Freq. (%)

Proportion of Stand

(IV %)

Future: Current Habitat Change Class

At-risk Proportion

of Stand (%)

Future: Current Habitat Change Class

At-risk Proportion

of Stand (%)Sugar maple 79.0 117.1 100.0 40.8 0.8 No Change 0.0 0.3 Large Decrease 40.8White ash 33.1 30.7 96.2 17.9 1.6 Increase 0.0 1.9 Increase 0.0American basswood 18.5 23.7 73.1 12.3 1.1 No Change 0.0 1.4 Increase 0.0Yellow birch 7.7 12.4 53.8 7.0 0.8 Decrease 7.0 0.2 Large Decrease 7.0Bigtooth aspen 10.0 16.1 15.4 5.5 1.0 No Change 0.0 0.4 Large Decrease 5.5Red maple 4.2 8.6 42.3 5.0 1.0 No Change 0.0 0.6 Decrease 5.0Northern red oak 1.5 0.7 42.3 3.2 1.3 Increase 0.0 1.1 No Change 0.0American elm 0.4 0.4 34.6 2.4 2.3 Increase 0.0 3.2 Large Increase 0.0Paper birch 1.9 5.3 11.5 2.0 0.7 Decrease 2.0 0.2 Large Decrease 2.0Black ash 1.5 2.6 7.7 1.2 0.7 Decrease 1.2 0.6 Decrease 1.2Black cherry 0.4 0.2 15.4 1.1 2.4 Large Increase 0.0 1.4 Increase 0.0Eastern hemlock 1.2 1.9 3.8 0.8 1.2 Increase 0.0 0.4 Large Decrease 0.8Quaking aspen 0.8 0.6 7.7 0.8 0.6 Decrease 0.8 0.2 Large Decrease 0.8Total 160.2 220.3 100.0 Proportion at-risk: 11.0 Proportion at-risk: 63.0

New Risk MetricsNorthern Hardwood Stand: Low (PCM B1) High (GFDL A1F1)

Climate-Informed MetricsTraditional Metrics: Repurposed New Risk Metrics

• Total Stocking (1)

• Tree Species Diversity▫ Richness (2)

▫ Evenness (3)

• Large Coarse Woody Debris (4)

• Regeneration▫ Saplings (5)

▫ Seedlings (6)

• Risk of Decline▫ Trees (7)

▫ Saplings (8)

▫ Seedlings (9)

Applied at Caroline Lake…Climate-informed Metrics

• Total Stocking• Tree Species Richness• Tree Species Evenness• Large Coarse Woody Debris• Regen – Established/Saplings• Regen – Seedlings • Risk of Decline – Trees• Risk of Decline – Saplings• Risk of Decline - Seedlings

Applied at Caroline Lake…• Compass updated their inventory software to incorporate new metrics

Stand 28 example (small regen not shown)Massive Excel workbook

Creates PDF report

Applied at Caroline Lake…Risk by stand (overstory):

Applied at Caroline Lake…Risk by stand (established regen/saplings):

Applied at Caroline Lake…

Next Steps

Questions?Acknowledgements:•List people here…

Extra slides

Intro slide hereHow can we use climate change information to assess risk from climate change? to inform management actions? to evaluate success over time?

Who‘s in the discussion…NIACS (& USFS) USFS Northern Research Station

• Chris Swanston• Stephen Handler• Maria Janowiak

• Susan Stout (Project Leader)• Scott Thomasma (NED)• Mark Twery (retired, NED)• Louis Iverson (Tree Atlas)• Steve Matthews (Tree Atlas)• Anantha Prasad (Tree Atlas) – aka “Prasad”• Matt Peters (Tree Atlas)

Compass Land Consultants

• Jon Fosgitt

The Nature Conservancy

• Matt Dallman (WI)• Tina Hall (MI)• Kim Hall (in MI, works regionally)

Wisconsin DNR

• Brad Hutnik

University of Minnesota

• Linda Nagel

Climate-Informed MetricsMany potential metrics, but much of the interest/discussion has been centered on the risk metrics.

Why risk?

• Risk is a clean, crisp word that resonates with certain folks

• Risk is just a statement―there’s no value judgement (winners, losers) or implied recommendation (e.g., disfavor losers)

New Climate-Informed Metrics

• Stocking/Relative Density of Adaptation-Target Species

• Risk of Decline – Trees

• Risk of Decline – Established Seedlings

• Risk of Decline – Unestablished Seedlings

• Tree Vigor

• Forest Vigor

• Canopy Closure

Many potential metrics, but much of interest/discussion focused on species risk metrics