mofep ground flora study: effects of forest management practices on woodland plant communities susan...
TRANSCRIPT
MOFEP Ground Flora Study:
Effects of Forest Management Practices on Woodland Plant Communities
Susan FarringtonPlant Community EcologistMissouri Department of ConservationForest Systems Field StationWest Plains, MO
Between 70 and 76 vegetation plots are located on each site (compartment) Total: 648 plots
SAMPLING DESIGN AND PROTOCOL:
Each stand contains at least one vegetation plot
Plots are distributed proportionately across Ecological Landtypes
Dry chert woodland
Dry-mesic chert woodland
Dry-mesic dolomite forest
Dolomite glade
7.3
Dry- mesic bottomland forest
25
Dry igneous woodland
Ecological landtypes and natural communities on MOFEP
Dry-mesic chert forest
Site 1 No harvest
Site 2 Uneven-aged Site 3
Even-aged
Site 4 Uneven-aged
Site5 Even-aged
Site 9 Even-aged
Site 6 No harvest
Site 8 No harvest
Site 7 Uneven-aged
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
3.1
2.2
2.3
3.2
4.1
5.2
4.2
9.2
11
6.2
10.1 12
13
7.1
Dry dolomite woodland
8.1
½ acre circular plots
4 subplots 1/20 acre
4 1m2 quadrats per subplot
Total of 16 1m2 quadrats per plot
MOFEP Vegetation Plots
At each quadrat:
All herbaceous plants and woody seedlings with foliage less than 1 m are identified and percent cover below 1 m is estimated to nearest 1%.
% cover for each category of ground cover (litter, down dead wood, bare, etc) is estimated.
Canopy closure is estimated at the bottom left corner of each quadrat.
Year Ground flora data collected
1993 Full sample1994 Full sample1995 Full sample1996 HARVEST 1997 Incomplete sample – different protocol19981999 Full sample (original protocol)2000 Full sample2001 Full sample2002 Subsample20032004200520062007 Subsample (same plots as 2002)
Plans for next harvest cycle: Full sample 2009 and 2010Harvest 2011Full sample 2012 and 2013Full sample 2016 and 2017
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Mean species richness per plot before first harvest (1993-95)
No harvest sites
Uneven-agedsites
Even-aged sites
Site 1 Site 6 Site 8 Site 2 Site 4 Site 7 Site 3 Site 5 Site 9
No harvest managementUneven-aged management Even-aged management
MOFEP Site Locations and Treatments
61
2 5
3
78
9
4
1620-1700Depopulated era
1781-1820Cherokee, Delaware,
Shawnee
1701-1780Quapaw and Osage
87
9
1
23
45
6
87
9
1
23
4 5
6
87
9
1
23
4 56
Guyette et al. 2003
Data from 1993-2007:482,755 records!
Woodland
Glade
Forest
Exotic
Generalist
Woody
RuderalNative disturbance species
Common plants found in multiple communities
Woody vines
Ground Flora Study Questions:
1. How is the composition of natural communities affected by management practices?
2. How are species richness, diversity and dominance affected by management practices?
3. What management practices benefit the maximum number of conservative species in each natural community type?
4. How much of a canopy opening do fire-dependent woodland species require to flower and reproduce? How long can such species persist vegetatively after canopy closure?
5. What happens over time? Does a treated plot resemble an untreated plot after a certain period of time? Are treatment effects short-lived or long lasting?
Clearcut Woodland Site 3 Plot 70 October 2008
Site 1 - No Harvest Management
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# o
f sp
eci
es
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Site 3 - Even Aged Management
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# o
f sp
eci
es
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Block 1Mean Species Richness per plot
Site 2 - Uneven Aged Management
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# o
f sp
eci
es
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Harvest Harvest
Site 6 - No harvest management
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# o
f sp
eci
es
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Site 4 - Uneven aged management
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# o
f sp
eci
es
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70Site 5 - Even aged management
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# o
f sp
eci
es
45
50
55
60
65
70
Block 2 Mean Species Richness per plot
HarvestHarvest
Site 7 - Uneven aged management
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# o
f sp
eci
es
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Site 8 - No harvest management
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# o
f sp
eci
es
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Site 9 - Even aged management
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# o
f sp
eci
es
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Block 3 Mean Species Richness per plot
HarvestHarvest
Leave (n = 374 plots)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# sp
ecie
s
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Single tree selection (n = 70 plots)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# sp
ecie
s
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Group openings (n = 43 plots)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# sp
ecie
s
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Mean Species Richness of
woodland plots by prescription
Clearcuts (n = 25 plots)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# sp
ecie
s
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Intermediate thin (n = 26 plots)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# sp
ecie
s
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Pre-trmtPre-trmt Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Rattlesnake master8
Glade coneflower 7
Poison ivy2
Daisy fleabane1
Poison ivy2
Coefficients of Conservatism
(Ladd 1991)
Single tree selection (n = 70 plots)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Co
nse
rva
tism
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Leave (n = 374 plots)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Co
nse
rva
tism
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Group openings (n = 44 plots)
Year
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Co
nse
rva
tism
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8Clearcuts (n = 25 plots)
Year
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Co
nse
rva
tism
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Mean Conservatism of woodland plots by
prescription
Intermediate thin (n = 26 plots)
Year
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Co
nse
rva
tism
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Pre-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt Post-trmt
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Mean Species Richness
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# sp
ecie
s
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Mean Coefficient of Conservatism
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Con
serv
atis
m
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Woodland Clearcut plots (n=25 plots)
Pre-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Pre-trmt
Mean Coefficient of Conservatism
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Con
serv
atis
m
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Mean Species Richness
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
# sp
ecie
s
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70 Intermediate thin plots (n=25 plots)
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Clearcuts (n=13 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
# o
f spe
cie
s p
er p
lot
30
40
50
60
70Group openings (n=24 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
# o
f spe
cie
s p
er p
lot
30
40
50
60
70
Intermediate thin (n=18 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
# o
f spe
cie
s p
er p
lot
30
40
50
60
70
Leave (n=34 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
# o
f spe
cie
s p
er
plo
t
30
40
50
60
70Single tree selection (n=30 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
# o
f sp
eci
es
pe
r pl
ot
30
40
50
60
70Mean Species Richness of
woodland plots by prescription –
subsamplePost-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmtPre-trmt
Clearcuts (n=13 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Co
effi
cie
nt o
f Co
nse
rva
tism
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0
Leave plots (n=34 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Co
effi
cie
nt o
f Co
nse
rva
tism
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0
Intermediate thin (n=18 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Co
effi
cie
nt o
f Co
nse
rva
tism
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0
Single tree selection (n=30 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Co
effi
cie
nt o
f Co
nse
rva
tism
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0
Group openings (n=23 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Co
effi
cie
nt o
f Co
nse
rva
tism
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0
Mean Conservatism of woodland plots
by prescription – subsample
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Pre-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Post-trmt
Mean percent cover per plot by species type Leave woodlands (n=34 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Per
cent
cov
er
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 WoodlandForestWoodyWoody vineGeneralistRuderalUnknown
Percent Cover - Fourche Creek Control Site (Data from Effects of Prescribed Burn study)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Per
cent
cov
er
0
10
20
30
40
WoodyHerbaceous
Mean percent cover per plot by species typeSingle tree selection woodlands (n=30 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Per
cent
cov
er
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 WoodlandForestWoodyWoody vineGeneralistRuderalUnknown
Mean species richness per plot by species typeIntermediate thinned woodlands (n=18 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Per
cent
cov
er
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 WoodlandForestWoodyWoody vineGeneralistRuderalUnknown
Mean percent cover per plot by species typeGroup opening woodlands (n=23 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Per
cent
cov
er
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 WoodlandForestWoodyWoody vineGeneralistRuderalUnknown
Mean percent cover per plot by species type Clearcut woodlands (n=13 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Per
cent
cov
er
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 WoodlandForestWoodyWoody vineGeneralistRuderalUnknown
Species richness by community typesWoodland clearcuts (n=13 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Me
an n
umb
er o
f sp
ecie
s p
er p
lot
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
WoodlandForestWoody vinesGeneralistRuderalGladeFenUnknownExoticWoody
Mean Species Richness of Woodland species by CCClearcut Woodland plots (n=13 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Nu
mb
er o
f sp
ecie
s p
er p
lot
0
5
10
15
20
25
30UnknownCC = 0CC = 1CC = 2CC = 3CC = 4CC = 5CC = 6CC = 7CC = 8
Mean percent cover of Woodland Species by CC Clearcut woodlands (n=13 plots)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Per
cen
t co
ver
per
plo
t
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Unknown CCCC = 0CC = 1CC = 2CC = 3CC = 4CC = 5CC = 6CC = 7CC = 8
Clearcut Woodland Site 3 Plot 70 October 2008
Thanks to many people:
Jenny Grabner for overseeing the collection of most of these data, and for sharing her insightsMike Wallendorf and Steve Sheriff for statistical expertiseRandy Jensen for all his MOFEP experience and knowledge Julie Fleming and Carrie Steen for helping me deal with a monstrous databaseAaron Stevenson for serving as a good sounding boardTim Smith, George Yatskievych and Paul McKenzie for botanical expertiseSlews of suffering summer botanists!And especially Dan Drees for sharing his insights and putting up with the long hours I’ve spent on this project