Download No Slide Title

LANDSCAPE MOSAIC
Matrix
Patch
Edge
Corridor (road)
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Water (0.39%)
Water
Wetland (0.02%)
Wetland
Non-Vegetated / Recent Clearcut
Non-vegetated/Recent
clearcut(4.03%)
Herbs & Shrubs
/ Old Clearcut
Herbs
Shrubs/Old
clearcut(18.93%)
Young Hardwoods
/ Thickets (4.87%)
Young
Hardwood/Thicket
Mature Hardwood
Hardwoods (31.31%)
Mature
Jack Pine
Pine (5.44%)
Jack
RedPine
Pine (12.76%)
Red
Mixed Conifer-Hardwood
Hardwood/Conifer (22.25%)
Mixed
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
##
#
N
#
#
#
W
E
S
#
0
5
10 Kilometers
Chequamegon N.F.
Land Mosaic
How do landscape structure and broadscale disturbance regime influence plant
species diversity and distribution across
multiple scales?
Does harvesting mimic fire in its effects
on plant diversity and/or composition?
Is plant species distribution or diversity
related to particular structural features or
broad-scale structural patterns?
Does plant diversity vary across scales
and if so, how?
SB: small-block
clearcutting
Broad-Scale
Manipulation of
Landscape
Structure
POA: thinning
LB: large-block
clearcutting
PB: fire
Pine-Oak/Visuals
Pine-Oak-Aspen
Pine-Oak Continuous Canop
Pine/Small-Block
Pine-Oak/Large-Block
Pine Barrens
Private Land
N
0
5
10 Kilometers
Multi-Scale Approach
Patch Level
• Seven Patch Types (77 plots)
Within Landscape
• Moquah Barrens Wildlife Management Area
Among Landscapes
• northern Chequamegon National Forest (DFC eco-units)
Red Pine
Young Hardwood
Hardwood
Jack Pine
Major
Patch
Types
Young Pine
Clearcut
Pine Barrens
Patch-Level Measurements
Overstory
 dbh
 height
 age
Understory
 percent cover by species
 duff depth (cm)
 litter (% cover and depth, cm)
 coarse woody debris (CWD, % cover)
Soils
 grab samples by horizon
(4 pits per site)
 horizons present
 horizon depth
Soil Lab Analysis
 pH
 moisture (%)
 total organic matter (%)
 total N (%)
 total C (%)
5m
20 m
Plant Diversity
HH YY RRJJ PPC
CB
B
a
b
a
a
b
b
a
b
a
30
3030
2.1
2.1
2.1
a
a
44
33
Clearcut
Pine Barrens
Richness
Richness
Jack Pine
Y. Pine
0.6
0.6
0.6
1
1
a
Y. Hardwood
Red Pine
Clearcut
Pine Barrens
Jack Pine
Y. Pine
Y. Hardwood
Red Pine
100
100
a
a
1.1
1.1
1.1
Hardwood
102
102
a
a
1.6
1.6
1.6
20
2020
10
1010
H Y RJ
J P
PC
CB
B
Hardwood
Richness
40
4040
a
b
2.6
2.6
2.6
Shannon Index (H’)
50
5050
Shannon
Shannon
Species Composition
Patch Type
Number of
Unique
Species
Number of
Introduced
Species
Average
Canopy
Cover (%)
Hardwood
10
1
96.4
Young
Hardwood
7
0
95.2
Red Pine
1
0
71.4
Jack Pine
1
4
51.0
Young Pine
1
3
45.1
Clearcut
2
4
0.1
Pine Barrens
9
3
2.0
DCA Ordination of Sampling Plots
300
clearcut
jack pine
red pine
y.pine
DCA Axis 2
250
hardwood
pine barrens
y.hardwood
200
150
100
50
Canopy Cover (R=0.85)
Soil Moisture, C-A, N-A (R=0.36-0.42)
0
0
100
200
DCA Axis 1
300
400
500
Variables Used in Regression Analysis
Independent Variables
Dependent Variables
 Litter cover, %
 Richness
 Litter depth, cm
 Shannon Diversity Index (H’)
 Duff depth, cm
 Coarse woody debris (CWD), %
 pH of each horizon (A, E, B)
 Organic matter content, % (A, E, B)
 Soil moisture, % (A, E, B)
 Total N content, % (A, E, B)
 Total C content, % (A, E, B)
 C/N ratio
 Aspect/Slope Variable [ tan(slope)*cos(aspect-45), see Stage 1976 ]
All variables were first standardized, then transformed as needed for
non-normal distributions
Regression Results
R2
F
P
Richness = 0.083 - 0.449 (canopy)
0.22
14.81
0.0003
ALL
H’ = 1.855 – 0.084 (canopy) + 0.055 (pH B)
0.10
2.79
0.0703
HDWDS
Richness = 26.08 – 2.276(canopy) + 1.177(pH B)
+ 2.139 (C B)
0.59
7.56
0.0023
HDWDS
H’ = 1.816 – 0.094 (canopy) + 0.142 (pH B)
0.39
5.41
0.0152
PINE
Richness = 29.93 – 2.15 (duff) – 2.16 (aspslp) +
1.50 (ph A)
0.37
3.50
0.0369
PINE
H’ = 1.851 – 0.194 (canopy) – 0.138 (pH E)
0.49
9.01
0.0018
OPEN
Richness = 30.400 + 1.955 (cwd) + 1.190 (pH E)
0.29
3.40
0.0574
OPEN
H’ = 1.945 + 0.964 (litter)
0.20
4.31
0.0533
Group
Model
ALL
Landscape Level
SB: small-block
clearcuts
POA:
thinning
LB: large-block
clearcuts
PB: fire
Pine-Oak/Visuals
Pine-Oak-Aspen
Pine-Oak Continuous Canopy
Pine/Small-Block
Pine-Oak/Large-Block
Pine Barrens
Private Land
N
0
5
10 Kilometers
Transect Measurements
Length: 3000+ m
n=600+ plots Plot size: 1x1 m
•percent cover by species
•canopy cover (%)
•litter cover (%)
•litter depth (cm)
•cwd (%)
•duff depth (cm)
•species, dbh, % cover overstory trees
•patch type
Number of Species
120
Pine Barrens (PB)
Pine-Oak Large-Block (LB)
Pine Small-Block (SB)
Pine-Oak-Aspen Forest (POA)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
Frequency (%)
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
0 50 100
Select Species Distributions
15 30 0 10
Amelanchier
arborea
80 0
Hieracium
aurantiacum
6 0
40
Conyza
canadensis
2
0
3
Trientalis
borealis
1
Trifolium
pratense
0
0
1000
2000
3000
JPO
SPB
OPB
SPB
CC
YA2
H1
H2
Distance (m)
YA1
OPB
MA
Percent Cover
20
Pteridium
aquilinum
PA
BOPB
OPB
Transect Summary
Pine
Barrens
LargeBlock
PO
SmallBlock
Pine
POA
Forest
Total Species Richness
132
78
77
73
Unique Species
45
2
11
3
Introduced Species
16
3
6
2
Shannon Index (H’)
3.05
2.57
2.51
2.42
Roads & Trails
9
7
6
3
Other Small Features
2
0
0
3
Patch Types
11
11
9
6
Patches
13
16
15
12
n = 600 plots/transect
Plant Species Functional Groups
Patch Type % Plots Exotics Unique Bryophytes Trees Shrubs Graminoids Herbs
6.2
11.8
41.4
71.0
95.3
75.0
98.0
BPB
1.3
-
3.82
0.23
-
-
-
-
C
3.3
3.03
0
-
-
-
-
-
H
26.0
0.13
0.35
-
-
-
-
-
MIX
2.3
-
2.42
-
-
-
-
-
NCC
1.3
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
OCC
14.9
-
-
0.49
-
-
-
-
OPB
3.0
1.82
1.67
-
0.38
-
-
-
P1
1.4
2.44
0
-
-
-
-
-
P2
8.6
-
0.16
-
-
-
-
-
P3
7.9
0.08
0.09
1.59
-
-
-
-
RET
5.4
0.25
0.07
1.95
-
-
-
-
SPB
7.1
-
2.28
-
-
-
-
-
YH1
0.2
0
2.12
-
-
-
-
-
YH2
3.7
3.44
6.94
1.82
-
-
-
-
alledges
8.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
allroads
5.9
3.78
1.68
-
-
-
-
-
EDGE-CC
1.1
0
1.88
-
-
-
-
-
EDGE-OC
6.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
EDGE-OO
0.5
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
EDGE-RCC
0.2
0
0
-
-
-
0.22
-
EDGE-ROC
0.7
5.04
1.59
-
0.35
-
-
-
R-C
1.8
4.88
1.57
-
-
-
-
-
R-O
3.2
3.18
1.89
-
-
-
-
-
>1.50
+ association
< 0.50
- association
Major Conclusions
 Little variation existed in species diversity
among patch types.
 Differences in composition among patch types
varied along a gradient largely related to canopy
cover.
Soil & local site factors appeared important to
predicting plant diversity only when broader-scale
variation related to overstory structure or
disturbance was reduced.
 Plant species responded individualistically to
landscape structure.
 Exotic and unique species favored roads, edges, and
open/disturbed patch types disproportionately to their
area in the landscape.
 The pine barrens were critical to broad-scale diversity.
 Harvesting did not mimic fire as a disturbance
mechanism.
 Effects of structural features (especially edges and
roads) on plant diversity were typically clear.
 Plant diversity patterns varied with resolution.
Landscape structure, function, and
pattern-process relationships cannot be
understood properly unless an
appropriate scale is used.
Furthermore, examination across a range
of scales is often necessary.
Application of Results to Predict Effects of
Landscape Structure on Plants
Economic Products
Recreation & Aesthetics
Forest
Management
Biological Diversity
Ecosystem Function & Health
t=t+i
t=0
Initial Landscape
-Landsat TM
-USDA FS (stand maps, OG, LTA)
-USGS (roads)
Alternative
Strategies
Constraints
t=1
t=n
t=0
t=1
Stand Structure
t=0
-basal area -height
-diameter distribution
Stand Projection
(LMS)
-dead wood
-composition
Stand-Level Outputs
t=n
t=1
Plant-Habitat
Relationships
t=0
-Patches -Edges
-Corridors -Matrix
Landscape-Level Outputs
t=n
t=1
Economic Returns
-cumulative value ($)
-saw timber, cordwood,
veneer
Wildlife Habitat Quality
-landscape composition &
connectivity, interior/edge area,
favored species
Wildlife Habitat Quality
-structural diversity
-favored species
-richness & abundance
-diversity index
-composition
Landscape
Structure
t=0
Economic Returns
Plant Distribution
HARVEST model
-NRA -reserves -riparian
zones -old-growth -etc.
t=n
Plant Distribution
Workshop
(Design & Assessment)
-richness & abundance
-diversity index, composition
Recreation
-uses and users
HARVEST Simulations Using Different Strategies
• total area harvested
• size distribution of openings
• rotation interval
• spatial dispersion of harvests
• constraints
Output (Landscape Structure)
•Original Vegetation Type
•Stand Age
•Area
•Edge Zone Occurrence
-Roads
-Different Patches
Current Patch Type
Classification
•Shrubs & Herbs
•Mature Hardwoods
•Young Hardwoods
•Mature Red Pine
•Mature Jack Pine
•Young Pine
•Mixed Hardwood/Pine
•Wetland
•New Clearcuts/Non-Vegetated
•Hardwood Road Zone
•Red Pine Road Zone
•Pine/Clearcut Edge (in forest)
•Clearcut/Pine Edge (in clearcut)
•Multiple Edge Zones
•Other
Current Patch Type Classification
DO WE HAVE DATA FOR CURRENT PATCH TYPE?
YES
NO
Assign Probability and Abundance
Vectors Obtained from Sampled Plots:
NEXT
STRUCTURAL
FEATURE
•Species Probability In a Particular Patch Type = Sampled Frequency in 50m2 Plots
•Abundance Vectors = Mean, Std. Of Sampled Abundances in 50m2 Plots
Generate Probability Of Occurrence By Species
Does Species Occur?
YES
NO
Generate Abundance
= Probability From Normal Distribution by
species With Mean and Std. Of Measured
Abundance
NEXT SPECIES
% of Landscape
Harvested (up to):
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
10
20
30
40
50
•All Simulations Run for 200 Years
•Buffer Patches in GIS (20 m each side)
•Buffer Roads (20 m each side)
•Cutting Guidelines Applied According to
Distinct Management Areas
•Minimum Patch Size=0.08 ha
Relative Area of Patch Types After Simulation
Patch Interiors
Edge Zones
Patch Type:
other edges-no data
red pine road zone
hdwd road zone
herb/pine edge
pine/herb edge
non-vegetated
wetland
herbs/shrubs
y. pine
red pine
jack pine
mixed forest
y. hdwd
mature hdwd
Run 1
0
10
20
30
40
Run 5
50
Percent of Total Landscape Area
60
Understory Species Richness
Overall Landscape Richness = 237 species (Run 1)
Run 1
= 237 species (Run 5)
Run 5
Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index
Run 1
Run 5
Test of the Model
3
60
(a) Species Richness
50
(b) Shannon Diversity
2.5
HRZ
PRZ
30
YP
CC
CC
CEZ
PEZ
CC
CCYP
CC
CC
HW D
MF
RP
HW D
JP
JP
CC
HW D
MF
YH
RP
HW DYH
HW D
RP
Predicted
Predicted
40
CC
20
WT
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
Actual
50
YP
MF
WT
1.5
60
WT=Wetland
JP=Jack Pine
CC=Clearcut (Herbs/Shrubs) RP=Red Pine
YP=Young Pine
YH=Young Hardwoods
0.5
0.5
YH
HWD
CC
MF
JP
CC CC
CC HWD
YH
HWD
CC
HWD
HWDRP YP RP
CC
WT
RP
WT
1
Slope =1.022
WTWT
2
CC HRZ
PRZ
PEZ
JP
CC
CEZ
1
H=Mature Hardwoods
MF=Mixed Forest
PRZ=Pine Road Zone
Slope =0.967
1.5
2
Actual
2.5
3
HRZ=Hardwood Road Zone
CEZ=Clearcut Edge Zone
PEZ=Pine Edge Zone
Related
Proposed
Research
past
......
Tim e = -2
Tim e = -1
future Tim e = 0
RESEARCH
landuse
scenarios
Landsat
(collaboration with
University of
Toledo)
Species/Population
Land Mosaic
Patch Interior
AEI
AMEI
Corridor
....
Soil Invertebrates
Students &
T eaching
Diploploda
Diptera
....
Plants
exotic
native
N fixation
grass
shrub
(species)
Interactive Web
(public domain)
nematodes
collembolans
mites
RESULT S
mosaic+species
assessment
workshops
....
policy decisions
policy
development