1 / 37

MOFEP Ground Flora Study: Effects of Forest Management Practices on Woodland Plant Communities

MOFEP Ground Flora Study: Effects of Forest Management Practices on Woodland Plant Communities. Susan Farrington Plant Community Ecologist Missouri Department of Conservation Forest Systems Field Station West Plains, MO. SAMPLING DESIGN AND PROTOCOL:.

azize
Download Presentation

MOFEP Ground Flora Study: Effects of Forest Management Practices on Woodland Plant Communities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MOFEP Ground Flora Study: Effects of Forest Management Practices on Woodland Plant Communities Susan Farrington Plant Community Ecologist Missouri Department of Conservation Forest Systems Field Station West Plains, MO

  2. SAMPLING DESIGN AND PROTOCOL: Between 70 and 76 vegetation plots are located on each site (compartment) Total: 648 plots

  3. Each stand contains at least one vegetation plot

  4. Plots are distributed proportionately across Ecological Landtypes

  5. Ecological landtypes and natural communities on MOFEP Site 6 No harvest 7.3 1.1 Site 1 No harvest Dry chert woodland Dry-mesic chert woodland Dry dolomite woodland Dry igneous woodland 1.2 1.3 25 7.1 2.2 2.3 3.2 Dolomite glade 2.1 4.1 3.1 4.2 5.2 Site5 Even-aged Site 2 Uneven-aged Site 3 Even-aged Site 4 Uneven-aged Site 7 Uneven-aged Site 9 Even-aged Site 8 No harvest Dry-mesic chert forest 9.2 Dry-mesic dolomite forest Dry- mesic bottomland forest 11 6.2 8.1 12 10.1 13

  6. MOFEP Vegetation Plots ½ acre circular plots 4 subplots 1/20 acre 4 1m2quadrats per subplot Total of 16 1m2quadrats per plot

  7. 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.

  8. Plans for next harvest cycle: Full sample 2009 and 2010 Harvest 2011 Full sample 2012 and 2013 Full sample 2016 and 2017

  9. No harvest sites Uneven-aged sites Even-aged sites Mean species richness per plot before first harvest (1993-95) Site 1 Site 6 Site 8 Site 2 Site 4 Site 7 Site 3 Site 5 Site 9

  10. No harvest management Uneven-aged management Even-aged management 6 1 5 2 4 3 9 7 8 MOFEP Site Locations and Treatments

  11. 1620-1700 Depopulated era 1701-1780 Quapaw and Osage 1781-1820 Cherokee, Delaware, Shawnee 6 1 6 1 1 6 4 4 5 4 5 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 7 8 7 7 8 8 Guyette et al. 2003

  12. Data from 1993-2007: 482,755 records!

  13. Woodland Ruderal Native disturbance species Forest Generalist Common plants found in multiple communities Glade Woody Woody vines Exotic

  14. Ground Flora Study Questions: • How is the composition of natural communities affected by management practices? • How are species richness, diversity and dominance affected by management practices? • What management practices benefit the maximum number of conservative species in each natural community type? • 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? • 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?

  15. Clearcut Woodland Site 3 Plot 70 October 2008

  16. Block 1 Mean Species Richness per plot Harvest Harvest

  17. Block 2 Mean Species Richness per plot Harvest Harvest

  18. Block 3 Mean Species Richness per plot Harvest Harvest

  19. Mean Species Richness of woodland plots by prescription Post-trmt Pre-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt Post-trmt Pre-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt

  20. Glade coneflower 7 Coefficients of Conservatism (Ladd 1991) Daisy fleabane 1 Poison ivy 2 Poison ivy 2 Rattlesnakemaster 8

  21. Mean Conservatism of woodland plots by prescription Post-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt Pre-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt Post-trmt Pre-trmt

  22. Woodland Clearcut plots (n=25 plots) Pre-trmt Post-trmt Post-trmt Pre-trmt

  23. Intermediate thin plots (n=25 plots) Post-trmt Pre-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt

  24. Mean Species Richness of woodland plots by prescription – subsample Post-trmt Pre-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt Post-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt Pre-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt

  25. Mean Conservatism of woodland plots by prescription – subsample Post-trmt Pre-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt Pre-trmt Post-trmt Post-trmt Pre-trmt

  26. Clearcut Woodland Site 3 Plot 70 October 2008

  27. Thanks to many people: Jenny Grabner for overseeing the collection of most of these data, and for sharing her insights Mike Wallendorf and Steve Sheriff for statistical expertise Randy Jensen for all his MOFEP experience and knowledge Julie Fleming and Carrie Steen for helping me deal with a monstrous database Aaron Stevenson for serving as a good sounding board Tim Smith, George Yatskievych and Paul McKenzie for botanical expertise Slews 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

More Related