1 / 31

Creating and Maintaining Multi-Strata Stands Is FVS wrong?

Creating and Maintaining Multi-Strata Stands Is FVS wrong?. GMUG 11/15/2013 Weikko Jaross. 9/22/2014. DRAFT subject to change. 1. The case study location Generally observed patterns What is a multi-strata stand? Design parameters Concluding remarks. The Focus of this talk. 2.

danica
Download Presentation

Creating and Maintaining Multi-Strata Stands Is FVS wrong?

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. Creating and Maintaining Multi-Strata StandsIs FVS wrong? GMUG 11/15/2013 Weikko Jaross 9/22/2014 DRAFT subject to change 1

  2. The case study location Generally observed patterns What is a multi-strata stand? Design parameters Concluding remarks The Focus of this talk 2 DRAFT subject to change

  3. Case Study Location • Lands held in fiduciary trust • Sustainable harvest unit • 1997 State Trust Lands HCP • ~255k forested acres • 3,595 FVS ready stands The Olympic Experimental State Forest has a long term vision of achieving the dual objective of producing commodities and ecosystem functions from old forest stands. DRAFT subject to change 3

  4. Current Patterns A view of an OESF landscape having continuous forest cover DRAFT subject to change 4

  5. Harvest Patterns Examples of Variable Retention Harvesting and Variable Density Thinning DRAFT subject to change 5

  6. Regeneration Patterns Uniform Random Clumped DRAFT subject to change

  7. Storm Driven Patterns • Winter storm months (October-March) • Pacific low pressure centers (cyclones) • Typical endemic storms • wind gusts 18-26 m/s (~40-60 mph) • minor damage to stands • Exceptional catastrophic storms • wind gusts 33+ m/s (~70+ mph) • 100+ mph along coast • extensive damage to stands January,1993 “Inaugural Day Storm” DRAFT subject to change

  8. Forest Level Patterns Natural regeneration processes occupy a continuous range of post disturbance scales from gap-phase to large openings with retention Common silvicultural systems practice narrowly defined scales and patterns. DRAFT subject to change

  9. Conceptual Strata > 15 30”+ tpa & > 2 strata Sapling Pole Saw Large Tree DRAFT subject to change

  10. Sustain the dual objective at the stand scale Build upon previous growth modeling efforts Emulate patterns by balancing harvest with growth Achieve key strategies for each stratum manage regeneration toward a target condition manage the mid-story to a target stand density manage the overstory to achieve stand development Can a one-size fits all approach work? Design Parameters 12 DRAFT subject to change

  11. FVS Code DRAFT subject to change 13

  12. FVS Code Cont. • Scenarios • ABA79 • ATA15 • ATA17 DRAFT subject to change 14

  13. FVS Code Cont. • Regeneration is managed to a target density of established mid-story cohorts • At 30-years post-harvest • representative tree species • 129 trees per acre • 12 to 50 feet tall trees • clustered in lower density plots DRAFT subject to change 15

  14. Ideal 30-Year Cutting Cycle 1 3 4 10 2 5 6 7 8 9 DRAFT subject to change 16

  15. Stands Cut 17 DRAFT subject to change

  16. Volume Removals ? 18 DRAFT subject to change

  17. Forest Level (multi-strata) ? 19 DRAFT subject to change

  18. Forest Level (big trees) 20 DRAFT subject to change

  19. Stand Level (multi-strata) ? 21 DRAFT subject to change

  20. Stand Level (big trees) 22 DRAFT subject to change

  21. Stand Level (Multi-Strata and Big Trees) Not enough strata Not enough big trees 23 DRAFT subject to change

  22. ATA17 Scenario Over Time 24 DRAFT subject to change

  23. ATA15 Scenario Over Time 25 DRAFT subject to change

  24. ABA79 Scenario Over Time 26 DRAFT subject to change

  25. The simulation techniques do better than no-management at the forest and stand levels. Managing the overstory crown cover to a basal area target performs best in terms of the dual objective. Long term, the standardized removals are not well matched to stratum level accretion. Results Summary 27 DRAFT subject to change

  26. FVS was sensitive to the parameters for regeneration assumptions stratum level target retention levels minimum harvest levels cutting cycles Lower minimum harvest levels resulted in stands having more consistent re-entry patterns fewer multi-strata stands fewer large trees Multi-strata approaches are similar to the group selection examples in the FVS documentation. General Observations 28 DRAFT subject to change

  27. So, is FVS wrong? 29 DRAFT subject to change

  28. The overstory results are consistent with others’ modeling work. The concept of managing each stratum to specific targets seems to make sense. Is the growth in each stratum realistic? Can FVS predictions apply to broader scales and patterns? Validation methods and data must exist ?? My Thoughts 30 DRAFT subject to change

  29. Time for Questions? 31 DRAFT subject to change

More Related