Upload
barrie-craig
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1972 – 2001 1972 – 2001 Landscape Dynamics Landscape Dynamics
WisconsinWisconsin
38858.13ha (96020.19ac)
1972 19781982
19871992 2001
Landscape Dynamics of the Landscape Dynamics of the Washburn District, N. Wisc.Washburn District, N. Wisc.
Ownership and LandscapesOwnership and Landscapes
•The number of family forest owners in the conterminous US increased from 9.3 million in 1993 to 10.3 million in 2003,
•and these owners now control 42% of the nation’s forest land
Butler and Leatherberry 2004J. For. 102(7): 4-9
Lots of Indian ReservationsLess private
Public lands in high elevationSmall portion of state lands
Case Study I
Landscapes in Central OregonLandscapes in Central OregonSpies et al. 1994.
Study objectives: landscape, change, and ownership effects in W. Cascades, 158,930 ha)
•Landsat images from 1972, 1976, 1981, 1984, and 1988;•By ownership, elevation;•Harvesting effects;•Only two cover types (black & white);•91% accuracy (this is high).
Linear
Interior <10%
More smaller patches in 1988
Less large patches
Changes in sub-landscapes
92%
10%
84%
65%
Nucleation change
High
Low
Low
Take Home MessagesTake Home Messages
•Conifer forest declined (71-58%); Greater at private lands.
•AEI increased and interior decreased, but depending on ownership.
•The annual rate was about 1.19%.
•Large forest patches are emerging (why?).
•Different management options for different owners.
Case Study IILandscapes in Northern WisconsinLandscapes in Northern Wisconsin
Crow et al. 1999
Study Objectives: to partition the sources of variation in the composition and structure of a landscape as related to the physical environment and land use as affected by ownership.
Sample plots(16 from 20)
Photo interpretation
•1:15840 B/W or 1:1200 natural color (1993)•Transferred to 1:2400 USGS topo maps•Digitized into PC ARCINFO GIS
The entire land area shares a common land-use history. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, intensive logging occurred throughout NW WI. However, the most prevalent process in the study area was reforested.
•95% of public forest on outwash and 64% on moraine;
•No difference for private forest (i.e., 65%);
•Large lands surrounding lakes are private;
•More wetlands on moraine;
•Privates owns more agricultural lands.
•More even distribution among the classes of upland forest is evident for private land on outwash;
•Less regenerating forests on private lands;
•Smaller patches for mixed forests;
Landscape StructureLandscape Structure
Outwash:Smaller patches on private lands;But more fragmented;
Landscape Structure: landform effectsLandscape Structure: landform effects
Different
Not Different
Large
Small
ConclusionsConclusions
•Complex interactions between landform and ownership;
•What differences, in terms of ecological consequences, can landscape (composition and structure) produce?
•Different management scenarios?
•Anything else?