Upload
fionan
View
38
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Effects of restoration treatments on ponderosa pine ecosystems, Front Range, Colorado 2011-2013 . Monitoring update, LR team meeting January 23, 2013. Jenny Briggs, USGS Paula Fornwalt , RMRS Jonas Feinstein, NRCS. Our objectives. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Effects of restoration treatments on ponderosa pine ecosystems,
Front Range, Colorado2011-2013
Monitoring update, LR team meetingJanuary 23, 2013
Jenny Briggs, USGSPaula Fornwalt, RMRSJonas Feinstein, NRCS
Our objectives• Expand the scope of the planned CFLR monitoring to include:
• Additional sites beyond NF lands• Control (untreated) as well as treated sites• Variables mentioned in CFLR objectives but not funded by
planned CSE monitoring
• “Test” monitoring methods under discussion by LR team
• Utilize complementary funding awarded by the Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Collaborative (SRLCC) and Boulder County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS)
Reminder! Front Range CFLRP objectives
1. Complex mosaic of tree density, age, size (at stand scale)
2. More characteristic fire regime3. More favorable distribution of tree
species4. Diverse native plant communities5. Improved habitat for expected wildlife
species6. Complex mosaic of forest density, age,
size (at landscape scale)
View from Heil Valley Ranch, Boulder County
Study sites – 2011-13Fort Collins
Estes Park
Boulder
Denver
Woodland Park
Colorado Springs
Pike San Isabel NF (PSI NF) – 2 units
Boulder County Parks & Open Space (BCPOS) – 4 units
Arapaho-Roosevelt NF (AR NF) – 3 units
Study design and treatment typesSite
Unit T or C Pre trt data?
Post trt data?
Trt type
PSINF Phantom1 T 2011 2012 Mech. Thin C 2011 2012 Phantom2 T 2011 2012 Mech. Thin C 2011 2012 BCPOS Hall2 T - 2012 Hand Thin + pile burn C - 2012 Heil5 T 2011 2013 Mech. thin C 2011 2013 Heil7 T 2011 2013 Mech. thin C 2011 2013 Heil3 T - 2012 Mech. Thin C - 2012 ARNF Estes5-34 T 2011 2012 Hand Thin C 2011 2012 Estes5- 28 T 2011 2012 Hand Thin C 2011 2012 Estes5- 13 T 2011 2013 Hand Thin + mastication C 2011 2013
• Plot selection: random + targeted approach
• Used subset of CSE plots on subset of CFLR units
• Plot density: 1 per 10 ac - 1 per 50 ac
• Sample sizes: 3-10 plots per “unit”; 10 units
• Total = 52 treatment plots, 47 controls
Sampling design
• Overstory trees
• Surface fuels
• Stand structure transects
• Understory plants
• Wildlife use
• Tree regeneration
Field measurements
Variable-radius plot – Basal Area Factor (BAF) 10
Field measurements – overstory
-To quantify within-stand heterogeneity
- Ran 100-m transects N from plot centers
Field methods – stand structure transects
Single Story
Multi Story
Openings
Stand Structure “Clumpiness” Transect
100 meter transect, measuring number and distance of openings vs. “clumps” (single story/multistory canopy cover)
a. Percent cover of species and forest floor elements*• 4 point-intercept transects per 0.1
acre plot• 100 observations per transect
*Data on litter, soil, fine fuels, and coarse fuels included today
Field methods - understory
b. Complete species inventory• All additional species
were recorded for the 0.1 ac plot
• Recorded wildlife use (recent vs. older sign) on:
- All in-plot trees, snags, stumps- Forest floor in 0.1 ac plot
• ID-ed in field and/or photos later checked by specialist(s)
• Distinguished fresh sign pre-treatment (since snowmelt in season pre-trt), older pre-trt sign, & fresh post-trt sign
• Not included in analyses: - Older sign pre-trt (may compare w. older sign @ 5 yrs post-trt)- Visual and acoustic observations of animals in plots- Pitfall trap data for ground insects – not included today
Field methods – wildlife use
Statistical analyses• Mixed-model approach in SAS:
– How was each metric affected by treatment? • Treated vs. untreated areas• 2011 (pre) vs. 2012/2013 (1 yr post treatment)
– Plot data were coded by unit (area) within site (= random effects); site was not a main effect in models
– We present means (+/- standard errors; SEs) for each metric across sites, for treated vs. untreated areas, pre vs. post treatment
• Statistically significant differences between means ( alpha level p <0.05)
Results: How were overstory conditions
impacted by treatments?
Decreased Basal Area & TPAns; similar % ponderosa
Untreated TreatedTotal basal area (BA; ft2/ac) Pre-treatment 109.4(7.2)a 110.9 (7.5)a
1 yr post-treatment . 69.4 (6.8)b
Ponderosa trees per acre (TPA) Pre-treatment 318.8 (71.1)a 222.7 (33.3)a
1 yr post-treatment . 119.1(21.0)a
Percent BA ponderosa pine Pre-treatment 77.5 (4.8)a 74.4 (5.3)a
1 yr post-treatment . 80.2 (4.5)a
How was stand structure impacted?
Increased % open; same # openings but larger
Untreated TreatedPercent open (per 100m) Pre-treatment 41.7 (2.7)a 36.3 (3.2)a
1 yr post-treatment . 65.7 (3.0)b
Number of openings (per 100m) Pre-treatment 6.4 (0.3)a 6.7 (0.4)a
1 yr post-treatment . 5.9 (0.3)a
Average opening size (m) Pre-treatment 6.5 (0.4)a 5.6 (0.5)a
1 yr post-treatment . 13.2 (1.5)b
Same # clumps but smaller; Less multi-story
Untreated TreatedAverage # clumps (closed sections) Pre-treatment 6.7(0.3)a 7.0(0.5)a
1 yr post-treatment . 5.7(0.3)a
Average size of clump (m) Pre-treatment 9.4(0.8)a 11.1(1.2)a
1 yr post-treatment . 6.0 (0.5)b
% clumps with single: multi story Pre-treatment 49.1 (17.2)a 43.5 (20.1)a
1 yr post-treatment . 83.4 (14.7) b
How were understory plants impacted by treatments?
Forest floor elements were (somewhat) influenced by treatments
– Litter cover: Decreased– Soil cover: Increased (kind of)
Untreated TreatedLitter cover (%) Pre-treatment 85.3 (1.5) a 85.0 (1.5) a 1 yr post-treatment 82.5 (1.5) a 75.3 (1.7) b Soil cover (%) Pre-treatment 3.0 (0.9) a 3.0 (0.7) ab
1 yr post-treatment 3.0 (0.9) ab 4.9 (0.8) b
Treatments increased cover of fine fuels; coarse woody debris change not represented w/ this method
Untreated TreatedFine fuels cover (%) Pre-treatment 11.9 (2.0) a 10.4 (1.0) a
1 yr post-treatment 7.2 (1.0) b 18.3 (2.0) c
Coarse woody debris cover (%) Pre-treatment ~low ~ low 1 yr post-treatment ~low often high!
- Fine fuels includes chips from mastication where present- Coarse fuels includes slash logs/piles where present
Examples of slash treatment
Total understory cover and richness were not influenced by treatments…
– Cover: Averaged 11.5% across all treatments, years– Richness: Averaged 30.8 species/plot
Untreated TreatedTotal plant cover (%) Pre-treatment 13.3 (1.8) a 11.1 (1.3) a
1 yr post-treatment 13.0 (1.7) a 8.7 (1.2) a
Total plant richness (species/plot) Pre-treatment 32.4 (1.3) a 29.3 (1.1) a
1 yr post-treatment 31.4 (1.5) a 30.3 (1.5) a
… and remained uninfluenced no matter how data were sliced and diced
Sliced by life form…
• Graminoid/forb/shrub cover– Gram cover: 3.6%– Forb cover: 1.8%– Shrub cover: 6.0%
• Graminoid/forb/shrub richness– Gram richness: 6.1 species/plot– Forb richness: 19.3– Shrub richness: 4.6
Sliced by life span…
• Short-lived/long-lived plant cover– Short-lived cover: 0.4%– Long-lived cover: 11.0%
• Short-lived/long-lived plant richness– Short-lived richness: 2.9 species/plot– Long-lived richness: 27.1
Sliced by nativity…
• Native/exotic cover– Native cover: 10.9%– Exotic cover: 0.5%
• Native/exotic richness– Native richness: 29.1 species/plot– Exotic richness: 1.5
How was wildlife use impacted by treatments?
Wildlife use sign
GUILD EXAMPLES OF SIGN RECORDED
Tree squirrels Abert’ssquirrel cone cobs
Pine squirrelcone cobs
Needleclippings
Middens Nests
Birds Nests Cavities Bole foraging
Owl pellets, turkey poop
(Feathers)
Ungulates Deer/elk pellets
Game trails Resting beds
Aspen browse marks
Grazed saplings
Large mammals Scat-bear, coyote
Scat- lion, fox, bobcat
Foragedlogs
Predated carcasses
Small mammals Scat- rodent/rabbit/hare
Burrows Feeding sign
Invertebrates Ant hills Ground-dwellinginsects in pitfall traps
Some short-term response to treatmentsUntreated Treated
Guilds represented per plot (0-6) Pre-treatment 1.9 (0.4) a 2.2 (0.2) a
1 yr post-treatment 2.1 (0.7) a 1.2 (0.2) b
Plots with presence of recent sign from any guild (%) Pre-treatment 100 (0) a 97.1 (2.9) a
1 yr post-treatment 87.5 (5.9) a 73.5 (7.7) a
Plots w presence of recent sign tree squirrels (%) Pre-treatment 87.5 (5.9) a 64.7 (8.3) a
1 yr post-treatment 68.8 (8.3) a 29.4 (7.9) b
No detectable change in presence of recent sign of other “guilds”
Average % plots with recent sign across all treatments/years:
– Ungulates: 31.7% – Birds: 49.2%– Small mammals: 12.2%– Large mammals: 2.9%
Trends (non significant) for lower use of treated sites, and/or annual variation
Exploring preliminary relationships (regressions) among variables
Summary of treatment effects: forest floor
• Small decrease in litter cover, small increase in soil cover • Moderate increases in woody debris
Progress toward desired conditions? Yes for litter and soil – small changes in desired directionNo or ? for woody debris – depending on wildlife vs. fuels
perspective
Summary of treatment effects: understory plants
• No change in understory plant cover or richness – understories were resilient to treatment disturbance
– Consistent with the literature for first year response
– Increases in cover/richness following treatments can take several years
– Understories may not respond at all if canopy not opened up enough and if forest floor not exposed
• Very low proportion of exotics
Progress toward desired conditions? Did not move AWAY from desired conditions, but did not move toward them either (at least not yet)
Summary of treatment effects: overstory
• 30% decrease in overstory BA• 50% decrease in total TPA• ~5% increase in percent ponderosa pine
• Progress toward desired conditions? - Yes in terms of direction- ? In terms of amount of change
Summary of treatment effects: stand structure
• 2-fold increase in amount of open-ness in stands• Increased size of openings but low variation in size• Same number of openings• Same number and smaller size of “clumps”• ~ 2-fold increase in single- vs. multi-story canopy structure
Progress toward desired conditions?- Yes on direction of most changes – increasing mosaic- ? on amount of change & variability of changes within/among stands
Consider retaining larger clumps, multi-story components, and increasing range of sizes of clumps & interspaces
Summary of treatment effects:wildlife use
• Few detectable changes in use by most groups
• Small decrease in use of treated sites by tree squirrels
• Too short-term to tell if these changes will persist• Not enough detailed data to tell if these changes reflect important
population- or community-level trends
• Progress toward desired conditions?– Uncertain based on these data
Arewe treating
the rightareas?
Aretreatments contributing
to DCs?
Define Restoration Actions/TreatmentsDefined by Front Range Roundtable; agreed by Agencies
Define Desired Conditions (DCs) for Ecological Restoration and identify uncertaintiesDefined by Front Range Roundtable* and Agencies
Define Restoration AreasProposed by Agencies; agreed by Front Range Roundtable (pre-NEPA)
Project Planning,NEPA
Project Implementation and Implementation
monitoring**
Goal: To Sustain Front Range Montane Ecosystems
No
No
Yes
Yes
Pre-Treatment MonitoringHave
we defined appropriate
DCs?
Didwe definethe goal(s) correctly?
No
No
Post-TreatmentMonitoring
Yes
Develop/Modify Monitoring Plan
Analysis/EvaluationBy Agencies and Front Range Roundtable* Currently delegated to the Landscape Restoration Team
** See explanation in accompanying text
Are wemonitoring theright things? Is
monitoringeffective?
Yes
Effectiveness monitoring: long-term, landscape-scale
External/InternalResearch
Adaptive monitoring: Continual and long term
No
How effective were our methods?• Overstory – CSE methods effective for plot-based overstory statistics
– Consider modifying scale and intensity of effort in future yrs– Improve methods for capturing fuels and regeneration data
• Stand Transects – surprising amount of info beyond plot level for small time/cost! (10-30 min/transect)– add perpendicular measures of clump width?– Correlate with imagery analysis
• Understory -- transects may not capture % cover for as many species as ideal, but was effective approach combined w/ 100% search of plot– New team will evaluate possible modifications
• Wildlife use -- achieved goal of getting “pilot” data on presence/absence of guilds’ use of the actual trees & plots in forest inventory
- but sign counting methods were very general, not targeted to best spatial scale for key species/guilds of interest
- prone to observer variation/errors in ID of freshness as well as species
Wildlife monitoring effort should be significantly expanded based on team’s input, to get more detailed info on population status and trends of the most ecologically informative species’ response to treatment over time!
How effective were our methods?
Possible next steps/future directions
• Within LR team/Roundtable setting – Continue larger “data evaluation” process with CFRI team– Recommendations for A.M. for CFLR, 2014 & beyond– Contribute to national indicator assessment– Prepare manuscript for journal submission
• Beyond – Build connections with other CFLRs? – Extend timeline to learn more abt Tier 2 variables? – Funding?
Many thanksSRLCC proposal partners & LR team players• Craig Hansen, USFWS; Casey Cooley, CPW• Sara Mayben, Jeff Underhill, Janelle Valladares, PSINF• Paige Lewis and Mike Babler, TNC• Jessica Clement and Peter Brown, CFRI• Greg Aplet, The Wilderness Society• Mike Battaglia, RMRS• Claudia Regan, R2• Hal Gibbs, ARNF; • Scott Woods, CSFS
PSINF, ARNF, BCPOS staff• Felix Quesada, Janelle Valladares, Ed Biery, Chris Oliver, PSINF• Dave Hattis, Adam Messing, Kevin Zimlinghaus, ARNF• Chad Julian, Susan Spaulding, Nick Stremel, & volunteers - BCPOS
Field crews• Stephanie Asherin, Abby Smith, Peter Pavlowich, Danny Volz, Rebecca
Harris, Matt Thomas, Kristen Doyle, Akasha Faist, Colton Heeney