front range cflrp/srlcc monitoring update 1 st year spatial heterogeneity results
Post on 14-Jan-2016
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
FRONT RANGE CFLRP/SRLCC MONITORING UPDATE
1st Year Spatial Heterogeneity Results
Single Story
Multi Story
Openings
Spatial Aggregation “Groupy-Clumpy” Transect•Was not limited to NFS lands• Boulder County Parks and Open
Space•Oriented from Plot Center true north on all SRLCC CSE Plots•100 meter transect, measuring number and distance of Single story/multistory canopy cover and openings
Field Methods
Changes in Total Cover
PSINF PC 2
PSINF PC 3
Hall 1Hall 2
Heil 3Heil 5
Heil 7ARNF EV 28
ARNF EV 34
ARNF EV 13
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
Mean % length of transect covered by openings w/ (Standard Errors)
Before Treatment Sites
After Treatment Sites
Control sites
Perc
ent
Cover
N=5 N=10 N=4 N=7 N= 5 N=5 N=3 N=3N=5 N=5
Changes in Opening Size
PSINF PC 2
PSINF PC 3
Hall 1Hall 2
Heil 3Heil 5
Heil 7ARNF EV 28
ARNF EV 34
ARNF EV 13
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Mean size of openings w/ (Standard Errors)
Before Treatment Sites
After Treatment Sites
Control sites
Dis
tance (
mete
rs)
Take home
Total openings increased from pre to post treatments conditions Though differences were variable when
compared to control sites Mean single opening size increased
Again the variation between pre, post, and the controls were observed.
Future use? Ground truth remote sensing products and
analyses Operational use for TSA, and/or contractors
Treatment effects scale considerations
Limited monitoring resources, to evaluate a vast resource (Landscape) at fine scales (within stand/patch) We have to make decisions as to what level of
confidence we have in the data and what appropriate inferences we can be drawn from that data.
Trade-offs A very good understanding (i.e. beyond a reasonable
doubt”) at small scales in a limited number of site, vs A pretty good understanding (i.e. “a preponderance of
evidence”) at larger scales with more sites.
top related