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 FarringtonPlant Community EcologistMissouri Department of ConservationForest Systems Field StationWest Plains, MO

Between 70 and 76 vegetation plots are located on each site (compartment) Total: 648 plots

SAMPLING DESIGN AND PROTOCOL:

Each stand contains at least one vegetation plot

Plots are distributed proportionately across Ecological Landtypes

Dry chert woodland

Dry-mesic chert woodland

Dry-mesic dolomite forest

Dolomite glade

7.3

Dry- mesic bottomland forest

25

Dry igneous woodland

Ecological landtypes and natural communities on MOFEP

Dry-mesic chert forest

Site 1 No harvest

Site 2 Uneven-aged Site 3

Even-aged

Site 4 Uneven-aged

Site5 Even-aged

Site 9 Even-aged

Site 6 No harvest

Site 8 No harvest

Site 7 Uneven-aged

1.1

1.2

1.3

2.1

3.1

2.2

2.33.2

4.1

5.2

4.2

9.2

11

6.2

10.1 12

13

7.1

Dry dolomite woodland

8.1

½ acre circular plots

4 subplots 1/20 acre

4 1m2 quadrats per subplot

Total of 16 1m2 quadrats per plot

MOFEP Vegetation Plots

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.

Year Ground flora data collected

1993 Full sample1994 Full sample1995 Full sample1996 HARVEST 1997 Incomplete sample – different protocol19981999 Full sample (original protocol)2000 Full sample2001 Full sample2002 Subsample20032004200520062007 Subsample (same plots as 2002)

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

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Mean species richness per plot before first harvest (1993-95)

No harvest sites

Uneven-agedsites

Even-aged sites

Site 1 Site 6 Site 8 Site 2 Site 4 Site 7 Site 3 Site 5 Site 9

No harvest managementUneven-aged management Even-aged management

MOFEP Site Locations and Treatments

61

2 5

3

78

9

4

1620-1700Depopulated era

1781-1820Cherokee, Delaware,

Shawnee

1701-1780Quapaw and Osage

87

9

1

23

45

6

87

9

1

23

4 5

6

87

9

1

23

4 56

Guyette et al. 2003

Data from 1993-2007:482,755 records!

Woodland

Glade

Forest

Exotic

Generalist

Woody

RuderalNative disturbance species

Common plants found in multiple communities

Woody vines

Ground Flora Study Questions:

1. How is the composition of natural communities affected by management practices?

2. How are species richness, diversity and dominance affected by management practices?

3. What management practices benefit the maximum number of conservative species in each natural community type?

4. 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?

5. 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?

Clearcut Woodland Site 3 Plot 70 October 2008

Site 1 - No Harvest Management

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# of

spe

cies

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Site 3 - Even Aged Management

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# of

spe

cies

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Block 1Mean Species Richness per plot

Site 2 - Uneven Aged Management

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# of

spe

cies

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Harvest Harvest

Site 6 - No harvest management

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# of

spe

cies

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Site 4 - Uneven aged management

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# of

spe

cies

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70Site 5 - Even aged management

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# of

spe

cies

45

50

55

60

65

70

Block 2 Mean Species Richness per plot

HarvestHarvest

Site 7 - Uneven aged management

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# of

spe

cies

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Site 8 - No harvest management

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# of

spe

cies

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Site 9 - Even aged management

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# of

spe

cies

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Block 3 Mean Species Richness per plot

HarvestHarvest

Leave (n = 374 plots)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# sp

ecie

s

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Single tree selection (n = 70 plots)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# sp

ecie

s

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Group openings (n = 43 plots)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# sp

ecie

s

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Mean Species Richness of

woodland plots by prescription

Clearcuts (n = 25 plots)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# sp

ecie

s

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Intermediate thin (n = 26 plots)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# sp

ecie

s

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Pre-trmtPre-trmt Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Rattlesnake master8

Glade coneflower 7

Poison ivy2

Daisy fleabane1

Poison ivy2

Coefficients of Conservatism

(Ladd 1991)

Single tree selection (n = 70 plots)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8Leave (n = 374 plots)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

Group openings (n = 44 plots)

Year

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8Clearcuts (n = 25 plots)

Year

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

Mean Conservatism of woodland plots by

prescription

Intermediate thin (n = 26 plots)

Year

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

Pre-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt Post-trmt

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Mean Species Richness

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# sp

ecie

s

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

Woodland Clearcut plots (n=25 plots)Pre-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Pre-trmt

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

Mean Species Richness

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

# sp

ecie

s

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70 Intermediate thin plots (n=25 plots)Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Clearcuts (n=13 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

# of

spe

cies

per

plo

t

30

40

50

60

70Group openings (n=24 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

# of

spe

cies

per

plo

t

30

40

50

60

70

Intermediate thin (n=18 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

# of

spe

cies

per

plo

t

30

40

50

60

70

Leave (n=34 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

# of

spe

cies

per

plo

t

30

40

50

60

70Single tree selection (n=30 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

# of

spe

cies

per

plo

t

30

40

50

60

70Mean Species Richness of

woodland plots by prescription –

subsamplePost-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmtPre-trmt

Clearcuts (n=13 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

Leave plots (n=34 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

Intermediate thin (n=18 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

Single tree selection (n=30 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

Group openings (n=23 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Coe

ffici

ent o

f Con

serv

atis

m

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

Mean Conservatism of woodland plots

by prescription – subsample

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Pre-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Post-trmt

Mean percent cover per plot by species type Leave woodlands (n=34 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Per

cent

cov

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 WoodlandForestWoodyWoody vineGeneralistRuderalUnknown

Percent Cover - Fourche Creek Control Site (Data from Effects of Prescribed Burn study)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

cov

er

0

10

20

30

40

WoodyHerbaceous

Mean percent cover per plot by species typeSingle tree selection woodlands (n=30 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Per

cent

cov

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 WoodlandForestWoodyWoody vineGeneralistRuderalUnknown

Mean species richness per plot by species typeIntermediate thinned woodlands (n=18 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Per

cent

cov

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 WoodlandForestWoodyWoody vineGeneralistRuderalUnknown

Mean percent cover per plot by species typeGroup opening woodlands (n=23 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Per

cent

cov

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 WoodlandForestWoodyWoody vineGeneralistRuderalUnknown

Mean percent cover per plot by species type Clearcut woodlands (n=13 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Per

cent

cov

er

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 WoodlandForestWoodyWoody vineGeneralistRuderalUnknown

Species richness by community typesWoodland clearcuts (n=13 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Mea

n nu

mbe

r of s

peci

es p

er p

lot

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

WoodlandForestWoody vinesGeneralistRuderalGladeFenUnknownExoticWoody

Mean Species Richness of Woodland species by CCClearcut Woodland plots (n=13 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Num

ber o

f spe

cies

per

plo

t

0

5

10

15

20

25

30UnknownCC = 0CC = 1CC = 2CC = 3CC = 4CC = 5CC = 6CC = 7CC = 8

Mean percent cover of Woodland Species by CC Clearcut woodlands (n=13 plots)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Perc

ent c

over

per

plo

t

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16Unknown CCCC = 0CC = 1CC = 2CC = 3CC = 4CC = 5CC = 6CC = 7CC = 8

Clearcut Woodland Site 3 Plot 70 October 2008

Thanks to many people:

Jenny Grabner for overseeing the collection of most of these data, and for sharing her insightsMike Wallendorf and Steve Sheriff for statistical expertiseRandy Jensen for all his MOFEP experience and knowledge Julie Fleming and Carrie Steen for helping me deal with a monstrous databaseAaron Stevenson for serving as a good sounding boardTim Smith, George Yatskievych and Paul McKenzie for botanical expertiseSlews 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