2015 forestry & wildlife research review€¦ · 3 agenda 2015 forest and wildlife research...
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainable Forests Education Cooperative
2015 Forestry & Wildlife Research Review
Aday‐longsymposium:TuesdayFebruary24,2015
8:15am–4:30pmCloquetForestryCenterinCloquet,MN
2
Table of Contents Agenda.........................................................................................................................................................................................3
WelcomeandOverview........................................................................................................................................................4
ForestryKeynote:Adaptingforeststoclimatechange:Lessonsandapproachesformanaginguncertainty............................................................................................................................................................................5
WildlifeKeynote:Anoverviewofforestwildlifepopulations&managementissues...........................6
Block1:SilviculturePresentations..................................................................................................................................7
Evaluatingtheecologicalimpactsofemeraldashborerandclimatechangeonblackashforests.7
Newcohortandstand‐levelbiomassgrowthaftervariableretentionharvestsinaredpineecosystem...............................................................................................................................................................................8
Forestresponsetoharvestresidueremovalandassociatedpracticesvarieswithsiteconditions..................................................................................................................................................................................................10
Block2:Forest‐basedWildlifePresentations............................................................................................................11
Northernlong‐earedbatinMinnesota....................................................................................................................11
ThestatusandconditionofMinnesota’smoosepopulation..........................................................................11
Fisherandmarten:Seeingthestructurefortheforest.....................................................................................12
Block3:“LightningTalks”byPosterPresenters......................................................................................................13
Aninformationexchangeforwildlifeinfire‐dependentecosystemsoftheNorthernLakeStates13
StructureanddynamicsofjackpineforestsincentralMinnesota..............................................................14
Thelongestrunningnorthernhardwoodsilvicultureexperimentintheworld!..................................15
HowhealthyareMinnesota’sforests?InsightsusingforesthealthindicatorsfromtheForestInventoryandAnalysisProgram................................................................................................................................16
Block4:Presentations.........................................................................................................................................................17
AssessingeffectsofharvestlandingsonearlystandgrowthusingLiDAR...............................................17
Forestdisturbanceandimplicationsforeffectsonwaterqualityatthewatershedscale.................18
Forestdeadwood:researchinsightsforforestandwildlifemanagers.....................................................19
Attendees..................................................................................................................................................................................20
CreditandAcknowledgments..........................................................................................................................................24
Notes...........................................................................................................................................................................................25
SFECMemberorganizationsfor2014‐2015..............................................................................................................28
KeepinginTouch...................................................................................................................................................................28
3
Agenda
2015 Forest and Wildlife Research Review February24,2015from8:15am–4:30pm,CloquetForestryCenter8:15am Check‐inopens
8:45am Welcome and agenda review EliSagor,UMN‐SFEC
9:00am Forestry Keynote Adaptingforeststoclimatechange:Lessonsandapproachesformanaginguncertainty
MariaJanowiak,NIACS
9:45am Wildlife KeynoteAnoverviewofforestwildlifepopulations&managementissues
MikeLarson,MNDNR‐Wildlife
10:30am Breakandpostersession:AtriumandStineRoom
11:00am Block 1: Silviculture ‐Evaluatingtheecologicalimpactsofemeraldashborerandclimatechangeonblackashforests‐Newcohortandstand‐levelbiomassgrowthaftervariableretentionharvestsinaredpineecosystem‐Forestresponsetoharvestresidueremovalandassociatedpracticesvarieswithsiteconditions
BrianPalik,USFSNRSRebeccaMontgomery,UMN‐FR
MirandaCurzon,UMN‐FR
Noon Lunchandpostersession:DiningHallandStineRoom(posters)
1:00pm Block 2: Forest-based Wildlife‐Northernlong‐earedbatinMinnesota‐ThestatusandconditionofMinnesota’smoosepopulation‐Fisherandmarten:Seeingthestructurefortheforest
RichBaker,MNDNR‐EcologicalResources
RonMoen,UMD‐NRRIJohnErb,MNDNR‐Wildlife
2:00pm Block 3: “Lightning Talks” by Poster Presenters‐Aninformationexchangeforwildlifeinfire‐dependentecosystemsoftheNorthernLakeStates‐StructureanddynamicsofjackpineforestsincentralMinnesota‐Thelongestrunningnorthernhardwoodsilvicultureexperimentintheworld!‐HowhealthyareMinnesota’sforests?InsightsusingforesthealthindicatorsfromtheForestInventoryandAnalysisProgram
LindseyShartell,MNDNR‐Wildlife
KyleGill,UMN‐FRChristelKern,USFSNRSMattRussell,UMN‐FR
2:30pm Breakandpostersession
3:00pm Block 4: Other Presentations ‐AssessingeffectsofharvestlandingsonearlystandgrowthusingLiDAR‐Forestdisturbanceandimplicationsforeffectsonwaterqualityatthewatershedscale‐Forestdeadwood:researchinsightsforforestandwildlifemanagers
RobSlesak,MFRCJenniferCorcoran,MNDNR‐Forestry
MattRussell,UMN‐FR
4:00pm Synthesis&opendiscussion:Reflectionsandfutureneeds EliSagor,UMN‐SFEC
4:30pm Adjourn
4
Welcome and Overview Firstandforemost,welcometoSFEC’s11thAnnualForestryandWildlifeResearchReview!Everybodyherebringsauniqueperspectiveandexperienceandweencourageyoutolisten,reflect,andshareyours.Ourpanelofspeakershasagreedtoshareadiverseandinformativeseriesofpresentationstoday,andwehopeyouwillpickupatleastafewnewideasthatyoucanputtowork. Evenwithagreatseriesofpresentations,theResearchReviewcanbeachallengingevent.Wewillmovequicklyfromonepresentationtothenext.Anyofourspeakerscouldeasilyexpandtoday’spresentationtofillaproductiveday‐longworkshop,butmosthaveonly20minutes,andsomeevenless.Andwhilewe’veaskedthemtocarveoutafewminutesforQ&A,weknowthatlimitedtimewillleavemanyquestionsunanswered.Sowhattodo?Weencourageyoutothinkofthepresentationsasthebeginningofaconversation–notthelastword.Ifyoudon’thaveachancetohaveyourquestionsfullyansweredpublicly,findthepresenterduringoneofthethreelongbreakstofollowup.Ifthatdoesn’twork(thedaycanbecomeabitchaotic),emailorcallthepresenter,whosecontactinformationappearsalongwiththeirabstractlaterinthispacket.Buildingonwhatyouhearfrompresenters,reflectonthecontentwithyourpeers:Whichnewideascanyouapply,andhow?Howmightyouthinkdifferentlyaboutyourworkafterhearingthesepresentations?Whatmorewouldyouneedtoknowtoactonwhatyoulearnedtoday?Conversely,howcanthesepresentationsvalidateideasandpracticesthatyouhavealreadyintegratedintoyourwork?LightningTalks:Thisyearwe’veaddedanewpresentationformattotheResearchReview.Whilewe’vealwaysincludedposters,thisyearposterpresentershaveaboutfiveminuteseachtogivea“LightningTalk”abouttheirresearch.Aswiththeotherpresentations,5minutescanreallyonlybegintoscratchthesurface,butwehopetheywillmaketheposterpresentersandtheirresearchamoreprominentandvisiblecomponentoftheevent.PleasecontinuetheconversationwithposterpresentersintheStineRoomduringbreaks,includingthesecondhalfofthelunchhour.Wewanttohearfromyou!HowcouldwemakethenextResearchReviewbetter?Inprioryearsyou’vetoldusyoulikethewidevarietyoftopics.Yourmostconsistentcriticismisthattalksoveremphasizeresearchdetailsattheexpenseofreal‐worldappliedvalueoftheresults.Wehavetriedtoaddressthisfeedbackthisyear,butdependonyoutohelpuscontinuallyimprove.Pleaseusetheevaluationform–wereallywanttohearfromyou.Thankyouagainforbeingheretoday.Wehopeyoufindthisyear’sResearchReviewbothfunandinformative,andwehopetoseeyouatotherSFECeventsthisyear.‐EliSagorandJulieHendrickson
5
Forestry Keynote: Adapting forests to climate change: Lessons and approaches for managing uncertainty MariaJanowiak*,C.Swanston,S.Handler,L.Brandt,P.Butler,P.D.Shannon,andL.NagelAlthoughinformationontheanticipatedeffectsofclimatechangeonforestsandotherecosystemscontinuestogrow,asignificantchallengestillremainsforintegratingthisinformationintoone‐the‐groundnaturalresourcemanagementactivities.ThroughtheClimateChangeResponseFramework(www.forestadaptation.org),wedevelopedaflexible,structuredapproachtohelpnaturalresourcemanagersintegrateclimatechangeinformationintomanagementplanningandimplementation.
TheAdaptationWorkbookwasdevelopedasapracticaladaptionplanningtoolinwhichmanagersstartwiththeirmanagementobjectives,“stepdown”broadclimatechangeinformationtolocalscales,identifyopportunitiesandbarrierstomeetingmanagementobjectivesgivenclimatechange,andthendevelopadaptationactionsthatincreasethelikelihoodofmeetingobjectives.Itdoesnotprescribespecificactions,butratherdrawsupontheexpertiseofnaturalresourceprofessionalsandcomplementsalreadyexistingprocessesfordevelopingplansandprojects.Moreimportantly,thisapproachhasbeenusedinmanagementprojectsacrosstheMidwestandNortheastwithdiverseecosystemtypes,managementgoals,andmanagementchallenges,andmorethan50adaptationdemonstrationprojects(www.forestadaptation.org/demos)provideexamplesofclimatechangeadaptationinthereal‐world.Theseexamplesshowhowconsideringtheeffectsofclimatechangeiscompatiblewith,andnecessaryfor,thelong‐termstewardshipofnaturalresources.*NationalInstituteforAppliedClimateScience(NIACS)Houghton,[email protected]‐482‐6303x29
6
Wildlife Keynote: An overview of forest wildlife populations & management issues MikeLarson*Thepopulationstatusandtrendsovertimewillbereviewedforseveralforestwildlifespeciesandgroupsofspecies,includinggameanimalslikedeerandgrouseandnongameanimalslikesongbirds.Iwillalsoreviewrecentandongoingwildliferesearchprojectsintheregion,especiallythoseoftheDNR’sForestWildlifePopulations&ResearchGroup.Athirdcomponentofthepresentationwillbeadiscussionofcurrentforestmanagementissuesfromawildlifeperspective.*MinnesotaDepartmentofNaturalResourcesForestWildlifePopulationsandResearchGroupGrandRapids,[email protected]
7
Block 1: Silviculture Presentations
Evaluating the ecological impacts of emerald ash borer and climate change on black ash forests BrianPalik*;TonyD’Amato,UniversityofVermont;andRobSlesak,MFRCEmeraldashborermaydevastateblackashwetlands,withimpactsexasperatedbyclimatewarming.ResearchisunderwaytounderstandtheimpactsofEABonhydrologyandplantcommunitiesandtoevaluatereplacementtrees.Thisoperational‐scaleexperimentisprovidingmanagerswithinformationneededtomitigatetheimpactsofEABandadapttheseforeststofutureconditions.*USDAForestServiceNorthernResearchStationGrandRapids,[email protected]
8
New cohort and stand-level biomass growth after variable retention harvests in a red pine ecosystem RebeccaMontgomery*,BrianJ.Palik,SuzanneB.Boyden,andPeterB.ReichThereissignificantinterestinusingsilviculturalsystemssuchasvariableretentionharvesting(VRH)tosustainstructuralcomplexity,spatialheterogeneity,andbiologicaldiversityinmanagedforests.However,theconsequencesofvariableretentionharvestingfornewcohortgrowthandsurvivalarenotwellcharacterizedinmanyforestecosystemsnoristhereaclearideawhethercontinuedgrowthoftheresidualcohortmightcompensateforgrowthreductionofthenewcohort.Moreover,therelativeimportanceofresourcepreemptionbyexistinggroundlayervegetationaftervariableretentionharvestsisunclear.WeimplementedaVRHinredpineforestinMinnesotaandtrackednewpinecohortgrowthandsurvival,aswellasstand‐levelbiomassgrowth,whichintegratessurvivalandbiomassincrementofnewcohortandresidualtrees.Treatmentsincludedathinningwithresidualtreesdispersedevenlythroughthestand(dispersed)andtwopatchcutsthatleft0.1hagapsor0.3hagapsinaforestmatrix(aggregated).Halfofeachtreatedstandwasannuallybrushedtocontrolshrubs.Residualbasalareawasheldnearconstantintheharvesttreatments.Weaddressedthefollowinghypotheses:1)growthofnewcohortofplantedmixed‐pineregenerationwillbehighestwithaggregatedratherthandispersedretention;2)growthofnewcohortinVRHstandswillincreasewithwoodyshrubreduction;and3)growthoftheresidualoverstorywillbehigherwithdispersedratherthanaggregatedretention.OurfirsthypothesiswasnotsupportedasVRHresultedinrelativelysmalldifferencesingrowthandsurvivalforallspeciesacrosstheretentiontreatments(althoughalldifferedasexpectedfromuncutcontrols).Totalabovegroundbiomassgrowthinthenewcohortrangedfrom0.4kgha‐1yr‐1intheoverstorycontrol‐ambientshrubtreatmentto23kgha‐1yr‐1intheaggregatedretention‐shrubreductiontreatment.Thedifferencebetweenthecontrolandthepooledretentiontreatmentswassignificant,butnotbetweendispersedandaggregatedretention.Wefoundsomespeciesspecificresponsestoretentiontreatmentsthatwerepartiallyrelatedtoshadetolerance.Tolerantwhitepinehadhighsurvivalacrossallretentiontreatmentswhereasintolerantredandjackpinehadlowersurvivalinuncutcontrols.Ingeneral,jackpinehadthestrongestgrowthresponsetoreductionofoverstorydensity.However,bothwhiteandjackpineachievedhighestgrowthinthedispersedtreatmentdespitedifferencesinshadetolerance.Regardlessofspecies,shrubshadastrongimpactonseedlinggrowth.Indeed,differencesingrowthwereoftenlargeracrossshrubtreatmentsthanamongretentiontreatments.Ourresultssupportthehypothesisthatshrubspreemptresourcesanddampentheimpactsofdifferentoverstoryretentionpatternsonnewcohort
9
growthandsurvival.Biomassgrowthofresidualtreesrangedfrom2404kgha‐1yr‐1intheuncutcontrol‐ambientshrubtreatmentto1043kgha‐1yr‐1intheaggregatedretention‐shrubreductiontreatment.Differencesweresignificantbetweenthecontrolandpooledretentiontreatments,andmarginallyhigherwithdispersedversusaggregatedretention,lendingsupporttoourthirdhypothesis.Ourresultsimplythatmanagershaveconsiderableflexibilitytoemployvarioustypesofretentionpatternscoupledwithplantinginredpineecosystemsatleastatthelevelsofretentionstudiedhere.Theycanexpectsimilarstand‐levelbiomassgrowthofplantedregenerationregardlessofretentionpattern,butsomewhathigherstand‐levelbiomassgrowthofretainedtreeswithdispersedretention.*UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesSt.Paul,[email protected]‐624‐7249
10
Forest response to harvest residue removal and associated practices varies with site conditions MirandaCurzon*,AnthonyW.D’Amato,andBrianJ.PalikClimatechangeandotherthreatstoforestproductivityandfunctionhaveincreasedthebreadthofpotentialforestmanagementobjectivesaswellasthechallengesassociatedwithachievingthem.Forexample,residuesfromconventionalharvestsareincreasinglybeingthoughtofasapotentialsourceofbioenergyfeedstocks.IntheLakeStatesregion,aspen‐dominatedforestsareoftenassumedtoberesilienttoharvestingandotherdisturbance,butthereissomeuncertaintysurroundinghowproductivity,standdevelopment,andspeciescompositionmightbeimpactedoverthelong‐termbyincreasedbiomassremovalandassociatedpractices.WeuseddatafromtheLong‐TermSoilProductivitystudymaintainedbytheUSDAForestServicetoaddressthefollowingquestions:1)Doeswhole‐treeharvest(removingresidues)decreasestandingbiomassinaspen‐dominatedforestsovertime?2)Doeswhole‐treeharvestinfluencethespeciescompositionoftheregeneratingforest?3)Doresponsesvaryacrossdifferencesinsoiltextureandsitequality?Harvesttreatmentshaddifferenteffectsonstandingbiomassatdifferentsites.Onsandysoilswhole‐treeharvestreducedmeantreestandingbiomassat15yearsby25%comparedwithconventional,stem‐onlyharvest.Increasedcompactionofsoilsdidnothaveanegativeeffectonstandingbiomassandneitherresidueremovalnorcompactioninfluencedcommunitycomposition.Incontrast,therewasnoevidenceofanegativeimpactonstandingbiomass15yearsafterwhole‐treeharvestonclayeyorsiltyloamsoils.Theremovalofresiduesalsohadnoapparentinfluenceoncommunitycomposition(woodyspecies)atthesesites.However,increasedcompactionreducedstandingbiomass,particularlyoftreespecies,onsiltyloamsoils.Alsoonsiltyloam,thecombinationofwhole‐treeharvestandseveresoildisturbance(heavycompactioncombinedwithremovaloftheforestfloor)resultedinashiftindominancefromtreetoshrubspecies.
Managementrecommendations
1. Removingharvestresiduesforuseasbioenergyfeedstocksmaybeappropriateinaspen‐dominatedforestslocatedonfine‐texturedsoils.However,careshouldbetakentominimizecompactionandothersoildisturbance.
2. Removalofallresiduesisnotrecommendedwhenharvestingforestsgrowingonsandysoils.Thispracticemayreducestandingbiomassasaresultofassociatednutrientlossesandlowersoilmoisture.
Resultshttp://z.umn.edu/MMWcurzon*UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesStPaul,[email protected]
11
Block 2: Forest-based Wildlife Presentations
Northern long-eared bat in Minnesota RichBaker*;TimCatton,SuperiorNationalForest,USDAForestService;BrianDirks,CampRipleyEnvironmentalOffice,MNDNR;andGerdaNordquist,MNDNRInOctober2013,theUSFWSproposedlistingthenorthernlong‐earedbatasanendangeredspeciesunderthefederalEndangeredSpeciesAct.Theproposalwasduetothecatastrophicimpactofadiseaseknownaswhite‐nosesyndromeonnortheasternU.S.batpopulations.Thenorthernlong‐earedbatisdistributedthroughoutMinnesota,whereitwintersincavesandroostsintreesduringtherestoftheyear.White‐nosesyndromehasyettoreachMinnesota,thoughthefungusthatcausesthediseasehasbeenfoundintwocavesinthestate.TheUSFWSidentifiedsummerforestmanagementashavingthepotentialtoharmroostingbats,especiallyfemaleswithpupstooyoungtofly.In2014,theMinnesotaDNRpartneredwiththeSuperiorNationalForestandCampRipleyTrainingCenterstafftoinitiateapilotstudyofnorthernlong‐earedbatsummerhabitatuse.WithcooperativefundingprovidedbytheUSFWSandfourDNRdivisions,theprojectusedmist‐nettingandradiotelemetrytocapture130bats,including28northernlong‐earedbats,andtoidentify33northernlong‐earedbatroostsites.Pendingapprovalbythe2015legislature,amuchlargerstudyofnorthernlong‐earedbathabitatwillbeconductedduring2015‐2017.Thistalkwillreviewtheproposedfederallistingofthenorthernlong‐earedbat,theimplicationsofthatlistingforMinnesota’sforests,currentresearchneedsandplans,andfindingsfromthe2014pilotstudy. *MNDNR,DivisionofEcologicalResourcesSt.Paul,[email protected]
The status and condition of Minnesota’s moose population RonMoen*andSteveWindels,VoyageursNationalParkThemoosepopulationinMinnesotahasdeclinedfrom>8,000toabout4,000.Iwillreviewcausesforthedeclineandresultsofrecentresearch.*UMDNRRIandUMDBiologyDepartmentDuluth,[email protected]
12
Fisher and marten: Seeing the structure for the forest JohnErb*;PamCoy,MNDNR;BarrySampson,MNDNR;MichaelJoyce,UMDNRRI;andRonMoen,UMDNRRIAspartofalargerprojectonMartesecologyinMinnesota,webeganmonitoringvariousaspectsofhabitatusebyradio‐collaredfishers(Martespennanti)andmartens(Martesamericana)duringspring2009.DistributionofthesespeciesinNorthAmerica,andwithinMinnesota,illustratesthatbothareclearlyforest‐dependent.However,fine‐scaleforestattributeslikelydeterminethesuitabilityofaforeststandorlandscapetothesespecies.Inparticular,structurethatprovidesdenandrestsites,protectionfrompredators,preyhabitatorcuesforlocatingprey,andthermalprotectionappearscritical.Allbut2ofthe56fishernatalormaternaldenswehavelocatedhavebeeninelevatedcavitiesoflargediameter(ave.dbh=20.5”)livetreesorsnags,predominantlyinaspen(66%)andoak(14%).Theremaining2fishermaternaldenswereinhollowlogseitheronorsuspendedabovetheground.Elevatedtreecavities(ave.dbh=20.1”)arealsothemostcommonstructuresusedbyfishersasrestingsites,thoughinsummermore‘open’structuresintrees(‘witchesbrooms’,leafandsticknests,largebranches,etc)arecommonlyusedaswell.Of45martennatalormaternaldensidentified,36%havebeeninundergroundburrows,commonlyinrock‐ladenandlacustrinesoils,while64%havebeeninelevatedtreecavities(ave.dbh=18.6”).Mosttreecavitymartendenshavebeeninaspen(38%)andwhitecedar(34%)trees.Dataonwinterrestsitesshowsthatmartenuseofundergroundorsubniveansitesishighestduringfallandwinter,andoftenassociatedwithlowlandconiferstands.Insummer,martenuseofelevatedtreestructures(treecavities,branches,leaf/sticknests,and‘witchesbrooms’)increasesandiscorrelatedwithmoreuseofmixed‐woodstands.Comparedtorandomsites,denandreststructuresusedbymartensoccurinsiteswithhigheramountsofcoarsewoodydebris,higheraveragetreediameter,highersnagdensity,andgreaterstemdensities.Preliminarydataindicatesthatbothspeciesspend~75%oftheirtimeindenstructuresduringwinter,suggestingthatsuchstructuresarelikelycriticaltosurvival.Predationhasbeenthedominantnon‐humancauseofmortalityforbothspecies,furthersuggestingthatstructuralcomplexity(escapecoverandstructures)maybecritical.Humanactivitiesorforestmanagementstrategiesthatreduceorfragmentforestcover,orthatdonotproduceormaintainstructuralcomplexityinforeststandswillbedetrimentaltofishersandmartens.However,monitoringfiner‐saleforestmetricshasbeenhamperedbylackofspatially‐continuousforestinventorydatacapableofquantifyingforestmetricsofapparentimportancetothesespecies.LIDARdataappearswell‐suitedtoremotelyquantifyingstructuralcomplexityinforestedlandscapes,thoughadditionalanalysisisnecessary.WediscussourapproachtoassessingthemeritsofLIDARasatoolforquantifyingstructuralcomplexityrelevanttomartensandfishers.*MNDNRDivisionofWildlifeGrandRapids,[email protected]‐999‐7930
13
Block 3: “Lightning Talks” by Poster Presenters PostersaresetupintheStineRoom,acrossthehallfromtheauditorium.
An information exchange for wildlife in fire-dependent ecosystems of the Northern Lake States LindseyShartell*;ShelbyA.Weiss,R.GregoryCorace,III,andDawnS.Marsh,SeneyNationalWildlifeRefuge,USFishandWildlifeServiceInthenorthernLakeStates,arecentgapanalysisofpeer‐reviewedliteraturehasshownthatourknowledgeoftheinteractionsamongdisturbances,vegetation,andwildlifeinfire‐dependentecosystemsisgenerallylacking.In2013,theLakeStatesFireScienceConsortium(LSFSC)begananefforttoidentifyfire‐dependentwildlifespeciesanddevelopedalistof46bird,15mammal,and13reptilespeciesassociatedwith20fire‐dependentecosystemtypesinMichigan,Wisconsin,andMinnesota.Toinvestigatehowthesespeciesareprioritizedformanagementintheregion,theirconservationstatus,gamestatus,andotherdesignationswerenoted.Resultsindicatethat22fire‐dependentwildlifespeciesareStateThreatenedorEndangered,14aregamespecies,and6havebeenidentifiedassurrogatespeciesbytheU.S.FishandWildlifeService.Additionally,effortsweremadetoinvestigatewhatpeer‐reviewedliteratureexistsforfire‐dependentwildlife;itisapparentthatcurrentgapsinfireliteratureareunevenacrosstaxaandaremorepronouncedforreptilesintheregion.Movingforward,theLSFSChopestocommunicatewithprofessionalswhoaredoinginventory,monitoring,andresearchonfire‐dependentwildlifeinanefforttoinitiateaninformationexchangeforthesespecies.*MNDNRDivisionofWildlifeGrandRapids,[email protected]
14
Structure and dynamics of jack pine forests in central Minnesota. KyleG.Gill*;AnthonyW.D'Amato,UniversityofVermont;andShawnFraver,UniversityofMaineJackpinereachesitssouthwesternrangelimitinthecentralfloristicregionofMinnesotawhereitdisplaystraitsthatdifferfromotherportionsofitsrange,includingprimarilynon‐serotinouscones.Ithasbeenhypothesizedthathistoricjackpineforestsandwoodlandsofthisregionmayhavenotfollowedstereotypicaleven‐agedstanddynamicsbutabroadervarietythatresultedinprimarilyunevenormulti‐agedstands.However,theirhistoricstanddynamicshaveneverbeeninvestigated.OuraimwastoquantifythenaturalrangeofvariabilityofstanddynamicsandstructureincentralMinnesotajackpineforeststoestablishreferenceconditionsforthedevelopmentofregionaladaptivemanagementtechniquesaswellasformonitoringfutureclimateimpacts.Wefoundbothepisodicandextendedrecruitmentinbothrandomandclumpedspatialarrangementssuggestingthatjackpinestandsinthisregioncanbestructurallycomplex,evenorun‐evenagedsystemsthatfollowavarietyofdevelopmentalpathways.Assuch,managementpracticesandregenerationexpectationscanbebroadenedtoaccountforthevarietyofstructuralconditionsanddevelopmentalpathwaysthathistoricallycharacterizedtheseforestsystems.Suchchangeswouldhelptoconservejackpineforestsfortheshort‐termwhilepromotingthepropensityforlong‐termresilienceandadaptability.*UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesSt.Paul,[email protected]
15
The longest running northern hardwood silviculture experiment in the world! ChristelC.Kern*andLauraS.Kenefic,USDAForestService,NorthernResearchStationUneven‐agedsilviculture,whichcreatesandmaintainsstructuraldiversity,providesameansformaintainingcomplexityandproductivityinmanagedforests.Specifically,agoaloftheselectionsystemistomaintainspeciescompositionandarangeofageclassestosustainsawtimberproductionovertimewithoutmajorlapses.Despitealonghistoryofselectionsilvicultureuseinnorthernhardwoods,long‐termdataandtestedmanagementguidelinesarerare.Wetestedforsawlogsustainabilityamongcontrastingtreatmentsoveran80‐yearperiod,which,toourknowledgeisthelongestrunningnorthernhardwoodsilvicultureexperimentintheworld!Thisstudywasthesourceofthewell‐known“Arbogastguide”(1957),andhasservedasthebasisofnorthernhardwoodsilviculturethroughoutNorthAmerica.Resultsindicatethatdiameterlimitcuttingcreateslapsesinsawlogproduction,whileselectionsustainedsawlogproductionbymeetingrecommendationsinstocking(16m2/ha),composition(80%Acersaccharum),structure(areverse‐jdistribution),andgrowth(growth=cut)over80years.Moderngoalstomaintainstructuralcomplexity,diversity,andlargetreehabitatweremetbyavarietyofcuttingmethods.Withalong‐termperspective,ourresultssuggestarangeofcuttingmethodscanbeusedtomeethistoricalandmodernsustainableforestmanagementgoals.*USDAForestService,NorthernResearchStationGrandRapids,[email protected]
16
How healthy are Minnesota’s forests? Insights using forest health indicators from the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program MatthewRussell*;AngelaGupta,UMNExtension;EliSagor,SustainableForestsEducationCooperative;andLindaNagel,UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesandCloquetForestryCenterInformationfromstrategicforestinventoriesmayaidnaturalresourcemanagersinassessingthestatusandtrendsofvariousforesthealthissuesofconcern.TheForestInventoryandAnalysis(FIA)programmayaidindeterminingtheseassessments.Forexample,144terrestrialinvasiveplantspecieshavebeenobservedthroughtheFIA’sprogramacrossMinnesotaforestsfrom2001to2010.Shapingthecurrentandfutureforeststructureandcomposition,disturbancesrelatedtoweather,insects,anddiseaseshaveimpacted4%ofFIAplotsoverthepastfiveyears.Additionalindicatorsmayhelptoinformtheabilityofforeststoprovidestructureforwildlifehabitat(e.g.,standinganddownedwoodydebris)andlossesinindividualtreeproductivityidentifiedusingtreecrownassessments.Collectively,weshowhowthesevariousforesthealthindicatorscanhelptoquantifythenatureandextentoflossesinstructureandproductivitythroughoutMinnesotaforests.*UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesSt.Paul,[email protected]‐626‐4280
17
Block 4: Presentations
Assessing effects of harvest landings on early stand growth using LiDARRobSlesak*andTylerKaebisch,MNDNRResourceAssessmentRoadandlandingareasarecentraltotimberharvestingoperations,butthesehigh‐trafficareascanreducesiteproductivitybycompactingsoilandcausingsubsequentreductionsinstandgrowth.Here,weusedstatewideLiDARdatacoupledwithahistoricspatialdatabaseofharvestedsitestoevaluatethemagnitudeofimpacttostandgrowthusingvegetationheightasaproxyforstandproductivity.Approximately80sitesharvestedoverthepast15yearswereanalyzedthatspannedarangeofsoilconditionsandseasonofharvest.Weassesseddifferencesinvegetationheightbetweenthegeneralharvestareaandlandingareaacrosssites,andalsocomparedhowthesedifferencesvariedbetweenwinterandsummerharvest(toassessmitigation)andovertime(toassesspotentialrecovery).Relativevegetationheightwassignificantlylowerinlandingareasrelativetothegeneralharvest,similartofindingsfrommanyotherstudies.Therewasnosignificanteffectofharvestseasonontheresponse,indicatingthatimpactsaresimilarregardlessiftheharvestoccursunderfrozensoilconditions.Therewasalsonoevidenceofsoilrecoveryoverthe15yearperiodeventhoughconditionswhichpromoterecovery(e.g.,frostheaving)arecommoninMinnesota.Theassumptionoflowerimpactstosoilduringwinterharvestingshouldbereevaluated,especiallygiventhatimpactsdonotappeartolessenwithtime.Thefindingsunderscoretheimportanceoflimitingtheamountoflandingarearegardlesstheseasonofharvesttominimizesoilimpacts.*MinnesotaForestResourcesCouncil(MFRC)St.Paul,[email protected]
18
Forest disturbance and implications for effects on water quality at the watershed scale JenniferCorcoran*,RobSlesak,andDickRossmanThisworkpresentsnewcapacityforspatialanalysesofforestdisturbancepatternsandanalysesoftheimplementationofforestmanagementguidelinesatthewatershedscale.Akeyaspectofthisnewapproachinvolvesincorporationofforestdisturbancepatterns(e.g.,forestharvesting,blowdown,landuseconversion)thatarederivedfromLandsatimagery.Thispresentationwillfocusonevaluatingforestlanddisturbancepatternsandwillshowpreliminaryresultsoncharacterizingthedisturbanceinfourwatersheds:LakeSuperiorNorthandSouth,RumRiver,andMississippiHeadwaters.Thetimeframeofforestdisturbanceintheworkpresentedwasfrom2011‐2013.ResultsshowthatforestlanddisturbanceintheRumRiverWatershedisverylow;whereonlyabout1%oftheforestlandinthewatershedisdisturbed,15%ofwhichareadjacenttoalakeorpond.IntheLakeSuperiorWatersheds,aslightlygreaterpercentageoftheforestlandisdisturbed(2‐3%).IntheLakeSuperiorNorthWatershed,about15%ofthedisturbedareasoccuradjacentorincloseproximitytoanywaterfeaturetype(notincludingwetlands),4%ofwhichoccurwithin5mtoatroutriverortroutlake.IntheLakeSuperiorSouthWatershed,35%ofthedisturbedareasoccuradjacentorincloseproximitytoanywaterfeaturetype(notincludingwetlands),3%ofwhichoccuradjacentorincloseproximitytoatroutriverortroutlake.IntheMississippiHeadwatersWatershed,about4%oftheforestlandhasbeendisturbed,whichincludesablowdownstormeventthathappenedin2012.Theseresults,alongwithasuiteofmetricsfromremotelysenseddata(suchas:elevation,slope,soilerodability,andlocationofwaterbodiesandwetlands)andguidelinemonitoringdataofharvestedlands,willaidinabetterunderstandingoftheimpactofforestmanagementpracticesonwaterquality.Additionalresearchisunderwayindevelopingadata‐drivenriskassessmentframeworktobringmoreawarenesstotheimportanceofguidelineimplementationatthewatershedscale.Theresultsofthisresearchandthecollaborationwithotherdivisions,agencies,andstakeholderswillprovideinsightintothechallengestoincreasingtheeffectivenessofbestmanagementpracticeswiththeoverarchinggoalofultimatelyenhancethevalueofecosystemservicesprovidedbyforestlandinMinnesota.*MNDNRDivisionofForestryStPaul,[email protected]
19
Forest dead wood: research insights for forest and wildlife managers MatthewRussell*DEADWOODINMINNESOTA’SFORESTSForestdeadwood,intheformofstandingdeadtreesanddownedwoodydebris,isessentialforassessingwildlifehabitatavailability,quantifyingbiomassavailability,andcreatingdiverseforeststructure.Understandingdeadwoodpatternsandprocessesiskeytounderstandingbioenergyimplicationsandforestfuel.Totalstockingofdeadwoodisimportant,butalsoisthequalityofwoodinvariousstagesofdecayanddecomposition.InMinnesota,thegreatestnumberofstandingdeadtreesoccurinnortheasterncounties,whiledownedwoodydebrisstocksaremorevariableacrossthestate.EmployingforestdeadwoodinformationusingForestInventoryandAnalysisplotscanhelptoinformthemanagementofwoodydebrisstocksforspecificwildlifespecies(e.g.,)andtoestimatethetemporaldynamicsofwoodydebrisstocks.DEADWOODLONGEVITYThedecompositionofdeadwoodisnotalwaysconsideredinforestandwildlifemanagementplanning.Wecanconsiderthehalf‐life(whenhalfofalog’sbiomassisdecomposed)andresidencetime(whenanentirelogisdecomposed)ofasasurrogatefordeadwoodlongevity.Understandingdeadwoodlongevitytimecandirectlyinformquestionsabouthowlongdeadwoodpopulationsareexpectedtoresideinforestecosystems.RESOURCES
Residencetimesanddecayratesofdeadwoodbiomass:http://z.umn.edu/tpt(PDF) Deadwoodforwildlife(PSU):http://bit.ly/1zqSQnJ
*UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesandExtensionStPaul,[email protected]‐626‐4280
Species Half‐lifeResidencetime
Whitespruce 20 86Balsamfirandred
pine20 87
Jackpine 22 94Northernredoak 10 73
Blackash 11 81Aspen 11 89
Average number of standing dead trees (n = 1,927 FIA plots) and downed woody debris stocks (n = 213) in Minnesota forests, 2006-2010.
Dead wood longevities for common Minnesota species.
20
Attendees MikeAlbersMNDNR‐[email protected]‐327‐4115
Brian [email protected]‐348‐5252
Bruce [email protected]‐879‐0880
NateAndersonSt.LouisCountyLand&[email protected]‐625‐3718
Erik AntonSt.LouisCountyLand&[email protected]‐625‐3718
Andy [email protected]‐326‐0017
[email protected]‐723‐4791
Rich [email protected]‐259‐5073
Mark BakerSt.LouisCountyLand&[email protected]‐625‐3718
[email protected]‐878‐5665
Gene BeckerSt.LouisCountyLand&[email protected]‐625‐3718
Jan [email protected]‐879‐4433
[email protected]‐259‐5256
Brian BignallPotlatchLand&[email protected]
Tom BodellLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNTom.Bodell@co.lake.mn.us2188348340
[email protected]‐380‐7793
Jeff [email protected]‐259‐5280
Bruce CarlsonMNDNR‐DivsionofEcological&[email protected]‐723‐4763
[email protected]‐626‐4384
Jennifer [email protected]‐642‐0660
Bruce [email protected]‐694‐6227
[email protected]‐327‐4267
Miranda [email protected](612)625‐6989
Kevin [email protected]‐947‐3338
21
BobDeRocheCompassForestryServices,[email protected]
Nolan [email protected]
Nate EideLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNnate.eide@co.lake.mn.us2188348340
[email protected]‐999‐7936
John ErbMNDNR‐[email protected]‐999‐7930
Katie [email protected]‐626‐4358
MarkFultonBemidjiStateUniversityBemidjiMNmfulton@bemidjistate.edu218‐755‐2787
Kyle GillUniversityofMinnesota,[email protected]‐625‐6989
Mack [email protected]
[email protected]‐308‐2332
Nancy [email protected]‐834‐1452
Bob HedburgSt.LouisCountyLand&[email protected]‐625‐3718
JulieHendricksonCloquetForestryCenterCloquetMNhendr065@umn.edu218‐726‐6403
Jeff [email protected]‐7940
Beth Jacqmain‐PalikUPMBlandinGrandRapidsMNbeth.jacqmain‐[email protected]
[email protected]‐482‐6303
Justin [email protected]
Nick [email protected]‐308‐2636
[email protected]‐649‐5264
Christel [email protected]‐326‐7134
Rick KlevornMNDNR‐[email protected]‐259‐5274
MeadowKouffeld‐HansenMNDNRGrandRapidsMNmeadow.Kouffeld‐[email protected]‐327‐4438
Chuck [email protected]‐726‐6411
Mike LarsonMinnesotaDNRGrandRapidsMNmichael.larson@state.mn.us2189997933
22
QuintinLeglerUPM‐[email protected]‐327‐6304
Tony [email protected]‐7947
Erik [email protected]‐947‐3338
PerryLoegeringMNDNRGrandRapidsMNPerry.Loegering@state.mn.us218999‐7939
Steven LudwigPrivateForestryConsultantLakeGeorgeMNstludwig@paulbunyan.net2186993823
Darren [email protected]‐828‐6197
[email protected]‐720‐4372
Rebecca [email protected]‐624‐7249
RichardMooreBeltramiCountyNRMBemidjiMNrichard.moore@co.beltrami.mn.us218.333.4163
[email protected]‐726‐6484
Christian [email protected]‐878‐7118
Bill NixonLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNbill.nixon@co.lake.mn.us2188348340
MichaelNorthMNDNRSectionofWildlifeBrainerdMNmichael.north@state.mn.us218‐833‐8642
Alan [email protected]
Steve [email protected]‐878‐7105
[email protected]‐679‐3781
Brian [email protected]‐326‐7116
Ethan [email protected]‐723‐4791
EmilyPetersDepartmentofNaturalResourcesSaintPaulMNemily.peters@state.mn.us651‐259‐5135
Bailey [email protected]‐834‐1454
Tim QuincerMNDNR‐[email protected](218)833‐8629
MikeReinikainenCFC,[email protected]
Molly [email protected]‐726‐6417
Tom [email protected]/753‐2580
23
MattRussellUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNrussellm@umn.edu6126264280
[email protected]‐726‐6404
BrandonSchadMNDepartmntofNaturalResourcesBaudetteMNbrandon.schad@state.mn.us218‐634‐1705
SawyerSchererUniversityofMinnesota,[email protected]‐370‐1681
Martin SchoeweMolpusTimberlandsManagementInt'[email protected]
[email protected]‐999‐7932
[email protected]‐723‐4791
Rob [email protected]‐603‐6756
Brian [email protected]‐759‐4312
ClarissaSpicerMNDNRDept.ofForestryGrandRapidsMNclarissa.spicer@state.mn.us(218)999‐7838
Mark [email protected]‐7941
Glen [email protected]‐5445
ClarenceTurnerDNRForestry/[email protected]‐259‐5291
AmberBeth VanNingenMNDNR‐[email protected](218)753‐2580
Joe WormMNDNRCloquet,[email protected]‐878‐5664
Mike YoungMNDNR,[email protected]‐834‐1424
24
Credit and Acknowledgments Asissooftenthecase,manypeopleandorganizationscontributedtomakethe11thAnnualForestryandWildlifeResearchReviewasuccess:Thisyear’sResearchReviewplanningcommitteeofAlanEk,GeorgeHost,RickKlevorn,BrianPalik,andRobSlesakhelpedtoidentifytopicsandspeakersfortheday.SpeakersRichBaker,JenniferCorcoran,MirandaCurzon,JohnErb,KyleGill,ChristelKern,MikeLarson,MariaJanowiak,RonMoen,RebeccaMontgomery,BrianPalik,MattRussell,LindseyShartell,andRobSlesakweregenerousenoughtosharetheirtimeandtheresultsoftheirwork,emphasizingtheappliedvalueofthatworktonaturalresourcemanagers.CloquetForestryCenterstaffChuckKramer,StephanieOberg,DeniseVolk,andSimonClarkhelpedwitheventlogisticsandensuredasmoothflowtotheday.MealswereprovidedbyJimnJo’sNorthlandKateringofCloquet. Asaneducationalco‐operative,theSFECdependsonthecontinuedinvestmentofourmemberorganizationsandindividuals,financialandotherwise.Withoutthosecontributions,SFECwouldnotbeabletooffereventslikethisone.WearealsosupportedbytheUniversityofMinnesotaCollegeofFood,Agriculture,andNaturalResourceSciencesandtheCloquetForestryCenter.Andfinally,withoutyourregistrationandparticipation,theeventwouldhavebeensignificantlylessinteresting.Thankyouforjoiningustoday.OnbehalfoftheSustainableForestsEducationCooperative,weextendourheartfeltthankstoeverybodywhomadethisyear’seventasuccess.‐EliSagorandJulieHendrickson
25
Notes
26
27
28
SFEC Member organizations for 2014-2015 AitkinCountyLandDepartmentAitkinCountySWCDBeltramiCountyNaturalResourceMgmtCampRipleyNaturalResourcesCarltonCountyLandDepartmentCarltonCountySWCDCassCountyLandDepartmentChequamegon‐NicoletNationalForest(USFS)ChippewaNationalForest(USFS)ClearwaterCountyLandDepartmentCrowWingCountyLandDepartmentFondDuLacReservationGrandPortageBandofChippewaHubbardCountyNaturalResourceMgmtItascaCommunityCollegeItascaCountySWCDKoochichingCountyLand&ForestryLakeCountyLandDepartmentMilleLacsBandofOjibweMNAssociationofCountyLandCommissionersMNDNR‐DivisionofForestryMNDNR‐ForestStewardshipPlanwriters
MNDNR‐ DivisionofEcological&WaterResourcesMNDNR‐SectionofWildlifeMNForestResourcesCouncilMolpusTimberlandLLCPineCountySWCDPotlatchCorporationRedLakeTribalDNRSappiFinePaperSouthSt.LouisCountySWCDSt.John’sUniversityArboretumSt.LouisCountyLandDepartmentSuperiorNationalForest(USFS)TheNatureConservancy–MNChapterUMNExtensionForestryUMNDept.ofForestResourcesUPMBlandinPaperCompanyWadenaCountySWCDWhiteEarthTribalForestryWIDNRDivisionofForestryVermilionCommunityCollege
Keeping in Touch YoucanalwaysfindinformationonupcomingSFECevents:http://z.umn.edu/SFECeventsMailinglist:Ifyoudidnotreceiveapapercopyofourrecentcalendarofevents,emailJulieHendricksonatsfec@umn.edutogetonourmailinglist.Orjustdropusaline:[email protected]‐409‐[email protected]@umn.edu218‐726‐6403