STAND DYNAMICS AND DISTURBANCE HISTORY IN A MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST, SIMES TRACT, HARVARD FOREST, MA
NADEF 2009 Stand Dynamics GroupGroup Leaders: Saskia L. van de Gevel1 and Chris Gentry2
Group Members: Stella Cousins3, Jeff Dech4, Mike Reinikainen5, Chris Guiterman6, Stacy Birch6, John Waldron7, Eli Martinson8, Grant Harley9, Benjamin Hook10, Rob Morrissey11, Soung-Ryoul Ryu12, April
Sahara13
1Appalachian State University, 2Austin Peay State University, 3Yale F&ES, 4Nipissing University, 5University of Minnesota, 6University of Maine, 7University of West Florida, 8Kansas State University, 9University of Tennessee, 10Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 11Purdue University,
12Clemson University, 13 Humboldt State University
1. Create 100-year-old white ash and white pine chronologies
2. Examine vertical forest structure
3. Determine age-structure and project future forest successional trends
4. Investigate land-use history and compare to modern forest
OBJECTIVES
• Harvard Forest –Simes tract
• 125 ha secondary mixed hardwood forest
• Transitional zone - northern and central mixed hardwood forest types
STUDY AREA
• Rock Walls
• 1775 - 1825• Rapid Deforestation
• Frost Heaving• Sediment Transport• Changes in Surficial
Geology & Geomorphology
Rock wall, Simes Tract, Harvard Forest, MA
BACKGROUND: LAND USE HISTORY
Before 1740Native American
Fire & Subsistence
Farming
1930 -1973Olive SimesOccasional
Timber Harvest
1922 – 1929Held in Trust
1891-1922William Simes
Farm Abandoned, Recreation
1884-1891Elmer Towne
Active Farming
1830-1880John Towne
Height of Forest Clearance; Farming
1973 – PresentHarvard Forest
BACKGROUND: LAND USE HISTORY
•Hurricanes: 19381944195419601985
•Gypsy moth:1981
•Ice storms: 19421998?
•Chestnut 1910-blight: 1913
BACKGROUND: NATURAL DISTURBANCE
• A circular 0.05 ha plot (12.66 m radius)
• Trees (≥ 10 cm dbh)
• species, crown class, dbh
• Saplings (<10 cm dbh, ≥1 m height)
• tallied by species
METHODS: FIELD
Mike and Soung delineate a plot boundary.
• Tree cores
• At least two cores per tree
•Sampled near tree base
• Additional trees sampled adjacent to the plot; white ash (n=21) and white pine (n=24)
• Stems mapped
METHODS: FIELD
Grant and Jeff core a white pine (Pinus strobus)
• Sample preparation
• (Stokes and Smiley, 1968)
• Crossdating• Listed marker rings
• Skeleton plot• Measurement
• Master chronology
METHODS: LAB
RESULTS: IMPORTANCE VALUES
3%
10%
9%
23%
54%
black cherry
red maple
red oak
sugar maple
white pine
RESULTS: SAPLING COUNT
4
4
6
2
1
3
RED MAPLE
SUGAR MAPLE
HOPHORNBEAM
WHITE PINE
STRIPED MAPLE
WITCHHAZEL
Suppressed Intermediate Codominant Dominant0
50
100
150
200
250
300
black cherry red maple red oak sugar maple white pine
Canopy Class
Tree
s (p
er H
a)RESULTS: CANOPY CLASS
RESULTS: CROWN DISTRIBUTION
Plot radius = 12.66 m
White Pine Sugar Maple
Red Maple Black Cherry
Red Oak
Crown Area of Individuals (>10 cm dbh)(by crown class)
12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.50
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
white pine sugar maple red maple black cherry red oak
DBH mid-point interval (cm)
Tree
s (p
er H
a)RESULTS: DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT
RESULTS: ESTABLISHMENT
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 19700
10
20
30
40
50
60 black cherry
red maple
red oak
sugar maple
white pine
Inner Date
DBH
(cm
)
RESULTS: SKELETON PLOTS
Marker Year Shared by both Species
1944*
1949
1959
1970
1981**
1999
* Hurricane (D’Amato and Orwig 2008)** Possible Gypsy Moth (Liebhold et al. 2000)
RESULTS: COFECHA
Eastern White Pine White AshNumber of trees 24 21Number of dated series 38 37Master series time span 112 111Total rings in all series 2904 3065Series intercorrelation 0.510 0.543
Mean sensitivity 0.269 0.188Series start date* 1898 1909Percent Flags 19.5 14.3
* Chronology year with 2 or more series
RESULTS: WHITE PINE CHRONOLOGY
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 1011051090
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
N COFECHA STD ARS RES
RESULTS: WHITE ASH CHRONOLOGY
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 1011051090
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
N COFECHA STD ARS RES
RESULTS: WHITE PINE CLIMATE CORRELATIONSN
ov. T
empe
ratu
re
Pre
viou
s A
ug T
empe
ratu
re
Sum
mer
Pre
cipi
tatio
n
July
PD
SI
Aug
ust P
DS
I
Aug
ust P
HD
I
Sep
tem
ber
PH
DI
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
RESULTS: WHITE ASH CLIMATE CORRELATIONSJu
n. T
empe
ratu
re
Aug.
Tem
pera
ture
Sum
mer
Tem
pera
ture
Prev
ious
Sum
mer
Tem
pera
ture
Prev
ious
Jun.
Tem
pera
ture
Annu
al P
reci
pita
tion
Mar
ch P
DSI
April
PD
SI
May
PD
SI
Nov
embe
r PD
SI
Annu
al A
vera
ge P
DSI
Gro
win
g Se
ason
PD
SI
Mar
ch P
HD
I
May
PH
DI
Nov
embe
r PH
DI
Annu
al A
vera
ge P
HD
I
Gro
win
g Se
ason
PH
DI
Prev
ious
Mar
ch P
HD
I
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
RESULTS: WHITE PINE EVENT ANALYSIS
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Years
Depa
rtur
e
RESULTS: SPECIES GROWTH RESPONSE ANALYSIS (JOLTS)
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
Running Mean = 10 yr , Interval = 0 yr
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
020406080
100
Running Mean = 5 yr, Interval = 0 yr
0
20
40
60
80
100
Running Mean = 10 yr, Interval = 5yr
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
Running Mean = 5 yr, Interval = 5 yr
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
Running Mean = 10yr, Interval = 10 yr
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
Running Mean = 5yr, Interval = 10 yr
Release: Major Moderate Minor
RESULTS: WHITE PINE GROWTH RESPONSES
19301935
19401945
19501955
19601965
19701975
19801985
19901995
20002005
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
MinorModerateMajor
0
20
40
60
80
100
MinorModerateMajor
Release
Suppression
Mean method: Nowacki and Abrams (1997)
0
20
40
60
80
100
MinorModerateMajor
RESULTS: WHITE PINE GROWTH RESPONSES
Release
Suppression
19301935
19401945
19501955
19601965
19701975
19801985
19901995
20002005
-100-80-60-40-20
0
Minor
Moderate
Major
Median method: Rubino and McCarthy (2004)
RESULTS: WHITE ASH GROWTH REPONSES
Release
Suppression
Mean method: Nowacki and Abrams (1997)
19301935
19401945
19501955
19601965
19701975
19801985
19901995
20002005
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
MinorModerateMajor
0
20
40
60
80
100
MinorModerateMajor
Mean-method
0
20
40
60
80
100
MinorModerateMajor
RESULTS: WHITE ASH GROWTH RESPONSES
Release
Suppression
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
MinorModerateMajor
Median method: Rubino and McCarthy (2004)
1. No trend between size and age (oldest tree=red maple)
2. Stand composition: Forest currently in stage of reinitiation
3. Changing composition: increase in shade tolerant species
4. No major recruitment 1970–2010; no recruitment of white pine in understory above 2 m
5. Stand susceptible to damage; certain species poised to take over positions within canopy
DISCUSSION / CONCLUSIONS
6. Although many natural disturbances, some absent from record
7. Both species: growth positively correlated with disturbance events
• 1944 and 1981
8. White pine responded more to drought
• White ash experienced release during drought that suppressed white pine
9. Differences in mean vs. median method of identifying growth responses
10. White oak codominant in adjacent areas; may enter dominant class in future
DISCUSSION / CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the following:• Jim Speer, PhD (Indiana State University)• Larry Winship, PhD (Hampshire College)• Dave Orwig, PhD (Harvard Forest, Harvard
University)
QUESTIONS?
RAYNN
Graphic by Krista Phillips