photography landscape

Download photography Landscape

Post on 01-Mar-2016

241 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

photography Landscape

TRANSCRIPT

  • Social and Cultural Data in Landscape EcologyMichelle Steen-Adams

  • OutlineSignificance of integrating humans into ecological studiesConceptual FoundationWays that human presence shapes landscape pattern ApplicationsDataCase Study: Development of Landscape pattern on Ojibwe and Private lands in northern Wisconsin

  • I. Significance of integrating humans into ecological studiesInterdisciplinary nature of many ecological issuesSocio-cultural aspects of many scientific questionsValuesEthics

  • II. Conceptual FoundationZev Naveh (1991)Biophysical SphereEmergent Structural And Functional CharacteristicsHuman Sphere:Culture Technology

  • III. Ways that human presence shapes landscape patternLand UseHuman HistoryCultureLand OwnershipPolitics and Economics

  • Shapers of Landscape Pattern: Land UseHaut Saint Laurent, QuebecBouchard and Demon (1997)

  • Shapers of Landscape Pattern: Human HistoryEastern Upper Peninsula, MichiganSilbernagel et al. 1997

  • Shapers of Landscape Pattern: CultureCultural Landscape

    Little Tennessee River ValleyDelcourt and Delcourt1988

    Kickapoo Valley, WisconsinHeasley and Guries1998

  • Cultural drivers of landscape changeLiberty Township, Vernon County,Wisconsin.Heasley and Guries1998

  • Shapers of Landscape Pattern:Land Ownership

  • IV. ApplicationsRestoration ManagementNantucket Island, Massachusetts, Dunwiddie, 2001.

  • V. DataRemotely-sensed ImageryAerial photographySatellite Imagery

  • DataArchival Materials: Written RecordsAgency reportsPlat maps and property tax rollsJournal entriesArchival Materials: Survey dataState land inventoriesU.S. Public Land Survey System

  • DataPhotographs and MapsArcheological Record

  • V. Case Study: Development of Landscape pattern on Ojibwe and Private lands in northern Wisconsin

  • Big Picture QuestionsEcological historical/Landscape Ecological literatures:How have landscapes changed through time? How has human history shaped ecological change (ecological legacies)? Significance: Historical range of Variability, Forest Dynamics, Guidance to forest management and restorationEnvironmental historical literature:How have culture, politics, and economics interacted to shape environmental change?Significance: Social lessons for human-environment relations

  • Existing Understanding: Interrelations between Human History and Ecological HistoryPre-EuroAmerican Forest:Multistory canopy structureShaped by Little Ice Age (15th-18th c.)Post-EuroAmerican settlement (1860-1930)Selective Logging and slash fires Early successional forests1930s to Present: Fire suppression, forest management, and maturation processes Second growth forest and managed rotation forest

  • Human historical shapers of landscape pattern

  • Human historical shapers of landscape pattern

  • Question 1: How has the forest changed in terms of landscape composition and structure over a 130-year period (1857-1987)?HypothesesLandscape Composition: Proportion of early successional species, like aspen has increased, late successional species, like white pine has decreased.Landscape Structure: Mean Patch Size: General pattern: First, decrease, later increase

  • Research Design: Delineation of study area by Land Type Association (LTA)Regions of relative ecological and physical homogeneity delineate LTAs Control for Biophysical VariationFocus on human historical sources of ecological variation

  • Forest Vegetation Data Source #1: Public Land Survey Records (ca. 1857)

  • Forest Vegetation Data Source #2: Wisconsin Land Economic Inventory (ca. 1928)

  • Forest Vegetation Data Source #3: Aerial Photography (1951)

  • Forest Vegetation Data Source #4: Multi-Temporal Satellite Imagery (1987)

  • Landscape Transition AnalysisDominant Species in 1987 data set

  • Vegetative Composition prior to Euro-American Settlement

    Chart1

    7.9

    6.4

    0.7

    1

    25

    0.5

    1.7

    6.9

    4.3

    11

    2.3

    28

    2

    Proportion of landscape

    Sheet1

    PLS Baseline Land CoverPercent of preEuroAmerican settlement landscape1987 Land Cover

    Aspen7.9Upland grass-forb (38.7%)

    Cedar6.4Trembling aspen (44%)

    Elm0.7Trembling aspen (66.7%)

    Fir1Balsam fir-aspen (75%)

    Hemlock25Trembling aspen (32%)

    Jack pine0.5Upland shrub-herb (100%)

    Red pine1.7Balsam fir-aspen (42.9%)

    Spruce6.9Balsam fir-aspen (40.7%)

    Sugar maple4.3Upland shrub-herb (29.4%)

    Tamarack11Upland shrub-herb (20.9%)

    White birch2.3Balsam fir-aspen (44.4%)

    White pine28Trembling aspen (29.2%)

    Yellow birch2Trembling aspen (50%)

    Sheet1

    Proportion of landscape

    Sheet2

    Sheet3

  • Primary Landscape Change Trajectories

    Sheet1

    PLS Baseline Land Cover1987 Land Cover1987 Land Cover

    AspenUpland grass-forb (38.7%)Upland grass-forb (38.7%)

    CedarTrembling aspen (44%)Trembling aspen (44%)

    ElmTrembling aspen (66.7%)Trembling aspen (66.7%)

    FirBalsam fir-aspen (75%)Balsam fir-aspen (75%)

    HemlockTrembling aspen (32%)Trembling aspen (32%)

    Jack pineUpland shrub-herb (100%)Upland shrub-herb (100%)

    Red pineBalsam fir-aspen (42.9%)Balsam fir-aspen (42.9%)

    SpruceBalsam fir-aspen (40.7%)Balsam fir-aspen (40.7%)

    Sugar mapleUpland shrub-herb (29.4%)Upland shrub-herb (29.4%)

    TamarackUpland shrub-herb (20.9%)Upland shrub-herb (20.9%)

    White birchBalsam fir-aspen (44.4%)Balsam fir-aspen (44.4%)

    White pineTrembling aspen (29.2%)Trembling aspen (29.2%)

    Yellow birchTrembling aspen (50%)Trembling aspen (50%)

    Sheet1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Proportion of landscape

    Sheet2

    Sheet3

  • Question 2: In Lake Superior clay plain, how have the histories of land use, fire, or the interaction between these two disturbances, influenced trajectories of forest change?HypothesesCultivation or pasture land use correlated with white pine initially (i.e. in 1951), then hardwoods later (i.e. in 1987)

    Sites that experienced repeated or intense fire are more likely to support aspen, whereas those that did not experience fire are more likely to support white pine.

  • Relationships among land use history, fire history, and vegetative change: Conceptual Diagram

    Stand Age (Years since Stand-clearing Event)

    Fire Frequency or Recency

    High

    Low

    Cultivation Level

    Cultivation has occurred

    Cultivation not occurred

    White Pine DominantStand

    Aspen Dominant

    Hardwood Dominant Stand

    0

    40

    60-80

    20

  • Hypothesized Results: Influence of Land Use History

    Chart4

    0.150.60.20.1

    0.20.50.150.05

    0.50.050.20.1

    Aspen-1987

    White Pine-1987

    Sugar Maple-1987

    White Spruce-1987

    Land Use/ Land Cover History Classes (1928)

    Proportion of Sample Area

    Sheet1

    CultivatedPastureAspen with White Birch

    19510.50.30.5

    19870.70.50.1

    Sheet1

    00

    00

    00

    1951

    1987

    Land Use/ Land Cover History

    Index Value (i.e. % land cover in aspen)

    Sheet2

    Land Use19511987

    Cultivated0.50.3

    Pasture0.70.5

    Aspen with White Birch0.30.5

    Sheet6

    White PineAspenHardwoodOther

    Cultivation-19280.0500.250

    Pasture-19280.030.050.150.15

    Aspen and White Birch-192800.400.05

    CultivationPastureAspen and Wh BirchYear

    White Pine0.60.40.21951

    Aspen0.10.20.61951

    Hardwood0.20.10.21951

    White Pine0.20.20.11987

    Aspen0.10.10.51987

    Hardwood0.40.40.21987

    White PineAspenHardwood

    Cultivation0.60.10.2

    Pasture

    Aspen and Wh Birch

    Sheet5

    1987 Vegetation

    White PineAspenHardwoodOther

    Cultivation-19280.0500.250

    Pasture-19280.030.050.150.15

    Aspen and White Birch-192800.400.05

    Sheet5

    000

    000

    000

    000

    Cultivation-1928

    Pasture-1928

    Aspen and White Birch-1928

    1987 Vegetation

    Percent of study area

    Sheet8

    White Pine Baseline VegetationAspen Baseline Vegetation

    CultivationPastureAspen/Wh BirchCultivationPastureAspen/Wh Birch

    Aspen-19870.150.20.5Aspen-19870.20.30.8

    White Pine-19870.60.50.05White Pine-19870.20.20

    Sugar Maple-19870.20.150.2Sugar Maple-19870.30.150.2

    White Spruce-19870.10.050.1White Spruce-19870.10.050

    Sheet8

    0000

    0000

    0000

    Aspen-1987

    White Pine-1987

    Sugar Maple-1987

    White Spruce-1987

    Land Use/ Land Cover History Classes (1928)

    Proportion of Sample Area

    Sheet7

    0000

    0000

    0000

    Aspen-1987

    White Pine-1987

    Sugar Maple-1987

    White Spruce-1987

    Land Use/ Land Cover History (1928)

    Proportion of Sample Area

    Sheet4

    1951 Vegetation

    White PineAspenHardwood

    Cultivation-19280.200.1

    Pasture-19280.10.050.05

    Aspen and White Birch-192800.350.1

    1987 Vegetation

    White PineAspenHardwood

    Cultivation-19280.0500.25

    Pasture-19280.030.050.15

    Aspen and White Birch-192800.40

    Change between 1951 and 1987

    White PineAspenHardwood

    Cultivation-1928-0.1500.15

    Pasture-1928-0.0700.1

    Aspen and White Birch-192800.50

    CultivationPastureAspen and Wh Birch

    White Pine-0.15-0.070

    Aspen000.5

    Hardwood0.150.10

    Sheet4

    000

    000

    000

    White Pine

    Aspen

    Hardwood

    Land use/ land cover history classes (1928)