Post-disturbance trends in soil respiration from 1 to 3 years after forestry managementAmy Concilio, Lab Meeting 12/3/04

Teakettle Experimental Forest

Sierra Nevada Mixed Conifer old-growth forest, Mediterranean climate

Treatments:Unburned, Uncut (UN)Unburned, CASPO thin (UC)Unburned, Shelterwood thin (US)Burned, Uncut (BN)Burned, CASPO thin (BC)Burned, Shelterwood thin (BS)

Sampling:Full factorial designPoints selected by Patch*Treatment combinations54 points

Objectives

To determine how each management strategy affected SRR for the first 3 years post- disturbance

To compare SRR response to each management strategy

To compare the drivers of SRR between management regimes and years

Methods

Past Research (Ma et al. 2003)

Paired t-testANOVA

SRR= f [year, treatment (year), patch (year) patch(treatment)]

GLMSRR= f (patch, burn, thin, burn*thin)

Pearson/ Spearman CorrelationsStepwise Regression

1 year post-treatment findings (Ma et al. 2003)

Burning significantly decreased SRR in CECO patches

Thinning significantly increased SRR in CECO patches

SRR in CC and OC patches did not significantly change

Objectives

To determine how each management strategy affected SRR for the first 3 years post- disturbance

To compare SRR response to each management strategy

To compare the drivers of SRR between management regimes and years

2000 2002 2003 2004

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00S

RR

(g

CO

2 m

-2 hr

-1)

bb

a

c

Mean SRR by Year

T-Test Resultst Value p-value

2000 to 2002 -1.47 0.1484

2000 to 2003 -3.18 0.0026

2000 to 2004 3.33 0.0017

Mean Annual SRR by Treatment Type

2000 2002 2003 20040.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20

1.50

SR

R (

g C

O 2 m

-2 h

r-1)

UN UC US BN BC BS

Treatments

Inter-annual variation by treatment

Paired T-test Results

t Value p-value t Value p-value t Value p-value

2000 to 2002 1.89 0.0951 -2.35 0.0467 -0.64 0.5397

2000 to 2003 0.14 0.8954 -7.06 0.0001 -1.9 0.0936

2000 to 2004 3.13 0.0166 -0.13 0.9017 0.58 0.5806

t Value p-value t Value p-value t Value p-value

2000 to 2002 -0.54 0.6057 -1.43 0.2267 -0.64 0.5386

2000 to 2003 -1.03 0.3353 -0.66 0.5442 -0.44 0.6744

2000 to 2004 1.58 0.1525 2.86 0.0459 0.71 0.4995

BN BC BS

UN UC US

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

SR

R (

g C

O2

m-2

hr-1

)

UN UC US BN BC BS

CC CECO OC0.00

0.38

0.75

1.13

1.50

CC CECO OC

2000 2002

2003 2004

Mean SRR by patch type and treatment from 2000 to 2004 (by actual disturbance)

ANOVA ResultsSRR= f [year, treatment (year), patch (year) patch(treatment)] Num Den

Eff ect DF DF F Val ue Pr > F

year 3 1002 7. 25 <. 0001

t r eat ment ( year ) 18 1002 0. 99 0. 4669

pat ch( year ) 6 1002 3. 80 0. 0009

pat ch( t r eat ment ) 9 1002 3. 88 <. 0001

2000 wi t h 2002 1 1002 0. 11 0. 7370

2000 wi t h 2003 1 1002 2. 78 0. 0957

2000 wi t h 2004 1 1002 2. 78 0. 0956

2002 wi t h 2003 1 1002 2. 04 0. 1536

2002 wi t h 2004 1 1002 5. 23 0. 0224

2003 wi t h 2004 1 1002 21. 18 <. 0001

Effects of Burning and Thinning

SRR= patch burn thin burn*thinYEAR= 2000 YEAR= 2002 Num Den Num Den

Eff ect DF DF F Val ue Pr > F Eff ect DF DF F Val ue Pr > F

pat ch 2 138 17. 80 <. 0001 pat ch 2 153 16. 60 <. 0001

bur n 1 138 1. 88 0. 1731 bur n 1 153 7. 18 0. 0082

t hi n 2 138 1. 20 0. 3033 t hi n 2 153 0. 30 0. 7414

bur n*t hi n 2 138 4. 83 0. 0094 bur n*t hi n 1 315 17. 18 <. 0001

YEAR= 2003 YEAR= 2004 Num Den Num Den

Eff ect DF DF F Val ue Pr > F Eff ect DF DF F Val ue Pr > F

pat ch 2 313 27. 51 <. 0001 pat ch 2 411 43. 36 <. 0001

bur n 1 313 10. 37 0. 0014 bur n 1 411 7. 50 0. 0064

t hi n 2 313 2. 30 0. 1023 t hi n 2 411 5. 80 0. 0033

bur n*t hi n 2 313 7. 46 0. 0007 bur n*t hi n 2 411 7. 42 0. 0007

% change in SRR from treatment to control [(TRT-UN)/UN *100%]

2000 2002 2003 2004-100

-60

-20

20

60

100

% C

ha

ng

e in

SR

R [

(TR

T-U

N)/

UN

*1

00

%]

UC US BN BC BS

Treatments

-150

-90

-30

30

90

150

-150

-90

-30

30

90

150

% C

hang

e in

SR

R [

(TR

T-U

N)/U

N *

100%

]

UC US BN BC BS

2000 2002 2003 2004-150

-95

-40

15

70

125

CC

CECO

OC

Objectives

To determine how each management strategy affected SRR for the first 3 years post- disturbance

To compare SRR response to each management strategy

To compare the drivers of SRR between management regimes and years

Effect of Burning on SRRBN vs UN from 2000 to 2004 y = 1.3848x

R2 = 0.6473

y = 1.0913x

R2 = 0.668

y = 1.0539x

R2 = 0.3537

y = 1.1302x

R2 = 0.7146

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

UN

BN

2000

2002

2003

2004

Linear (2000)

Linear (2002)

Linear (2003)

Linear (2004)

UC vs UN from 2000 to 2004 y = 1.322x

R2 = 0.5387

y = 1.5371x

R2 = 0.6511

y = 1.1144x

R2 = 0.604

y = 1.0138x

R2 = 0.6232

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

UN

UC

2000

2002

2003

2004

Linear (2000)

Linear (2002)

Linear (2003)

Linear (2004)

US vs UN from 2000 to 2004 y = 1.1665x

R2 = -1.4245

y = 1.3988x

R2 = 0.5872

y = 1.2834x

R2 = 0.5524

y = 1.4989x

R2 = 0.6485

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

UN

US

Series1

Series2

Series3

Series4

Linear (Series1)

Linear (Series2)

Linear (Series3)

Linear (Series4)

BC vs BN from 2000 to 2004y = 0.7644x

R2 = 0.9735

y = 0.7229x

R2 = -0.3083

y = 0.6161x

R2 = -1.1013

y = 0.7039x

R2 = -0.9847

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

BN

BC

2000

2002

2003

2004

Linear (2000)

Linear (2002)

Linear (2003)

Linear (2004)

Effect of Thinning on SRR

BS vs BN from 2000 to 2004 y = 0.3294x

R2 = 0.7665y = 0.6221x

R2 = -3.5605

y = 0.6144x

R2 = 0.7949

y = 0.7206x

R2 = 0.4172

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

BN

BS

2000200220032004Linear (2000)Linear (2002)Linear (2003)Linear (2004)

Combined effect of burning and thinning on SRR

Bc vs UN from 2000 to 2004 y = 0.8248x

R2 = 0.4288

y = 0.8169x

R2 = -0.8929

y = 0.7451x

R2 = 0.1198

y = 0.8313x

R2 = -3.2545

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

UN

BC

2000

2002

2003

2004

Linear (2000)

Linear (2002)

Linear (2003)

Linear (2004)

BS vs UN from 2000 to 2004 y = 0.5896x

R2 = 0.7528

y = 0.6531x

R2 = -3.6875

y = 0.5664x

R2 = 0.8499

y = 0.8312x

R2 = -0.1007

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

UN

BS

2000

2002

2003

2004

Linear (2000)

Linear (2002)

Linear (2003)

Linear (2004)

Objectives

To determine how each management strategy affected SRR for the first 3 years post- disturbance

To compare SRR recovery times of various management strategies

To compare the drivers of SRR between management regimes and years

SRR vs Litter Depth2000

y = 0.0177x + 0.2854R2 = 0.4044

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

2002

y = 0.0068x + 0.4483

R2 = 0.041

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

2003

y = 0.0183x + 0.5187R2 = 0.0311

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

2004

y = 0.0308x + 0.3186R2 = 0.2641

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

Litter Depth (cm)

SR

R (gC

O2 m

-2 hr-

1)

Thank you for your help!!!!

Mean SRR by patch type and treatment from 2000 to 2004 (by actual disturbance)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.752000 2002 2003 2004

CC CECO OC0.00

0.21

0.43

0.64

0.86

1.07

1.29

1.50

SR

R (

g C

O2 m

-2 h

r-1)

CC CECO OC CC CECO OC

UN UC US

BN BC BS