40
Lower Middle Regeneration Experiment - Climate & Regeneration INGY 2014 Fred C. Martin WA Dept. Natural Resources Olympia, WA

Lower Middle Regeneration Experiment - Climate & Regeneration INGY 2014

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Lower Middle Regeneration Experiment - Climate & Regeneration INGY 2014. Fred C. Martin WA Dept. Natural Resources Olympia, WA. Objectives. Evaluate planting versus natural regeneration with respect to survival, growth, and stocking. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Lower Middle Regeneration Experiment -

Climate & RegenerationINGY 2014

Fred C. MartinWA Dept. Natural Resources

Olympia, WA

Objectives

• Evaluate planting versus natural regeneration with respect to survival, growth, and stocking.

• Evaluate survival, growth, and stocking on forest health, species diversity, stand structure, and yield.

• Monitor survival and growth of residual over-story trees, and their impact on regeneration.

• Evaluate effect of covariates (habitat type, understory vegetation, duff, CWD, etc.) on both regeneration and residual overstory trees.

• Conduct annual measurements to provide validation for climate driven growth models.

Design• Randomized Complete Block (RBCD)• Two Habitat Types

– GF/Clun– WH/Clun

• Two Blocks of Each Habitat Type– GF-1 and GF-2– WH-1 and WH-2

• Two Treatments– No Plant– Plant

• Replications– Three reps of each treatment in each block– 2 hab typ X 2 blks X 2 tmnts X 3 reps = 24 exp units

• Split plot design for each planted treatment– Three different species planted in each treatment

Block & Rep Layout

Replication Details

• Rectangular 1/10th acre• Replications paired for treatment assignment• Divided into 25 1/250th acre tabulation cells• Each planted treatment cell contains one planted– Ponderosa pine (1-1, camp-run stock)– Western larch (2-0, camp-run stock)– Western white pine (Plug-1, 2nd generation)

• Trees planted on equal area hexagonal grid

WH-2 Rep 2, 1995

WH-2 Rep 1, 1997

WH-2 Rep 1, 1998

WH-2 Rep 1, 2002

WH-2 Rep 1, 2013

GF-1 Rep 4, 1995

GF-1 Rep 4, 2012

WH-1 Rep 2, 1997

WH-1 Rep2, 1999

WH-1 Rep 2, 2000

WH-1 Rep 2, 2002

WH-1 Rep 2, 2005

WH-1 Rep 2, 2010

Climate Questions

• Can temperature be measured with sufficient precision?

• Is temperature correlated with productivity?

Maximum Temperatures

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

55

70

85

Maximum by Block

GF1, 5-day period from April 1

Max T

em

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

55

70

85

Maximum by Block

WH1, 5-day period from April 1

Max T

em

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

55

70

85

Maximum by Location

River-Ridge,5-day period from April 1

Max T

em

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

55

70

85

Maximum by Block

Gf2, 5-day period from April 1

Max T

em

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

55

70

85

Maximum by Block

WH2, 5-day period from April 1M

ax T

em

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

55

70

85

Maximum by Habitat Type

GF vs WH, 5-day period from April 1

Max T

em

p

Average Temperatures

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

50

70

Average by Block

GF1, 5-day period from April 1

Avg

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

50

70

Average by Block

WH1, 5-day period from April 1

Avg

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

50

70

Average by Location

River-Ridge,5-day period from April 1

Avg

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

50

70

Average by Block

Gf2, 5-day period from April 1

Avg

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

50

70

Average by Block

WH2, 5-day period from April 1A

vg

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

50

70

Average by Habitat Type

GF vs WH, 5-day period from April 1

Avg

Tem

p

Minimum Temperatures

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

25

40

55

Minimum by Block

GF1, 5-day period from April 1

Min

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

25

40

55

Minimum by Block

WH1, 5-day period from April 1

Min

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

25

40

55

Minimum by Location

River-Ridge,5-day period from April 1

Min

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

25

40

55

Minimum by Block

Gf2, 5-day period from April 1

Min

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

25

40

55

Minimum by Block

WH2, 5-day period from April 1M

in T

em

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

25

40

55

Minimum by Habitat Type

GF vs WH, 5-day period from April 1

Min

Tem

p

Temperature Differences by Habitat Type

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0.5

2.0

Maximum GF-WH Difference by Habitat Type

GF vs WH, 5-day period from April 1

Max

Dif

f T

emp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1.0

2.0

Average GF-WH Difference by Habitat Type

GF vs WH, 5-day period from April 1

Avg

Dif

f T

emp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0.0

1.5

Minimum GF-WH Difference by Habitat Type

GF vs WH, 5-day period from April 1

Min

Dif

f T

emp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

6070

8090

Maximum by Habitat Type

5-day period from April 1

Max

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

4050

6070

Average by Habitat Type

5-day period from April 1

Avg

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2530

3540

4550

55

Minimum by Habitat Type

5-day period from April 1

Min

Tem

p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

40

50

60

70

Average by Sensor

5-day period from April 1

Te

mp

Climate Conclusions

• Temperature can be measured with acceptable precision.

• Temperature variation is correlated with productivity, although it is weak.

• Next steps?• Humidity sensors adds 2013• Assess the ability to make fine-scale

temperature estimates?• Expand climate metrics, e.g. growind

degree days, PET, etc.

Regeneration Questions

• Is it true that regeneration is greater on the control than on the planted replications?

• What is the trend of regeneration over time?

1995 2000 2005 2010

010

0020

0030

0040

00All Blocks Combined

YEAR CNTRL=red, TRMT=green

TP

A

1995 2000 2005 2010

020

0040

0060

00TPA by Habitat Type

YEAR CNTRL=red, TRMT=green, WH=dash, GF=solid

TP

A

1995 2000 2005 2010

020

0040

0060

0080

00TPA by Block

YEAR, GF-1=blk, GF-2=red, WH-1=green, WH-2=blue

TP

A

2000 2005 2010

050

010

0015

0020

00TPA by Species

YEAR, BR=blk, DF=red, GF=green, RC=blue, WL=orange

TP

A

2000 2005 2010

020

040

060

080

010

00TPA by Species for Block GF1

YEAR, BR=blk, DF=red, GF=green, RC=blue, WL=orange

TP

A

2000 2005 2010

020

040

060

080

010

00TPA by Species for Block GF2

YEAR, BR=blk, DF=red, GF=green, RC=blue, WL=orange

TP

A

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

010

0020

0030

0040

00TPA by Species for Block WH1

YEAR, BR=blk, DF=red, GF=green, RC=blue, WL=orange

TP

A

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

010

0020

0030

0040

00TPA by Species for Block WH2

YEAR, BR=blk, DF=red, GF=green, RC=blue, WL=orange

TP

A

Regeneration Conclusions

• Regeneration tends to be greater on the control than on the planted replications.

• Regeneration is declining over time for seral species but increasing or constant for climax species.

• Rates of mortality are greater on high versus low productivity.

• Next steps.• Examine covariate effects on survival,

( overstory, competing vegetation, CWD, etc.).

• Assess rate of growth.