Issuu on Google+

NRV Seral Stage Research

FRI ND Program Information Session Edmonton, Alberta December 9th, 2009 David Andison


Managing Age-Class Distributions What amounts of old growth forest are appropriate to manage for on landscape X from a biodiversity perspective?


Pre-Industrial Landscape in 1950 (no fire control, harvesting, roads…)

100

AC Distribution

75 50 25

4%

0 Y

P

M

O

So 4% is “natural”……but there is no “variation”.


Landscape in 1900

AC Distribution 100 75 50 25

10%

0 Y

P

M

O


Landscape in 1850

AC Distribution 100 75 50 25

16%

0 Y

P

M

O


Landscape in 1800

AC Distribution 100 75 50 25

12%

0 Y

P

M

O


The Problem Empirically, we can at best generate one “natural” landscape snapshot. So much for NRV… Modeling is the only way to translate observed variation over space in time of the disturbance frequency, size (and severity) to generate multiple probable landscape snapshots.

Geek Details A spatially-explicit, raster-based, monte-carlo, percolation disturbance simulation model. LANDMINE, BFOLDS, LANDIS, etc …


Disturbance Patterns

Landscape Condition

Biological Consequences

• Type • Frequency • Size & Shape • Severity • Tendencies

• Seral-stage levels • Old forest patch sizes • Edge density • Coarse woody debris • Suspended sediment & O2…

• Fire risk • MPB risk • Water quality • Caribou habitat • Grizzly bear habitat…


Run 250

Run 260

Run 330

Simulated Landscapes for the Sunpine FMA Run 280

Run 300

Run 264


Old Forest on Upper Foothills Landscapes of Alberta (based on ½ million ha areas)

Pct. Forest > 200 yrs.

4% in 1950 24% in 1998

0.1-2% 3-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-100%

Occurred 13% of the time 49% of the time 19% of the time 9% of the time 6% of the time 6% of the time

There is no single “best” amount of old forest from an ecological point of view.


Natural Range of Old Forest

Percent Area >200 Years

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

1998 24%

10

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

1950 4%

0

Frequency

Landscape A


Seral-Stage NRV in Hinton Wood Products Planning 1 0.9

LFS Two-pass

0.8

LFS LRSYA Weldwood One-pass

0.7 0.6

Proportion of "Old" 0.5 Mixedwood 0.4 0.3 0.2

NRV

0.1 0 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10-year Time-steps

14

16

18


30

FSC Rollback estimate

20 10

Percent of Forested Landscape

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 0

R e la t iv e F r e q u e n c y

Estimated Historic Range of Lodgepole Pine Leading Forest >160 Years of Age on the Sunpine FMA


30 FSC

Rollback estimate

20 10

Percent of Forested Landscape

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 0

R e la t iv e F r e q u e n c y

Estimated Historic Range of Lodgepole Pine Leading Forest >160 Years of Age on the Sunpine FMA


Pine >100 Yrs Old on the Alpac FMA 50

60 yr fire cycle 80 yr fire cycle

30 20 10

Percent of Pine Forest on the Alpac FMA

48

42

36

30

24

18

12

6

0 0

Relative Frequency

40


12% Old Forest


13%

7% 9%

17%


Estimated Historical Frequency of Old Mixedwood Stands in the Upper Foothills Sub-region on the Hinton Wood Products FMA 50 30,000 ha areas

Frequency

40

480,000 ha area

SO: Very large and very small percentages of old forest DO have ecological relevance at 30,000 ha.

30 20 10 0 0-2

3-6

7-10

11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 % of Mixedwood Forests that are Old

•Do average and range capture this? •Is one scale adequate?


Summary: A simple question leads to several realizations: 1. We are (still) new at this. 2. The importance of asking the right question. 3. There is a logical order to NRV knowledge. 4. The importance of a shared language (of methods, definitions, indicators, etc).


[Title will be auto-generated]