Post on 19-Dec-2015
MISSOURI OZARK FOREST ECOSYSTEM PROJECT:
AN OVERVIEW
STEVEN L. SHERIFFMissouri Department of
ConservationResource Science Division
Oct. 21, 2008
MOFEP
• Background• Past• Present• Future
The 5 Cs
•Cooperation•Collaboration•Compromise•Commitment•Communication
MOFEP BEGINNING
CRISIS
DESIRE
EARLY HISTORY
MISSOURI STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
EARLY HISTORY
MISSOURI STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
EARLY HISTORY
EARLY HISTORY
MDC GUIDING PRINCIPLES
• Biological information guiding management decisions
• Goal to have healthy:– Forests– Fish and Wildlife Populations
EARLY FORESTRY GOAL
FOREST-BIRD PROJECT
Rick Clawson - MDC
John Faaborg - UMC
FOREST-BIRD PROJECT
Descriptive Study
Cause and Effect Relationships
3 AVENUES OF SCIENCE
• Descriptive Studies
–Can be first step–Describe
•Forest Inventory
3 AVENUES OF SCIENCE
• Descriptive Studies• Confirmatory Studies
–Multiple Hypotheses–Model–Model fitting or selection based on
data
3 AVENUES OF SCIENCE
• Descriptive Studies• Confirmatory Studies
–Observational Studies
3 AVENUES OF SCIENCE
• Descriptive Studies• Confirmatory Studies
• Experiments–Randomization–Replication–Control–Shows cause and effect
TYPICAL FOREST-WILDLIFE STUDY
• Observational Study– Conducted on units already treated– Many factors influence results– Many different explanations for results obtained– Often do not account for surrounding conditions– Results need to be tested– Results should probably not be used to make
critical management decisions
BUT MANAGEMENT MUST BE DONE IN THE FACE OF
UNCERTAINTY
Scientists and Managers working together?
Magic of MOFEP
USE OF EXPERIMENTS
USE OF EXPERIMENTS
MOFEP
FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR MOFEP
MOFEP SITE SELECTION
• Missouri Dept of Conservation lands• >600 acres• Contiguous tracts – minimal edge• 40+ years since last manipulation• Southeast Missouri Ozarks• Close proximity to each other• 10 found, 9 would work
MOFEP EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
• Randomized Complete Block Design• 3 blocks with 3 MOFEP sites each
– Subjective information used to create blocks
MOFEP EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Km0 1 2
MOFEP EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
• Randomized Complete Block Design• 3 blocks with 3 MOFEP sites each
– Subjective information used to create blocks
• Each treatment randomly assign to a single site within a block
MOFEP EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Km0 1 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME
PRACTICE 1 PRACTICE 2 PRACTICE 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME
PRACTICE 1 PRACTICE 2 PRACTICE 3
MOFEP CONCEPTUAL ECOSYSTEM MODEL
STUDIES
NUTRIENTSCarbon and sulfur transformationCarbon flux and storageNutrient cycling
SOILSSoils of MOFEP sitesNutrient cycling
GEOLOGY and TOPOGRAPHYSoils of MOFEP sites
CLIMATEMicroclimate
STUDIES
OVERSTORY and UNDERSTORYOverstoryStump sproutingTree cavityDown wood coarse debrisGeneticsPlant distribution and diversityCanopy mappingAcorn productionOak chemistry
GROUND FLORAGround flora
LichensLichens
SOIL ALLIESArmillaria
STUDIES
HERVIVORESBirdsSmall mammalsHerptofaunaOak herbivoresCaterpillars
INSECTIVORESBirdsSmall mammalsHerptofauna
CARNIVORESBirdsSmall mammalsHerptofauna
PARASITES/PATHOGENSTicks
DECOMPOSERSLeaf litter arthropods
STUDIES
SITE HISTORYFire history
MANAGEMENTHarvest impactsTimber harvest and valueTreatments
POLICYInformation from all other studies impact policy
DEMANDEconomics of management treatments
PROGRESS
• Pre-treatment and post initial entry data collection
• Initial entry harvest completed
PROGRESS
SiteForest
Management Practice
Acres in Site
Acres Harvested in 1996/1997
Volume of Timber Harvested
in 1996/1997 (x 1,000 bd ft)
1 No-harvest 960 0 0
2 Uneven-aged 1,275 876 1,146
3 Even-aged 892 304 754
4 Uneven-aged 1,186 735 952
5 Even-aged 775 256 927
6 No-harvest 1,086 0 0
7 Uneven-aged 1,242 513 1,344
8 No-harvest 839 0 0
9 Even-aged 1,141 172 773
Total 9,397 2,856 5,896
EVEN-AGED MANAGEMENT
• 10% of site in “old growth”• 10% seedling• 20% small trees (2.5 – 5.5 inches)• 30% poles (5.6 – 11.5 inches)• 40% sawtimber (>11.5 inches)• 100 – 105-year rotation• 10 – 15-year re-entry (20-year re-entry?)
UNEVEN-AGED MANAGEMENT
• 10% of site in “old growth”• Largest diameter tree = even-aged
management• Residual basal area – B-level stocking• Q-value – 1.3 – 1.7• Single tree and group selection• Trying for equivalent of 100 – 105-year
rotation
NO-HARVEST MANAGEMENT
• No anthropogenic manipulation of trees
MOFEP GOAL
To Determine the Effects of Forest Management on Plants and Animals of the Ozark Forests(i.e., follow the trajectory of MDC forest
management practices)
Science into practice…
• MOFEP as adaptive management
• Evaluating management systems rather than specific management actions
MOFEP
Management
Regeneration in EAM; Guiding curves in UAM
• Inference to other state forests under state-of-the-art practice of EAM, UAM, and NHM.
Achievements…
• New information• Technology transfer: >200 papers produced
• Web Site: http://mofep.mdc.mo.gov
• Collaboration among agencies and institutions as well as managers and scientists
3 General Technical Reports Published
FOR MOFEP TO SUCCEED
• Continue over next 3 – 4 rotations (300+ years)
• Continue to use the MDC state-of-the-art practices for EAM, UAM, and NHM
MOFEP STEERING COMMITTEE
• Oversees progress• Keep communication channels open• Sponsors workshops and symposia• Ensures integrity• Identify new research areas• Prioritizes research• Consists of administrators, managers,
biologists, biometricians, and outside independent experts
LIMITING FACTORS TO MOFEP
• Long-term commitment• Fate in hands of forest managers• The 5 Cs
– Cooperation– Collaboration– Compromise– Commitment– Communication
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSMissouri Department of ConservationUS Forest Service – North Central Research StationMissouri Department of Natural ResourcesUS Geological SurveyUniversity of Missouri – ColumbiaUniversity of Missouri – St. LouisCentral Methodist CollegeUniversity of OklahomaUniversity of ToledoMichigan Technological UniversityUniversity of Tennessee – ChattanoogaThe Nature Conservancy
And all the managers and scientists cooperating to make MOFEP a success