An Integrated Geoecosystem-Remote Sensing Approach To Aspen Ecosystem Management In Northern Lower...

An Integrated Geoecosystem-Remote Sensing Approach To Aspen Ecosystem ManagementIn Northern Lower Michigan

School of Natural Resources & EnvironmentMcIntire-Stennis Program

Burt Barnes, Kathleen Bergen

Graduate Students: Ephraim Zimmerman Kara Moore, Catherine Yanca

October 28, 2002

CollaboratorTom CrowUSFS North Central Research Station

McIntyre-Stennis/Ecosystem Managment Initiative

RationaleFollowing massive logging and post-logging fires in northern Lower Michigan in the mid-to-late 19th Century, the original pine and hemlock-northern hardwood forests were changed to stands primarily dominated by bigtooth and trembling aspens.

Now, 80-100 years later, aspens are declining and are being replaced by other species in patterns determined by site conditions and forest history.

These changes are not well understood, yet have profound ecological, social, and economic implications.


GoalDemonstrate the applicability of the landscape ecosystem approach coupled with remote sensing/GIS methods to develop a model of the spatial and successional status of the aspen resource for ecosystem management.


ObjectivesDetermine the successional pathways for selected ecosystems at the 4000-ha University of Michigan biological Station (UMBS), northern Lower Michigan

Characterize the role of red maple, northern red oak, and eastern white pine in forming 21st Century forest communities for selected landforms and ecosystems.

Model the decline of the aspen resource using an ecosystem approach at multiple spatial scales coupled with remote sensing and GIS methods.


Approach

An ecosystem map of the area and permanent sample plots were used to determine successional change at multiple spatial scales.

The composition, structure, and successional trends were determined for 7 aspen- dominated ecosystem types

The occurrence and successional role of species replacing aspen (red maple, northern red oak, and eastern white pine) in diverse ecosystems were determined


ResultsAspen

On moraine landforms, aspens are being replaced by northern-hardwood species.

In contrast, aspens on outwash plain landforms are being replaced by white and red pines and red maple, depending on ecosystem type.

Different trends of occurrence and succession for red maple, northern red oak, and white pine for a diverse set of ecosystem types was observed and described.


Different Landscape Ecosystems Types, Different Successional PathwaysDryMesicWet-Mesic


Red MapleSuccess of red maple is highly ecosystem-dependent

Contrary to the prevailing view, red maple will not become dominant in the long run on dry and dry-mesic ecosystems at UMBS although many of its clones may persist indefinitely.


0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0142425363741424445Ecosystem TypeRelative Density (%)Dominant OverstorySubdominant OverstoryDominant Overstory Subdominant Overstory Understory Comparison of red maple relative density in three forest layers for selected ecosystem types, outwash physiographic system, UMBS, Cheboygan and Emmet Co., northern Lower Michigan.


Northern Red OakRed oak understory density was considerably lower than overstory density in most ecosystems types due to:limited light under dense northern hardwood canopy in mesic ecosystems severe site conditions, lack of fire, and heavy deer browsing in dry ecosystem types

Higher red oak density in outwash-over moraine ecosystem type open, patchy aspen canopy sandy-loam bands in C horizon


Comparison of northern red oak density in three forest layers for selected ecosystem types, outwash physiographic system, UMBS, Cheboygan and Emmet Co., northern Lower Michigan.


Chart3

250

143.703703703725.1851851852

184.444444444477.7777777778

177.777777777884.4444444444

151.75438596492.6315789474

55.55555555560

9.523809523860.3174603175

33.3333333333426.6666666667

094.4444444444

48.888888888971.1111111111

74.444444444427.7777777778

54.3293.8

Overstory

Understory

Ecosystem Type

Density (stems/ha)

OS_US_ecogroups

Table 3.2. Comparison of northern red oak overstory layer basal area, relative dominance, density,

and relative density for upland ecosystem groups within outwash landform types UMBS, Cheboygan and Emmet Co., northern Michigan.

DensityRelative DensityBasal AreaRelative Dom.

(stems/ha)(%)

xsdxsdxsdxsd

GroupEcosystem GroupPlots(n)groupgroupgroup

2Climatically moderate, heavily burned high-30163.0105.7227.416.127.74.4238.221.0

elevation, outwash plains and dunes (36, 37, 74)

4Climatically moderate, calcareous, high-elevation,32112.7155.4411.312.745.16.4417.816.4

outwash plain (44,45)

6Lake moderated, glacial lake beach features1061.757.267.26.862.52.079.819.4

(76 -77)

7Ice margin terraces(high terraces 96-97)954.389.076.712.172.44.569.77.8

5Deep outwash over moraine landforms(59, 60)1423.809523809549.663089577953.55144855147.270253363951.412422223.542926200355.260304697412.8339334251

Climatically extreme, low-elevation

1outwash plain (Pellston Plain) (1,4)1010.031.611.85.710.82.615.015.7

3Climatically moderate, Lake-moderated125.613.830.92.330.10.230.81.8

high-elevation, outwash plain (40,41)

Total117431.020.1

a, b, and c indicate significant differences between ecosystem groups;

values followed by the same letter are not statistically significant (p>0.10).

Table 3.2. Comparison of northern red oak understory layer basal area, relative dominance, density,

and relative density for upland ecosystem groups within outwash landform types UMBS, Cheboygan and Emmet Co., northern Michigan.

DensityRelative Density

(stems/ha)

xsdxsd

GroupEcosystem GroupPlots (n)

5Deep outwash over moraine landforms14331.7353.530.530.4

(59, 60)

7Ice margin terraces(high terraces 96-97)993.8157.07.011.8

2Climatically moderate, heavily burned high-3052.6128.86.816.3

elevation, outwash plains and dunes (36, 37, 74)

6Lake moderated, glacial lake1049.494.75.410.5

beach features (76 -77)

3Climatically moderate, Lake-moderated1235.2121.92.27.7

outwash plain (40,41)

1Climatically extreme, low-elevation105.015.80.20.6

outwash plain (Pellston Plain) (1,4)

4Climatically moderate, calcareous, high-elevation,321.68.80.10.7

outwash plain (44, 45)

Total94143.7847222222

a and b indicate significant differences between physiographic systems;


OS_US_ecogroups

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

stems/ha

group

Stems/ha

Red oak OS density (ecosystem groups)

OS_us_physiographic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

stems/ha

Group

Stems/ha

Red oak understory Density (ecosystem groups)

ALL_oak_OS_outwash_types

Table 3.2. Comparison of northern red oak overstory layer basal area, relative dominance, density,

and relative density for upland moraine and outwash plain landform types UMBS, Cheboygan and Emmet Co., northern Michigan.

DensityRdenBasal AreaRdom

(stems/ha)(%)(%)

xsdxsdxsdxsd

GroupPhysiographic SystemPlots (n)GroupGroup

1Outwash Plain (1,36,37,40,41,44,45,11191.0a119.312.6a15.24.2a5.318.3a0.9

59,60,74,76,77,96,97)

2Interlobate Moraine (109, 113)2510.2b23.11.1b2.30.5b1.90.9b2.5

Total136101.24.8

a and b indicate significant differences between physiographic systems;


Table 3.2. Comparison of northern red oak understory layer basal area, relative dominance, density,

and relative density for upland moraine and outwash plain landform types UMBS, Cheboygan and Emmet Co., northern Michigan.

DensityRden

(stems/ha)(%)

xsdxsd

GroupEcosystem GroupPlots (n)

1Outwash Plain (1,36,37,40,41,42,44,45,11172.3723723724a183.6627885527.0262130335a45.5058446027

59,60,74,76,77,96,97)

2Interlobate Moraine (109, 113)2519.5555555556a17.11858106332.1230351622a5.8906333993

Total13691.9

There are no significant differences in red oak understory density or relative density between physiographic systems;


Sheet2

Table 3.4. Comparison of northern red oak overstory layer density and relative density on selected upland landscape ecosystem types

UMBS, Cheboygan and Emmet Co., northern Lower Michigan.

DensityRdenBasal AreaRdom

(stems/ha)(%)(%)

Ecosystem TypePlots (n)xsdTypexsdTypexsdTypexsd

3710184.497.73731.814.7748.88.03744.917.8

745177.8198.13625.816.3378.33.17438.027.2OS

4419151.8188.97423.219.7367.03.83633.821.1density

3615143.770.74414.914.8446.27.74419.817.4136374041444559607476779697

77574.471.5779.58.8453.53.74515.015.11**nd---**nd------------------

97461.171.1967.115.9962.65.9112.424.836***nd********

451355.654.1976.37.3772.52.69611.525.737******nd****

96548.9109.3456.06.0762.41.57710.49.840nd**ndnd***nd*

76548.942.7595.08.3972.22.8768.96.441**nd---***nd---

591033.356.7764.93.812.14.2977.710.544********

1425.050.014.59.1592.04.1597.414.945nd**ndndndnd

4079.517.5401.62.8400.20.3401.32.259nd*nd*nd*

4150.00.0410.00.0410.00.0410.00.060---------------

6040.00.0600.00.0600.00.0600.00.074***---

76*nd---

77nd---

Total11196---

a, and b indicate significant differences between ecosystem groups; values followed by the same letter are not statistically significant (p>0.10).97

* indicates test between marked pair had significance at p0.10).60------------------------------------nd60------------------------------------nd

* indicates test between marked pair had significance at p0.10).

* indicates test between marked pair had no significance at p0.10).

* indicates test between marked pair had significance at p0.1045---------------------**nd****45---------------------**nd*nd*

59------------------------*****59------------------------*****

60------------------------------------*60------------------------------------*

74------------------------------ndndnd74------------------------------ndndnd

76---------------------------------**76---------------------------------ndnd

77------------------------------------*77------------------------------------nd

96---------------------------------------96---------------------------------------

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

stems/ha

Type

Stems/ha

Red Oak Undestory Density

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

relden

Type

% composition

Red oak understory relative density

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

density

type

stems/ ha

red oak understory density

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

relden

type

% composition

Red oak understory relative density

Table 3.29. Comparison of vegetation density and relative density in on the climatically extreme.

low-elevation, outwash plain (Pellston Plain) ecosystem type 1, UMBS, Cheboygan Co., northern

Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory

Density (stems/ha)Rden (%)Basal area (m2/ha)Rldom (%)

Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=4)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer rubrum12.525.02.14.20.20.41.52.9

Pinus strobus37.575.06.312.51.12.28.817.5

Populus grandidentata109.7138.822.530.72.33.217.824.2

Populus tremuloides236.1157.253.920.85.62.543.27.6

Prunus serotina16.733.310.721.41.22.416.432.8

Quercus rubra25.050.04.59.12.14.212.424.8

Total437.5100.012.4100.0

UnderstoryDensity (stems/ha)Rden (%)

xsdxsd

Abies balsamea37.575.01.73.4

Acer rubrum241.7245.523.220.6

Acer saccharinum62.5125.02.85.7

Amelanchier spp.166.7333.318.837.5

Fagus grandifolia------------

Pinus resinosa------------

Pinus strobus261.1493.014.721.4

Populus balsamifera------------

Populus grandidentata95.8109.010.811.6

Populus tremuloides190.3149.528.121.2

Quercus rubra------------

Total1055.6100.0

Table 3.29. Comparison of vegetation density and relative density in

the climatically morderate high-elevation, outwash plain ecosystem type 36, UMBS, Cheboygan Co., northern

Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=15)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer rubrum37.046.55.56.60.50.72.22.6

Betula papyrifera4.412.50.82.20.10.20.30.9

Pinus resinosa133.393.921.916.74.63.620.617.2

Pinus strobus80.055.614.312.21.71.87.97.8


Quercus rubra143.770.725.816.37.03.833.821.1

Total634.1100.021.8100.0


xsdxsd

Acer rubrum148.1166.627.526.1

Acer saccharinum------------

Amelanchier spp.------------

Betula papyrifera------------

Fagus grandifolia8.934.41.86.5

Pinus resinosa105.2123.317.814.4

Pinus strobus288.9268.645.222.9


Quercus rubra25.279.66.520.0

Total582.2100.0

Table 3.29. Comparison of vegetation density and relative density in ecosystem type 37,

on the climatically morderate high-elevation, outwash plain type, UMBS, Cheboygan Co., northern

Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=10)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer rubrum102.280.617.317.91.31.27.79.9


Fagus grandifolia11.121.61.73.20.10.20.71.3

Pinus resinosa26.751.13.56.90.61.62.66.3

Pinus strobus57.876.49.611.50.91.55.27.4


Quercus rubra184.497.731.814.78.33.144.917.8

Total606.7100.020.0100.0


xsdxsd

Acer rubrum268.9228.933.124.4



Betula papyrifera8.928.11.85.7



Pinus strobus191.1125.832.225.4



Total720.0100.0



Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=7)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer rubrum517.5183.667.915.513.68.461.222.3

Acer saccharum92.190.212.913.92.02.411.413.9



Pinus resinosa

Pinus strobus34.964.03.86.11.02.03.55.6



Prunus serotina3.28.40.41.10.10.30.41.1

Quercus rubra9.517.51.62.80.20.31.32.2

Total749.2100.022.4100.0


xsdxsd


Acer pensylvanicum3.28.40.51.3

Acer rubrum577.8499.245.826.6

Acer saccharum187.3137.522.525.3


Acer spicatum231.7345.215.221.2

Alnus rugosa19.041.41.52.7




Pinus strobus9.517.51.22.5



Total1222.2100.0



Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=5)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Abies balsamea4.49.90.30.70.00.10.10.3

Acer rubrum377.8231.543.214.210.86.341.922.4

Acer saccharum231.1140.227.15.15.22.719.45.3

Betula alleghaniensis8.912.21.21.80.81.22.94.3



Ostrya virginica31.143.32.73.70.50.81.42.2

Pinus strobus4.49.90.30.70.10.20.20.4


Tsuca canadensis8.912.20.81.20.10.10.30.4

Total835.6100.025.999.9


xsdxsd



Acer rubrum164.4168.917.520.0



Acer spicatum88.9175.011.824.0





Pinus strobus------------


Populus tremuloides------------

Prunus virginiana------------

Prunus serotina------------


Total964.4100.0



Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=5)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Abies balsamea4.49.91.84.10.10.10.81.8

Acer rubrum204.4193.334.137.14.64.529.140.4

Acer saccharum8.919.90.92.10.10.20.30.6



Pinus resinosa98.9106.911.912.92.32.98.210.9

Pinus strobus87.8151.611.619.01.52.75.69.9



Total746.7100.026.9100.0


xsdxsd



Acer rubrum238.9201.229.233.7



Acer spicatum------------

Alnus rugosa------------




Pinus strobus288.9552.022.333.4



Prunus virginiana13.329.80.40.8

Prunus serotina53.3119.31.53.3


Total1432.2100.0

Table 3.29. Comparison of vegetation density and relative density in calcareous ecosystem type 44,


Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=19)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer rubrum212.9138.124.712.83.52.614.310.9

Acer saccharum18.442.43.48.70.30.61.74.5



Pinus resinosa5.814.51.02.60.30.91.02.8

Pinus strobus62.098.98.012.52.03.28.615.1


Quercus rubra151.8188.914.914.86.27.719.817.4


Total905.0100.029.2100.0


xsdxsd


Acer rubrum69.3153.020.530.7




Alnus rugosa------------



Ostya virginiana------------


Pinus strobus198.5658.918.233.6

Populus balsamifera2.611.50.20.5



Total485.7100.0



Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=19)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer rubrum139.393.014.510.02.81.811.07.2

Acer saccharum333.3194.833.017.05.13.619.913.1

Amelanchier spp.3.48.30.30.70.00.10.20.4





Quercus rubra55.654.16.06.03.53.715.015.1

Tilia americana63.269.66.36.92.32.68.39.7


Total1004.3100.025.2100.0


xsdxsd


Acer rubrum68.8117.44.88.8

Acer saccharum1026.9680.671.622.9






Ostya virginiana3.813.90.20.7




Populus grandidentata------------


Total1397.9100.0


on the deep outwash plain over moraine landform, UMBS, Cheboygan Co., northern

Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=19)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Abies balsamea2.27.00.31.00.00.10.10.2

Acer rubrum186.7110.536.315.15.33.926.716.3





Quercus rubra33.356.75.08.32.04.17.414.9

Total476.7100.018.1100.0


xsdxsd



Acer rubrum573.3810.335.930.2








Quercus rubra426.7369.940.830.0

Total1263.3100.0

Table 3.29. Comparison of vegetation density, relative density in ecosystem type 60,

on the deep outwash plain over moraine landform, UMBS, Cheboygan Co., northern

Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=4)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer pensylvanicum13.319.91.72.50.10.20.30.5

Acer rubrum275.6171.133.119.95.64.514.511.1

Acer saccharum62.2127.19.519.81.12.53.47.3




Total777.8100.038.1100.0


xsdxsd

Abies balsamea------------


Acer rubrum638.9711.237.339.8









Total1622.2100.0

Table 3.28. Comparison of overstory vegetation basal area and relative dominance on dune ecosystem type 74,on the

moderate, high-elevation, outwash plain , UMBS, Cheboygan Co., northern Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=5)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer rubrum26.729.04.47.00.30.41.52.4


Pinus resinosa284.4351.224.326.56.89.021.022.7

Pinus strobus57.871.311.516.00.80.94.15.0


Quercus rubra177.8198.123.219.78.88.038.027.2

Total804.4100.025.1100.0


xsdxsd


Acer pensylvanicum------------

Acer rubrum168.9109.526.229.5

Acer saccharum------------







Pinus strobus595.6719.143.032.2




Total1057.8100.0

Table 3.28. Comparison of overstory vegetation basal area and relative dominance on glacial lake beach ecosystem type 76, on the


Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=5)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer rubrum302.2219.832.523.94.43.816.012.8



Pinus banksiana71.1115.95.79.31.42.04.46.3

Pinus resinosa146.7232.911.818.76.18.418.525.5

Pinus strobus62.276.05.26.00.91.03.03.0


Quercus rubra48.942.74.93.82.41.58.96.4

Total1013.3100.028.6100.0


xsdxsd



Acer rubrum382.2275.157.331.9

Acer saccharum------------







Pinus strobus142.2221.416.321.2




Total746.7100.0

Table 3.28. Comparison of overstory vegetation basal area and relative dominance on glacial lake beach ecosystem type 77, on the


Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=5)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer rubrum44.454.45.55.90.81.14.56.9

Acer saccharum304.4374.827.533.66.08.026.634.3



Fraxiuns americana43.366.24.97.10.91.43.35.1


Pinus banksiana88.9112.210.713.32.33.09.011.0

Pinus resinosa152.2182.221.629.35.05.823.130.1

Pinus strobus8.919.91.12.60.91.93.57.9


Quercus rubra74.471.59.58.82.52.610.49.8

Tilia americana8.919.90.71.50.10.20.30.6

Tsuga canadensis22.249.71.63.70.61.42.25.0

Total892.2100.022.6100.0


xsdxsd



Acer rubrum600.0695.835.830.0












Total1420.0100.0

Table 3.30. Comparison of vegetation density, relative density, basal area and relative dominance on high lake terrace ecosystem type 96

on the moderate, high-elevation, outwash plain, UMBS, Cheboygan Co., northern Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=5)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer rubrum147.8123.225.219.93.23.412.512.6



Pinus resinosa20.044.72.14.70.20.50.81.7

Pinus strobus88.987.514.613.52.52.511.113.5


Quercus rubra48.9109.37.115.92.65.911.525.7

Total607.8100.026.0100.0


xsdxsd



Acer rubrum258.9205.921.614.0







Pinus strobus405.6339.333.421.8




Total1233.3100.0

Table 3.30. Comparison of vegetation density, relative density, basal area and relative dominance on high lake terrace ecosystem type 97

on the moderate, high-elevation, outwash plain, UMBS, Cheboygan Co., northern Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=4)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd


Acer rubrum161.158.419.77.02.61.69.16.5



Pinus resinosa5.611.10.71.40.10.20.30.5

Pinus strobus33.352.94.06.70.80.92.42.9


Quercus rubra61.171.16.37.32.22.87.710.5


Total766.7100.028.793.7


xsdxsd



Acer rubrum258.9205.921.614.0







Pinus strobus405.6339.333.421.8




Total1233.3100.0

Table 3.30. Comparison of vegetation density, relative density, basal area and relative dominance on interlobate ecosystem type 109

UMBS, Cheboygan Co., northern Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=13)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd


Acer rubrum340.6247.135.320.410.07.028.523.5

Acer saccharum87.2147.011.017.41.93.06.29.7

Betula allegheniensis1.76.20.20.70.00.10.10.3






Prunus serotina1.76.20.41.30.00.20.10.5

Quercus rubra14.530.61.42.90.82.61.33.4

Total931.6100.038.9100.0


xsdxsd



Acer rubrum183.8266.020.229.3




Betula alleghaniensis1.76.20.31.1

Betula papyrifera1.91.1------


Fraxinus americana15.443.90.61.5




Prunus serotina------------


Tilia americana------------

Viburnum acerifolium3.412.30.41.5

Total1351.9100.0

Table 3.30. Comparison of vegetation density, relative density, basal area and relative dominance on interlobate ecosystem type 113

UMBS, Cheboygan Co., northern Lower Michigan.

Dominant Overstory


Ecosystem Type

Plots (n=12)

Speciesxsdxsdxsdxsd

Acer rubrum251.9124.032.815.66.33.916.211.3

Acer saccharum122.2116.216.016.32.43.16.510.3

Betula allegheniensis5.610.10.71.40.10.10.20.4



Fraxinus americana1.96.40.31.00.00.10.10.2




Quercus rubra5.610.10.81.50.20.30.40.7

Tilia americana5.613.80.82.10.20.70.82.4


Total750.097.740.197.0


xsdxsd



Acer rubrum201.9369.417.523.2



Betula alleghaniensis11.125.91.54.0



Fraxinus americana63.084.75.26.2




Prunus serotina3.78.60.20.5


Tilia americana1.96.40.51.7

Viburnum acerifolium------------

Total820.483.3

Remote SensingIn combination with field data, GIS and Landsat data are being used to identify the patterns of ecosystem change among the selected landforms and ecosystem types.

The 14 test stands were mapped and combined with other UMBS GIS and Landsat data layers


Spectral-Temporal Remote SensingA combination of Landsat spectral and temporal (deciduous leaf-on/leaf-off) analysis provides information on a) aspen dominated overstory and b) deciduous vs. coniferous understory and successional pathway over the entire spatial extent of UMBS and region.


Creating an SNRE UMBS GISMany other ArcGIS layers were created as a result of this project - a few are shown here overlaid on one Landsat band.

The entire UMBS GIS will eventually be hosted on the ESA Lab website.HydrologyLandform Level EcosystemsTransportation


Conclusions

Due to accelerating succession, aspen stands will be replaced by later successional species depending upon the site-specific ecosystem of their occurrence.

Successional models based on the landscape ecosystem framework will prove useful in determining the spatial occurrence of the aspen resource, rate of decline, and succession to other species at the regional landscape scale.


From this motivation we have developed a research plan

Each objective corresponds to one of the components of the project we will talk about

Burt - different successional pathways1. To conifer2. To hardwood3. lowland

KB will also use to talk about using stands for remote sensing analysisof change

An Integrated Geoecosystem-Remote Sensing Approach To Aspen Ecosystem Management In Northern Lower...

Documents

Transcript of An Integrated Geoecosystem-Remote Sensing Approach To Aspen Ecosystem Management In Northern Lower...