buffer strips and tree windthrow: problem or habitat

32
Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat Enhancement? Douglas Martin, Martin Environmental Rich Grotefendt, Grotefendt Photogrammetric Services Alice Shelly, TerraStat Consulting

Upload: others

Post on 21-Oct-2021

10 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow:Problem or Habitat Enhancement?

Douglas Martin, Martin EnvironmentalRich Grotefendt, Grotefendt Photogrammetric Services

Alice Shelly, TerraStat Consulting

Page 2: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Windthrow in buffer strips is significantly increased following logging

Windthrow in buffer strips is significantly increased following logging

From Martin and Grotefendt 2007

Logged Unlogged

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 Cumulative Stand Mortality(N = 124)

Page 3: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Windthrow in buffer strips is significantly increased following logging

Windthrow in buffer strips is significantly increased following logging

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0-0.05

0.05-0.10

0.10-0.15

0.15-0.20

0.20-0.25

0.25-0.30

0.30-0.35

0.35-0.40

0.40-0.45

Windthrow mortality

Perc

enta

ge o

f uni

ts

Buffer Reference

Magnitude of Windthrow Disturbance

From Martin and Grotefendt 2007

Logged Unlogged

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 Cumulative Stand Mortality(N = 124)

Page 4: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Windthrow in buffer strips is significantly increased following logging

Windthrow in buffer strips is significantly increased following logging

From Martin and Grotefendt 2007

0-10 m 10-20 m 0-20 mZone

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Cum

ulat

ive

stan

d m

orta

lity

Buffer typeLoggedUnlogged

Cumulative Stand MortalityVaries by Distance

Page 5: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

What are effects of tree windthrow in buffer strips on fish habitat?

Page 6: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Habitat is strongly associated with LWD

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 20 40 60 80

In-Stream LWD (no/100 m)

Pool

Fre

quen

cy (n

o/10

0 m

)

CW = 5 m CW = 15 m

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80

In-Stream LWD (no/100m)

Perc

ent o

f uni

ts w

ith g

rave

l dom

inan

t

• Beechie & Sibley 1997• Montgomery et al. 1997• Martin 2001

Page 7: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Habitat is strongly associated with LWD

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 20 40 60 80

In-Stream LWD (no/100 m)

Pool

Fre

quen

cy (n

o/10

0 m

)

CW = 5 m CW = 15 m

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80

In-Stream LWD (no/100m)

Perc

ent o

f uni

ts w

ith g

rave

l dom

inan

t

• Beechie & Sibley 1997• Montgomery et al. 1997• Martin 2001

Question:What is the magnitude and duration of habitat change following logging?

Page 8: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Trend in LWD Load In-StreamPre- and Post-Harvest Group

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-10 -5 0 5 10

Years Before or After Harvest

LWD

(no/

100

m)

Caldera 1 Coco 1a Coco 2a Game 3 Game 4a Raven 1

Avg. Post - Pre Density = 6.46Difference significant(paired t-test p-value = 0.010)

Page 9: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Trend in LWD Load In-Stream Post-Harvest Group

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Years Since Harvest

LWD

(no/

100

m)

Cabin 4b Cabin 5 Eagle 1 Eagle 3 EEagle 1 EEagle 2a Game 6a

Mean slope = 1.51Trend significant(t-test p-value = 0.0003)

Page 10: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Trend in Pool FrequencyPre- and Post-Harvest Group

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-10 -5 0 5 10

Years Before or After Harvest

Pool

Fre

quen

cy (n

o/10

0m)

Caldera 1 Coco 1a Coco 2a Game 3 Game 4a Raven 1

Average post - pre frequency = 0.56Difference significant(paired t-test, p-value = 0.061

Page 11: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Trend in Pool FrequencyPost-Harvest Group

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Years Since Harvest

Pool

Fre

quen

cy (n

o/10

0 m

)

Cabin 4b Cabin 5 Eagle 1 Eagle 3 E Eagle 1 E Eagle 2a Game 6a

Mean slope = 0.09Trend significant(t-test, p-value = 0.005)

Page 12: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Decay Class Aging Indicates Timing of Recruitment

DecayClass N

Avg.Age*

95% CL(lower)

95% CL(upper)

Green --

41

74

Nub-Rotten 285 30.0 27.5 31.6

<1 -- --

Twig-Branch 7.6 6.4 8.9

Primary 17.3 15.2 19.3

Page 13: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

The Proportion of Recuited Trees that Function to Form Habitatis Related to Decay Class

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Green Twig-Branch Primary Nub-Rotten All

Recr

uits

(%)

In-Ch Function In-Ch NonFunction Over Ch

955

143

274

24

514

(Decay class distribution based on 2005 data)

Page 14: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Green Twig-Branch Primary Nub-Rotten

Rec

ruits

(%)

In-Ch Function In-Ch NonFunction Over Ch

Pre-logging recruits

Avg Age17.3

Avg Age30.0

Avg Age7.6

Avg Age<1

Post-logging recruits

Decay Class Age and Function Indicates:

• Only younger decay class recruits (11%) may be affecting habitat since logging

• Full effect of post-harvest recruitment may not occur, on average, for about 30 years

Page 15: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Habitat Formation Needs Morethan Riparian Stand!

Page 16: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

From Fox & Bolton 2007

152012N =

LWD by Channel Type

FPMMLC & MC

LWD

(pie

ces/

km)

800

600

400

200

0

From Martin 2001

Natural Wood Loading is Highly Variable

Southeast Alaska

Washington

Page 17: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Wood Recruitment and Forest Management?

Wood Recruitment Processes• chronic mortality• wildfires• bank erosion• landslides• ice storms• windstorms

Page 18: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Wood Recruitment and Forest Management?

Wood Recruitment Processes• chronic mortality• wildfires• bank erosion• landslides• ice storms• windstorms

Benda et al, 2003. Wood recruitment processes and wood budgeting. The Ecology and Magement of Wood in World Rivers.

Page 19: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Patterns of Windthrow Vary Naturally Across

Landscape

Kuiu Island

(From Kramer et al. 2001)

Page 20: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Harvest Management Patterns and Windthrow in Buffer Strips may be Influencing the Quantity

and Distribution of Fish Habitat?

Page 21: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Habitat Augmented by Windthrow Over Past 2-3

Decades with Birth of Buffer Strip Rules on Federal and Private

Timberlands

Federal Timberlands (green)

Private Timberlands (grey)

Page 22: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Timber Harvest may be More Concentrated in

Geographic Areas That are Naturally Less Prone

to Windthrow

Kuiu Island

Page 23: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Conclusion and HypothesesWindthrow in buffer strips is increased following logging

Windthrow is naturally greater in storm exposed landscapes

Page 24: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Conclusion and Hypotheses

Fish habitat is strongly associated with the amount and distribution of LWD in streams

Windthrow in buffer strips is increased following logging

Windthrow is naturally greater in storm exposed landscapes

Page 25: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Conclusion and Hypotheses

Fish habitat is strongly associated with the amount and distribution of LWD in streams

Windthrow after logging is probably increasing the quantity and distribution of fish habitat in streams in timber harvest areas.

Windthrow in buffer strips is increased following logging

Windthrow is naturally greater in storm exposed landscapes

Page 26: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Conclusion and Hypotheses

Fish habitat is strongly associated with the amount and distribution of LWD in streams

Windthrow after logging is probably increasing the quantity and distribution of fish habitat in streams in timber harvest areas.

Windthrow in buffer strips is increased following logging

Windthrow is naturally greater in storm exposed landscapes

In the absence of logging, fish habitat may be more concentrated in streams that are in areas prone to windthrow

Page 27: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Conclusion and Hypotheses

Fish habitat is strongly associated with the amount and distribution of LWD in streams

Windthrow after logging is probably increasing the quantity and distribution of fish habitat in streams in timber harvest areas.

Windthrow in buffer strips is increased following logging

Windthrow is naturally greater in storm exposed landscapes

In the absence of logging, fish habitat may be more concentrated in streams that are in areas prone to windthrow

Fish habitat may vary spatially and temporally across the landscape as a result of natural patterns of windthrow.

Page 28: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Conclusion and Hypotheses

Fish habitat is strongly associated with the amount and distribution of LWD in streams

Windthrow after logging is probably increasing the quantity and distribution of fish habitat in streams in timber harvest areas.

Windthrow in buffer strips is increased following logging

Windthrow is naturally greater in storm exposed landscapes

In the absence of logging, fish habitat may be more concentrated in streams that are in areas prone to windthrow

Fish habitat may vary spatially and temporally across the landscape as a result of natural patterns of windthrow.

Timber harvest may be more concentrated in geographic areas that are naturally less prone to windthrow.

Page 29: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Conclusion and Hypotheses

Fish habitat is strongly associated with the amount and distribution of LWD in streams

Windthrow after logging is probably increasing the quantity and distribution of fish habitat in streams in timber harvest areas.

Windthrow in buffer strips is increased following logging

Windthrow is naturally greater in storm exposed landscapes

In the absence of logging, fish habitat may be more concentrated in streams that are in areas prone to windthrow

Fish habitat may vary spatially and temporally across the landscape as a result of natural patterns of windthrow.

Timber harvest may be more concentrated in geographic areas that are naturally less prone to windthrow.

Windthrow disturbance following logging may be increasing fish habitat in streams where windthrowwas historically infrequent.

Page 30: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Acknowledgements

Sealaska CorporationAlaska Department of Natural ResourcesAlaska Department of ConservationAlaska Clean Water Action Program

Page 31: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Clearwater Logging Research Team - 1974

Page 32: Buffer Strips and Tree Windthrow: Problem or Habitat

Clearwater Logging Research Team - 1974

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/hcp/research/pubs/index.html