missouri ozark forest ecosystem project: an overview steven l. sheriff missouri department of...

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

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


• Descriptive Studies• Confirmatory Studies

–Multiple Hypotheses–Model–Model fitting or selection based on

data



–Observational 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

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


Km0 1 2


• 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


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

missouri ozark forest ecosystem project: an overview steven l. sheriff missouri department of...

Documents