Linking USFS Data and Classification Concepts to ESD ... · Linking USFS Data and Classification...

Linking USFS Data and Classification Concepts to ESD Development

Jeb Williamson, Jornada, Bozeman, MT Brandon Bestelmeyer, Jornada, Las Cruces, NM Jeff DiBenedetto, Custer National Forest, Red Lodge, MT

MLRA 43B

National Forest Lands in Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 43B (Central Rocky Mountains)

Status of ecological classification and description in MLRA 43B

Rangeland ecological sites defined, no ESDs General soil key + LRU matrix (frost free days and relative effective annual precipitation)

No alpine ecological sites defined

No forestland ecological sites defined

Montana TEUI-ESD Pilot Project

Region 1 and Custer National Forest Montana State Office

How can historical ecological field data and alternative ecological classifications be used to …

• assess and refine existing ecological site classifications,

• develop new ecological site classifications where none exist,

• demonstrate interagency ESD development as outlined in the forthcoming Interagency Ecological Site Handbook for Rangelands?

• link ecological sites to USFS classification systems in order to support land management at multiple scales

Jornada Experimental Range

Ecological site (multi-factor, single scale):

a distinctive kind of land with specific soil and physical characteristics that differs

from other kinds of land in its ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of

vegetation, and in its ability to respond to management actions and natural

disturbances (Interagency Ecological Site Handbook for Rangelands).

Ecological type (multi-factor, multi-scale):

a category of land with a distinctive combination of landscape elements, differing

from other types in the kind and amount of vegetation it can produce and in its ability

to respond to management actions and natural disturbances (Winthers et al. 2005).

Landscape elements = climate, geology, geomorphology, soils, and potential natural

community

“Modern” ecological classification systems

Habitat type (single factor):

• Land is classified based on the kind of vegetation that will come to dominate or characterize a site in the absence of disturbance

• Single factor – based on potential natural vegetation only. The same habitat type might be found in notably different physical settings.

• Vegetation “amount” not explicitly used as a differentiating factor • Can be one of the factors used to differentiate ecological types (e.g., habitat

type + climate + geology + geomorphology + soils) • Can differ from the historic climax community used to define an ecological site

A “legacy” ecological classification system

Beartooth Mountain TEUI, Custer National Forest, Montana Beartooth Mountains Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI)

Montana

~ 500 integrated plots sampled • 276 forested plots • 135 non-forested plots <8000ft • 100 alpine plots

Ecological map units and classification in draft

National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units (NHFEU) and Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI)

Domain (<1:30,000,000)

Division (1:30,000,000-1:7,500,000)

Province (1:15,000,000-1:5,000,000)

Section (1:7,500,000-1:3,500,000)

Subsection (1:3,500,000-1:250,000)

Landtype association (LTA) (1:250,000-1:60,000)

Landtype (LT) (1:60,000-1:24,000)

Landtype phase (>1:24,000)

Beartooth Mountains TEUI

LRR MLRA

4th order survey 3rd order survey 2nd order survey

• The NHFEU is a classification system used to describe land capability at different scales. • TEUI is a protocol for ecological classification and ecological unit mapping.

Example Landtypes of the Beartooth Front Planning Unit from Holzer et al. 1977

Alpine turfs Mountainous slopes

Grassland foothills Gently rolling timber and grassland slopes

Example Beartooth Mountains TEUI map unit: 82 – Pediment Surfaces (draft)

Domain – Dry

Division – Temperate Desert

Province – Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe

Section – Yellowstone Highlands

Subsection – Beartooth Front

Landtype association – Valleys: Outwash and other older coarse alluvial deposits

Landtype – Pediment Surfaces

• TEUI map units represent naturally repeating patterns of ecological types (ETs). • Ecological types = map unit components

Select map unit 82 components (draft)

ET 1 (minor): ARTR2/FEID, Typic Haplustolls-Typic Ustorthents ET 2 (minor): FEID, montane shrubland and grassland, cryic, calcic soils ET 3 (minor): montane shrubland and grassland, fine-loamy, Typic Argicryolls ET 4 (major): montane shrubland and grassland, fine-loamy, Typic Haplocryolls ET 5 (major): montane shrubland and grassland, loamy-skeletal, Pachic Argicryolls

Potential natural community Soil two-part name

ES: Gravelly, LRU E ET (draft): ARTR2/FEID, Typic Haplustolls-Typic Ustorthents HT: ARTR2/FEID

ES: Loamy Steep, LRU E ET (draft): NA HT: SYMPH/GEVI2

ES: Loamy Steep, LRU B ET (draft): FEID, Typic Haplustolls-Typic Ustorthents HT: FEID/AGSP

Wet Meadow, Organic (1)Very Shallow (2)Subirrigated (1)

Stony (2)Shallow to Gravel (3)Shallow Droughty (3)

Sandy Argillic (1)Sandy (2)Sands (2)

Loamy Steep (17)Loamy Argillic (3)

Loamy (13)Limy Droughty (2)

Limy (2)Gravelly (23)

Droughty Steep (27)Droughty (19)

Clayey (1)

SYMPH/GEVI2 (2)SYAL/FEID (5)SYAL/AGSP (1)RHTR/AGSP (1)POSC/FEID (1)POFR4/FEID (12)Limestone part veg (2)FEID/STRI2 (1)FEID/OPFR (1)FEID/BASA3 (2)FEID/AGSP ACNE9 (2)FEID/AGSP (45)FEID/AGSM (1)FEID/AGCA2 (4)CAUT/CACA4 (1)ARTRW/FEID (2)ARTRW/AGSP (5)ARTRV2/FEID (22)ARTR2/FEID (11)ARNO4/AGSP (1)ARAR8/AGSP (1)ALIN2/CACA4 (1)AGSP/POSA12 (2)AGSP/OPFR (1)AGSP/AGSM (1)

Habitat type

Ecological site(all LRUs)








Clayey (1)


Habitat type


Some ecological sites may be characterized by similar plant assemblages but different potential primary productivity








Clayey (1)


Habitat type


But … why are some ecological sites associated with more than one climax plant community?

Some potential reasons why one ecological site could be associated with more than one habitat type

• Ecological site determination is incorrect or the site is very different from the modal concept

• Habitat type designation is incorrect (e.g., a diagnostic species is absent or poorly represented due to disturbance history) or more than one classification was used in the study area

• Habitat types correspond to different vegetation states occurring in

essentially identical physical settings • The classifications are describing vegetation at different levels of detail • Sites belonging to different habitat types belong to different LRUs, as

currently defined

• The ecological site classification has not adequately captured important edaphic or climatic variation

PCO 1

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

PC

O 2

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

PCO 1

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

PC

O 3

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

Droughty

Droughty Steep

Gravelly

Loamy Steep

Loamy

No clear separation in ordination space

Separation from others (related to cover of invasive perennial grasses)

Plot data analysis: Principal coordinate ordination of species cover (common ecological sites and species only) e.g., labdsv package for R

Are Loamy and Loamy Steep ecological sites more readily invaded by nonnative perennial grasses than the other classes?

Drough

ty

Drough

ty Stee

p

Gravell

y

Loam

y

Loam

y Stee

p

Inva

sive

per

enni

al g

rass

cano

py c

over

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Drough

ty

Drough

ty Stee

p

Gravell

y

Loam

y

Loam

y Stee

pP

erce

ntag

e of

plo

ts

inva

ded

0

20

40

60

80

100

• Ecological sites and TEUI ecological types are conceptually very similar (perhaps interchangeable) at certain scales.

• Habitat type classifications may be a useful tool for developing/revising ecological sites, particularly in forests.

• Some microclimatic variation found in mountainous terrain may not

be adequately captured by climate models/LRUs-this can lead to messy relationships between proposed ecological sites and vegetation.

• Can indicator plant species/species associations be used in

developing and using ecological site concepts?

Current thinking

Future work

• Analyze climatic and edaphic properties differentiating forest habitat types, habitat type-based fire groups, and existing vegetation using Beartooth Mountains TEUI data

• Target select rangeland habitat types/vegetation types for additional sampling and analysis

• Target select ecological sites for ESD development

Acknowledgments

Jeff DiBenedetto Mary Manning Meredith Webster Kim Reid David Cleland

Kirt Walstad Jon Siddoway Eva Muller Jane Karinen Robert Spokas Abe Clark Charles Gordon Curtis Talbot Homer Sanchez

Sherm Karl

We recognize Dr. Aaron Wells, ABR, Inc. Environmental Research and Services, and Dr. David Roberts, Montana State University, for their work on the Beartooth Mountains TEUI

The following people have contributed to or advised the Montana TEUI-ESD project

David Roberts Craig Carr

Montana State University

Linking USFS Data and Classification Concepts to ESD ... · Linking USFS Data and Classification...

Documents

Transcript of Linking USFS Data and Classification Concepts to ESD ... · Linking USFS Data and Classification...