Structure and Composition of Edges in Boreal Forest
19
Structure and Composition of Edges in Boreal Forest Qinglin Li
description
Structure and Composition of Edges in Boreal Forest. Qinglin Li. Objectives. To address the spatial and temporal pattern of the edge influence under different models To address the concepts of modeling approaches in edge effects. Methods. Critical values model T-test: Buffering Model - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Structure and Composition of Edges in Boreal Forest
Structure and Composition of Edges in
Boreal Forest
Qinglin Li
Objectives
• To address the spatial and temporal pattern of the edge influence under different models
• To address the concepts of modeling approaches in edge effects
Methods
• Critical values model
– T-test:
• Buffering Model– 60 meters from the edge
2)( dd
dT
Methods:• Sampling design (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 60,
100, 150, and 200): 20m x 5m for trees, subplots 2m x 2m for shrub, and three 0.5m x 0.5m for herb
• Data collected: Late to June to mid-August
• Data analysis: Critical values model
Critical Values Model
Data table
Back>
The Reference Information
The Field Data Input
Outputs:2.5th %ile 97.5th %ileDistance -50 -15 -5 0 5 15 25 40 60
Aster spp. 0 1.40787 0 1.184065 0 0 1 1.359295 0 1.6048 0Carex spp. -1.19751 1.755273 1.908233 0.789625 1.677106 -1.42446 -0.44365 -0.31247 -0.30041 1.245626 0.69178Cladina mitis -1.2987 1.479305 1.40787 -0.27735 -1.05747 -1.43685 0 -1.41668 0.447214 -0.22442 1.15165Cladina rangiferina -1.88431 1.251015 1.964666 3.769045 1.79639 2.003633 0.617829 0.118924 1.259914 1.272316 3.069624Cladina stellaris -1.56147 1.098054 1.488048 0 0 1 -1.24476 0 1.437591 0.538256 0Cladonia spp. -1.9414 1.111907 2.167638 2.732194 1.025652 1.626448 0.426889 -0.81855 -0.73568 1.958913 -0.26695Coptis groelandica -1.51535 1.672549 1 1.359295 1.53949 -1 1.359295 -0.33575 2.2863 1.751767 0Cornus canadensis -1.97344 1.084138 0.578041 0 1.437591 -1.43759 1.422194 0 -1 0.632456 0Dicranum spp. -0.28303 1.777773 -0.57804 -1 -1.27733 -1.43759 0.070648 1.046001 -0.73333 -0.24804 1.569771Drosera sp. -1 0 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0Equisetum spp. -2.24788 0.423016 -1.58744 -1.45615 -1.45506 -2.1596 -0.14595 0.485617 -0.25306 -0.38757 -0.30438Gaultheria hispida -2.70711 -0.38345 3.896952 3.650999 1.948312 -1.13371 0 0.193318 -0.65497 -0.43534 -1.83955herb species diversity -1.72741 1.002845 -0.09045 2.633836 0.5391 -0.83958 1.233629 0.738471 1.271259 1.987276 -0.86659herb species richness -1.43054 1.395934 0 2.761282 0.936089 -0.83975 1.479328 0.880068 1.385514 2.137071 -1.25578Hylocomnium splendens -1.2635 1.437591 1.359295 1.790781 1.184065 0 0.447214 0.635423 1.221989 1.221989 0lichen species diversity -2.85307 0.204993 2.498748 3.120495 0.42502 1.020486 0.827443 0.785546 0.002084 1.119069 1.259401lichen species richness -2.28293 0.575804 3.744654 4.065001 1.35357 2.71993 1.860144 1.545203 0.417191 2.412309 1.864522Linnaea borealis -1.43759 1.504588 1 1.437591 1 1 1.56854 0.918318 -1.27733 1.434195 0Lycopodium spp. -2.82204 -0.96841 0 -1 1.678744 -0.78446 -0.58366 0 0 -0.58366 -1Maianthemum canadense -1 1.488048 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.50933 -0.44721 -1.76068Mnium spp. -1.76068 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1.71662 1 0 0moss species diversity -1.47781 1.450748 1.943486 3.796695 -0.4111 1.434747 1.058224 -0.33791 0.318044 1.378532 0.392867moss species richness -2.00818 0.808638 2.54965 3.277509 0.73302 -0.99203 0.246666 0 0 0.452433 0.278562Oxalis sp. 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -1.9685 -1 0 0 0Petasites palmatus -1.22199 1.635336 -0.2021 0.632456 1 -0.21889 1.898592 2.047981 1.449722 1 1.199921Pleurozium schreberi -0.17044 2.575007 5.693182 4.84689 2.234013 3.949042 3.648427 2.159146 2.421896 0.063504 1.474365Polytrichum spp. -2.39598 1.312638 -3.15839 -0.62486 -2.82079 -2.4613 -1.0931 0.787086 -0.26379 -0.9294 -1.7218Ptilidium spp. -1.60109 1.366113 1.461357 1.786021 0.511397 0.530213 0.637774 0.941124 0.342392 1.232378 0Ptilium crista-castrensis 0.578041 1.771342 1 0 1.63559 1.455006 1.425511 1.318529 1.403357 0.985614 0.729426Rubus chamaemorus -0.07239 2.437982 -2.74172 -0.1758 -0.21079 -0.78405 -0.16523 1.054307 1.667623 1.317574 2.478506Smilacina trifolia -0.04147 2.749349 -1.23063 0.654654 0 -0.58246 0.338218 0.615366 0.801304 1.598765 1.236245Sphagnum spp. -1.87463 0.634944 0.904667 3.316878 1.74866 -0.1775 -0.07358 1.933291 0.010554 0.162688 -1.72647Total herb cover -1.39369 1.749055 1.774518 2.15833 1.003119 -1.58309 0.097339 1.52904 1.342687 1.813255 0.482885Total lichen cover -1.88825 1.279894 2.368679 3.807395 1.736803 1.223425 0.194591 -0.68466 1.450597 1.262082 2.939986Total moss cover 0.389685 3.217606 2.219781 6.270343 2.626693 3.498443 2.463732 5.341531 2.526083 1.397136 -0.09647Vaccinium oxycoccus -2.87757 -0.11396 -0.8176 -0.18737 -1.87903 -2.31678 -0.84283 -0.21755 -1.63877 -0.45922 -1.85338
Table 1
Results
Proposing hypotheses
• Secondary composition responses start later than primary and secondary structure responses to edge influence, and
• DEI for secondary responses extends farther into the interior forest than for primary responses.
Buffering Model
• Distance selection• Pre-processing (Modified neighborhood)
Conceptual Design
1a
2
4
1c
2
3
b
b
a
Illustrating multiple edges effects to patch type 4. (1, 2, 3, and 4 illustrating four distinct patch types. a-c. the area of edge influence of patch type 4 by one neighbor; the dark area represents the area of edge influence of patch type 4 by two or over two neighbors.)
Landsat TM land cover map (2001, Bresee et al. in review) for the study area, Chequamegon National Forest, WI, USA. A subscene with mature hardwood patch and its area of multiple edge influence by neighbor patches (60 meters buffer).
N
10 0 10 Mile
NFS
MHCMHWJPRPNFBGWater
RP & JP to AMEI%
2. Regenerating Forest/Shrub (RFS), 3. Mature HardWood (MHW), 6. Mixed Hardwood/Conifer (MHC), 10. Nonforest Bare Ground (NFBG), 12. Jack Pine (JP), 13. Red Pine (RP), 14. Water
22.3
5.3
43.9
6.3
22.0
0.30
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2 3 6 10 12 14
AMEI%
patches
24.0
5.6
16.3
6.6
47.1
0.4
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
2 3 6 10 13 14
patch12
AMEI%
patches
NFBG & MHC to AMEI%
71.4
6.69.6
4.18.4
0.00.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
2 3 6 12 13 14
Patch10
19.0
52.6
3.7 3.6
20.5
0.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2 3 10 12 13 14
Patch6
patches patches
AMEI% AMEI%
2. Regenerating Forest/Shrub (RFS), 3. Mature HardWood (MHW), 6. Mixed Hardwood/Conifer (MHC), 10. Nonforest Bare Ground (NFBG), 12. Jack Pine (JP), 13. Red Pine (RP), 14. Water
MHW & RFS to AMEI%
15.0
72.3
4.92.5
4.90.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2 6 10 12 13 14
Patch 3
15.2
25.9
40.1
6.2
12.5
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
3 6 10 12 13 14
Patch 2
patches patches
AMEI% AMEI%
2. Regenerating Forest/Shrub (RFS), 3. Mature HardWood (MHW), 6. Mixed Hardwood/Conifer (MHC), 10. Nonforest Bare Ground (NFBG), 12. Jack Pine (JP), 13. Red Pine (RP), 14. Water
Shannon & Shape indices
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
RP JP NFBG MHC MHW RFS
Shannon shape
Conclusions• The buffering model can be used to
determine multiple edge influence at landscape level,
• The complicity and structure of area of multiple edge influence of one patch type to the neighboring patches vary across the landscape, and
• The composition of area of multiple edge influence of patch type can be presented by Shannon diversity index.
