Effects of conifer removal treatments on quaking aspen regeneration and adult growth By: Philip W. Williams Bachelor of Science in Forestry Student College of Forestry & Conservation Undergraduate Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Andrew J. Larson UMCUR University of Montana April 15th 2016
LIKELY REMEDIABLE THROUGH FOREST MANAGMENT INTRODUCTION Project Relevance: Widest range of any tree in North America Wide variety of ecosystem services Currently in decline Very few previous studies LIKELY REMEDIABLE THROUGH FOREST MANAGMENT
INTRODUCTION Research Questions: 1. Does conifer removal in quaking aspen increase, decrease, or not affect : a. aspen regeneration density ? b. aspen regeneration browsing by ungulates? c. remaining adult aspen diameter growth? 2. How dense is the overstory in control and treatment units, measured in terms of adult aspen per acre?
INTRODUCTION Project Background: Conifer removal treatments at Burnt Fork and Bandy Ranches Combo of private and state land management Burnt Fork Ranch Treatment: Winter 2013-14 Bandy Ranch Treatment: Summer 2009
INTRODUCTION Overall Goals: Give ranch managers regional data to restore quaking aspen Give scientists a platform to further investigate aspen decline
METHODS
METHODS Control – Impact Study Burnt Fork: 10 treatment units, 4 control units Bandy: 7 treatment units, 4 control units Nested concentric plots
METHODS 100th acre circles Regeneration Counts: Based on cm diameter classes at ground-level: < 1 cm, 1-2 cm, 2-3cm, & >3 cm Ungulate Use: Further divided into unbrowsed vs browsed Unable to separate cattle from wildlife browsing
METHODS 10th acre circles Adult Trees Trees per acre Most Vigorous Aspen &/or Conifer to represent site potential: Diameters at breast height (DBH) Increment cores for average annual growth pre and post-treatment
ANALYSIS Regeneration Counts: Calculated stems/ha for each diameter class and total Ungulate Use: Browsed vs unbrowsed used to calculate: % use for each diameter class % use for total
ANALYSIS Adult Trees Most Vigorous Aspen &/or Conifer to represent site potential: Calculated trees per acre Subtracted pre-harvest DBH from current = DBH change Counted tree rings under dissecting scope Divided total growth (cm) over equal time period pre and post treatment Gave growth estimates for pre and post treatment
RESULTS
RESULTS
RESULTS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION The What and Why Conifer removal in quaking aspen: Increases aspen regeneration Increases ungulate browsing Increases or does not affect adult growth
A FEW MORE WHYS Burnt Fork regeneration < Bandy: Topography Bandy > regeneration use: Cattle Treatment use > Control: Tender browse
An interactive Web Map of my experiment CONCLUDING THOUGHTS An interactive Web Map of my experiment http://umt.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=e8a45c586d4d43b2b1e7ae0588107cd9