MISSOURI OZARK FOREST ECOSYSTEM PROJECT: AN OVERVIEW STEVEN L. SHERIFF Missouri Department of Conservation Resource 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 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

3 AVENUES OF SCIENCE Descriptive Studies Confirmatory Studies – Multiple Hypotheses – Model – Model fitting or selection based on data

3 AVENUES OF SCIENCE Descriptive Studies Confirmatory Studies – Observational Studies

3 AVENUES OF SCIENCE Descriptive Studies Confirmatory 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

MOFEP

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

MOFEP EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Km 0 1 2

MOFEP EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 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

MOFEP EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Km 0 1 2

MOFEP CONCEPTUAL ECOSYSTEM MODEL

STUDIES NUTRIENTS Carbon and sulfur transformation Carbon flux and storage Nutrient cycling SOILS Soils of MOFEP sites Nutrient cycling GEOLOGY and TOPOGRAPHY Soils of MOFEP sites CLIMATE Microclimate

STUDIES OVERSTORY and UNDERSTORY Overstory Stump sprouting Tree cavity Down wood coarse debris Genetics Plant distribution and diversity Canopy mapping Acorn production Oak chemistry GROUND FLORA Ground flora Lichens SOIL ALLIES Armillaria

STUDIES HERVIVORES Birds Small mammals Herptofauna Oak herbivores Caterpillars INSECTIVORES Birds Small mammals Herptofauna CARNIVORES Birds Small mammals Herptofauna PARASITES/PATHOGENS Ticks DECOMPOSERS Leaf litter arthropods

STUDIES SITE HISTORY Fire history MANAGEMENT Harvest impacts Timber harvest and value Treatments POLICY Information from all other studies impact policy DEMAND Economics of management treatments

PROGRESS Pre-treatment and post initial entry data collection Initial entry harvest completed

PROGRESS Site Forest Management Practice Acres in Site Acres Harvested in 1996/1997 Volume of Timber Harvested in 1996/1997 (x 1,000 bd ft) 1No-harvest Uneven-aged1, ,146 3Even-aged Uneven-aged1, Even-aged No-harvest1, Uneven-aged1, ,344 8No-harvest Even-aged1, Total 9,3972,8565,896

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: 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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Missouri Department of Conservation US Forest Service – North Central Research Station Missouri Department of Natural Resources US Geological Survey University of Missouri – Columbia University of Missouri – St. Louis Central Methodist College University of Oklahoma University of Toledo Michigan Technological University University of Tennessee – Chattanooga The Nature Conservancy And all the managers and scientists cooperating to make MOFEP a success