Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byBarrie Craig Modified over 9 years ago
1
1972 – 2001 Landscape Dynamics Wisconsin 38858.13ha (96020.19ac)
2
1972 1978 1982 1987 1992 2001 Landscape Dynamics of the Washburn District, N. Wisc.
3
Ownership and Landscapes The number of family forest owners in the conterminous US increased from 9.3 million in 1993 to 10.3 million in 2003, and these owners now control 42% of the nation’s forest land Butler and Leatherberry 2004 J. For. 102(7): 4-9
4
Lots of Indian Reservations Less private
5
Public lands in high elevation Small portion of state lands
7
Case Study I Landscapes in Central Oregon Spies et al. 1994. Study objectives: landscape, change, and ownership effects in W. Cascades, 158,930 ha)
8
Landsat images from 1972, 1976, 1981, 1984, and 1988; By ownership, elevation; Harvesting effects; Only two cover types (black & white); 91% accuracy (this is high).
10
Linear Interior <10%
11
More smaller patches in 1988 Less large patches
13
Changes in sub-landscapes 92% 10% 84% 65%
14
Nucleation change
15
High Low
16
Take Home Messages Conifer forest declined (71-58%); Greater at private lands. AEI increased and interior decreased, but depending on ownership. The annual rate was about 1.19%. Large forest patches are emerging (why?). Different management options for different owners.
17
Case Study II Landscapes in Northern Wisconsin Crow et al. 1999 Study Objectives: to partition the sources of variation in the composition and structure of a landscape as related to the physical environment and land use as affected by ownership. Sample plots (16 from 20)
19
Photo interpretation 1:15840 B/W or 1:1200 natural color (1993) Transferred to 1:2400 USGS topo maps Digitized into PC ARCINFO GIS The entire land area shares a common land- use history. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, intensive logging occurred throughout NW WI. However, the most prevalent process in the study area was reforested.
21
95% of public forest on outwash and 64% on moraine; No difference for private forest (i.e., 65%); Large lands surrounding lakes are private; More wetlands on moraine; Privates owns more agricultural lands.
22
More even distribution among the classes of upland forest is evident for private land on outwash; Less regenerating forests on private lands; Smaller patches for mixed forests;
23
Landscape Structure Outwash: Smaller patches on private lands; But more fragmented;
24
Landscape Structure: landform effects Different Not Different
25
Large Small
27
Conclusions Complex interactions between landform and ownership; What differences, in terms of ecological consequences, can landscape (composition and structure) produce? Different management scenarios? Anything else?
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.