1. The effects of fire severity and site moisture on functional properties of black spruce forests in interior Alaska by Emily Bernhardt

2. Functional diversity –Relative abundance of functionally different kinds of organisms Walker, B. 1992. Plant functional types (PFT) –Assemblage of species with certain similar plant functional attributes (traits) Skarpe, C. 1996 Defined by ecological properties in question Naemm and Li 1997 Functional redundancy –Taxonomically distinct species that perform the same functional role in the ecosystem Walker, B. 1992; Micheli and Halpurn 2003

3. What factors make a black spruce forest stay a black spruce forest If black spruce as a forest type has definable characteristics: Self replacing low severity fire Cold / wet / acidic soils Permafrost Does an alteration of one (fire regime) affect the communities ability to maintain the others? –By altering the community composition, thereby altering the communities ability to maintain BS forest type characteristics, resulting in a change of forest type

4. Hypothesis Post-fire change in species composition will alter functional properties of re-growth and residual vegetation in relation to burn severity/site moisture

5. Burn severity Site moisture L H H H LL

6. Sampled –5 individuals per species Measured –Hard / soft traits –Rooting depth CPCRW sites Conducted –Reléve

7. Examining changes in functional diversity Analyzed changes in 3 ways –1) Created list of plant traits for boreal species –2) Hypothesized trait relationships with burn severity and site moisture –3) Reported observed trait relationships How plant traits are distributed across study sites

8. Trait type TraitSoftHardConstantMeasured Life historyStructural Growth formxxx Species longevityxxx Leaf life spanxxx Rooting typexxx Dispersal typexxx Pollinationxxx Seed bankxxx Response to firexxx Nitrogen fixationxxx Plant heightxxx Shoot lengthxxx Leaf lengthxxx SLAxxx Rooting depthxxx Rooting substrate x x x Plant traits for each species

9. Ability to Establish/Flourish After Disturbance Ability To Withstand Disturbance Dispersal - how does it get there?Avoidance Dispersal typeLife historyHeightMorphological Chemical defensesLife history Establishment - how well does it germinate?Regeneration strategy SLAMorphologicalRooting depth Seed bank potentialLife historyGrowth formLife history Leaf life span Seed bankLife history Root type Persistence - how well does it grow and reproduce?Tolerance HeightMorphologicalLongevityLife history Life cycleLife historyLeaf life span Seed persistenceLife historyRoot type SLAMorphologicalGrowth form Root type Nutrient status of plant Hypothesized trait relationships

10. Response to Effect on Fire severity Site moistureFlammability Site moisturePermafrost lowhighlowhigh Growth form+ + +++ Resprout ability++ SLA+- Rooting depth++++ Rooting substrate++++ Root type +++ ++ Seed bank+-+- Life span+-+-+ Seed mass+--+ Height+ - ++ Leaf longevity--++ Fire resistance-+-+ Seed persistence-++- Shoot length-+-++ Leaf length+ Life cycle+ Dispersal Hypothesized trait relationships

11. site trait average within site trait average of all species within a site for each trait within BS/SM type all sites trait average across all sites species Species trait value independent of site Site trait value independent of species

12. 2 tables were created from these data Species trait value for each sampled year Species ShootLeafHeightLeaf Weight Leaf Area 2005200620052006200520062005200620052006 Arc lat1.572.801.923.311.572.822.982.843.653.48 Arc rub1.352.261.011.221.051.950.340.720.310.63 Bet gla0.910.540.89 0.670.791.080.90 Bet nan5.255.726.336.685.896.322.052.564.164.66 Bet neo7.697.427.707.077.026.575.142.974.673.07 Cal can15.9718.0021.8023.0516.0918.2615.9817.4413.1713.95 Cal lap1.00 0.00 Car big3.304.673.775.163.414.723.823.914.725.18 Cor can1.301.840.771.292.422.891.952.361.732.31 Cor sem1.432.071.182.081.432.071.67 1.80 Emp nig0.830.081.000.101.000.100.00 Epi ang25.3024.8127.0326.0025.6124.862.552.5311.5311.37 Epi gla1.000.101.000.101.000.100.00 Epi pal1.051.271.061.311.051.271.761.381.361.18 Equ arv4.183.413.572.574.363.281.000.501.000.50 Equ sci3.383.065.125.202.081.820.00 Equ syl18.7618.5018.3418.3313.6113.334.912.413.521.02 Eri vag4.436.436.519.476.879.826.549.686.099.24 Gal bor1.861.091.901.091.791.081.00 Hie sca1.00 Led gro10.7910.523.963.9012.6112.085.525.6410.3510.49

13. Site trait value for each sampled year TraitTC0105TC0106TC0405TC0406TC0805TC0806TC1905TC1906DC4605DC4606 Shoot3.977.444.957.566.495.472.572.153.933.92 Leaf4.707.794.155.316.465.813.532.915.295.42 Height3.865.614.205.525.595.092.692.353.103.80 Leaf Weight5.273.514.164.475.373.992.251.784.243.48 Leaf Area4.513.345.015.75 4.272.602.044.154.19 H H L H L H L L H L

14. Determining how traits relate in ecosystem A ordination represents a species (or site) of interest in ordination space, where the species location along the axis represents its similarity to other species located along the axis –Using data collected from reléve

17. 3

20. Preliminary results Certain traits appear to respond similarly to burn severity and site moisture and can potentially become a PFT group Site / species table: –Species with similar trait values often have different growth forms –Low moisture sites have lowest trait values From ordination: –Growth form is not a good functional type grouping variable –Burn severity and site moisture were accurately determined –Low burn severity sites have similar trait values

21. Final product – species trait matrix Constant SpeciesGrowth formlife cycle life spanshootleafheight leaf weight leaf area root abgr ht root abgr wt Aln cridec shrp Bet gladec shrp Bet nandec shrp Ros acidec shrp Rub idedec shrp Sal aledec shrp Sal gladec shrp Sal myrdec shrp Sal puldec shrp Sal scodec shrp Spi beadec shrp Vac ulidec shrp Measured

22. Response to Effect on Fire severity Site moistureFlammability Site moisturePermafrost lowhighlowhigh Growth form+ + +++ Resprout ability++ SLA+- Rooting depth++++ Rooting substrate++++ Root type +++ ++ Seed bank+-+- Life span+-+-+ Seed mass+--+ Height+ - ++ Leaf longevity--++ Fire resistance-+-+ Seed persistence-++- Shoot length-+-++ Leaf length+ Life cycle+ Dispersal Hypothesized trait relationships

23. Acknowledgments JFSP UAF – Biology department Teresa Hollingsworth Terry Chapin Field crew and technical advisement –Christa Mulder, Emily Tissier, Jamie Hollingsworth, Mark Winterstien, Gretchen Garcia, Kate McGlone, Brian Charlton, Katie Villano and Dana Nossov References Naeem, S. and S. Li. 1997. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Letters to nature 390:507- 509. Micheli F., and B.,S. Halpurn. 2005. Low functional redundancy in costal marine assemblages. Ecology letter 8:391-400. Skarpe, C. 1996. Plant functional types and climate in a southern African savanna. Journal of vegetation science 7:397-404. Walker, B. 1992. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conservation Biology 6:18-23.

24. Plant functional type example –Growth form popular –But may not be appropriate or validly explain community response –Used a a sort of base line to compare functional type groupings against Constant trait –general traits with little to no variation (growth form) Variable trait – plastic morphological traits (plant height)

25. Rooting depth measurements in C P C R W sites (burned and unburned) Measured rooting depth of each individual 8 burned sites –2 of each site moisture/burn severity 4 unburned sites Sampling design –30m belt transect –5 individuals of each species

26. Response and effect groups In relation to ecosystem characteristics of interest –Flammability –Permafrost –Acidity –N-fixation –Site moisture

27. Examining changes in functional diversity Assign species into functional groups based on their growth form (evergreen vs. deciduous) Create a list of constant and variable traits Separated into –Response of plants to fire regime (tolerance, disturbance response) –Effect of plants on fire regime (flammability, formation of permafrost, nitrogen fixation)

28. Trait Value Categorization All measured trait values standardized Trait values categorized by site for each species –abundance value multiplied by trait value Trait values calculated between sites by species –Trait values totaled to give a species trait value Trait values calculated for site –Species trait values totaled to give a site trait value 3