Progress 06/01/17 to 09/30/20
Outputs
Target Audience:Thetarget audienceduring this reporting period was: 1)the research team of PIs and collaborators and the graduate studentassigned onthe project 2) foresters, landowners and natural resource professionals 3) other graduate and undergraduate students at SUNY-ESF 4) other stakeholders with interest in managing forests for biodiversity andthe general public (e.g. non-profit organizations) Changes/Problems:The major change in this study was the delay in harvest to winter 2019-20 and extension of the harvest into a second winter 2020-21. Further, the short winter of 2019-20 curtailed completion of harvest and required extending the logging operation to a second winter, now complete.This did not prevent our meeting project objectives, but it negated R. Neville's (the graduate student)ability to assess pre- and post-harvest faunal and floral changes. Her Master's thesis focuseson bird use of the pre-harvest site and comparing avian habitat structure and use of the stand in its dense understory condition.J. Weyrens, B. Lamsal and A. Sweeney (graduate students) wereable to collect data on the two completed treatment blocks for his Master's thesis. We will seek additional resources to support other graduate student(s) to follow the stand changes post-harvest. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?During this program period, four graduate students, one undergraduate honor's student, three summer research technicians, and six undergraduate assistants were trained in forestry and ecology field protocols (one graduate student and two research technicians were supported directly via this grant; other students and assistants were funded from additional sources). The graduate students also received further training in geospatial and statistical techniques. Four graduate students have been trained in field data collection, study design, data analysis and geospatial mapping during the project period. One graduate student, Ravyn Neville (PI Farrell, advisor), was directly funded by this program, and three graduate and several undergraduate students were supported by other means. The graduate students learned professional presentation methods including public engagement and college-level field trip organization. In total, twenty-one students and four field research technicians have been trained in field data collection protocols by leveraging NIFA support through the life of the project. A second graduate student (Joshua Weyrens; PI Germain, advisor) was brought on in fall 2019 to assist withobjective 4 (economic operational assessment). He sampledthe active logging operation for both a) carbon associated with harvesting in blocks T1 and T3; and b) the cost of removing the beech understory in those two cut blocks. Josh collected carbon and economic data weekly from January-March 2020. Josh's anticipated Master's thesis defense date is May 2021. A third graduate student (Anna Sweeney) and honor's student (Tahnee Ames; PI McGee, advisor) conducted field work in summer 2020. Anna Sweeny, MS student in EFB, documented residual stand structure following the cuts and assessed the origin, abundance and spatial distribution of first year vegetative and sexual reproduction of tree species. Her planned defense is May 2021. A fourth SUNY ESF graduate student, Basamta Lamsal (Dr. John Wagner, advisor) is using the research site to model forest structure in two harvested blocks (T1 and T3). He intends to defend his MS thesis in May 2021. Tahnee Ames, junior Conservation Biology student at ESF, will conduct her honors thesis research in association with this study. She intends to document the microinvertebrates associated with epiphytic lichens and mosses in the treated and uncut control blocks, and compare/contrast any responses of the invertebrate assemblages to the cuts. She will utilize microenvironmental data collected with the HOBO humidity/temperature monitors to correlate immediate changes in microinvertebrate assemblages to changes in microenvironmental conditions attributed to the cuts. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Professional Development: five professional/scientifictalks including this research weregiven to the Forest Ecosystem Monitoring Conference, Society of American Foresters and Northeast Natural History Conference, eachconsisting of forestry and conservation professionals. The talk recorded to YouTube has been viewed over 250 times and publicized in regional outlets for forestry research and extension (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqmE2pxngg&feature=youtu.be). Four field trips were conducted bringing students, natural resource professionals, and citizens to the site. Dozens of undergraduate and graduate students from multiple institutions were exposed to the research project on field trips in 2018-2020. The COVID19 pandemic precluded further field trips in 2020-21. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Accomplishments are listed by objective (1-4). (1) Documented pre-harvest density, size and distribution of non-beech tree species and habitat features such as snags, cavities and wildlife trees; Tree basal area was calculated as approximately 150ft2/acre on treatment plots and indicates a preponderance of small-diameter American beech as indicated in the problem statement and justification. Approximately 140 tree/herb plots were sampled in seven treatments and seven untreated plots were established in 2017 (see 2019 report). American beech dominatedthe understory pre-harvest, underscoring the potential for mechanical forest management options. Sweeney and McGee (unpubl. data) show a large reduction in the young beech in the understory post-harvest. (2) Began to assess the effects of beech removal on the composition of herbaceous layer vascular plant communities and epiphyte communities; We are testing the mechanisms that influence limits of their distributionsby comparing stand-level conditions that provide shaded, cooler environments in old-growth forests versus partially-cut forests. We monitored understory changes in temperature and humidity following the cuts, and trackedresponses of epiphyte mats to these changes.We selected 30 mature sugar maple 'reserve trees' in six different treatment blocks to serve as subjects of this study and remain uncut. There are five trees per block, and three replicate blocks per treatment (cut and uncut). The reserve maples (mean dbh 25 inches) were located on treatment/control block edges and all trees contained one or more examples of nine species of lichen and moss that serve as indicators of forest biodiversity and condition. In August 2018, we installed dataloggers on the surfaces of each tree (n = 30) to record temperature, relative humidity and dew point on 2-hr intervals. We initiated a photographic monitoring system to establish existing distributions and health of epiphyte mats. Data collection continued through winter 2021 and provides a microclimate record through the harvest. From the temperature and humidity data, there is an empirical threshold below which 'typical' lichens and bryophytes cannot sustain positive carbon balance because they are too dehydrated (a vapor pressure deficit). Our data show that in the pre-harvest summer of 2019, environmental conditions in the cut and uncut stands had very similar patterns. However, in 2020, the vapor pressure deficit is substantially greater in the cut areas. Further, the cut stands are warming up and drying out faster in the morning and then cooling down slower in the late afternoon. This suggests the more extreme heat and dry conditions are negatively impacting the epiphyte community which may have both management and conservation implications. Comparison of cut/uncut sites will continue post-harvest after the conclusion of this grant. (3) Assessed responses of select faunal groups; Small mammals were live-trap/ped on three 5x5 grids (two treatment and one control) for a week in summer. Coincident with the aftermath of a high tree seed crop in autumn 2017, small mammal capture in summer 2018 was robust. We captured 42 short-tailed shrews (Blarina brevicauda), 2 northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus), 97 deer mice (Peromyscus sp., probably maniculatus), and 2 Eastern chipmunks (Tamias sciurus). Conversely, in summer 2019 we captured just 4 deer mice (Peromyscus sp.) and fewer than 20 individual mammals over hundreds of trap nights.Data from unrelated projects near the study site suggest population cycles are a regionwide phenomenon not related to project activities or treatment. Bats: Acoustic detectors were deployed and moved throughout the stand during two rounds (early and late summer) to capture bat use of habitat features during pup-rearing and post-reproductive periods. We identified all bats calls using Sonobat software. In 2018, of 303 bat calls, most were Myotis species; one call was identified as a northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). A future graduate student will analyzeacoustic data for the pre- vs. post-harvest comparison of bat activity in the experimental and control forest plots. Birds: Analysis of avian usage of American beech and forest structure, composition and strata is based on the focal follow observational technique. In the pre-harvest stands, 1,713 bird observations were made on seven species in 2019. Canopy birds (e.g., vireos) and bark-gleaning birds (e.g., nuthatches) were observed using American beech at lower heights than other trees, but no difference in tree species was found for ground-nesting or midstory canopy birds. Birds used American beech more for resting than other tree species, but birds used beech less for foraging and locomotion than other tree species. This finding may have important implications for avian conservation as well as forest management. Other findings from Neville (unpub. data) include: 1) birds used American beech 7% less than other tree species in the understory; 2) American beech was not used more than other tree species for any specific behavior; 3) Midstory bird species used understory beech twice as much as other tree species across all behaviors. We are still analyzing and interpreting these interesting results. (4) Determined the economic viability of silvicultural operations, including the removal of understory beech, by monitoring logging costs and operating margins Weyrens and Germain (unpubl. data) indicate the mechanized harvest system to remove all beech trees and root sprouts is operationally viable for a logging company, given the 2020 price points for clean chips ($52/ton) and hardwood sawtimber (approx. $600/MBF). The firm that conducted this harvest had a net profit of over seven thousand dollars, about a 10% profit margin, suggesting this is a viable operation given a small range of variation in fueling and market prices. Despite the roughly 35% additional time needed for the feller-buncher to cut the beech saplings and root sprouts, the largest contributions of cost were: overhead, transportation of products, skidding, and stumpage. If mill prices remain constant for clean chips and sawtimber, other mechanized harvesting systems will likely be able to cover their fixed and variable costs. In regions where the markets are not as favorable, a reduction or elimination of stumpage costs may be necessary for smaller operations to break-even or have net profit. Using a process-based Life Cycle Assessment technique, it appears that forest harvesting could provide 3-5 times the amount of carbon emitted in products delivered to the mill. The largest contributor to emissions is the delivery of the products; distance from the landing to the mill is the most influential variable to the efficiency of harvesting. In total: 195,219 kg of ?CO?_2eq were emitted during the harvesting and processing of clean chips, and 1,223,484 kg of C were delivered to the mill in the form of clean chips. For logs: roughly 13,908 kg of ?CO?_2eq were emitted, and 131,752.5 kg of C were delivered to the mill. If, for the time being, the accumulation of carbon during the regeneration of the forest is considered equivalent to the release of carbon during the decomposition of harvesting slash, then it appears forest harvesting can significantly contribute to net carbon storage and the syphoning of atmospheric carbon into storage products. There still needs to be an investigation into the release of ?CO?_2eq during the processing of chips into paper and logs into furnishings, but it seems unlikely these will be extremely high enough to counteract the storage benefits of the products themselves.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
Beyond the Disease: Forest Diversity, Wildlife and The Enduring Role of American Beech. S. A. McNulty. University of Maine. October 20, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqmE2pxngg&feature=youtu.be
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Beyond the Disease: Forest Diversity, Wildlife and The Enduring Role of American Beech. S. A. McNulty. New England Society of American Foresters. Burlington, VT. March 27, 2019.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
Weyrens, J., R.H. Germain and O. Therasme. 2020. Is Forest Harvesting Carbon Neutral? National SAF Conference (Virtual), Oct. 28 Nov. 1, 2020.
|
Progress 10/01/18 to 09/30/19
Outputs
Target Audience:Thetarget audience during this reporting period was: 1)the research team of PIs and collaborators and the graduate studentassigned onthe project 2) foresters, landowners and natural resource professionals 3) other graduate and undergraduate students at SUNY-ESF 4) other stakeholders with interest in managing forests for biodiversity andthe general public (e.g. non-profit organizations) Changes/Problems:The major change in this study was the delay in harvest to winter 2019-20. This has not precluded our meeting project objectives, but it negated R. Neville's (the graduate student)ability to assess pre- and post-harvest faunal and floral changes. Her Master's thesis focuseson bird use of the pre-harvest site and comparing avian habitat structure and use of the stand in its dense understory condition. We will seek additional resources to support other graduate student(s) to follow the stand changes post-harvest. We are on track to meet project objectives on time including the economic analysis (objective 4). However, if the entire seven-block treatment is not harvested this winter, we will need to begin post-harvest data collection in treated blocks during summer 2020 and seek additional support to continue post-harvest flora/fauna data collection in summer 2021 once all seven treatments have been logged. This would be outside the final NIFA project period. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Training: three graduate students have been trained in field data collection, study design, data analysis and geospatial mapping during the project period. One graduate student was funded by this program, and two graduate and all undergraduate students were supported by other means. Ravyn Neville has learned professional presentation methods including public engagement and college-level field trip organization. In total, twenty-one students and four field research technicians have been trained in field data collection protocols by leveraging NIFA support through the life of the project. One new graduate student (Joshua Weyrens, PI Germain, advisor) was brought on in fall 2019 to assist withobjective 4 (economic operational assessment). Hewill visitthe active logging operation weekly beginning in January 2020. The second new graduate student and honor's student (PI McGee, advisor) have visited twice in anticipation of beginning field work in summer 2020. Anna Sweeny, MS student in EFB, will document the residual stand structure following the cuts and assess the origin, abundance and spatial distribution of first year vegetative and sexual reproduction of tree species. Her field data collection will occur during summer 2020, with a planned defense for May 2021. Tahnee Ames, junior Conservation Biology student at ESF, will conduct her honors thesis research in association with this study. She intends to document the microinvertebrates associated with epiphytic lichens and mosses in the treated and uncut control blocks, and compare/contrast any responses of the invertebrate assemblages to the cuts. She will utilize microenvironmental data collected with the HOBO humidity/temperature monitors to correlate immediate changes in microinvertebrate assemblages to changes in microenvironmental conditions attributed to the cuts. Professional Development: a talk including this research was given to the Forest Ecosystem Monitoring Conference consisting of forestry and conservation professionals (see next section). Also, dozens of undergraduate and graduate students from multiple institutions were exposed to the research project on field trips in 2019. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?First, a presentation to regional ecosystem scientists, natural resource agency professionals and non-profit organizational representatives was given by PI McNulty, in which the experimental study site pre-harvest was compared to regional forest dynamics of unmanaged sites. Second, a graduate-level course field trip was conducted in autumn 2019. Northern Hardwoods and Long-Term Change: Old-Growth and Managed Experimental Forest in the Adirondack Mountains of NY - Stacy McNulty, R. Neville, G. McGee and R. Germain. Forest Ecosystem Monitoring Cooperative Conference, Burlington, VT, 13 December 2019 (estimated 40 attendees) Field trip and presentation to Wildlife Conservation Society. S. A. McNulty and R. A. Neville. October 18, 2019 (13 attendees) What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Spring 2020: We will continue to analyze the data in hand and prepare to collect a limited field season of plant and wildlife data in 2020. We will begin preparation of final reports and a graduate thesis on the bird/plant component; two other graduate theses and one undergraduate honor's thesis will be in preparation as well. Plans for 2020 Field Season (1) documentimmediate post-harvest density, size and distribution of non-beech tree species and habitat features such as snags, cavities and wildlife trees; (2)documentpost-harvest composition of herbaceous layer vascular plant communities and epiphyte communities; Following the cuts we will continue to monitor selected reserve trees' microclimate environmental conditions with the dataloggers and will resample the epiphyte mats to determine their responses to changing temperature and humidity resulting from the understory removal and partial overstory removal. (3) seek funding to assess post-harvest responses of select faunal groups (birds and mammals, including bats); Pending resources, small mammal live-capture will commence again in midsummer. (4) determine the economic viability of silvicultural operations, including the removal of understory beech, by monitoring logging costs and operating margins.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Accomplishments are listed by objective (1-4). (1) Documented pre-harvest density, size and distribution of non-beech tree species and habitat features such as snags, cavities and wildlife trees; a.Nearly 130 tree/herb plots were sampledin seven treatments and seven untreated pre-harvest plotsestablished in 2017(see 2019 report). Analyses are ongoing and suggest the extreme dominance of American beech in the understory, underscoring the potentialfor mechanical forest management options. (2) Began to assess the effects of beech removal on the composition of herbaceous layer vascular plant communities and epiphyte communities; a.The epiphyte community was noted for a subset of 88 large, dominant reserve trees in thepre-harvest phase;cavities, wildlife use and characteristics weremeasured andmapped. 1.Most of the reserve trees were sugar maple, with a small number of white ash, yellow birch, red maple and American beech.About 64%contained epiphytes; of at least nine indicator lichens and mosses, trees contained a mean 3 epiphytic species (maximum 5). 2. On each tree we have initiated a photographic monitoring system to establish existing distributions and health of epiphyte mats. Data collection continued through summer 2019 and will provide a microclimate record through the harvest in winter 2019-20. 3. Wildlife value of the reserve trees was documented and is distributed throughout the stand. i.Approximately one-third of reserve trees had one or more cavities suitable for nest and den sites ii.One sugar maple had a bear den excavated under the root base iii.A small number of large, clear beech treesin experimental blocks with prolific nut production and/or black bear sign but no signs of Beech Bark Disease were marked as no-cut trees. These trees are either genetically resistant to BBD or superior at withstanding the disease;they merit further study regarding post-harvestforest composition and wildlife habitat and use. (3) assess responses of select faunal groups (birds and mammals, including bats); a. Coincident with the aftermath of a low or no tree seed crop in autumn 2018, small mammal capture in summer 2019 was minimal. We captured 4 deer mice (Peromyscus sp., probably maniculatus) and fewer than 20 individual mammals over hundreds of trap nights.Comparison to long-term mammal capture records at similar, adjacent non-project sites indicates the populations were in a low phase in the 2019 growing season. Data on wildlife foods and wildlife observations from unrelated projects near the study site suggest the low mammal population is a regionwide phenomenon and not related to project activities or treatment. b. Bat species make regular use of the site; our detectorsand independent data show several species ofcave and tree bats may utilize the forest for summer roosting and/or foraging. c. Analysis of avian usage of American beech and forest structure, composition and strata. With thefocal follow observational technique, 1,713 bird observations were made on seven species in 2019. Canopy birds (e.g., vireos) and bark-gleaning birds (e.g., nuthatches) were observed using American beech at lower heights than other trees, but no difference in tree species was found for ground-nesting or midstory canopy birds. Birds used American beech more for resting than other tree species, but birds used beech less for foraging and locomotion than other tree species. This finding may have important implications for avian conservation as well as forest management. (4) determine the economic viability of silvicultural operations, including the removal of understory beech, by monitoring logging costs and operating margins This objective will be undertaken after harvest is initiated.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Northern Hardwoods and Long-Term Change: Old-Growth and Managed Experimental Forest in the Adirondack Mountains of NY - Stacy McNulty, R. Neville, G. McGee and R. Germain. Forest Ecosystem Monitoring Cooperative Conference, Burlington, VT, 13 December 2019
|
Progress 10/01/17 to 09/30/18
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience during this reporting period was: 1)the research team of PIs and collaborators and the graduate studentassigned onthe project 2) foresters, landowners and natural resource professionals 3) graduate and undergraduate students at SUNY-ESF 4)stakeholders with interest in managing forests for biodiversity andthe general public Changes/Problems:Data collection and execution of pre-harvest objectives are going very well. The major change is that the harvest planned forwinter 2018-19 did not take place due to issues with weather, logger contracting and other situations beyond the control of the PI team. This delaydoes prevent the graduate student currently assigned to the project from collecting any post-harvest data, because she will likely graduatebefore the next winter harvest season in 2019-20. This delay does not pose a problem for the comparison of the pre-harvest habitat and wildlife communitiesin treatment and control blocks, which will be the initial product to come from the project as a thesis and one or more scientific publications. The PI team has committed to continuing the project,but resources are not currently in hand to support a new graduate student to collect data. We will work with university research staff to devise an appropriate plan that meets the conditions of the grant. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?A field trip was taken in January 2018 with the graduate student, PI McNulty, and Forest Operations collaborators (Bruce Breitmeyer and Michael Gooden) to explore an active harvest operation at a similar site to the project area. Thisfamiliarized the graduate student with mechanized tree removal and considerations of forest management. To date, fourteenstudents and a technician have been trained in field data collection protocols. Two graduate students have been trained in field data collection, study design, data analysis and geospatial mapping. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?To date, efforts in outreach/engagement included the following: 1. PI McNulty and graduate student Neville led a field trip on October 25 for 15 members of the New York State Audubon Society Council interested in forest management. 2. Neville gave a poster presentation on forest conditions in the study site The Sky is Falling: Beech Bark Disease, Changes in Forest Structure, and Impacts on Biodiversity. Neville, R. A., S. L. Farrell, G. G. McGee, R. H. Germain, and S. A. McNulty. Northeast Natural History Conference. Burlington, VT April 13-15, 2018. 3. Neville presented The Sky is Falling Ecolunch to ESF faculty and graduate students on October 31 (~15 people) What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will continue to analyze the data in hand and collect another field season of wildlife data in 2019. We will begin preparation of reports and a thesis. Plans for 2019 Field Season (1) finish documenting pre-harvest and immediate post-harvest density, size and distribution of non-beech tree species and habitat features such as snags, cavities and wildlife trees; (2) finish documenting the composition of herbaceous layer vascular plant communities and epiphyte communities; (3) assess pre-harvest responses of select faunal groups (birds and mammals, including bats); Small mammal live-capture will commence again in midsummer. Bird community sampling will be conducted in spring-summer 2019. (4) determine the economic viability of silvicultural operations, including the removal of understory beech, by monitoring logging costs and operating margins This objective will be undertaken after harvest is initiated.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
(1) Tree and habitat assessment Approximately 140 tree/herb plots were sampled pre-harvest. Tree basal area, density and species composition was recorded on 0.1 acre circular plots for trees >4.5" dbh. Acceptable Growing Stock, Unacceptable Growing Stock and Snags were recorded for each tree in the plot as well as notes on tree health/vigor. Tree health varies with beech generally having very poor vigor and high incidence of Beech Bark Disease.In 2018 we conducted extensive data quality control. Data analysis of groundcover, seedling/sapling and canopy layers is underway. Tree basal area was calculated as 131ft2/acre on the entire stand. American beech (AMBE) consists of 35% of all of the basal area, taking up on average 46.7 sqft/ac per plot. Sugar maple (SUMA) consists of 43% of the basal area, with 56.0 sqft/ac on average per plot. Yellow birch (YEBI) only consisted of 8% of the basal area of the stand (11 sqft/ac on average per plot). There are more large SUMA than AMBE, and many small AMBE (Fig. 2) Average Shannon diversity index by block of canopy trees is 1.22, and the species evenness across blocks is 0.38 Approximately 75% of all trees are below a dbh (diameter at breast height) of 11 (Fig. 3) There are 319 AGS (acceptable growing stock), 541 UGS (unacceptable growing stock), and 122 snags. Approximately 75% of snags are AMBE. The data indicate a preponderance of small-diameter American beech as indicated in the problem statement and justification. Forest diversity as indicated by canopy tree richness is still good at this site, based on presence of white ash, hop hornbeam, eastern hemlock, balsam fir and red spruce among other species. Sapling layer is dominated by American beech. Other analyses are ongoing. (2) assess the effects of beech removal on the composition of herbaceous layer vascular plant communities and epiphyte communities; The epiphyte community was described for each tree and cavities and wildlife trees were noted in a database. In northern hardwood and other northern temperate forest types, several epiphytic bryophyte and lichen species occur only on large, old trees and thus attain their greatest frequencies of occurrence and cover in old-growth forests. The mechanisms that influence limits of their distributions are not well understood, and current hypotheses include (1) changing microenvironmental bark conditions on host trees as trees age, grow and develop mature bark characteristics; (2) dispersal limitations that result in slow colonization of new 'island' (i.e., trees) habitats, thereby limiting bryophytes to large trees simply by chance; and (3) limitations by stand-level conditions that provide shaded, cooler environments in old-growth forests versus partially-cut forests. We are testing hypothesis #3 with the understory cuts that will be conducted through this grant. The compartment to be treated was partially cut once from the original old growth. Numerous large, old sugar maples remain with the compartment that support nearly a dozen indicator bryophytes and lichens. We propose to monitor understory changes in temperature and humidity following the cuts, and track the responses of epiphyte mats to these changes. We have identified 30 sugar maple 'reserve trees' in six different treatment blocks to serve as subjects of this study. The reserve trees will not be cut. There are 5 trees per block, and three replicate blocks per treatment (cut and uncut). The reserve maples (mean DBH 25 inches) were located on treatment/control block edges and all trees contained one or more examples of nine species of lichen and moss that serve as indicators of forest biodiversity and condition. In August 2018, we installed HOBO dataloggers on the surfaces of each tree in order to record temperature, relative humidity and dew point every continuously on 2-hr intervals. On each tree we have initiated a photographic monitoring system to establish existing distributions and health of epiphyte mats. Following the cuts we will continue to monitor environmental conditions with the dataloggers and will resample the epiphyte mats to determine their responses to changing temperature and humidity resulting from the understory removal and partial overstory removal. (3) assess responses of select faunal groups (birds and mammals, including bats); a. Small mammals were live-trapped on three 5x5 grids (two treatment and one control). Coincident with the aftermath of a high tree seed crop in autumn 2017, small mammal capture in summer 2018 was robust. We captured 42 short-tailed shrews (Blarina brevicauda), 2 northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus), 97 deer mice (Peromyscus sp., probably maniculatus), and 2 Tamias sciurus (Eastern chipmunks). Comparison to long-term mammal capture records at similar, adjacent non-project sites indicates the populations were in a high phase in the 2018 growing season. Data on wildlife foods and wildlife observations from unrelated projects near the study site suggest the high mammal population is a regionwide phenomenon and not related to project treatment. b. Bats - Acoustic detectors were deployed and moved throughout the stand during two rounds (early summer and late summer) to capture bat use of habitat features during pup-rearing and post-reproductive periods. We identified all bats calls using Sonobat software. Of 303 bat calls, most were Myotis species; one call was a northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Notably, a different bat study also detected this species in the study site. c. Analysis of avian usage of American beech and forest strata. With bird point counts and focal follow technique, 3,036 bird observations were made on seven species. -Creation of physical models that illustrate avian usage patterns in different strata (4) determine the economic viability of silvicultural operations, including the removal of understory beech, by monitoring logging costs and operating margins This objective will be undertaken after harvest is initiated.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
The Sky is Falling: Beech Bark Disease, Changes in Forest Structure, and Impacts on Biodiversity. Neville, R. A., S. L. Farrell, G. G. McGee, R. H. Germain, and S. A. McNulty. Northeast Natural History Conference. Burlington, VT April 13-15, 2018.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Field trip and presentation to New York Audubon Council. S. A. McNulty and R. A. Neville. October 25, 2018.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
The Sky is Falling: Biodiversity and Management in Hardwoods. R. A. Neville. Presented to Ecolunch (faculty and graduate student discussion group), October 31, 2018
|
Progress 06/01/17 to 09/30/17
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience during this early reporting period was primarily the research team of PIs and collaborators and the graduate studentrecruited to the project. Although not a target audience for this reporting period, the future target audience includes foresters, landowners and the general public. Changes/Problems:To accommodate field data priorities we may reduce the number of small mammal trapping grids to three from four. This is because the 2018 small mammal population is anticipated to be very large (based on long-term cycles and the high food availability in fall 2017). This will not impact the project objectives or results. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?One graduate student wastrained in field data collection, study design anddata analysis. Ten volunteer undergraduate students have been trained in field data collection protocols. PI McNulty led a field trip on July 19, 2017 for 30 professional foresters, loggers, landowners and others interested in forest management. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?PI McNulty led a field trip on July 19, 2017 for 30 professional foresters, loggers, landowners and others interested in forest management. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will continue to train the graduate student on data analysisincluding programming in the R environment. Our plans for the 2018 field season by objective are to: (1) document pre-harvest and immediate post-harvest density, size and distribution of non-beech tree species and habitat features such as snags, cavities and wildlife trees; Data will be further analyzed and any additional plot data collected. (2) assess the effects of beech removal on the composition of herbaceous layer vascular plant communities and epiphyte communities; Photos will be taken of epiphytes on reserve trees in summer 2018. (3) assess responses of select faunal groups (birds and mammals, including bats); Bat detection equipment has been ordered and will be employed starting in summer 2018 and will include two rounds (early summer and late summer) to capture bat use of habitat features during pup-rearing and post-reproductive periods. Small mammal live-capture will commence again in midsummer. Bird community sampling will be conducted starting in spring 2018. (4) determine the economic viability of silvicultural operations, including the removal of understory beech, by monitoring logging costs and operating margins This objective will be undertaken after harvest is initiated.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
1. This study will attempt to provideforest managers with commercially-viable understory control methods to regenerate diverse, native tree species. 2. The audience is primarily land managers and foresters as well as wildlife biologists, while landowners in the northeastern US are an additional target audience. 3. Objectives, activities, summary: (1) document pre-harvest and immediate post-harvest density, size and distribution of non-beech tree species and habitat features such as snags, cavities and wildlife trees; Seven treatments and seven untreated plots were established in 2017. Established plant plots for the pre-harvest data. Approximately 140 tree/herb plots have been completed. Tree basal area, density and species composition was recorded on 0.1 acre circular plots for trees >4.5" dbh. Acceptable Growing Stock, Unacceptable Growing Stock and Snags were recorded for each tree in the plot as well as notes on tree health/vigor. Tree health varies with beech generally having very poor vigor and high incidence of Beech Bark Disease. Data quality control was conducted; data analysis of groundcover was begun. Tree basal area was calculated as approximately 150ft2/acre on treatment plots and indicates a preponderance of small-diameter American beech as indicated in the problem statement and justification. Forest diversity as indicated by canopy tree richness is still good at this site, based on presence of white ash, hop hornbeam, eastern hemlock, balsam fir and red spruce among other species. Sapling layer is dominated by American beech. Other analyses are ongoing. (2) assess the effects of beech removal on the composition of herbaceous layer vascular plant communities and epiphyte communities; Seventy (70) mature trees were selected in 2017 for potential inclusion in the epiphyte study (final determination will be dependent upon the marking of trees for retention/removal). The epiphyte community was described for each tree and cavities and wildlife trees were noted in a database. Microclimate for epiphytes was measured beginning in summer 2017 with iButtons which were borrowed for a pilot assessment from a different project. Wildlife trees were predominantly sugar maple, with some yellow birch and a few American beech that had wildlife value (e.g., bear scars; cavities; beech nuts). Data quality control was conducted; data analysis of groundcover was begun. (3) assess responses of select faunal groups (birds and mammals, including bats); a. Small mammals were live-trapped on three 5x5 grids (two treatment and one control). b. Only three Peromyscus were captured. c. Comparison to long-term mammal capture records at similar, adjacent non-project sites indicates the populations were in a low phase in 2017. This plus data on wildlife foods from an unrelated project suggests this low mammal population is a regionwide phenomenon and not related to project treatment. (4) determine the economic viability of silvicultural operations, including the removal of understory beech, by monitoring logging costs and operating margins This objective will be undertaken after harvest is initiated. 4. Our project team collected data and began to synthesize it. We also conducted some outreach/engagement.
Publications
|
Progress 08/15/17 to 09/30/17
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience during this early reporting period was primarily the research team of PIs and collaborators and the graduate studentrecruited to the project. Although not a target audience for this reporting period, the future target audience includes foresters, landowners and the general public. Changes/Problems:To accommodate field data priorities we may reduce the number of small mammal trapping grids to three from four. This is because the 2018 small mammal population is anticipated to be very large (based on long-term cycles and the high food availability in fall 2017). This will not impact the project objectives or results. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?One graduate student wastrained in field data collection, study design anddata analysis. Ten volunteer undergraduate students have been trained in field data collection protocols. PI McNulty led a field trip on July 19, 2017 for 30 professional foresters, loggers, landowners and others interested in forest management. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?PI McNulty led a field trip on July 19, 2017 for 30 professional foresters, loggers, landowners and others interested in forest management. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will continue to train the graduate student on data analysisincluding programming in the R environment. Our plans for the 2018 field season by objective are to: (1) document pre-harvest and immediate post-harvest density, size and distribution of non-beech tree species and habitat features such as snags, cavities and wildlife trees; Data will be further analyzed and any additional plot data collected. (2) assess the effects of beech removal on the composition of herbaceous layer vascular plant communities and epiphyte communities; Photos will be taken of epiphytes on reserve trees in summer 2018. (3) assess responses of select faunal groups (birds and mammals, including bats); Bat detection equipment has been ordered and will be employed starting in summer 2018 and will include two rounds (early summer and late summer) to capture bat use of habitat features during pup-rearing and post-reproductive periods. Small mammal live-capture will commence again in midsummer. Bird community sampling will be conducted starting in spring 2018. (4) determine the economic viability of silvicultural operations, including the removal of understory beech, by monitoring logging costs and operating margins This objective will be undertaken after harvest is initiated.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
1. This study will attempt to provideforest managers with commercially-viable understory control methods to regenerate diverse, native tree species. 2. The audience is primarily land managers and foresters as well as wildlife biologists, while landowners in the northeastern US are an additional target audience. 3. Objectives, activities, summary: (1) document pre-harvest and immediate post-harvest density, size and distribution of non-beech tree species and habitat features such as snags, cavities and wildlife trees; Seven treatments and seven untreated plots were established in 2017. Established plant plots for the pre-harvest data. Approximately 140 tree/herb plots have been completed. Tree basal area, density and species composition was recorded on 0.1 acre circular plots for trees >4.5" dbh. Acceptable Growing Stock, Unacceptable Growing Stock and Snags were recorded for each tree in the plot as well as notes on tree health/vigor. Tree health varies with beech generally having very poor vigor and high incidence of Beech Bark Disease. Data quality control was conducted; data analysis of groundcover was begun. Tree basal area was calculated as approximately 150ft2/acre on treatment plots and indicates a preponderance of small-diameter American beech as indicated in the problem statement and justification. Forest diversity as indicated by canopy tree richness is still good at this site, based on presence of white ash, hop hornbeam, eastern hemlock, balsam fir and red spruce among other species. Sapling layer is dominated by American beech. Other analyses are ongoing. (2) assess the effects of beech removal on the composition of herbaceous layer vascular plant communities and epiphyte communities; Seventy (70) mature trees were selected in 2017 for potential inclusion in the epiphyte study (final determination will be dependent upon the marking of trees for retention/removal). The epiphyte community was described for each tree and cavities and wildlife trees were noted in a database. Microclimate for epiphytes was measured beginning in summer 2017 with iButtons which were borrowed for a pilot assessment from a different project. Wildlife trees were predominantly sugar maple, with some yellow birch and a few American beech that had wildlife value (e.g., bear scars; cavities; beech nuts). Data quality control was conducted; data analysis of groundcover was begun. (3) assess responses of select faunal groups (birds and mammals, including bats); a. Small mammals were live-trapped on three 5x5 grids (two treatment and one control). b. Only three Peromyscus were captured. c. Comparison to long-term mammal capture records at similar, adjacent non-project sites indicates the populations were in a low phase in 2017. This plus data on wildlife foods from an unrelated project suggests this low mammal population is a regionwide phenomenon and not related to project treatment. (4) determine the economic viability of silvicultural operations, including the removal of understory beech, by monitoring logging costs and operating margins This objective will be undertaken after harvest is initiated. 4. Our project team collected data and began to synthesize it. We also conducted some outreach/engagement.
Publications
|
|