Spatially intensive monitoring of spring phenology near the WLEF tower: Preliminary results from the 2006 field campaign

1
Spatially intensive monitoring of spring
phenology near the WLEF tower Preliminary
results from the 2006 field campaign

• Liang Liang and Mark Schwartz
• U. Wisconsin Milwaukee

2
Background

• Phenology Reveals Climate Change
• Indicator of Biospheric Responses
• Living Organisms as Monitors
• Sensitive and Easily Observable
• Connects to Ecosystem Exchange
• Satellite Approach Calls for Ground Truthing

3
Location of Study Site
4
Intensive Monitoring Stratagem

• Spatially 3/7 cyclic sampling 25m unit of
  separating distance 300m600m Area

5
Intensive Monitoring Stratagem

• Temporally Bi-day observation, 15 Observations
  in 1 month period.

6
Phenology Protocols
7
Preliminary Results

• Premise 1 Phenology varies with microclimate (To
  be studied)
• Premise 2 Phenology varies among species
• (preliminary results)
• Premise 3 Phenology varies within species
• (Preliminary results)

8
Variation among Species
9
Variation within Species
10
Variation Within SpeciesAt the Same Plot
11
HOBO Measurements

• Record Temperature and RH every 10 min
• Deployed on April 22, Recovered on May 27
• 32 HOBOs to 15 plots (with doubling or tripling)
• Random sampling trying to capture major variation
  of different microenvironments

12
Microenvironments
13
Aspen and Cedar As Indicators
14
HOBO Results

• 5 HOBOs failed a few days later, 7 others failed
  around May 12 during a snowstorm.

15
Woks To Be Done

• Further comparison and spatially analyzing
  phenology and HOBO data.
• Adding soil type variation as an influencing
  factor.
• Incorporating elevation data for further
  microclimate characterization
• Producing continuous microclimate and phenology
  data surfaces
• Building relationship between the in-situ
  observation and satellite measures (MODIS, cloud
  problems)