Aspen Monitoring Protocol Implementation at

1
Aspen Monitoring Protocol - Implementation
at City of Rocks Eva Strand , Stephen Bunting,
Rangeland Ecology and Mgmt., University of
Idaho Lisa Garrett, Gordon Dicus, UCBN, NPS Kirk
Steinhorst, Statistics, University of Idaho
CIRO
CRMO
2

• Outline
• Western aspen and aspen ecology
• Aspen monitoring objectives
• Review of sampling 2007 in CRMO
• Sampling in CIRO 2008
• Results - Challenges and opportunities
• Thresholds for management
• Next year.

3
Why aspen as a vital sign?

• Keystone species Indicator of ecosystem health
  and function (Campbell and Bartos 2001)
• Decrease in species richness and biodiversity
• (Bartos and Campbell 1998 Kay 1997
  Stohlgren et al.1997)
• Decrease in forage quantity and quality
• (Bartos and Campbell 1998 Mueggler, 1988)
• Altered hydrologic functions (DeByle 1985)
• Recreation and aesthetic value (McCool 2001)
• Aspen decline is occurring across the West with
  instances of rapid aspen die-off

4
Ecology of Aspen

• Aspen is a shade intolerant seral
• species that is commonly replaced
• by conifers in the absence of a disturbance
• Western aspen is clonal and reproduces primarily
  via vegetative suckering (Bartos 2001)
• Individual trees are short-lived (100-150 year)
  but aspen clones are long-lived (gt1000 years)
  (Kay 1997)
• Require a disturbance to disrupt the hormonal
  balance that prevents suckering (Bancroft 1989)
• Aspen occurs primarily in areas with gt 400 mm
  annual precipitation

5
Why is aspen declining?

• Infrequent fires due to fire suppression aging
  clones (Bartos 2001)
• Conifer dominance within aspen stands (Bartos and
  Campbell 1998)
• Excessive browsing by wildlife or livestock (Kaye
  et al. 2005)
• Disease
• Drought - Climate change

Infrequent fires
Conifer dominance
Excessive browsing
6
Aspen decline vs. Aspen die-off
Decline Observed over the past 50 years Likely
caused by less frequent fires Conifer
dominance Die-off Mature stems begin to
die Lack of regeneration Root system
dies Observed within the past 5 years
Bartos, SRM conference 2007
7
Aspen Summit, Salt Lake City, Utah. December 2006
Utah
Yellowstone NP
Northern Arizona
8
Aspen working group in southern Idaho, August 2006
Partners from Idaho FishGame, Idaho Department
of Lands, Idaho Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, BLM Trees are dying like they are
supposed to, but something appears to be killing
the root system Bartos, Forest Service Fire
cycles have been interrupted, and conifers are
becoming dominant Jackson, Idaho Fish Game
http//www.enn.com/today.html?id10994
9
Monitoring objectives in CIRO and CRMO
I What is the status and trend in regeneration
by stand and for the parks? Are aspen stands
regenerating at rates above 1200 stems/ha?
II What is the status and trend in conifer
density? III What is the status and trend in
mature aspen stem density? IV What is the status
and trend in dead aspen stems? Canopy cover?
10
Aspen density within size classes Class I
Suckers or seedlings lt 46 cm (1.5 ft) tall.
Class II Suckers or seedlings lt 46 - 152 cm
(1.5-5 ft) tall. Class III Greater than 152 cm
(5 ft) and up to 2.5 cm (1 inch) in dbh (diameter
at breast height). Class IV Greater than 2.5 cm
(1 inch) in dbh and shorter than 75 of the stand
height. Class V Greater than 2.5 cm (1 inch) in
dbh and taller than 75 of the stand height. Dead
Dead stems gt 2.5 cm (1 inch) in dbh that are
rooted in the plot and standing or leaning.
Suckers Class I II Regeneration Class III
IV
Jones and Burton 2005 Kilpatrick 2003
11

• Ground verification of existing preliminary
  vegetation maps
• Aspen in four areas
• Little Cottonwood Creek
• Leech Creek
• - Cottonwood Creek
• - Big Cinder Butte
• 26 stands mapped in GIS

12

• Ground verification of existing preliminary
  vegetation maps
• Stands excluded
• - Stands on private land
• - Shrubby snow-damaged aspen
• Riparian aspen
• lt 0.3 ha
• Divided in 8 units
• 2008 unit 1,4,5,6
• 2009 unit 2,3,7,8
• 63 stands potentially proposed for sampling in
  2008-2009

13
(No Transcript)
14

• Statistical analysis
• How many samples do we need?
• Spatial dependence
• Power analysis

Placement of sub-plots within aspen stands.
Twenty 4-m radius sub-plots were distributed on
three equally spaced transects within the aspen
clone. The distance between transects and plots
within transects were allowed to vary depending
on the size of the clone.
Pilot data in 2006
15
Estimating sample size
Elzinga et al. (2001)   n 2 s2 (ZaZb)2/(mcd)2
(temporary sampling units)   n s2
(ZaZb)2/(mcd)2 (permanent sampling
units) s (s1) sqrt(2(1-corrdiff) where n
sample size s sample standard deviation Za
Z-coefficient for a Type I error (0.9) Zb
Z-coefficient for a Type II error (0.8) mcd
minimum detectable change in stem count s1
sampling st.dev. among sampling units at the
first time period corrdiff Correlation
coefficient between units in the 1st and 2nd
time period
16
Permanent sampling units necessary
17
Spatial dependence - semivariograms
18
Conclusions based on work in 2006
Permanent Transects
25 m

• Plots within transects are 25 m apart
• 4-m radius plots and 4 plots per transect
• Number of transects weighted by stand area
• Random start location for each transect
• Transects oriented north or east if possible
• Plots are located using GPS (not tape measure)

19
Park Level Power Analysis based on CRMO 2007 data
  Regeneration Matur
e trees Change Power Power -25
1 1 25 1 0.994 -10
0.816 0.627 10 0.745 0.555 Completed
by Kathryn Irvine and Leigh Ann Harrod
20
Accomplishments in 2007 - 2008 I Establish
permanent sampling transects in CRMO in 2007 II
Development of Aspen Monitoring Database (Gordon
Dicus) III Completed statistical power analysis
(Kathi and Leigh Ann) IV Completed draft
monitoring plan SOPs V Established permanent
sampling transects in CIRO, first sampling frame
in 2008
21
(No Transcript)
22
Stand Transect - Plot
23
Permanent Markers
24
Sampling
25
Erica
Celia
Assistance from 2007 summer interns and park
staff was invaluable. Thanks John and Paige!
26
CIRO 2008
Assistance from the Oregon Museum and Science
Institute (OMSI) and the NPS Superintendant and
YCC Crew. Thanks to all who contributed!
27
Gordon giving lesson in how to use the PDA and
database
28
Photo points in CRMO
Stand 13
Stand 32
Stand 34
Stand 11

• Photograph at the beginning of each transect
• Distance photo from a specified GPS point

29
Stand 42
Data 2007-2008
30
Database and Front end for Data Entry and
Reporting Gordon Dicus
31
Summary Data CRMO 2007 stems/ha
Sampled 108 plots in 23 stands
32
Stand 13
Overstory is dying but the stand is suckering
Stand 14
13
14
Low density of mature aspen
Stand 26
26
Poor regeneration
33

• Ground verification of existing preliminary
  vegetation maps
• Stands excluded
• - Stands on private land
• - Shrubby snow-damaged aspen
• Riparian aspen
• lt 0.3 ha
• Divided in 8 units
• 2008 unit 1,4,5,6
• 2009 unit 2,3,7,8
• 400 plots in 63 stands potentially proposed for
  sampling in 2008-2009

34

35
Summary Data CIRO 2008 aspen stems/ha
Sampled 88 plots in 16 stands
36
Summary Data, CIRO 2008 Conifer stems/ha
Rocky mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) 5
stands (37, 40, 41, 43, 45) Limber pine (Pinus
flexilis) 1 stand (6) Pinyon pine (Pinus
monophylla) 3 stands (30, 37, 45)
37
High count of dead stems Stand 42,
61 High conifer proportion Stand 37,
40, 41
38
Stand 42
39
Stand 6 Indian Grove Suckers 2462
stems/ha Regenration 3506 Mature 373 Dead
124 Conifer encroachment in the southern
portion
40
Stand 6
41
Thresholds and management decision support Aspen
Stands at Risk lt 1200 stems/ha regeneration
(1.5-5 m tall) lt 40 aspen canopy cover Conifer
cover gt 25 Majority of stems gt 100 years old
(decadent) Guidelines Campbell and Bartos 1998
42
(No Transcript)
43
Many thanks to UCBN Lisa, Tom, Gordon, Eric,
Janice OMSI Dan, Marissa and the
students Statistics Kathi and LeighAnn CROM
John, Paige, interns CIRO Wallace, Tim,
Jodi Review Team Penny Latham, Jim Agee
anonymous reviewers
44
Preliminary Time Requirements
CRMO CIRO1 CIRO2 Plots per stand 4-12 4-12 4-
12 Time per plot 20 min 20 min 20min Stands 23
16 26?? Panel design Plots per
year 108 88 ?? frequency 3-5 yrs 3-5 yrs 3-5
yrs Drivinghiking 40 hrs 40 hrs 40
hrs Total annual sampling effort 2 weeks 2
weeks 2 weeks

45
Plan for 2009 1)   Continue implementation in
second sampling frame in CIRO 2)   Evaluate
methods for estimating canopy cover in selected
stands and perform power analysis 3) Respond to
reviewers comments for the Narrative SOPs 4)
Comparison of historic and current photography
available in CIRO and CRMO.
46
Questions?