2016 Forestry & Wildlife Research Review2016 Forestry & Wildlife Research Review ... This year’s...
Transcript of 2016 Forestry & Wildlife Research Review2016 Forestry & Wildlife Research Review ... This year’s...
1
Sustainable Forests Education Cooperative
2016 Forestry & Wildlife
Research Review
Aday‐longsymposium:TuesdayJanuary12,2016
8:45am–3:45pmCloquetForestryCenterinCloquet,MN
2
Table of Contents Agenda.........................................................................................................................................................................................3
WelcomeandOverview........................................................................................................................................................4
Block1:Silviculture................................................................................................................................................................5
Influenceofaggregatedoverstoryretentiononregenerationandbiodiversityinaspen‐dominatedforests...............................................................................................................................................................5
Extrapolating50yearsofnativeplantcommunitysamplingtoinformforestmanagementplanning..................................................................................................................................................................................6
TheGreatLakesSilvicultureLibrary:Intelligenttinkering,shared.......................................................7
Thinningreducesvulnerabilityofredpinegrowthtodrought......................................................................8
Buildingpartnershipandresolvingconflict:PreliminaryanalysisofperspectivesfromUSFStribalrelationsprogrammanagers.............................................................................................................................9
Block2:Wildlife.....................................................................................................................................................................10
SuperiorNationalForest'sCanadalynxDNAdatabase.............................................................................10
Summerbatsurvey,monitoringandresearchinMinnesota2013‐2015.........................................10
UnderstandingthemoosedeclineinnortheasternMinnesota.....................................................................11
Assessingmoosebrowsingpatterns........................................................................................................................12
RecentResearchonMinnesotaForestBirds.........................................................................................................13
Block3:Other..........................................................................................................................................................................14
Post‐fireforestfloorfireseverityindexrelationshipswithforestfloorandsoilcarbon,nitrogenandmercurypools:Issuesofscale.........................................................................................................14
Naturalresourcemanagers’perceptionsofforestlandparcelizationtrends,drivers,andimpactsintheLakeStates..............................................................................................................................................................15
Biomassdry‐down:Fuelbenefitsandsiteimpacts............................................................................................16
Managementimplicationsforprivateforestlandwhentherearemultipleowners.....................17
IdentifyingandpreservingHeritageForestStandsthroughtree‐ringrecords:Acasestudyoffirehistoryandculturally‐modifiedtreesintheBoundaryWatersCanoeAreaWilderness...................18
Block4:Insects&Invasives..............................................................................................................................................19
AssessingtheacarologicalriskofhumanexposuretotickbornepathogensinMinnesota..............19
AnewresearchcenterattheUniversityofMinnesotaonterrestrialinvasivespecies......................20
Dispersalcapacityoflateinstargypsymothlarvae(Lymantriadispar)andimplicationsforwoodproductsmovement.........................................................................................................................................................21
Attendees..................................................................................................................................................................................22
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................................................27
SFECMemberorganizationsfor2015‐2016..............................................................................................................28
KeepinginTouch...................................................................................................................................................................28
3
Agenda 2016 Forestry and Wildlife Research Review January12,2016from8:45am–3:45pm,CloquetForestryCenter
8:15am Check‐inopens
8:45am Welcome and agenda review EliSagor,UMN‐SFEC
9:00am Block 1: Silviculture ‐Influenceofaggregatedoverstoryretentiononregeneration
andbiodiversityinaspen‐dominatedforests‐Extrapolating50yearsofnativeplantcommunitysampling
toinformforestmanagementplanning‐TheGreatLakesSilvicultureLibrary‐Thinningreducesvulnerabilityofredpinegrowthto
drought‐Buildingpartnershipandresolvingconflict:Preliminary
analysisofperspectivesfromUSFStribalrelationsprogrammanagers
Blosdk‐MirandaCurzon,UMN‐DavidWilson,UMN‐FR
‐EliSagor,UMN‐SFEC‐BrianPalik,USFS‐NRS‐MikeDockry,USFS‐NRS
10:15am Breakandpostersession
10:45am Block 2: Wildlife ‐SuperiorNationalForest'sCanadalynxDNAdatabaseand
Summerbatsurvey,monitoringandresearchinMinnesota2013‐2015
‐UnderstandingthemoosedeclineinnortheasternMinnesota‐Assessingmoosebrowsingpatterns‐RecentResearchonMinnesotaForestBirds
Block‐TimCatton,USFS–SuperiorNF
‐GlennDelGiudice,MNDNR
‐ChristinaMaley,1854TreatyAuthority
‐JerryNiemi,UMD‐NRRI
Noon Lunchandpostersession
1:00pm Block 3: Other ‐Post‐fireforestfloorfireseverityindexrelationshipswith
forestfloorandsoilcarbon,nitrogen&mercurypools‐Naturalresourcemanagers’perceptionsofforestland
parcelizationtrends,drivers,andimpactsintheLakeStates
‐Biomassdry‐down:Fuelbenefitsandsiteimpacts‐Managementimplicationsforprivateforestlandwhenthere
aremultipleowners‐IdentifyingandpreservingHeritageForestStandsthrough
tree‐ringrecords
Block‐RandyKolka,USFS‐NRS
‐MikeKilgore,UMN‐FR‐BradJones,ICC‐StephanieSnyder,USFS‐NRS
‐EvanLarson,UW‐Platteville
2:15pm Breakandpostersession
2:45pm Block 4: Insects & Invasives ‐Assessingtheacarologicalriskofhumanexposureto
tickbornepathogensinMinnesota‐AnewresearchcenterattheUniversityofMinnesotaon
terrestrialinvasivespecies‐Dispersalcapacityoflateinstargypsymothlarvae
(Lymantriadispar)andimplicationsforwoodproductsmovement
crud‐JennaBjork,MDH‐RobVenette,UMN
‐RachaelNicoll,UMN
3:45pm Adjourn
denotesaLightningTalk‐‐visitthepostersessiontolearnmore.
4
Welcome and Overview WelcometoSFEC’s12thAnnualForestryandWildlifeResearchReview!
TheResearchReviewisdesignedtoofferrapid‐fireoverviewsofabroadcross‐sectionofactive,currentresearchrelevanttoMinnesotalandmanagers.Thisyear’stopicsrunfrombatstobrowse,lynxtolandparcelization,tickstoterrestrialinvasives,leavetreestoLymantria,biomasstotheBoundaryWatersandbeyond.We’vegotaterrificgroupofspeakersandhopeyouenjoytheprogram.
Five‐minute“LightningTalks”aredesignedforposterpresenterstobrieflydiscusstheirwork,enticingyoutovisitthepostersessionforthefullstory.WehavetakenyoursuggestionstodisperseLightningTalksthroughoutthedaytoallowmoreopportunitiesforfollow‐upduringpostersessions.You’llfindthepostersandtheirpresentersintheStineRoom.
Asaneducationalcooperative,SFEC’sjobistodeliverprogramstohelpyoucontinuallyimprovethequalityofyourlandmanagementactivities.Wetakeyourinputveryseriously.Pleaseusetheconfidentialevaluationformtoshareyourcontinuingeducationneedsandtomakesuggestionsfornextyear’sResearchRevieworanyotherevent.
Thankyouforbeingheretoday.Wehopeyoufindthisyear’sResearchReviewbothfunandinformative,andwehopetoseeyouatotherSFECeventsthisyear.
‐EliSagorandJulieHendrickson
5
Block 1: Silviculture
Influence of aggregated overstory retention on regeneration and biodiversity in aspen-dominated forests MirandaCurzon*;AnthonyW.D'Amato,UniversityofVermont;BrianJ.Palik,USFSNorthernResearchStation;andChristelC.Kern,USFSNorthernResearchStation
Variable‐retentionharvestingandtheadaptationofconventionalsilviculturalsystemstoincludereservedmaturetreesareincreasinglybeingusedtobalanceproductivityobjectiveswithbiodiversityconservation.Usingtwooperational‐scalestudiesthatincludeatotalofsevensitesdominatedbyquakingaspen,weinvestigatedtheinfluenceofretainedoverstoryaggregates(0.25acresinsizeperguidelinesdevelopedbytheMinnesotaForestResourcesCouncil)onregenerationinsurroundingareas2and12yearspost‐harvest.Sitesassociatedwitheachstudywereharvestedduringwinterin2010and2000,respectively,andsamplingoccurredin2012.Initial(2year)understoryspeciescompositionandmicroenvironmentconditionswithinaggregateswereintermediatebetweenintactforestandclearcutsasexpected.Aggregatesdidnotreduceinitialregenerationdensitiesofquakingaspenorothertreespeciesinimmediatelysurroundingharvestedareas(within16ft)relativetoopenconditions.Observationsfrom12yearspost‐harvestalsosuggestaggregateshadnonegativeimpactonstemdensityortotalwoodybiomasswhereasintactforestreducedvaluesforbothvariablesuptoadistanceof16ftintoharvests.Overall,ourresultssuggestthatsmall,0.25acreaggregatesachievesomeecologicalobjectiveswithoutnegativelyimpactingregeneration.
*[email protected]/612‐625‐6989
6
Extrapolating 50 years of native plant community sampling to inform forest management planning DavidWilson*;AlanEk,UMNDept.ofForestResources
Interesthasgrownintheuseoffundamentalecologicalinformationtoguidethedevelopmentandselectionofmanagementoptionsforforestedstandsandlandscapes.Thedesiretousedetailedsitedescriptiondata,ecologicalclassifications,andtheirinter‐relationshipsintheplanningprocesspre‐supposesknowledgeofthecomposition,distribution,andsuccessionalstateofplantcommunitiescomprisingthelocalandbio‐regionalecosystems.Unfortunately,suchknowledgeisnotcurrentlyavailablewiththelevelofdetailneededtomaketimelymanagementdecisionsforharvestscheduling,wildlifehabitat,biodiversity,andothervalues.However,thisgapmayberesolvedbyleveragingwhatwedoknowaboutnativeplantcommunity(NPC)distributionwithrespecttorelevantsitecharacteristics.
ThecurrentresearchfocusesonusingthephysicalandbioticconditionsdefininggrowingspacetosystematicallyidentifyassociationsbetweenNPCsandvarioussitecharacteristics.ThisprocessemploystechniquessimilartothoseusedintheMNDNRnativeplantsamplingprogram,andisinformedby23,751NPCobservationscollectedbetween1964and2013byMNDNR,combinedwithforestinventoryandadditionalphysiographicdata.Uniqueassociationsofherbaceousplantsarethoughttooccurinconjunctionwithspecificsetsoftreesonsiteswithsimilarsoils,physiography,moisture,anddisturbanceregimes.Itisthejointdependenceoftreesandherbaceousspeciesontheseabioticfactors,andonlandscape‐scaledisturbanceregimes,whichenablestheimputationprocessdevelopedbytheauthortofunction.Methodsemployedincludedatamining,multiplecorrespondenceanalysis,andhierarchicalclustering,aswellastechniquesdevelopedbytheauthortoidentifylikelyassociations.
*[email protected]/612‐624‐2202
7
The Great Lakes Silviculture Library: Intelligent tinkering, shared EliSagor*
Everysilviculturaltreatmentisanexperiment.Buttoooftennewinsightsfromthisinformalresearcharelosttothelargercommunitywhenlandmanagersretire,moveon,orsimplylackawaytosharetheirwork.
WehavecreatedanewonlineresourcedesignedtoarchivetheresultsofinnovativeandinterestingsilviculturetreatmentsfromacrosstheLakesStates.Weinvitelandmanagerstocontributecasesfromtheirownworkortheworkoftheirpredecessors,particularlywhenthatworkhelpstoanswerquestionsrelevanttootherlandmanagers.Publishedcasestudiesneednotincludepeer‐reviewed,replicatedresearch–simplywell‐documentedeverydaysilviculture.
TheSilvicultureLibraryisafreeweb‐basedarchiveofreal‐world,actualsilviculturetreatmentsfromMinnesota,Wisconsin,Michigan,andOntario,contributedbylandmanagers.Eachcaseincludesdescriptiveinfoaboutthesite,silvicultureobjective,silvicultureprescription,whatactuallyhappenedduringthetreatment,andwhatwaslearnedfromit,alongwithphotos.Somehavesupplementalreports,documents,andlinks.And,importantly,eachcasehastheauthor’snameandcontactinformationtoenableconnectionswithothersengagedinsimilarsilviculturework.Publishedcasescanbevaluableresourcesforlandmanagersconsideringsilviculturaloptions.
TheLibraryisathttp://silvlib.cfans.umn.edu/
*UMNSustainableForestsEducationCooperative,[email protected]/218‐409‐6115
8
Thinning reduces vulnerability of red pine growth to drought BrianPalik*;AlessandraBottero,UniversityofMinnesota;AnthonyD’Amato,UniversityofVermont;JohnBradford,USGS;ShawnFraver,UniversityofMaine
Reducingtreedensitiesthroughthinninghasbeenadvocatedasastrategyforenhancingresistanceandresilienceoftreegrowthtodrought,yetfewempiricalevaluationsofthisapproachexist.Weexamineddetaileddendrochronologicaldatafromtwolong‐term(50and65years)replicatedthinningexperimentstodetermineifdensityreductionsconferredgreaterresistanceand/orresiliencetodroughts,assessedbythemagnitudeofstandlevelgrowthreductions.Ourresultssuggestthatthinninggenerallyenhanceddroughtresistanceandresilience;however,thisrelationshipvariedsomewhatwithstandage.Theseresultsconfirmthepotentialofdensitymanagementtomoderatedroughtimpactsongrowth,andtheyhighlighttheimportanceofaccountingforstandstructurewhenpredictingclimate‐changeimpactstoforests.
*[email protected]/218‐326‐7116
9
Building partnership and resolving conflict: Preliminary analysis of perspectives from USFS tribal relations program managers MichaelDockry*;SophiaGuttermanѱ;andMaeDavenport,UniversityofMinnesota
AmericanIndiantribeshaveinherentrightstoNationalForestlandandresourcesoriginatingintreaties,theUSconstitution,andcaselaw.ThisincludesbutisnotlimitedtotheuseofUSFSlandsforhuntingandgathering,spiritualandreligiousceremonies,andaccesstosacredsites.Theserightsrequiregovernment‐to‐governmentconsultationbetweeneachtribeandtheUSFStobestassessandmeettheneedsandrightsoftribeswithregardstoUSFSmanagedlands.Alongwithgovernmentmandatedconsultation,theForestServiceseekstocreateopportunitiestoworkincollaborationandpartnershipwithtribalnationstomanageland.Despitebesteffortstocollaborateandcommunicate,theinherentintricaciesoftribal‐federalrelationshipsanddifferencesinlandmanagementpracticescanleadtoconflict.Tominimizeconflictsandfulfilltheirlegalresponsibilitiestotribes,theUSFSbuildslong‐termrelationshipswithtribesandemploysenvironmentalconflictresolutiontoreachsolutions.Thisposterusesqualitativeresearchmethodstoanalyzesemi‐structuredinterviewswithUSFStriballiaisonsthroughouttheEasternRegiontounderstandtheirperspectivesontheirjobs,USFSmandates,andstrategiestheyusetobuildpartnershipsandresolveconflictswithAmericanIndiantribes.
*USFSNorthernResearchStationandUniversityofMinnesotamdockry@fs.fed.us/651‐649‐5163
ѱUniversityofMinnesotaUndergraduateHonorStudent,[email protected]
10
Block 2: Wildlife
Superior National Forest's Canada lynx DNA database TimCatton*;DanRyan,SuperiorNationalForest;DaveGrosshuesch,SuperiorNationalForest;andSteveLoch,PrivateResearcher
SnowtrackingandothermethodsusedtoobtaingeneticsampleshaveconfirmedpresenceofCanadalynx(Lynxcanadensis)acrossnortheasternMinnesotasinceDecember2000.In2008theSuperiorNationalForestcreated,andcontinuestomaintain,adatabaseofgeneticallyconfirmedCanadalynxtodocumenttheiroccurrence,persistenceandreproductioninMinnesota.Thecurrentdatabasecontains1,306samplesthathavebeensubmittedtotheUSDAForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStation’sNationalGenomicsLaboratoryforWildlifeandFishConservationforDNAtesting.MitochondrialDNAanalysishasidentified1,039ofthem(79.6%)aslynx.NuclearDNAanalysishasdetermined268uniquelynxgenotypes,129female(47.9%),138male(51.3%)and1ofundeterminablesex.Additionally,thedatabasecontains42samplesthathavebeenidentifiedasF1lynx‐bobcathybrids.Thereare13uniquelynx‐bobcathybridgenotypes,5femaleand8male.Since2011,21familygroupshavebeenidentifiedproducing50kittensthatsurvivedtothewinterfollowingtheirbirth.Ofthe236individualsthatwerenotoriginallydetectedasaresultofamortality,51(21.6%)areknowntohavepersistedintoasecondyear,thelongestovera6yearperiod,afemale.
Summer bat survey, monitoring and research in Minnesota 2013-2015 TimCatton*;USDAForestService‐ChippewaandSuperiorNFs;MinnesotaDept.ofNaturalResources;UniversityofMN‐DuluthNaturalResourcesResearchInstitute
BatpopulationsintheeasternUnitedStateshavebeendecimatedbywhite‐nosesyndrome(WNS),adiseasecausedbythefungusPseudogymnoascusdestructans(Pd)thatleadstoincreasedwinteractivityandextremelyhighmortalityratesofhibernatingbats.InApril2015,theU.S.FishandWildlifeServicelistedthenorthernlong‐earedbat(Myotisseptentrionalis;MYSEorNLEB)as“threatened”underthefederalEndangeredSpeciesActduetotheimpactofWNS.Obtainingknowledgeaboutnorthernlong‐earedbatsummerhabitatuseanddistributionbeforeapopulationdeclineoccursinMinnesotawillbecriticalinformationforconservationofthespeciesinthestate.Bothmobile(driving)andpassive(stationary)acousticsurveyshavebeenconductedtohelpdocumentspeciespresence,distribution,populationtrendsandresponsestoWNS.Acousticsurveysforbatshavebeenconductedsince2005.Mist‐nettingandtransmitterdeploymentbeganin2013.Todatewehavecaptured370batsrepresenting6ofthe7speciesofbatthatoccurinMinnesota.Forty‐fivetransmittershavebeendeployedonMyotidbats(38NLEBs,7littlebrownbats)and114rooststructureshavebeenidentified.Thisworkhasledtothecurrentstate‐wideresearchproject“EndangeredBats,White‐NoseSyndromeandForestHabitat”whichisfundedbyMinnesota’sEnvironmentalandNaturalResourcesTrustFundinto2017.
*USDAForestService,[email protected]/218‐626‐4376
11
Understanding the moose decline in northeastern Minnesota GlennD.DelGiudice*;MichelleCarstensen,WildlifeHealthProgram,MNDNR;WilliamJ.Severud,DepartmentofFisheries,Wildlife,andConservationBiology,UMN
AccordingtotheState's2015MooseSurvey,thenortheasternmoosepopulationcontinuestoexhibitaconsistentdecliningtrend.Thepointestimatewas3,450(2,610‐4,77095%CL),whichis61%lowerthanin2006(8,840moose).Researchsince2003hasshownthatalowaverageannualadultsurvivalrateof80%(20%mortalityrate)hashadthegreatestnegativeimpact.ArecentstudyofGPS‐collaredadultmoosedocumentedsurvivalratesof81%,88%,and91%from2013to2015,respectively,with39%ofthemortalitybeingwolf‐relatedand61%health‐related.Ourcalfstudyisshowingthatsignificantdecreasingcalfproduction(57%since2006)andannualrecruitmentalsoaredepressingthepopulation'sgrowthrate.Wolfandblackbearpredationaccountforthegreatestpercentageoftotalcalfmortality,40%occurringby30daysofage.Additionally,ourwinterphysiologicalassessmentsofmooseareshowingthatseverenutritionalrestrictioniscloselytrackingthemoosedeclineandthewinterandwinter‐summermortalityratesoftheGPS‐collaredmoose.Wearenowinvestigatingpotentialrelationshipsofourwinternutritionalrestrictionfindingstoforestdisturbanceandotheraspectsofhabitatacrossthemooserangelandscape.
*ForestWildlifePopulations&ResearchGroup,[email protected]/651‐296‐0702
12
Assessing moose browsing patterns ChristinaMaley*
Mooseforaginghabitatiscreatedbyshearing,timberharvest,prescribedburns,windstormsandforestfires.Wehavemeasuredacombined229moosehabitatrestorationsitesinspring(winterbrowse)andfall(summerbrowse)since2013.Browseuseandavailabilityweremeasuredateachsite.Datawascollectedon13commonspecieseatenbymooseinMinnesota.Atypicalsitecontained7ofthese13species.Aspen(27%),beakedhazel(22%),andpaperbirch(12%)werethemostabundantspeciesavailable.Thesespecieswerebrowsedlessthantheiravailability,buttheywerebrowsedmostheavilyinabsolutetermsandareimportantforagespecies.Conversely,maplespecies,red‐osierdogwoodandmountainasharelesscommon,butwerebrowsedatthehighestpercentages,22.4%,16.1%,and14.5%,respectively.
Suggestedforestrymanagementstrategieswouldincludegainsinregeneratingbirch,northernhardwoods,suchasmaplespecies,anduplandbrushspeciesatheightslessthan3meters.Althoughnotopposedtoaspenregenerationasamanagementgoalthatprovidestimberbenefitsandmooseforage,itistheaspenstandsalsorichinadditionalforagespeciesthataremostbeneficialtomoose.Silviculturetreatmentsthatachieveanunevenagedstand,greaterthan80acres,withahighspeciesrichnesswouldultimatelybeadvised.
*[email protected]/218‐722‐8907
13
Recent Research on Minnesota Forest Birds Gerald'Jerry'Niemi*;AlexisGrinde,EdmundZlonis,AnnieBracey,andJoshBednar,NaturalResourcesResearchInstitute,UMN‐Duluth
Recently,Minnesotahasseenasubstantialreductioninloggingactivity.Duringthisperiodwehavebeenmonitoringbreedingbirdpopulationsfor74birdspeciesintwoofMinnesota’snationalforestsfor21years(1995‐2015).Inthesetwonationalforestscombined,7specieshaveincreasingtrendswhile9havebeendecreasing.Themajorityofspecieshavebeenstablebutmanyhavewidelyfluctuatingpopulations.Mostbirdguildanalyseshaveindicatedsignificantincreasingtrendsineachnationalforestandregionally,butbirdspeciesassociatedwithearly‐successionalhabitatshavenotbeenincreasing;apatternconsistentwithreductionsinharvestlevels.Thebirdmonitoringprogramprovideawealthofdataovertimetoanalyzeforest‐relatedquestionsofmanagementinteresttobirdsincludingtheeffectsofhabitatandclimatechange,interspecificinteractions,andlandscapeinfluences.WepresentseveralexamplesofmultipleeffectsonseveralbirdspeciesofconcerninMinnesotaforestssuchastheGolden‐winged,Connecticut,andCanadaWarbler.
*BiologyandNaturalResourcesResearchInstitute,UniversityofMinnesota‐[email protected]/218‐788‐2670
14
Block 3: Other
Post-fire forest floor fire severity index relationships with forest floor and soil carbon, nitrogen and mercury pools: Issues of scale RandyKolka*;BrianSturtevant,USDAForestServiceNorthernResearchStation;JessicaMiesel,MichiganStateUniversity;PhilTownsend,UniversityofWisconsin;PeterWolter,IowaStateUniversity;ShawnFraver,UniversityofMaine;TomDeSutter,NorthDakotaStateUniversity
Althoughweknowfireleadstocombustionofforestfloorandmineralsoilorganicmatterandlossesofelements,littleresearchhasassessedhowfireseverityinfluencespost‐firepoolsofthoseelements.Ifwecanrelatefireseverityindiceswithchangesinsoilelementalpools,fireseveritycanbeusedasasurrogatetoevaluateC,NandHgemissionspostfire.Weusedforestfloorfireseverityindicesbothaggregatedattheplotscaleandindividualmeasurementsatthesubplotscalewheresoilsweresampled,toassessourabilitytopredictelementallossesfollowingthe2011PagamiCreekFireinnorthernMinnesota.Wesampledforestflooranduppermineralsoilssoonafterfireandagainafteronegrowingseason.DuringthefirstsamplingwecomparefireseverityindicesandforestfloorandmineralsoilC,N,andHgaggregatedattheplotscale.DuringthesecondsamplingweassessedfireseverityandmeasuredforestfloorandmineralsoilC,N,andHgatthesubplotscale.Ourresultsindicatethataggregatingattheplotscaledoesnotdifferentiateamongforestfloorfireseveritycategories.Differencesinelementpoolswhereonlyfoundbetweenburnedandunburnedplots.However,assessingforestfloorfireseverityatthesubplotscaleandrelatingitdirectlytotheforestfloorandmineralsoilsamplestakenatthatscaleexplainmuchmorevariabilityintherelationshipbetweenforestfloorfireseverityandpostfireelementpools.
*[email protected]/218‐326‐7115
15
Natural resource managers’ perceptions of forest land parcelization trends, drivers, and impacts in the Lake States MichaelKilgore*;StephanieSnyder,USDA‐ForestService,NorthernResearchStation
ForestlandparcelizationisviewedasapotentialthreattomaintainingtheproductivityandviabilityofprivateforeststhroughouttheUnitedStates.Naturalresourceprofessionalssuchasforestersandwildlifemanagerswhoworkinpredominantlyforestedlandscapeshaveunique,field‐basedperspectivesandinsightsonforestlandparcelization(e.g.,parcelizationdrivers,impacts,trends)thatcanbeimportanttoresearchersandpolicy‐makers.Additionally,thoseworkingforpublicresourcemanagementorganizationscanofferdistinctperspectivesonhowprivateforestlandparcelizationactivityisaffectingormayaffectthemanagement,use,andprotectionofpublicforestlands.Usinganinternet‐basedsurvey,morethan250field‐basedpublicnaturalresourcemanagersintheLakeStatesprovidedinformationontheirfamiliaritywithparcelization,perceivedparcelizationtrendsintheirworkarea,perspectivesonimportantdriversofparcelization,potentialoutcomesassociatedwithaparcelizedlandscape,parcelizationimpactsonpubliclandmanagement,andstrategiesforpreventingorslowingtherateofparcelization.Theyalsorankedfouruniqueforestlandownershippatternsaccordingtotheirperceptionsofhoweachownershippatternimpactsthreeforestresources:timberproduction,wildlifehabitat,andforestrecreation.Selectedsurveyresultshighlightingnaturalresourcemanagerperspectivesonforestlandparcelizationtrends,drivers,andimpactstoprivateandpublicforestswillbediscussed.
*ForestResourcesDept,[email protected]/612‐624‐6298
16
Biomass dry-down: Fuel benefits and site impacts BradJones*
Overthepastseveralyears,Europeanmodelsforrenewablefuelhavedrawnconsiderableattention.Sweden,Germany,AustriaandSwitzerlandhavemademajorcommitmentstobecomereliantonrenewablefuelforthemajorityoftheirpowerandheatingneeds.Forthepast30years,thesecountrieshavebeenconductingresearchdesignedtorefinetechniquesforintegratingrenewablesintothemainstream.Thisproject,fundedbytheUSDepartmentofAgriculturethroughtheFondduLacBandofLakeSuperiorChippewa,isdesignedtodemonstrateEuropeanmodelsforinwoodsdryingofbiomassfuelsandutilizethesefuelsasathermalenergysourceinmodernpelletappliances.Theprojectevaluatesthefinancialandenvironmentalimpactsofin‐woodsdryingandwillusetheresultstoevaluatetribalandstatecontractingpractices,supplychainlogisticsandlegalbarriers,andmakerecommendationsforoptimizingvalue‐chainefficiencyinthestateandregion.Thispresentationwilldiscusstheresultsoffueldryingandtheimpactonloggingeconomics,aswellaspreliminarydataonthesiteimpactoflong‐termstorageofwoodybiomassintheforest.
*[email protected]/218‐322‐2354
17
Management implications for private forestland when there are multiple owners StephanieSnyder*;MikeKilgore,UniversityofMinnesotaDept.ofForestResources
Whenaparcelofforestlandisjointlyheldbymultipleowners,isthatabarriertoforestmanagement?Previousresearchhasfoundthatwhenagriculturallandisjointlyheldbymultipleco‐owners,suchlandsmayoftengounmanaged,beabandoned,partitioned,orforcedintosale.Multi‐personownershipofforestedparcelsmaycomplicatetheabilitytoundertakeactivitiessuchasharvestinggiventhatallownersmustsignacontractaswellasprovideproofofownership.Moreover,forestedparcelswithlargenumbersofownersmaynotqualifyforloansorassistanceprogramsduetopotentialdifficultiesingettingallownerstoagreetotheconditionsoftheprogramand/orinprovidingcleartitletotheland.Whileanecdotalevidenceofsuchimpactshasbeenofferedintheliterature,thesefindingshavenotbeenrigorouslytestedordemonstratedonabroadscale.Weundertookastudyutilizinganationaldatasetofinformationonprivateforestlandowners,theNationalWoodlandOwnerSurvey,whichisadministeredbytheFIAprogramoftheUSForestService.TheNWOSdataallowedustoexaminewhetherforestmanagementbehaviorsandintentionsonprivateforestlandsmaydifferwithincreasingnumbersofowners.Wealsoexaminedhowforestlandownershipstructuresandlandownerdecision‐makingnetworksarerelatedtopastpracticesandfutureintentions.Contrarytopreviousfindings,ourresearchsuggeststhathavingagreaternumberofownersneednotnecessarilyreducethelikelihoodofactivitiessuchasharvestingorwildlifehabitatimprovement.
*NorthernResearchStation,[email protected]/651‐649‐5294
18
Identifying and preserving Heritage Forest Stands through tree-ring records: A case study of fire history and culturally-modified trees in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness EvanLarson*;KurtF.Kipfmueller,UniversityofMinnesota;LaneB.Johnson,UniversityofWisconsin‐Platteville
Weassessedthefirehistory,agestructure,andculturaluseofsitesacrosstheprimaryforestsoftheBoundaryWatersCanoeAreaWildernessinordertobetterunderstandtheroleofpeopleinthehistoricalfireregimesofthislandscapeandhowhumanactivitiesofthepastmaypersistintheforestsoftoday.Ourresultsincludeover400yearsofdetailedfirehistory,forestinventorydatafor31stands,andtheidentificationof28siteswhereculturally‐modifiedtreesprovidedirectevidenceofpastlanduse.BasedonthesedataweproposetheconceptofHeritageStandsthatcouldbetargetedforrestorationorspecialmanagementconsiderationinordertoactivelymanageculturally‐influencedforestsitesthatembodytheessenceofwilderness.Ourresearchhighlightsthevalueofnaturalareasasecologicalbaselinesandhowresearchfromwithinwildernesscaninformmanagementbeyonditsborders.Themethodsweemployedareapplicableacrossallforestsystems,andthoughpastlandusemayhavereducedtheexistenceofsiteswarrantingheritageconsideration,wepresentinformationonlandscapeswheresuchsitesmaystillexist.Directmanagementimplicationsfromthisworkrangefromthedocumentationandmappingofthesestandstotheexplicittailoringofprescribedfireprogramstoincorporatetheuniquehistoryofsuchsitesintheirmanagementandthepotentialofactivemanagementwithinwildernessareas.EffortstoidentifyHeritageStandsthroughouttheforestsoftheUpperMidwestcouldhelpinformsite‐specificmanagementactivitieswhilepreservingtheculturalandnaturalhistoryoftheregion.
*UniversityofWisconsin‐[email protected]/608‐342‐6139
19
Block 4: Insects & Invasives
Assessing the acarological risk of human exposure to tickborne pathogens in Minnesota JennaBjork*;DavidNeitzel,FrannyDorr,andElizabethSchiffman,MinnesotaDepartmentofHealth;TammiJohnsonandRebeccaEisen,CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention;SoniaKjos,UniversityofMinnesota,Duluth;andJeanneMinnerath,SaintMary'sUniversityofMinnesota.
Ixodesscapularis,theblacklegged(deer)tick,istheprimaryvectorofseveralpathogenscausinghumandiseaseintheUnitedStates.Overthelasttwodecades,I.scapularis‐bornediseaseshaveincreasedinincidenceaswellasgeographicdistribution.UsingexistingdataonblackleggedtickpresencepreviouslycollectedbytheMinnesotaDepartmentofHealth(MDH),theCentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention(CDC)createdatickdistributionmodelthatpredictsareasthatareecologicallyconducivetothesurvivalofI.scapularis.Themajorobjectivesofthisstudywereto1)developanacarologicalriskmodelforMinnesotathatcanbeusedtoidentifyareasofelevatedabundanceofhost‐seekingI.scapularisandareasoffutureexpansionand2)monitorI.scapularispopulationsfromAprilthroughOctoberatfourgeographicallydiverseregionsofthestateinanefforttobetterunderstandthephenologyofticklifestagesinMinnesota.Intotal,80acarologysiteswererandomlyselectedbythemodelbasedonsuitablehabitatandpubliclandclassification;thesesitesweresampledtwiceinJune,duringtheanticipatedpeakquestingperiodofblackleggedticknymphs.Anadditionalfourphenologysiteswerechosenbytheresearcherstorepresentvariousregionsofthestate;thesesitesweresampledbiweeklyfromAprilthroughNovember.Forallsites,tickswerecollectedusingadistance‐basedsamplingmethodinwhichawhitecottonclothwasdraggedovertheground,coveringatotalareaof750m2persite.Preliminaryresultsindicatethat5,754tickswerecollectedfrom80(95%)of84sitesvisitedin2015.Ofallthetickscollected,4,556(79%)wereidentifiedasI.scapularisandatleastoneI.scapularistickwascollectedfrom73(87%)of84sites.Anaverageof6.6(median3,range0‐77)nymphswerecollectedontransectpersitevisit.Datacollectionfromeachofthephenologysitesindicatedthatthepeaknymphalquestingperiodoccurredslightlylaterthanexpectedin2015,inlateJuneandearlyJulyinsteadofmid‐June.Therefore,whilethenumbersofnymphsfoundquestingduringourstudyrepresentarelativedegreeofriskbetweensites,absolutetickdensityislikelyunderestimatedandsubjecttoseverallimitations.Knowledgeofsuitabletickhabitat,includingcurrentlyestablishedandpotentiallyemergingareas,aswellastickphenologyisimportantforguidingtickbornediseasepreventionstrategiesinMinnesota.
*[email protected]/651‐201‐5803
20
A new research center at the University of Minnesota on terrestrial invasive species RobertVenette*
Theinvasionsofnewinsects,diseases,andplantsintoMinnesotacontinuetopresentdifficultchallengestoforestmanagers.TheMinnesotaInvasiveTerrestrialPlantsandPestsCenterwasrecentlyestablishedattheUniversityofMinnesotatoresearchnewmethodstopreventorminimizethesethreatstoMinnesotaforests,prairies,wetlands,andagriculture.Threeinitialprojectsfocusonconcernsinforestry.ThisbriefpresentationwillintroducetheCenter,itsinitialpriorities,andprogresstowardsrankingthetop120invasivespeciesthreatstoMinnesotalands.
*MinnesotaInvasiveTerrestrialPlantsandPestsCenter,[email protected]/612‐301‐1405
21
Dispersal capacity of late instar gypsy moth larvae (Lymantria dispar) and implications for wood products movement RachaelNicoll*;ScottMyers,USDAAPHIS‐PPQ;andBrianAukema,UniversityofMinnesota
Thegypsymoth(Lymantriadispar)isaninvasiveforestdefoliatorofover300treeandshrubspecies,mostnotablyoakandaspen.ItsrangehasexpandedthroughoutthenortheasternregionoftheUnitedStatesandeasternCanadianprovincestoMidwesternandSoutheasternstatesprimarilythroughhumantransportation.Eggmasses,inparticular,arereadilyconveyedonwoodproducts.Tomitigatespreadviawoodproducts,stateandfederalquarantinepoliciesrestrictmovementofregulatedarticlessuchaslogsandfirewood.Woodmovementmitigationmeasuresincludea100‐foothostvegetation‐freebufferzonesurroundinglogdeckstopreventinfestationoflogsandadjacentforestbycrawlinggypsymothlarvae.However,nostudiesexistwhichevaluatethelong‐distancedispersaloflateinstargypsymothlarvae,thedevelopmentalstagewiththegreatestpotentialformovementacrosstheground.Thedispersaloflateinstarlarvaemayreducetheeffectivenessofgypsymothcontainmentpoliciesasthelocationofpupationstronglyinfluencestheegg‐layingsiteoftheflightlessfemalegypsymoth.Insummer2015,wereleasedfourth,fifth,andsixthinstargypsymothlarvaedailyforsixdaysatapapermilllumberyardandvisuallyassessedtheirdispersalcapacityover12hourswithharmonicradarsupplementation.Movementof20percentofthelarvaesurpassedthebufferzonewidth,andthegreatestdispersaldistancewas143.7feet.Theseresultsdemonstrateaneedtoevaluatethewoodproductsmovementrestrictionsofthegypsymothquarantineaswellastheeffectivenessofalternativecontainmentmeasures.
*[email protected]/651‐624‐7683
22
Attendees [email protected]
Bruce [email protected]‐879‐0880
Brian [email protected]
Dave [email protected]‐723‐4791
Penny [email protected]‐286‐5434
[email protected]‐878‐5665
Greg BernuCarltonCountyLandDepartmentCarltonMNgreg.bernu@co.carlton.mn.us218‐384‐9179
Jan [email protected]‐879‐4433
[email protected]‐820‐9640
Jenna [email protected]‐201‐5803
Tom BodellLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNtom.bodell@co.lake.mn.us2188348340
[email protected]‐380‐7793
Tim [email protected]‐626‐4376
Darion [email protected]
JenniferCorcoranMNDNRForestryStPaulMNjennifer.corcoran@state.mn.us651‐259‐5898
Allissa [email protected]‐743‐3694
Anne [email protected]‐286‐5434
[email protected]‐681‐0889
Miranda [email protected](612)625‐6989
Casey DabrowskiItascaWoodlandServices,[email protected]
KevinDahlmanCassCountyLandDepartmentBackusMNkevin.dahlman@co.cass.mn.us218‐947‐3338
Glenn [email protected]‐296‐0702
Bob DeRocheCompassForestryServices,[email protected]
23
Mike [email protected]‐649‐5163
Scott DowlingItascaCountyLandDepartmentGrandRapidsMNscott.dowling@co.itasca.mn.us2183270673
Nate EideLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNnate.eide@co.lake.mn.us2188348340
Alan [email protected]‐624‐3098
[email protected]‐310‐9532
Jeff [email protected]
Katie [email protected]‐626‐4358
MackGlasbyUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNglasb005@umn.edu6126264280
Stanley GrossmanItascaWoodlandServices,[email protected]
Sophia GuttermanUSForestService/[email protected]‐649‐5163
[email protected]‐476‐7022
Brooke [email protected]‐259‐5755
Anna [email protected]‐387‐3037
[email protected]‐259‐5277
Jeff [email protected]
Justin JanssenRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNJustin.Janssen@redlakenation.org2182098197
BradJonesItascaCommunityCollegeGrandRapidsMNbrad.jones@itascacc.edu218‐322‐2354
Mike [email protected]‐624‐6298
Joshua [email protected]‐423‐6026
[email protected]‐326‐7115
Chuck [email protected]‐726‐6411
Evan LarsonUniversityofWisconsin‐[email protected]‐342‐6139
JeffLeeMinnesotaBiologicalSurvey/[email protected]‐723‐4763
Quintin LeglerUPM‐[email protected]‐327‐6304
Erik LindquistCassCountyLandDepartmentBackusMNerik.lindquist@co.cass.mn.us218‐947‐3338
24
ChristinaMaley1854TreatyAuthorityDuluthMNcmaley@1854treatyauthority.org2187228907
Jeremy [email protected]‐753‐2580
Justin MayneLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNjustin.mayne@co.lake.mn.us2188348340
LeslieMcInenlyMinnesotaDNRSt.PaulMNleslie.mcinenly@state.mn.us651‐259‐5235
Rachael NicollMinnesotaForestResourcesCouncilSt.PaulMNnicol071@umn.edu651‐603‐6761
Jerry [email protected]‐788‐2670
BillNixonLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNbill.nixon@co.lake.mn.us2188348340
Michael NorthMNDNRSectionofWildlifeBrainerdMNmichael.north@state.mn.us218‐330‐4815
Anne OldakowskiWadenaSoilandWaterConservationWadenaMNAnne.Oldakowski@mn.nacdnet.net2186313195
[email protected]‐269‐4324
Brian PalikUSFS‐[email protected]‐326‐7116
StephaniePattonUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNpatt0373@umn.edu6126264280
EmilyPetersDepartmentofNaturalResourcesSaintPaulMNemily.peters@state.mn.us651‐259‐5135
Larry PetersenMNDNRInternationalFallsMNlawrence.petersen@state.mn.us218‐286‐5434
Chris PetersonPrivateForestryConsultantGrandRapidsMNchrisbizpeterson@gmail.com218‐326‐4645
[email protected]‐216‐4245
Beckie PrangeHubachekWildernessResearchCenterElyMNrjprange@umn.edu218.365.7766
Jodie ProvostDNR‐[email protected]‐429‐3052
[email protected]‐947‐3338
Matt [email protected]
[email protected]‐999‐7932
StephanieSnyderUSForestService,[email protected]‐649‐5294
Dan StewardBoardofWater&[email protected]‐203‐4474
David [email protected]‐308‐2377
Robert [email protected]‐301‐1405
MarkWestphalCarltonCountyLandDepartmentCarltonMNmark.westphal@co.carlton.mn.us218‐384‐9179
25
[email protected]‐341‐8540
BruceWhiteRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNjustin.janssen@redlakenation.org2186791602
MitchWilsonRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNmwilson@redlakenation.org2186791639
[email protected]‐624‐2202
Joe WormMNDNRCloquet,[email protected]‐878‐5664
MelissaYoungquistUniversityofMinnesotaGrandRapidsMNmyoungquist@umn.edu218‐326‐7132
26
Notes
27
Acknowledgements Wearegratefultoeveryonewhohelpedtomakethisyear’sForestryandWildlifeResearchReviewasuccess.
TheResearchReviewplanningcommitteeconsistingofAlanEk,GeorgeHost,RickKlevorn,MikeLarson,BrianPalik,andRobSlesakhelpedtoidentifytopicsandspeakersandprovidedvaluableinputontheformat.
SpeakersandposterpresentersJennaBjork,TimCatton,MirandaCurzon,GlennDelGiudice,MikeDockry,SophiaGutterman,BradJones,MikeKilgore,RandyKolka,EvanLarson,ChristinaMaley,RachaelNicoll,JerryNiemi,BrianPalik,StephanieSnyder,RobVenette,andDavidWilsongenerouslydevelopedanddeliveredpresentationstranslatingtheirresearchintorelevant,practicalresultsthatwehopeyoucanuse.CloquetForestryCenterstaffSimonClark,AndyDavid,ChuckKramer,StephanieOberg,JoeUlsby,DeniseVolk,JimWarren,andTimYoungcontributedtotheevent.MealswereprovidedbyJimnJo’sNorthlandKateringofCloquet.
Asaneducationalcooperative,theSFECdependsonthecontinuedinvestmentofourmemberorganizationsandindividuals,whosecontributionsenableustooffereventslikethisone.WearealsosupportedbytheUniversityofMinnesotaCollegeofFood,Agriculture,andNaturalResourceSciencesandtheCloquetForestryCenter.
Andfinally,withoutyourregistrationandparticipation,theeventwouldhavebeensignificantlylessinteresting.Thankyouforjoiningustoday.
‐EliSagorandJulieHendrickson
28
SFEC Member organizations for 2015-2016 AitkinCountyLandDepartmentAitkinCountySWCDAudubonCenteroftheNorthWoodsBeltramiCountyNaturalResourceMgmtCampRipleyNaturalResourcesCarltonCountyLandDepartmentCarltonCountySWCDCassCountyLandDepartmentChequamegon‐NicoletNationalForest(USFS)ChippewaNationalForest(USFS)ClearwaterCountyLandDepartmentCrowWingCountyLandDepartmentFondDuLacReservationGrandPortageBandofChippewaHubbardCountyNaturalResourceMgmtItascaCommunityCollegeItascaCountySWCDKoochichingCountyLand&ForestryLakeCountyLandDepartmentMilleLacsBandofOjibweMNAssociationofCountyLandCommissionersMNDNR‐DivisionofForestryMNDNR‐ForestStewardshipPlanwriters
MNDNR‐ DivisionofEcological&WaterResources
MNDNR‐SectionofWildlifeMNForestResourcesCouncilMolpusTimberlandLLCPineCountySWCDPotlatchCorporationRedLakeTribalDNRSappiFinePaperSouthSt.LouisCountySWCDSt.John’sUniversityArboretumSt.LouisCountyLandDepartmentSuperiorNationalForest(USFS)TheNatureConservancy–MNChapterUMD–NaturalResourcesResearchInstituteUMNExtensionForestryUMNDept.ofForestResourcesUPMBlandinPaperCompanyWadenaCountySWCDWhiteEarthTribalForestryWIDNRDivisionofForestryVermilionCommunityCollege
Keeping in Touch ViewSFEC’sCalendarofEvents:http://z.umn.edu/SFECevents
Joinourmailinglists:Toreceiveourmonthlyemailnewsletter,subscribeathttp://sfec.cfans.umn.edu/Toreceiveourcalendarofeventsbymail,contactJulie([email protected])
Contactus:[email protected]‐409‐[email protected]@umn.edu218‐726‐6403