Rapid Assessment of Dry Oak Woodland Natural Communities at ...

Rapid Assessment of Dry Oak Woodland Natural Communities at Merck Forest, Rupert Vermont

A Master’s Project Presented to the Environmental Studies Department

Antioch University Keene, New Hampshire

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree Master of Science

By: Heather O’Wril March 2012

i

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to all the people who have helped to make

this project possible. Thanks to my supervisor, Peter Palmiotto for his guidance and

expertise from brainstorming project ideas to seeing it through to completion; thanks to

Tom Ward for his input and the Merck staff for their enthusiasm; thanks to Liz

Thompson, Eric Sorenson, and Melissa Coppola for their advice; thanks to my dog Ole

who was always by my side in the field, and a special thanks to Jack O’Wril whose

endless amounts of support kept me moving forward.

ii

Project Summary

Dry oak woodlands are ranked as a rare (S2) natural community in the State of Vermont,

but can be found at Merck Forest. The objectives of this project were to locate and assess

the ecological integrity of the dry oak woodlands at Merck so that the information can be

incorporated into the forest management plan and used for future educational and

research opportunities. Potential dry oak woodlands sites were located using overlapping

spatial data in a Geographic Information System. The vegetation assemblages of these sites

were then inventoried in the field. Out of the eleven sites, three contain dry oak woodland

communities, which range in size from 0.9 to 1.4 acres.

The dry oak woodlands’ ecological integrity was assessed using several metrics to

compare with an exemplary community type. Only one of the three sites was found to have

its ecological integrity intact. Management recommendations for each of the dry oak

woodland communities were made based on the site characteristics and species

composition with priority given to the community with the best ecological integrity. The

prescription with the greatest potential for successfully restoring and maintaining this

natural community type is a fire regime. A fire will assist in regenerating oak, recruiting

oak into the canopy, removing undesirable species, and opening up the canopy so that

sunlight can penetrate the forest floor to promote a grassy understory. Two important

questions left to be determined are: 1) whether fire is required to maintain dry oak

woodlands in New England? and 2) what fire regime will best maintain this community

type in New England?

iii

Table of Contents

PROJECT SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. ii

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Merck Forest ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Land Use History ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Mission Statement ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Natural Communities ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Description .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Assessing Ecological Integrity ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Dry Oak Woodlands ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Characterization ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Role of Fire .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Wildlife Potential ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Recreation Potential............................................................................................................................................................ 10 Research and Education Potential ............................................................................................................................... 11

Management Prescriptions for Dry Oak Woodlands ......................................................................................... 11 Prescribed Fire ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Mechanical Cutting .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Herbicide Application ......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Planting ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Controlling or Eliminating Deer Browse ................................................................................................................... 16

METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Site Description ................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Remote Mapping of Potential Dry Oak Woodland Sites ................................................................................... 17 Field Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................................... 18

Rapid Assessment .................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Detailed Site Inventory ....................................................................................................................................................... 19

Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20

SITE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Red Spruce Northern Hardwood Forest (site 1&2) ............................................................................................... 23 Northern Hardwood Forest (Sites 3-8) ....................................................................................................................... 25 Mesic Red Oak Northern Hardwood Forest and Dry Oak Woodland (sites 9-11) .................................. 25

Soils ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 26 Landscape ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27

DRY OAK WOODLAND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 29 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Site 9 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Site 10 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Site 11 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Soils (MRONHF vs DOW) ............................................................................................................................................... 41 Landscape (DOW 9-11) ................................................................................................................................................ 43 Ecological Integrity .......................................................................................................................................................... 43

Dry Oak Woodland 9 ........................................................................................................................................................... 43

iv

Dry Oak Woodland 10 ........................................................................................................................................................ 44 Dry Oak Woodland 11 ........................................................................................................................................................ 45

Specific Management Recommendations ................................................................................... 46 Dry Oak Woodland 9 ....................................................................................................................................................... 47 Dry Oak Woodland 10 .................................................................................................................................................... 48 Dry Oak Woodland 11 .................................................................................................................................................... 49

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 51

Maps ......................................................................................................................................................... 52

References ............................................................................................................................................. 58

Appendix ................................................................................................................................................ 62

v

List of Figures Figure 1. Picture of Vermont with the dry oak woodland community range highlighted in green

picture taken from Thompson and Sorenson’s Guide to the Natural Communities of Vermont, 2005……………………………………………...…………………………..6

Figure 2. Photograph depicting exemplary characteristics of a dry oak woodland at Merck,

Rupert, VT……………………………………………...………………………………8 Figure 3. Average density of seedlings per acre (± 1 Standard Error) for each species in the

mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland community of Site 9……….………………………………………………………………………….30 Figure 4. Average density of saplings per acre (± 1 Standard Error) for each species in the mesic

red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland community of Site 9……………….………………………………………………………………….30

Figure 5. Mean percent cover of the substrate and vegetation of the forest communities at Site 9. ……………………………………………………………………………..…..33 Figure 6. Average density of seedlings per acre (± 1 Standard Error) for each species in the

mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland communities of Site 10. ………………………………………………………………………………..34

Figure 7. Average density of saplings per acre (± 1 Standard Error) for each species in the mesic

red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland community of Site 10……………….………………………………………………………………...34

Figure 8. Mean percent cover of the substrate and vegetation of the forest communities at

Site 10..…………………………………………………….………………….………37

Figure 9. Average density of seedlings per acre (± 1 Standard Error) for each species in the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland community of Site 10………………………………………………………………………………....38

Figure 10. Average density of saplings per acre (± 1 Standard Error) for each species in the

mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland community of Site 11.……………………………………………………………………………..….38

Figure 11. Mean percent cover of the substrate and vegetation of the forest communities at Site 11……….…………………………………………………………………….…..41

vi

List of Tables Table 1. The natural community type, its size and the total basal area at each Site……………24

Table 2. Importance Value percentage for each species at each site with dominant species highlighted in yellow………………………………………………………………….25

Table 3. Mean percent cover (± 1 Standard Error) of the substrate and vegetation of the forest communities at Site 9………………………………………………………………….32

Table 4. Mean percent cover (± 1 Standard Error) of the substrate and vegetation of the forest communities at Site 10………………………………………………………………...36

Table 5. Mean percent cover (± 1 Standard Error) of the substrate and vegetation of the forest communities at Site 11………………………………………………………………...40

Table 6. Average depth in centimeter (± 1 Standard Error) of soil the DOW and MRONHF communities of Sites 9-11…………………………….……………………………….42

vii

List of Maps Map 1. Location of Merck Forest in context of the state of Vermont and the town of

Rupert………………………………………………………………………………….…52

Map 2. Trail map for Merck Forest and Farmland Center in Rupert Vermont…………...……..53

Map 3. Dry oak woodland potential sites based on topography and southern aspect...…......…..54

Map 4. Sampling method depicting points and transects at each of the eleven sites and three oak woodland communities…………………...……………………………………………..55

Map 5. Soil types at each of the 11 potential sites at Merck Forest. Data taken from Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey…………..……..………………...56

Map 6. Location of future controlled burn.……………………………………………….…......57

1

Introduction

Dry oak woodland communities are rare (S2) in the state Vermont but can be found at

Merck Forest and Farmland Center (MFFC). Dry oak woodlands provide valuable habitat

as well as a nutritious food source for wildlife. They are also popular hiking destinations

due to the inviting conditions of an open canopy, grassy understory, and great views. The

occurrence of these significant natural resources can be seen as an asset to Merck.

The rare status of dry oak woodlands in Vermont makes them an important

community type to preserve, especially for those species that may rely on them for food

or shelter. Protecting rare habitat acts as a coarse filter for conserving species diversity.

Species are declining at a rapid rate. In the United States alone the number of species

listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has

increased six fold from 174 in 1976 to 1244 as of November 2001 and the list gets longer

worldwide (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service). Habitat loss and degradation are the leading

culprits in the loss of diversity and many decisions resulting in such losses occur at a

local level (Dale et al. 2000). Therefore the rare communities at MFFC are of great

ecological significance and should be treated and recognized accordingly.

Project Objectives

The primary objective of this project is to provide pertinent information on the locations

and ecological integrity of the rare natural communities of Merck as well as providing

management recommendations aimed at conserving these resources. While the main

objectives are conservation-focused there are several ways in which Merck Forest can

benefit from this project. It is an exciting time at Merck Forest because the organization

2

has been reviewing its assets so that they can be included in a new strategic plan as well

as a forest management plan that will be used to guide management decisions.

Documentation on the dry oak woodland communities will provide Merck with the

information to make informed management decisions, educate the public, and provide

baseline data for future research. A summary of the benefits to Merck is as follows:

1) Management Decisions: Information gathered in the rapid assessment can be used

to make informed management decisions. Although a full forest inventory will

be performed prior to writing the management plan, a timber cruise is unlikely to

provide detailed information about rare plant communities. Also, since Merck is

a demonstration forest these management decisions are a model for others to

emulate and therefore a complete site assessment is prudent.

2) Education: The strong educational programs at Merck are a wonderful resource to

teach people about the natural world. Rare natural communities have the

potential to be a one of a kind outdoor classroom, which in turn could be used to

draw a greater number of visitors to Merck. However, precautions to minimize

visitor impacts to the rare and sensitive plant communities should be taken into

consideration.

3) Future Research: The numerous unique features and expanse of land make Merck

an ideal place to conduct research. The data collected from this project will

provide a baseline for future research on dry oak woodland communities.

Merck Forest

Merck Forest and Farmland Center is a non-profit environmental education organization

located in Rupert, Vermont in the Taconic mountain range. It is 3160 acres of forest and

farmland and has 30 miles of trails that are open to the public for recreational activities.

3

Land Use History

Merck forest has a strong land use history that can be seen by the numerous stonewalls,

barbed wire fences, cellar holes, and abandoned farming equipment on the property.

Although the landscape today is 93% forested, at the height of the sheep farming era, in

the 1930’s, two thirds of the land was cleared for hay and pasture with hundreds of sheep

roaming the hillsides (Cogbill, Merck Brochure). In 1950 George Merck bought these

abandoned farms to create what is now Merck Forest and Farmland Center.

Mission Statement

George Merck founded the Merck Forest and Farmland Center with the intention of

educating the public on land use practices that incorporated both a reverence for the

historical relationship to the land while fostering room for growth and experimentation

with new methods and technologies. The mission is to teach and demonstrate the benefits

of innovative, sustainable management of forest and farmland. My project focuses on the

forests at Merck where management practices include timber harvests, wildlife habitat

management and preservation, and sap production.

While Merck is a working forest landscape with active management operations to

improve timber quality, wildlife habitat, and sap production, there is also concern for

protecting the rare natural resources for the sake of preserving or even enhancing

biodiversity. Jack O’Wril, the forester on staff at Merck, is in the process of updating the

forest management plan and seeks additional data on rare plants or communities. I found

documented occurrences of the rare dry oak woodland natural community at Merck

(Thompson and Sorenson 2005, Olsen 2002), but could not find detailed records of their

4

locations, sizes, or ecological integrity. It became clear that a project that incorporates

these details would compliment Merck’s mission and provide the opportunity to

understand this community type better. Including this information in the forest

management plan will help to ensure the protection of these community types in the

future.

Natural Communities

Description

A natural community is “an interacting assemblage of organisms, their physical

environment, and the natural processes which affect them” (Thompson and Sorenson,

2005). Natural communities develop in the absence of major disturbances on “ecological

sites”. Definitions for ecological site types have varied over time and across disciplines

(Leonard et al. 1992). Leak (1982) characterizes an ecological site type by its primary

physical attributes (geographic location, climate, soils and hydrology) and its biological

attributes (such as forest cover type and age class). He goes on to state that, “ecological

site types provide a basis and framework for understanding that while a species is capable

of growing on a variety of sites, the chances of it growing is related to its ability to

compete with other species on each particular site, and its development varies from site to

site.” Olson (2002) gives an example of a site type as a convex landscape with southwest

facing slope where the soils are warm and drought prone, and short, poorly formed oak

(Quercus L.), hickory (Carya Nutt.), red maple (Acer rubrum L.) and hop-hornbeam

(Ostrya virginiana Kosh.) are likely to be found. These tree species have evolved to

compete better than other species in warm, dry conditions.

5

Natural communities are a logical unit for classifying and mapping land that is an

essential part of developing management or conservation plans. Categorizing natural

communities is also a tool for understanding the complexity and diversity of the

landscape. Natural communities occur in a wide range of sizes categorized as matrix

(1,000-100,000 acres), large patch (50-1,000 acres), and small patch (less than 50 acres).

Sometimes it is possible to easily distinguish the edge of one natural community and the

start of another; in other places they will grade into one another. There is also variation in

community structure and species composition within the concept of a natural community.

Northern hardwood forests are a good example because they are widespread and

extremely variable. Four variants of a northern hardwood forest are recognized within

this community type.

Natural communities usually describe landscapes that have developed over time

and have not experienced significant natural or anthropogenic disturbances. Therefore,

the focus is on mid- to late-successional forests and may exclude sections of the

landscape. It is important to note that these natural communities are not static because

species distributions shift across the landscape in response to climate change and

disturbance regimes (Thompson and Sorenson 2005).

Assessing Ecological Integrity

Assessing the ecological integrity of the target natural community was an essential

component of this project because it not only informs resource managers of the

condition but also reveals potential threats. “Integrity” is defined as the condition of

being unimpaired, sound, or complete. Ecological integrity has been used as a

6

measure of the composition, structure, and function of an ecosystem in relation to

the system’s natural or historical range of variation, as well as perturbations caused

by natural or anthropogenic agents of change (Parrish et al. 2003). Tierney et al

(2009) illustrates that the first step in determining ecological integrity is identifying

a limited number of metrics that best distinguish a highly impacted or degraded

state from a relatively unimpaired, complete, and functioning state. He also

mentions that the metrics should be comprehensive enough to incorporate

composition, structure, and function of an ecosystem.

Dry Oak Woodlands

Dry oak woodlands are a rare community type in the state of Vermont because their

range is small and so is the size of the individual communities. They are locally common

in the Taconic Mountains, and there are scattered occurrences on the Cheshire Quartzite

in the Champlain valley (Figure 1). These woodlands tend to be smaller than 20 acres in

extent.

Figure 1. Picture of Vermont with green areas highlighting the dry oak woodland community range within the state. Taken from Thompson and Sorenson’s Guide to the Natural Communities of Vermont 2005.

7

In addition to being rare, dry oak woodlands are a poorly understood natural

community. A literature search resulted in a few studies found on oak woodlands in the

western US, and very little information relevant to the New England region. It is difficult

to make comparison or inferences on the dry oak woodlands of the western US to those

of New England because the forest ecosystems and species composition are different.

Characterization

The best source of information on dry oak woodlands in New England is from Thompson

and Sorenson (2005). They describe this community type as having excessively drained

acidic soils, an open canopy dominated by short, poorly formed oak species spaced at a

distance with a scattering of shrubs and understory trees, and a ground layer dominated

by sedges, grasses, heaths, oak seedlings, forbs, mosses, exposed bedrock, and bare

ground (Figure 2). These sites are often located on the southern slopes of mountains or

hilltops and ridges and tend to be smaller than 20 acres in extent. The Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources Website it mentions that dry oak woodlands occupy a

position on the vegetation continuum that is intermediate between oak savannas and oak

forests. Therefore, related community types in New England include dry oak forests

which tend to have similar species composition but with a closed canopy and taller trees.

8

Figure 2. Photograph depicting exemplary characteristics of a dry oak woodland at Merck Forest in Rupert, VT.

The Role of Fire

Fire appears to have a significant impact on dry oak woodlands. Abrams (1992) states

that the distribution of oak reflects a variety of ecological paths and disturbance

conditions such as climate change, logging, animal and insect grazing, and disease, but

considers the historical changes influenced by fire to be the most significant contributor.

High-frequency fire regimes have been credited with creating and maintaining savannas

and woodlands in temperate North America prior to and during Euro-American

settlement (Paterson and Reich 2001, Anderson et al. 1999, McPherson 1997). The fire

prevention and suppression activities in recent years have lead to significant structural

changes including increase in tree density, basal area, and canopy cover (Fabor-

Langendoen and Tester 1993, Abrams 1992) and succession toward fire sensitive and

shade tolerant species such as sugar maple (Abrams, 1992).

9

Oaks are highly adapted to the nutrient-poor, droughty conditions characteristic of

oak woodland communities and are prone to fire exposure. They are well suited for

droughty conditions due to deep roots, xeromorphic leaves, low water-potential threshold

for stomatal closure, and the ability to adapt osmotically and maintain high rates of

photosynthesis during a drought (Abrams 1990). Fire adaptations of oaks include thick

bark, ability to sprout, resistance to rotting after scaring, and the prime seed germination

conditions created after a fire (Lorimer 1985). Fire tends to favor oaks especially since

many of the later successional species such as red maple and sugar maple (Acer

saccharum Marsh.) have a much lower resistance (Abrams, 1992). Oaks have an

intermediate tolerance for shade, and therefore their seedlings do not exhibit long-term

survival or growth in a closed understory (Crow 1988). The understory species in oak

woodlands such as lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton.), grasses, and

black huckleberry (Gaylussacia bacata Kosh.) are also well adapted to frequent fires.

Wildlife Potential

Dry oak woodlands provide unique habitat for a variety of animals that take advantage of

the open canopy and grassy herbaceous understory, the excellent food source from both

hardmast and softmast species, and the abundance of coarse woody debris (CWD) and

snags. Due to the rare occurrences of this community type protecting these areas can act

as a coarse filter for protecting species diversity. However, additional wildlife studies in

these community types would provide better insight into the best management practices

for these areas.

10

Several studies done on oak woodlands stress the importance of an open canopy and

grassy understory to a variety of bird species (Hagar and Stern, 2001, Hunter et al. 2001).

Noss et al (1995) considers oak dominated woodlands in eastern North America to be a

critically endangered habitat. Hunter et al (2001) found that about 70% of 21 featured

species associated with open woodlands and savannas are undergoing long-term declines

or are declining recently in eastern North America. Many of the bird species that occur in

shrub-scrub and grassy dominated habitats can also be found in open woodlands. The

uncommon birds encountered in the dry oak woodlands of Vermont include tufted

titmouse and yellow-billed cuckoo (Thompson and Sorenson, 2005).

Despite the poor soils and rocky steep terrain that characterize dry oak woodlands

they provide a good source of food to a variety of wildlife. The dominant oak canopy

provide hardmast in the form of acorns which are consumed by squirrels, bear, turkey,

and deer. White oak (Quercus alba L.) is a common component of oak woodlands and

provides an easily digestible and nutritious acorn crop because they mature in one year

unlike red oak (Quercus rubra L.), which takes two years, and they contain fewer

tannins. While white oak was not present in the sample survey at Merck, there is the

possibility to introduce or reintroduce it at these sites. Small mammals and birds can feast

on the soft mast of the blueberries, black huckleberries, and shadbush (Amelanchier

Medik.) berries.

Snags and coarse woody debris (CWD) provide important structure to a forest for

wildlife. Dry oak woodlands tend to have a higher concentration of snags and CWD due

to the shallow soils, steep slopes and harsh conditions. Snags and CWD have a variety of

functions as food or shelter depending on the amount of decay and size class. For

11

instance, birds of prey will sit on the high branches of a dead tree to search for prey;

woodpeckers will excavate a hole into a tree to nest when the central column of the trunk

begins to decay: Ants, grubs and several reptiles and amphibians will eat or find refuge in

wood only after it has become punky and soft. Ringed-necked snakes are known to spend

days under the decaying debris in dry oak woodlands (Thompson and Sorenson 2005).

Recreation Potential

Dry oak woodlands are a great place to have a trail destination because the open canopy

provides good views from the top of hills, ridges and mountains. At the top of Mount

Antone, the highest peak and the most popular hike at Merck, there is a small dry oak

woodland. It is a grassy picnic spot with short, widely branching oaks and a panoramic

view of the landscape. Visitors like to take naps under the shade of the oaks in the

summer time and warm their faces in the sun in the winter. I did not include this spot as

part of my project survey because humans seeded the grass and it was less than 100 feet

in size. However, the other dry oak woodland communities at Merck are also near

walking trails and frequented by visitors for its inviting qualities and scenic vistas.

Research and Educational Potential

The accessibility of the dry oak woodland communities and their unique qualities make

them a great spot to educate the public about the rare natural resources at Merck and to

conduct research to understand them better. Educational opportunities could come in the

form of information sessions, interpretive signs, or land stewardship activities to protect

and enhance these areas such as treating weeds or recruiting snags and CWD for wildlife.

12

Since dry oak woodlands are not well understood additional research will be

important to increase our understanding of their structure and function so that the best

management practices can be implemented. One of the great unknowns about this

community type is whether fire is required to maintain them (Thompson and Sorenson

2005) and if so what type of fire regime is needed. The baseline information provided

from this project can be used for future research.

Management Prescriptions for Dry Oak Woodlands

A common theme in dry oak woodland degradation is the problem of regenerating oak

species. The eventual senescence of the overstory trees coupled with the lack of oak

regeneration leads to the loss of these ecosystems (Brudvig and Asbjornsen 2005).

Therefore, restoration efforts in oak woodlands and savannas, especially in the Mid-West,

have been of particular interest to many forest research efforts (Brudvig and Asbjornsen

2005, Peterson and Reich 2001, Abrams 1992, Tester 1989).

Brudvig and Asbjornsen (2005) found that a bottleneck can exist between the oak

seedling and sapling stage of development. They consider a canopy thinning to be a

necessary step toward restoring oak savanna because without additional sunlight the

seedlings cannot grow. Buckley et al (1998) raises the concern of interspecific

competitors that have become more prominent with the suppression of fire not only in the

canopy but the understory and shrub layers too. Their study shows that while removing

potential competitors has a positive effect on the growth of oak seedlings, it also leads to

increased deer browse and frost damage, which can compromise the integrity of the site.

13

Enhancing oak regeneration and restoring the species composition to a grass and

blueberry dominated understory is the main concern in restoring and maintaining dry oak

woodlands. Brose et al. (2008) provides treatments options to regenerate oak in the Mid-

Atlantic region that can be used to guide oak regeneration efforts in New England as

well. Due to the harsh conditions and steep slopes it is not advisable to use heavy

equipment. The active treatments that are suggested include: 1) Prescribed fire, 2)

mechanical cutting, 3) the application of herbicide, 4) planting 5) and controlling or

eliminating deer browse.

Prescribed Fire

A prescribed burn is the best restorative method for a dry oak woodland site because it

not only removes competition, but also creates favorable conditions for acorn catching

and seed germination, reduces the population of predatory insects, and creates xeric

conditions in which oak is a top competitor. Fire creates favorable seedbeds for oak to

germinate by burning the accumulation of leaves and twigs on the forest floor and

exposing mineral soil. It is well documented that oak tends to regenerate well on xeric

sites (Sanders 1988) The increased in oak germination success rate in scarified mineral

soils because freshly germinated seedlings are unable to emerge through a heavy litter

cover (Van Lear and Watt 1992) and because squirrels and blue jays prefer exposed soil

to bury their acorns (Galford et al. 1988). Oak seedlings can survive a fire even if their

tops are killed as long as they have developed an extensive root system (Van Lear and

Watt 1992). The ability of oak to germinate and to resprout following a fire gives the

species an advantage over others in these conditions.

14

Fire patterns and frequency are important factors to consider. “Long-term

persistence of savanna or open oak woodland sites requires that a dynamic balance be

maintained between mortality and ingrowth, such that neither trees nor grasses become

locally extinct” (Peterson and Reich 2001). While experimentation is still needed to

determine the best fire regime for oak woodland restoration (McPherson 1997) annual to

biennial fires are thought to produce the most rapid reduction in tree canopy density

(Peterson and Reich 2001, Faber-Langendoen and Davis 1995). Peterson and Reich

(2001) suggest setting up a frequent fire regime to decrease overstory tree density and

basal area, eliminate or suppress understory trees and shrubs, and facilitate the

development of a continuous herbaceous layer dominated by grasses. Once these

objectives are met the fire regime can be adjusted to be less rigorous in order to maintain

the structure and composition.

Prescribed fires are less common in New England than other regions of the United

States due to the wet conditions and high density of development. Thompson and

Sorenson (2005) recommend leaving areas where dry oak woodlands occur free from

structures so that there is the option of using fire as a restoration or management tool

without threatening human property. The window for burning is short due to the many

factors that must be met in order for the treatment to be successful as well as safe. Fast et

al. (2008) came up with a compilation of parameters taken from the results of several

burns done across New England. They consider weather, fuel type, fuel characteristics,

fire application, soil, vegetation, time, and a fire danger rating system to be the important

factors in determining when a prescribed fire is recommended. The weather is especially

important and may be limited by factors such as air temperature, relative humidity, wind

15

speed, wind patterns, and time since the last rain. Therefore, it may be difficult to carry

out the desired number of burns within a certain time period and mechanical cutting

would be a possible substitute.

Mechanical Cutting

Mechanical cutting is a good technique for restoring a site that can’t be burned or used in

conjunction with a burn to assist in the removal of competition from undesirable tree and

shrub species. Since dry oak woodlands tend to be small in size (Thompson and Sorenson

2005) it is possible to use hand tools such as chainsaws, pruning saws, axes, or clippers to

do the work. The sites should be managed for red oak and a ground layer dominated by

grasses and blueberry. Removing trees and shrubs competing with the dry oak woodland

vegetation will help to maintain the site. The removal of weeds and invasive plants (if

they appear) will alleviate the competition in the understory. Mechanical cutting may

speed up the restoration process if used in conjunction with a burn because species that

have become resistant to fire can be taken out.

Herbicide Application

The application of herbicide is another method for removing or controlling both canopy

or ground vegetation. It is a useful method for controlling species that sprout back or tend

to spread quickly. Possible methods include Cut and Spray for undesirable woody species

that are mixed in with the regeneration; Stem Injections used to treat trees with a diameter

at breast height (DBH) greater than 2’’; Basal Application for trees with a DBH less than

2’’; and Cut Stump for species that are resilient sprouters (Brose et al. 2008).

16

The disadvantage to using herbicide is the risk of damaging non-target species.

Using an herbicide with glyphosate will help to minimize this risk. Herbicide application

should not be used on sites that are near a potential sugarbush because this practice is

against organic certification rules for producing maple syrup. It is advisable to avoid

recreational trails so that pets and visitors are not in contact with the herbicide.

Planting

In order to get the desired species composition it may be helpful to plant or scatter seeds

of some of the dry oak woodland species especially after a disturbance such as a burn or

mechanical cutting. The sites with low levels of blueberry or grass coverage may benefit

most from an additional seed source. It is important to provide optimum conditions for

the seeds to thrive, which in the case of oak means exposed mineral soil.

Controlling or Eliminating Deer Browse

While signs of deer browse were present in the dry oak woodlands at Merck, it did not

appear to be the most important factor limiting the regeneration of oak or the loss of dry

oak woodland vegetation. However, controlling or eliminating deer from a dry oak

woodland site may help to alleviate stress and boost the ecological integrity of the site.

This can be done by instituting aggressive hunting measures, putting up a fence, or

leaving logging slash behind to protect the vegetation.

Fences are a better way of ensuring that deer stay off the site, but require more

time and resources. Brose et al. (2008) recommends using a woven wire fence because it

will last for several decades. The fence should be put up around the perimeter of the dry

17

oak woodland and would require routine inspection and occasional maintenance. The

decision to put in a fence should take into consideration the wildlife that may become

restricted.

Another solution to keeping deer from eating the dry oak woodland vegetation is

to leave slash at the site after a timber harvest. The debris restricts the access and helps to

protect oak regeneration as well as other species that are preferred (Perkins and Mautz

1987). This may take away from the open savanna feeling for visitors and restrict human

movement, but in the long run it would help to protect the site. It may also be difficult to

establish enough slash to be effective since the basal area tends to be lower in dry oak

woodland forests. Additional research on the intensity of deer browsing or other potential

predator in the dry oak woodlands at Merck can help managers make more informed

decisions.

18

METHODS

Site Description

Merck Forest and Farmland Center is located in Rupert, Vermont in the Taconic

Mountain Range (Map 1). It is 3160 acres in size. Rupert is in southwestern Vermont in

the northern limits of Bennington County. Rupert shares a boundary with Pawlet to its

North, Danby touches the northeastern corner, Dorset to the east, Manchester in the

southeastern corner, Sandgate to the South, and upstate New York to the west.

The main entrance to Merck is off of route 315, but there is also a south gate

entrance off Hidden Valley Road (Map 2). Old Town Road is the main road through the

middle of the property, but there is a total of 30 miles of roads and trails. The elevation

ranges from ~1000’ at the southern end of the property to 2600’ at the top of Mount

Antone. The bedrock is made up of metamorphosed mudstones that originated in the

Cabrian and Ordovician time and were later thrust westward during the Taconic Orogeny

to land far from its place of origin on top of Ordovician limestones (Thompson and

Sorenson 2005). The landscape at Merck is composed of a diversity of rolling hills,

bubbling creeks, fields and pasture, and second growth forest.

Remote Mapping of Potential Dry Oak Woodland Sites

The first part of my project involved identifying the target natural community and then

creating maps of potential sites where the target was likely to be found. I chose to focus

on the Dry Oak Woodland natural community because they are the only natural

community ranked as rare (S2) by the state of Vermont that is known to be present at

Merck. Thompsons and Sorenson’s natural community guide to Vermont—Wetland,

19

Woodland, Wildlands— was the main resource used to define the natural communities

and their characteristics.

The potential oak woodland site map was created in ArcMap10.0. Spatial data

taken from the Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI) website was used to

create a base map using the following overlapping layers: Merck property boundary,

aerial photograph, roads, streams, and digital elevation model (DEM) data to produce

contour lines and hillshade to highlight the southern exposed aspects. Identification of the

important oak woodland land features were taken from Thomposon and Sorenson’s

natural community guide mentioned above and included the areas where hilltops,

mountaintops, or ridges overlapped with a dry south-facing slope. Polygons were made in

ArcMap to highlight with green the eleven sites that contained the promising dry oak

woodland features mentioned above (Map 3).

Field Data Collection

The second portion of the project was broken into two parts: a rapid assessment and a

detailed site inventory. The rapid assessment was done to locate the actual oak woodland

sites from the eleven potential sites mapped remotely. The rapid assessment data

collection was done during the months of July through September 2011 and the site

inventory was done in October and November 2011.

20

Rapid Assessment

The rapid assessment was done by creating a systematic grid of sample points in each

potential dry oak woodland site using Hawth’s tools in ArcMap (Map 4). The points were

located using a handheld garmin (Dakota 20) GPS. At each point an angle gauge with a

basal area factor of 10 was used to select the trees to tally. The data recorded included the

basal areas of tree species greater than 4” diameter at breast height (DBH). Data was not

collected at points where a recent timber harvest had been conducted. A qualitative site

analysis was also done to record soil characteristics, slope, presence of invasive species,

rare plants, or other notable landmarks. From the basal area data and qualitative site

analysis I was able to identify three dry oak woodland natural communities and delineate

their boundaries using a handheld GPS and flagging tape.

Detailed Site Inventory

Once the three dry oak woodland communities were delineated additional data was taken

to compare the dry oak woodland communities to the adjacent mesic red oak-northern

hardwood forest communities at Sites 9, 10, and 11 (Map 4). Line transects in addition to

more points were generated in ArcMap and used to sample the vegetation in both natural

communities. The transects and points in the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest

were set up 100 feet from the edge of the dry oak woodland at each site. Points and

transects were located using a handheld GPS.

There were five points in each community used to collect tree sapling data.

Saplings were defined as being taller than one meter and less than 4” DBH. Sapling

species were counted within an 11.7 ft radius plot delineated with a string the length of

21

the radius attached to a tent stake. The five points in the dry oak woodland communities

were also used to collect data on the basal areas using the same variable radius plot

method used in the rapid assessment.

There were three to four transects in the dry oak woodlands and two to three

transects in the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest set up to collect data on the

vegetation and substrate cover, seedling density, and soil depth (Map 4). The transects

locations were selected in ArcMap by making two points 50ft apart, and then in the field

a measuring tape was placed on the ground between the points. A 3.7ft quadrate was

placed every five feet along the measuring tape starting on the right side and alternating

sides. R.F. Daubenmire’s plot sampling protocol was used to select the items to sample

and cover classes for measuring the percent of vegetation and substrate. Soil depths were

taken in the middle of each plot using a 45cm stake and a plastic flexible ruler. Tree

seedlings were defined as being everything smaller than 1 meter. Tree seedlings species

were counted per stem as well as given Daubenmire’s percent cover class.

Data Analysis

The quantitative data was compiled into Microsoft Excel and then displayed as

graphs and tables. Outputs include species composition of each stand based on the

Importance Value, number of saplings per acre, number of seedlings per acre, percent

cover of vegetation and substrate, and soil depth. A non-parametric Wilcoxen rank-sum

statistical test was preformed on the percent cover of vegetation and grass, as well as the

soil depth between the dry oak woodland and the mesic red oak northern hardwood forest

community. The graphs, tables, and statistical analysis as well as the qualitative data was

22

used to characterize the communities, assess the ecological integrity of the dry oak

woodlands, and provide management recommendations for the dry oak woodlands.

The Importance Value (IV) is used to determine the relative dominance of living

tree species present within a given area. The importance value is the sum of the species

relative cover, relative density, and relative frequency (Brower et al. 1998). To be able to

calculate the relative density, the diameter at breast height is required. The sampling

method used for this project did not include taking DBH measurements in order to

increase the speed of data collection. Thus, the relative density was not included in the

calculation and the IV was equal to the sum of the relative cover and relative frequency.

A summary of the calculations is as follows:

• Cover = number of each tree species X 10 (Basal Area Factor)/ total number of sampling points at the site.

• Frequency = Species points of occurrence/ total number of sampling points at the site

• Relative Cover = Species Basal Area/ Total Basal Area

• Relative Frequency = Species frequency/Total Frequency

• IV= Relative Frequency + Relative Cover

• IV as Percentage = IV/2

The dry oak woodland’s ecological integrity was assessed based on three criteria: 1)

the size and shape of the community, 2) whether the community met the site

characteristics described in the definition of a dry oak woodland, 3) and the severity of

potential threats or human disturbances. Comparisons were made between the dry oak

woodlands at Merck and the definitions of an exemplary community.

23

Site Analysis Out of the eleven potential sites only three of them were actual dry oak woodland

(DOW) natural communities (Table 1). Sites 9, 10, and 11 contained DOW

communities ranging in size from 0.9-1.4 acres. The forest surrounding the DOW is

mesic-red oak northern hardwood forest (MRONHF). Sites 1 and 2 are the red

spruce northern hardwood forests and Sites 3-8 are northern hardwood forest. It

should be noted that the DOW was the only community type to be delineated

according to forest type where as the others were analyzed by Site and may actually

contain a few community types.

Vegetation

Red Spruce Northern Hardwood Forest Community (Sites 1 & 2) The red spruce northern hardwood forest community was present at Site 1 and 2 located

in the northern portion of the property. Sites 1 and 2 totaled 26.3 acres ranging in size

from 9.2 to 17.1 acres. The dominant tree species at Site 1 and 2 was red spruce (Picea

rubens Sarg.) (Table 2). There was a significant presence of grey birch (Betula

populifolia Marsh.) and red maple at both sites, and hop-hornbeam and sugar maple at

Site 2. There were no signs of a dry oak woodland at Site 1 or 2.

24

Table 1. The natural community type, its size (acres), the total basal area (ft 2/acre), the landform type, and elevation (feet) at each site. Merck Forest: Rupert, VT. Site Natural Community Type Abbreviation Size Basal Area Landform Elevation

1 Red Spruce Northern Hardwood Forest RSNHF 9.2 148.0 Mountaintop 2200

2 Red Spruce Northern Hardwood Forest RSNHF 17.1 120.0 Slope of Hill 1900

3 Northern Hardwood Forest NHF 85.2 125.4 Ridge 2500



6 Northern Hardwood Forest NHF 17 128.3 Mountaintop 2600


8 Northern Hardwood Forest NHF 20.3 80.0 Spur Ridge 2000

9 Mesic Red Oak-Northern Hardwood Forest MRONHF 14.5 141.4 Spur Ridge 1700

9 Dry Oak Woodland DOW 1.4 120.0 Spur Ridge 1700

10 Mesic Red Oak-Northern Hardwood Forest MRONHF 16.1 125.0 Spur Ridge 1900


11 Mesic Red Oak Northern Hardwood Forest MRONHF 32.4 123.1 Spur Ridge 2400


25

Table 2. Importance Value percentage for each species at each site with dominant species highlighted in yellow. Merck Forest: Rupert, VT.

Red Spruce-Northern Mesic Red Oak-Northern Hardwood Forest Northern Hardwood Forest Hardwood Forest Dry Oak Woodland Species site 1 site 2 site 3 site 4 site 5 site 6 site 7 site 8 site 9 site 10 site 11 site 9 site 10 site 11 Am. Basswood - - 0.01 - 0.03 - 0.01 - 0.02 0.03 - - - -

Am. Beech 0.06 0.04 0.32 0.35 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.24 0.11 0.07 0.22 - 0.04 -

black birch - - 0.01 0.02 - - - 0.02 0.03 - - - - -

black cherry - 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.01 - - - - - - 0.10

grey birch 0.14 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.03 - - 0.04 0.02 - - - 0.04 -

hop-hornbeam - 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.17 0.07 - 0.24 0.23 0.05

paper birch - - 0.01 - 0.02 - 0.01 0.02 0.02 - - - - -

pin cherry - - - - - 0.03 - 0.02 - - - - - -

quaking aspen - - - - - 0.03 - - - - - - - -

red maple 0.15 0.12 - - - - - 0.09 - - - - - -

red oak 0.04 0.04 - - 0.09 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.30 0.24 0.31 0.47 0.53 0.51

red spruce 0.44 0.24 0.04 - - 0.03 0.05 0.07 - - - - - -

shadbush - - - - - - - - - - - 0.04 - -

striped maple 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.01 - - - - - - -

sugar maple 0.06 0.17 0.33 0.35 0.48 0.42 0.51 0.22 0.19 0.47 0.45 0.15 0.12 0.34

tamrack - - - 0.01 - - - - - - - - - -

white ash - 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.14 0.12 - 0.10 0.04 -

yellow birch 0.07 - 0.15 0.11 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.16 - - 0.02 - - -

total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

26

Northern Hardwood Forest Community (Sites 3-8) According to the forest management plan, the vast majority of Merck is a northern

hardwood forest (NHF) with patches of rich NHF. This held true in this project, as six out

of eleven sites were NHF (Sites 3-8). These sites were spread from east to west in the

middle portion of the property. Sites 3-8 totaled 252.7 acres ranging from 17 to 85.2acres.

The dominant tree species at Sites 3-8 were sugar maple and American beech (Fagus

grandifolia Ehrh.) (Table 2). Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton.) had a

substantial presence in the canopy at Sites 3, 4, and 8 and hop-hornbeam at Site 7. No

signs of dry oak woodland were found at these sites.

Mesic Red Oak-Northern Hardwood Forest and Dry Oak Woodland (Sites 9-11)

Small communities of dry oak woodlands (DOW) were found at Sites 9, 10 and 11 with

mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest (MRONHF) inhabiting the rest of each site. The

boundaries of the DOW community were delineated based on the species composition

and site characteristics. These sites were located at the southern portion of the property.

The dry oak woodland at sites 9 and 10 were 1.4 acres and 0.9 acres at site 11. The

MRONHF community (excluding DOW communities) total acreage was 63 acres ranging

from 14.5 to 32.4.

The dominant tree species in the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest was

sugar maple and red oak (Table 2). Species that were also prominent include, American

beech in Sites 9 and 11; white ash in Sites 9 and 10; and hop-hornbeam (Fraxinus

Americana L.) at Site 9. The dominant Species in the dry oak woodland community was

red oak (Table 2). Sugar maple was prominent in at all three Sites, and hop-hornbeam in

Sites 9 and 10.

27

Soils

The soil types at all the sites tend to be similar with the exception of the Pitstown loam

(48C&D and 49C&D) and Brayton loam (50B) which both have a seasonally high water

table (Map 5, Appendix A). The Brayton loam is found in depressions and drainages as

well as toe slopes of hills and ridges. It is poorly drained, moderately deep to dense basal

till, and very deep to bedrock. The slopes are gently sloping or nearly level (0-5% slope).

These soils are poorly suited for cultivated crops due to the stony surface. Most areas of

this map unit are in woodland, but some are used for unimproved pasture. The

productivity of growing sugar maple is low. Management concerns include equipment

limitations, seedling mortality, and windthrow due to the high water table. There is only

one occurrence of this soil type in the southeastern portion of Site 7.

The Pittstown loam has a slope of 8-25% and can be stony (49C&D) or have

relatively few stones (48C&D). It is moderately well drained, moderately deep to dense

basal till and very deep to bedrock. It is found on summits, shoulders, and backslopes of

knolls, hills, and ridges. These are productive sites for sugar maple and tend to be cleared

for cultivation unless they are stony. The management concerns include equipment

limitations, hazards of erosion, and windthrow due to the steep slopes and seasonally

high water table. The Pittstown loam series is found in Sites 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 which are

all in the northern half of the property.

All the other soil types are found on the backslopes or summits of hills and

mountains or on narrow ridges. The slopes vary in steepness from 8% to 70% with the

majority in the higher range. These soil types are well-drained, acidic, stony or rocky, and

have a moderate to rapid permeability. They have a low or very low site productivity

index for sugar maple. The management concerns, especially on the steeper slopes, are

28

erosion, equipment limitations, seedling mortality, and windthrow. These soil types tend

to be in woodland with some small areas as unimproved pasture. The difference in the

soil types is the depth; the Taconic, Hogback, and Lyman series are shallow while the

Macomber, Dutchess, Rawsonville, Tunbridge, Birkshire, and Houghtonville series are

deep.

Landscape

The land formations in which the sites were located include mountaintop, ridge, spur

ridge, and one hillside slope (Table 1). The majority of the sites were on mountain ridges

including, Sites 3,4,5,7, and 11. Site 1 and 6 were mountaintops; Sites 8, 9, and 10 were

on spur ridges; and Site 2 was on the southeastern slopes of a hill. The dry oak woodlands

were found on one ridge and at two spur ridges.

The elevation of the sites ranges from 1700’ at Site 9 in the southern portion of

the property to 2600’ at the top of Mount Antone. With the exception of Site 11 the DOW

were found at a lower elevation than most of the other sites. Site 9 was at 1700’; Site 10

was at 1900’; and site 11 was at 2400’. All of the dry oak woodlands were located in the

southern portion of the property where the majority of the red oaks forests can be found.

29

Dry Oak Woodland Analysis

Vegetation

Site 9

As mentioned earlier, red oak is the dominant species in the dry oak woodland and red

oak and sugar maple are dominant in the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest (Table

2). While the species composition is somewhat different between the two communities, it

is the tree height and spacing that makes them easy to differentiate. The dominant canopy

trees in the DOW are estimated to be 20-60 feet with the shortest trees tending to be

found in the middle of the site and on the steepest slopes. The estimated tree height in the

MRONHF is 75 feet. The greater spacing between trees in the DOW allowed more

sunlight to penetrate to the ground. While this was a qualitative observation, the lower

basal area of 120 ft2/acre in the DOW as compared to 141ft2/acre in the MRONHF

supports this notion (Table 1).

The abundance of seedling and sapling species provides a good indication of what

the canopy composition will look like in the future. The dominant seedling species in the

MRONHF of Site 9 was sugar maple; red oak and shadbush were the dominant seedling

species in the DOW (Figure 3). For saplings, American beech and striped maple (Acer

pensylvanicum L.) made up the dominant species in the MRONHF and shadbush was

dominant in the DOW (Figure 4).

30

Figure 3. Average density of seedlings per acre (± 1 Standard Error) for each species in the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland community of Site 9. Merck Forest: Rupert, VT.

Figure 4. Average density of saplings per acre (±1 Standard Error) for each species in the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland community of Site 9. Merck Forest: Rupert, VT.

1330 67

300

1633

1100

567

333

600

300100 133

0

1833

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Den

sity

(st

ems/

acre

)

Seedling Species

dry oak woodland

mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest

0

260

920

0

700

830

533

0

400

800

1200

1600

Den

sity

(st

ems/

acre

)

Sapling Species

dry oak woodland


31

The lower synusium, which is composed of substrate and ground vegetation,

provides the detailed information to fully analyze a site. There are several important

comparisons that can be made between the vegetation and substrate in the mesic red oak-

northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland. At Site 9, the average percent cover of

vegetation was significantly higher in the DOW (n=30) than the MRONHF (n=30) (Z= -

4.19, P=0.0001) (Figure 5). The percent cover of coarse woody debris (CWD) and bare

ground was higher in the MRONHF and there was slightly more exposed rock coverage

in the DOW. The average percent cover of grass was significantly higher in the DOW

(n=30) than the MRONHR (n=30) (Z=1.93, P=0.053).

Comparisons between the indicator and common species of a dry oak woodland

further help to characterize the difference between the communities. Lowbush blueberry

(Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton.) and shadbush were present in the DOW and not in the

MRONHF (Table 3). Goldenrod (Solidago spp. L.) and wood aster (Eurybia divaricata

Nesom.) were present in the MRONHF and not in the DOW. Red oak and sugar maple

are the only seedlings present in the DOW with red oak having a greater IV value.

32

Table 3. Mean percent cover (± 1 Standard Error) of the substrate and vegetation of the forest communities at Site 9. Merck Forest: Rupert, VT.

Site 9

Mesic Red Oak- Northern Hardwood Forest Dry Oak Woodland Type/Species Percent Cover Range Percent Cover Range Substrate forest litter 59.4 ± 5.1 2.5-97.5 59.4 ± 4.5 15-97.5 bare ground 12.7 ± 3.3 2.5-37.5 3.2 ± 1.8 2.5-37.5 CWD 14.7 ± 3.1 2.5-62.5 5.4 ± 1.2 2.5-15 rock 0.3 ± 0.1 2.5-2.5 1.8 ± 3.2 2.5-37.5 moss/lichen 0.9 ± 0.5 2.5-2.5 11.6 ± 4.3 2.5-62.5 Herbaceous Plants goldenrod 5.4 ± 0.7 2.5-15 0 wood aster 3 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 0 Grass 19.9 ± 5.4 2.5-97.5 28.3 ± 4 2.5-62.5 Shrub lowbush blueberry 0 21.2 ± 6.2 2.5-85 shadbush 0 3 ± 1.6 2.5-37.5 Tree seedlings ash 0.5 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 0 birch 1 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 0 cherry 0.8 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 0 maple 0.3 ± 0.5 2.5-2.5 1.3 ± 0.7 2.5-15 oak 0.3 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 6.7 ± 2.7 2.5-37.5

33

Site 9

Figure 4. Mean percent cover of the substrate and vegetation of the forest communities at Site 9. Merck Forest: Rupert VT. March 2012

Site 10

The canopy composition in Site 10 was similar to that of Site 9 with red oak dominant in

the DOW and red oak and sugar maple dominant in the MRONHF (Table 2).

The estimated tree height in the DOW was 50 feet compared to 70 feet in the MRONHF.

It is less noticeable than Site 9, but there was still a slight difference in the tree spacing

and light availability between the communities. The basal area was 125ft2/acre in the

MRONHF and 115ft2/acre in the DOW (Table 1).

The dominant seedling species in Site 10 was red oak and hop-hornbeam in both the

DOW and MRONHF with red oak density greater in the DOW (Figure 6). For the

saplings, American beech and birch were dominant in the MRONHF and low densities of

shadbush, hop-hornbeam, and a few American beech in the DOW (Figure 7).

34

Figure 6. Average density of seedlings per acre (± 1 Standard Error) for each species in the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland communities of Site 10. Merck Forest: Rupert, VT.

Figure 7. Average density of saplings per acre (± 1 Standard Error) for each species in the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland community of Site 10. Merck Forest: Rupert, VT.

75

200225

1025

3175

125

425

300 2000

13001100

0

950

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Des

nit

y (s

tem

s/ac

re

Seedling Species

dry oak woodland


330

167 217

1467

717

17 00

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Den

sity

(st

ems/

acre

Sapling Species

dry oak woodland


35

The substrate and vegetation coverage for the MRONHF and DOW at Site 10 was

close to what we would expect to see at these sites. The average vegetation cover was

higher in the DOW (n=40) than the MRONHF (n=20) (Figure 8), but was not

significantly different by a small margin (Z=1.86, P= 0.063). The average percent cover

of grass was significantly higher in the DOW (n=40) than the MRONHF (n=20)

(Z=3.666, P=0.0002). There was more forest litter in the MRONHF and more coarse

woody debris and bare ground in the DOW. There was slightly more exposed rock

present in the MRONHF.

Shadbush and lowbush blueberry are present in small amounts in the DOW and

not the MRONHF (Table 4). A few false Solomon’s Seal (Smilacina racemosa Link.)

and wood aster are present in both natural communities. The tree seedling species

diversity was greater at Site 10 than Site 9 with red oak having the greatest IV value.

36


Site 10

Mesic Red Oak- Northern Hardwood Forest Dry Oak Woodland Type/Species Percent Cover Range Percent Cover Range Substrate forest litter 78.5 ± 4.6 62.5-97.5 42.4 ± 4.4 2.5-97.5 bare ground 8.7 ± 2.6 2.5-37.5 12.7 ± 2.7 2.5-62.5 CWD 6.1 ± 2.2 2.5-15 13.2 ± 2.4 2.5-62.5 rock 6.2 ± 3.2 2.5-62.5 4.8 ± 1.5 2.5-37.5 moss/lichen 5.1 ± 2.1 2.5-37.5 7.3 ± 2.3 2.5-62.5 Herbaceous Plants Soloman’s seal 0.2 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 0.4 ± .2 2.5-2.5 wood aster 1.6 ± .7 2.5-15 0.2 ± .1 2.5-2.5 Grass 10 ± 2.5 2.5-37.5 35.4 ± 4.2 2.5-97.5 Shrub lowbush blueberry 0 0.4 ± .4 15-15 shadbush 0 0.1 ± 0.1 2.5-2.5 Tree seedlings Am. beech 0.4 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 0.5 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 ash 0.5 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 0.2 ± .1 2.5-2.5 cherry 0 0.5 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 hop-hornbeam 3.1 ± 1.2 2.5-15 2.6 ± 0.7 2.5-15 maple 3.6 ± 1.3 2.5-15 0.7 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 oak 9.9 ± 3.5 2.5-62.5 8.1 ±m1.8 2.5-37.5

37

Site 10

Figure 8. Mean percent cover of the substrate and vegetation of the forest communities at Site 10. Merck Forest: Rupert VT.

Site 11 Site 11 had a similar canopy composition to the previous Sites with red oak dominant in

the DOW and red oak and sugar maple dominant in the MRONHF (Table 2). The

estimated tree height was 50 feet in the DOW and 65 feet in the MRONHF. The overall

basal area was lower in the MRONHF at 123.1ft2/acre compared to 134ft2/acre in the

DOW (Table 1). However, the DOW still felt more open and sunny due to the fact that

the MRONHF had numerous American beech saplings.

American beech was the dominant seedling species in the MRONHF of Site 11

where as, sugar maple, red oak, and cherry, were the dominant species in the DOW

(Figure 9). In the MRONHF, American beech was the dominant sapling species

compared to hop-hornbeam in the DOW (Figure 10).

38

Figure 9. Average density of seedlings per acre (± 1 Standard Error) for each species in the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland community of Site 11. Merck Forest: Rupert, VT.

Figure 10. Average density of saplings per acre (± 1 Standard Error) for each species in the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest and dry oak woodland community of Site 11. Merck Forest: Rupert, VT.

0

100

800 950

200

1300

467

0 0 0 33

133

0

500

1000

1500D

esn

ity

(ste

ms/

acre

)

Seedling Species

dry oak woodland


40 80

2660

00

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Den

sity

(st

ems/

acre

)

Sapling Species

dry oak woodland


39

The substrate and vegetation coverage for the DOW at Site 11 was close to what

we would expect at this site. The average percent cover of vegetation was significantly

higher in the dry oak woodland (n=40) than the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest

(n=30) (Figure 11) (Z=6.673, P=0.0001). The average percent cover of grass was

significantly higher in the DOW than the MRONHF (Z=3.666, P=0.0002). There is a

higher average percent of forest litter in the MRONHF and more coarse woody debris,

and rock in the DOW. The average percent of bare ground is slightly higher in the

MRONHF.

There is blueberry present in the DOW and none in the MRONHF (Table 5).

There are more herbaceous species in the DOW with the highest amount of wood fern

(Dryopteris spp. Adans.) followed by goldenrod. Blackberry (Rubis allegheniensis

Porter.) and bindweed (Polygonum convolvulus Court.) are present in the DOW. There is

a diversity of seedling species in the DOW.

40


Site 11

Mesic Red Oak- Northern Hardwood Forest Dry Oak Woodland Type/Species Percent Cover Range Percent Cover Range Substrate forest litter 91.7 ± 2.1 37.5-97.5 47.6 ± 5.7 2.5-97.5 bare ground 2.7 ± 2.1 2.5-15 1.2 ± 0.6 2.5-15 CWD 5.7 ± 1.5 2.5-15 11.4 ± 2.5 2.5-62.5 rock 2.7 ± 2.1 2.5-62.5 8.5 ± 3.4 2.5-97.5 moss/lichen 2.7 ± 2.1 2.5-62.5 5.5 ± 2.4 2.5-62.5 Herbaceous Plants Canada mayflower 0 0.2 ± 0.1 2.5-15 goldenrod 0 2.9 ± 1 2.5-15 wild mint 0 1.2 ± 0.5 2.5-15 wood fern 2.3 ± 0.9 2.5-15 4.4 ± 1.7 2.5-37.5 Grass 5.7 ± 2.1 2.5-37.5 34.1 ± 5.6 2.5-97.5 Shrub lowbush blueberry 0 3.9 ± 2.1 2.5-62.5 blackberry 0.1 ± 0.2 2.5-2.5 5.1 ± 1.7 2.5-37.5 Tree seedlings Am. beech 0.5 ± 0.2 2.5 0 cherry 0 1.7 ±1.1 2.5-37.5 hop-hornbeam 0 7 ± 0.4 2.5-15 maple 0.25 ± 0.1 2.5-2.5 2.7 ± 0.7 2.5-15 oak 0 2 ± 0.6 2.5-15 Vine bindweed 0 3.9 ± 1.4 2.5-37.5

41

Site 11

Figure 11. Mean percent cover of the substrate and vegetation of the forest communities at Site 11. Merck Forest: Rupert VT.

Soils (MRONHF vs. DOW) As mentioned earlier, the soils in Sites 9-11 were similar to those found at the other sites

with the exception that none of the soils with a higher water table such as the Pittstown

loam (48C&D and 49C&D) or Brayton (50B) loam were present at these sites (Map 4).

The differences between the soils found in the DOW and MRONHF communities were

very slight and several of the soil types overlap (43E, 42C, 109E, and 112D).

In general, the soils supporting the DOW tended to be strongly sloping, very

rocky, excessively drained, extremely acid, and have moderate to severe management

concerns in regards to erosion hazards, equipment limitations, seedling mortality, and

windthrow (Appendix A). The soil types in the DOW included: Taconic-Macomber

Complex with 25-60% slopes (43E) in Sites 9 and 10; a small amount of Macomber-

Taconic Complex 8-15% slopes (42C) in Site 10; Turnbridge Birkshire Complex with 15-

42

25% slopes (109E) and Rawsonville-Hogback Complex with 15-25% in Site 11. The

soils of the MRONHF tended to be somewhat less harsh with moderately steep slopes,

deep well drained soils, and overall less severe management concerns. The soils in the

MRONHF that were not in the DOW include Dutchess Channery loam with 15-60%

slopes at all three sites, and Turnbridge Lyman with 15-25% slopes at Site 11.

On average the soil in the MRONHF was 6.6cm deeper than the soil in the DOW

(Table 6). The soil depth in the dry oak woodland (n=30) was significantly deeper than

that of the mesic red oak-northern hardwood forest (n=30) in Sites 9 (Z=2.869, P= 0.004)

and 11 (Z=3.986, P= 0.0001). There was no significant difference in soil depth at Site 10

(Z=1.739, P= 0.082). The range starts at zero in the DOW in all three sites indicating that

at some of the sample points there was rock and no soil. The range was much larger in

the MRONHF with the higher end of the range being much greater than that of the DOW.

Table 6. Average soil depth in centimeter (± 1 Standard Error) in the DOW and MRONHF communities of Sites 9-11. Mesic Red Oak- Site Northern Hardwood Forest Range Dry Oak Woodland Range 9 18.9 ± 1.9 5.5-45.0 11.4 ± 1.4 0-19.0 10 11.4 ± 1.4 2.0-38.0 7.1 ± 0.9 0-18.5 11 15.1 ± 1.5 3.0-25.5 7.1 ± 1.1 0-21.5 9-11 15.1 ± 1.7 2.0-45.0 8.5 ± 1.2 0-21.5

43

Landscape (DOW 9-11) The dry oak woodland communities were all found on sites in the southern portion of

Merck’s boundary. The DOW in Sites 9 and 10 was located on spur slopes facing directly

south with southeasterly and southwesterly exposure on either side. DOW 9 and 10 are in

close proximity and separated by a patch of forest where a seed tree harvest took place in

2007 in hopes of regenerating oak. DOW 11 is different from 9 and 10 in that it is

located on a narrow ridge with a southeastern aspect. At the top edge of the ridge and the

northwestern boundary of DOW 11 are Masters Mountain Trail and the edge of the

property. Plant species uncharacteristic to dry oak woodland such as bindweed,

goldenrod, and blackberry were growing rampantly along the trail and appeared to be

spreading into the DOW. There is also a trail going through DOW 9, but the impacts

appear to be less severe.

Ecological Integrity

Dry Oak Woodland 9

Based on appearance DOW 9 is by far the most ecologically intact out of the three sites.

Grass species and blueberry are abundant in the understory, shadbush is present in the

midstory, and oaks make up the canopy. The dry oak woodland community description of

the short, gnarled, trees spaced at a distance is exactly what it looks like in Site 9. There

is a healthy population of oak seedlings, but they are not being recruited into the sapling

stage. Many of the seedling are what is known as “flat top oaks” meaning that they are

small like a normal oak seedling, but have larger leaves, more extensive root system, and

are several years old. They are waiting until the required resources, such as light and

44

sometimes water, are available so that they can grow quickly up into the canopy (Van

Lear and Watt 1992).

While the appearance of the dry oak woodland at site 9 looked like an exemplary

community type, the sugar maples encroaching upon the canopy and the surprisingly high

level of forest litter in the understory are concerning. The increase in sugar maples and

forest littler may lead to a change in species composition and degradation of the dry oak

woodland community. Another factor that could harm the ecological integrity of the site

is the trail that runs through the middle of the community. The trail can be a vector for

unwanted species, and trampling of sensitive vegetation or coarse woody debris can alter

the site.

Dry Oak Woodland 10

Despite many similarities in the landscape, DOW 10 does not have the same ecological

integrity as DOW 9. It is not as easily recognizable as a dry oak woodland because the

trees are much taller and straighter and less light penetrates the forest floor. There was

only a very small patch of lowbush bluberry. The dense populations of beech and birch

saplings that are starting to come into the DOW community is of great concern. Similar

to site 9, sugar maple is becoming a large component of the canopy and will start to

dominate if new oaks are not recruited.

While DOW 10 did not have the same canopy characteristics as site 9 there were

some aspect of the site that contributes to its ecological integrity. The oak seedling

population is greater at site 10 than at 9. There is also more coarse woody debris, exposed

rock, and bare ground typical of dry oak woodlands. While there is a trail and cabin for

45

visitor use nearby, there is probably less human disturbance to the community than the

other DOW’s.

Dry Oak Woodland 11

Dry oak woodland 11 is also not as ecologically intact as DOW 9. The trees are

somewhat short and gnarled, but the small, narrow size of the community is a concern.

Dow 10 is surrounded by a thick beech scrub forest in addition to the hiking trail. Sugar

maple seedlings are more abundant than oak seedlings and cherry saplings can be seen

growing in the middle of the community. Other species appear to be coming in from the

hiking trail such as bindweed, blackberry, and goldenrod. There is more lowbush

blueberry than at DOW 10, but much less than DOW 9. Without restoration it appears

that this dry oak woodland community will not persist.

46

Specific Management Recommendations

There are a number of possible restoration treatments that can be applied to the dry oak

woodlands at Merck, which have been discussed in the introduction of this report. While

it may be feasible to conduct most of these treatments to each site, priority should be

given to those sites with the greatest ecological integrity. It is important to prioritize the

sites in order to have a greater success rate. Treatments may also be restricted or not

feasible due to site conditions or limited time and resources.

Fire is likely the best management technique for accomplishing the desired results

at each of the dry oak woodlands communities at Merck. Most resource professionals

find prescribed burns to be the best way to regenerate oak and recruit it into the canopy

(Brose et al. 2008, Loftis and McGee 1993, Abrams 1992, Lorimor 1992, Smith 1992).

Fire would also remove some of the sugar maples to open up the canopy and promote an

understory dominated by grasses and blueberry. Slash and other fuel accumulation should

be removed from the base of the residual oak trees to prevent fire damage.

A fire regime with a high frequency should be set in place until the sites

composition is restored. Due to the difficulties in doing a prescribed burn in New

England a burn every 5 years would be a reasonable goal. The dry oak woodland should

be monitored after the fire treatment in order to track accomplishments and make

informed decisions for future management strategies. Mechanical cutting can be used in

conjunction with a burn to eliminate the undesirable species that may be too large to be

killed in a fire or to help maintain the site until it is possible to burn. The application of

herbicide can be used on species that sprout back or spread quickly. Planting can be done

to build up a seed bank to promote the dry oak woodland vegetation in places where grass

or blueberry maybe lacking.

47

Deer browse does not appear to be a significant issue in Merck’s dry oak

woodlands but may be a stressor thereby decreasing the ecological integrity of these sites.

Hunting is popular on the Merck property and should be maintained to help keep large

deer populations from harming the dry oak woodland vegetation. Leaving slash behind

after a harvest would also help prevent the deer from entering the dry oak woodlands.

Fencing is not advisable due to the cost and energy it would require to maintain. It is

important that when monitoring the dry oak woodlands in the future the deer browse

intensity is incorporated so that more extreme measures of controlling deer can be taken

if need be.

There is the potential to involve researchers, educators, and the general public to

follow the restoration of Merck’s DOW’s from start to finish. While some of these

management options may require substantial funds, eliciting public interest should be

easy and may help to offset the cost. In the very least, before and after photos should be

taken of restoration efforts.

Dry Oak Woodland 9

The dry oak woodland at Site 9 is 1.4 acres in size and with less restoration effort

than the other sites, it has the potential be a conservation success story and a major asset

to Merck. The ecological integrity is relatively intact in DOW 9, and therefore it should

be given preference over the other sites. Plans to do a prescribed burn in the spring in the

near future (within the next 5 years) depending on weather (Map 5). After the burn it may

be advisable to mechanically remove some of the undesirable tree species that may have

grown too large to be killed by fire. Planting is probably not necessary since there is

already a high enough coverage of dry oak woodland vegetation present; however there is

48

the opportunity to introduce white oak or chestnut oak. The introduction of additional oak

species would improve the wildlife potential and the overall diversity and integrity of the

site.

In the case that this site is not burned this year or in the next few years dry oak

woodland 9 can probably be left alone for several years and there would be no major

changes to the composition. However, it may be beneficial to cut down some of the

undesirable trees and saplings to bring additional sunlight to the understory vegetation. A

small crew could accomplish this in few hours since the site is small and only a few trees

would need to be felled. Herbicide would not be necessary at this site since there does not

appear to be a significant presence of weeds or re-sprouting trees. The trail that runs

through the DOW community does not appear to be a major disturbance but efforts to

monitor visitor impacts to the site should be taken into consideration.

Dry Oak Woodland 10

Dry oak woodland 10 is 1.4 acres in size and less ecologically intact than Site 9

and therefore it should be less of a priority and will require more effort. A prescribed

burn may be feasible at this site, but extra caution will need to be taken to keep the fire

away from Nenorod Cabin, which is in close proximity. Restricting additional structures

from being built near this site will help insure the opportunity of restoring this site with a

prescribed burn.

While fire is probably the best technique to restore this dry oak woodland and

may even be required for the continuation of its existence, in the short-term, mechanical

removal of the non-oak canopy and sapling species will help to maintain the site. The

beech whips can be controlled with herbicide or repetitive cutting. The DOW vegetation

49

may also benefit from a 50-foot buffer of saplings cut in the adjacent mesic red oak-

northern hardwood forest. Removing the saplings will be more successful if done in a

five-year interval. Monitoring the site after each treatment will be important so that

management strategies can be adjusted as needed. Planting lowbush blueberry after the

canopy and midstory has been opened up could speed up the process of increasing its

coverage in the understory and thereby improving the integrity of the site.

Dry Oak Woodland 11 Dry oak woodland at site 11 is the smallest in size at 0.9 acres and will take a

substantially greater effort to reach the same level of ecological integrity as Site 9. The

shape of the community is also long and narrow, which further decreases its integrity by

having so much edge habitat and little to no core habitat. Therefore treating a large buffer

zone of 100 ft in the mesic red oak northern hardwood forest would create the potential to

expand the size of the dry oak woodland. In addition to treating the undesirable species it

is advisable to re-route Master’s Mountain Trail, as it appears to be a vector for weeds

and potential invasive plants to become established.

The low seedling density for red oak and higher density for sugar maple indicates

that DOW 11 would benefit from a burn or regeneration cut. A prescribed burn would be

the best way to prepare the site for oak seeds to germinate and grow. If fire is a possible

treatment either now or in the future it is important that no structures are built in the

vicinity. The northwestern edge of DOW 11 is right on the property line, but with

communication with the adjacent landowner and a substantial fire line it would be

feasible to burn.

50

If fire is not a possible prescription for site 11 than a regeneration cut with

scarification of the soil will improve the chances of red oak becoming established on this

site. However scarification of the soil is difficult without the use of heavy equipment,

which may be limited by the steep slopes there. It will take a fair amount of effort to

restore DOW 11 and the question of whether fire is required to maintain this community

type is important to the course of actions taken.

51

Conclusion Out of the three dry oak woodlands communities found at Merck Forest only one of them

had its ecological integrity relatively intact. To make the best use of resources and time,

efforts should be targeted to the healthiest dry oak woodland to maintain and enhance its

structure and composition. Fire appears to be the most suitable restoration method but

may be supplemented with mechanical cutting or herbicide. Additional research on

whether fire is vital to the persistence of dry oak woodland communities in New England

and what fire regime would be the best are important topics that will increase our

understanding of these communities. Management decisions and sustainable practices

should be implemented with care to protect these important natural resources in order to

add to the biodiversity of the region and the future health of the forest ecosystem.

52

Map 1. Location of Merck Forest in context of the state of Vermont and the town of Rupert.

53

Map 2. Trail map for Merck Forest and Farmland Center in Rupert Vermont.

54

Map 3. Dry oak woodland potential sites based on topography and southern aspect.

55

Map 4. Sampling method depicting points and transects at each of the eleven sites and three oak woodland communities.

56

Map 5. Soil types at each of the eleven potential sites at Merck Forest. Data taken from Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey.

57

Map 6. Location of future controlled burn.

58

References

Abrams, M.D., and J.A. Downs. 1990. Successional replacement of old-growth white oak by mixed-mesophytic hardwoods in southwest Pennsylvania. Can. J. Res. 20:1864-1870.

Abrams, M.D. 1990 Adaptations and responses to drought in Quercus species of North

America. Tree Physiol. 7: 227-238. Abrams, M.D. 1992. Fire and the Development of Oak Forest: In eastern North America,

oak distribution reflects a variety of ecological paths and disturbance conditions. Bioscience. 42:346-354.

Anderson R.C., J.S. Fralish., and J.M.Baskin. 1999. Savannas, barrens, and rock outcrop

plant communities of North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. Brose, P.H., K.W. Gottschalk., S.B. Horsley., P.D. Knop., J.N. Kochendenderfer., B.J.

McGuiness., G.W. Miller., T.E. Ristau., S.H. Stoleson., and S.L. Stout. 2008. Prescribing regeneration treatments for mixed oak forest in the Mid Atlantic Region. General Technical Report NRS-33. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 14-39. 100p.

Brower, J.E., J.H. Zar., and C. von Ende. 1998 Field Labroatory Methods for General

Ecology, 4th Edition. WCB McGraw-Hill Publishers, Boston, MA. Brudvig L.A., and H. Asbjornsen., 2005. Oak regeneration before and after Initial

Restoration Efforts in Tall Grass Oak Savanna. American Midland Naturalist. 153: 180-186.

Buckley, D.S., T.L.Sharik. J.G. Isbrands. 1998. Regeneration of Northern Red Oak:

Positive and Negative Effects of Competitor Removal. Ecology. 79: 65-78. Cogbill, Charles V. (n.d.)"Land Use at Merck Forest & Farmland Center 1761 to the

Present (Brochure)." Merck Forest and Farmland Center. Retrieved from<http://merckforest.org/Land_Use_history.pdf>.

Creque J.A. Basset, S.D. and West, N.E. 1999. Viewpoint: Delineating ecological sites.

Range Management 52:546-549. Crow, T.R. 1988. Reproductive mode and mechanisms for self-replacement of northern

red oak (Quercus rubra): a review. Forest Science. 34: 19-40. Dale, V.H., S. Brow., R.A. Haeuber, n.T. Hobbs., N. Hontly.,R.J. Naiman., W.E.

Riebsame., M.G. Turner., and T.J. Valone. 2000. Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological Applications 10:639-670.

59

DeGraaf, R.M., M. Yamasaki., W.B. Leak., A.M. Lester. 2005. Landowner’s guide to Wildlife Habitat Forest Management for the New England Region. University of Vermont Press, Univeristy of New England. ISBN 1-58465-487-8.

Dorney, C.H., and J.R. Dorney. 1989. An unusual oak savanna in northeastern

Wisconsin: the effects of Indian-caused fire. Am. Midi Nat. 122:103-113. Duabenmire, R.F. fixed Area Sampling. April 3, 2011 <http://www.cbrestoration

.noaa.gov/documents/cb-mon1m.pdf>

"Endangered Species Program: Home Page." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home. 12 Oct. 2011. Web. 05 Jan. 2012. <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/>.

Engstrom, Brett. 2008. Identification, assessment, and mapping of natural communities in

Woodstock, Vermont unpublished report prepared for the Woodstock Conservation Commission.

Fabor-Langendoen, D., and M.A. Davis. 1995. Effects of fire frequency on tree canopy

cover at Allison Savanna, east central Minnesota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 15: 319-328.

Fabor-Langendoen, D., and J.R. Tester. 1993. Oak mortality in sand savannas following

drought in east-central Minnesota. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 120:248-256.

Fast, A.J., M.J. Ducey., and R.R. Weyrick. 2008. Common Prescribed Burning

Prescription Parameters in Northeastern fuels. Natural Resource Network. A project of New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station and the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. 001885_Rep2734.

Galford, J., L.R. Auchmoody., H.C. Smith., and R.S. Walters. 1991. Insects affecting

establishment of northern red oak seedlings in central Pennsylvania. Proceedings, 8th Central Hardwood Forest conference;1991 March 4-6; University Park, PA. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 271-280.

Hagar, J.C and M.A. Stern. 2001. Avifauna in the oak woodlands of the Willamette

Valley, Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82:12-25. Hunter, W.C., D.A. Buchler., R.A. Canterbury., J.L. Confer., and P.B. Hammel. 2001.

Conservation of Disturbance-Dependent Birds in Eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:440-455.

Leak, W. B. 1982. Habitat Mapping and Interpretation in New England. Northeastern

Forest Experiment Station. Research paper NE-496.

60

Leonard, S.G., G.J. Staidl., K.A. Gebhardt., D.E. Richard. 1992. Viewpoint: range site/ecological site information requirements for classification of riverine riparian ecosystems. J. Range Management.45: 431-435

Loftis, D., and C.E. McGee. 1993 Oak Regeneration: Serious problems, practical

recommendations. Symposium Proceedings; 1992 September 8-10; Knoxville, Tennessee. Presented by the Center for Oak Studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-84. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 3 19 pp .

Lorimer, C.G. 1985. The role of fire in the perpetuation of oak forest: Challenges in oak

management and Utilization. Cooperative extension Service, University of Wisconsin, Madison. p 8-25.

Lorimer, C. 1992. The role of fire in oak regeneration. Symposium Proceedings; 1992

September 8-10; Knoxville, Tennessee. Presented by the Center for Oak Studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-84. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 66-78 pp .

McPherson G.R. 1997. Ecology and Management of North American Savannas.

University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, Arizona, USA. Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III2., and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United

States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. United States Department of the Interior National Biological Service Biological Report 28, Washington DC USA.

Olsen, C.W. 2002. Forest Ecosystems Management Plan for the lands of Merck forest

and Farmland Center. Unpublished. Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.P., and Unnach, R.S. 2003. Are we conserving what we say we

are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. BioScience 53:851-860. Perkins, P.J., and W.W. Mautz. 1987. Acorn usage by deer: Sighnificance of oak

management. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 4:124-128. Peterson, D.W. and P.B. Reich. 2001. Prescribed fire in oak savanna: fire frequency

effects on stand structure and dynamics. Ecological Applications 11:914-927. Sanders, I.L. 1988. Guidelines for regenerating Appalachian oak stands. IN: Proceedings

guidelines for regenerating Appalachian hardwood stands. SAF Publication. 88-03. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University: 189-198.

61

Smith, D.M. 1992. Oak regeneration: the scope of the problem. Symposium Proceedings: oak regeneration: serious problems, practical recommendations; 1992 September 8-10; Knoxbille, TN. General Technical Report SE-84. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 40-53.

Stan, A.B., L.S. Rigg., and L.S. Jones. 2006. Dynamics of a managed oak woodland in

Northeastern Illinois. Natural Areas Journal 26:187-197 Stedman, Connor. "Oak Woodland Ridgetop Bliss-Out | Renewing the Commons."

Renewing the Commons | Reflections on Tending the Wild and the Commons across North America. 16 Mar. 2011. Web. 23 Nov.2011. <http://renewingthecommons.wordpress.com//2011/03/16/oak-woodland-ridgetop/>.

Tierney, G.L., D. Fabor-Langendoen., B.R. Mitchell., W.G. Schriver., and J.P. Gibbs.

2009. Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Enviroment: 7:308-316

Thompson, Elizabeth and Sorenson, Eric. 2005. Wetland, Woodland, and Wildland: A

Guide to the Natural Communities of Vermont. The Nature Conservancy and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1998. Soil Survey of Bennington County

Vermont. National Cooperative Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station).

Unnasch, R.S., D. P. Braun, P. J. Comer, G. E. Eckert. 2009. The Ecological Integrity

Assessment Framework: A Framework for Assessing the Ecological Integrity of Biological and Ecological Resources of the National Park System. Report to the National Park Service.

Van Lear, D.H., and J.M. Watt. 1992. Causes of the oak regeneration problem.

Symposium Proceedings: oak regeneration: serious problems, practical recommendations; 1992 September 8-10; Knoxbille, TN. General Technical Report SE-84. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 14-39.

Woods, K. 1999. Merck Forest Vegetation Inventory: progress report. Unpublished.

62

Appendix A. Soils associated with the oak woodland potential sites at Merck Forest.

Soil Code

Soil Name Slope Management Concerns Productivity Erosion Hazard1

Wind Throw2

Species Site Index3

42C Macomber-Taconic Complex

8-15% rocky

Slight Slight/Sev Paper birch Sugar maple Red oak

53-60 50-65 50-70

42D Macomber-Taconic Complex

15-25% rocky

Moderate Slight/Sev Sugar maple Paper birch Red oak

50-65 53-60 50-70

42E Macomber-Taconic Complex

15-25% rocky

Moderate Slight/Sev Sugar maple Paper birch Red oak

50-65 53-60 50-70

43E Taconic Macomber Complex

25-60% very rocky

Severe Mod/Sev Red oak Paper birch Sugar maple

50-70 53-60 50-65

47D Duchess channery loam

15-25% very stony

Moderate Slight White pine Red oak Sugar maple

66 62 60

47E Duchess Channery loam

25-60% very stony

Severe Slight White pine Red oak Sugar maple

66 62 60

48C Pittstown loam 8-15% Slight Moderate White pine Sugar maple Red oak

80 66 72

48D Pittstown loam 15-25% Moderate Moderate White pine Sugar maple Red oak

80 66 72

49C Pittstown loam 8-15% very stony

Slight Moderate White pine Sugar maple Red oak

80 66 72

49D Pittstown loam 15-25% very stony

Moderate Moderate White pine Sugar maple Red oak

80 66 72

50B Brayton loam 0-5%

Slight Severe Paper birch White pine Red maple

60 67 65

96F

Hogback-Rawsonville-rock outcrop complex

25-70% very stony

Severe Severe Sugar maple Red oak White pine

50 63 55

109C

Tunbridge-Birkshire Complex

8-15% rocky

Slight Slight/Mod White pine White ash Sugar maple

50-72 62-65 52-60

109D Tunbridge-Birkshire Complex

15-25% rocky

Moderate Slight/Mod White pine White ash Sugar maple

50-72 62-65 52-60

63

Continuation of Appendix A.

1Erosion Hazard – the probability that erosion can occur as a result of site preparation or cutting. Slight – no particular measures need to be taken to prevent erosion under normal conditions Moderate – erosion control measures are needed for silviculture activities Severe – special precautions are necessary to control erosion in most silviculture activities

2Wind Throw – the likelihood that trees will be uprooted by the wind Slight – no trees are normally uprooted by the wind Moderate – moderate or strong winds occasionally uproot trees when soil is wet Severe – moderate or strong winds may blow down many trees when soil is wet

3Site Index – average height in feet that a dominant or codominant tree can reach in a specified number of years. Source: United States Department of Agriculture. 1998. Soil Survey of Rutland County Vermont.

National Cooperative Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station).

109E

Tunbridge-Birkshire Complex

25-50% rocky

Severe Slight/Mod White pine White ash Sugar maple

50-72 62-65 52-60

111E

Rawsonville-Houghtonville Complex

25-60% rocky

Severe Slight/Mod White ash Am. beech Sugar maple

65-67 64-65 60

112D

Rawsonville-Hogback Complex

15-25% very rocky

Severe Mod/Sev Am. Beech Red spruce Sugar Maple

64 42-45 50-60

112E

Rawsonville-Hogback Complex

25-60% Very rocky

Severe Mod/Sev Am. Beech Red spruce Sugar Maple

64 42-45 50-60

116F

Lyman-Tunbridge-Rock outcrop Complex

25-70 very stony

Severe Mod/Sev Red spruce White spruce Sugar maple

40-50 55 50-60

118D

Tunbridge-Lyman Complex

15-25% very rocky

Moderate Mod/Sev Red spruce White spruce Sugar maple

40-50 55 50-60

118E

Tunbridge-Lyman Complex

25-60% very rocky

Severe Mod/Sev Red spruce White spruce Sugar maple

40-50 55 50-60

64

Appendix B. Species list of all plants found at the potential sites at Merck Forest, East Rupert VT. March 2012 Common name Scientific name Family Habitat preference Angiosperm Trees red maple Acer rubrum Aceraceae generalist sugar maple Acer saccharum Aceraceae ecoindicator: mesic uplands black birch Betula lenta Betulaceae generalist paper birch Betula papyrifera Betulaceae generalist grey birch Betula populifolia Betulaceae generalist yellow birch Betula alleghaniensis Betulaceae moist well drained sites hop-hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Betulaceae ecoindicator: rich, dry woods American beech Fagus grandifolia Fagaceae generalist red oak Quercus rubra Fagaceae dry warm sites white ash Fraxinus Americana Oleacea ecoindicator: moist uplands pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica Rosaceae areas with fire history black cherry Prunus serotina Rosaceae areas with fire history bigtooth aspen Populua grandidentata Salicaceae dry or moist soils quaking aspen Populus tremiloides Salicaceae generalist Am. basswood Tilia Americana Tiliaceae ecoindicator: rich moist forests Gymnosperm trees red spruce Picea rubens Pinaceae ecoindicator: acidic, cool, moist sites Tamarack Larix laricina Pinaceae planted Shrubs and Vines striped maple Acer pensylvanicum Aceraceae generalis lowbush blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium Ericaceae ecoindicator: dry acidic sites black bindweed Polygonum convolvulus Polygonaceae disturbed areas shadbush Amelanchier Rosaceae generalist blackberry Rubis alleghenniensis Rosaceae disturbed areas Herbaceous goldenrod Solidago spp. Asteraceae generalist wood aster Eurybia divaricatus Asteraceae woods wood fern Dryopteris spp. Dryopteridaceae woods false Sol. Seal Smilacina racemosa Liliaceae woods Canada mayflower Maianthemum canadensis Liliaceae woods wild mint Mentha arvensis Lamiaceae moist sites

Department of Environmental Studies

MASTERS PROJECT COMMITTEE PAGE

The undersigned have examined the project entitled: Rapid Assessment of Dry Oak Woodland Natural Communities at Merck Forest in Rupert, VT presented by Heather O’Wril candidate for the degree of Master of Science and hereby certify that it is accepted*. Committee chair name Peter Palmiotto, DF Core Faculty and Director of Conservation Biology, Department of Environment Studies Date Approved by all committee members: Date Submitted to the Registrar’s Office: *Signatures are on file with the Registrar’s Office at Antioch University New England.

Rapid Assessment of Dry Oak Woodland Natural Communities at ...

Documents

Transcript of Rapid Assessment of Dry Oak Woodland Natural Communities at ...