Ecological Classification Systems in Forests chaired by Louise Levy and Tony D’Amato

Ecosystem Classification in the Central Rocky Mountains, Utah

Antonin Kusbach et al. — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:40:00 PDT

Currently there is no comprehensive terrestrial ecosystem classification for the Central Rocky Mountains of the United States. Fundamentals of the British Columbian biogeoclimatic classification system, together with elements of the Daubenmire habitat type, Mueggler community type, and the USDA Forest Service Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory approaches, were used to develop a classification of ecosystems in a montane-subalpine watershed (10,000 ha, 2,000 - 3,000 m elevation) in northern Utah. As is typical in the Central Rocky Mountains, vegetation complexity within the watershed is associated with a steep elevation gradient, as well as great diversity in landform, parent material, and disturbance history. An exploration of fundamental drivers associated with diverse vegetation and feasible stratification of that heterogeneous landscape is a main research objective. We sampled both forest (spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, aspen, juniper, and mahogany woodland) and non-forest (willow riparian, sagebrush, tall forb meadow) ecosystems in terms of existing plant communities, topo-edaphic, and physiognomic features; 163 sites were described in the watershed in terms of, e.g., elevation, landform, slope, aspect, nutrient pools and dynamics. We used SNOTEL and COOP databases for relevant climatic data. We analyzed this complex dataset by ordination and classification to gain insight into fundamental factors/gradients associated with diverse vegetation. Mesoclimate (regional climate) effectively discriminates between three vegetation zones (vegetation-climatic classification) and serves as the basic framework for site classification. For each zone, we are able to construct an edatopic grid with axes represented by topo-edaphic regime (local climate) and soil nutrient regime. These three principal gradients account together for half of the total variance in the dataset. The ecosystem classification provides considerable insight into the distribution of, and ecological relationships between, different ecosystems (e.g., conifer, aspen, woodland, and riparian/wetland).

Ecological Subregions of the Conterminous United States

William Henry McNab et al. — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:00:00 PDT

Subregions are ecosystems of mesoscale size occurring between macroscale ecoregions of national extent and landscape units of subregional area within the U.S. Forest Service hierarchical classification framework of ecological units. The objective of this multi-disciplinary project was to develop a consistent national map of subregions from regional map products that had been developed independently by regional teams working with academic and conservation groups knowledgeable of ecosystems at local and state scales. Regional maps were joined and ecosystems were reviewed for consistency by a small national team consisting of representatives from each regional group. The national map received additional independent review for revision and refinement of ecosystems. The rationale and methodology for delineation of ecosystems shown on the map 'Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections of the Conterminous United States' are described in this report. Components of climate, geology, landform, soils and vegetation were integrated to form 190 sections and 1,234 subsection map units. This map represents the first approximation of ecological units at the subregion scale in the western U.S. and is a refinement of a 1995 map of Eastern subregions. Following its publication in 2007, the subregions map provides a basis for ecological mapping on Forest Service lands at the next lower finer scale: landtype associations. Case studies demonstrate use of the subregion map for ecosystem analysis in the Great Lakes Area and Appalachian Mountains in the southern United States. The 2007 map of subregions, supporting documents on methodology and databases of selected environmental data are available on CD. *Note: This abstract supplements and updates a preliminary report on the same topic that was presented, but not published, at the 2007 NAFEW, in Vancouver.

Evaluating the Certificate Course in Ecosystem Silviculture: Applying ECS Information to Forest Management Activities

L. Levy — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:20:00 PDT

Forest researchers and managers in the United States have been aware of ecological classification systems (ECS) for over 30 years but in Minnesota ECS’s are not yet used regularly statewide in forest management decisions and activities. As interest in an understanding of the value of ecological information to forest management increases, how can we determine if ECS information is actually being used in resource management activities and planning? This study assessed effectiveness and impact on trainees of the Certificate Course in Ecosystem Silviculture. We looked at the following hypotheses: a) Competency in knowledge and field skills facilitates incorporating ECS information into everyday forest management activities and b) ECS information used in forest management activities should be visible in timber sale documents. The 80 resource managers from tribal, county, state, federal, private and NGO organizations participated in this intensive short course coordinated by the University of Minnesota Sustainable Forests Education Cooperative between July 2005 and June 2009. Managers provided plans written before and after the short course so that we could establish a baseline of use and then determine if and to what extent course learnings were being incorporated into standard operating procedures. In addition, these managers were evaluated at specific times during the short course to assess their understanding of key forestry concepts and principles, and to identify potential challenges to knowledge and skill acquisition. This presentation will outline the findings of this study, and discuss future directions for training in and use of ecological classification systems in forest management.