识别老树为美国中部岩石山脉山地森林的生态恢复提供信息

IF 1.1 4区 农林科学 Q3 FORESTRY Tree-Ring Research Pub Date : 2019-03-01 DOI:10.3959/1536-1098-75.1.34
P. Brown, Benjamin M. Gannon, M. Battaglia, P. Fornwalt, L. Huckaby, A. Cheng, L. Baggett
{"title":"识别老树为美国中部岩石山脉山地森林的生态恢复提供信息","authors":"P. Brown, Benjamin M. Gannon, M. Battaglia, P. Fornwalt, L. Huckaby, A. Cheng, L. Baggett","doi":"10.3959/1536-1098-75.1.34","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Old trees (defined here as ≥150 years old) can be rare in many forests because of past timber harvest, uncharacteristically severe wildfires, and – increasingly – climate change. Old trees provide unique structural, ecological, scientific, and aesthetic values missing in forests containing only younger trees. Here we compile crossdated ages from over 10,000 living and dead trees sampled in montane forests of the central Rocky Mountains in Colorado and southern Wyoming, USA, to examine changes in age structure of the oldest trees since Euro-American settlement and to provide guidelines to aid in identification of old trees for retention during ecological restoration treatments. Eroded stumps (containing only heartwood) were found in over 93% of 179 randomly sampled plots. Number of stumps found in each plot was proportional to reconstructed historical (1860 C.E.) stand basal area. The regional median date of maximum plot tree recruitment was over 150 years older when including stumps versus only living trees, suggesting that if all those harvested trees had survived to the present, the ages of oldest trees would be substantially greater than it is today. However, the regional median age of oldest trees in 1860 before harvesting was not different from the median age of oldest living trees in the current forest (246 vs. 248 years), which alternatively suggests that the regional population of oldest trees has recovered to near historical levels in the time since early Euro-American harvests. Each living tree at the time of sampling was assigned to one of three potential age classes based on a subjective assessment of tree morphology: old (likely ≥150 years old), young (likely <150 years old), or transitional (containing a mixture of young and old tree characteristics). Trees assigned to the old and young morphology categories were classified correctly 88% to 96% of the time depending on species as confirmed by their crossdated ages. Regression tree analysis revealed that tree diameter at breast height was not as reliable a predictor of tree age as were morphological characteristics. A measure of site productivity was a significant variable to use to separate transitional morphology trees into old and young age classes, but classification accuracy was not high because of large variability in ages of these trees. Our results suggest that residual live old trees in the current forest, although perhaps not rare compared to historical age distributions, should be retained during restoration treatments, and that using simple morphological and environmental criteria to identify old trees is more reliable than tree size alone.","PeriodicalId":54416,"journal":{"name":"Tree-Ring Research","volume":"75 1","pages":"34 - 48"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"IDENTIFYING OLD TREES TO INFORM ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION IN MONTANE FORESTS OF THE CENTRAL ROCKY MOUNTAINS, USA\",\"authors\":\"P. Brown, Benjamin M. Gannon, M. Battaglia, P. Fornwalt, L. Huckaby, A. Cheng, L. Baggett\",\"doi\":\"10.3959/1536-1098-75.1.34\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Old trees (defined here as ≥150 years old) can be rare in many forests because of past timber harvest, uncharacteristically severe wildfires, and – increasingly – climate change. Old trees provide unique structural, ecological, scientific, and aesthetic values missing in forests containing only younger trees. Here we compile crossdated ages from over 10,000 living and dead trees sampled in montane forests of the central Rocky Mountains in Colorado and southern Wyoming, USA, to examine changes in age structure of the oldest trees since Euro-American settlement and to provide guidelines to aid in identification of old trees for retention during ecological restoration treatments. Eroded stumps (containing only heartwood) were found in over 93% of 179 randomly sampled plots. Number of stumps found in each plot was proportional to reconstructed historical (1860 C.E.) stand basal area. The regional median date of maximum plot tree recruitment was over 150 years older when including stumps versus only living trees, suggesting that if all those harvested trees had survived to the present, the ages of oldest trees would be substantially greater than it is today. However, the regional median age of oldest trees in 1860 before harvesting was not different from the median age of oldest living trees in the current forest (246 vs. 248 years), which alternatively suggests that the regional population of oldest trees has recovered to near historical levels in the time since early Euro-American harvests. Each living tree at the time of sampling was assigned to one of three potential age classes based on a subjective assessment of tree morphology: old (likely ≥150 years old), young (likely <150 years old), or transitional (containing a mixture of young and old tree characteristics). Trees assigned to the old and young morphology categories were classified correctly 88% to 96% of the time depending on species as confirmed by their crossdated ages. Regression tree analysis revealed that tree diameter at breast height was not as reliable a predictor of tree age as were morphological characteristics. A measure of site productivity was a significant variable to use to separate transitional morphology trees into old and young age classes, but classification accuracy was not high because of large variability in ages of these trees. Our results suggest that residual live old trees in the current forest, although perhaps not rare compared to historical age distributions, should be retained during restoration treatments, and that using simple morphological and environmental criteria to identify old trees is more reliable than tree size alone.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tree-Ring Research\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"34 - 48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tree-Ring Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3959/1536-1098-75.1.34\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FORESTRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tree-Ring Research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3959/1536-1098-75.1.34","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

在许多森林中,由于过去的木材采伐、异常严重的野火以及日益严重的气候变化,古树(此处定义为树龄≥150年)可能变得罕见。老树具有独特的结构、生态、科学和美学价值,这是只有幼树的森林所没有的。在这里,我们收集了来自美国科罗拉多州落基山脉中部和怀俄明州南部山区森林中10000多棵活树和死树的交叉年代样本,以研究自欧美人定居以来最古老树木的年龄结构变化,并提供指导方针,以帮助识别在生态恢复过程中保留的老树。在179个随机抽样的样地中,93%以上发现了侵蚀的树桩(仅含心材)。每个样地发现的树桩数量与重建的历史(公元1860年)林分基底面积成正比。当包括树桩与仅活树时,最大地块树木招募的区域中位数日期超过150年,这表明如果所有被采伐的树木都存活到现在,那么最古老的树木的年龄将大大大于今天。然而,1860年采伐前的区域最古老树木的年龄中位数与当前森林中最古老的活树的年龄中位数(246年对248年)并没有什么不同,这也表明,自早期欧美采伐以来,该区域最古老树木的数量已经恢复到接近历史水平。在采样时,根据对树木形态的主观评估,将每棵活树分配到三个潜在年龄类别中的一个:老(可能≥150岁),年轻(可能<150岁)或过渡(包含年轻和老树特征的混合物)。划分为老树和年轻树的形态学分类正确率为88%至96%,这取决于物种的交叉年龄。回归树分析显示,胸高处的树径不像形态特征那样是树龄的可靠预测因子。场地生产力是将过渡形态树划分为老树和年轻树的重要变量,但由于这些树的年龄变化很大,分类精度不高。我们的研究结果表明,尽管与历史年龄分布相比,现存森林中剩余的活古树可能并不罕见,但在恢复过程中应该保留它们,并且使用简单的形态和环境标准来识别老树比单独使用树木大小更可靠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
IDENTIFYING OLD TREES TO INFORM ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION IN MONTANE FORESTS OF THE CENTRAL ROCKY MOUNTAINS, USA
ABSTRACT Old trees (defined here as ≥150 years old) can be rare in many forests because of past timber harvest, uncharacteristically severe wildfires, and – increasingly – climate change. Old trees provide unique structural, ecological, scientific, and aesthetic values missing in forests containing only younger trees. Here we compile crossdated ages from over 10,000 living and dead trees sampled in montane forests of the central Rocky Mountains in Colorado and southern Wyoming, USA, to examine changes in age structure of the oldest trees since Euro-American settlement and to provide guidelines to aid in identification of old trees for retention during ecological restoration treatments. Eroded stumps (containing only heartwood) were found in over 93% of 179 randomly sampled plots. Number of stumps found in each plot was proportional to reconstructed historical (1860 C.E.) stand basal area. The regional median date of maximum plot tree recruitment was over 150 years older when including stumps versus only living trees, suggesting that if all those harvested trees had survived to the present, the ages of oldest trees would be substantially greater than it is today. However, the regional median age of oldest trees in 1860 before harvesting was not different from the median age of oldest living trees in the current forest (246 vs. 248 years), which alternatively suggests that the regional population of oldest trees has recovered to near historical levels in the time since early Euro-American harvests. Each living tree at the time of sampling was assigned to one of three potential age classes based on a subjective assessment of tree morphology: old (likely ≥150 years old), young (likely <150 years old), or transitional (containing a mixture of young and old tree characteristics). Trees assigned to the old and young morphology categories were classified correctly 88% to 96% of the time depending on species as confirmed by their crossdated ages. Regression tree analysis revealed that tree diameter at breast height was not as reliable a predictor of tree age as were morphological characteristics. A measure of site productivity was a significant variable to use to separate transitional morphology trees into old and young age classes, but classification accuracy was not high because of large variability in ages of these trees. Our results suggest that residual live old trees in the current forest, although perhaps not rare compared to historical age distributions, should be retained during restoration treatments, and that using simple morphological and environmental criteria to identify old trees is more reliable than tree size alone.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tree-Ring Research
Tree-Ring Research 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
15
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Tree-Ring Research (TRR) is devoted to papers dealing with the growth rings of trees and the applications of tree-ring research in a wide variety of fields, including but not limited to archaeology, geology, ecology, hydrology, climatology, forestry, and botany. Papers involving research results, new techniques of data acquisition or analysis, and regional or subject-oriented reviews or syntheses are considered for publication. Scientific papers usually fall into two main categories. Articles should not exceed 5000 words, or approximately 20 double-spaced typewritten pages, including tables, references, and an abstract of 200 words or fewer. All manuscripts submitted as Articles are reviewed by at least two referees. Research Reports, which are usually reviewed by at least one outside referee, should not exceed 1500 words or include more than two figures. Research Reports address technical developments, describe well-documented but preliminary research results, or present findings for which the Article format is not appropriate. Book or monograph Reviews of 500 words or less are also considered. Other categories of papers are occasionally published. All papers are published only in English. Abstracts of the Articles or Reports may be printed in other languages if supplied by the author(s) with English translations.
期刊最新文献
Tree-ring analysis of red spruce timbers from the Moosilauke Ravine Lodge, White Mountains, New Hampshire Precipitation reconstruction using tree-ring chronologies from Jordan and the Eastern Mediterranean Region Analysis of the Climate Signal in Subannual Width Measurements of Pinus nigra Tree Rings in Kastamonu Province, Turkey A Review of the Current State and Future Prospects of Dendrochronological Research in Bhutan A Case Study: Growth of Tree-Form Willow Driven by Cool, Wet Springs and Warm, Dry Summers in Teetł'it Zheh (Fort Mcpherson), Northwest Territories, Canada
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1