1972 – 2001 1972 – 2001 Landscape Dynamics Landscape Dynamics

WisconsinWisconsin

38858.13ha (96020.19ac)

1972 19781982

19871992 2001

Landscape Dynamics of the Landscape Dynamics of the Washburn District, N. Wisc.Washburn District, N. Wisc.

Ownership and LandscapesOwnership and Landscapes

•The number of family forest owners in the conterminous US increased from 9.3 million in 1993 to 10.3 million in 2003,

•and these owners now control 42% of the nation’s forest land

Butler and Leatherberry 2004J. For. 102(7): 4-9

Lots of Indian ReservationsLess private

Public lands in high elevationSmall portion of state lands

Case Study I

Landscapes in Central OregonLandscapes in Central OregonSpies et al. 1994.

Study objectives: landscape, change, and ownership effects in W. Cascades, 158,930 ha)

•Landsat images from 1972, 1976, 1981, 1984, and 1988;•By ownership, elevation;•Harvesting effects;•Only two cover types (black & white);•91% accuracy (this is high).

Linear

Interior <10%

More smaller patches in 1988

Less large patches

Changes in sub-landscapes

92%

10%

84%

65%

Nucleation change

High

Low

Low

Take Home MessagesTake Home Messages

•Conifer forest declined (71-58%); Greater at private lands.

•AEI increased and interior decreased, but depending on ownership.

•The annual rate was about 1.19%.

•Large forest patches are emerging (why?).

•Different management options for different owners.

Case Study IILandscapes in Northern WisconsinLandscapes in Northern Wisconsin

Crow et al. 1999

Study Objectives: to partition the sources of variation in the composition and structure of a landscape as related to the physical environment and land use as affected by ownership.

Sample plots(16 from 20)

Photo interpretation

•1:15840 B/W or 1:1200 natural color (1993)•Transferred to 1:2400 USGS topo maps•Digitized into PC ARCINFO GIS

The entire land area shares a common land-use history. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, intensive logging occurred throughout NW WI. However, the most prevalent process in the study area was reforested.

•95% of public forest on outwash and 64% on moraine;

•No difference for private forest (i.e., 65%);

•Large lands surrounding lakes are private;

•More wetlands on moraine;

•Privates owns more agricultural lands.

•More even distribution among the classes of upland forest is evident for private land on outwash;

•Less regenerating forests on private lands;

•Smaller patches for mixed forests;

Landscape StructureLandscape Structure

Outwash:Smaller patches on private lands;But more fragmented;

Landscape Structure: landform effectsLandscape Structure: landform effects

Different

Not Different

Large

Small

ConclusionsConclusions

•Complex interactions between landform and ownership;

•What differences, in terms of ecological consequences, can landscape (composition and structure) produce?

•Different management scenarios?

•Anything else?