Discussion, Comments, Questions, and Answers
This page is for ongoing discussions related to K2. Please help improve the project by posting your comments, questions, and answers in the appropriate box below.
If you leave a question, we’ll be sure and respond ASAP. Thanks!
Please use the “reply” button to link your comment to others so that readers will know which belong together.
One of the recommendations from the Future Forest Initiative that Kamloops is a pilot district for moving tree species to see if they are ready to go yet and also to establish some stand resilience. That said, how do we do that? I think it works very well with FFT reforestation efforts that are occurring in Kamloops District. Large areas of plantations are scheduled in the MSXk and IDFdk. Avery strong scenario suggests that PY will be able to exist in what is now the MSXk in the very near future. What are the chances of using that Py and planting 100 or so per ha over large areas on South aspects as a silviculture trial? This will give us some operational areas to use as a measuring stick. It would not need to be preferred or acceptable as it would be over and above stocking. It will aid biodiversity in a BEC that is difficult to get more than two species in, and could be aiding in future seeding or wildlife trees.
Good idea. Ponderosa pine already occurs in the IDFdk and MSxk but seems to be associated with warm aspects and shallow soils.
The ideal situation would be to use a portion of the new plantations in a well replicated species trial with Ponderosa pine Lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir. If we have a research program that survives the next few months this would be a good project that would link well with existing installations (Opax Mt. and Isobel project). This would provide solid empirical data to feed the starving models. It would be worth planning this well and include enough trees that could be used for stem analysis later on. A good set-up would allow the next generation of researchers and foresters to have a better understanding of different silviculture options. In fact, I think because the level of uncertainty associated with future environmental changes related to climate, and natural and anthropogenic disturbances is so high that it would be a good idea to take a more experimental approach to all silviculture operations. I know this goes against the grain for some but it makes a lot of sense.
Ps. I would focus on the dominant site series and avoid the wet and dry extremes. Also if there would be a cheap way to control the cow factor that would be a good thing.
Hi All,
I am conducting a similar experiment with 20 species to generate empirical parameters for my model in Australia so this type of experiment would be very helpful. Particularly if sowing can be done in plots on the same site to test natural regeneration. The one thing that needs to be incorporated is the establishment of climate and soil sensors on the sites that monitor temperature ,humidity, precipitation, soil moisture and solar radiation at the minimum. I have 14 sites set up this way in Australia with each climate monitoring station costing $2100 each. Without these systems in place we will miss out on many processes or over or underestimate climate effects if we need to interpolate climate data from nearby stations.
Cheers
Craig
Hey Craig,
The meeting in Kamloops went quite well. I have a couple of items requiring your input.
1. There was a question as to the source of the variability of the probability of presence absence for Pl in time series graph for the Rocky Mtn. Forest District). It appears to go up for a while before it goes down later on. Several people wanted to know the reason behind the upward trend prior to the decline in the long-term. I was unable to give them a good answer.
Thanks,
Brad
Hi Brad,
The increase is due to the interaction between phenology and frost in a portion of the time series. On average the regeneration probability is lower in the 2020s period but for a few years where warming is enough to reduce the number of frost days but not warm enough to push bud burst to occur too early in spring. Also drought is not a large driver in this time period. Hence there is a reduction in frost damage in some of the years. As the degree of climate change increases drought becomes a driving influence. Frost damage also occurs despite the decline in frost days as bud flush occurs earlier in the spring. Hope this answers the question.
Cheers
Craig
When modelling climate change what is the base data that we start from? Is it from natural stands that exist now and then projected forward with climate change and management practices modeled, or does it start with pre-existing plantations and management practices and project forward from there or is it a mix of both?
These are things we can discuss for modeling at the stand level. The model will use the information in the system, i.e., inventory information, thus it will be both unharvested and harvested areas. Since we do not have PEM or TEM mapping, areas will be broken out by (for example) elevation, slope and aspect as well as some level of forest cover attributes. We first need to know the question (s) before we lump the various combinations together. The points below need to be part of the thinking when we try to answer the questions. When you say past approaches did not work, we need to identify what we are using to identify that, was it a target an indicator (some kind of trend or what). All of these things will help inform our questions and how to address whether we are achieving what we hope to achieve (creation of targets and indicators, your local knowledge will be useful here).
FREP is monitoring stands in many values right now and collecting data to assess the practices that were under the code and then under FRPA. There is lots of evidence that our management practices are not meeting the desired results such as the biodiversity, riparian and timber for instance. Will past management practises that were not the best be accounted for in the models or could they be chalked up to climate change?
Will try and sort that out
Are there linkages being made to some of the work that is happening out there such as FREP and all the data that is being collected, other climate change initiatives, forest health research i.e. DRA mapping in the Headwaters district, RESULTS or GENUS where regen survey information is collected with forest health data etc? Not sure if these are useful for the modelling, however it seems to me there may be connections.
We will want to know about all this information, that is why it is key to have local participation. We are not sure how all the information will be incorporated, but need to know what is being done to help inform the modeling process.
What criteria will be used to choose a site? We did not really touch on this at the client workshop.
We have not yet chosen an area, the idea being that the area chosen would allow us to answer a number of the preliminary landscape level questions posed by K1 and those articulated by the working groups. The IDF, ICH transition is one area that many are interested in, so will likely be part of the landscape area that will be modeled. Stand level questions can be answered without them being part of the landscape area, if they are specific to an area that has fewer landsape level issues, for example the Wet Cold ICH and ESSF.
Does your site have a contact page? I’m having a tough time locating it but, I’d like to send you an e-mail. I’ve got some suggestions for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great website and I look forward to seeing it develop over time. Also, please check out my blog http://bosch1591evsk.blog.co.uk/2011/03/29/my-personal-review-of-the-bosch-1591evsk-barrel-grip-jigsaw-10908158/
It does, its on the right hand side bar, second to last in the list of “K2 Pages.” Thanks for checking out our site and project. I’m curious to hear your suggestions. By the way, I was unable to access your blog with the link you sent.