1972

1
1972 2001 Landscape Dynamics Wisconsin
38858.13ha (96020.19ac)
2
Landscape Dynamics of the Washburn District, N.
Wisc.
1982
1972
1978
1992
2001
1987
3
Ownership 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 nations
  forest land
• Butler and Leatherberry 2004
• J. For. 102(7) 4-9

4
Lots of Indian Reservations Less private
5
Public lands in high elevation Small portion of
state lands
6
(No Transcript)
7
Case Study I Landscapes in Central Oregon Spies
et al. 1994.
Study objectives landscape, change, and
ownership effects in W. Cascades, 158,930 ha)
8

• 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).

9
(No Transcript)
10
Linear
Interior lt10
11
Less large patches
More smaller patches in 1988
12
(No Transcript)
13
Changes in sub-landscapes
92
84
10
65
14
Nucleation change
15
High
Low
Low
16
Take 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.

17
Case Study II Landscapes 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.
18
(No Transcript)
19
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.
20
(No Transcript)
21

• 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.

22

• 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

23
Landscape Structure
Outwash Smaller patches on private lands But
more fragmented
24
Landscape Structure landform effects
Different
Not Different
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
Conclusions

• Complex interactions between landform and
  ownership
• What differences, in terms of ecological
  consequences, can landscape (composition and
  structure) produce?
• Different management scenarios?
• Anything else?