photography landscape
DESCRIPTION
photography LandscapeTRANSCRIPT
-
Social and Cultural Data in Landscape EcologyMichelle Steen-Adams
-
OutlineSignificance of integrating humans into ecological studiesConceptual FoundationWays that human presence shapes landscape pattern ApplicationsDataCase Study: Development of Landscape pattern on Ojibwe and Private lands in northern Wisconsin
-
I. Significance of integrating humans into ecological studiesInterdisciplinary nature of many ecological issuesSocio-cultural aspects of many scientific questionsValuesEthics
-
II. Conceptual FoundationZev Naveh (1991)Biophysical SphereEmergent Structural And Functional CharacteristicsHuman Sphere:Culture Technology
-
III. Ways that human presence shapes landscape patternLand UseHuman HistoryCultureLand OwnershipPolitics and Economics
-
Shapers of Landscape Pattern: Land UseHaut Saint Laurent, QuebecBouchard and Demon (1997)
-
Shapers of Landscape Pattern: Human HistoryEastern Upper Peninsula, MichiganSilbernagel et al. 1997
-
Shapers of Landscape Pattern: CultureCultural Landscape
Little Tennessee River ValleyDelcourt and Delcourt1988
Kickapoo Valley, WisconsinHeasley and Guries1998
-
Cultural drivers of landscape changeLiberty Township, Vernon County,Wisconsin.Heasley and Guries1998
-
Shapers of Landscape Pattern:Land Ownership
-
IV. ApplicationsRestoration ManagementNantucket Island, Massachusetts, Dunwiddie, 2001.
-
V. DataRemotely-sensed ImageryAerial photographySatellite Imagery
-
DataArchival Materials: Written RecordsAgency reportsPlat maps and property tax rollsJournal entriesArchival Materials: Survey dataState land inventoriesU.S. Public Land Survey System
-
DataPhotographs and MapsArcheological Record
-
V. Case Study: Development of Landscape pattern on Ojibwe and Private lands in northern Wisconsin
-
Big Picture QuestionsEcological historical/Landscape Ecological literatures:How have landscapes changed through time? How has human history shaped ecological change (ecological legacies)? Significance: Historical range of Variability, Forest Dynamics, Guidance to forest management and restorationEnvironmental historical literature:How have culture, politics, and economics interacted to shape environmental change?Significance: Social lessons for human-environment relations
-
Existing Understanding: Interrelations between Human History and Ecological HistoryPre-EuroAmerican Forest:Multistory canopy structureShaped by Little Ice Age (15th-18th c.)Post-EuroAmerican settlement (1860-1930)Selective Logging and slash fires Early successional forests1930s to Present: Fire suppression, forest management, and maturation processes Second growth forest and managed rotation forest
-
Human historical shapers of landscape pattern
-
Human historical shapers of landscape pattern
-
Question 1: How has the forest changed in terms of landscape composition and structure over a 130-year period (1857-1987)?HypothesesLandscape Composition: Proportion of early successional species, like aspen has increased, late successional species, like white pine has decreased.Landscape Structure: Mean Patch Size: General pattern: First, decrease, later increase
-
Research Design: Delineation of study area by Land Type Association (LTA)Regions of relative ecological and physical homogeneity delineate LTAs Control for Biophysical VariationFocus on human historical sources of ecological variation
-
Forest Vegetation Data Source #1: Public Land Survey Records (ca. 1857)
-
Forest Vegetation Data Source #2: Wisconsin Land Economic Inventory (ca. 1928)
-
Forest Vegetation Data Source #3: Aerial Photography (1951)
-
Forest Vegetation Data Source #4: Multi-Temporal Satellite Imagery (1987)
-
Landscape Transition AnalysisDominant Species in 1987 data set
-
Vegetative Composition prior to Euro-American Settlement
Chart1
7.9
6.4
0.7
1
25
0.5
1.7
6.9
4.3
11
2.3
28
2
Proportion of landscape
Sheet1
PLS Baseline Land CoverPercent of preEuroAmerican settlement landscape1987 Land Cover
Aspen7.9Upland grass-forb (38.7%)
Cedar6.4Trembling aspen (44%)
Elm0.7Trembling aspen (66.7%)
Fir1Balsam fir-aspen (75%)
Hemlock25Trembling aspen (32%)
Jack pine0.5Upland shrub-herb (100%)
Red pine1.7Balsam fir-aspen (42.9%)
Spruce6.9Balsam fir-aspen (40.7%)
Sugar maple4.3Upland shrub-herb (29.4%)
Tamarack11Upland shrub-herb (20.9%)
White birch2.3Balsam fir-aspen (44.4%)
White pine28Trembling aspen (29.2%)
Yellow birch2Trembling aspen (50%)
Sheet1
Proportion of landscape
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
Primary Landscape Change Trajectories
Sheet1
PLS Baseline Land Cover1987 Land Cover1987 Land Cover
AspenUpland grass-forb (38.7%)Upland grass-forb (38.7%)
CedarTrembling aspen (44%)Trembling aspen (44%)
ElmTrembling aspen (66.7%)Trembling aspen (66.7%)
FirBalsam fir-aspen (75%)Balsam fir-aspen (75%)
HemlockTrembling aspen (32%)Trembling aspen (32%)
Jack pineUpland shrub-herb (100%)Upland shrub-herb (100%)
Red pineBalsam fir-aspen (42.9%)Balsam fir-aspen (42.9%)
SpruceBalsam fir-aspen (40.7%)Balsam fir-aspen (40.7%)
Sugar mapleUpland shrub-herb (29.4%)Upland shrub-herb (29.4%)
TamarackUpland shrub-herb (20.9%)Upland shrub-herb (20.9%)
White birchBalsam fir-aspen (44.4%)Balsam fir-aspen (44.4%)
White pineTrembling aspen (29.2%)Trembling aspen (29.2%)
Yellow birchTrembling aspen (50%)Trembling aspen (50%)
Sheet1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Proportion of landscape
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
Question 2: In Lake Superior clay plain, how have the histories of land use, fire, or the interaction between these two disturbances, influenced trajectories of forest change?HypothesesCultivation or pasture land use correlated with white pine initially (i.e. in 1951), then hardwoods later (i.e. in 1987)
Sites that experienced repeated or intense fire are more likely to support aspen, whereas those that did not experience fire are more likely to support white pine.
-
Relationships among land use history, fire history, and vegetative change: Conceptual Diagram
Stand Age (Years since Stand-clearing Event)
Fire Frequency or Recency
High
Low
Cultivation Level
Cultivation has occurred
Cultivation not occurred
White Pine DominantStand
Aspen Dominant
Hardwood Dominant Stand
0
40
60-80
20
-
Hypothesized Results: Influence of Land Use History
Chart4
0.150.60.20.1
0.20.50.150.05
0.50.050.20.1
Aspen-1987
White Pine-1987
Sugar Maple-1987
White Spruce-1987
Land Use/ Land Cover History Classes (1928)
Proportion of Sample Area
Sheet1
CultivatedPastureAspen with White Birch
19510.50.30.5
19870.70.50.1
Sheet1
00
00
00
1951
1987
Land Use/ Land Cover History
Index Value (i.e. % land cover in aspen)
Sheet2
Land Use19511987
Cultivated0.50.3
Pasture0.70.5
Aspen with White Birch0.30.5
Sheet6
White PineAspenHardwoodOther
Cultivation-19280.0500.250
Pasture-19280.030.050.150.15
Aspen and White Birch-192800.400.05
CultivationPastureAspen and Wh BirchYear
White Pine0.60.40.21951
Aspen0.10.20.61951
Hardwood0.20.10.21951
White Pine0.20.20.11987
Aspen0.10.10.51987
Hardwood0.40.40.21987
White PineAspenHardwood
Cultivation0.60.10.2
Pasture
Aspen and Wh Birch
Sheet5
1987 Vegetation
White PineAspenHardwoodOther
Cultivation-19280.0500.250
Pasture-19280.030.050.150.15
Aspen and White Birch-192800.400.05
Sheet5
000
000
000
000
Cultivation-1928
Pasture-1928
Aspen and White Birch-1928
1987 Vegetation
Percent of study area
Sheet8
White Pine Baseline VegetationAspen Baseline Vegetation
CultivationPastureAspen/Wh BirchCultivationPastureAspen/Wh Birch
Aspen-19870.150.20.5Aspen-19870.20.30.8
White Pine-19870.60.50.05White Pine-19870.20.20
Sugar Maple-19870.20.150.2Sugar Maple-19870.30.150.2
White Spruce-19870.10.050.1White Spruce-19870.10.050
Sheet8
0000
0000
0000
Aspen-1987
White Pine-1987
Sugar Maple-1987
White Spruce-1987
Land Use/ Land Cover History Classes (1928)
Proportion of Sample Area
Sheet7
0000
0000
0000
Aspen-1987
White Pine-1987
Sugar Maple-1987
White Spruce-1987
Land Use/ Land Cover History (1928)
Proportion of Sample Area
Sheet4
1951 Vegetation
White PineAspenHardwood
Cultivation-19280.200.1
Pasture-19280.10.050.05
Aspen and White Birch-192800.350.1
1987 Vegetation
White PineAspenHardwood
Cultivation-19280.0500.25
Pasture-19280.030.050.15
Aspen and White Birch-192800.40
Change between 1951 and 1987
White PineAspenHardwood
Cultivation-1928-0.1500.15
Pasture-1928-0.0700.1
Aspen and White Birch-192800.50
CultivationPastureAspen and Wh Birch
White Pine-0.15-0.070
Aspen000.5
Hardwood0.150.10
Sheet4
000
000
000
White Pine
Aspen
Hardwood
Land use/ land cover history classes (1928)
Change in proportion of vegetative cover of three land use/ land cover history classes
Sheet3
1951 Vegetation
White PineAspenHardwoodOther
Cultivation-19280.200.10
Pasture-19280.10.050.150.15
Aspen and White Birch-192800.350.10.05
Sheet3
000
000
000
000
Cultivation-1928
Pasture-1928
Aspen and White Birch-1928
1951 Vegetation
Percent of study area
1951 Vegetation
White PineAspenHardwoodOther
Cultivation-19280.60.10.30
Pasture-19280.30.20.20.2
Aspen and White Birch-19280.10.50.10.3
000
000
000
000
Cultivation-1928
Pasture-1928
Aspen and White Birch-1928
1951 Vegetation
Percent of Study Area
-
Question 3: How has the history of land ownership influenced forest change?
Hypothesis: Early-successional species tend to be more predominant on the Bad River Reservation Reservation than on neighboring non-Industrial Private lands, due to differing management histories.
-
Comparison among Reservation (left) and Private Non-Industrial (right) Forests
-
Hypothetical Results: Influence of Land Ownership History
Chart5
00
0.450.6
0.050.01
0.10.05
0.150.22
0.150.1
NIPFNIPF
0.250.35
0.080.02
0.10.05
0.170.2
0.10.15
White Pine Baseline
Aspen Baseline
Proportion of Sample Area
Sheet1
ReservationNon-Reservation
18571857
AspenWhite PineOther ForestNon-ForestAspenWhite PineOther ForestNon-Forest
0.150.30.450.10.180.30.320.1
1987
AspenWhite PineOther ForestNon-ForestAspenWhite PineOther ForestNon-Forest
0.450.050.40.10.250.080.30.37
Sheet1
0
0
0
0
Sheet2
0
0
0
0
WP Transition
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ReservationNon-Reservation
18571857
AspenWhite PineOther ForestNon-ForestAspenWhite PineOther ForestNon-Forest
0.150.30.450.10.180.30.320.1
ReservationNIPF
1987 Data
ReservationNIPF
AspenWhite PineSpruceRed MapleBalsam firAspenWhite PineSpruceRed MapleBalsam fir
White Pine Baseline0.450.050.10.150.150.250.080.10.170.1
Aspen Baseline0.60.010.050.220.10.350.020.050.20.15
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
White Pine Baseline
Aspen Baseline
Proportion of Sample Area
-
Question 4: How have cultural and political histories influenced forest change?The cultural characteristics of land owners influences forest change.The political relations of land owners with either government or businesses/ corporations influences forest change.
-
Political and Cultural History on Bad River Reservation
-
Bad River Reservation Management History1930s-1980sHarvest of Aspen Pulpwood on Bad River Reservation (ca. 1935)
Emphasis on pulpwood production by BIA forest managers
-
Closing Remarks: Challenges and PossibilitiesChallengesPresent limited understanding of how social dynamics shape landscape patternPossibilitiesAim to gain more complete understanding of landscape developmentApplied uses: guide management, restoration, and land use.
-
Key PointsMany landscape ecological questions require an integration of humans into the analysis.A conceptual foundation and body of research literature exists.Human presence shapes landscape pattern in multiple ways.There are applied reasons to integrate social and cultural variables into landscape ecology research.Data and analytical techniques do exist to conduct this kind of research.