 |
| Map credit Dylan Marcus, intercepts and font produced via Picnik Online Photo Editing |
As shown in the picture to the right, we laid down three intercepts in three different plots to gather information on coarse woody debris. These same plots were used for standing snags and determining wildlife habitat, and although individual plots are not shown on this map (Picnik does not, apparently, have a tool for drawing squiggly lines; I had to make the straight lines out of elongated rectangles), they are essentially found in the northwest corner (Plot #1 and Intercept #1), running straight down the middle from the northeast to the southwest corners (Plot #2 and Intercept #2), and the southeast corner (Plot #3 and Intercept #3). Intercept #1 ran a length of 100ft and contained one piece of coarse woody debris that had an approximate diameter of 12 inches. Intercept #2 ran a length of 464ft and contained five pieces of coarse woody debris with approximate diameters of 13, 10, 10, 13, and 29.5 inches. Our final intercept, Intercept #3 ran 87ft and contained one piece of 10-inch diameter coarse woody debris. Using the formula for calculating the volume of coarse woody debris, we have a volume of 37.60 cubic meters CWD in Plot #1, 320.82 cubic meters CWD in Plot #2, and 30.01 cubic meters CWD in Plot #3; this gives a combined 388.34 cubic meters CWD for the entire hectare.
Standing Snags
The following tables show the details of all the standing snags found in each Plot for the entirety of Site #4:
Plot #1
|
|||
Snag
Number
|
DBH
(inches)
|
Height
(meters)
|
Decay
Code
|
1
|
13.0
|
13.5
|
4
|
2
|
6.0
|
6.4
|
3
|
3
|
9.5
|
14.3
|
2
|
4
|
16.5
|
22.2
|
2
|
5
|
7.0
|
6.4
|
5
|
6
|
6.0
|
9.0
|
4
|
7
|
27.5
|
19.0
|
3
|
Plot #2
|
|||
Snag
Number
|
DBH
(inches)
|
Height
(meters)
|
Decay
Code
|
1
|
18.0
|
23.5
|
3
|
2
|
16.0
|
15.8
|
3
|
3
|
6.5
|
11.9
|
3
|
4
|
10.5
|
8.0
|
4
|
5
|
19.0
|
15.9
|
3
|
6
|
10.0
|
10.0
|
3
|
7
|
37.0
|
7.0
|
5
|
8
|
13.0
|
18.0
|
1
|
9
|
15.0
|
16.0
|
1
|
Plot #3
|
|||
Snag
Number
|
DBH
(inches)
|
Height
(meters)
|
Decay
Code
|
1
|
6.0
|
17.0
|
4
|
2
|
15.0
|
15.0
|
3
|
3
|
12.0
|
9.15
|
3
|
4
|
15.0
|
14.25
|
1
|
5
|
8.0
|
4.9
|
4
|
6
|
7.5
|
6.0
|
2
|
Wildlife Habitat Suitability Indices
Barred Owl Habitat:
Plot #1
|
|
Tree
Size (inches; over 25cm/9.8in)
|
Trees
Over 51cm/20in (tallied)
|
18.0
|
2
|
16.0
|
|
17.0
|
|
20.5
|
|
16.5
|
|
21.5
|
|
16.0
|
|
15.0
|
|
22.5
|
|
14.5
|
|
16.75
|
|
16.0
|
|
17.0
|
|
16.0
|
|
20.5
|
Plot #2
|
|
Tree
Size (inches; over 25cm/9.8in)
|
Trees
Over 51cm/20in (tallied)
|
18.0
|
2
|
16.75
|
|
18.25
|
|
19.0
|
|
22.0
|
|
18.5
|
|
24.5
|
|
19.0
|
|
19.75
|
|
13.5
|
|
21.0
|
|
18.0
|
|
15.0
|
|
13.5
|
|
19.0
|
|
15.0
|
|
14.0
|
|
17.0
|
|
14.0
|
Plot #3
|
|
Tree
Size (inches; over 25cm/9.8in)
|
Trees
Over 51cm/20in (tallied)
|
15.0
|
1
|
19.0
|
|
22.0
|
|
22.0
|
|
27.0
|
Habitat Suitability Indices for Barred Owl and Fisher:
(for more coverage on wildlife, check out the Wildlife page)
Barred Owl:
With 5 trees in our hectare, averaging 2 trees per 0.4ha, the barred owl has an HSI value of 1.0. With an average DBH of 18.06inches (45.9cm), the barred owl has an HSI value of 0.9 in this category. Finally, when we consider the 70% canopy cover in Plot #1, 70% in Plot #2, 60% in Plot #3, and an overall average canopy cover of 66.675%, the barred owl has an HSI value of 1.0 in this category. Overall, at NBSP Site #4, the barred owl has an HSI value of 1, making this suitable habitat for barred owls.
Fisher:
With an average canopy cover of 66.67%, this gives the fisher an HSI value of 0.9. Since the average DBH of the trees in Site #4 is 45.9 cm, this gives the fisher an HSI value of 1.0. Most of Site #4 has a two-layered canopy, which gives the fisher an HSI value of approximately 0.75. Overall, the canopy is comprised of about 75% deciduous species, which gives the fisher an HSI value of 0.4 in this category. Overall, at NBSP Site #4, the fisher has an HSI value of 0.35, which does not makes this suitable habitat for fisher.
No comments:
Post a Comment