Landscape Ecology

, Volume 15, Issue 7, pp 603–620

Forest gradient response in Sierran landscapes: the physical template

  • Dean L. Urban
  • Carol Miller
  • Patrick N. Halpin
  • Nathan L. Stephenson
Article

Abstract

Vegetation pattern on landscapes is the manifestation of physical gradients, biotic response to these gradients, and disturbances. Here we focus on the physical template as it governs the distribution of mixed-conifer forests in California's Sierra Nevada. We extended a forest simulation model to examine montane environmental gradients, emphasizing factors affecting the water balance in these summer-dry landscapes. The model simulates the soil moisture regime in terms of the interaction of water supply and demand: supply depends on precipitation and water storage, while evapotranspirational demand varies with solar radiation and temperature. The forest cover itself can affect the water balance via canopy interception and evapotranspiration. We simulated Sierran forests as slope facets, defined as gridded stands of homogeneous topographic exposure, and verified simulated gradient response against sample quadrats distributed across Sequoia National Park. We then performed a modified sensitivity analysis of abiotic factors governing the physical gradient. Importantly, the model's sensitivity to temperature, precipitation, and soil depth varies considerably over the physical template, particularly relative to elevation. The physical drivers of the water balance have characteristic spatial scales that differ by orders of magnitude. Across large spatial extents, temperature and precipitation as defined by elevation primarily govern the location of the mixed conifer zone. If the analysis is constrained to elevations within the mixed-conifer zone, local topography comes into play as it influences drainage. Soil depth varies considerably at all measured scales, and is especially dominant at fine (within-stand) scales. Physical site variables can influence soil moisture deficit either by affecting water supply or water demand; these effects have qualitatively different implications for forest response. These results have clear implications about purely inferential approaches to gradient analysis, and bear strongly on our ability to use correlative approaches in assessing the potential responses of montane forests to anthropogenic climatic change.

gap model gradient analysis landscape pattern sensitivity analysis Sierra Nevada spatial scale water balance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aber, J.D and Federer, C.A. 1992. A generalized, lumped-parameter model of photosynthesis, evapotranspiration, and net primary production in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. Oecologia 92: 463–474.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M.A., Graham, R.C., Alyanakian, G.J. and Martynn, D.Z. 1995. Late summer water status of soils and weathered bedrock in a Giant Sequoia grove. Soil Science 160: 415–422.Google Scholar
  3. Arkley, R.J., 1981. Soil moisture use by mixed conifer forest in a summer-dry climate. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45: 423–427.Google Scholar
  4. Beers, T.W, Press, P.E. and Wensel, L.C. 1966. Aspect transformation in site productivity research. J For 64: 691–692.Google Scholar
  5. Bonan, G.B. 1989. A computer model of the solar radiation, soil moisture, and soil thermal regimes in boreal forests. Ecol Modelling 45: 275–306.Google Scholar
  6. Bonan, G.B., and Sirois, L. 1992. Air temperature, tree growth, and the northern and southern range limits to Picea mariana. J Veg Sci 3: 495–506.Google Scholar
  7. Botkin, D.B. 1993. Forest Dynamics: an Ecological Model. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Botkin, D.B., Janak, J.F. and Wallis, J R. 1972. Some ecological consequences of a computer model of forest growth. J Ecol 60: 849–873.Google Scholar
  9. Burns, R.M. and Honkala, B.H. (tech. coords.) 1990. Siluics of North America. Agric Handbook 654, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, J., Silman, M., Kern, R., Macklin, E. and HilleRisLambers, J. 1999. Generalized seed dispersal near and far: patterns across temperate and tropical forests. Ecology 80: 1475–1494.Google Scholar
  11. Cosby, B.J., Hornberger, G.M., Clapp R.B. and Ginn, T.R. 1984. A statistical analysis of the relationship of soil moisture characteristics to the physical properties of soils. Wat Res Res 20: 682–690.Google Scholar
  12. Daly, C., Neilson, R.P. and Phillips, D.L. 1994. A digital topographic model for distributing precipitation over mountainous terrain. J Appl Meteor 33: 140–158.Google Scholar
  13. Delcourt, H.R., Delcourt, P.A. and Webb, T. 1983. Dynamic plant ecology: the spectrum of vegetation change in space and time. Quat Sci Rev 1: 153–175.Google Scholar
  14. Dingman, S.L. 1994. Physical Hydrology. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Gardner, R.H., and Trabalka, J.R. 1985. Methods of uncertainty analysis for a global carbon dioxide model. Office of Energy Research, U.S. DOE, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  16. Graber, D.M., Haultain, S.A. and Fessenden, J.E. 1993. Conducting a biological survey: a case study from Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. pp. 17–35. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Research in California's National Parks. Edited by Veirs, S.D. Jr., Stohlgren, T.J. and Schonewald-Cox, C. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Transactions and Proceedings Series 9.Google Scholar
  17. Haefner, J.W 1996. Modeling biological systems: principle and applications. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Halpin, P.N. 1995. A cross-scale analysis of environmental gradients and forest pattern in the giant sequoia-mixed conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Virginia, Charlottesville.Google Scholar
  19. Harper, J.L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Helvey J.D. 1971. A summary of rainfall interception by certain conifers of North America. Pp. 103–113. In Proc. Third International. Symp. for Hydrology Professors, Biological Effects in the Hydrologic Cycle. Purdue Univ Agric Expt Station, West Lafayette.Google Scholar
  21. Helvey, J.D. and Patric, J.H. 1965. Canopy and litter interception of rainfall by hardwoods of eastern United States. Water Res Res 1: 193–206.Google Scholar
  22. Jarvis, P.G. and Leverenz, J.W. 1983. Productivity of temperate evergreen and deciduous forests. pp. 234–261. In Physiological Plant Ecology, vol. IV. Edited by Lange, O.L., Novel, P.S., Osmond, C.B. and Ziegler, H. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Kozak, A., Munro, D.D. and Smith, J.H.G. Taper equations and their application in forest inventory. For Chron 45: 278–283.Google Scholar
  24. Lassen, L.E. and Okkonen, E.A. 1969. Sapwood thickness of Douglas-fir and five other western softwoods. USDA For Serv Rep FPL-124. Forest Products Lab, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  25. Leemans, R. and Prentice, I.C. 1987. Description and simulation of tree-layer composition and size distribution in a primaeval Picea-Pinus forest. Vegetatio 69: 147–156.Google Scholar
  26. Legendre, P. and Fortin, M.J. 1989. Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80: 107–138.Google Scholar
  27. Loehle, C. and LeBlanc, D. 1996. Model-based assessments of climate change effects on forests: a critical review. Ecol Model 90: 1–31.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, C. and Urban, D.L. 1999a. Fire, climate, and forest pattern in the Sierra Nevada, California. Ecol Model 114: 113–135.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, C. and Urban, D.L. 1999b. Forest pattern, fire, and climatic change in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosystems 2: 76–87.Google Scholar
  30. Miller, C. and Urban, D.L. 1999c. Interactions between forest heterogeneity and surface fire regimes in the southern Sierra Nevada. Canadian J For Res 29: 202–212.Google Scholar
  31. Minore, D. 1979. Comparative autecological characteristics of Northwestern tree species-a literature review. USDA GTR PNW 87. PNW Forest and Range Expt Station, Portland.Google Scholar
  32. Moore, I.D., Gryson, R.B. and Ladson, A.R. 1990. Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrol Processes 5: 3–30.Google Scholar
  33. Mueller, M.J. 1982. Selected climatic data for a global set of standard stations for vegetation science. Junk, the Hague.Google Scholar
  34. Nikolov, N.T. and Zeller, K.F. 1992. A solar radiation algorithm for ecosystem dynamic models. Ecol Model 61: 149–168.Google Scholar
  35. Parton, W.J., Schimel, D.S., Cole, C.V. and Ojima, D. 1987. Analysis of factors controlling soil organic levels of grasslands in the Great Plains. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51: 1173–1179.Google Scholar
  36. Running, S.W and Coughlan, J.C. 1988. A general model of forest ecosystem processes for regional applications. I. Hydrological balance, canopy gas exchange, and primary production processes. Ecol Model 42: 125–154.Google Scholar
  37. Running, S.W, Nemani, R.R. and Hungerford, R.D. 1987. Extrapolation of synoptic meteorological data in mountainous terrain and its use for simulating forest evapotranspiration and photosynthesis. Can J For Res 17: 472–483.Google Scholar
  38. Sellers, W.D. 1965. Physical climatology. University Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  39. Shugart, H.H. 1984. A Theory of Forest Dynamics. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Shugart, H.H., Smith, T.M. and Post, W.M. 1992. The potential for application of individual-based simulation models or assessing effects of climate change. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 23: 15–38.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, T.M. and Huston, M. 1989. A theory of the spatial and temporal dynamics of plant communities. Vegetatio 83: 49–69.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, T.M., Shugart, H.H., Bonan, G.B. and Smith, J.B. 1992. Modeling the potential response of vegetation to global climate change. Adv Ecol Res 22: 93–116.Google Scholar
  43. Solomon, A.M. 1986. Transient response of forests to CO2-induced climate change: simulation modeling experiments in eastern North America. Oecologia 68: 567–579.Google Scholar
  44. Stephenson, N.L. 1988. Climatic control of vegetation distribution: the role of the water balance with examples from North America and Sequoia National Park, California. Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  45. Stephenson, N.L 1990. Climatic control of vegetation distribution: the role of the water balance. Am Nat 135: 649–670.Google Scholar
  46. Stephenson, N.L. 1998. Actual evapotranspiration and deficit: biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution across spatial scales. J Biogeog 25: 855–870.Google Scholar
  47. Stephenson, N.L. and Parsons, D.J. 1993. A research program for predicting the effects of climatic change on the Sierra Nevada. pp. 93–109. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Research in California's National Parks. Edited by Veirs, S.D. Jr., Stohlgren, T.J. and Schonewal-Cox, C. U.S. Department of the Interior Park Service Transactions and Proceedings Series 9.Google Scholar
  48. Urban, D.L. Demographic process and gradient response in forested landscapes (in prep.).Google Scholar
  49. Urban, D.L., Acevedo, M.F. and Garman, S.L. 1999. Scaling fine-scale processes to large-scale patterns using models. pp. 70–98 In derived from models: meta-models. Spatial modeling of forest landscape change: approaches and applications. Edited by Mladenoff, D. and Baker, D. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  50. Urban, D.L., Bonan, G.B. and Shugart, H.H. 1991. Spatial applications of gap models. For Ecol Manag 42: 95–110.Google Scholar
  51. Urban, D.L., Harmon, M.E. and Halpern, C.B. 1993. Potential response of Pacific Northwestern forests to climatic change: effects of stand age and initial composition. Climatic Change 23: 247–266.Google Scholar
  52. Urban, D.L, O'Neill, R.V. and Shugart, 1987. Landscape ecology BioScience 37: 119–127.Google Scholar
  53. Urban, D.L. and Shugart, H.H. 1992. Individual-based models of forest succession. pp 249–292 In Plant succession: theory and prediction. Edited by Glenn-Lewin, D.C., Peet, R.K. and Veblen, T.T. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  54. Vankat, J.L. 1982. A gradient perspective on the vegetation of Sequoia National Park, California. Madrono 29: 200–214.Google Scholar
  55. VEMAP participants (J.M. Melillo and 26 others) 1995. Vegetation/ ecosystem modeling and analysis project (VEMAP): comparing biogeography and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial ecosystem responses to climate change and CO2 doubling. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9: 407–437.Google Scholar
  56. Waring, R.H. and Schlesinger, W.H. 1985. Forest Ecosystems: Concepts and Management. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
  57. Waring, R.H., Schroeder, P.E. and Oren, R. 1982. Application of the pipe model theory to predict canopy leaf area. Can J For Res 12: 556–560.Google Scholar
  58. Watt, A.S. 1947. Pattern and process in the plant community J Ecol 35: 1–22.Google Scholar
  59. Weinstein, D.A. 1992. Use of simulation models evaluate the alteration of ecotones by global carbon dioxide increases. pp. 379–393. Landscape Boundaries: Consequences for Biotic Diversity and Ecological Flows. Edited by Hansen, A.J. and di Castri, F. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Whittaker, R.H. and Woodwell, G.M. 1967. Surface area relations of woody plants and forest communities. Am J Bot 54: 931–939.Google Scholar
  61. Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecol. 8: 385–397.Google Scholar
  62. Wolock, D.M. and McCabe, G.J. 1995. Comparison of single and multiple flow direction algorithms for computing topographic parameters in TOPMODEL. Water Resources Res 31: 1315–1324.Google Scholar
  63. Yeakley, J.A., Swank, W.T., Swift, L.W., Hornberger, G.M. and Shugart, H.H. 1998. Soil moisture gradients and controls on a southern Appalachian hillslope from drought through recharge. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2: 41–49.Google Scholar
  64. Ziemer, R.R. 1964. Summer evapotranspiration trends as related to time after logging of forests in Sierra Nevada. J Geophys Res 69: 615–620.Google Scholar
  65. Zinke P.J. 1967. Forest interception studies in the United States. pp. 137–160. In Forest Hydrology. Edited by Sopper, W.E. and Lull, W. Pergamon, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dean L. Urban
    • 1
  • Carol Miller
    • 2
  • Patrick N. Halpin
    • 1
  • Nathan L. Stephenson
    • 3
  1. 1.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Degree Program in EcologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Biological Resources DivisionUS Geological SurveyUSA

Personalised recommendations