Analysis of the vegetation dynamics in Missouri

Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project

Prepared by:
George Kipp
Geog-32580
Introduction

The Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (MOFEP) is a century long study
designed to examine the effects of forest management on the flora and fauna of the
lower Ozarks (Chen et al. 2000). There are 3 common forest management
techniques being evaluated on MOFEP; even-aged, uneven-aged, and no-harvest
(Grabner and Zenner 2000). Even-aged management involves managing timber on
a treatment area as one age class, while uneven-aged management involves
creating 3 or more distinct age classes within the treatment area. No-harvest
management, also called old growth, involves preserving land from harvest past
the forests biological rotation age. The analysis presented in the paper closely
follows the research of Grabner and Zenner (2000); however, this analysis will
attempt to examine the relationship between overstory conditions and ground flora
under the influence of natural disturbances.
Study Area
The MOFEP study area is located in Carter, Reynolds, and Shannon Counties,
Missouri (Grabner and Zenner 2000). There are 3 replications of each treatment
(even-aged, uneven-aged, and no-harvest), making 9 total sites on MOFEP, each
ranging in size from 772 acres to 1,271 acres (Kabrick 2004). The topography of
MOFEP is highly dissected; with relief from 150 to 450 feet, slopes from 0 to > 60%,
and all aspects represented (Grabner and Zenner 2000). This study focuses
particularly on site 8, a no-harvest treatment unit located on the Peck Ranch
Conservation Area in Carter County. Site 8 is 839 acres and is located in the Current
River Oak-Pine Woodland/Forest Hills and Current River Pine-Oak Woodland
Dissected Plain landtype associations of the Ozark Highlands (Nigh and Schroeder
2002). Many ecological land types (Nelson 2005) occur within site 8, with Ultic Chert
Upland Pine-Oak Woodlands (191 acres 22.8%) being the most common.
Sample Methods
There are 648, 0.5 acre permanent vegetation monitoring plots on the 9 MOFEP
sites. The plots are re-measured annually for herbaceous vegetation and every 3
years for all woody vegetation (Brookshire and Dey 2000, Kabrick et al. 2004). For
herbaceous plants, data is collected on 16 1-m 2 quadrats located within the greater
0.5 acre plot. Within each quadrat, all herbaceous and woody plants less than 1
meter tall, with live foliage, are identified to the most precise taxonomic level
possible (Brookshire and Dey 2000, Grabner and Zenner 2000). For woody species,
all live and dead stems 4.5 in. diameter at breast height (dbh) are measured on
the 0.5 acre circular plot. Species 1.5 in. to 4.5 in. dbh are measured on 4, 0.05 acre
subplots, and trees that are at least 1 meter tall and 1.5 in. dbh are measured on
4, 0.01 acre subplots nested within the 0.05 acre subplots (Kabrick et al. 2004).
Vegetation data was collected by MOFEP botany crews during the growing season of
2009 (L. Olson, personal communication, 18 April 2013). Forest inventory data was
collected by field crews during the 2009/2010 growing season (R. Jensen, personal
communication 18 April 2013). Plot locations, site shapefiles, ecological land type
shapefiles, and property boundary shapefiles were provided by the Missouri
Department of Conservation. Statistical analysis was completed using Microsoft
Excel 2010 and ESRI ArcMap 10.0.

Analysis Methods
For the vegetation analysis, all tree species were removed from the data as to
mitigate any autocorrelation between the vegetation data and tree data. For the
tree data, only the species of Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica), Black Oak (Quercus
velutina), Dogwood (Cornus florida), Hickory (Carya spp.), Post Oak (Q. stellata),
Scarlet Oak (Q. coccinea), Shortleaf Pine (Pinus echinata), and White Oak (Q. alba)
were considered for analysis. These species were selected because they are the
most commonly occurring species and collectively represented 98.9% of the total
basal area of site 8. The species that were omitted were: American Sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), White Ash (Fraxinus americana), Black Cherry (Prunus
serotina), Eastern Redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), American Elm (Ulmus
americana), Slippery Elm (U. rubra), Winged Elm (U. alata), Hackberry (Celtis
occidentalis), Red Maple (Acer rubra), Mulberry (Morus spp.), Blackjack Oak
(Quercus marilandica), Chinkapin Oak (Q. muehlenbergii), Northern Red Oak (Q.
rubra), Shumard Oak (Q. shumardii), Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), Sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), and one unidentified tree.
Microsoft Excel was used to extrapolate the vegetation data from Species richness
for each plot was calculated as the total number of identified species per plot,
following the protocols of Grabner and Zenner (2000). As figure 1 shows, most plots
on site 8 have a relatively lower species richness compared with sites 7 (unevenaged treatment) and 9 (even-aged management).

Species Richness Frequency on MOFEP Sites 7, 8, & 9

30
25
20
Site 7
Frequency

Site 8

Site 9

15
10
5
0

25

50

75

100

125

Figure 1. Species richness on MOFEP sites 7, 8, & 9.

150

175

200

More

This is consistent with the results found in Grabner and Zenner (2000), and follows
simple logic that creating gaps in the overstory, increases sunlight to the forest
floor, which in turn allows a more diverse suite of species to occupy the growing
space. The mean species richness for each treatment site is: site 7 79.1 (st. dev.
46.5), site 8 70.1 (st. dev. 44.8), and site 9 86.6 (st. dev. 60.7).
ANOVA
A one-way ANOVA was conducted on the species richness of each site to determine
if there still exists a statistical difference between treatment sites. The results of the
ANOVA are included in figure 2.
Anova: Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Groups

Count

7 Richness

71

8 Richness

70

9 Richness

71

ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups

SS

Sum
561
3
490
9
614
7

Average
79.0563
4
70.1285
7
86.5774
6

Variance
2193.19
7
2039.01
2
3740.90
5

df

MS

F
1.79590
8

Within Groups

9556.62
556078.
9

2
209

Total

565635.
6

211

4778.31
2660.66
5

P-value
0.16852
8

F crit
3.03908
5

Figure 2. ANOVA of species richness on MOFEP sites 7, 8, & 9.

Null hypothesis: Var7 = Var8 = Var9

Alternate hypothesis: Var7 Var8 Var9
As the results of the ANOVA demonstrate (F < F crit), there is no statistically
significant difference between the species richness on the different treatment sites.
These results are inconsistent with Grabner and Zenner (2000), however, that study
tested for differences among pre- and post-treatment for species richness, while this
analysis seeks to determine if there is a difference among the sites at all.
Furthermore, Grabner and Zenner (2000) was conducted fairly soon (4 years) after
the first treatment in 1996, while this analysis was conducted 9 years after the
treatment. Overall species richness is expected to decrease on the treatment sites
due to ingrowth and canopy closure by the overstory.

Hot spot analysis

A hot spot analysis was conducted on site 8 (no-harvest treatment) to determine if
there are points with higher than normal species richness. As figure 3 illustrates,
points with high species richness were found to be clustered, with a less than 1%
likelihood that this pattern is due to random chance.

Figure 3. Hotspot analysis - MOFEP site 8.

Spatial autocorrelation was tested for the Z-score of the hotspot analysis using
Morans I statistic. The Morans I index indicates a slight degree of spatial
autocorrelation. The results of the test are shown in table 1 and demonstrated
graphically in figure 4.
Table 1. Moran's I test for spatial autocorrelation.

Global Moran's I Summary

Moran's Index:
Expected Index:
Variance:

0.926277
-0.014493
0.010988

Dataset Information
Input Feature Class:
Input Field:
Conceptualization:

MOFEP\Site 8\Site 8
Hotspots
8_HOTSPOT.GIZSCORE
INVERSE_DISTANCE

z-score:

8.974917

p-value:

Distance Method:
Row Standardization:

EUCLIDEAN
TRUE

Distance Threshold.:

238.3114701

Weights Matrix File:

None

Figure 4. Spatial autocorrelation test showing some autocorrelation of species richness;

indicates data is clustered.

Correlation
As the result of the hotspot analysis shows, plots with a high species richness score
are clustered. The question, therefore, is what causes the spatial pattern. The
GiZScore from the hotspot analysis was joined with the overstory plot data.
Scatterplot diagrams (figure 5) were examined to determine if there was any visual
indication of correlation.
It seems logical that basal area and species richness would be negatively
correlated. Previous research has showed that harvest sites, e.g. sites 7 and 9, have
higher species richness indices after treatment than before. An initial examination

Figure 5. Scatterplot diagram.

of species richness and basal area yielded

inconclusive results. The regression
summary is listed below.
Summary of OLS Results
Variable
Coefficient StdError t-Statistic
Probability Robust_SE Robust_t Robust_Pr
Intercept
40.993220
17.370434 2.359942
0.021151*
13.962098 2.936036 0.004533*
8_TREE.BASAL 0.677749
0.384680 1.761851
0.082593
0.340590 1.989926 0.050622
OLS
Diagnostics
Number of Observations:
70
Number
of Variables:
2
Degrees of Freedom:
68
Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) [2]:
731.935
Multiple R-Squared [2]:
0.043656
Adjusted R-Squared [2]:
0.029592
Joint F-Statistic [3]:
3.104119
Prob(>F), (1,68) degrees of freedom:
Joint Wald Statistic [4]:
3.959807
Prob(>chi-squared), (1) degrees of freedom:
Koenker (BP) Statistic [5]: 1.687236
Prob(>chi-squared), (1) degrees of freedom:
Jarque-Bera Statistic [6]:
25.120859
Prob(>chi-squared), (2) degrees of freedom:

*
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

0.082589
0.046599*
0.193966
0.000004*

Notes on Interpretation
Statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Large VIF (> 7.5, for example) indicates explanatory variable redundancy.
Measure of model fit/performance.
Significant p-value indicates overall model significance.
Significant p-value indicates robust overall model significance.
Significant p-value indicates biased standard errors; use robust estimates.
Significant p-value indicates residuals deviate from a normal distribution.

Upon closer examination, the plots with GiZScores 1.65 were selected for further
examination. This yielded 11 plots. The scatter plot diagram (figure 6) for the
selected plots showed more promise in showing a possible correlation between
basal area and species richness.

Figure 6. Scatterplot diagram.

An ordinary least squares regression was performed on the selected plots to

determine if there was, indeed, any correlation between basal area and species
richness. The results of the regression are listed below.
Summary of OLS Results
Variable Coefficient StdError t-Statistic Probability Robust_SE Robust_t Robust_Pr
Intercept 148.324247 85.025026 1.744478
0.115036
92.055897 1.611241 0.141599
BASAL
-0.303678
1.586102 -0.191462
0.852444
1.669942 -0.181849 0.859762
Number of Observations:
Degrees of Freedom:
Multiple R-Squared [2]:
Joint F-Statistic [3]:
Joint Wald Statistic [4]:
Koenker (BP) Statistic [5]:
Jarque-Bera Statistic [6]:

*
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

11
9
0.004057
0.036658
0.033069
0.736698
0.673168

OLS Diagnostics
Number of Variables:
Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) [2]:
Adjusted R-Squared [2]:
Prob(>F), (1,9) degrees of freedom:
Prob(>chi-squared), (1) degrees of freedom:
Prob(>chi-squared), (1) degrees of freedom:
Prob(>chi-squared), (2) degrees of freedom:

Notes on Interpretation
Statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Large VIF (> 7.5, for example) indicates explanatory variable redundancy.
Measure of model fit/performance.
Significant p-value indicates overall model significance.
Significant p-value indicates robust overall model significance.
Significant p-value indicates biased standard errors; use robust estimates.
Significant p-value indicates residuals deviate from a normal distribution.

2
121.371032
-0.106604
0.852414
0.855701
0.390721
0.714206

While the results of this regression are better, there is still little evidence that basal
area explains species richness.
Conclusion
As the results of the statistical analysis demonstrate, species richness is a complex
ecosystem process that is subject to many different processes and not easily
explained by any single variable. It is clear that more research and in-depth analysis
is needed to start to understand the process that affect biodiversity in the lower
Ozarks. Some promising research has suggested that elevation plays a greater role
in site selection by species than previously thought (Chen et. al 2000). This study
suggests that physiographic process influence changes in plant associations to a
greater degree than the traditional association of habitat types. The no-harvest
treatment sites on MOFEP promise to shed some very interesting light on previous
assumptions about the role the overstory plays in influencing the understory
vegetation.
References
Brookshire, B. and Dey, D. 2000. Establishment and data collection of vegetationrelated studies on the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project study sites. In: S. R.
Shifley and B. L. Brookshire, eds. Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project: site
history, soils, landforms, woody and herbaceous vegetation down wood, and
inventory methods for the landscape experiment. General Technical Report NC-208.
St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station, 1-18.
Chen, J., Huebner, C., Saunders, S., and Song, B. 2000. Plant distribution and
diversity across an Ozark landscape. In: S.R. Shifly and J.M. Kabrick, eds.
Proceedings of the second Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project symposium:
post treatment results of the landscape experiment, 17-18 October 2000 St. Louis,
MO. General Technical Report NC-227. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, 45-65.
Grabner, J. and Zenner, E. 2000. Changes in ground layer vegetation following
timber harvests on the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project. In: S.R. Shifly and
J.M. Kabrick, eds. Proceedings of the second Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem
Project symposium: post treatment results of the landscape experiment, 17-18
October 2000 St. Louis, MO. General Technical Report NC-227. St. Paul, MN: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station,
66-83.
Guyette, R. and Larsen, D. 2000. A history of anthropogenic and natural
disturbances in the areas of the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project. In: S. R.
Shifley and B. L. Brookshire, eds. Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project: site
history, soils, landforms, woody and herbaceous vegetation down wood, and
inventory methods for the landscape experiment. General Technical Report NC-208.
St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station, 19-40.

Kabrick, J., Meinert, D., Night, T., and Gorlinsky, B. 2000. Physical environment of the
Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project sites. In: S. R. Shifley and B. L. Brookshire,
eds. Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project: site history, soils, landforms, woody
and herbaceous vegetation down wood, and inventory methods for the landscape
experiment. General Technical Report NC-208. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, 41-70.
Kabrick, J., Shifley, S., Jensen, R., Larsen, D., and Grabner, J. 2004. Oak forest
composition, site quality, and dynamics in relation to site factors in the
southeastern Missouri Ozarks. In: M. A. Spetich, ed. Upland oak ecology symposium:
history, current conditions, and sustainability. General Technical Report. SRS-73.
Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research
Station, 94-101.
Nelson, P. 2005. The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri. Jefferson City, MO:
Missouri Natural Areas Committee.
Nigh, T. and Schroeder, W., 2002. Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions. Jefferson City, MO:
Missouri Department of Conservation.
Shifley, S., Roovers, L., Jensen, R., and Larsen, D. 2000. Composition and structure
of woody forest vegetation in the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project. In: S. R.
Shifley and B. L. Brookshire, eds. Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project: site
history, soils, landforms, woody and herbaceous vegetation down wood, and
inventory methods for the landscape experiment. General Technical Report NC-208.
St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station, 71-106.