m |
m |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{alert|The anticipated construction period for this page is through July, 2014|alert-under-construction}} | {{alert|The anticipated construction period for this page is through July, 2014|alert-under-construction}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
The health of an urban, suburban, rural, or natural forest is rarely limited to individual species alone. An assessment of forest health should be related to both the individual tree and the collection of trees, including interactions between trees. | The health of an urban, suburban, rural, or natural forest is rarely limited to individual species alone. An assessment of forest health should be related to both the individual tree and the collection of trees, including interactions between trees. | ||
The health of an urban, suburban, rural, or natural forest is rarely limited to individual species alone. An assessment of forest health should be related to both the individual tree and the collection of trees, including interactions between trees.
Many metrics and methods have been developed for assessment of individual tree health. The concept of “resilience” at the individual and canopy levels is the core of the assessment tools. The majority of these evaluative methods and metrics focus on the response of the individual or evaluative unit to a disturbance regime to quantify the “resilience.” The type and capacity of response to the given disturbance and the time it takes to return to the initial qualitative equilibrium state indicate the overall resilience to the disturbance or pressure. Eichorn and Roskams (2013) cite various sources indicating that this return to “equilibrium” is not always return to the initial state, stating that, “open systems will reorganize at critical points of instability.” Determining the critical thresholds for certain pressures, disturbances, and changes the system or individual can tolerate before it cannot recover can provide a proxy for tree and forest health.
The resilience of the tree individuals and canopy is often difficult to quantify directly for multiple pressures. Rather, indirect measures are often employed for inventory and monitoring of tree health. Measurements and metrics can also be taken both directly (e.g. assessing growth rings from a core) and indirectly (e.g. remote sensing of canopy leaf area). Direct and indirect methodologies are discussed and compared below. It is suggested that the base of monitoring, evaluation, and correlation of forest health be that of overall forest resilience, rather than individual tree health. The foundation of the assessment focuses on the health of the individual as a component of the collection of individuals in the forest canopy. Eichhorn and Roskams (2013) suggest using two levels of monitoring and implementation:
These levels are not distinct in their interactions and the information gained at each level can inform the interactions and information at the other level. Interactions at each of these levels may also be correlated with and inform forest health and interactions at the national or global scale. We suggest future strategies and policy efforts to standardize, create, and implement a larger national, and possibly global, forest assessment tool for monitoring, assessing, and evaluating the health of our forest. Per the International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests, implementation within the MPCA tree monitoring focuses on the following objectives of Minnesota tree condition monitoring, as a subset of the national and global forest system (Eichorn and Roskams (2013): to contribute to a [Minnesota-wide] early warning system and to a better understanding of tree vitality, including relationships to stress factors and ecosystem disturbances;
The methodologies presented hereafter focus on these objects in order to establish a framework for a comprehensive tree monitoring system that can be added to as new methodologies and assessment tools emerge.