Evidence supporting the need for a common soil monitoring protocol

D. A. Reeves, M. Coleman, D. Page-Dumroese
{"title":"Evidence supporting the need for a common soil monitoring protocol","authors":"D. A. Reeves, M. Coleman, D. Page-Dumroese","doi":"10.22230/jem.2013v14n2a106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many public land management agencies monitor forest soils for levels of disturbance related to management activities. Although several soil disturbance monitoring protocols based on visual observation have been developed to assess the amount and types of disturbance caused by forest management, no common method is currently used on National Forest lands in the United States. We present data on relative soil disturbance based on harvest system from National Forests throughout Montana and Idaho. Because each National Forest uses its own method for data collection, we developed a common, well-defined visual class system for analyses based on the existing soil monitoring data that accurately normalized disparate classifications. Using this common system, we detected differences in soil disturbance between the ground-based and overhead harvest systems; however, no site attributes (slope, aspect, soil texture, etc.) affected soil disturbance levels. The individual National Forest was the most important factor explaining differences among harvest units. The effect of National Forest may be explained by different forest types, soils, harvest practices, or administrative procedures, but the most likely explanation is differences among the various qualitative classification approaches to soil disturbance monitoring. Althoughthis analysis used a large data set, our inability to correlate disturbance with site characteristics and the differences between monitoring methods points to the need for common terms and comparable guidelines for soil disturbance monitoring.","PeriodicalId":129797,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ecosystems and Management","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ecosystems and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22230/jem.2013v14n2a106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Many public land management agencies monitor forest soils for levels of disturbance related to management activities. Although several soil disturbance monitoring protocols based on visual observation have been developed to assess the amount and types of disturbance caused by forest management, no common method is currently used on National Forest lands in the United States. We present data on relative soil disturbance based on harvest system from National Forests throughout Montana and Idaho. Because each National Forest uses its own method for data collection, we developed a common, well-defined visual class system for analyses based on the existing soil monitoring data that accurately normalized disparate classifications. Using this common system, we detected differences in soil disturbance between the ground-based and overhead harvest systems; however, no site attributes (slope, aspect, soil texture, etc.) affected soil disturbance levels. The individual National Forest was the most important factor explaining differences among harvest units. The effect of National Forest may be explained by different forest types, soils, harvest practices, or administrative procedures, but the most likely explanation is differences among the various qualitative classification approaches to soil disturbance monitoring. Althoughthis analysis used a large data set, our inability to correlate disturbance with site characteristics and the differences between monitoring methods points to the need for common terms and comparable guidelines for soil disturbance monitoring.
支持需要一项共同土壤监测方案的证据
许多公共土地管理机构监测森林土壤与管理活动有关的干扰程度。虽然已经制定了几种基于目视观察的土壤扰动监测方案来评估森林管理造成的扰动的数量和类型,但目前在美国国家森林土地上没有使用通用方法。我们在蒙大拿州和爱达荷州的国家森林中提供了基于采伐系统的相对土壤扰动数据。由于每个国家森林都使用自己的数据收集方法,我们基于现有的土壤监测数据开发了一个通用的、定义良好的视觉分类系统,用于准确标准化不同分类的分析。使用这个通用系统,我们检测了地面和架空收获系统之间土壤扰动的差异;然而,场地属性(坡度、坡向、土壤质地等)对土壤扰动程度没有影响。个别国家森林是解释不同采伐单位差异的最重要因素。国家森林的效果可以用不同的森林类型、土壤、采伐方法或行政程序来解释,但最可能的解释是各种土壤干扰监测定性分类方法之间的差异。尽管该分析使用了大量数据集,但我们无法将扰动与场地特征和监测方法之间的差异联系起来,这表明需要共同的术语和土壤扰动监测的可比指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信