1. 1972 – 2001 Landscape Dynamics Wisconsin 38858.13ha (96020.19ac)

2. 1972 1978 1982 1987 1992 2001 Landscape Dynamics of the Washburn District, N. Wisc.

3. Ownership and Landscapes The number of family forest owners in the conterminous US increased from 9.3 million in 1993 to 10.3 million in 2003, and these owners now control 42% of the nation’s forest land Butler and Leatherberry 2004 J. For. 102(7): 4-9

4. Lots of Indian Reservations Less private

5. Public lands in high elevation Small portion of state lands

7. Case Study I Landscapes in Central Oregon Spies et al. 1994. Study objectives: landscape, change, and ownership effects in W. Cascades, 158,930 ha)

8. Landsat images from 1972, 1976, 1981, 1984, and 1988; By ownership, elevation; Harvesting effects; Only two cover types (black & white); 91% accuracy (this is high).

10. Linear Interior <10%

11. More smaller patches in 1988 Less large patches

13. Changes in sub-landscapes 92% 10% 84% 65%

14. Nucleation change

15. High Low

16. Take Home Messages Conifer forest declined (71-58%); Greater at private lands. AEI increased and interior decreased, but depending on ownership. The annual rate was about 1.19%. Large forest patches are emerging (why?). Different management options for different owners.

17. Case Study II Landscapes in Northern Wisconsin Crow et al. 1999 Study Objectives: to partition the sources of variation in the composition and structure of a landscape as related to the physical environment and land use as affected by ownership. Sample plots (16 from 20)

19. Photo interpretation 1:15840 B/W or 1:1200 natural color (1993) Transferred to 1:2400 USGS topo maps Digitized into PC ARCINFO GIS The entire land area shares a common land- use history. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, intensive logging occurred throughout NW WI. However, the most prevalent process in the study area was reforested.

21. 95% of public forest on outwash and 64% on moraine; No difference for private forest (i.e., 65%); Large lands surrounding lakes are private; More wetlands on moraine; Privates owns more agricultural lands.

22. More even distribution among the classes of upland forest is evident for private land on outwash; Less regenerating forests on private lands; Smaller patches for mixed forests;

23. Landscape Structure Outwash: Smaller patches on private lands; But more fragmented;

24. Landscape Structure: landform effects Different Not Different

25. Large Small

27. Conclusions Complex interactions between landform and ownership; What differences, in terms of ecological consequences, can landscape (composition and structure) produce? Different management scenarios? Anything else?