Table 3 by keara

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 13

									Presettlement forest composition of the Superior-Martel Forest
               Prepared by: Fred Pinto, Stephen Romaniuk and Matt Ferguson
                             Southern Science and Information
                               Ministry of Natural Resources
                                     North Bay, Ontario

Methods

We conducted our study in the recently amalgamated J.E. Martel Forest and Superior
Forest Management Units (hereafter referred to as the “Superior-Martel Forest”) in
northeastern Ontario (Figure 1). The pre-settlement forest composition was reconstructed
from Ontario Crown Land Survey Notes for the Superior-Martel Forest for the 1889-1923
period (Table 1).




           N


      W          E

           S

    100                 0              100              200 Miles




Figure 1. Outline of the township boundaries in the area that includes the Superior-
Martel Forest in northeastern Ontario, Canada. The provinces defined in the inset map
include Ontario (ON), Quebec (QC), and Manitoba (MB).

Table 1. Summary of work done by Crown Land Surveyors in the Superior-Martel
Forest.
          Surveyor                Date(s) of survey         Township boundaries
A. Niven                        1889                                       6
C.V. Gallagher                  1923                                      17
Cavana & Watson                 1901, 1903, 1919                          28
G.B. Abrey                      1902                                         2
H.J. Beatty                     1905, 1906, 1921                            11
J.M. Watson                     1919                                         1
J.S. Dobie                      1908, 1910, 1911, 1913                      24
J.W. Fitzgerald                 1920, 1921, 1923                            33
J.W. Pearce                     1912                                         1
L.V. Rorke                      1905, 1906                                  13
Lang & Ross                     1911                                        13
McAuslan, Anderson & Moore      1923                                        14
Speight & VanNostrand           1909, 1920, 1921                            31
T.B. Speight                    1898, 1899                                   6
T.J. Patten                     1910, 1911                                  14
W. Beatty                       1906, 1907                                  17
W. Galbraith                    1901, 1902                                   2
Unknown                         Unknown                                      5
Total                           1889-1923                                   238

The Ontario survey notes contain a wealth of information collected in the field, including
a description of the tree cover along the boundaries of each township, the location and
extent of forest stands along these boundaries, and a list of the tree species and genera
present within each stand. Stands were delineated based on the changes in composition
(proportion accounted for by each taxon) or changes in the order in which tree species
were listed. The data in our study included only observations along the township
boundaries and excluded data from lot and concession lines within the townships.
Because full township surveys were not consistently completed across northeastern
Ontario, the full survey data was not used. This approach also allowed us to include a
larger, more consistent study area in our analysis.

The forest resource inventory data that describe the current species composition of the
Superior-Martel Forest are based on the interpretation of 1992 aerial photographs with
interpretation completed in 1995, and updated with harvesting forecasts to 2001 and
depletions to 1999. Also, “free to grow” regeneration (trees taller than the competing
vegetation and at a height where survival is likely---usually about 1 m in Ontario) surveys
were included in 1999.

Comparison of FRI data along the township boundary to the abundance of tree species
described by the FRI data within the township

The survey data report only the species composition along township boundaries, and
unlike the data in the provincial forest resource inventory, do not cover the entire area
within a township. To determine whether species abundance along the boundary of a
township adequately predicted the abundance of tree species within the whole township,
we transcribed the inventory data along the township boundary lines and compared the
results with inventory data for the whole township. The strength of the similarity
determines the validity of using the historical survey notes to estimate the species
composition of entire townships and thus, the validity of comparing the historical data
with the current data as a means of examining post-settlement changes.
Data from most (71%) of the townships in the Superior-Martel Forest were used in our
analysis. Data from the other 29% of the townships were incomplete (these townships
had Ontario Land Surveyor notes for less than three boundaries) and were therefore
excluded from our analysis. The data from the forest resource inventory were mapped to
the level of individual townships using the Arcview 3.2 GIS software (Environmental
Systems Research Institute 1996), and the area of forested polygons was used to calculate
the percentage composition of the first-listed species; this is the dominant species and (in
most cases) the working group species for the township. The resulting dataset represented
the percentage composition for the whole township. We ran an intersect operation in
Arcview to retrieve the stand descriptions from the forest resource inventory along
township boundaries using the Land Survey transects as a reference. This let us establish
a correspondence between the inventory data and the survey data. We then compared
these intersected boundaries with the percentage composition for the whole township to
determine how accurately the boundary descriptions described the overall forest of the
township. We used a paired t-test to compare the species compositions of each of the 87
townships after arcsine and square root transformations to improve normality. The results
were pooled to obtain a single composition for each species.

The data represent an unbiased sample of township boundaries because we included all
the townships in the Superior-Martel Forest for which at least 3 boundaries were
available. Most townships were 6 miles by 6 miles (10 X 10 km), but some were 9 miles
by 9 miles (13.5 km by 13.5 km). The same boundary lines were included in the OLS
and FRI comparisons described below.

Comparison of species abundance between historical and current data

Current (forest resource inventory) and historical (survey) data were compared along
each township boundary using individual boundaries as the sampling unit (n=238), not
townships. Analyses were performed at two levels. The first comparison included only
the first-listed species in each stand, and summarized the length of the township boundary
occupied by each species as a percentage of the total length of the boundary. Records of
instructions given to land surveyors in the past suggest that tree species in a stand had to
be listed in order of their abundance (Canada Department of Crown Lands 1862, 1867;
Gentilecore and Donkin 1973). One aspect of the data supports this assumption, as
sometimes adjacent stands had identical taxa, but their order differed, suggesting the use
of a ranking system. The second comparison calculated an importance value called the
“ranked abundance” for the historical and current data. The ranked abundance represents
the length of the boundary occupied by each species, but weighted based on the rank of
the species (the order in which it was listed) in a stand; the first species was given a
weighting of three times its actual length, versus two times for the second species and
once for the third and subsequent species. Since we are unsure if the instructions to list
tree species by abundance were followed or followed by all surveyors, we also calculated
an importance value called “equal importance” using the actual (unweighted) length for
all species in each stand. The equal abundance value was calculated for both the historic
and the current datasets. We used the ranked and equal importance values to calculate the
 percentage composition of each boundary being compared. Paired t-tests were run on the
 data after arcsine and square-root transformations. Statistical analyses were performed on
 the 238 boundaries, but the results presented have been pooled for the whole Superior-
 Martel Forest.

 When pine was mentioned in the historical data, we classified it as red pine and white
 pine; jack pine was always specified as jack pine, banksian pine, or pitch pine, and was
 thus not included in the “unspecified pine” or “total pine” groupings used in the analyses
 (Table 2). Additional first-listed species in the historical data that accounted for less than
 1% of the forest composition and sample size were excluded from the analyses. These
 species included black ash (Fraxinus nigra Marsh.), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera
 L.), ironwood (Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K. Koch), willow (Salix spp.) and alder (Alnus
 spp.). The location of uncommon tree species recorded by the land surveyors are
 summarized in Table 3.

 Table 2. Common and scientific names associated with the names and codes used in the
 land survey notes. The last four rows represent the groupings we used in our analyses.
           Survey notes                          Interpretation                     Scientific name
Black ash                             Black ash (AB)                      Fraxinus nigra Marsh.
White ash                             White ash (AW)                      Fraxinus Americana L.
Alder                                 Alder spp.                          Alnus spp.
Balsam                                Balsam fir (B)                      Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.
Unspecified birch                     Birch spp.(BIR)                     Betula spp.
Paper birch or white birch            White birch (BW)                    Betula papyrifera Marsh.
Yellow birch                          Yellow birch (BY)                   Betula alleghaniensis Britton.
Cedar                                 Eastern white cedar (CE)            Thuja occidentalis L.
Tamarack                              Tamarack (L)                        Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch.
Unspecified maple                     Maple species (M)                   Acer spp.
Hard maple                            Sugar maple (MH)                    Acer saccharum Marsh.
Soft maple                            Red (MR) or silver maple (MS)       A. rubrum L. or A. saccharinum L.
Unspecified pine                      Pine spp. (P), excl. P. banksiana   Pinus spp.
Red pine, Norway pine                 Red pine (PR)                       Pinus resinosa Ait.
White pine                            White pine (PW)                     Pinus strobus L.
Banksian, pitch, or jack pine         Jack pine (PJ)                      Pinus banksiana Lamb.
Poplar                                Poplar species (PO)                 Populus spp.
Unspecified spruce                    Spruce species (SP)                 Picea spp.
Black spruce                          Black spruce (SB)                   Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.
Red spruce                            Red spruce (SR)                     Picea rubens Sarg.
White spruce                          White spruce (SW)                   Picea glauca (Moench) Voss.
 All birch categories listed above    Total birch (BW, BY, BIR)           Betula spp.
 All maple categories listed above    Total maple (M, MR, MS, MH)         Acer spp.
  All pine categories listed above    Total pine (P, PR, PW)              Pinus spp.
 All spruce categories listed above   Total spruce (SP, SB, SW)           Picea spp.

 The surveyors often described only the genus of the trees observed along the township
 boundaries; this was the case for spruce, pine, maple, and birch. We attempted to separate
 these genera using the logistic regression model described below. Assumptions were
 required to separate individual species for stands in the historical data which had been
recorded as “birch”, “maple”, “pine”, or “spruce”. These groupings consist of white
birch vs. yellow birch, hard maple vs. soft maple, white pine vs. red pine, and black
spruce vs. white spruce; the spruce genus will be used for an example of the method used
to distinguish species from the genera. To separate the two spruce species that could have
been recorded under the “spruce” category, we developed a model using binary logistic
regression (SPSS 2002) on the current (to 1999) data on the presence or absence of both
species in the Superior-Martel Forest. We created a separate database for spruce stands in
the current data using a rank column containing values of 0 (denoting black spruce) and 1
(denoting white spruce). If both species appeared in a stand, the stand with the higher
ranking (i.e., the species closer to the beginning of the list of species in the survey data)
was included and the other species was excluded. The frequency of the spruce species in
the current data determined the cutoff value used in the model. If the model was
significant (model χ2; SPSS 2002) and showed greater than 70% overall classification
accuracy in predicting the species based on current species associations, then the species
would be changed by running the model again, but on the historic data. The result of the
model was transformed into a value between 0 and 1. The cut-off value would be used to
divide the transformed values into individual species; i.e. all values above the cut-off
would be one species, and those less than or equal to the cut-off value would be coded as
the other species. Regardless of success of the model, all four generic groupings were
also maintained for non-assumption based comparisons.

In the analysis of categories for the trees based on dominance, the historical and current
first-listed species were regrouped into intolerant hardwoods (poplar and white birch),
mid-tolerant to tolerant hardwoods (ash, maple and yellow birch), and conifers (balsam
fir, cedar, tamarack, pine, and spruce), and compared based on the proportion of a
township boundary‟s total length occupied by each group. We used a paired t-test to
compare the groups after arcsine and square root transformations to improve normality.

The percent composition of taxa in the first three ranks was used to create a dominance
index so as to detect any changes in species dominance over time. The most abundant
species in each position was assigned a rank of one, the second species a rank of two, and
so forth. The sum of the ranks from the past data was divided by the sum of the ranks
from the present data to come up with the index value. A figure was produced for species
compositions with or without logistic regression changes.

Forest fragmentation was analyzed by summarizing the historical and current datasets
based on the land cover type (e.g. forest vs. agricultural land). Some of these land cover
types were not directly comparable because of inherent differences in the data and in the
classification schemes used in the two types of survey.

The Canadian Pacific Railway reached Chapleau in 1885, bringing with it a demand for
jack pine for ties needed to expand the railway. Small local scale cutting by contractors
was taking place as early as 1891. The Austin and Nicholson Lumber Company operated
in the area from 1901 to 1921, booming in 1916 as the top producer of railway ties in the
British Commonwealth with up to 200 000 ties per year (Conn 2003). They also
harvested a significant amount of spruce and red and white pine mostly during the period
of 1907 to the 1930s (Thorpe unpublished). Of those townships in which logging is
known to have taken place, only 10 boundaries were surveyed after such logging.
Therefore, these boundaries were removed from the dataset to maintain a more
undisturbed forest condition. Logging took place by 1907 in the townships of Gallagher
and Panet, and by 1922 in Pattinson and Floranna (Thorpe unpublished). In these cases,
the land surveys for these townships occurred before logging took place and were
therefore retained for the analyses. There is some evidence in the Ontario survey notes to
indicate that logging was encountered during these surveys in the Superior-Martel Forest
before 1923. About 1km of survey line in the townships of Collishaw and Stover
contained survey entries in 1920 and 1921 stating “cut area”, “recently cut” and “partially
lumbered”. These last three boundaries were included in the analysis since only one
kilometer of forest was removed in these two townships.

Results

Table 3. Uncommon species mentioned in the land survey data in the Superior-Martel
Forest.
         Species     Township boundary        Surveyor            Date
         Black ash   Bird East                G.B. Abrey          1902
                     Deans West               T.J. Patten         1911
                     Edighoffer West          J.S. Dobie          1913
                     Singapore West           J.W. Fitzgerald     1923
                     Tooms West               Unknown             ?
         White ash   Deans West               T.J. Patten         1911
         Beech       Bounsall East            J.W. Fitzgerald     1923

A reasonable logistic regression model was obtained for birch, maple, pine and spruce
(Table 4). However, only 0.4% of the birch codes in the FRI were yellow birch and since
the Superior-Martel forest lies predominately in the boreal region, all unknown birch
codes in the OLS were coded as white birch for all analyses instead of adopting the
model (Table 5).

Table 4. Percentage of OLS transect that refers to codes of each unspecified genus (e.g.
BIR) versus the total for all species of that genus (e.g. BIR, BW, BY). This is shown
individually for the first three species using 1) the length of forest cover (metres) for each
genus; and 2) the frequency of codes used within each genus. The classification accuracy
of the FRI logistic regression model is shown along with the model chi-square.
               % by length (metres)          % by frequency         accuracy of     model summary
                                                                  self-validation   (χ2 and p-value)
                                                                    test of FRI
            SPP1      SPP2       SPP3     SPP1    SPP2    SPP3
Birch       53.1      64.3       58.9     59.7    68.2    59.5        96.8%          616.7 p<0.01
Maple       50.5      51.3       86.0     54.8    34.1    46.8        76.4%           24.1 p<0.01
Pine        11.7      27.1       18.9     10.7    26.9    15.9        91.0%          247.0 p<0.01
Spruce      97.1      86.5       81.7     96.8    86.4    85.3        74.0%         10910.7 p<0.01
Table 5. Frequency of known FRI codes within the genus in question. Also shown, are
the codes predicted by the logistic regression model or assumptions used to separate the
four genera into species.
      Species           Percent length in current FRI       Percent length in OLS predicted by model
                        SPP1       SPP2        SPP3           SPP1            SPP2           SPP3
White birch (BW)        28.56      20.48       15.98          14.03           20.45          30.15
Yellow birch (BY)        0.20       0.72        0.81           0.14            0.26           0.40
Hard maple (MH)          1.12       0.57        0.92           0.33            0.36           0.30
Soft maple (MS)          0.06       1.05        2.45           0.05            0.05           0.00
Red pine (PR)            0.02       0.07        0.10           0.24            0.38           0.27
White pine (PW)          0.87       0.82        1.99           3.37            0.84           2.12
Black spruce (SB)       25.88      20.92       15.31          29.48           19.25           7.93
White spruce (SW)        0.65       6.50       13.33           8.19            6.24           6.97

The historical (Ontario Land Survey) data provided an acceptable measure of the overall
composition of the Superior-Martel Forest. That is, the forest cover recorded along the
boundaries between townships predicted the overall forest composition with 95%
confidence in all cases except for balsam fir(B), soft maple (MS), and white spruce (SW),
which were significantly different (=0.05) (Table 6). This means that sampling along
the township boundaries may be insufficient to detect changes in abundance for these
species. Only the balsam fir is noteworthy since all maples and spruce were lumped
together for the analyses.

Table 6. Tree species composition of the current Superior-Martel Forest along township
boundaries as compared to the total forest (based on first-listed species). Composition is
distance based for the township lines and area based for the entire forest.
                    Township lines 2001 FRI data        Total forest 2001 FRI data
B                               0.90                               0.90*
BW                             28.21                               28.12
BY                              0.14                                0.15
Total birch                    28.35                               28.27
CE                              4.71                                4.89
LA                              0.81                                0.67
MH                              1.08                                0.89
MS                              0.05                               0.08*
Total maple                     1.13                                0.97
PJ                             19.12                               19.63
PO                             17.51                               18.52
PR                              0.02                                0.02
PW                              0.88                                0.62
Total pine                      0.90                                0.64
SB                             25.96                               24.98
SW                              0.60                               0.53*
Total spruce                   26.56                               25.51
* significant difference between FRI lines (township lines described in the 2001 FRI) and
area within the township (2001 FRI) at the 95% confidence interval.
** significant difference between FRI lines (township lines described in the 2001 FRI)
and area within the township (2001 FRI) at the 99% confidence interval.
Table 7a. Land survey data is displayed to show changes in first-listed species
composition. Since not all birch, maple, pine and spruce were recorded by species in the
land surveys, all entries were lumped at the Genus level. Each value represents the mean
for all the boundary lines. Species listed as “inconclusive” had an insufficient sample size
and we are not able to state with certainty that the changes found along township
boundaries reflect changes to the whole forest area (Table 6).
                OLS (1889-1923)       FRI (2001)        Change
B                     4.29              0.90**        inconclusive
BIRN                  7.61                n.a.
BWN                   6.65              28.59
BYN                   0.12               0.16
Total birch          14.38             28.75**          increased
CE                    2.19              4.33**          increased
L                     0.87               0.68           decreased
MN                    0.19                n.a.
MHN                   0.18               1.13
MSN                    ---               0.07
Total maple           0.37              1.19**          increased
PJ                   25.58             19.15**          decreased
PO                    9.10             17.58**          increased
PN                    0.44                n.a.
PRN                   0.09               0.02
PWN                   3.23               0.87
Total pine            3.77              0.89**          decreased
SPN                  36.55                n.a.
SBN                   1.11              25.85
SWN                    ---               0.67
Total spruce         37.66             26.52**          decreased
Other A N             1.80               0.00
** significant difference between OLS data and FRI township lines at the 99%
confidence interval.
A
  the „other‟ group included alder, black ash, balsam poplar, ironwood and willow.
N
  not analyzed.

Table 7b. Land survey data are displayed to show changes in first-listed species
composition. OLS maple, pine and spruce species are those predicted by the logistic
regression models. All unknown birch was assumed to be white birch.
                    OLS (1889-1923)    FRI (2001)       Change
BW                       13.85          28.59**        increased
BY                        0.14           0.16        not significant
MH                        0.33          1.13**         increased
MS                        0.05           0.07        not significant
PR                        0.24           0.02        not significant
PW                        3.44          0.87**         decreased
SB                       29.51          25.85*         decreased
SW                        8.22          0.67**         decreased
* significant different between OLS data and FRI township lines at the 95% confidence
interval.
   ** significant different between OLS data and FRI township lines at the 99% confidence
   interval.


                     100.00                            Land surveys
                      90.00                            (1889-1937)
                      80.00                            FRI (2001)
                      70.00
        length (%)




                      60.00
                      50.00
                      40.00
                      30.00
                      20.00
                      10.00
                       0.00
                              Intolerant hardw ood *   Mid- to tolerant    Conifer-dominated *
                                                         hardw ood


   Figure 2. Tree functional categories based on first-listed species (n=238), all unknown
   birch in the OLS data was assumed to be white birch (intolerant hardwood). * denotes a
   statistically significant difference between land survey and FRI data at the 99%
   confidence level.

   Table 8a. Comparison by importance value between OLS and FRI data. Each value
   represents the mean for all the boundary lines. Since not all birch, maple, pine and spruce
   were recorded by species in the land surveys, all entries were lumped at the Genus level
   (shaded rows).
   Species                    Township boundaries OLS                           Township boundaries FRI
                          Ranked abundance Equal abundance                Ranked abundance Equal abundance
ALN                             1.63              2.05                           n.a.                n.a.
B                              10.32             12.22                          7.45*              10.06
BIRN                            9.79             10.56                           n.a.                n.a.
BWN                             6.48              6.54                          19.91              16.88
BYN                             0.17              0.18                           0.45               0.54
Total birch                    16.44             17.28                        20.36**              17.42
CE                              2.82              3.15                         5.53**              5.82**
L                               2.90              3.59                           2.20               2.74
MN                              0.30              0.37                           n.a.                n.a.
MHN                             0.19              0.19                           0.85               0.79
MSN                             0.02              0.03                           0.88               1.19
Total maple                     0.51              0.6                          1.73**              1.98**
PJ                             18.84             17.19                        15.88**              14.78*
PO                             10.59             10.79                        16.16**             15.28**
PN                              0.40              0.41                           n.a.                n.a.
PRN                             0.21              0.26                           0.05               0.06
PWN                             3.10              3.51                           1.30               1.56
Total pine                      3.72              4.19                         1.35**              1.62**
SPN                            28.97             25.70                           n.a.                n.a.
SBN                    1.81                1.87               23.92                 22.85
SWN                    0.01                0.01                5.41                  7.43
Total spruce          30.79               27.58               29.33                30.27**
OtherN                 1.20                1.37                0.03                  0.04
   * significance at 95% confidence interval between ranked OLS and FRI township
   boundaries and between equal OLS and FRI township boundaries.
   ** significance at 99% confidence interval between ranked OLS and FRI township
   boundaries and between equal OLS and FRI township boundaries.
   N
     species not analyzed.

   Table 8b. Comparison by importance value between OLS data from 1889-1923 and 2001
   updated FRI. Each value represents the mean for all the boundary lines. OLS maple, pine
   and spruce species are those predicted by the logistic regression models. All unknown
   birch was assumed to be white birch.
   Species          Township boundaries OLS                  Township boundaries FRI
               Ranked abundance  Equal abundance       Ranked abundance Equal abundance
 BW                 16.21              17.12               19.91**              16.88
 BY                  0.19               0.21                0.45**             0.54**
 MH                  0.49               0.57                0.85**              0.79*
 MS                  0.07               0.08                0.88**               1.19
 PR                  0.38               0.43                0.05**             0.06**
 PW                  3.30               3.74                1.30**             1.56**
 SB                 24.79              22.47                 23.92              22.85
 SW                  6.04               5.19                 5.41*             7.43**
   * significance at 95% confidence interval between ranked OLS and FRI township
   boundaries and between equal OLS and FRI township boundaries.
   ** significance at 99% confidence interval between ranked OLS and FRI township
   boundaries and between equal OLS and FRI township boundaries.

   The change in „forest‟ cover illustrated in Table 9 is misleading; the difference can be
   attributed to the differences in the classification used. That is, the historic non-productive
   forest, areas of burn (burned clean) and windfall, and sections of no data can be classified
   as productive forest by present standards. If we examine the 78.4% forest cover in the
   FRI data further to look at the breakdown of land ownership (Table 9), it is evident that
   3.76% of this forest cover is classified as patent (or private) land. The majority of this
   patent land consists of mining claims that have likely been converted from forest cover to
   non-forest cover.

   Table 9. Proportion of total area in each land cover type based on the Ontario Land
   Survey (OLS) and Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) data. “Rock” refers to forested or
   non-forested land containing exposed bedrock. “n.a.” means “not applicable” (i.e., no
   land was classified in this category in the OLS or FRI data). Barren and scattered or not
   satisfactorily regenerated (NSR) can include areas that have been cutover and/or burned
   and may be comparable to the area burned that was specified in the OLS. Windthrow
   includes any historic transects that mentioned windthrow.

                 Land cover type                                Percent of total area
                                                                          OLS          FRI
                         Forest                                           70.80       78.40
                         Non-productive forest (muskeg, alder)            12.40        4.56
                         Non-productive forest (rock)                      0.08        0.03
                         Grass and meadows                                 0.30         ---
                         Unclassified land                                 0.01        0.14
                         Water                                             7.45        7.71
                         Burned areas (burned clean)                       4.17         ---
                         Partial burns (over & above that burned clean)    9.72         ---
                         Windthrow                                         0.44         ---
                         Barren & scattered or NSR                          ---        4.75
                         No data                                           4.33        4.35



               30
                                                                  Maple
               25
                                                                                   Pine
               20                                          CE             L
   Past rank




               15
                                         PO           PJ
               10                                            B
                                 Birch
               5        Spruce

               0
                    0             5           10        15        20          25          30
                                                   Present rank

Figure 3a. Changes in dominance between the historic (past rank) and current (present
rank) species groups. The 45° line represents a one to one correlation between the two
ranks. Species groups above the line display an increase in dominance. Species groups
with a smaller rank illustrate a higher dominance in forest stands. Each combined rank
includes the compositions from each of the first three species positions.
               40                                                    MS
               35
                                                                     MH        BY   PR
               30
               25
   Past rank




                                                                          PW
                                                     CE
               20                                               L
                                                           SW
               15
                                  PO
               10            SB             B & PJ
                        BW
               5
               0
                    0        5         10   15       20         25        30   35   40
                                                 Present rank

Figure 3b. Changes in dominance between the historic (past rank) and current (present
rank) individual tree species. The 45° line represents a one to one correlation between the
two ranks. Species or species groups above the line display an increase in dominance.
Species or species groups with a smaller rank illustrate a higher dominance in forest
stands. Each combined rank includes the compositions from each of the first three species
positions. The maple, pine and spruce species were those determined by the logistic
regression models, all unknown birch was coded as white birch.

Literature cited

Canada Department of Crown Lands. 1862. Remarks on Upper Canada surveys, and
extracts from the surveyor‟s reports, containing a description of the soil and timber of the
townships in the Huron and Ottawa territory, and on the north shores of Lake Huron.
Appendix no. 26, to the report of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, for 1861. Hunter,
Rose, and Lemieux, Quebec.

Canada Department of Crown Lands. 1867. Remarks on Upper Canada surveys, and
extracts from the surveyor‟s reports, containing a description of the soil and timber of the
townships in the Ottawa River and Georgian Bay Section and between the Spanish River,
on the north shore of Lake Huron, and Goulay‟s Bay, on Lake Superior. Hunter and
Rose, Ottawa, Ontario.

Conn, Heather, The human history of Wakami Lake, 2003.
http://www.canadianfishing.com/sultan/wakami.htm (2003, Dec 2).

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 1996. Arcview 3.2 GIS software.
ESRI Inc., Redlands, California. 350pp.
Gentilecore, L. and K. Donkin. 1973. Land surveys of southern Ontario. An introduction
and index to the field notebooks of the Ontario Land Surveyors 1784-1859. Supplement
#2 to Canadian Cartographer Vol. 10, 166pp.

SPSS. 2002. Version - base 11.5, with Regression Models. SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois.

								
To top