What is the nature of the substrate of your site, and how does it influence the vegetation there?

At our site, we found upon digging our pit that the parent material was only a few feet from the surface. Consequently, we speculated that our site had shallow sandy soils with a pH of 6.5 (slightly acidic). For most plants and trees growing on top, a pH between the range of 6-7 is great for nutrient exchange and drainage from  water runoff.

We labeled our soil, Farmington Extremely Rocky Loam (FaE), which is associated with steep slopes and rocky bedrock. Therefore, the bedrock exposed and the rocky parent material below allowed for an optimal pH range for many understory and over story species to grow.

Main Types of Vegetation Found (in our rocky shallow soil)

·         Red Maple

·         Sugar Maple

·         Ironwood

·         Red Oak

These trees according to the USDA plant database prefer well drained, most, fertile soil. Therefore, an optimal pH range of 6.5 and a steep slope gradient allowed for the drainage of water and the concentration of many important macronutrients.

What are the three most common herbaceous species found there?

Due to the slope aspect and understory composition, we did not note many herbaceous species at our site. However, we did record only a few spots of ferns growing at the lower elevations of our site. Another type of species found growing at a few spots in our hectare was poison ivy.

1.    Sensitive fern

2.    Christmas fern

3.    Poison ivy

Despite only a few noted herbaceous species, we did however, observe moss (bryophyte) covering the rocky bedrock of our site.

How many woody plant species are there on your site, and how are they distributed?

Here is a generated graph of the types of woody plant species found at our site. The numbers along the y-axis are arbitrary but their purpose is to illustrate what you would most likely see walking around our site.

Is your site representative of the surrounding forest?

Despite the forest topography changing from flat to a steep slope it seemed evident that the types of trees found in our specific site coincided with the surrounding forest. The only major observation when surveying the surrounding landscapes is the amount of noted exposed bedrock found at our site. Regardless, trees such as; red maple, red oak, sugar maple, red pine, and iron wood were the most common trees seen. Regardless of our site being the highest in elevation, the type of trees found were consistent throughout the Niquette Bay State Park.  

However, soil composition and fertility will change throughout the landscape of the forest due to the fact that there was a stream at the bottom on the valley and other topographic aspects not found at our higher elevated site.

What will our site look like in the year 2111?

In roughly a hundred years from now our site in Niquette Bay will remain a forest dominated by trees like the red maple, American beech and the sugar maple. It can be seen the mid and low story (young trees) were mostly red maples, sugar maples and American beeches. These trees are normally found together and can survive a degree of variation in soil pH and water availability. Even if there was a forest fire that destroyed all canopy layers at our site, these trees would still dominate the rocky landscape as they are competitive early successional/ fast growing trees.

What do we think the forest was like 400 years ago?

Our hectare of forest at Niquette Bay State park was located very close to the beautiful Mansfield Vista along the Muhley trail. Every time we had a lab section, we hiked about 1.2 miles, gaining 400-420 feet in elevation by the time we reached our site. It easily took us 20 minutes just to get there!

Even though it took us a while to figure out the exact location of our site, I can remember the first time I saw it. The forest was composed of a dense stand of Ironwood (Ostraya virgiana,) American Beech (Fagus grandfolia,) Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra,) Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum,) Red Pine (Pinus resinosa,) and the occasional Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata). By definition, the composition and location of this forest community species indicates that the forest can be identified as mid-late successional. According to one age estimate, mid-late successional forests can generally span from 50-150+ years old, (“Georgia Farm,” 2012).  As we were walking down a rocky embankment, I can remember seeing a gnarled sugar maple- 43.3 inches in diameter, 80 feet in height, and approximately 6o years in age. It ended up being the biggest, and quite possibly the oldest, tree in our plot. However, as we got thinking, this tree has only been in that spot for the past 60 years or so. What did the land look like before that?

400 years ago, the French explorer Samuel de Champlain brought the first white explorers to Vermont (Guyette, 2012). Immediately, he fell in love with the un-interrupted beauty of the natural landscape. In the valleys and lowlands, forests were composed of dense stands of hardwoods: oaks, maples, Eastern Hemlock and birches. In the mountains, pines, spruces, and yellow birch reigned. Generally, I think our site would follow this same regional trend. This hypothesis is furthermore supported by the optimal seedbed of rich leaf litter, glacial till, and bedrock that exists in our site today. 400 years ago, our site at Niquette Bay State Park wouldn’t be a bad place for a forest to thrive!

Literature Cited:

"Georgia Farm*A*Syst: Forest Resources Management B 1152-18." Georgia Farm*A*Syst: Forest Resources Management. The University of Georgia: College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, 21 May 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. <http://www.caes.uga.edu/publications/pubDetail.cfm?pk_id=6977>.

Guyette, Elise A. "Gathering and Interactions of Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas." French Settlement Of Vermont. Flow of History, 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. http://www.flowofhistory.org/themes/movement_settlement/french.php.

What are our team’s favorite characteristics of the site?

Here is a diagram of some of our favorite things and what we loved doing at our site.

What signs of humans (past and present) were there in and around our site?

The most obvious sign of human disturbance at our site was the Muhley trail itself. As seen in our hand-drawn map, the trail transects a portion of our site. Another sign of humans close to our site was an old fence post just outside the north end of our hectare. Also seen around the trail were remains of dog scat.

Management recommendations we have for park managers?

Our site was dominated by red maple and, therefore, one of the suggestions we propose for park managers is a forestry technique known as “single selection.” By removing a few of the red maples you can allow for other species to grow and compete, instead of a forest dominated by a single tree. As they say, “too much of anything is never a good thing.” By removing a few red maple we can allow the growth of other species (sugar maples and oaks).

Big Tree Calculations

Species: Red Maple (Acer rubrum)
DBH: 28.9 inches
Height 43.635 feet
Volume (feet cubed): 2385.279

Graphs

To get to our site you had to travel 1.2 miles from the park office at an elevation level from 400-425ft. The site had a view of Mount Mansfield that showed you the elevation of our plot. Some distinctive qualities of our plot were the percentage of course woody debris, and standing snags. The majority of the course woody debris consisted of red pine. Knowing that red pine consist in sandy well-drained soils, the soil within the plot was sandy well-drained soil. When we dug and tested the soil the pH of the soil was 6.5, this means the soil was on the acidic side. The snags were easily identifiable as they had big DBH’s and could easily be spotted upon from other living trees. The biggest factor to how our site was the fact that the trail went right through it. So, many times we saw people walk right by us.

The majority of the site had bedrock of Dunham Dolostone. In the middle of our plot the bedrock was huge and had taken up a bit of land. It was one of the define characteristics that we went by in our plot. Also, our site due to its elevation was very hilly or steep. Because of it being 400ft up we did not have any flat land.

Within our plot and doing research of what trees that consisted in our site, we found we had stands of ostraya/oak mix, maple stand, red pine stand, and an ostraya stand. These trees made a good part of the forest as we observed walking to our site, but they are a good factor to say what types of tree will be in that forest, along with identifying the soil in which the forest is on. The last and important part of the site is the canopy cover that was 87% covered by the trees. Any undergrowth trees will be shade tolerant species and are going to be the next trees within the plot. In one hundred years there will be another whole density of trees that consist of American beech, sugar maple, and white oak. All shade tolerant species that work well with the canopy layer that is given. 

Description of site/What will happen to the site

When taking a look upon our site (Site 7), our site was certainly a good representative to the forest around it. Since every week we had to hike around to get to our spot, which was pretty high up we would identify trees on the way up. Since Connor, Amie, and I are in dendrology, it is good to keep tabs upon identifying the trees. The trees that were near the beginning of the Muhley Trail were the same were the same for when you climbed up 400ft up to our site. To name a few trees we saw prior to our site and within the site are red pine, red maple, sugar maple, chestnut oak, white oak, and iron wood. Our site was also very steep so it was able to have different species within our site as it was not just a flat area. These trees made up most of the forest, with looking at other group’s data; they had a few of the same trees, along with a few differences of trees within the same species. So, overall our site did resemble the surrounding forest. When searching the area, there will be a few differences upon soil context and different trees in some areas, but it is all relatively the same for the forest. 

Without any disturbance from climate, weather, animals, or human construction the site of the forest in 2111 will be a stand of American beech, sugar maple, and white oak, as the shrub layer right now are those threes. As a forester, we look at that layer and we picture what might happen in a hundred year time frame. What will happen is the existing red oak and red maple will end up dying off and the other trees will come in and end up taking their place. The stand will look like how it is now, just with other species. So the majority of it will consist of American beech, sugar maple, and white oak. These species are large growth species, shade tolerant, and late sessional trees. When they get the chance to sprout more and have the resources to grow, they will be the trees to be the big component of the stand. That is what I believe the stand will look like in about one hundred years.

We loved the view of Mansfield view we got. That point was our destination site on the first lab. The trail was easy to follow, yet it was a bit of a hike, we saw a lot as we traveled to our destination. It was diverse with trees, had a good canopy layer, and a good understory layer. We were impressed by these factors and are great characteristics of the site. Another good thing about the site that is certainly favorable to the site was the course woody debris we saw, and the standing snags. These places are great habitats for things such as grouse, deer, salamander, and other animals upon the area. The location was perfect, couldn’t ask for a better area. All these characteristics made the site a good site for resources and had what it needed to be organisms to live within it.

A few signs of humans upon our site would be that the trail was in most of the site. When we were in lab a lot of the times we saw people walking by.  A dog even ate a granola bar from Claire’s backpack. Many dogs were around and we even saw some reminisce of them being there. Other factors are the markings of the tails on the trees, and the posts of the Island view trail are also factors of humans being in the area. Those were the big factors that were of human were in the site.

As a Forestry major I took a class on small woodland management, and learned about many techniques. Seeing that our site had a thick red maple, it would be good to get rid of some of those. Within the site I would suggest doing a single tree selection. Since a clear cut would not work at a higher elevation, and would not really be good for the forest, and a group selection wouldn’t really work either, I would suggest taking out just a few trees to get new growth within that part of the forest.  We had a total of six red maples and our largest tree was a red maple too. In my perspective I would say cut the second highest and the second lowest DBH trees to sport some new growth within the sites. So with our data it would be an 11.5in DBH red maple, and a 9.5in DBH red maple. Other factors to account would be the plots we mark within the site. But the most important thing is you never want to get rid of the biggest tree. Always keep that one of the species as it is the defining factors to have seedlings of it grow. We would not cut our 28.9in DBH get cut down.  By cutting these red maples, other trees such as sugar maple and oaks could grow in there. Sugar maples are very valuable in the sugaring process along with being good timber too. We had a white oak within the site too and they are one of the most valuable timbers out there, so if we were able to grow more white oaks within the area, the land would be good. Plus the oak supplies great habitat and other resources to animals, such as deer and a few birds, such as the woodpecker. Other things to manage for besides the trees would be things such as animals and soil. 

New England Wildlife Survey of our site

Species	High Perch	Canopy >70%	Rocky Floor, Dead & Down material, Forest litter and moss	Coniferous Overstory Inclusion
Wood Frog			X
Spotted Salamander			X
Redback Salamander			X
Jefferson Salamander			X
Black Rat Snake			X
Eastern Milk Snake			X
Northern Black Racer			X
Northern Ringnecked Snake			X
Blue Jay		X
Common Raven	X	X
Canada Warbler		X
Great Horned Owl	X	X		X
Fisher		X	X
Gray Squirrel	X	X		X
Eastern Chipmunk		X	X
White tailed deer		X		X
Table
	Amphibians
	Reptiles
	Birds
	Mammals

Big trees on our plot

Animal Sign Found Within Hectare

When surveying our hectare we found animal sign from multiple species of birds, a large herbivore and a small carnivore. A set of whitetail deer tracks was found moving across the top of a ridge in a northern direction. Along with the tracks a pile of deer feces was found in the general direction the tracks were traveling. In the far corner of our hectare a pile of what looked like feces from a small carnivore, because of the hair that was in the scat, was found. A large tree was noted to have multiple woodpecker holes ranging from old to fresh which could point a longstanding partnership between this environment and pileated woodpeckers. Finally a turkey (or other large bird) feather was found in the southern half of the hectare.

Snags Within Hectare

Snags

Snags found in one hectare plot at Niquette Bay State Park, Vermont. Trees show location and diameter at breast height in centimeters.

Canopy Cover Grid

X	X	X	O	X	X	X	X	O	X
X	X	X	X	O	X	X	X	X	X
X	O	X	X	X	O	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	O	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	O	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
O	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
X	O	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	O	X	X	X	O	X
X	X	X	X	X	O	X	X	X	O

Canopy Cover Grid

This canopy cover grid shows a 25m by 25m plot within a hectare. The X’s show areas where the canopy is closed and O’s show areas where the canopy is open.

In our canopy cover survey we found that 87 out of 100 2.5m x 2.5m sample sites were covered. This means that on average 87% of the canopy in this quarter of the hectare was covered.