Snow depth differences at 10 080 ft under limber pine engelmann spruce and aspen trees
Download
1 / 16

Snow depth differences at 10,080 ft. under Limber Pine, Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 102 Views
  • Uploaded on

Snow depth differences at 10,080 ft. under Limber Pine, Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees. By Ryan Zubizarreta. Winter Ecology, 2010 Mountain Research Station, University of Colorado, Boulder EBIO 4100, Sec 570. Question.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Snow depth differences at 10,080 ft. under Limber Pine, Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees' - kamin


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Snow depth differences at 10 080 ft under limber pine engelmann spruce and aspen trees

Snow depth differences at 10,080 ft. under Limber Pine, Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees

By Ryan Zubizarreta

  • Winter Ecology, 2010

    Mountain Research Station,

    University of Colorado, Boulder

    EBIO 4100, Sec 570


Question
Question Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees

  • Which tree species allows snow accumulation to fall through the canopy more efficiently and which species holds snow accumulation more effectively in the canopy?


Pinus flexilis
Pinus flexilis Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees


Picea engelmannii
Picea engelmannii Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees


Populus tremuloides
Populus tremuloides Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees


Location
Location Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees

MRS


Hypothesis Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen treesThere will be a significant difference at the .05 level that Engelmann Spruce will have a shallower snow pack underneath the canopy than the limber pine, therefore representing that more snow is caught in the canopy of the spruce compared to the pine.


Methods
Methods Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees

  • Measure snow depth using snow probe

  • Due north of trunk at snow pack level

  • .5 m and 1m

  • All tree’s at least 4.5m above snow pack to ensure full grown canopy

  • All trees in same stand at a SSE aspect and moderate slope to ensure all trees have same amount of precipitation, limiting nutrients, wind exposure and solar exposure. (Same ecotone)


Means n 27
Means N=27 Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees

Spruce

72.74cm

77.37cm

Pine

64.81cm

76.25cm

Aspen(control)

115.14cm

129.81cm

.5m

1m


T test results for distance of one species
T-test results for distance of one species Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees

  • Spruce Pine Aspen

    .976 .644 .735

    -4.68 -4.24 -1.58

    1.71 1.71 1.71

    Reject! Reject! Reject! (

    3.89E-05 0.000122 0.062157

    Why so close?

Pearsons correlation

(r)

T-Stat

T-crit one tail

Accetp or reject?

P value

1-tail (confirm)


Anova results between three species
ANOVA results between three species Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees

  • Can reject null for species effect

    P-value=1.27E-24

    Distance not dependent upon species

  • Can reject null for Distance effect

    P-value=0.033675

    Distance not dependent upon distance effect

  • Can not reject null for interaction

    P-value=0.675718

    Same amount of snow under canopy of Pine and Spruce


Anova between limber pine and engelmann spruce
ANOVA between Limber Pine and Engelmann Spruce. Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees

  • Can not reject due to species (no significant difference between species)

    P-value= 0.252533

  • Can reject due to distance (significant difference due to distance)

    P-value= 0.043222

  • Can not reject due to interaction effect (not dependent between species)

  • P-value=0.387572


Results and analysis
Results and Analysis Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees


Discussion
Discussion Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees

  • What might be some reasoning for snow falling through canopies?

  • How did the snow get there?

  • Abiotic(or biotic) factors that may of skewed the data?

  • What if snow evaporates or subliminates off of tree?

    (Montesi 2004)


Conclusion
Conclusion Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees

  • Distance not dependent upon species

  • There is not a significant difference in the amount of snow under the canopies of Engelmann Spruce and Limber Pine. There is however a significant difference between Aspen(due to being deciduous and not having a winter canopy ).


Bibliography
Bibliography Engelmann Spruce, and Aspen trees

  • Montesi. “Sublimation of Intercepted Snow within a Subalpine Forest Canopy at Two Elevations.” American Meteorological Society (2004): pp.763-773

  • Franklin. “Tree Death as an Ecological Process.” Bioscience. Vol 37 no. 8. (1987): pp.550-556


ad