2007 FOR 406 Silviculture Lab Exercise
Forest Structure, Composition, and Disturbance: A Baker Woodlot Case Study
Baker Woodlot, for the most part, is representative of a southern mesic deciduous
(maple-beech) forest (Type 6 in Dickmann 2004). It covers 78 acres. The current name was
given in 1941 in honor of two early foresters at Michigan Agricultural College (MAC, now
MSU), James F. Baker and Harry L. Baker. In 1999 the area within Baker Woodlot also was
designated the Rachana Rajendra Neo Tropical Migrant Bird Sanctuary, named after a
resident of Okemos and a lover of birds who was killed in a car accident.
Soils in Baker vary in texture from clay loam to loamy sand (Beach and Stevens 1979),
and comprise upland habitats that vary from wet mesic to mesic to dry mesic. A few seasonal
wetlands (vernal ponds) are scattered through the woodlot. Together these habitats support a
rich flora (Beach and Stevens 1980, Stevens and Beach 1980), consisting of 18 or more trees
(Table 1) and ca. 198 understory plants, both native and exotic. Sugar maple is the dominant
woody species. A few exotic conifers—Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine—also occur.
Table 1. Common woody species of Baker Woodlot in 1973 (Beach and Stevens 1980).
Tree Species
Acer saccharum
Acer rubrum
Fagus grandifolia
Tilia americana
Quercus rubra
Fraxinus americana
Prunus serotina
Ostrya virginiana
Sassafras albidum
Fraxinus nigra
Carpinus caroliniana
Quercus alba
Hamamelis virginiana
Robinia pseudoacacia
Liriodendron tulipifera
Carya cordiformis
Ulmus americana
Ulmus rubra
Rel. density
(%)
42.5
15.3
10.0
6.0
4.3
5.8
4.3
4.3
1.9
2.8
2.8
0.5
1.4
0.7
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
Rel. dominance
(%)
32.0
9.2
7.1
10.0
14.9
11.5
7.5
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.2
2.5
0.0
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Rel. frequency
(%)
30.4
16.5
11.2
10.0
6.0
7.7
4.9
4.4
3.0
1.1
1.1
0.8
2.2
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.3
Importance
value
104.9
41.1
28.4
26.0
25.2
24.9
16.6
8.8
5.8
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.6
2.7
1.7
1.7
0.9
0.5
Baker is by no means a “virgin” woods; human disturbances have occurred
throughout most of its recorded history. Cutting of firewood and timber was common in the
early days up through the early 1980s. A number of silvicultural demonstrations—which
included tree harvesting—also were carried out (e.g., Rudolph and Bresnahan 1982). But
since it was declared a Category I Natural Area (highest protection, lowest usage) by the
MSU Natural Areas Committee, no harvesting or destructive activities have been permitted.
Nonetheless, the ecological effects of past human disturbances often are clearly evident.
Procedure:
This will be largely a “show and tell” exercise. Your instructor, who has observed over
30 years of change in the woodlot, will be your guide. The purpose will be to show basic
1
compositional and structural attributes of the woodlot, and discuss disturbance processes,
both “natural” and human (the latter includes silvicultural manipulations). The ecology of
this mesic deciduous forest certainly differs from that of the other 22 Michigan community
types discussed by Dickmann (2004), but it nonetheless offers an interesting case study.
Although your silvicultural experience is limited, most of you have taken courses in
forest vegetation, forest ecology, and soils. Thus, pertinent questions or observations during
this excursion are expected and welcomed. This exercise will be an opportunity for you to
get calibrated to the forest attributes important in silvicultural decision making, and to
understand the dynamic nature of forests.
Report:
The report will be an essay—2 pages maximum (not including title page), single spaced,
12-point font—in which you answer the following seven questions:
1. How would you describe the current forest structure of Baker Woodlot?
2. Would you classify Baker as a single stand or a composite of several stands? Justify
your answer.
3. Baring a stand replacing disturbance, how would you expect the overall composition
and structure of the Baker Woodlot tree component to change over the next 100 years?
4. What will likely be the most frequent “natural” disturbance occurring in Baker
Woodlot during the next 100 years? How often might it occur?
5. How will the composition and structure within these disturbed areas differ from
undisturbed portions of the woodlot? (Assume that tree recruitment rapidly occurs.)
6. If a stand replacement disturbance occurred over all of Baker (most likely a tornado or
intense straight-line winds), what would the composition and structure of the
resultant successional stand most likely be after ca. 20 years?
7. Though not possible, would the harvesting of timber in Baker set in motion ecological
responses that were greatly different that those following “natural” disturbances?
Justify your answer.
The report is worth 15 points toward your accumulated total. Due date: Wednesday,
January 24, 5 p.m. A hard copy can be given to me or placed in my mailbox in the Dept. of
Forestry office (room 126 NR). Alternatively, you can email me the electronic file of your
report as an attachment (dickman1@msu.edu). The report will be graded based on the
accuracy and insightfulness of your answers, the clarity of writing, and acceptable grammar.
Correct ecological and silvicultural terminology is expected, given your level of experience.
References:
Beach, J.H. and W.D. Stevens. 1979. A study of Baker Woodlot I. Physical and historical description. Mich.
Botanist 18: 123-137.
Beach, J.H. and W.D. Stevens. 1980. A study of Baker Woodlot II. Description of vegetation. Mich. Botanist 19: 313.
Dickmann. D.I. 2004. Michigan Forest Communities: A Field Guide and Reference. Michigan State University
Extension Bulletin E-3000.
Rudolph, V.J. and R.G. Bresnahan. 1982. Twenty years of management in a small woodlot of southern Michigan.
Journal of Forestry 80: 665-667.
Stevens, W.D. and J.H. Beach. 1980. A study of Baker Woodlot III. Checklist of vascular plants. Mich. Botanist 19:
51-69.
2