Laserfiche WebLink
exclosures because the changes there are readily evident in the general photo monitoring pairs. But <br />because the tree growth in this exclosure is more difficult to define numerically this kind of visual <br />comparison provides more evidence of the changes than just the data seems to show. The data shows <br />the more specific changes, but the visual data (photographic comparisons) shows that the changes <br />have actually been more dramatic than the data alone would seem to indicate. To obtain a full picture <br />of the changes over time at this exclosure it is important to use both tools as those who are not that <br />familiar with interpreting the data may feel a bit disappointed when the data are examined alone. <br />EXCLOSURES 3,4 AND 5 - <br />As stated earlier, no data analysis was done on these three exclosures in 2010. Therefore, <br />reliance on the photographic documentation is needed. Discussions of changes will be derived from <br />the photographs and from impressions acquired during the annual inspection. <br />A comparison with last year's report photos shows that not much has changed in these <br />exclosures. The trees are a little larger, but other than that the exclosures are very much like they <br />were in 2009. <br />General Descriptions for 2010: Examination of these exclosures showed that the tree <br />growth here is very stable and continues to be robust. Ground level vegetation is much as it has been <br />for the last couple of years. There is no definite evidence that any thinning of trees has occurred, <br />although in Exclosure 5 there probably has been some weakening of the weakest trees. However, <br />without direct comparisons of individual plants, for which there is no such data, it would be very <br />difficult to conclude that any plants have actually become weaker. This is not unexpected as adjacent <br />stronger trees often expand aerially to occupy space vacated by weaker plants giving the impression <br />that nothing has changed. This is not a detrimental aspect though as that is the normal process of <br />thinning by competition and results in little change in the total biomass in the vegetation stand. The <br />biomass just shifts from one plant to another with little net change. Eventually the weaker plant <br />succumbs and its loss is replaced by stronger adjacent plants. <br />In Exclosures 3 and 4 there is no evidence that the competitional thinning that is undoubtedly <br />occurring in Exclosure 5 is any thing more than insignificant. Moisture and growth resources are a <br />bit more available, especially in Exclosure 4 where there is a lot of open ground available for tree <br />expansion. However, the aspect of tree expansion in this exclosure is limited by the vigorous <br />herbaceous growth. In the few locations in Exclosure 4 where that vigorous growth has not created <br />essentially a continuous carpet, tree expansion may be occurring. But these locations tend to be local <br />small topographic humps that are quite dry in the upper layers. That, however, does not actually limit <br />the expansion of the trees as cottonwood roots extending below these humps are undoubtedly in <br />2010 Annual Report Coal Creek Wetland Mitigation Permit DA 198811488 Page 16