3.9 Article

Blowdown dynamics in oak-hickory forests of the Missouri Ozarks

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL SOCIETY
Volume 128, Issue 4, Pages 362-369

Publisher

TORREY BOTANICAL SOCIETY
DOI: 10.2307/3088668

Keywords

gaps; Ozarks; oak; dieback; blowdowns; succession; disturbance regime

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

REBERTUS, ALAN J. AND ALBERT J. MEIER (School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia. MO 65211) Blowdown Dynamics in Oak-Hickory Forests of the Missouri Oz,arks. J Torrey Bert. Soc. 128:362369. 2001.-Several studies in the literature have relied on public land survey (PLS) notes front the 1800's to reconstruct historical blowdown rates in eastern deciduous-conifer forests, but assessment of contemporary blowdown regimes in the region has not received much attention. We used an approach similar to the PLS method. and sampled 105 km of transect to determine whether oak (Quercus) dieback led to extensive secondary blowdown of patches greater than or equal to500 m(2) in 50- to 100-year-old oak-hickory forests in the Missouri Ozarks. Few studies of wind disturbance have focused on even-aged, second-growth stands, even though such stands predominate in eastern deciduous forests. From 1986-1996, blowdowns greater than or equal to500 m(2) disturbed 1.42% of the landscape: for patches 0.05-2.5 ha, only 0.63% of the landscape was disturbed. Although extensive oak dieback occurred in the 1980's and 90's. most of the decline was distributed diffusely through stands, and coarser patches of windthrow were uncommon. Shade-intolerant scarlet oaks (Quercus coccinea Muenchh.) dominated the pre-disturbance canopy and were the dominant treefalls, but two-thirds of new regeneration in blowdowns consisted of white oaks (Quercus alba L.), hickories (Carya spp. L.), and flowering dogwoods (Cornus,florida L.). Blowdowns appeared to leave the understory intact, favoring future dominance by species with intermediate shade tolerance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available