There’s some more by the same guy here, and an awesome one of the recent Icelandic volcanic eruptions here.

This work by James D.A. Millington is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

The road to Paradise (Michigan)

Ship on Whitefish Bay

Whitefish Point, where many ships like that above have foundered.

This work by James D.A. Millington is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

The ancient trees of Petrified Forest National Monument – preserved as quartz crystal moulds of trees buried by sediments before they decomposed – are over 200 million years old.

At that time, in the Late Triassic, northeastern Arizona was located near the equator resulting in a tropical climate and vegetation. The climate and landscape couldn’t be much more different now and the sheer scale of change (both time and location) are hard to comprehend looking out over the desert sunset.

The physical size of the Grand Canyon isn’t much easier to comprehend, even when you’re stood at the very edge of the southern rim.

By the time the Colorado river had begun carving the canyon a mere 17 million years ago, the processes leading to its formation had already been at work for around 2,000 million years (the lowest sediments at the bottom of the Inner Gorge date to around that time). Sunset here is no less timeless than in the Petrified Forest.

Compared with the forest and the gorge the Barringer Crater was created in the blink of an eye. But the 300,000 ton meteor that hit earth 50,000 years ago had probably being travelling on that collision course for a much longer time.

That these awesome features remain – so huge in time and space – reminds us how fleeting our biological landscapes are.

This work by James D.A. Millington is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

I know the feeling, it reminds me of visits to Don Quixote. Not the Don Quixote – Cafe Don Quixote on the Kingsway in London.

Sometimes the 4am conversation at Cafe Don Quixote was reminiscent of the Spanish Knight; other times it was as lonely as Hopper’s nocturnal scene. But there was always people-watching those other stragglers waiting at the bus stop opposite the cafe, and the warm tea always provided just enough energy to survive the night bus home.

[Nighthawks photo by Mollie E Tubbs]

This work by James D.A. Millington is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

In previous posts about the fieldwork we’ve done in the UP, I have included photos from forest stands containing deciduous hardwood species such as Sugar Maple or American Beech. Generally, it’s understood that white-tailed deer browse juveniles trees in hardwood stands during the daytime in the winter, but shelter overnight in nearby lowland conifer stands. One of the aspects of our project is to identify some quantitative relationships for this behaviour, and so we’ve often had take measurements in the cedar swamps adjacent to northern hardwood stands.

As you can see from the picture above, the density of cedar swamps can make tree measurements a bit tricky. A standard measure of forest stand density (or stocking) is ‘stand basal area’ – a measure of the area occupied by tree stems (i.e. trunks) in a given area. The northern hardwood stands in our study area can have a stand basal area of anywhere between 60 and 100 square feet per acre. Cedar swamps are much more densely populated, with stand basal area values of 280 to 350 square feet per acre. An example of the transition between these stand types is shown in the picture below (click for a larger image).

The high density of the cedar swamps combined with continual cover provided by the evergreen canopy (generally) make winter snow depths lower and winter air temperatures higher compared with the deciduous hardwood stands. The soggy conditions underfoot make surveying cedar swamps even trickier – one has to hop from tree-root island to tree-root island over puddles whilst trying not to impale oneself on the lower branches. Even with care given enough time you’re guaranteed scratches and wet boots.

We’ve completed our fieldwork for now and are just waiting for our Jeep to be fixed after we hit a deer on our last day of work. With so many deer in the area and the high number of miles we drive around our study area, it was only a matter time before we hit one. We were on a major highway and the deer came out of nowhere. We’ve often spooked deer driving on tracks through the forest – it seems to me that when they’re startled they just bolt in whatever direction they happen to be facing at the time. Even if that means running across the road in front of your vehicle. As you can see below, it left quite a dent in the radiator. But Megan did a good job of keeping us on the road and thankfully the only casualty was the deer.

This work by James D.A. Millington is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

The foresters we spoke with were interested in our progress to date and asked for more details on tree species-specific patterns we find in our regeneration data so that they might work to continue the sustainability of their forest stands. Megan and are I are likely taking a trip to the study area again in late April to revisit a few sites from last spring and summer, so we’ll visit again then.

To get from one meeting to the other we drove through our study area. We wanted to see if we could find evidence of winter deer browse and generally get a feel for how the forests (and our study stands) look during the winter. We didn’t catch any deer in the act of browsing but, as the top picture below shows, we did see tracks and there were plenty of stunted maple saplings poking just above the snow nearby.

This work by James D.A. Millington is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

One of the main issues we will study with our integrated ecological-economic landscape model is the impact of whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) herbivory on tree regeneration following cutting. Last November we spent a week planting 2 year-old seedlings in Northern Hardwood forest gaps created by selective timber harvest (like the one in the photo below).

Our plan was to return this spring to examine the impacts of deer browse on these seedlings. In particular, we wanted to examine how herbivory varies across space due to changes in deer population densities (in turn driven by factors such as snow depth).

To this end we selected almost 40 forest sites that would hopefully capture some spatial variation in snowfall and that had recently been selectively harvested. At each site we selected 10 gaps produced by timber harvest in which to plant our seedlings.

In each gap we planted six trees of each of three species: White Spruce (Picea glauca), White Pine (Pinus strobus) and Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). We chose these coniferous species as these are examples of the mesic confer species the Michigan DNR are trying to restore across our study area, and because we expected a range of herbivory across these species.

At each site we would also undertake deer pellet counts in the spring to estimate the number of deer in the vicinity of the site during the winter (during which time the browse we were measuring would have occurred).

On returning to the study sites a couple of weeks ago we set about looking for the trees we had planted to measure herbivory and count deer pellets. In some cases, finding the trees we planted was easier said than done. We tried to get our field crews to plant the trees in straight lines with equal spacing between each tree. In general, this was done well but on occasion the line could only be described as crooked at best. Micro-topography, fallen tree trunks and limbs, and slash from previous cutting all contributed to hamper the planned planting system. However, we did pretty well and found well over 90% of the trees.

We haven’t begun analyzing our data as yet, but some anecdotal observations stand out. First, the deer preferentially browsed Hemlock over the other species, often removing virtually all non-woody biomass as shown by the ‘before and after’ examples below (NB – these photographs are not of the same tree and this is not a true before/after comparison).

In some cases, the deer not only removed all non-woody biomass but also pulled the tree out of the ground (as shown below).

In contrast, White Pine was browsed to a much lesser extent and White Spruce was virtually untouched (as shown below).

Having a species that was unaffected by deer (i.e. spruce) often made our job of finding the other trees much easier. Finding heavily browsed Hemlock that no longer had any green vegetation was often tricky against a background of forest floor litter.

The next step now is to start looking at this variation in browse through a more quantitative lens. Then we can start examining how browse and deer densities vary across space and how these variables are related to one another and other factors (such as snow depth and distance to conifer stands).

All-in-all the two weeks of work went pretty well. There were some issues with water-logged roads (due to snow melt) meaning we couldn’t get to one or two of the sites we planted at, but generally the weather was pretty good (it only rained heavily one day). I’ll write more once we have done more analysis and stop here with a shot I took at sunrise as I left for home.

This work by James D.A. Millington is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

The fall was almost over. We were out on a recce to find sites for an experiment we’re setting up over the next couple of weeks to examine the impact of deer browse on seedlings of various conifer species.

We want to locate our seedling planting on both state and commercial lands – cutting had recently finished at this commercial site.

We also visited a deer exclosure set up to examine tree regeneration in the absence of deer browse (similar in many ways to our experiment). It’s not the best picture, but the effects of 12 years of protection can be seen – very little regeneration on the left of the fence but evidence of green juveniles on the right. These effects haven’t been quantified at this site but by sight alone there’s clearly difference outside s inside the exclosure.

Finally, not all the leaves had fallen. We were a couple of weeks late for the real colours, but some remained down on the Lake Michigan coastline.

This work by James D.A. Millington is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

For now here is a grossly unfair, and probably invalid, comparison (but this is how it felt just looking whilst stood there). On one side of Detroit River is its namesake, Detroit, Michigan (top). On the other side lies Windsor, Ontario (bottom).

Looking across the river, whilst stood on the US side after walking through the large office blocks built when the city was at the centre of the automotive world, it felt a little like looking out at Rotherhithe from the Isle of Dogs. But Detroit and GM aren’t doing quite as well as Canary Wharf and I doubt whether the Windsor-Rotherhithe comparison is fair either. Anyway…

More vaguely interesting pics on the pictures page soon.

This work by James D.A. Millington is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.