IMPACT OF FOREST MANAGEMENT ON THROUGHFALL VOLUMES IN A

COASTAL PLAIN PINE OAK FOREST

KATHLEEN MCGUINNESS, LARA BECK, EMMA WITT AND JEANETTE MYERS
STOCKTON UNIVERSITY - ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
SCHOOL OF NATURAL SCIENCES AND MATHEMATICS
MID ATLANTIC ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA MEETING 101 VERA KING FARRIS DRIVE
APRIL 6, 2019 GALLOWAY NJ 08205
BOWIE STATE UNIVERSITY MCGUINN7@GO.STOCKTON.EDU | BECKL3@GO.STOCKTON.EDU | EMMA.WITT@STOCKTON.EDU | MYERSJ6@GO.STOCKTON.EDU

BACKGROUND SITE DESCRIPTION AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

• Bulk precipitation may be separated into a number of components
as it passes through the forest canopy: This study is being conducted at Stockton University, which is located in a • Data indicate no significant difference among treatment types
Gross precipitation = Canopy interception + Throughfall + Stemflow coastal plain pine oak forest. The major tree speices in the monitored area are: (p = 0.94)
(Brooks et al., 2003) pitch pine (Pinus rigida), white oak (Quercus alba), shortleaf pine (Pinus
• Throughfall is defined as the portion of bulk precipitation that echinata), and scarlet oak (Quercus coccinia). The understory is dominated by • This is not unexpected due to the timing of the sampling, the
passes through the forest canopy to the forest floor. huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata). majority of which occurred when the leaves were off the
• The interaction between the forest canopy and precipitation can The climate of the area is mild, with an average annual temperature of 12.4 deciduous trees.
alter the volume and chemistry of water reaching the forest litter degrees C and average annual rainfall of 106 cm. Precipitation is generally
layer (e.g. Witt et al. 2009, Eaton et. Al., 1973). evenly distributed monthly, averaging 7.3 – 10.7 cm/month (NCEI). • Interestingly, the average amount collected under the thinned
canopy was the largest of the three (Figure 3). This may be
• Throughfall volumes are both spatially and temporally variable,
The sample area consists of three treatment types: due to one site (Thinned Funnel 2, Figure 5) where the
and may be impacted by a number of factors, including:
• Control (1.1 ha) -no harvesting volumes were generally far higher than the other locations. It
• Canopy species is suspected that these differences were due to the funnel’s
• Thinned (8.1 ha) -partial removal of canopy
• Season
• Clear-cut (0.9 ha) -variable retention patch clearcut location relative to surrounding trees
• Rainfall intensity • Portions of each treatment were burned in 2016 and 2019.
• Rainfall duration • Mapping and analysis of the forest canopy will be conducted
• A total of 18 precipitation collectors were placed at random locations in each of
• Wind speed and direction three treatment areas above each funnel before and after leaf on to determine if
(e.g. Keim and Link, 2018; ; Levia and Frost, 2006; Brooks et al., 2003; Crockford and Richardson,
canopy differences may be causing anomalies in the data
2000) • Each collector consisted of a 18 cm diameter funnel with a connected plastic
• Forest management approaches, including thinning and patch tube leading to a bucket for precipitation collection (Figure 1). Funnels were
clearcuts, alter forest canopy dynamics, and therefore may placed approximately four feet off the ground. • Sample collection will continue through the summer months to
influence throughfall volumes. This, in turn, can impact soil • Sample volumes were measured after precipitation events beginning in determine the effect of the presence of deciduous leaves on
October, 2018. results. It is expected that more significant differences among
moisture, groundwater recharge, vernal pool hydrology, and
• Data were pooled by treatment, and tested for significant differences using a the three treatments will manifest in the presence of leaves.
surface water hydrology in these areas.
Kruskall-Wallis test. Significance was evaluated at the p = 0.05 level.

20

Objective: Evaluate the impact of forest management

14 R² = 0.8788

Measured Rainfall at AC Airport

18
16 12 R² = 0.9108
Precipitation (cm)

14 10 R² = 0.9095

on water resources by measuring throughfall volumes 12

10
Clearcut 8
Clearcut

(cm)
Control 6
8 Control
Thinned 4
under different harvest intensities. 6
4
2
AC Airport Precip 2
0
Thinned
Linear (Clearcut)
Linear (Control)
0
-2 Linear (Thinned)
11/12/2018 11/19/2018 11/25/2018 11/26/2018 12/3/2018 12/7/2018 12/17/2018 1/2/2019 1/25/2019 2/5/2019 2/15/2019 3/12/2019
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Sample Date
Rainfall Measured in Sampling Buckets (cm)

Figure 1: The precipitation measured at the Atlantic City Airport and the average amount of water collected in each
Figure 2: Relationship between the average amount of water collected in each treatment area and the
treatment area for each sampling date.
amount of rainfall

Average of All Buckets R² = 0.9084 Thinned Funnel 2 R² = 0.6274

7.36
14
Measured Rainfall at AC

14
Average Bucket Depth (cm)

Measured Rainfall at AC Airport

7.34
12 12
7.32
Airport (cm)

10 10
7.3
8 8

(cm)
7.28 6 6
7.26 4 4
7.24 2 2

7.22 0 0
Clearcut Control Thinned 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 5 10 15 20 25
Treatment Rainfall Measured in Sampling Buckets (cm) Rainfall Measured in Sampling Buckets (cm)

Above, left: Throughfall collector set-up. Figure 3: Average amount of water collected in each treatment area across Figure 4: Relationship between the average amount of water collected Figure 5: Relationship between the amount of water collected in Thinned
all sampling dates across all treatment areas and the amount of rainfall Funnel 2 and the amount of rainfall
Above, right, patch clearcut with thinned area in background
Right: Site map with treatments and bucket locations
REFERECNES
Brooks, K. N., Ffolliott, P. F., Gregersen, H. M., & DeBano, L. F. (2003). Hydrology and the management of watersheds (No. Ed. 3). Iowa State University Press. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Levia Jr, D. F., & Frost, E. E. (2006). Variability of throughfall volume and solute inputs in wooded ecosystems. Progress in Physical Geography, 30(5), 605-632.
Crockford, R. H., & Richardson, D. P. (2000). Partitioning of rainfall into throughfall, stemflow and interception: effect of forest type, ground cover and climate. Hydrological processes, 14(16‐17), 2903-2920.
The authors thank everyone who helped in the setup and sampling during the study so far,
Keim, R. F., & Link, T. E. (2018). Linked spatial variability of throughfall amount and intensity during rainfall in a coniferous forest. Agricultural and forest meteorology, 248, 15-21.
Witt, E. L., Kolka, R. K., Nater, E. A., & Wickman, T. R. (2009). Influence of the forest canopy on total and methyl mercury deposition in the boreal forest. Water, air, and soil pollution, 199(1-4), 3-11.
as well as those who will help in the future. Funding was provided by a Research
Experience for Undergraduates grant from Stockton University.