Nick

Cordivari
Physical Geography Final Paper
Dr. Emma Witt
December 17, 2017

Abstract

In this study, we set out measure amounts of canopy cover. We did this by using an app

on our cell phones called, Canopeo. This is a canopy cover measuring app that gives us the

percentage of canopy cover in a picture taken. The spots in which the pictures were taken was

randomized, we did this in three different areas. We compared our results by using statistical

analyses and tests. Overall we found a significant difference between the areas that we

measured. An important result of our measuring was that the area with the most canopy cover

was the area of the forest that was not altered by forest management practices. While the

lowest was in the area that had the most forest management. Our main aim of the study was to

measure and examine the canopy cover and how canopy cover can affect an environment.

These measurements are important for forest management practices and study.

Introduction

During this semester we studied the canopy cover in the different areas of the Stockton

Forest. Canopy measurements are used for things such as forest research such as trying to get a

better understanding of forest processes. Also addressed will be the additional affects that

canopy cover can have on an environment such as a forest’s temperature and life within that

environment.

Canopy cover has an effect on the amount of sunlight that is available to understory and

vegetation (Jennings, 1999). A study done in 1945, shows that vegetation and understory that

are exposed to less than 4% of full sunlight, do not develop as well as plants exposed to full
sunlight (Anderson & Loucks, 1969). When canopy cover affects the amount sunlight reaching

the plants and vegetation, plants growth, development, and survival can be reduced (Jennings,

1999). As far as plant development, studies have shown that less sunlight available to plants

yields less root development (Anderson & Loucks, 1969). In all, most researchers have found

that canopy opening had a major influence on the amount of sunlight accessible to plants and

understory (Anderson & Loucks, 1969).

Measuring understory and vegetation canopy cover is also important because of the

effects that cover has on soil temperature and water (Flerchinger & Pierson, 1997). Water

temperature near the soil surface is greatly effected by canopy from vegetation (Flerchinger &

Pierson, 1997). Understanding soil water temperature is important for further management

options (Flerchinger & Pierson, 1997). In addition, canopy cover can have affects on chemical

parameters of the water such as pH levels and the different chemicals in the water (Eisalou,

Şengönül, Gökbulak, Serengil & Uygur, 2013), that may be from rainfall.

One other importance of canopy cover measurement is analyzing the impact that

canopy rainfall interception can have on an area (Venkatraman & Ashwath, 2016). Canopy can

effect the amount of rain that reaches the soil and plants on the ground (Venkatraman &

Ashwath, 2016). When the rain gets intercepted from the canopy, it can evaporate from the

leaves and branches on the tree (Venkatraman & Ashwath, 2016). Canopy rainfall interception

is broken down into three aspects, canopy evaporation, stemflow which is when the water that

is intercepted flows through the stem, and throughfall which is when a small portion of the rain

does reach the ground from dripping off leaves (Venkatraman & Ashwath, 2016). Looking at
models that measure rainfall interception is also important measuring the evaporation of the

intercepted rain (Gash, 1979).

In this study, we will determine the many effects that canopy cover can have on an

environment, and determine the amount of canopy cover that is in each area of Stockton’s

Forest. I predict that the most canopy cover will come from the untouched area because it will

have a higher density of trees. The results of our experiment can give us a better idea of how

much canopy cover is in each area of the forest, and potentially what types of different plant

species we can expect in a given area.

Materials and Methods

Site Description

Our site for this experiment was located at the Northeast Campus Forest at Stockton

University. It is located in the northeast corner of the main campus and just west of the New

Jersey Parkway. It is broken into a north area and a south area. For our experiment we collected

our data from the south area. The south area is a total of about 25 acres of forest. The forest

consisted of a very diverse amount of trees that helped us get the most accurate results as far

as canopy cover. The climate in the areas that we conducted our research was consistent

throughout all of our trials. All of our trials had temperatures no less that 65° F but no more

than 75° F. Soil in these areas seemed fairly moist and had significant understory in the burned

areas. In addition, there was little to no wind to have an impact on our results. The forest type

in this area is a temperate seasonal forest, that is dominated by a majority of pitch pine and oak

trees.

Treatment Descriptions

The Northeast Stockton Forest is broken into three parts in relation to the forest

management treatment it has undergone. Those three parts are the untouched area, the

thinned area, and the clear cut. The untouched area has experience little to none treatment

and it 2.7 acres in size. The second area is the clear cut area with variable retention (VR), which

is also 2.7 acres in size. In this area, there are no trees at all and is dedicated to bringing back

certain wildlife species that were missing on in the forest. The third area we sampled is the

thinned part of the forest. In this part, trees have been thinned in order to prevent fires in

order to protect the campus. The thinned and the clear cut area had a significant impact on our

results. All three of these treatments were done by a harvester in the summer of 2015. In

addition, all three of these areas were burned in 2016. Burning treatments are important for

forestry management to reduce the risk of natural wildfires and threating the campus and

houses within the area. From each of these treatments areas, we took a certain amount of

samples, using a random number generator to determine how many steps to take and what

direction the next sample would come from within that area.

Map

Figure 1: This map shows the forestry management treatment area of the Northeast Stockton Forest. Different

sections indicate the areas that have been effected by particular forestry management practices, as indicated in

legend. Data source: Google Earth.

Field and Lab Methods

The method of field sampling consisted of random sampling from each of the three

areas of study (untouched, thinned, clear cut). We used a random number generator to

determine how many steps and which direction we would take our next sample in the area.

Depending on which number was generated, it would determine whether we walked left, right,
straight or back. After we determined which way to walk, we would generate another number

to tells us how many steps to walk. The range for each number generation was 1 through 10.

The way that we measured our canopy cover was using an app on our iPhones called Canopeo.

Canopeo is an app that measures the exact canopy cover simply by taking a picture of the

canopy above you. After we took the picture it gave us the percentage that is covered by

canopy. We took 10 pictures per treated area and recorded our data.

Statistical Analysis

One of the values that we used in order to find the difference between each area was

finding the P-value. Our p-value was found by doing statistical tests such as an ANOVA test and

T-tests. All of these tests were done by using Microsoft Excel. The tests showed that there were

significant differences between all three of our area in regard to canopy cover. We confirmed

the significant differences because the results of our p-values were less than 0.05.

Results

Our results communicate our measurements and findings from each area of the forest

that we surveyed. We found that the most canopy cover came from the untouched area. The

statistical analyses we conducted consisted of a two sample t-test on each of the areas, and an

ANOVA. We used the two sample t-test to determine whether two specific areas are different.

The ANOVA analysis was used to determine whether there was a statistical difference among all

three of the areas study. The results of the tests would yield a p-value that determine the

difference. If the p-value was less than 0.05, that means that data indicated shows a significant

difference between the two areas. If the p-value is greater than 0.05, there is no significant

difference between the data indicated.

 35

Average Canopy Cover Percentage

30
A A
25

20

15
10 B
5

0
-5

-10
Untouched Trimmed Clear-Cut
Location

Figure 2: This graph shows the canopy cover in different areas of the forest (untouched, trimmed, clear-cut).

Error bars represent the standard error from the mean. Letters denote differences at the p=0.05 level.

As stated previously, the untouched location had the highest average canopy cover with

an average of 19.1%, as well as the highest median which was 19.19%. The second highest was

the trimmed area with an average of 18.4% and a median of 13.4%. The clear cut had the

lowest amount of canopy cover with an average of 0.003% and a median of 0%. There were

significant differences in canopy cover between all three of the areas (p=1.42443E-19). There

was not a significant difference between the untouched (mean+ standard deviation= 19.1+6.6)

to the trimmed location (mean+ standard deviation= 18.4+13.2) p= 0.7595. There was a

significant difference in canopy cover between trimmed (mean+ standard deviation= 18.4+13.2)

to the clear cut (mean+ standard deviation= 0.003+0.01) p=2.90203E-13 and clear cut to

untouched (p= 4.62618E-30).

Discussion

The results of our study showed that the most cover was in the untouched area. These

results make sense because in an area that hasn’t been altered by forest management

practices, would have the highest density of trees, therefore most likely yielding the most

canopy cover. Our statistical analysis using the t-test showed that the only significant

differences came when comparing a location to the clear-cut area. This is because the clear cut

area has little to no canopy cover at all with an average of 0.03%. A study done in Los Angeles,

measured tree canopy cover (TCC) in areas that were low density population (more trees), and

areas that have been cleared and were being used for industrial and commercial land use.

These results were similar to ours as the tree canopy cover in the low density area with more

trees yielded the highest TCC with 31% cover, and the lowest was from the area being used for

commercial land use with TCC of a low 3% (Mcpherson, Simpson, Xiao, & Wu, 2011). Canopy

cover can vary depending on where you are located. In a recent study, scientists measured

canopy cover in the central regions of Texas. Their numbers differed greatly from ours as their

average canopy cover for their study sight was 46% (Schwantes, Swenson & Jackson, 2016). The

highest average TCC that we calculated for all three of our location sights was 19.1%. Our

research is applicable for forest management because it gives forest managers an idea of how

dense certain parts of the forest are. Therefore, more knowledge of forest density can lead to

more management practices being done. which will ultimately lead to less natural forest fires.

One limitation that may have slightly altered the results of our experiment was the

specifications of how to take the picture of the canopy using the Canopeo app. The directions

were that whoever was taking the picture, was to hold the camera parallel to the ground, and
take the picture. The phone may not have been exactly parallel to the ground every picture,

therefore causing limitations or shortcomings of our results.

Conclusion

In all, our experiment yielded results that did not come as a surprise to us. In the

untouched area of study there was the most canopy cover, and in the clear cut area there was

little to no cover. The analytic tests that we performed showed the many differences in cover

between the areas of study. An interesting study topic in the future would be the effect of

canopy cover on soil moisture and soil nutrients. I feel this would be interesting to study

because canopy cover has a great effect on rainfall reaching the ground which limits the

amount of water that the soil receives. This would also effect the amount of erosion from

runoff, so looking at the soil’s nutrients and if canopy cover effects it would be interesting to

experiment with. Canopy cover can have an effect on the many living organisms below it,

whether it be big animals, small animals or plants and vegetation. Which is why in my opinion is

one of the most important factors in a forest.

Work Cited

Anderson, R. C., Loucks, O. L., & Swain, A. M. (1969). Herbaceous Response to Canopy Cover,

Light Intensity, and Throughfall Precipitation in Coniferous Forests. Ecology, 50(2), 255-

263.

Jennings, S. (1999). Assessing forest canopies and understorey illumination: canopy closure,

canopy cover and other measures. Forestry, 72(1), 59-74.

Flerchinger, G., & Pierson, F. (1997). Modelling plant canopy effects on variability of soil

temperature and water: model calibration and validation. Journal of Arid Environments,

35(4), 641-653.

Eisalou, H. K., Şengönül, K., Gökbulak, F., Serengil, Y., & Uygur, B. (2013). Effects of forest

canopy cover and floor on chemical quality of water in broad leaved and coniferous

forests of Istanbul, Turkey. Forest Ecology and Management, 289, 371-377.

Venkatraman, K., & Ashwath, N. (2016). Canopy Rainfall Intercepted by Nineteen Tree Species

Grown on a Phytocapped Landfill. International Journal of Waste Resources, 06(01).

Gash, J. H. (1979). An analytical model of rainfall interception by forests. Quarterly Journal of

the Royal Meteorological Society, 105(443), 43-55.

Schwantes, A. M., Swenson, J. J., & Jackson, R. B. (2016). Quantifying drought-induced tree

mortality in the open canopy woodlands of central Texas. Remote Sensing of

Environment, 181, 54-64

Mcpherson, E. G., Simpson, J. R., Xiao, Q., & Wu, C. (2011). Million trees Los Angeles canopy

cover and benefit assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(1), 40-50.