Forest thinning

My goodness, I’ve been going back through my old data sets from the 2006 and 2007 season when we studied the effects of forest thinning on many aspects of the ecology, including the invertebrates, which, to me, suggests moths. Look at these graphs, for example. Each of them considers a single group, or genus, of moths as they respond to thinning across the years. The leftmost points are from the control stand–never thinned. The next point, moving right, is a collection made from a stand thinned the previous year. The highest points are collections made four years after the thinning. And the last point, way off to the right, is a collection made sixteen years after thinning. Look at the pattern.screen-shot-2017-01-09-at-8-16-10-pm




Can you see the trend in all of these groups? The upshot is that they all show reduced numbers after one year of thinning, then they all show increasing numbers after four years. Then, by sixteen years after thinning, the numbers fall to near the original set. The bottom graph shows the overall biodiversity of ALL moths in this study. But the wonder of wonders is that, while the biodiversity is about the same after sixteen years, the community has greatly changed. That is, many of the original species are gone, but have been replaced by a new set. So biodiversity is not affected, but the community structure is very, very different. All this to be published in the next year. One of my 2017 goals. Questions? Ask.

Butterfly and Moth Biodiversity

Do you have any idea how many moth species live in the Pikes Peak Region? Take a guess. A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? Well, it turns out, if you have data like I have, a reasonable estimate can be made. I used the Clench equation, taken from Harry K. Clench’s paper* on estimating butterfly biodiversity on reserves. It is useful after a few years (or hours) of data points are available. If you want the answer, you can skip the math and go to the case study, below. But in case you’re interested…

The equation shows that the eventual number of species (Se) in a locality can be estimated as a function of a constant, K, and the number of hours spent in the field (N).


As K approaches zero, N + K approaches N, and Se = S. In this equation, S represents the number of species taken at any given time and N represents the number of years (or hours) afield. Simplified, the equation looks like this:


Data that show a positive curve will not apply, of course. This can result if the first expedition is poor but the second is extraordinary. But as more data accumulate, a negative curve is generated, and any two points roughly on the curve can be used to estimate the asymptote, which is equivalent to Se.

Let us assume that after two years, 62 species have been cataloged (2, 62), and that after an additional 2 years, a total of 81 have been recorded (4, 81). Using these to create a system of equations allows us to calculate K, and then Se, as follows.

2Se = (2)(62) + 62K

4Se = (4)(81) + 81K

multiplying the first equation by –2 yields this pair:

– 4Se = –248 – 124K

4Se =   324 + 81K

eliminating the Se term,

0 = 76 – 43K

– 76 = –43K

K = 1.77

Substituting into the original equation yields an estimate of

Se = 124 + 110 = 234 species


screen-shot-2017-01-14-at-1-20-43-pm*Clench, H. K. 1979 How to make regional lists of butterflies: some thoughts. Journ. Lepid Soc 33(4) 216-231


New Pieces of Music

Here is some reading music to carry you away through the next few articles. All songs Copyright Samuel A. Johnson, 2016

Reading Music


Everywhere I go:


Cricket Song:


Theme 5 for Guitar and Piano:


Theme 4: