Transcript Older Hypotheses on Galls - Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation

Mountain Pine Beetle Impacts
on Whitebark Pine:
Mortality and Stand Dynamics in the Intermountain West
Kendra G. Schotzko & Stephen P. Cook
19 September 2014
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
Whitebark Pine of the
Intermountain West
Primary Research Goals:
• Determine extent and severity of mountain pine beetle impacts
• Assess health and species composition of regeneration
Secondary Research Goals & Complementary Objectives:
• Insect assemblages
• Risks and impacts of invasive species
Whitebark Pine of the
Intermountain West
Increasing whitebark pine mortality
– Currently at risk
• Mountain pine beetle
• White pine blister rust
• Forest succession
Insects and Disease
Mountain Pine Beetle
Dendroctonus ponderosae
– Native species, eruptive
population cycles
– Central British Columbia and
eastern Alberta → California,
Arizona, and New Mexico
– All Pinus species within range
White Pine Blister Rust
Cronartium ribicola
– Non-native species
– N. Idaho by 1923
 Erich G. Vallery, USDA Forest Service
 http://www.nps.gov/
Research Justification
• Aerial detection surveys
– Estimate of current dead trees, not remaining live trees
or regeneration
• Link mortality estimates and remaining live trees
Primary Research Goals
• Determine mountain pine beetle impacts on whitebark
pine in intermountain west
- Quantify dead and remaining live mature whitebark pine
- Determining health of whitebark pine regeneration
• Aid restoration of whitebark pine
- Determining possible stand trajectory
Thirty-two sites within five National Forests
Quantify Dead & Remaining Live
Mature Trees: Survey Methods
• Mature Tree Assessment
– Within areas of recent
mountain pine beetle
outbreak
– Up to 10 plots per site
– DBH > 5”
• Data Collected
– Tree characteristics
• Species, diameter,
and condition
Quantify Mature Trees:
Kaniksu & Helena National Forests
Mean Percent Live (+ Values) and
Dead (- Values) Mature Trees ±SE
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Whitebark Pine Subalpine Fir Lodgepole Pine Other Species
Quantify Mature Trees:
Salmon-Challis National Forest
Mean Percent Live (+ Values) and
Dead (- Values) Mature Trees ±SE
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Whitebark Pine Subalpine Fir Lodgepole Pine Other Species
Quantify Mature Trees:
Sawtooth National Forest & Rec. Area
Mean Percent Live (+ Values) and
Dead (- Values) Mature Trees ±SE
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
Whitebark Pine Subalpine Fir Lodgepole Pine Other Species
Quantify Mature Trees:
Caribou-Targhee National Forest
Mean Percent Live (+ Values) and
Dead (- Values) Mature Trees ±SE
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Whitebark Pine Subalpine Fir Lodgepole Pine Other Species
Assess Regeneration:
Survey Methods
6.8ft
• Fixed Radius Plot
• Fixed Area ‘Between’ Plot
• Regeneration:
– Diameter < 5”
• Class 1 = Height less than 6”
• Class 2 = Height between 6” and 4.5’
• Class 3 = Height greater than 4.5’
• Data Collected
– Species , height class, rust occurrence
118.4 ft
6.6 ft
Regeneration:
Kaniksu & Helena National Forests
Mean Percent Healthy (+ Values)
and Diseased (- Values) Trees ±SE
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
Whitebark Pine Subalpine Fir Lodgepole Pine Other Species
Regeneration:
Salmon-Challis National Forest
Mean Percent Healthy (+ Values)
and Diseased (- Values) Trees ±SE
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Whitebark Pine Subalpine Fir Lodgepole Pine Other Species
Mean Percent Healthy (+ Values)
and Diseased (- Values) Trees ±SE
Regeneration:
Sawtooth National Forest & Rec. Area
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Whitebark Pine Subalpine Fir Lodgepole Pine Other Species
Mean Percent Healthy (+ Values)
and Diseased (- Values) Trees ±SE
Regeneration:
Caribou-Targhee National Forest
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
Whitebark Pine Subalpine Fir Lodgepole Pine Other Species
Mature Tree & Regeneration:
Summary
Dead and remaining live mature whitebark pine
• Substantial mortality of mature whitebark pine in
majority sites
Health of whitebark pine regeneration
• Blister rust detected in all geographic areas visited
– Frequency variable
Mature Tree & Regeneration:
Summary
Dead and remaining live mature whitebark pine
• Substantial mortality of mature whitebark pine in
majority sites
Health of whitebark pine regeneration
• Blister rust detected in all geographic areas visited
– Frequency variable
Determining possible stand trajectory
• Aid restoration of whitebark pine
Possible Stand Trajectory
Kaniksu National Forest
WBP1-R
WBP2-R
WBP3-R
WBP1-C
WBP2-C
WBP3-C
SAF1
SAF2
SAF3
LPP1
LPP2
LPP3
OTHER1
OTHER2
OTHER3
WBP-LIVE
WBP-DEAD
SAF-LIVE
SAF-DEAD
LPP-LIVE
LPP-DEAD
OTHER-LIVE
OTHER-DEAD
Mature Trees
Regeneration
Possible Stand Trajectory
Helena National Forest
WBP1-R
WBP2-R
WBP3-R
WBP1-C
WBP2-C
WBP3-C
SAF1
SAF2
SAF3
LPP1
LPP2
LPP3
OTHER1
OTHER2
OTHER3
WBP-LIVE
WBP-DEAD
SAF-LIVE
SAF-DEAD
LPP-LIVE
LPP-DEAD
OTHER-LIVE
OTHER-DEAD
Mature Trees
Regeneration
Possible Stand Trajectory
Salmon-Challis National Forest
WBP-LIVE
WBP-DEAD
SAF-LIVE
SAF-DEAD
LPP-LIVE
LPP-DEAD
OTHER-LIVE
OTHER-DEAD
Mature Trees
Regeneration
WBP1-R
WBP2-R
WBP3-R
WBP1-C
WBP2-C
WBP3-C
SAF1
SAF2
SAF3
LPP1
LPP2
LPP3
OTHER1
OTHER2
OTHER3
Possible Stand Trajectory
Sawtooth National Recreation Area
WBP-LIVE
WBP-DEAD
SAF-LIVE
SAF-DEAD
LPP-LIVE
LPP-DEAD
OTHER-LIVE
OTHER-DEAD
Mature Trees
Regeneration
WBP1-R
WBP2-R
WBP3-R
WBP1-C
WBP2-C
WBP3-C
SAF1
SAF2
SAF3
LPP1
LPP2
LPP3
OTHER1
OTHER2
OTHER3
Possible Stand Trajectory
Caribou-Targhee National Forest
WBP-LIVE
WBP-DEAD
SAF-LIVE
SAF-DEAD
LPP-LIVE
LPP-DEAD
OTHER-LIVE
OTHER-DEAD
Mature Trees
Regeneration
WBP1-R
WBP2-R
WBP3-R
WBP1-C
WBP2-C
WBP3-C
SAF1
SAF2
SAF3
LPP1
LPP2
LPP3
OTHER1
OTHER2
OTHER3
Possible Stand Trajectory:
Conclusions
+
=
substantial mortality of
mature whitebark pine
whitebark pine < subalpine
fir regeneration
trajectory towards subalpine
fir dominated habitats
Variation across sites
Minority of sites had greater number of
regenerative whitebark pine compared to
subalpine fir
Possible Stand Trajectory:
Ecosystem Effects
=
trajectory towards subalpine
fir dominated habitats
Could this impact insects assemblages?
Secondary Research Objective
– Sample insect assemblages
Secondary Research Goals:
High Elevation Insect Assemblages
• Aerial Flight Traps
– Non-baited Yellow Japanese Beetle Traps
– Three sites sampled in 2013, Salmon NF
At each site:
– Traps hung mid-canopy
• 10 trap clusters
• Each cluster included:
– 1 whitebark pine
– 1 subalpine fir
– 1 lodgepole pine
90 traps total, active for 14 days
Possible Stand Trajectory:
Ecosystem Effects
=
trajectory towards subalpine
fir dominated habitats
Could this impact insects assemblages?
Secondary Research Objective
– Sample insect assemblages
What effect could invasive species have
on possible stand trajectories?
Complementary Objective
– Assess the risk
– Assess impacts
Complementary Objective:
Invasive Pest of Subalpine Fir
“Establishing risk maps for balsam
woolly adelgid, an invasive pest
of true firs, under varying climate
scenarios” Makar and Cook 2012
How high in elevation can the
Balsam Woolly Adelgid migrate as
temperature changes?
• As winter temperatures increase:
– Survive in a larger area and at
higher elevation
• Able to disperse anywhere in
Idaho where true firs occur
Makar and Cook 2012
Possible Stand Trajectory:
Ecosystem Effects
=
trajectory towards subalpine
fir dominated habitats
Could this impact insects assemblages?
Secondary Research Objective
– Sample insect assemblages
What effect could invasive species have
on possible stand trajectories?
Complementary Objective
– Assess the risk
– Assess impacts
Complementary Objective:
Impacts of Balsam Woolly Adelgid
• Document balsam woolly adelgid
(BWA) presence and impacts on
true fir of the intermountain west
- Impact of BWA on mature true firs
- Mature trees and regeneration
- Species abundance and
composition
- Assess impact of BWA
- Determine possible stand
trajectory
Whitebark Pine & High Elevation
Ecosystems
• What we’ve accomplished:
– Assessed stand trajectories of high elevation ecosystems
Mean Percent Mature Trees ±SE
40
20
0
-20
-40
Mean Percent Mature Trees ±SE
-60
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
Whitebark Subalpine Lodgepole
Pine
Fir
Pine
Other
Species
Mature Trees
Regeneration
Whitebark Pine & High Elevation
Ecosystems
• What we’ve accomplished:
– Assessed stand trajectories of high elevation ecosystems
• What we’re doing:
– Identifying patterns to help inform rehabilitation decisions
– Determine possible shifts in high elevation insect assemblages associated
with changing stand compositions
– Using climate models to predict pest distributions of competing species
– Assessing the risk BWA may pose to high elevation subalpine firs
Whitebark Pine & High Elevation
Ecosystems
• What we’ve accomplished:
– Assessed stand trajectories of high elevation ecosystems
• What we’re doing:
– Identifying patterns to help inform rehabilitation decisions
– Determine possible shifts in high elevation insect assemblages associated
with changing stand compositions
– Using climate models to predict pest distributions of competing species
– Assessing the risk BWA may pose to high elevation subalpine firs
• Future Questions:
– How will climate change impact whitebark pine, mountain pine beetle, and
white pine blister rust?
– How will climate change effect species competing with whitebark pine, such
as subalpine fir, and the insects and diseases of those competing species?
Acknowledgements
Whitebark Pine
USDA Forest Service, FHP, Evaluation Monitoring Program
US Forest Service, Forest Health Protection Region 1: Sandy Kegley, John Schwandt,
and Paul Zambino
US Forest Service, Forest Health Protection Region 4: Carl Jørgensen, Laura Lazarus,
Jim Hoffman, Phil Mocettini, Chad Nelson, Jeri Lyn Harris, and Dick Halsey
Regional Forest Service offices: Deb Taylor, Lynn Bennett, James Hudson, Jim
Robertson, and many others in the Idaho Panhandle NF, Helena NF, Salmon-Challis
NF, Sawtooth NF, Sawtooth NRA, and the Caribou-Targhee NF
University of Idaho, Moscow ID: Laine Smith, Chelsea Walsh, Paul Rhoades, William
Sweeney, Anna Giesmann, and Colleen Makar
Subalpine Fir
USDA Forest Service, FHP, Evaluation Monitoring Program: Rob Cruz
US Forest Service, Forest Health Protection Region 1, 4, 6: Lee Pederson, Laura
Lazarus, Phil Mocettini, Terri Johnson, and Darci Dickinson
University of Idaho, Moscow ID: Colleen Makar, Laine Smith, Xander Rose, Brita Olsen