The Touble With Pine

281 views
199 views

Published on

This powerpoint is based on research and trials compiled in 2013 by Suzanne Simard, Jean Heineman, Jean Mather and Don Sachs via the BC Forest Innovations Investment group. It recommends curtailing the widespread planting of lodgepole pine (pinus contorta) throughout the BC interior, especially in the Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) and Englemann Spruce Subalpine Fir (ESSF) biogeoclimatic zones.

The study also recommends that climate change is likely to exacerbate the effects of pests and disease on lodgepole pine.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
281
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The ability of seedlings establish following disturbances in future climate, will be an important factor contributing to ecosystem resilience to climate change Here are some results we from a modelling study that examines lodgepole pine seedling survival related to climate (spring frost damage & drought) in the IDF zone where it currently occurs. In simulations, the top graph shows that all seedlings have a 70-100% chance of surviving and not being killed by drought or spring frosts in the current, or historical climate. The bottom graph shows that many more seedlings have a low probability of surviving, in this case, largely due to more frequent drought years
  • The Touble With Pine

    1. 1. The Trouble With PineThe Trouble With Pine Suzanne Simard, Jean Heineman, Jean Mather andSuzanne Simard, Jean Heineman, Jean Mather and Don SachsDon Sachs July, 2010July, 2010 1
    2. 2. ReferencesReferences • Heineman, J.L., Sachs, D.L., Mather, W.J., Simard, S.W. (2010). Investigating the influence of climatic, site, location, and treatment factors on damage to young lodgepole pine in southern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 40: 1109-1127. • Mather, W.J., Simard, S.W., Heineman, J.L., Sachs, D.L. (2010). Decline of planted lodgepole pine in the southern interior of British Columbia. Forestry Chronicle, in press. • Simard, S.W., Mather, W.J., Heineman, J.L., Sachs, D.L. (2010). Too much of a good thing? Planted lodgepole pine is declining in British Columbia. Silviculture Magazine, in press. 2
    3. 3. Our love affair with lodgepole pineOur love affair with lodgepole pine 3
    4. 4. Why do we love lodgepole pine?Why do we love lodgepole pine? Good survival Rapid early height growth Wide ecological amplitude Nursery stock easily and cheaply produced Quickly reaches free-growing 4
    5. 5. The free growing- height growth trap 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 years topheightinmetres Fd Pl Pw Si EP 904 Alan Vyse 5
    6. 6. EP 1153 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 years topheightinmetres Cw Ep Fd Lw Pl Pw Py Si Alan Vyse 6
    7. 7. Managed shifts in ICH stand typesManaged shifts in ICH stand types •Reduced mixed classes by 40% overall •Created two pure classes: Pli and Fdi 7
    8. 8. Dothistroma needle blight (Mycosphaerella pini) Woodsetal.2006 Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Aukemaetal.2008 Today’sToday’s posterposter pests of lodgepole pinepests of lodgepole pine www.for.gov.bc.ca …less flamboyant cousins 8
    9. 9. Commandra blister rust (Cronartium comandrae)Western gall rust (Endocronartium harknesii) 9
    10. 10. Stalactiform blister rust (C. coleosporioides) Atropellis canker (Atropellis piniphila) 10
    11. 11. Pine needle cast (Lopherdermella concolor) Terminal weevil (Pissodes terminalis) 11
    12. 12. Sequoia pitch moth (Synanthedon sequioae) Warren’s root collar weevil (Hylobius warrenii) 12
    13. 13. Study ObjectivesStudy Objectives 1. What is the condition of post-free-growing lodgepole pine and what is causing damage? 2. Do declared stands continue to meet free-growing standards past the juvenile stage? 3. How much natural ingress is there? 4. Is the risk of damage by specific agents associated with climatic, location, site or silviculture treatment factors? 5. Are these problems likely to increase with climate change? 6. What are some things we can do about it? 13
    14. 14. Sampling MethodSampling Method • 66 lodgepole pine-leading sites were randomly selected from RESULTS database in SIFR in 2007 (adjusted sample size from 100 to fit FSP budget) • Population was planted to Pl in 1977-1997; declared FG before 2007 (5-13 yrs); >15 ha • In 2007 and 2008, nine 50 m2 plots were sampled per site, 100 m apart, random start (adjusted sample size from 30 per site to fit FSP budget) • Slope, aspect, slope position, SMR • Total, well spaced and free-growing densities by species (using most recent FG standards available) • Height class of all trees; DBH of WS trees • Symptomatic presence of damage (disease, insects, animal, abiotic) (most recent FG standards available) • More intensive exam of individual trees than usual FG survey • Climate variables per site using ClimateBC • Silviculture treatment history per site from RESULTS Williams Lake Revelstoke Prince George Vancouver Kamloops -117 °-122 °-127 °-132 ° -112 °-117 °-122 °-127 °-132 °-137 ° 62°59°54°49° 62°59°54°49° -112° 14
    15. 15. Data AnalysisData Analysis • Summary statistics • Logistic regressions run to determine if risk of stocking or damage was associated with climate, location, site or treatment factors p(Y) = exp(β0 + β1x1+ β2x2+ …+ βkxk)/1 + exp(β0 + β1x1+ β2x2+ …. …+ βkxk) • Odds ratio: the multiplicative factor by which risk of damage changes when the independent variable increases by one unit 15
    16. 16. Study ObjectivesStudy Objectives 1. What is the condition of post-free-growing lodgepole pine and what is causing damage? 2. Do declared stands continue to meet free-growing standards past the juvenile stage? 3. How much natural ingress is there? 4. Is the risk of damage by specific agents associated with climatic, location, site or silviculture treatment factors? 5. Are these problems likely to increase with climate change? 6. What are some things we can do about it? 16
    17. 17. 55% of lodgepole pine stems suffered damage on 100% of sites. Damage was the principle reason for not meeting free-growing standards, followed by not meeting minimum spacing requirement Minimum height and competitive status were not important 17
    18. 18. Proportion of trees with serious damageProportion of trees with serious damage %oftrees 18
    19. 19. Damage causes (14 agents)Damage causes (14 agents) Total damaged stems per hectare 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 ESSF ICH IDF MS SBPS SBS BEC zone Stems/ha Stem diseases Root diseases Foliage diseases Mistletoe Insects Abiotic Animal Competition Stem diseases: Western gall rust (20.8%) Stalactiform blister rust (1.3%) Comandra blister rust (1.5%) Atropellis canker (0.8%) Root diseases: Armillaria (0.4%) Tomentosus (0.2%) Foliage diseases: Pine needle cast (2.0%) Dothistroma (1.8%) Insects: Sequoia pitch moth(3.0%) MPB (1.9%) Warren’s RCW (0.2%) Pine terminal weevil (4.0%) Snow and Ice (3.0%) 19
    20. 20. FREP Report #19 TSR2 assumptions (initial density of 1600 sph and normal OAFs) and a site index of 19.5m (from SIBEC) Merchantable volume prediction for 20 and 50% mortality (TIPSY) Hard pine stem rusts observed in Northern Interior of BC 20
    21. 21. Study ObjectivesStudy Objectives 1. What is the condition of post-free-growing lodgepole pine and what is causing damage? 2. Do declared stands continue to meet free-growing standards past the juvenile stage? 3. How much natural ingress is there? 4. Is the risk of damage by specific agents associated with climatic, location, site or silviculture treatment factors? 5. Are these problems likely to increase with climate change? 6. What are some things we can do about it? 21
    22. 22. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Total WS FG Total WS FG Total WS FG Total WS FG Total WS FG Total WS FG ESSF ICH IDF MS SBPS SBS Stemsperhectare Pl Bl Se/Sx Fd Cw Pw Lw Hw Target FG Minimum FG Stocking by Biogeoclimatic ZoneStocking by Biogeoclimatic Zone 22
    23. 23. Proportion of sites meeting minimum WSSProportion of sites meeting minimum WSS and minimum FGand minimum FG %ofsites 23
    24. 24. Proportion of sites no longer FGProportion of sites no longer FG and at very high risk of lost productivityand at very high risk of lost productivity %ofsites 24
    25. 25. Study ObjectivesStudy Objectives 1. What is the condition of post-free-growing lodgepole pine and what is causing damage? 2. Do declared stands continue to meet free-growing standards past the juvenile stage? 3. How much natural ingress is there? 4. Is the risk of damage by specific agents associated with climatic, location, site or silviculture treatment factors? 5. Are these problems likely to increase with climate change? 6. What are some things we can do about it? 25
    26. 26. Odds ratioOdds ratio • Odds of damage occurring • Odds ratio is the multiplier by which risk of damage changes when the risk factor changes by one unit • Odds ratio<1 means risk is decreasing • Odds ratio>1 means risk is increasing • Logarithmic (odds ratio raised to power ‘x’, where ‘x’ is the risk factor, such as temp.) 26
    27. 27. Risk of damage generally increases with latitudeRisk of damage generally increases with latitude •odds ratio is 5 in the model predicting western gall rust from latitude; if go 4 degrees north, you increase the risk by 5x5x5x5 (625) times Location Williams Lake Revelstoke Prince George Vancouver Kamloops -117 °-122 °-127 °-132 ° -112 °-117 °-122 °-127 °-132 °-137 ° 62°59°54°49° 62°59°54°49° -112° 27
    28. 28. Risk of damage generally increases with longitudeRisk of damage generally increases with longitude •odds ratio is 2 in the model predicting Armillaria root disease from longitude; if go 4 degrees east, you increase the risk by 2x2x2x2 (16) times Location Williams Lake Revelstoke Prince George Vancouver Kamloops -117 °-122 °-127 °-132 ° -112 °-117 °-122 °-127 °-132 °-137 ° 62°59°54°49° 62°59°54°49° -112° 28
    29. 29. Risk of damage from western gall rustRisk of damage from western gall rust increases with warmer summersincreases with warmer summers •odds ratio is 11 in the model predicting western gall rust from MWMT; if summer temperature increases by 2o C, you increase the risk by 11x11 times (121) times Climate 29
    30. 30. Risk of all damage increases with warmerRisk of all damage increases with warmer winterswinters •odds ratio is 2 in the model predicting western gall rust from MCMT; if winter temperature increases by 2o C, you increase the risk by 2x2 times (4) times (441 times for MPB) Climate 30
    31. 31. Risk of damage often greater on wetter sitesRisk of damage often greater on wetter sites Site 0.1 1 10 Arm illaria W arren's R C w eevil Snow and ice Dw arf m istletoe Sequoia pitch m oth Pine needle cast W estern gall rust M ountain pine beetle Odds-ratio(logscale) (a) Soil moisture wetter 31
    32. 32. Risk of damage often increases withRisk of damage often increases with spacing, pruning and brushingspacing, pruning and brushing Silviculture treatment 32
    33. 33. Study ObjectivesStudy Objectives 1. What is the condition of free-growing pine and what is causing damage? 2. Do declared stands continue to meet free-growing standards past the juvenile stage? 3. How much natural ingress is there? 4. Is the risk of damage by specific agents associated with climatic, location, site or silviculture treatment factors? 5. Are these problems likely to increase with climate change? 6. What are some things we can do about it? 33
    34. 34. Spittlehouse 2008 Yes! 34
    35. 35. Spittlehouse 2008 35
    36. 36. • frequency distributions of survival probability • Interior Douglas Fir zone (dry, mild) • moderate soil drainage • CGCM2-A2x Lodgepole pine seedling survival: drought & spring frost (Nitschke & Campbell , in prep) 36
    37. 37. Study ObjectivesStudy Objectives 1. What is the condition of post-free-growing lodgepole pine and what is causing damage? 2. Do declared stands continue to meet free-growing standards past the juvenile stage? 3. How much natural ingress is there? 4. Is the risk of damage by specific agents associated with climatic, location, site or silviculture treatment factors? 5. Are these problems likely to increase with climate change? 6. What are some things we can do about it? 37
    38. 38. Call to actionCall to action • Our study suggests that risk of damage to lodgepole pine will increase with climate change. • In response to this, we suggest curtailing planting of lodgepole pine in single species plantations, especially in ICH and wetter ESSF • Given the minimal damage found on natural regeneration, we suggest that it be favored in silviculture practices • We suggest revision to the free-growing regulations to increase structural diversity and acceptability of natural regeneration, including – reconsidering minimum height, minimum spacing, and competitive status requirements – Increasing the breadth of acceptable species, including broadleaves • We suggest reducing the risk of damage by planting and maintaining species mixtures; these should be smart mixtures based on species vulnerabilities • With climate change, we suggest avoiding unnecessary silviculture practices that simplify stands or stress trees, such as brushing, spacing or pruning, particularly where damaging agents are currently present • We suggest that adopting effective mitigation and adaptation strategies to climate change will require monitoring of stand development post-FG across the landscape • We suggest conducting more studies such as this because they are powerful tools for detecting problems that allow adjustment of practices before problems potentially amplify with climate change 38
    39. 39. SummarySummary 1) Almost one-third of declared stands are no longer free-growing after 5-13 years, with 70% of lodgepole pine plantations failing in the ICH zone. 2) Natural regeneration is common, but usually not counted as FG because it is too short, too clumpy or not of an acceptable species. 3) Damage, particularly from western gall rust, underlies plantation failures. The other agents have lower damage incidence but there are plenty of localized areas with severe damage and our results indicate that the extent of this damage will increase with warming. 4) Stocking is sufficiently reduced that yield is predicted to decline in most zones. 5) Risk of damage increases with increasing lat/long, warming summers and winters, increasing precipitation, increasing (and decreasing) soil moisture, and certain silviculture practices. 6) These problems will likely increase with climate change. 7) Need to take a conservationist approach to management. Maintaining ecosystem complexity is key to mitigation and adaptation. 8) We need research, monitoring and adaptive management. 39
    40. 40. AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements • Lorraine Maclauchlan • Michelle Cleary • Alex Woods • Sharon Cadieux • Wendy Bergerud • Mei Cheng • Alan Vyse • Jeff McWilliams • Elizabeth Campbell 40
    41. 41. Thank-you!Thank-you! 41

    ×