Final presentation MOF

499 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
499
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Most severe bark beetle infestations are in the Very Dry, Mild subtype. Is this because: Bark beetles like this biogeoclimatic zone? or This zone occurs in river valleys and the bugs like river valleys (maybe they migrate down corridors)? or This just happens to be where all the older purer stands of Douglas-fir are located and that’s what the bugs are after.
  • Final presentation MOF

    1. 1. Douglas-fir Bark Beetles<br />Assessing the impacts of Douglas-fir Bark Beetle infestations in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.<br />
    2. 2. Sponsored by:<br />Ministry of Forests and Range<br />Steve Baumber, Forest Health Information Specialist<br />Tim Ebata, Forest Health Initiatives Officer<br />Leo Rankin, Forest Entomologist<br />
    3. 3. The Douglas Fir Beetle is endemic to southern British Columbia.<br />
    4. 4. Douglas Fir Beetles<br />Adult<br />Boring dust can be found in crevices and at the base of Douglas Fir.<br />Larval tunnels can be seen fanning out from the main tunnel in infected wood.<br />Larvae<br />
    5. 5. Area of Interest<br />
    6. 6. Forest Coverage in the Williams Lake Study Area <br />(from VEG_COMP_LYR_R1_POLY).<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    7. 7. Hazard Ratings in the Williams Lake Area.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    8. 8. Hazard Rating = A*G*D*Pwhere:A = AgeG = Growth RateD = Tree DiameterP = Stand Purity<br />From: A Susceptibility and Risk Rating System for the Douglas-fir Beetle in British Columbia. Draft version 10, April 2001. T.L. Shore and L. Safranyik. Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, B.C.<br />
    9. 9. Hazard Ratings in the entire study area.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    10. 10. Douglas-fir bark beetle overview survey data for 2007, Williams Lake Study Area.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    11. 11. Problems with Overview Survey Data?<br /><ul><li>Imprecise.
    12. 12. Easy to miss small infestations.
    13. 13. One pest may be hidden or masked by another: i.e. Douglas-fir bark beetle is thought to be underreported in the past as it was hidden by large amounts of Spruce Budworm.
    14. 14. Hard to diagnose case of death from the air.</li></ul>Advantages?<br /><ul><li>Large amount of data collected over the same area in a consistent manner yearly.</li></li></ul><li>Douglas-fir bark beetle overview polygons 2000 – 2009, Williams Lake Study Area.<br />Trace = 1; Low = 2; Moderate = 3; Severe = 4; Very Severe = 5<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    15. 15. Douglas-fir bark beetle overview polygons 2000 – 2009, ChilcotinRiver Study Area.<br />Trace = 1; Low = 2; Moderate = 3; Severe = 4; Very Severe = 5<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    16. 16. Areas with cumulative scores >= 6, Chilcotin River Study Area.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    17. 17. Hazard Class, Chilcotin River Study Area.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    18. 18. Overlay of severe incidence on Hazard Class polygons (derived from continuous forest cover dataset).<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    19. 19. At Risk Polygons, Chilcotin River Study Area.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    20. 20. Risk Polygons, Williams Lake Study Area.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    21. 21. Hazard Class: VL = 2.5 % Mortality; L = 19% Mortality; M = 49.5% Mortality; H = 83% Mortality.<br />
    22. 22. Risk Polygons, 100 Mile House Study Area (Canoe Creek).<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    23. 23. Forest Composition, 100 Mile House Study Area (Canoe Creek).<br />.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    24. 24. Why?<br /><ul><li> It could be the fact that the 100 Mile House TSA has historically seen much more aggressive management for beetles.*
    25. 25. Or the biogeoclimatic situation in this administrative unit could be fundamentally different, causing Douglas-fir and bark beetle to behave in different ways…</li></ul>*No source here, just word of mouth!<br />
    26. 26. Biogeoclimatic Zones and Douglas-fir Bark Beetle Infestations.<br />.<br />
    27. 27. Mule Deer Winter Range.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    28. 28. Mature Douglas-fir stands have a thick canopy which shelters deer from heavy snowfalls and provides winter food in the form of needle and branch blow down. After attack by Douglas-fir beetle or other pests the forest can no longer provide these essential functions.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    29. 29. High Stand Structure Mule Deer Winter Range, Chilcotin River Study Area.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    30. 30. High Stand Structure Mule Deer Winter Range, 100 Mile Study Area (Canoe Creek).<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    31. 31. High Stand Structure Mule Deer Winter Range, Williams Lake Study Area.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    32. 32. Old Growth Management Areas, Williams Lake Study Area.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    33. 33. Visual Quality Objective Designated Scenic Areas, Williams Lake Study Area.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    34. 34. Non-timber values at risk:Comparison between study areas<br />
    35. 35. Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    36. 36. Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    37. 37. Average slope of all Douglas-fir polygons.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    38. 38. Average slope of Douglas-fir polygons at risk.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    39. 39. Average elevation of all Douglas-fir polygons.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    40. 40. Average elevation of all Douglas-fir polygons at risk.<br />Source: Ministry of Forests Bark Beetle Management Guidebook, 1995<br />
    41. 41.
    42. 42. Conclusions?<br /><ul><li> Everything we see may be the result of lack of treatment (less treatment historically in Willliams Lake TSA, especially on more rugged terrain) -- but this is not necessarily the case.
    43. 43. The bugs could simply prefer the river valleys,
    44. 44. Or their most suitable food source (big old trees) has been left for them in rugged areas such as river valleys) where it also has to serve the needs of Mule Deer and many other ecological and recreational functions.
    45. 45. Demonstrates the need for more basic research to tackle these problems effectively.</li>

    ×