Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Hb2015 jason-bbd
Similar to Hb2015 jason-bbd (20)
More from melnhe
More from melnhe (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Hb2015 jason-bbd
- 1. Does More P Mean Less BBD? Beech bark disease in the MELNHE plots Aaliyah Jason Shoestring Crew 2015 SUNY-ESF
- 2. What is BBD? โข Neonectria fungus (N. faginata, N. ditissima) โข Fagus grandifolia (American Beech) โข Cryptococcus fagisuga (Non-native scale insect) โข Xylococculus betulae (Native scale) Heavily cankered beech Excretory tubes from X. Betulae
- 3. Backfiring defense mechanism โข Root sprouts โข Niche disturbance โข Beech homogenous monoculture patches โข Overall lower forest diversity โข Outcompeting timber crop
- 4. Welcome to the White Mountains, little guys! โข First documented in Bartlett in 1940. โข 50% first wave mortality rate on beech. โข Only 1% of F. grandifolia have displayed resistance. No, but really, we donโt want you. C. fagisuga wax masses under tape on infected beech
- 5. Soil Phosphorus โข Beech that are the most severely infected have lower levels of bark P (Cale et al. 2013) โข Looking at MELNHE soil-P data (provided by Dr. Fisk) Forest Sit e Plo t Means Bartlett C7 1 13.9956 Bartlett C8 2 15.1281 Bartlett C4 2 24.3440 JB Y 4 25.2379 Bartlett C4 1 32.7435 JB O 4 32.8346 JB Y 3 33.1009 Bartlett C2 1 38.0039 Bartlett C3 3 38.2839 Bartlett C2 4 38.3831 10 lowest P readings per plot Bartlett C4 4 101.0509 JB Y 1 110.4363 Bartlett C2 2 123.5172 Bartlett C6 3 126.2816 JB O 1 127.9724 Bartlett C5 3 136.4526 Bartlett C9 3 160.5715 Bartlett C9 4 172.0302 Bartlett C3 2 180.8428 Bartlett C6 4 207.1948 10 highest P readings per plot โข Comparison of infected trees between different ratios of pre-treatment soil P ratings Data from M. Fisk
- 6. Does higher soil P availability more effectively limit BBD progression in aftermath forests?
- 7. Procedure โข Three frame samples (Getting that perfect shot can take a few tries)
- 8. Procedure โข Combination of two modified score systems o% Canopy loss (1 less than 10% foliage loss โ 3 more than 50% foliage loss) oOverall tree health (1 healthy โ 5 dead) oSeverity of bark cover by fungus (1 small cracks โ 4/5 large girdling cankers, dead) oC. fagisuga wax mass coverage per frame (1-5) & number of masses per frame oX. betulae excretory tubes (present or not)
- 9. Sources โข Wild, A., Johnston, M., Cale, J. A (2013). Scoring beech bark disease. โข Egan-Anderson, E., Turlip, J., Wild, A., Suttenberg, S., Littlefield, S. (2014). 2014 MELNHE mature stand stem mapping. โข Cale J. A. et al. (2014). New ecological and physiological dimensions of beech bark disease development in aftermath forests: State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Elsevier. โข Mason, M. E., Koch, J. L., Krasowski, M., & Loo, J. (2013). Comparisons of protein profiles of beech bark disease resistant and susceptible American Beech (Fagus grandifolia): Ohio State University. Proteome Science. โข Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (June 2008). Preparing Wisconsinโs forests for beech bark disease. pg. 1-2. Retrieved June 2, 2015. dnr.wi.gov โข Bartlett Experimental Forest (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2015. fs.fed.us
- 10. Melany Fisk - Pre-treatment soil P data for MELNHE stands Acknowledgem ents Matt Vadeboncoeur & Adam Wild โ rating system Ruth Yanai โ Shoestring Leader Shoestring Crew Mariann Johnston - Mentor