2017 Hubbard Brook presentation

1. Battle Of the Babies:
Beech Interference With
Sugar Maple Regeneration
Daniel S. Hong1
Mentors: Adam D. Wild2, Mariann Johnston1, and Ruth
D. Yanai1
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry1
SUNY Cobleskill2

2. RECAP, BBD experts!
• BBD infested beech trees
undergo:
1) reduced growth and vigor
2) declining crown health
3) a weakened bole and decreased
resistance to windthrow and
breakage
→ eventual death   
• BBD-induced mortality is
altering forest composition,
structure, and function across
the northern hardwood forests
of the United States.

3. Why bother?
• Past studies reported
contrasting conclusions on the
effects of BBD on the
populations and regenerations
of more desirable hardwood
species, such as sugar maple
(Acer saccharum).
+ POSITIVE
 Griffin et al. 2003
 Manion and Griffin 2001
 Runkle 1990
 Twery and Patterson 1984
- NEGATIVE
 Cale et al. 2013
 McNulty and Masters 2005
 Forrester et al. 2003
 Hane et al. 2003
 Houston 1975
 McIntosh 1972

4. Objectives and Hypotheses
• Investigate the effects of nutrient additions on the
dynamics of American beech and sugar maple populations
and regeneration in BBD-diseased aftermath stands.
Hypothesis: With BBD promoting beech root suckers and
therefore creating a dense thicket, sugar maple will not be
favored.

5. Methods
• Standard tree inventory
in 2011 (pre-treatment)
and in 2015-16 (post-
treatment).
• BBD ratings in 2017.

7. Avg. Fungal Score of Mature Beech Trees
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
ChangeinSaplingBAfrom2011to2015(m2
)
-0.0025
-0.0020
-0.0015
-0.0010
-0.0005
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
Ca
Ctrl
N
NP
P
Best Fit
Avg. Fungal Score of Mature Beech Trees
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
ChangeinSaplingBAfrom2011to2015(m2
)
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0.000
0.002
0.004

8. Thank you Shoestringers