Potential for Lodgepole Pine Regeneration After Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) Attack in Novel Habitat

Transcription

1 Potential for Lodgepole Pine Regeneration After Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) Attack in Novel Habitat Anne McIntosh, PhD Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute *Formerly Dept of Renewable Resources, U of A IBFRA October Principal investigators: Drs. Ellen Macdonald and Uldis Silins

2

3 MPB s Moving Target: Alberta Not endemic to most of Alberta Climate change => warmer winters Management => vast areas of even-aged lodgepole pine MPB is significantly expanding range

4 MPB Range Expansion

5

6 CHANGING DISTURBANCE REGIME

7 Research Question: What are the effects of different levels of red attack and forest management on forest regeneration?

8 Study Area Pure pine ~100 yrs (beyond native range of MPB) Ecosite: UF e1.1 Pl/green alder/feather moss

9 Control (untreated) Experimental Treatments Simulated MPB attack (50% overstory kill) Simulated MPB attack (100% overstory kill) Clearcut harvest- salvage logging Glyphosate herbicide (chemical girdling) & Harvest in Summer 09 not MPB ( simulated )

10 Long-term Repeated Measures Study Clearcut Block 1 50% kill x 3 Replicate Blocks Control 100% kill N Block 3 Block /

11 What is the regeneration potential of these stands? 1. Seedlings/saplings (pine) Advanced regeneration? 2. Germination study Different season of sowing Different substrates Different treatments

12 1. Advanced Regeneration? => not enough to regenerate the stand! (typical of this region) lodgepole pine white & black spruce balsam fir

13 2. Germination Study: 3 post-treatment years Quadrats on 5 substrates sowed w/ seed (both fall sown & spring sown): Moss LFH > 2.5 cm (deep) LFH < 2.5 cm (shallow) V. decayed dead wood Mineral soil Counted germinants/'recruits /

14 Moss

15 Litter/LFH

16 Decayed Wood

17 Mineral Soil

18 Low MPB Recruitment (vs Salvage) 25 Recruitment rate (%) Moss Deep Shallow Wood Mineral y y y y y y z z 0 A AB BC D CD A BC ABCD D A A A B B A B B C C Control 50%kill 100%kill Salvage Stand treatment McIntosh, A.C.S., & Macdonald, S.E Forest Ecology and Management. 295:

19 Low Recruitment & Survival Recruitment rate (%) y y y y Moss Deep Shallow Wood Mineral z z 0 A AB B C C A B B C C A A A B B 1 yr post-trmt yrs post-trmt yrs 2012 post-trtmt Year McIntosh, A.C.S., & Macdonald, S.E Forest Ecology and Management. 295:

20 3 Years Post-attack/Harvest Salvage MPB Attack

21 Successional Trajectory? Limited regeneration in the MPB attacked stands. In the short term (More in Salvage Harvested)

22 Where do we go from here? Longer-term research & monitoring is critical Need science to inform policy What will forest management in a post-mpb landscape look like in AB over the longer term?

23 Acknowledgements NSERC Canada Graduate Scholarship Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Scholarship MacAllister and McCardell Scholarships Foothills Research Institute FRIAA / AB ESRD West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd. Milo Mihajlovich Field Assistants - including Pete Presant, Emily Turton, Sam Karpyshin, Travis Cooper, and Halley Coxson Macdonald, Quideau, and Silins lab groups

24 Thank You! McIntosh, A.C.S., & Macdonald, S.E Potential for lodgepole pine regeneration after mountain pine beetle attack in newly invaded Alberta stands. Forest Ecology and Management. 295: McIntosh, A.C.S., & Macdonald, S.E Short-term resistance of ecosystem properties and processes to simulated mountain pine beetle attack in a novel region. Ecosphere. 4(6): article 68