Mountain pine beetle attack in ponderosa pine: Comparing methods for rating susceptibility

Similar documents
Colorado Front Range Fuel Photo Series

Forest Resources of the Black Hills National Forest

Mountain pine beetle attack in ponderosa pine: Comparing methods for rating susceptibility

Mountain Pine Beetle-Killed Trees as Snags in Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Stands

Forest Resources of the Lolo National Forest

Mountain Pine Beetle-Caused Tree Mortality in Partially Cut Plots Surrounded by Unmanaged Stands

Six-Year Post-Fire Mortality and Health of Relict Ponderosa Pines in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Montana

Facts on Direct-to-Consumer Food Marketing

Foraging Behavior: Managing to Survive in a World of Change

Agroforestry Treasures in the USDA Farm Bill

Forest Resources of the Uinta National Forest

Stonewall Vegetation Project FEIS Errata

Andy Trent, Project Leader; Tyler Kuhn, Mechanical Engineer; Karen Burr, Horticulturist, Coeur d Alene Nursery

Harvest, Employment, Exports, and Prices in Pacific Northwest Forests,

Crop Progress. Cotton Bolls Opening Selected States [These 15 States planted 99% of the 2010 cotton acreage]

Forest Resources of the Fishlake National Forest

Texas, Forest Inventory & Analysis Factsheet. James W. Bentley. Forested Area. Introduction. Inventory Volume

Native Bark Beetles in the Western United States: Who, Where, and Why

Forest Resources of the Ashley National Forest

Locally Led Conservation & The Local Work Group. Mark Habiger NRCS

Forest Resources of the Shoshone National Forest

Honey. United States Honey Production Down 1 Percent

Wheat Objective Yield Survey Data,

Winter Wheat Seedings

Forest Resources of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Non-Ambulatory Cattle and Calves

Honey. United States Honey Production Down 16 Percent

Forest Resources of the Coconino National Forest

Engineering Watershed, Soil, & Air

Milk Production, Disposition, and Income 2011 Summary

Engraver Beetles in Southwestern Pines

Corn Objective Yield Survey Data,

Cattle on Feed. U.S. Cattle on Feed Up 4 Percent

~ouble- iff usioi Methods

Buy Local, Buy Quality

Production per cow in the 23 major States averaged 1,830 pounds for July, 59 pounds above July 2009.

North Carolina, 2010

Effect of Cattle Grazing, Seeded Grass, and an Herbicide on Ponderosa Pine Seedling Survival and Growth

Fruit Wildlife Damage

FARM BILL 2002 Colorado Conservation Provisions

NRCS Water Quality Practices

All cows and heifers that have calved, at 39.1 million, were down 2 percent from the 40.0 million on January 1, 2011.

Cheat Mountain Wildlife Habitat Enhancement

Modeling endemic bark beetle populations in southwestern

Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and Income 2011 Summary

Financial Analysis of Fuel Treatments on National Forests in the Western United States

PROJECT INFORMATION Manchester Ranger District Apple Tree Release and Maintenance Project

Cattle on Feed. United States Cattle on Feed Down 6 Percent

National Soil Health Initiative

Winter Wheat Seedings

Flour Milling Products

Flour Milling Products

Users Guide for Noble Fir Bough Cruiser

Sheep and Goats Predator Loss

Flour Milling Products 2017 Summary

Proposed Action. for the. North 40 Scrub Management Project

Role of Woody Species in (Riparian) Buffer Plantings

Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Emerald Ash Borer SLow Ash Mortality (SLAM) Hoosier National Forest Brownstown Ranger District

Environmental Assessment for Jackson Thinning

Carson National Forest El Rito Ranger District El Rito, New Mexico Outreach Response due by close of business on March 26, 2013.

Flour Milling Products

Winter Wheat Seedings

All cows and heifers that have calved, at 40.0 million, were down 1 percent from the 40.5 million on January 1, 2010.

Soybean Objective Yield Survey Data,

Milk Production, Disposition, and Income 2014 Summary

BACKGROUND DECISION. June 2016 Page 1 of 6

Milk Production. January Milk Production up 2.7 Percent

Cattle on Feed. United States Cattle on Feed Up 5 Percent

Why does the Forest Service need to propose this activity at this time?

Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and Income 2015 Summary

Effects of All-Terrain Vehicles on Forested Lands and Grasslands

DECISION MEMO. Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project Wildlife Opening Construction, Rehabilitation and Expansion FY

Crop Progress. Corn Harvested Selected States [These 18 States harvested 94% of the 2017 corn acreage]

Cattle. January 1 Cattle Inventory Up 3 Percent

Softwood Lumber Prices for Evaluation of Small-Diameter Timber Stands in the Intermountain West

NRCS Standards and Criteria for Dead Animal Composting

Winter Wheat Seedings

Cattle on Feed. United States Cattle on Feed Up 3 Percent

Crop Progress. Corn Mature Selected States [These 18 States planted 93% of the 2015 corn acreage]

Telegraph Forest Management Project

DECISION MEMO MANHATTAN FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE CANYON LAKES RANGER DISTRICT LARIMER COUNTY, CO

6.3 DOUGLAS-FIR BEETLE ATTACK AND TREE MORTALITY FOLLOWING WILDFIRE Sharon M. Hood 1 *, Barbara Bentz 2, and Kevin C. Ryan 1.

Land Values 2013 Summary

U.S. Forest Facts and Historical Trends

Crop Progress. Corn Silking Selected States [These 18 States planted 92% of the 2017 corn acreage]

Crop Progress. Corn Dented Selected States [These 18 States planted 92% of the 2017 corn acreage] Corn Mature Selected States ISSN:

Crop Progress. Corn Planted - Selected States [These 18 States planted 92% of the 2016 corn acreage] Corn Emerged - Selected States ISSN:

Crop Progress. Corn Planted - Selected States [These 18 States planted 92% of the 2017 corn acreage]

Crop Progress. Corn Planted - Selected States [These 18 States planted 92% of the 2017 corn acreage] Corn Emerged - Selected States ISSN:

Cattle on Feed. United States Cattle on Feed Up 5 Percent

Forest Resources of the Beaverhead- Deerlodge National Forest

Crop Progress. Special Note

Forest Resources of the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forest

Cattle on Feed. United States Cattle on Feed Up 5 Percent

Forest Resources of the Medicine Bow National Forest

Hungry Creek Watershed Road Maintenance and Stony Quarry Development

OUTREACH NOTICE 2018 TEMPORARY POSITIONS BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST HOW TO APPLY: RECREATION POSITIONS BEING HIRED:

THE ROLE OF BIOCONTROL OF EMERALD ASH BORER

General Location: Approximately 6 miles east of Huntsville, Utah along the South Fork of the Ogden River (Figure 1)

A Comparison of Two Estimates of Standard Error for a Ratio-of-Means Estimator for a Mapped-Plot Sample Design in Southeast Alaska

Transcription:

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Research Paper RMRS RP 26 September 2000 Mountain pine beetle attack in ponderosa pine: Comparing methods for rating susceptibility David C. Chojnacky, Barbara J. Bentz, and Jesse A. Logan

Chojnacky, David C.; Bentz, Barbara J.; Logan, Jesse A. 2000. Mountain pine beetle attack in ponderosa pine: Comparing methods for rating susceptibility. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-26. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 10 p. Abstract Two empirical methods for rating susceptibility of mountain pine beetle attack in ponderosa pine were evaluated. The methods were compared to stand data modeled to objectively rate each sampled stand for susceptibly to bark-beetle attack. Data on bark-beetle attacks, from a survey of 45 sites throughout the Colorado Plateau, were modeled using logistic regression to estimate the probability of attack on individual trees from tree and stand variables. The logistic model allowed flexibility to easily scale results up to a stand level for comparison to the empirical methods. The empirical method, developed by Munson and Anhold, most closely correlated to the logistic regression results. However, the Munson/Anhold method rated all 45 study sites as either moderately or highly susceptible to bark-beetle attack, which raises concern about its lack of sensitivity. Future work on evaluating risk of bark-beetle impact should consider more than stand characteristics. Keywords: Dendroctonus ponderosae, Pinus ponderosa, mortality, hazard rating, risk rating, logistic regression, Colorado Plateau The Authors David C. Chojnacky is owner of a USDA Forest Service enterprise unit in Washington, DC. His current interests include biometrics and sampling research on forest measurements, carbon budgets, and wildlife habitat as well as consultation on applications of Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data. He holds a Ph.D. degree in forest biometry from Colorado State University. Barbara J. Bentz is a research entomologist and project leader of the Interior West Bark Beetle Project in Logan Utah, and an adjunct Assistant Professor in the Forest Resources Department at Utah State University. Her research is focused on the population dynamics and role of bark beetles in forest ecosystems. She received a Ph.D. in Entomology from Virginia Tech and an MS in Forestry from the University of Idaho. Jesse A. Logan is a Research Entomologist with the USDA Forest Service Interior West Bark Beetle Project in Logan Utah, and a Professor in the Forest Resources Department at Utah State University. His primary research interests are quantitative insect ecology, dynamical systems theory applied to forest insect populations, and disturbance ecology. You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please send the publication title and number. Telephone (970) 498-1392 E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us FAX (970) 498-1396 Mailing Address Publications Distribution Rocky Mountain Research Station 240 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526-2098 Front cover photos, left to right: beetle-killed ponderosa pine, fading foliage of ponderosa pine attacked at least 2 years before, and live survivor of strip attack, Fishlake National Forest, 1998.

Mountain pine beetle attack in ponderosa pine: Comparing methods for rating susceptibility David C. Chojnacky, Barbara J. Bentz, and Jesse A. Logan Contents Introduction... 1 Field Data Collection... 2 Data Summary... 5 Model Construction... 5 Model Application... 7 Results and Discussion... 7 Management Implications... 10 Literature Cited... 10

Acknowedgments The author thanks the Bark Beetle Disturbance Ecology Research Work Unit at Rocky Mountain Research Station in Logan, UT who collected the data. Data collection was funded through USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection, Special Technology Development Project R3-95-01. A special thanks to Matt Hansen and Jim Vandygriff who shared their field experience on barkbeetle ecology. Jill Wilson, Forest Health Protection at Flagstaff, AZ and Steve Munson, Forest Health Protection at Ogden, UT gave insightful manuscript reviews. Data collection was funded through Forest Health Protection, Special Technology Development Project R3-95-01.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of National Forest managers, federal and state agencies, public and private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications can be found worldwide. Research Locations Flagstaff, Arizona Fort Collins, Colorado* Boise, Idaho Moscow, Idaho Bozeman, Montana Missoula, Montana Lincoln, Nebraska Reno, Nevada Albuquerque, New Mexico Rapid City, South Dakota Logan, Utah Ogden, Utah Provo, Utah Laramie, Wyoming * Station Headquarters, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper