Does the legacy of historical thinning treatments foster resilience to bark beetle outbreaks in subalpine forests?. Issue 1 (25th November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Morris, Jenna E.; Buonanduci, Michele S.; Agne, Michelle C.; Battaglia, Mike A.; Harvey, Brian J.
• Is Part Of: Ecological applications. Volume 32:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-11-25
• Subjects: biotic disturbance -- Dendroctonus ponderosae -- disturbance interactions -- forest management -- Fraser Experimental Forest, Colorado, USA -- lodgepole pine -- mountain pine beetle -- Pinus contorta -- resistance -- Rocky Mountains -- successional trajectories; Ecology -- Periodicals; Environmental protection -- Periodicals; Biology, Economic -- Periodicals; 577.05
• DOI: 10.1002/eap.2474
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1051-0761

Abstract

Abstract: Promoting ecological resilience to increasing disturbance activity is a key management priority under warming climate. Across the Northern Hemisphere, tree mortality from widespread bark beetle outbreaks raises concerns for how forest management can foster resilience to future outbreaks. Density reduction (i.e., thinning) treatments can increase vigor of remaining trees, but the longevity of treatment efficacy for reducing susceptibility to future disturbance remains a key knowledge gap. Using one of the longest‐running replicated experiments in old‐growth subalpine forests, we measured stand structure following a recent (early 2000s) severe mountain pine beetle (MPB; Dendroctonus ponderosae ) outbreak to examine the legacy of historical (1940s) thinning treatments on two components of resilience. We asked: 'How did historical thinning intensity affect (1) tree‐scale survival probability and stand‐scale survival proportion (collectively "resistance" to outbreak) for susceptible trees (lodgepole pine [ Pinus contorta ] ≥ 12 cm diameter) and (2) post‐outbreak stand successional trajectories?' Overall outbreak severity was high (MPB killed 59% of susceptible individuals and 78% of susceptible basal area), and historical thinning had little effect on tree‐scale and stand‐scale resistance. Tree‐scale survival probability decreased sharply with increasing tree diameter and did not differ from the control (uncut stands) in the historical thinning treatments. Stand‐scale proportion of surviving susceptible trees and basal area did not differ from the control in historically thinned stands, except for treatments that removed nearly all susceptible trees, in which survival proportion approximately doubled. Despite limited effects on resistance to MPB outbreak, the legacy of historical treatments shifted dominance from large‐diameter to small‐diameter lodgepole pine by the time of outbreak, resulting in historically thinned stands with ~2× greater post‐outbreak live basal area than control stands. MPB‐driven mortality of large‐diameter lodgepole pine in control stands and density‐dependent mortality of small‐diameter trees in historically thinned stands led to convergence in post‐outbreak live tree stand structure. One exception was the heaviest historical thinning treatments (59–77% basal area removed), for which sapling dominance of shade‐tolerant, unsusceptible conifers was lower than control stands. After six decades, thinning treatments have had minimal effect on resistance to bark beetle outbreaks, but leave persistent legacies in shaping post‐outbreak successional trajectories.